Strange

I can’t help feeling that anyone obsessing over the results of a single 100 year old experiment is probably not being entirely rational. At this stage, does it have anything other than historical interest?

Crackpot! Double crackpot!!

I don't think so. We do "know" (based on what GR tells us) how things would look to an observer falling in. We can even run simulations, such as raytracing, to generate images that represent what we see. Whether the change of the radial direction from being spatial to being temporal is something we would be aware of or not, is not really known. Simulating what something looks like doesn't tell us anything about how it would feel. But it does explain why you still would not be able to see the singularity (or whatever is at the centre of the black hole) even after you pass the event horizon: because it is in your future and, as we all know, you can't see the future! BTW. People often use words like "know" or "fact" to describe our best current understanding based on theory and available evidence. But, as with all science, this knowledge and these facts are, of course, provisional and subject to change with further evidence or new theories.

There was something on the news the other day about psychotherapy (and specifically cognitive-behavioural therapy) being just as good as drugs for treating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Apart from that, the best "treatment"for many diseases is prevention (eg. better nutrition, not smoking, faster diagnosis, faster referrals for treatment).

Maybe you didn't understand what Moreno wrote.

No. I am saying that one data point does not define "majority". (Although it is not clear if the claimed statistic referred to number of cases, number of fatalities or what.) Also, if you restrict yourself to "communicable diseases" then you are completely avoiding the issue of disorders that are "not caused by infections".

Yes, most descriptions gloss over this. For perhaps obvious reasons. It is hard to comprehend how that might appear to our senses and we will probably never know.

You made me think of the Chinese finger trap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_finger_trap There are various medical uses for this.

Are you saying that the majority of modern health disorders are influenza?

We already live in curved spacetime. The main effect we notice is that thing we call "gravity". With sensitive instruments we can measure some other effects such as gravitational red-shift or lensing. These effects would all be greater as we approach (and fall into) a black hole: the force of gravity (and tidal forces) would be greater, gravitational red shift would be greater (the rest of the universe would look increasingly blue-shifted), gravitational lensing would be obvious (the event horizon would appear to be 2.6 times larger than expected; the entire accretion disk would be visible, including that on the far-side of the event horizon; our view of the universe would narrow; etc)

I think that would be hard to quantify. Do you have a reference? Does it take into account the seriousness of the health conditions, or just the numbers?

Great. Cows, sheep, rabbits and all other ruminants would die. Many other foodstuffs would disappear (honey, bread, yoghurt,...) And then we would starve (or, at least, suffer massive health problems) because we would be unable to digest most foods. Well done.

Most drugs are not particularly harmful. And most are not particularly expensive (aspirin cost just pennies and are pretty safe for most people). Some have side effects, but few are serious. Generally, medicines with serious side effects are only used when there is no alternative (obviously). And some people are more sensitive to the side effects than others. One of the advantages of being able to do genetic analysis is that it may be possible in future to know which drugs will be most effective for each person, and least likely to have serious side effects.

Depends how you define "drugs/medication". I heard an interesting programme on the radio about a Russian hospital that pioneered the use of bacteriaphages (viruses that attack specific bacteria) to treat infections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy And some diseases can be treated using genetics. For example, there is research into gene treatment to cure macular degeneration, and gene-silencing to treat porphyria. And some genetic diseases can be treated by testing at the embryo level or earlier (e.g replacing the mitochondria in the ovum). But maybe these are all "medication", depending on the definition, so I'm not sure what sort of thing you are looking for.

Fair enough. I did overstate that. If our current models of cosmology are correct then space has always been uniformly full of matter. It would be completely contradictory to our current models of the expanding universe, based on the cosmological principle. It would also place us at exactly the centre of the universe. Which would be nice, I suppose.

I have absolutely no idea what this post is all about. It is utterly incoherent. But if you think it is supported by physics, then you should be able to describe what measurements can be made to provide evidence for what you are saying. But I don't see any way in which physical measurements can quantify or model "faith".

I don't see why not. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. But feel free to say there is no evidence, it is just your opinion or belief. I Looked at your post in the tore thread. I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no mention of any evidence (you know, data, for example).

They have probably lost the property of being particles, as well. The mass of the black hole, like anything else, is defined by the space-time curvature associated with it. Yes. The volume, and even the radius, of a black hole is not a well defined property. We know the surface area. From that, we can use normal geometry to deduce values we call radius and volume. But they don't mean anything when it comes to the interior of a black hole. For example, what we call the radius is time. However, as there are no other words (beyond the mathematics of GR) to describe it, these are still useful analogies. They can't. If you were to fall into a black hole, the only way you would know you had crossed the event horizon would be if you could do the necessary calculations to know when you would pass it.

None, really. The electrons are distributed around the nucleus. This can be represented in terms of "orbitals" that show the most probably positions for an electron to be found. (I can't comment on the vague description of that experiment without a proper reference.) One of the "particle like" properties of the electrons is that when it is detected or interacts with another particle, that interaction is localised to a specific place. The location of the electron is only defined as a probability, by the wave function (because electrons also have wavelike properties, such as wavelength) until it interacts with something, at which points its position becomes "definite".

They are not particles. But they have some properties that are particle-like.

Someone asked this before: I think you need to find a forum where people might know the answer. Maybe a craft forum? Or a fragrance making forum? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=forum+for+fragrance+makers

From the same page: "For systems which do not have time translation symmetry, it may not be possible to define conservation of energy. Examples include curved spacetimes in general relativity[3" https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Energy conservation on applies in a single frame of reference, so you can't apply it to the whole universe. This is incomprehensible.

There is no evidence that it isn't. The observable universe is a subset of the entire universe.

As the universes full of matter, if the universe is infinite then there is an infinite amount of matter.