Strange

Interesting question. In GR (the main model of black holes) all the mass falls towards the centre. There may be other models where the mass is evenly distributed throughout or distributed at the event horizon (I don't know if there are any such models). These would all be indistinguishable from outside the event horizon (see Newton's Shell Theorem). When something falls into a black hole (or when they merge) then the event horizon is actually distorted towards the approaching mass. There is then a "ring down" phase where the event horizon oscillates while it settles down into a (slightly larger) sphere again. But that only tells us about the mass that was outside, not what happens when it is inside.

It is comparing the speed of light in each arm by using interferometry. Interferometry is a techniques that uses constructive and destructive interference to measure changes in the phase relationship between two waves. Light consists of electromagnetic waves. If either speed of the wave or the distance the wave travels changes, then the received phase will change. You can use see interference with sound waves, water waves and light waves. This is a purely classical effect. You can use quantum electrodynamics (QED) to do some extremely complicated calculations with large numbers of photons to show that (not surprisingly) they reproduce the same effect (on a statistical basis). What you cannot do is measure interference with a single photon. So, unless you can use QED to show that interferometers do not work (they do) then I'm not sure what your point is. I recommend the series of lectures by Feynman on QED. Available as a book and as videos online: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Hey, we are all here to learn! Keep asking questions

Thanks (I have seen it before, but don't know where!) I think this is it: http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html

Vacuum is a better insulator than air! The air will warm the ice, a vacuum won't. Yes, I was trying to understand what those temperatures refer to. Presumably a rack that has been in the sun for many hours compared to rock that has been in the shade for a very long time? That it is true. But, normally, there are so many particles that you can just think of it as a continuous stream of light (waves). Things like the Hubble space telescope do take images of objects that are so distant that photons arrive just one at a time, and so they have to use incredibly long exposures (hours, days? I'm not sure) to build up an image. I wouldn't worry about it too much; they are just two different descriptions of the same thing!

How do you know that? The universe could be finite in size. The universe may be finite in age. Do you have any evidence? And doesn't this contradict what you just said: You seem to just post random ideas that pop into your head. You need to: get your thoughts organised; Write down the mathematics; Find some evidence that is consistent with that. If you don't do that, why should anyone take these incoherent comments seriously?

Not sure why it would have "dark spots" (apart from normal sunspots). But it would just get smaller and fainter. You find photos online of the Sun taken from the space probes that have gone out to Saturn and Pluto, etc. It is a small bright dot. From further away it would look just like any other star. Not sure how this is connected. But those temperatures don't make much sense; the temperature of what? There is no air on the moon to provide an atmosphere with a temperature to measure. Anyway, it takes time for something to heat up in the Sun. Put an ice cube outside on a sunny day and see how long it takes to melt. So the spacesuits were designed to cope with this. They were white to reflect (not absorb) light and heat. They had insulating layers. They had cooling systems that pumped water all around the inside to keep a constant temperature everywhere. And so on.

How do you know? The universe may be infinite in size. The universe may be infinite in age. Do you have any evidence that neither of these are the case?

I think that is an important distinction. Whistle-blowing can (or should) apply more widely; for example, employees who report illegal behaviour in a company should perhaps be protected in the same way. However, this does not give them the right to release arbitrary company secrets or confidential information. The problem with Wikileaks is they are not "information freedom fighters" who think that all information should be open to everyone, they are a dishonest political group who steal information and then choose what to release (and when) for their own ends. Ironically, when Assange wanted to satisfy his ego by having a biography written, he got very upset when the biographer wanted to include information that Assange wanted to keep secret.

The point is that relativity is a classical theory so bringing photons into it is irrelevant.

The existence and properties of black holes are described by General Relativity (GR). No new hypotheses are needed. The picture of the black hole released yesterday is completely consistent with the predictions of GR. There are a couple of threads in this already; for example: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118686-first-real-black-hole-image-10-april-2019/ I would say you have distorted and introduced artefacts into the image. Don't try and draw any conclusions from looking at a picture, especially one that is no longer an accurate representation You can find a good description of what the image shows in this video: ! Moderator Note This does not belong in Quantum Theory. As you are trying to promote your own ideas, I have moved it to Speculations. We expect scientific rigour on this forum.

But it isn’t clear what your idea is or how it is different from standard physics. Can you provide the source for this, please

So you have nothing new to add to well-established physics? Should we close this thread now?

I am also really upset with the UN, who usually do good work, for being fooled into believing he was being detained against his will. If someone escapes from the police, breaks into a house, takes the family hostage, and then starts shooting at the police who come to arrest him, is he doing that against his will? "They made me do it, ma"

And, mathematically, where is this sudden change? And what causes it?

He has been arrested by the UK police now for jumping bail. In 2012,Assange said he would willingly be extradited to the US if they showed clemency to Manning (who originally leaked the US documents). When Manning was released a few months later, Assange did the noble thing and hid behind the sofa. He then threatened to take legal action against the Government of Ecuador because they told him he had to clean his room, look after his cat properly, and stop trying to look in their secret files. Like any self-respecting 12 year old, he threw a tantrum. I can see why conspiracy theorists and assorted nutcases might look up to him, but he seems to have fooled all sorts of otherwise sensible liberal and left-leaning activists. It's not even as if he comes across as charming and persuasive in interviews. He is even less likeable and believable than Trump.

The reason he hid is because he had been arrested by the UK police at the request of the Swedish police, on two charges (one of rape and one of sexual assault). He was given bail but when the court said he should be extradited to Sweden he ran away to hide and began crying about injustice and how it was all so unfair. After all an arrogant, lying **** who bullies people and uses secret information for his own political purposes (under the pretence of "freedom") is not the sort of person who would rape a woman, surely.

I am absolutely certain they are real. (Whether he is guilty or not is another question. That will be up to the courts to decide if Sweden decide to reinstate the case and request to extradite him.)

Note that a black hole can have any mass. The key point is that the mass must be in a volume smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. So, for example, if the Earth was crushed down to be about 1.5cm across, it would turn into a black hole. The difference here (I think, and I may be wrong!) is that a black hole is what you get when have a concentration of mass surrounded by (largely) empty space so there is nothing to stop it collapsing to form a black hole. However, the early universe was denser but it was also uniformly full of matter. So it was all being pulled on in all directions so there was nothing to make it collapse. (Sort of) Also, it was expanding. For reasons we don't know. Maybe the result of bouncing back from an earlier collapse. But, anyway, the concepts of the Big Bang and black holes an't be inconsistent as they are both solutions to the equations of GR, under different conditions.

No. Just lots of burly police officers to manhandle him onto the police bus. It looked like they were trying to arrest a drunken and angry old tramp.

I agree. The experiment was testing classical electromagnetic theory (the photon hadn't even been discovered). Trying to describe the experiment in terms of the speed single photons is meaningless because we can't say anything about the path of an individual photon between the source and when it is detected.

With all the crazy nonsense in the world today, I am glad to see that Ecuador have finally got sick of the obnoxious troll they had hidden in a broom cupboard, and thrown him out. Of course his pathetic squab of a lawyer was on the radio today blathering on about "house arrest" and other drivel. Hopefully, with a defence lawyer of such intellectual vapidity Assange will soon be behind bars properly, instead of hiding himself away. At least he will have to look after his personal hygiene in prison.

That is "glass" not a "mirror". Do you see the difference. But anyway, how does this have any relevance to the fact that the speed of light in both arms is independent of their velocity? How is it relevant to the many other tests of Lorentz invariance? (Which are all far more accurate than this 132 year old experiment)

Nope. All the infalling matter could be instantly turned into dancing chocolate elephants. Or collapse to a singularity. It makes no discernible difference. The phrase "event horizon" is a technical term that means there is no causal connection between the inside and the outside. Therefore nothing on the inside can have any effect externally.

Nice.