Strange

Then why introduce "suns" and filters? I have explained what will happen in the case of 5 parallel beams. You have ignored this. I have explained why this does not affect the field of view. You have ignored this. You have not commented on whether you think this is a reasonable explanation or not, and if not why not. This makes the whole discussion pretty pointless. You just keep asking the same (already answered) questions and whinging about someone else doing your experiment for you. It is pretty pathetic to see. You haven't even acknowledged whether my diagram represents the set up you want or not. You are making the discussion pointless and being pretty offensive about it. But maybe you are only 14. That would explain your lack of knowledge and attitude.

If it is a spinning black hole, then it isn't Schwarzschild. The radius at the poles depends on the rate of spin - I don't know where you got the "10 times less" from but it could be true for a specific mass angular momentum. Nothing can escape from a stationary or a spinning black hole. The jets from the poles of active black holes come from the accretion disk, not the inside of a black hole. There is an upper limit to the angular momentum (spin) of a black hole. I don't know how to calculate this (I suspect it is very complicated, but it might just be when the speed at the event horizon becomes equal to the speed of light). But a black hole cannot fly apart. No. Nothing can escape from a black hole. (You might begin to see a theme here.) The radius is proportional to the mass. The temperature is inversely proportional to mass. A black hole is defined by mass, charge and angular momentum. The internal state or structure has no external effect (that is what "event horizon" means). A number of possible black holes have been detected ranging from stellar mass (small multiples the mass of the Sun) up to supermassive (millions or billions of times larger). The black hole mergers that have been detected have been 10s of solar masses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes

Mapping the members of the set doesn't necessarily imply that relationships within a set can be mapped to the other.

There is no easy way for a black hole to lose angular momentum (unless it collides with a lot of material with the opposite angular momentum). It won't just decrease over time (it is a conserved quantity, remember.)

I think you need to get out more. Of course you can observe the sun directly. It may be uncomfortable and dangerous if you do it for too long, but it can be don. However, this totally irrelevant. Is your inability to focus(*) part of the problem? (*) Excuse the pun. This is another of your confusing descriptions. You have preset the aperture to block two of the beams. But then you say "before pressing the button" - why is pressing the button relevant if you have preset the aperture? And why bring in more complexities like this? Is it just to drag out the discussion and produce more reasons to pretend not to understand? And why have you started referring to "suns" instead of "lasers"? Just to confuse the issue? If they are suns (that radiate light omnidirectionally, in all directions) then you will be able to see them, whatever the aperture. Remember, it has already been explained, in detail, why changing the aperture doesn't change the field of view. And don't complain about me introducing omnidirectionallity; you did that when you moved the goal posts from lasers to suns. I don't know what you think my "rule" is but your conclusion is wrong. Why would a filter reduce the field of view? Reported for trolling.

Quarks do have "colour charge" which is analogous to electric charge but has three possible values (red, green and blue) which can be positive or negative. Note that the names are, again, completely arbitrary - they just wanted something that came in threes - and has absolutely nothing to do with colour!

Why? That makes no sense. What is the difference between seeing the sun and seeing the light from it? Putting a filter in the way will just reduce the amount of light. It won't change the path of the rays and hence it won't change what is visible. How are these different from your previous use of lasers?

YOU CAN'T SEE THEM. See the diagrams I provided previously. You can't see the lasers that are blocked by the diaphragm. As shown in the diagrams I provided. By the way, when the beams are blocked by the diaphragm, you can't see them. I provided a diagram to show why. Me too. Do you not actually read what anyone says? That might explain why you never seem to understand.

They are just names for different types of quarks. They don't mean anything. They could have been Tom, Dick and Harry, etc. (Bottom was originally Beauty). There are two groups of three (groups of three seem to be important for some reason). If you haven't seen it, the Wikipedia page has a nice table summarising all the particles in the standard model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

Indeed: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html And Kerr-Newman for a rotating charged black hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric And then there is charged but not rotating: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/Reissner-Nordstrom_black_hole.html

I didn't know that. Do you have a reference?

I do understand it. (What isn't clear are all your further objections/questions about the result). Or are my diagrams of the set up wrong? If so, it would be helpful if you said so. It would actually be quite helpful if you confirmed that they are what you are thinking of. At least that might help pin down any misunderstanding. And I have explained what you will see (for the cases I can understand you might be thinking of). But you haven't clearly said what you disagree with and why. (Or what you agree with and why.) Feel free to spend $10 and a couple of hours to perform the experiment. But it is pretty easy to predict what the result will be. I'm not sure why you reject that explanation (with no explanation). BTW when you first asked the question I thought you meant "depth of field" and I thought: "I pity the poor so-and-so who attempts to explain that to Dalo". Then I realised you meant field of view and thought, "interesting question; it should only take a couple of minutes to explain". Yet here we are three pages and three days later. Ho hum.

Mass and energy are equivalent. In fact, mass doesn't appear at all in the Einstein Field Equations. It is represented by the equivalent energy. A black hole has only three properties: mass, electric charge (normally zero) and angular momentum (normally non-zero). Whatever happens to the matter after it falls in cannot change these. Quantum fluctuations are the same throughout space. Dark matter is concentrated in and around galaxies.

As long as we are moving forward as we go round in circles, I'm happy! 1. Nothing can get out of a black hole. 2. It makes no difference if the inside of the black hole is matter or radiation: it can't get out and the mass of the black hole is the same. 3. A black hole has the mass of a few stars (or possibly a few million). The universe has billion of billions of billions of stars. So there isn't enough mass in the black hole to create a universe. 4. A black hole (whether exploding or not) does not resemble the early universe. A black hole is a concentration of mass within the universe (in the case of a Schwarzschild back hole, an empty universe). The universe, by contrast, is (and always has been) entirely full of matter and radiation.

Glad to be of assistance.

It isn't based on Michelson's experiment so it is not surprising that the results don't look the same. It shows nothing about the ether (because there is no such thing). You might as well claim it suggests that phlogiston exists.

What do you mean by "the one case" and "the other case"? Do you just mean "aperture open" and "aperture closed"? If so, my diagram explains why the light from the outer lasers gets blocked. Again, not sure what you mean by "one way" and "the other". It affects the case of 5 laser beams parallel to one another. It doesn't affect the case of light coming omnidirectionally from a normal photographic scene, and therefore it doesn't change the field of view. I have tried to explain the reasons for this. I'm not sure why the explanation isn't satisfactory. What is your assumption? And what is the discrepancy? Your posts are so vague it is very hard to understand exactly what conditions you are talking about, what you think will be the result and why you think there is a problem.

There are many possible solutions to the Einstein Field Equations (GR). The FLRW metric used in the Big Bang model is one of those solutions that appears to match the observed universe very well. Another set of solutions are those that describe black holes of various types. (And the fact that these solutions are completely different from that used to describe the universe, is another reason that the Big Bang is not like a black hole.) We would need a quantum theory of gravity to really know what happens to mass. But maybe it does turn into radiation. That would make no difference at all. It wouldn't change anything about the black hole (which is why we can't know what happens inside a black hole). And it can't replicate a Big Bang because (1) we know of no way for anything to get out of a black hole and (2) even if a black hole exploded, that is not the same as the Big Bang which was not an explosion. [I have a strong sense of deja vu.]

As I say, with 5 parallel beams, you will get the outer ones blocked by the diaphragm. I am trying to explain why this doesn't affect the field of view which was, as I understand it, the question you were asking. If you don't want to understand that, we are done.

No. You are comparing two different things. (That is the trouble when you make vague and confusing/confused descriptions instead of being explicit and, you know, drawing a diagram or something.) With lasers aimed parallel to the lens you will see them disappear as you close the diaphragm. Because there is only a single path. With omnidirectional light sources (multiple paths) or with lasers aimed towards the centre of the lens they will not disappear.

Has the time for which a post is editable been reduced in the upgrade? It used to be that you had about a day (it felt like it anyway) and now it seems to be down to minutes. As someone who is quite picky about my own spelling and punctuation, I find this quite frustrating when I spot an error I made an hour or so ago.

Yes. But if the difference was large enough to be noticeable then I suspect the tidal forces would be very uncomfortable, if not dangerous.

Because you have only considered a single ray (beam) from each source. You need to consider all the possible paths from that rays can take each source through the lens to the film. See, for example, the second post in this thread. To relate this more specifically to your example, lets look at a few of the other rays (highlighted in red) from the position of the top laser (assuming it were not actually a laser but a normal light source just an object being photographed): This is important because otherwise you would get light sources disappearing but you wouldn't see the rest getting dimmer. However what we actually see is all the sources getting dimmer because they all have rays that go through all parts of the lens and so all of them have some of their rays blocked. Let's look at a couple of the rays from the position of the central laser: They get blocked so the light or object at that point will also be dimmer than it would be without the diaphragm.

As many people failed to understand, that may be debatable. But let's not. Any other comments on my diagrams? Or shall I just cut straight to reporting this for another trolling attempt.

That is my understanding. A homogenous distribution of matter (as in the early universe and, approximately, now) cannot be stable under GR. It will either move apart or collapse. The initial impetus means it is moving apart. It was originally thought that this would slow, because of gravity, but it turned out to be accelerating. Exactly. LeMaitre (who published Hubble's Law before Hubble) used GR to show there should be expansion and then used the redshift-distance relation to calculate the rate of expansion. Others then came up with all the other predictions that have been confirmed over and over.