Strange

I can't see why. I would expect anisotropy. My understanding is that things ahead of you would be falling towards an event horizon that remains ahead of you. I would also expect things to be getting closer together. (Especially as the singularity is ahead of you in time, not space.) But I really don't know. You would need to demonstrate your suggestion, mathematically, using the Inner Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein Field Equations. And that is a result of the same equations that describe black holes. I thought it increased with expansion (that energy density is constant, as you say).

And I'm sure people who study such things do care. How would I do that? Maybe search for a paper that attempts to estimate the size: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1456

I have followed much of this thread. I was wondering why someone would join now to post an empty assertion. I was hoping that they might have something new to bring to the discussion.

Nope. We know all the elements that can exist. (And, they all exist on Earth.) Or, we would be slightly more advanced than them. Why not?

Yes. It is a test of your reading comprehension skills. You have several sources to call on (several of them provided by you). A few clues: 1. A plasma is a FLUID (see previously linked Wikipedia page on plasma) 2. The particles are there because of the GRAVITY of the black hole (see the various linked articles re accretion disks) 3. Because it is a plasma, the behaviour of the particles is affected by the WEAK electric and magnetic fields (see article quoted by you). 4. If the particles were moving together in a solid disk, it would not be a FLUID, it would not be a PLASMA, it would be a SOLID. See if you can put those together. Plasma physics is a pretty complex subject about which I know almost nothing. So I could not possibly answer these questions. Some of them may require hundreds of hours of simulation on a supercomputer to answer. Unlike you, I am not going to just make stuff up. I don't know. And I don't care.

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, so of course they would have it abundance. I guess you meant that as just an example but we know all the elements that exist so ... It might turn out that we are the superior intelligence and they are like that weird guy who was the janitor at school.

Being a Nobel laureate doesn't make you immune to crackpottery. If anything, it feels like they are more prone to it. But that could just be that they're more likely to have their ideas publicise.

When are you going to provide details of these experiments that refute relativity?

Really? No more or less than if they published dit in a journal. In either case they would have copyright protection for the text of the document. There is NO (legal) protection for ideas.

What evidence do you have that he existed?

Was the image posted from the phone? If not, what did you use to view the image on the computer before posting it? Did you view the full image or just a thumbnail. The device (especially phones, but also some Windows programs) may display the image the "right" way up rather than the way the image is actually stored. The answer is to use a image viewer that you know will show the image as it really is. For Windows I recommend IrfanView - fast image viewer with good basic editing capabilities.

How would you know whether such "abnormalities" were the result of a simulation or because that's just the way the universe is. Some people have tried to claim that quantum "weirdness" must be evidence of a simulation, for example. It is basically an unfalsifiable idea and of zero value, except as a sort of "mind game" that kids like to play.

No that isn't what I said, either. Try again. No. It cannot be ignored. It probably plays a very important role in the behaviour of the plasma.

Deeply disturbing article on how fringe/pseudo science will be defining policy in future: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-science-committee-calls-on-alt-science-to-drive-policy/

It does work (it has been running for several years (*)). And it cannot create another big bang. (*) Ever since the financial crash of 2008. Maybe it caused that.

It is typical of the moronic things people with "personal theories" say. They are worried that people will steal their half-formed, half-baked, 100% unscientific ramblings. Other popular lines are pointing out how long they have been working on it (i.e. how much of their life they have wasted, when they could have spent a small fraction of that actually learning something), how desperately important it is, how they are ridiculed/persecuted, that science will prove them right one day, scientists are hidebound and unable to think of new ideas, there is conspiracy, and so on. Please, don't be that guy. Yes, because of course people steal scientific ideas and pretend they invented them, like, all the time. </sarcasm> I may be exaggerating slightly for effect. But it is diagnostic (along with not being able to master the Quote button(*)) of a mind set that is not going to engage in constructive discussion. (*) OK. It turns out this actually doesn't work for some people. But even so ...

Which you claimed was ignored by science. Do you want to apologise now or later? Where did I claim that? It is bad enough that you make up your own physics, but now you are inventing things that people say.

WTF. I think anyone who says this should just be banned on the spot.

And presumably all the people who make videos showing how they make crop circles have been paid to fake them (by the aliens who made the real ones). But that observation has nothing to do with humans looking at it (or looking at it and then dying).

It was a simplifying assumption to allow a solution to the Einstein Field Equations to be found. It doesn't (just) apply to black holes, but to any spherical mass. The external solution is more relevant to us (because we can observe what happens) but even that makes a number of simplifying assumptions: a non-rotating eternal unchanging black hole in an empty universe. But that is good enough for many purposes.

That data (particularly Fig 2 on the next page) seems consistent with what we know: humans and other apes have a common ancestor (note that they say this data is not consistent with the evolutionary time of the separation of these species; which is much, much greater) and the "out of Africa" hypothesis for human origins. To say that this shows one group is closer to chimpanzees is a rather extreme exaggeration, as StringJunky says. It makes about as much sense as saying that my grandfather is closer to chimpanzees.

Most of what you see is constructed by the brain. This includes levels of brightness. For example, the squares A nd B in this image are the same colour but your brain tells you otherwise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

I think it is important if good science is being twisted for evil ends.

Very (very) occasionally someone will post "I have this idea ..." and the reply might be "yes that is roughly correct but ..." or "that can't happen because...", at which point they say "cool, I'll have to learn more about this" and a constructive dialog ensues. Sadly, this positive attitude is very rare and the usual response is "no, I am right because logic". So I think it can be useful but 99.9% of the time it isn't.

It says nothing about different populations of humans being "closer" to chimpanzees. They are measuring heterozygosity (the amount of variation) in each population. This is clearly not a measure of closeness. The highest heterozygosities were the Sokoto and northern German groups. So it has been misinterpreted.