Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

[Noax]

So, If 'singularity' IS 'a region', where the equations, supposedly, break down', then what ARE 'those regions' made up OF, EXACTLY?

Depends on what the equations are describing.

at the start of the beginning of the Universe, Itself, WHERE there was 'an infinite compression of matter',

Matter didn't start to form until more like the end of the beginning after several epochs had gone by.

For instance, in the frame of an accelerating object, an event horizon forms behind it. The equations no longer work, but nothing special physically happens there.

WHERE, EXACTLY, DO the 'equations' SUPPOSEDLY NO LONGER WORK?

I just said. At the event horizon. It could be in Chicago or something, all depending on the frame of choice. It's a property of an accelerating coordinate system.

Also, will you PROVIDE an example, or two, of an 'accelerating object', and WHERE, EXACTLY, an 'event horizon' FORMS 'behind it'? And, what is the thing that ACTUALLY CAUSED or CREATED SAID 'event horizon'?

An event horizon is not a physical thing at all, but rather a mathematical abstraction. An example is some galaxy (I don't know of a specific one) that is a little more than 16 billion light years away. Due to dark energy, it is accelerating away from us, forming an event horizon quite close to us. Light currently emitted on the other side of that event horizon will reach the galaxy eventually. Light emitted on our side of it will not, ever. That's what an event horizon means.

2nd example is a rocket a light year away, accelerating from stationary (relative to Earth) at a constant proper 1g (9.8 m/sec²) away from us. Light from Earth will never reach the ship since its event horizon is a wee bit less than a light year behind it.

If you are, however, talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO A 'black hole', then SAY this.

I'm not, but those also form event horizons. Light from inside will never cross the event horizon. Light emitted outside is capable of reaching outside locations.

Obviously, you in a moving motor or horse drawn vehicle ARE an 'accelerating object',

Even sitting at a table you are, yes. But the acceleration needs to be constant for you to remain perpetually stationary in the accelerating frame which defines said event horizon. You can cannot do that, so light from beyond its event horizon will eventually reach you.

Are you AWARE that 'what' SEEMS, or 'what' DOES NOT SEEM, TO you, has NO necessary BEARING on what SEEMS, or DOES NOT SEEM, TO others, NOR on what IS ACTUALLY True and Right?

Quite aware, yes. It isn't my assertion, but rather follows from the mathematics.

Also, OF COURSE 'black holes', "themselves", do NOT SEEM TO COMPRESS, WHEN they are OPEN, and so-called SWALLOWING 'matter'.

Black holes have three properties, and being 'open' isn't one of them. Their existence of course depends on relativity theory being correct. Alternative interpretations do not posit their existence (or the existence of the big bang for that matter).

However, and BLATANTLY, what you THINK HAPPENS TO ALL OF THE 'matter', which ENTERS A 'black hole'

I said. Tidal forces pull it apart, even to the point of ripping quarks away from things like protons. Eventually, time ends and that's that, but that's a crude description of what requires a unified theory to more properly describe. Real black holes do not seem to have point singularities since they have angular momentum and charge (two of the three referenced properties).

Also, were you YET AWARE that the VERY REASON WHY light CAN NOT and DOES NOT ESCAPE FROM A 'black hole'?

Yes, because light cannot overtake a null surface. You asked.

I WILL then TELLING you WHY.

That's a blatant falsehood, plus I am in no way interested in you telling me how anything is.

Rather the opposite: Tidal forces tend to pull things apart, not squeeze them together.

So, TO you anyway, ALL that is getting SUCKED INTO, and SWALLOWED UP BY, A 'black hole' is NOT going INTO ONE place AT ALL, and is BEING SPREAD OUT, correct?

Yea, pretty much that. It is a pop myth that the 'center' of a black hole is a 'place'. It's not a location in space at all, not a place for all the matter to collect like some pimped out Japanese subway. Neutron stars on the other hand do a pretty good job of this.

IF yes, then HOW do you KNOW 'this', EXACTLY?

I read peer reviewed texts, not pop science articles and videos. OK, I read those too, but I don't get my science from them.

Also, WHAT ARE so-called 'tidal forces', here, EXACTLY? And, HOW do they WORK, EXACTLY?

Same thing that makes the ocean go up and down each day due to a nearby mass disrupting the uniformity of Earths otherwise fairly symmetric gravitational field. Learn a little physics, age. I mean, this sort of stuff was known way back before even Newton. Tidal forces is what tore apart a moon and formed the rings of Saturn, and will soon do the same to Phobos which is already cracking from the stress being put on it.

BUT, TO you there IS A REASON TO SUSPECT or BELIEVE 'expansion' occurs 'suddenly' where the 'equations' are CLAIMED TO NO LONGER WORK, right?

I didn't say that. There is tension and ripping apart of objects by tidal forces. Those forces will kill you for instance if you orbit too close to a neutron star, no need to actually fall onto one. Tidal forces are negligible near a very large black hole like the on in Andromeda where one can fall into it and still live a while. Anyway, tidal forces are not expansion, it's just physical stress, and it happens while in free fall.

Gravity is not a function of mass density.

REALLY?
So, what IS 'gravity' A FUNCTION OF, EXACTLY? [/quote]Correct answer: Stress energy. Layman answer: Mass.

Likewise, if the sun somehow compressed overnight into a black hole (it's possible), Earth would continue to orbit exactly as it had before, just colder.

And, you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

Newtonian mathematics is enough to show this.
A=GM/r² which says that acceleration of the orbiting thing is a function of G (a constant), mass, and distance r. None of that changes if the density changes but the mass doesn't, so orbits are unaffected by mass density, a variable that does not appear in the equation at all.

What SIZE 'black hole' are you talking ABOUT, here, EXACTLY?

As I already said, one the mass of the sun (one of the three properties. Size is not one of the three).

Do ANY planets get SUCKED IN or SWALLOWED BY 'this black hole'?

No, of course not. Nothing has changed except the radiation stopped, so everything gets colder.

If no, then WHY NOT?

Yet again, because gravitational attraction of any object is a function of its mass, not of its density.

[Age]

So, If 'singularity' IS 'a region', where the equations, supposedly, break down', then what ARE 'those regions' made up OF, EXACTLY?

Depends on what the equations are describing.

Look, it does NOT MATTER what the equations are describing. you even SAID and CLAIMED that 'singularity' is A 'region' WHERE 'the equations, supposedly, BREAK DOWN.

Let 'us' NOT FORGET that you made the CLAIM:

'An infinite compression of matter' is NOT what 'singularity' is.

you then made the CLAIM:

'Singularity is a region where the equations breakdown'.


So, ONCE MORE, what are 'those regions' made up OF, EXACTLY?

If you DO NOT KNOW, then JUST SAY SO, so that 'we' can MOVE ALONG, here. BUT, if you DO KNOW, then, AGAIN, just SAY SO, so that 'we' can MOVE ALONG, here.

(ONCE AGAIN, It REALLY DID TAKE SO LONG, BACK in the 'olden days' WHEN this WAS being written, TO PROGRESS and TO MOVE ALONG.)

For instance, in the frame of an accelerating object, an event horizon forms behind it. The equations no longer work, but nothing special physically happens there.

WHERE, EXACTLY, DO the 'equations' SUPPOSEDLY NO LONGER WORK?

I just said. At the event horizon.

BUT, you ALSO SAID, in 'the frame of an accelerating object', AS WELL. And, you ALSO SAID and CLAIMED that an 'event horizon' FORMS BEHIND it [an ACCELERATING object].

Now, aside from getting you to CLARIFY what you mean by 'accelerating', here, EXACTLY, and to EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY, 'an accelerating objects' FORM 'event horizons', I will just focus, ONLY, (for now) on UNDERSTANDING HOW you KNOW that FROM 'an accelerating object's' PERSPECTIVE, that 'the equations', SUPPOSEDLY, 'no longer work', AT 'the event horizon', which is 'now' BEHIND the 'accelerating object'?

OBVIOUSLY, 'the equations', which you are speaking OF and talking ABOUT, here, are from the PERSPECTIVE of what you might call being IN FRONT OF the 'event horizon' and NOT FROM the 'other side', where the 'event horizon' would be BEHIND 'an accelerating object'.

It could be in Chicago or something, all depending on the frame of choice. It's a property of an accelerating coordinate system.

But, it is NOTHING like 'this' AT ALL.

Also, will you PROVIDE an example, or two, of an 'accelerating object', and WHERE, EXACTLY, an 'event horizon' FORMS 'behind it'? And, what is the thing that ACTUALLY CAUSED or CREATED SAID 'event horizon'?

An event horizon is not a physical thing at all, but rather a mathematical abstraction.

So, there is NO ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, here. EXCEPT, OF COURSE, SOME 'mathematical equation', which, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT EVEN RELATE TO ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, correct?

An example is some galaxy (I don't know of a specific one) that is a little more than 16 billion light years away. Due to dark energy, it is accelerating away from us, forming an event horizon quite close to us.

And, what IS this so-called 'dark energy', EXACTLY, which is CLAIMED TO be FORCING 'some galaxy' a relatively small distance away, from earth, to be 'accelerating' AWAY FROM earth?

Light currently emitted on the other side of that event horizon will reach the galaxy eventually.

Although this is ONLY A 'mathematical abstraction', right, as there is NO ACTUAL 'thing/place' WHERE this so-called 'event horizon' EVEN HAPPENS and OCCURS, correct?

If yes, then even if there WAS A 'physical thing', such as a so-called 'event horizon', then NOT ALL light emitted on the so-called 'other side' of 'that event horizon' will NOT reach the galaxy eventually.

Also, and by the way, and CONTRARY TO the POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this was being written, there is NO 'boundary', ANYWHERE, beyond which events cannot affect a so-called 'outside observer'. Or, in other words, like you said there is NO ACTUAL 'event horizon' 'thing'.

Now, that the reason it is SAID and STATED that nothing can escape a 'black hole', which obviously includes that light cannot escape past some IMAGINED 'point', which some call 'the event horizon', is JUST BECAUSE of HOW the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY WORKS, and/or BEHAVES if one prefers.

Which, by the way, is IN a VERY SIMPLE WAY, and in A VERY EASY WAY TO UNDERSTAND, and COMPREHEND, AS WELL.

Light emitted on our side of it will not, ever. That's what an event horizon means.

Well considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the way that you presented your previous sentence, to this sentence here, and it being False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, then this INCORRECTNESS REFLECTS ONTO 'this STATEMENT and CLAIM of yours, here, ALSO.

ONCE MORE, a 'mathematical abstraction' in relation to A 'thing', which does NOT even exist, OBVIOUSLY, has NO BEARING AT ALL on what IS ACTUALLY True, and Right, in Life.

The REASON WHY light IS, or IS NOT, emitted ONTO some 'thing' IS BECAUSE DUE to the Fact that light just DIMINISHES over distances.

ALSO, SAYING or 'TRYING TO' CLAIM, that some thing 'happens' or 'happened' because of some made up term like 'dark energy', which when ASKED TO CLARIFY what 'dark energy' IS, EXACTLY, and AN ANSWER and CLARITY can NOT be PROVIDED, IS, more or less, the EXACT SAME 'thing' as when a "priest" or "preacher" TELLS 'us' that God created 'everything', but when ASKED TO CLARIFY what 'God' IS, EXACTLY, and AN ANSWER and CLARITY can NOT be PROVIDED.

One ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, here, IS when the QUESTION, 'How is the, ALLEGED and SUPPOSED, expansion of the Universe created, EXACTLY?'

A "priest" or "preacher" will SAY some thing like, 'There are some things we are not meant to know'. Whereas,

A "scientist" or "teacher" will SAY some thing like, 'Expansion is due to 'dark energy'. When when FURTHER QUESTIONED, a "scientist" or "teacher" would SAY some thing like, 'We do not know', which COULD translate to more or less like, 'There are some things we are not meant to know'.

LOL ALL of these people are just MAKING things UP, as they 'GO ALONG', and then END UP HAVING TO FINALLY JUST ADMIT, 'We DO NOT KNOW'.

LOL YET what the WHOLE Universe is FUNDAMENTALLY MADE UP, EXACTLY, and HOW the WHOLE Universe ACTUALLY WORKS, FUNDAMENTALLY, IS about AS BASIC and AS SIMPLE as 'things' CAN GET. In Fact 'it' ALL can be EQUATED, MATHEMATICALLY, and SUMMED UP, AS SIMPLY and AS EASILY, AS:

1 + 1 = 2.

The SUM of ALL things IS the WHOLE. When EVERY thing is, literally, PUT TOGETHER, then 'this' EQUALS 'Everything', as One.

There are ONLY TWO fundamental 'things' in the WHOLE, infinite AND eternal, Universe, Itself. Which ARE:

'Matter' AND 'space', ALONE. The 'two' CO-EXIST ALWAYS. AND, because the Universe EXISTS in THE WAY that It does HERE-NOW, then THIS MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, that BOTH 'matter' AND 'space' have ALWAYS EXISTED, TOGETHER.

The word 'matter', by the way, some of you human beings refer to the 'something' while the 'space' word, to some of you refers to the 'nothing', as some say and call 'it'.

Now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'expansion' OF the Universe, Itself. Some of you human beings think or BELIEVE that the Universe, Itself, IS EXPANDING JUST BECAUSE you are NOT LOOKING and SEEING 'things' HOW they ACTUALLY ARE. And, BECAUSE there is NO ACTUAL 'expansion', just like there is NO ACTUAL 'even horizon', ANY claim that light is NOT emitted in some parts of the Universe is NOT because of ANY so-called 'expansion' AT ALL. AGAIN, light just DIMINISHES OVER 'distances'.

2nd example is a rocket a light year away, accelerating from stationary (relative to Earth) at a constant proper 1g (9.8 m/sec²) away from us. Light from Earth will never reach the ship since its event horizon is a wee bit less than a light year behind it.

What are you even ON ABOUT, here?

To me, what you SAID and CLAIMED, here, does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, AT ALL.

Are you ABLE TO ELABORATE, AT ALL?

How CAN the light FROM some thing, which is ONLY one light year away FROM another thing, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT reach the 'other thing', EXACTLY?

If you are, however, talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO A 'black hole', then SAY this.

I'm not, but those also form event horizons.

So, TO you anyway, 'black holes', 'now' SUPPOSEDLY, FORM 'event horizons', although you ALSO SAY and CLAIM that an 'event horizon' is NOT A physical thing, AT ALL.

So, if 'black holes', 'now' ALLEGEDLY, FORM so-called 'event horizons', then what is 'it', EXACTLY, which is, supposedly, BEING FORMED, if 'it' is NOT A 'physical thing' AT ALL?

Light from inside will never cross the event horizon. Light emitted outside is capable of reaching outside locations.

But, once one goes 'deep enough' there is NO light AT ALL. Which IS the VERY REASON WHY there is NO light 'escaping' FROM a 'black hole'.

ALSO, and let 'us' NOT FORGET, that IF the REASON 'light' FROM an object which is increasing towards the 'depth', (for lack of a better word, here), or 'the end' of a 'black hole' IS NOT being SEEN, or IS NOT ESCAPING the 'black hole', BECAUSE the 'light emitting object' is moving too fast. Then, and OBVIOUSLY, the 'light emitting object' MUST JUST BE MOVING, or TRAVELING, FASTER than just the 'speed of light'. Which, let 'us' ALSO NOT FORGET, is some thing that you human beings KEEP TELLING 'us' can NEVER HAPPEN, and IS AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY AS WELL.

Obviously, you in a moving motor or horse drawn vehicle ARE an 'accelerating object',

Even sitting at a table you are, yes. But the acceleration needs to be constant for you to remain perpetually stationary in the accelerating frame which defines said event horizon.

BUT which does NOT EVEN ACTUALLY 'physically exist' AT ALL, anyway, right?

You can cannot do that, so light from beyond its event horizon will eventually reach you.

What is the 'its', here, word REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

If you are SAYING and CLAIMING, here, that 'light', itself, has 'its' OWN 'event horizon', then will you ELABORATE ON 'this'?

Are you AWARE that 'what' SEEMS, or 'what' DOES NOT SEEM, TO you, has NO necessary BEARING on what SEEMS, or DOES NOT SEEM, TO others, NOR on what IS ACTUALLY True and Right?

Quite aware, yes.

GREAT. As long as 'we' BOTH REMEMBER this IRREFUTABLE Fact, then this WILL HELP IN SPEEDING 'things' UP, here.

It isn't my assertion, but rather follows from the mathematics.

Is that 'the mathematics', which relates the 'thing', which is NOT EVEN AN ACTUAL 'physical thing' ANYWAY?

If no, then what are, what you call, 'the mathematics', here, in RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

Also, OF COURSE 'black holes', "themselves", do NOT SEEM TO COMPRESS, WHEN they are OPEN, and so-called SWALLOWING 'matter'.

Black holes have three properties, and being 'open' isn't one of them. Their existence of course depends on relativity theory being correct.

Well parts of 'relatively theory' are OBVIOUSLY NOT Correct.

Alternative interpretations do not posit their existence (or the existence of the big bang for that matter).

AGAIN, WHY are you BOTHERING WITH 'interpretations' and/or 'theories', here, EXACTLY? OBVIOUSLY, 'those things' are, REALLY, nothing more than just 'guesses'.

Also, and by the way, what ARE the so-claimed 'three properties' of 'black holes', EXACTLY?

By the way, you SEEM TO HAVE MISSED the POINT that I MADE above, here.

However, and BLATANTLY, what you THINK HAPPENS TO ALL OF THE 'matter', which ENTERS A 'black hole'

I said. Tidal forces pull it apart,

So-called 'tidal forces' FROM 'what', EXACTLY?

What is CREATING these so-named 'tidal forces', EXACTLY?

And, WHERE are these, ALLEGED, and SUPPOSED, 'tidal forces', EXACTLY?

even to the point of ripping quarks away from things like protons.

And, you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY is 'matter' being PULLED APART, within a black hole, TO you, while being COMPRESSED, TO me?

What ACTUAL EVIDENCE, or better still what ACTUAL PROOF, do you HAVE that 'matter' is BEING PULLED APART, instead of BEING COMPRESSED TOGETHER?

Eventually, time ends and that's that, but that's a crude description of what requires a unified theory to more properly describe.

YES, I AGREE that 'that' IS AN, EXTREMELY, CRUDE DESCRIPTION.

Oh, and by the way, THE so-called 'unified theory', which BETTER DESCRIBED 'things', here, than in your CRUDE WAY and CRUDE DESCRIPTION, has, ALREADY, BEEN SURPASSED. The 'unified theory' HAS and WAS OVERRIDDEN or OVERTAKEN, and SURPASSED, BY the 'G.U.T.O.E'.

Real black holes do not seem to have point singularities since they have angular momentum and charge (two of the three referenced properties).

LOL

'Real black holes' COMPARED TO 'what', EXACTLY?

'Angular momentum' in RELATION TO 'what', EXACTLY?

'Where' and 'what' IS this so-claimed 'charge', EXACTLY?

Also, were you YET AWARE that the VERY REASON WHY light CAN NOT and DOES NOT ESCAPE FROM A 'black hole'?

Yes, because light cannot overtake a null surface.

What even IS some so-called 'null surface', EXACTLY?

And, WHY, SUPPOSEDLY, can 'light', itself, NOT so-call 'overtake' some so-called 'null surface', EXACTLY?

Will you PROVIDE examples/s?

You asked.

OBVIOUSLY. The SENTENCE POSED IN 'question form', with A 'question mark' PROVIDED the CLUE, and the PROOF, that I ASKED, above, here.

'We', by the way, ARE 'now' AWAITING your CLARIFYING RESPONSES.

I WILL then TELLING you WHY.

That's a blatant falsehood, plus I am in no way interested in you telling me how anything is.

'This', here, IS A PERFECT RESPONSE, by "noax", here.

'This response' IS, EXACTLY, HOW A LOT OF adult human beings, back when this was being written, REALLY ACTUALLY LOOKED AT, and SAW, things.

That is; if one did NOT LIKE 'another', of if 'another' was NOT SAYING what one PRESUMED or BELIEVED was true, then 'that one' WOULD, literally, NOT JUST LISTEN to 'another'.

"noax" CLAIMED, ABSOLUTELY, that 'that' IS A BLATANT FALSEHOOD, although it did NOT HAVE JUST ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, let alone ANY PROOF AT ALL, for its CLAIM and BELIEF.

"noax" ALSO SHOWED and REVEALED ''its' TRUE COLOR', here, as some would say. That is, "noax" HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST, AT ALL, IN JUST BEING TOLD WHAT IS ACTUALLY True, and RIGHT, in Life.

"noax"JUST PROVED that it WOULD NOT LISTEN TO ANY thing ELSE, other than what it, 'currently' PRESUMES or BELIEVES IS TRUE. Which IS the VERY REASON WHY these human beings, BACK when this WAS being written, took SO, SO LONG TO CATCH UP, TO 'us'.

Rather the opposite: Tidal forces tend to pull things apart, not squeeze them together.

So, TO you anyway, ALL that is getting SUCKED INTO, and SWALLOWED UP BY, A 'black hole' is NOT going INTO ONE place AT ALL, and is BEING SPREAD OUT, correct?

Yea, pretty much that.

WHY ONLY 'pretty much that'?

What 'part/s' are NOT Correct, here?

Now, and AGAIN, will you PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE, or BETTER STILL, ANY PROOF, AT ALL for your BELIEF and CLAIM, here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

It is a pop myth that the 'center' of a black hole is a 'place'.

WHY, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY did you USE the word 'center', here, FOR, EXACTLY?

It's not a location in space at all, not a place for all the matter to collect like some pimped out Japanese subway.

I do NOT SEE HOW THE 'words' that you are USING, here, ACTUALLY RELATE. But, 'each' TO 'their own', as some say.

Saying, 'it' is NOT 'a location' ONLY MAKES SENSE IF, and WHEN, you INFORM 'the others' WHAT the 'it' even IS, EXACTLY?

What does the 'space' word in your STATEMENT and CLAIM even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

Also, HOW could ANY thing, supposedly, NOT BE 'a location', (in space), AT ALL? If there IS some thing, then WHERE IS 'that it', EXACTLY, if 'it' is NOT 'a location', in 'space', AT ALL?

And, WHY did you SAY, 'all the matter'?

Neutron stars on the other hand do a pretty good job of this.

'Neutron stars', SUPPOSEDLY, DO a so-called 'pretty good job' of 'what', EXACTLY?

IF yes, then HOW do you KNOW 'this', EXACTLY?

I read peer reviewed texts, not pop science articles and videos. OK, I read those too, but I don't get my science from them.

you GET a so-called 'your science' FROM ONLY the TRUE, RIGHT, ACCURATE, and CORRECT VERSIONS and INTERPRETATIONS OF 'things' ONLY, right?

I WONDER IF ANY of these human beings ACTUALLY REALIZED that ABSOLUTELY EVERY one of them CLAIMS that 'they' ALL GET 'their science'/'their views'/'their opinions'/'their information', et cetara, ALL FROM ONLY the BEST and MOST RELIABLE SOURCES, ONLY, YET they ALL can HAVE COMPLETELY OPPOSITE and OPPOSING VIEWS and BELIEFS, FROM 'each other'.

Now, WHEN you 'read' these so-called 'peer reviewed texts' is there ANYWHERE IN 'them' that STATES, IRREFUTABLY, that there EXISTS IN each AND EVERY 'black hole' what are called 'tidal forces', which 'tend' to pull things apart, and not squeeze them together?

Or, is 'this', which you ARE, here, CLAIMING ACTUALLY EXISTS and ACTUALLY OCCURS, MORE LIKE just what you PRESUME and/or BELIEVE IS true, and right, RATHER THAN what has ACTUALLY BEEN PRESENTED AS IRREFUTABLE Fact?

Now, OBVIOUSLY you human beings do NOT YET, when this was being written anyway, KNOW what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS WITHIN A what is called 'black hole'. But, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO MAKE UP GUESSES, ASSUMPTIONS, and/or even THEORIES if you SO WOULD LIKE TO.

And, SOME of you MIGHT LIKE TO PRESUME that WITHIN 'black holes' 'the matter', which ENTERS them, is 'torn apart', or 'expands' if one so prefers. Those who MAKE UP 'this ASSUMPTION' may ALSO like to INTRODUCE the words and term 'tidal force', as to SOUND LIKE AN 'explanation' IS BEING MADE for ASSUMED, THEORIZED, and CLAIMED 'torn apart matter'.

However, and OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SAY, and EXPLAIN, WHERE, EXACTLY, so-claimed 'tidal forces' ARE BEING CREATED FROM, EXACTLY, FIRST, and BEFOREHAND. That is, OF COURSE, IF 'they' REALLY DO WANT TO BE TAKEN, SERIOUSLY.

And, this is WITHOUT EVEN BEGINNING TO GO INTO ALL of the OTHER 'things', here, which would NEED TO BE 'LOOKED AT', 'DISCUSSED', AND 'EXPLAINED', IN FULL.

Also, WHAT ARE so-called 'tidal forces', here, EXACTLY? And, HOW do they WORK, EXACTLY?

Same thing that makes the ocean go up and down each day due to a nearby mass disrupting the uniformity of Earths otherwise fairly symmetric gravitational field.

So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, 'outside of a black hole', which, SUPPOSEDLY, IS HAVING AN AFFECT INSIDE OF A 'black hole', LIKE 'the moon' HAS AN AFFECT ON the ocean's tides, on earth?

Learn a little physics, age.

LOL OKAY "noax".

I mean, this sort of stuff was known way back before even Newton.

So, the so-claimed 'tidal forces', which are claimed to be existing WITHIN 'black holes', themselves, and which is what is claimed to 'tear' 'matter', itself, apart, was, 'now' SUPPOSEDLY, KNOWN EVEN BEFORE the mentioned "issac Newtown", presumably LIVED, right?

Tidal forces is what tore apart a moon and formed the rings of Saturn, and will soon do the same to Phobos which is already cracking from the stress being put on it.

So, it sounds like you BELIEVE that if ANY thing gets what you call 'torn apart', then this is just DUE TO 'tidal forces'. Is this 'pretty much' right?

If yes, then it SOUNDS LIKE that it was just so-called 'tidal forces', which CREATED the so-claimed BEGINNING and EXPANSION of the Universe, Itself, correct?

BUT, TO you there IS A REASON TO SUSPECT or BELIEVE 'expansion' occurs 'suddenly' where the 'equations' are CLAIMED TO NO LONGER WORK, right?

I didn't say that. There is tension and ripping apart of objects by tidal forces.

And, there is 'non tension' and/or 'coming together' of objects by 'non tidal forces', right?

Some, by the way, might just say and claim that this phenomenon is just caused and created by 'gravitational forces'.

Those forces will kill you for instance if you orbit too close to a neutron star, no need to actually fall onto one.

you can also be, what is called, killed, by forces, for instances, if you orbit too close to the sun, and do not actually fall onto it, right?

Tidal forces are negligible near a very large black hole like the on in Andromeda where one can fall into it and still live a while.

How 'long' is 'a while', here, TO you, EXACTLY?

Anyway, tidal forces are not expansion, it's just physical stress, and it happens while in free fall.

WHY did the term 'free fall' 'now' ENTER 'this discussion'?

Also, WHY are 'you' TELLING 'us' that 'tidal forces' are NOT 'expansion' FOR, EXACTLY?

Were you UNDER the PRESUMPTION that there was some one, here, who thought or BELIEVE that 'tidal forces' WAS 'expansion', itself?

Gravity is not a function of mass density.

REALLY?
So, what IS 'gravity' A FUNCTION OF, EXACTLY?

Correct answer: Stress energy. Layman answer: Mass.[/quote]

What IS 'stress energy', EXACTLY?

And, what is 'stress energy' CAUSED and/or CREATED FROM, EXACTLY?

Likewise, if the sun somehow compressed overnight into a black hole (it's possible), Earth would continue to orbit exactly as it had before, just colder.

And, you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

Newtonian mathematics is enough to show this.
A=GM/r² which says that acceleration of the orbiting thing is a function of G (a constant), mass, and distance r. None of that changes if the density changes but the mass doesn't, so orbits are unaffected by mass density, a variable that does not appear in the equation at all.

Going back to what I responded to above, here, WHY do you say, if the sun somehow compressed overnight into a black hole?

Does 'matter' NOT get 'torn apart', instead of 'compressed', within 'black holes'?

Also, some say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the sun to turn into a 'black hole'. (But that information would be coming from so-called, 'pop science articles and videos, and NOT from peer reviewed texts', correct?

By the way, thank you for CLARIFYING, here. It is VERY REFRESHING WHEN it HAPPENS, and OCCURS.

What SIZE 'black hole' are you talking ABOUT, here, EXACTLY?

As I already said, one the mass of the sun (one of the three properties. Size is not one of the three).

IS your RESPONSE, here, MEANT TO BE ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I POSED, and ASKED you above, here?

Do ANY planets get SUCKED IN or SWALLOWED BY 'this black hole'?

No, of course not.

WHY 'OF COURSE NOT'?

Nothing has changed except the radiation stopped, so everything gets colder.

How long does this, supposed, 'nothing has changed' CLAIM, last for, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Yet again, because gravitational attraction of any object is a function of its mass, not of its density.

So, how long UNTIL ANY of the planets rotating around the sun WILL GET 'sucked into' or 'swallowed' by 'this black hole'?

[Cerveny]

Friends, please stop blabbering about black holes. GTR doesn't work at all in the quantum world. We were told that the best criterion of truth is practice. A hundred years of desperately hopeless attempts to graft (continuous) GTR onto quantum (discrete) mechanics perhaps might be enough. You'd better save your breath and think, for example, about the fundamental difference between the past, the future and the present...

[Noax]

So, ONCE MORE, what are 'those regions' made up OF, EXACTLY?

Once again then, depends on what the equations are describing.
Take Earth for example. Let's consider Earth in the frame of a pulse of light (as Einstein supposedly did at one point. Earth is now singular in that frame, and all its matter is 'compressed' (as you put it) to zero volume. The density of Earth is singular in that frame. The planet doesn't even have a location since that is singular as well. To describe Earth better, you need a different coordinate system. Likelwise, to describe something like what it's like to fall through an event horizon, you need to use a coordinate system that isn't singular there.

BUT, you ALSO SAID, in 'the frame of an accelerating object', AS WELL. And, you ALSO SAID and CLAIMED that an 'event horizon' FORMS BEHIND it [an ACCELERATING object].

Well, I said something like that, and without screaming half the words.

EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY, 'an accelerating objects' FORM 'event horizons', I will just focus, ONLY, (for now) on UNDERSTANDING HOW you KNOW that FROM 'an accelerating object's' PERSPECTIVE, that 'the equations', SUPPOSEDLY, 'no longer work', AT 'the event horizon', which is 'now' BEHIND the 'accelerating object'?

I don't think I can explain it to you any more than I can explain it to my cat. If you're actually interested, look up a page on a Rindler frame. If that doesn't help, I can do no better. You just seem to lack the most basic prerequisites to handle a case like that, so either take my word or learn something for a change.

OBVIOUSLY, 'the equations', which you are speaking OF and talking ABOUT, here, are from the PERSPECTIVE of what you might call being IN FRONT OF the 'event horizon' and NOT FROM the 'other side'

No, the equations are from the perspective of the small accelerating object, perhaps a pilot situated somewhere in a very long ship where the pilot is perpetually under 1g of proper acceleration. It is a simple case where gravity is negligible, so we don't have to worry about spacetime curvature.

So, there is NO ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, here. EXCEPT, OF COURSE, SOME 'mathematical equation', which, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT EVEN RELATE TO ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, correct?

It often does relate to something physical. Earth for instance is something physical, and I showed how the density of Earth is singular in a certain frame.

And, what IS this so-called 'dark energy', EXACTLY, which is CLAIMED TO be FORCING 'some galaxy' a relatively small distance away, from earth, to be 'accelerating' AWAY FROM earth?

You've never heard of dark energy? It simply is what it is, and that's the name they gave it (and sometimes 'vacuum energy'). It currently accounts for around 2/3 of the total energy of any large region of space. Interesting to try to figure out ways to harness it.

Light currently emitted on the other side of that event horizon will reach the galaxy eventually.

Although this is ONLY A 'mathematical abstraction', right, as there is NO ACTUAL 'thing/place' WHERE this so-called 'event horizon' EVEN HAPPENS and OCCURS, correct?

Of course there's an actual place. The equations here are describing something actual. Like on one side will really eventually reach said distant galaxy, and light on our side will not. The boundary between those two regions is the event horizon, and like any event horizon, it is a null surface (look it up if you don't know).

even if there WAS A 'physical thing', such as a so-called 'event horizon', then NOT ALL light emitted on the so-called 'other side' of 'that event horizon' will NOT reach the galaxy eventually.

Light needs to be heading in that direction and needs to be unobstructed.

light just DIMINISHES over distances.

Frame dependent thing. It does not diminish relative to say an inertial frame.

One ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, here, IS when the QUESTION, 'How is the, ALLEGED and SUPPOSED, expansion of the Universe created, EXACTLY?'

That makes the presumption that the universe is a created thing. Not a good starting point.

A "priest" or "preacher" will SAY some thing like, 'There are some things we are not meant to know'.

That doesn't seem to be the preacher answer.

Now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'expansion' OF the Universe, Itself.

I might agree with that if I knew what it meant, but I don't know what those words mean, so I'll classify it as 'not even right', a rare designation. You should be proud.

ANY claim that light is NOT emitted in some parts of the Universe

Where was that claimed? I mean, sure, light tends not to be emitted from a region of hard vacuum, but even then it can happen.

To me, what you SAID and CLAIMED, here, does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, AT ALL.

Correction: It makes no sense to you, and also makes no sense to my cat. No surprise in either case.

How CAN the light FROM some thing, which is ONLY one light year away FROM another thing, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT reach the 'other thing', EXACTLY?

Do the math. At time zero, emit a light pulse at a stationary ship 1 LY away. The ship at time zero starts accelerating at a proper 1g away from the light. When does the light reach the ship? If you can't do that math (my cat cannot either), then you've no grounds for your incredulity, because the math says the light will never catch it since it was emitted behind the ship's event horizon. My cat believes me, but you don't. Who's smarter? Maybe I'm lying and handing you a ling of bull. But mathematics cannot lie, so do the math and see.

So, if 'black holes', 'now' ALLEGEDLY, FORM so-called 'event horizons', then what is 'it', EXACTLY, which is, supposedly, BEING FORMED, if 'it' is NOT A 'physical thing' AT ALL?

As said, it's an abstraction. If for instance you were to fall into a large black hole, there's be no physical test that would detect anything special there. The only way to know that you crossed it would be to consult the abstraction: A good nav computer would be able to compute the exact moment of the crossing, all without taking any local measurements. Once crossed, there is no way back. One cannot overtake a null surface.

But, once one goes 'deep enough' there is NO light AT ALL. Which IS the VERY REASON WHY there is NO light 'escaping' FROM a 'black hole'.

You claim compression, and I assure you that squishing matter produces light. It's how fusion is ignited in stars.

OBVIOUSLY, the 'light emitting object' MUST JUST BE MOVING, or TRAVELING, FASTER than just the 'speed of light'. Which, let 'us' ALSO NOT FORGET, is some thing that you human beings KEEP TELLING 'us' can NEVER HAPPEN, and IS AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY AS WELL.

The humans you've been speaking with are then wrong. All that was a crock.

To be specific, nothing can travel faster than c relative to an inertial frame. That's hardly an absolute statement.
For instance, GN-z11 (some very distant galaxy) is currently receding from Earth at a rate of about 2.3c, but that speed is not expressed relative to an inertial frame, so it doesn't violate anything. It isn't moving faster than light.

What is the 'its', here, word REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

I don't know. You didn't include the context.

Also, and by the way, what ARE the so-claimed 'three properties' of 'black holes', EXACTLY?

Mass, angular momentum, and charge. Nothing else. Look up 'no hair theorem' if you're interested.

Also, WHY is 'matter' being PULLED APART, within a black hole, TO you, while being COMPRESSED, TO me?

Former: Mathematics. Latter: naive guesswork, or what you apparently call the 'G.U.T.O.E'.

'Real black holes' COMPARED TO 'what', EXACTLY?

Say a Schwarzschild black hole, probably the first such valid solution to Einstein's field equations.

'Angular momentum' in RELATION TO 'what', EXACTLY?

Angular momentum (unlike linear momentum) is absolute and thus not in relation to anything.

'Where' and 'what' IS this so-claimed 'charge', EXACTLY?

The location of the charge is not one of the properties.

What even IS some so-called 'null surface', EXACTLY?

Look it up. Expend a little effort ffs. These are common terms, but you don't even know what tidal forces are. Time to take a middle school science class. Look up 'Roche limit' too, highly relevant to the gaps in your education. You won
't of course since learning is not your goal.

WHY, EXACTLY?

Because there are countless web pages and posts that describe it as such, which the theory does not, which is why a peer reviewed textbook is a better source of information.

Saying, 'it' is NOT 'a location' ONLY MAKES SENSE IF, and WHEN, you INFORM 'the others' WHAT the 'it' even IS, EXACTLY?

A bound to time, an end of it. None of the spatial dimensions are bounded, so 'squishing' has no reason to happen.

'Neutron stars', SUPPOSEDLY, DO a so-called 'pretty good job' of 'what', EXACTLY?

Squish matter.

you GET a so-called 'your science' FROM ONLY the TRUE, RIGHT, ACCURATE, and CORRECT VERSIONS and INTERPRETATIONS OF 'things' ONLY, right?

No, from peer reviewed sources. Those are mathematically consistent, else they'd not pass peer review. The pop sources are not peer reviewed and are about as correct as answers from a chatbot.

Or, is 'this', which you ARE, here, CLAIMING ACTUALLY EXISTS and ACTUALLY OCCURS, MORE LIKE just what you PRESUME and/or BELIEVE IS true, and right, RATHER THAN what has ACTUALLY BEEN PRESENTED AS IRREFUTABLE Fact?

That tidal forces pull things apart is irrefutable. There are many real examples of this occurring (the demise of Shoemaker-Levy 9 being a wonderful example), and none where it causes compression. The mathematics predicts this.
The existence of black holes, while being irrefutable, is still only conjecture since one has never been seen or measured. The mathematics does not prove their existence, it only describes them. But hey, the existence of you is also mere conjecture.
You use the word 'IRREFUTABLE ' a lot despite it being a very weak claim. I mean, the existence of unicorns is irrefutable, but that doesn't mean I think they exist. It just means that one cannot prove that there are no unicorns.

So, the so-claimed 'tidal forces', which are claimed to be existing WITHIN 'black holes', themselves, and which is what is claimed to 'tear' 'matter', itself, apart, was, 'now' SUPPOSEDLY, KNOWN EVEN BEFORE the mentioned "issac Newtown", presumably LIVED, right?

Known about before, but first formally (mathematically) described by Newton.

it SOUNDS LIKE that it was just so-called 'tidal forces', which CREATED the so-claimed BEGINNING and EXPANSION of the Universe, Itself, correct?

I said nothing of the sort. Tides do not cause beginnings nor do they cause spatial expansion. The 'big rip' does. It also can tear a proton into its component quarks. A big rip used to be one of the hypothesized scenarios for the end of the universe.

Some, by the way, might just say and claim that this phenomenon is just caused and created by 'gravitational forces'.

Tidal forces are usually caused by gravity, but EM tidal forces also exist. You can see it if you play with magnets and a ferrous liquid.

you can also be, what is called, killed, by forces, for instances, if you orbit too close to the sun, and do not actually fall onto it, right?

No. The local tidal force near the sun surface is far to weak to dismember you. The heat will kill you if you're not well insulated, but not the tides. The Parker probe got close enough to touch it, but it dealt with the heat by having a very eccentric orbit that quickly carried it away (all the way back to Venus) each time, giving it plenty of time to cool off. The probe was not shredded by tidal forces.

How 'long' is 'a while', here, TO you, EXACTLY?

It's not relative to me, but relative to the thing falling in. Into Sgr-A (our galaxy), ~40 seconds is all you got. For the largest black hole known, about 1.5 weeks.

WHY did the term 'free fall' 'now' ENTER 'this discussion'?

I cannot think of anything torn apart by tidal stresses that wasn't in freefall. It can happen, but I cannot think of an example.

Also, WHY are 'you' TELLING 'us' that 'tidal forces' are NOT 'expansion' FOR, EXACTLY?

Not sure. Certainly not to educate you. Nothing accomplishes that. It was probably because you suggested that I suggested something along those lines.

What IS 'stress energy', EXACTLY?

I also cannot explain stress energy to my cat. Let's stick with the layman answer.

Also, some say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the sun to turn into a 'black hole'. (But that information would be coming from so-called, 'pop science articles and videos, and NOT from peer reviewed texts', correct?

Not sure who says that. A tiny black hole (one the mass of the moon say) could come from somewhere and fall in, absorbing all the material in short order, but without significantly disrupting its momentum or mass. Physics does not forbid such a scenario, so it isn't impossible. The point of considering this was to work out the effect of this on the orbits of the planets. Answer: no change.

How long does this, supposed, 'nothing has changed' CLAIM, last for, EXACTLY?

Well, the sun was scheduled (in 7.6 GYr) to grow into a red giant and swallow the first three planets. That won't happen if it's a black hole, so the inner 3 planets orbit longer than they would otherwise. Gives time for the moon to eventually fall to Earth and get pulled apart by tidal forces. The sun swallow thing will happen long before the moon falls, so it will never occur if the sun continues to shine.

So, how long UNTIL ANY of the planets rotating around the sun WILL GET 'sucked into' or 'swallowed' by 'this black hole'?

Earth would need to lose orbital energy. It currently does so at a rate of about 200 watts, so untold trillions of years, all assuming nothing comes by in all that time and knocks Earth out of its orbit. Those trillions of years are a long time to hope that something of that nature never happens. Earth has already be knocked up once. Who knows where it orbited before that hit.

[Age]

Friends, please stop blabbering about black holes.

Who are you talking to, here, exactly?

And, if the word 'blabbering' means, or is referring to, 'talking about' and/or 'discussing' some thing, then WHY do you want 'whoever they are to STOP, EXACTLY?

GTR doesn't work at all in the quantum world.

Some of it does NOT work ANYWHERE, let alone just in the 'quantum world'.

But, so what?

We were told that the best criterion of truth is practice.

Who is 'we', here, exactly, and who told 'them' that the best criterion of truth is practice, exactly?

A hundred years of desperately hopeless attempts to graft (continuous) GTR onto quantum (discrete) mechanics perhaps might be enough.

MIGHT BE 'enough' in relation to 'what', exactly?

You'd better save your breath and think, for example, about the fundamental difference between the past, the future and the present...

The only real FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE is in the DIFFERENCE IN 'memory', within human bodies.

As there is NO ACTUAL 'past' and 'future' as absolutely EVERY thing is ALWAYS HAPPENING and OCCURRING RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

[Age]

So, ONCE MORE, what are 'those regions' made up OF, EXACTLY?

Once again then, depends on what the equations are describing.
Take Earth for example. Let's consider Earth in the frame of a pulse of light (as Einstein supposedly did at one point. Earth is now singular in that frame, and all its matter is 'compressed' (as you put it) to zero volume.

This is A Truly WEIRD thing to think or BELIEVE.

WHY do you CONSIDER that ALL the matter of earth is 'compressed' to 'zero volume', EXACTLY?

Also, and by the way if 'zero matter' is what you have been thinking or BELIEVING when I have used the 'compressed' word, here, then this would EXPLAIN WHY you have been appearing so ABSOLUTELY LOST and CONFUSED, here.

The density of Earth is singular in that frame. The planet doesn't even have a location since that is singular as well.

It is these types of, to me anyway, ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS and NONSENSICAL CLAIMS you CONCLUDE and MAKE, which might all be coming FROM the False or Wrong PRESUMPTION that 'compressed' MEANS 'zero volume'.

To describe Earth better, you need a different coordinate system. Likelwise, to describe something like what it's like to fall through an event horizon, you need to use a coordinate system that isn't singular there.

you appear to have gone SO FAR OFF TANGENT, here, that I WILL REMIND you the ACTUAL QUESTION, which 'I' POSED, and ASKED 'you', here, WAS:

What are 'those regions' made up of, exactly?

If some one wants to talk ABOUT 'regions', TO me, then I WILL ASK them TO CLARIFY things.

If you can NOT, then so be it. But, your HONESTY, rather than your DECEPTION, would be MUCH MORE APPRECIATED.

BUT, you ALSO SAID, in 'the frame of an accelerating object', AS WELL. And, you ALSO SAID and CLAIMED that an 'event horizon' FORMS BEHIND it [an ACCELERATING object].

Well, I said something like that, and without screaming half the words.

you SAID and WROTE more or less the EXACT SAME thing. And, I have NOT so-called 'screamed' a single word ANYWHERE, here.

So, you CLAIM that an 'event horizon' FORMS BEHIND an 'accelerating object'. Did you MEAN that an 'event horizon' forms behind an 'accelerating object', or NOT?

EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY, 'an accelerating objects' FORM 'event horizons', I will just focus, ONLY, (for now) on UNDERSTANDING HOW you KNOW that FROM 'an accelerating object's' PERSPECTIVE, that 'the equations', SUPPOSEDLY, 'no longer work', AT 'the event horizon', which is 'now' BEHIND the 'accelerating object'?

I don't think I can explain it to you any more than I can explain it to my cat.

Okay. FAIR ENOUGH.

If you're actually interested, look up a page on a Rindler frame. If that doesn't help, I can do no better. You just seem to lack the most basic prerequisites to handle a case like that, so either take my word or learn something for a change.

What 'we' HAVE, here, is A PRIME example of a response, which people who do NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND what they 'TRY TO' CLAIM IS TRUE, when they are QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED.

CLEARLY this one does NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND what it is 'TRYING TO' SAY and CLAIM, here. it is OBVIOUSLY just 'TRYING TO' COPY and REPEAT what it has heard and/or read, and which it has FAITH and/or BELIEF IN, ONLY.

OBVIOUSLY, 'the equations', which you are speaking OF and talking ABOUT, here, are from the PERSPECTIVE of what you might call being IN FRONT OF the 'event horizon' and NOT FROM the 'other side'

No, the equations are from the perspective of the small accelerating object, perhaps a pilot situated somewhere in a very long ship where the pilot is perpetually under 1g of proper acceleration. It is a simple case where gravity is negligible, so we don't have to worry about spacetime curvature.

LOL This one can NOT even EXPLAIN TO A 'cat' NOR ANY of 'you' what the term and phrase 'spacetime' MEANS nor IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, YET it WILL USE that term and phrase as thought it DOES KNOW.

So, 'this', here, is just ANOTHER example of the ONLY REAL 'ones' 'these ones' were FOOLING and DECEIVING, here, were "themselves", ALONE.

LOOK "noax", 'if you can not explain some thing simply, then you do NOT understand it well enough'.

JUST REMEMBER 'this'.

What you ARE SHOWING and REVEALING, here, is JUST ANOTHER example of BEING 'religionist'. Just like a 'theological religionist' WILL just SAY and REPEAT what they have heard and/or read, without ACTUALLY CONSIDERING 'it', you ALSO ARE DOING the EXACT SAME thing, here.

you have just CHOSEN A DIFFERENT 'religion' to ADHERE TO, LOOK UP TO, and ADMIRE.

So, there is NO ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, here. EXCEPT, OF COURSE, SOME 'mathematical equation', which, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT EVEN RELATE TO ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, correct?

It often does relate to something physical. Earth for instance is something physical, and I showed how the density of Earth is singular in a certain frame.

LOL
LOL
LOL

1. you did NOT SHOW ANY such thing. you just SAID that, 'In the frame of a pulse of light earth is now 'singular', in that frame'. Just so you BECOME FULLY AWARE you MIGHT WELL SEE, and BELIEVE, 'this' BUT I CERTAINLY DO NOT. To me, from the perspective of a so-called 'pulse of light' (IF there WAS A Mind and a brain in connection with said 'pulse of light'), would NEVER EVER SEE what you ONLY IMAGINE 'you' would SEE. Can you COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this'. Are you AWARE that you have NOT SHOWED ANY thing, here?

2. you ATTEMPT and DECEPTION and DECEIVING is NOT WORKING. It was you who SAID and CLAIMED that an 'event horizon' is NOT A PHYSICAL THING, and you even added, AT ALL, to it.

And, what IS this so-called 'dark energy', EXACTLY, which is CLAIMED TO be FORCING 'some galaxy' a relatively small distance away, from earth, to be 'accelerating' AWAY FROM earth?

You've never heard of dark energy?

WHY are you WRITING A STATEMENT, BUT putting A QUESTION MARK AT the end of it, here, FOR, EXACTLY?

If 'you' are ASKING 'me', 'Have you heard of the words or term 'dark energy'? Then, the ANSWER is 'Yes'. And, for HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE, I DO NOT RECALL.

It simply is what it is, and that's the name they gave it (and sometimes 'vacuum energy').

LOL you could NOT BE RESPONDING MORE LIKE a "priest" or "preacher", here, now.

When ASKED what some thing IS, EXACTLY, which 'you' AND "priests" and "preachers" LIKE TO CLAIM DO EXIST, then the BEST you people can come up with are things like;

'It simply is what it is', OR, 'There are some things we are not meant to know'.

'you' people ARE NOT FOOLING 'me', HERE.

REMEMBER: 'if you can not explain some thing simply, then you do NOT understand it well enough'.

It currently accounts for around 2/3 of the total energy of any large region of space. Interesting to try to figure out ways to harness it.

LOL 'it'.

'This one' IS REALLY 'TRYING' its HARDEST TO COME ACROSS, here, as though it KNOWS what it is talking ABOUT, here.

Light currently emitted on the other side of that event horizon will reach the galaxy eventually.

Although this is ONLY A 'mathematical abstraction', right, as there is NO ACTUAL 'thing/place' WHERE this so-called 'event horizon' EVEN HAPPENS and OCCURS, correct?

Of course there's an actual place.

YET IT WAS you, "noax", who, PREVIOUSLY, SAID and CLAIMED:

An event horizon is not a physical thing at all, but rather a mathematical abstraction.

BUT, 'now', there IS, SUPPOSEDLY, an ACTUAL 'place'.

Are 'you' ABLE TO FOLLOW "yourself", here, "noax"?

The equations here are describing something actual. Like on one side will really eventually reach said distant galaxy, and light on our side will not.

The REASON WHY 'this one' HAS NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO SEE, and COMPREHEND, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, IS BECAUSE it has such a VERY NARROWED 'field of view' and 'perspective' OF things.

The boundary between those two regions is the event horizon,

Which IS NOT AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL 'thing' BUT IS AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL 'place', well to "noax" ONLY, here.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that "noax" IS, YET, to INFORM 'us' of 'what' 'these places' or 'these regions' are made up, EXACTLY.

and like any event horizon, it is a null surface (look it up if you don't know).

And, AGAIN, if one can NOT JUST SIMPLY EXPLAIN what some thing IS, EXACTLY, then they, OBVIOUSLY, do NOT YET JUST SIMPLY UNDERSTAND 'it', FULLY.

even if there WAS A 'physical thing', such as a so-called 'event horizon', then NOT ALL light emitted on the so-called 'other side' of 'that event horizon' will NOT reach the galaxy eventually.

Light needs to be heading in that direction and needs to be unobstructed.

Which is ONE of the REASONS WHY I ASKED you what I HAVE ALREADY. But, you KEEP INSISTING light CAN, or CAN NOT, REACH things, here.

If you WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, BETTER or FULLY, then you NEED TO BE FAR MORE SPECIFIC IN the CHOOSING of 'your words', here.

light just DIMINISHES over distances.

Frame dependent thing. It does not diminish relative to say an inertial frame.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If 'this IS what 'you' WANT TO BELIEVE is true, then this is PERFECTLY FINE and OKAY WITH 'me'.

BUT, TO 'me' light, itself, diminishes over distance NO matter what frame one is IN.

I, OBVIOUSLY, was NEVER talking ABOUT NOR REFERRING TO just 'one photon', itself. Which itself DOES DIMINISH over distance, right?

One ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, here, IS when the QUESTION, 'How is the, ALLEGED and SUPPOSED, expansion of the Universe created, EXACTLY?'

That makes the presumption that the universe is a created thing. Not a good starting point.

you can 'TRY' and 'TRY' and 'TRY' TO DECEIVE others, here, but YOUR ATTEMPTS ARE NOT WORKING ON 'me'.

For you, ALONE, to have JUST MADE the PRESUMPTION that you DID and HAVE, here, SHOWS and REVEALS HOW Truly CLOSED and NARROWED you REALLY ARE BEING, here.

And, THEN 'TRYING TO' USE your OWN MADE UP PRESUMPTION, TO 'TRY' DECEIVE as being a so-called 'STARTING POINT', ACTUALLY SHOWS and REVEALS that you are NOT BEING VERY 'good', here, AT ALL.

What you are ATTEMPTING TO DO, here, is just UTTER NONSENSE. I could HAVE ASKED you, How is ANY thing created, EXACTLY, and you could have ALSO just as EASILY and SIMPLY SAID, 'That makes the the presumption that the Universe is a created thing', AS WELL.

Which is, OBVIOUSLY, ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

I JUST ASKED you, 'How is the claimed expansion (of the Universe) created?'

If you are NOT YET ABLE TO EXPLAIN 'this' in ANY WAY AT ALL, then just be HONEST, and JUST SAY SO.

REALLY, what is SO HARD and SO COMPLEX, here, for these human beings, here?

A "priest" or "preacher" will SAY some thing like, 'There are some things we are not meant to know'.

That doesn't seem to be the preacher answer.

If REALLY, then what IS the "preachers" ANSWER, EXACTLY?

your ATTEMPT AT DECEPTION AGAIN, here, in 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT AWAY FROM the ACTUAL POINT I MADE is NOT WORKING.

HOW you RESPOND, here, sometimes is just like 'those' who can NOT just back up and support 'the claims', LIKE WHEN a "priest" or a "preacher" who CLAIMS that 'God exists and created everything', IS ASKED some thing like, 'But what IS God, exactly, and/or who created God?'

People who CLAIM things, like you have been, but when QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED with RESPONSES LIKE, 'There are some things that are not meant to be known'. Which is more or less EXACTLY LIKE what you are doing, here.

And, AGAIN, you DO this BECAUSE you do NOT YET ACTUALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND what you are 'TRYING TO' CLAIM IS TRUE and RIGHT, here.

Now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'expansion' OF the Universe, Itself.

I might agree with that if I knew what it meant, but I don't know what those words mean,

If you, at 'your age', STILL REALLY DO NOT KNOW what 'those words' MEAN, then you are MORE LOST and MORE CONFUSED, here, then I FIRST SAW.

so I'll classify it as 'not even right', a rare designation. You should be proud.

AGAIN, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO WHATEVER SO PLEASES you.

ANY claim that light is NOT emitted in some parts of the Universe

Where was that claimed? I mean, sure, light tends not to be emitted from a region of hard vacuum, but even then it can happen.

Where you claimed on one side or another of A galaxy and/or on one side of some so-called 'event horizon', which you CLAIM is NOT A PHYSICAL 'thing' BUT IS A 'place', and A 'region', which you have NOT YET TOLD 'us' what that 'place' or 'region' is MADE UP OF, EXACTLY.

To me, what you SAID and CLAIMED, here, does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, AT ALL.

Correction: It makes no sense to you, and also makes no sense to my cat. No surprise in either case.

your so-called 'correction' WAS COMPLETELY UNWARRANTED.

See, if you READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WROTE, then you WILL SEE that I HAD ALREADY SAID, WROTE, and thus PRESENTED, what you CLAIMED TO HAVE 'corrected'.

What 'we' have, here, is just ANOTHER PRIME example of one's OWN 'superiority complex', and/or their HASTINESS in 'TRYING TO' 'condescend' another, that they ENDED UP NOT READING, and COMPREHENDING, what WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY SAID, WRITTEN, and MEANT.

Which, AGAIN, HELPS IN EXPLAINING WHY 'this one' is CONSISTENTLY CONFUSED and NOT UNNDERSTANDING, here.

How CAN the light FROM some thing, which is ONLY one light year away FROM another thing, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT reach the 'other thing', EXACTLY?

Do the math. At time zero, emit a light pulse at a stationary ship 1 LY away. The ship at time zero starts accelerating at a proper 1g away from the light. When does the light reach the ship? If you can't do that math (my cat cannot either), then you've no grounds for your incredulity, because the math says the light will never catch it since it was emitted behind the ship's event horizon. My cat believes me, but you don't. Who's smarter? Maybe I'm lying and handing you a ling of bull. But mathematics cannot lie, so do the math and see.

I do NOT know WHY ALL of these PRESUMPTIONS COME IN 'TO PLAY', here, but anyway, THANK YOU FOR your CLARIFICATION.

I just MISSED 'two words' of yours, which is WHY I CAME TO A Wrong and False CONCLUSION.

So, if 'black holes', 'now' ALLEGEDLY, FORM so-called 'event horizons', then what is 'it', EXACTLY, which is, supposedly, BEING FORMED, if 'it' is NOT A 'physical thing' AT ALL?

As said, it's an abstraction.

So, AGAIN, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is that NOTHING is ACTUALLY FORMED, right?

If for instance you were to fall into a large black hole, there's be no physical test that would detect anything special there. The only way to know that you crossed it would be to consult the abstraction: A good nav computer would be able to compute the exact moment of the crossing, all without taking any local measurements. Once crossed, there is no way back. One cannot overtake a null surface.

There is A WAY to what you are calling 'back', here. But, 'you' are, STILL, A LONG WAY OFF FROM BEING ABLE TO JUST HEAR 'this', let alone COMPREHENDING and UNDERSTANDING 'this'.

But, once one goes 'deep enough' there is NO light AT ALL. Which IS the VERY REASON WHY there is NO light 'escaping' FROM a 'black hole'.

You claim compression, and I assure you that squishing matter produces light. It's how fusion is ignited in stars.

you can, LOL, think or BELIEVE that 'you' are ASSURING, here, but considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that you do NOT WANT TO LISTEN TO, nor DISCUSS, things, here, then BE REST ASSURED that what you WANT TO BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, is true, JUST MIGHT NOT BE, AT ALL.[/quote]

By the way 'tearing' or 'splitting' apart matter ALSO produces light, right?

OBVIOUSLY, the 'light emitting object' MUST JUST BE MOVING, or TRAVELING, FASTER than just the 'speed of light'. Which, let 'us' ALSO NOT FORGET, is some thing that you human beings KEEP TELLING 'us' can NEVER HAPPEN, and IS AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY AS WELL.

The humans you've been speaking with are then wrong. All that was a crock.

LOL But ALL that IS IRREFUTABLE.

you OBVIOUSLY DO NOT WANT TO LEARN ANY thing MORE than what you BELIEVE you know, ALREADY.

To be specific, nothing can travel faster than c relative to an inertial frame. That's hardly an absolute statement.

So, what is AN ABSOLUTE STATEMENT, here?

For instance, GN-z11 (some very distant galaxy) is currently receding from Earth at a rate of about 2.3c, but that speed is not expressed relative to an inertial frame, so it doesn't violate anything. It isn't moving faster than light.

WHO CARES?

REMEMBER you STATED, and BELIEVE and CLAIM that, 'An infinite compression of matter is NOT what 'singularity' is.

ALSO, the REASON WHY some of things that you SAY and CLAIM, here, ARE False AND Wrong is just due to your CHOICE of words.

What is the 'its', here, word REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

I don't know. You didn't include the context.

THE CONTEXT IS, OBVIOUSLY, IN your VERY OWN WORDS, which were OBVIOUSLY IN what I QUOTED your SAYING and WRITING, which 'my CLARIFYING QUESTIONING words' were OBVIOUSLY RESPONDING TO.

you SAID and WROTE, Even sitting at a table you are, yes. But the acceleration needs to be constant for you to remain perpetually stationary in the accelerating frame which defines said event horizon. You can cannot do that, so light from beyond its event horizon will eventually reach you.

Are you 'now' ABLE TO ANSWER and CLARIFY?

Also, and by the way, what ARE the so-claimed 'three properties' of 'black holes', EXACTLY?

Mass, angular momentum, and charge. Nothing else. Look up 'no hair theorem' if you're interested.

Also, WHY is 'matter' being PULLED APART, within a black hole, TO you, while being COMPRESSED, TO me?

Former: Mathematics. Latter: naive guesswork, or what you apparently call the 'G.U.T.O.E'.

you OBVIOUSLY have MISSED 'the point', ONCE MORE.

LOL 'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES the WHOLE Universe, Itself, ONLY WORKS in 'the ways' that so-called 'mathematics' SAYS or AGREES WITH.

'This one' REALLY DOES HAVE A LOT MORE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, here.

'Real black holes' COMPARED TO 'what', EXACTLY?

Say a Schwarzschild black hole, probably the first such valid solution to Einstein's field equations.

'Angular momentum' in RELATION TO 'what', EXACTLY?

Angular momentum (unlike linear momentum) is absolute and thus not in relation to anything.[/quote]

And that 'matter' is COMPRESSED 'infinitely' within black holes is ALSO ABSOLUTE.

But, you WILL NEVER COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this', as your BELIEFS, here, will NOT ALLOW you to.

So, let 'us' TRY, What even is 'angular momentum', TO you, EXACTLY, in regards to 'black holes'?

'Where' and 'what' IS this so-claimed 'charge', EXACTLY?

The location of the charge is not one of the properties.

I NEVER SAID that 'it' WAS.

I JUST ASKED you A FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION, TO SEE if you can ACTUALLY back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, here.

So far you are NOT DOING TO WELL, I will add.

What even IS some so-called 'null surface', EXACTLY?

Look it up. Expend a little effort ffs.

If you can NOT just EASILY explain some thing, SIMPLY, here, in regards TO what you HAVE ACTUALLY SAID, WRITTEN, and CLAIMED, here, then HOW WELL do you REALLY KNOW and UNDERSTAND 'it' "yourself"?

ONCE AGAIN, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNERS, here, what ANY one READS, or HEARS, is NOT NECESSARILY NOT what another one is GOING TO READ, and HEAR. So, there is ABSOLUTELY NO USE TELLING ANOTHER human beings to GO and LOOK 'it' UP, for the VERY OBVIOUS and SIMPLE Fact that what ANOTHER ENDS UP SEEING and/or HEARING could well COUNTER or even REFUTE what you HAVE SEEN and/or HEARD.

These are common terms, but you don't even know what tidal forces are.

And you HAVE FAILED ABSOLUTELY DISMALLY, here, IN EXPLAINING what 'tidal forces' are MEANT TO even ROUGHLY, let alone EXACTLY.

Time to take a middle school science class. Look up 'Roche limit' too, highly relevant to the gaps in your education. You won
't of course since learning is not your goal.

you are SOUNDING LIKE those, back in the 'olden days', who when CONFRONTED WITH one JUST SAYING, 'That actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around', who would then SAY things like, 'You need to get an education', and/or 'Go and look up 'such and such' in such and such literature'.

LOL It would NOT matter in what 'era', 'day', or even 'age' that 'this one', here, known as "noax" was LIVING IN, WHATEVER the 'current' ACCEPTED UNDERSTANDING WAS, it WOULD BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that 'that' IS the ACTUAL Truth of things.

'These human beings' REALLY WERE 'that SLOW'.

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the 'common terms', and their 'current definitions', in its day and era, are IRREFUTABLY TRUE and RIGHT.

WHY, EXACTLY?

Because there are countless web pages and posts that describe it as such, which the theory does not, which is why a peer reviewed textbook is a better source of information.

LOL So-called 'peer reviewed' textbooks or knowledge ALSO, LAUGHINGLY, CLAIMED that 'the earth is flat', 'the earth is at the center of the Universe', and WORSE STILL, 'the Universe began and is expanding'.

'Peer reviewed textbooks' do NOT necessarily HOLD the Truth.

'What' ACTUALLY HOLDS the Truth is 'that', which IS IRREFUTABLE.

Saying, 'it' is NOT 'a location' ONLY MAKES SENSE IF, and WHEN, you INFORM 'the others' WHAT the 'it' even IS, EXACTLY?

A bound to time, an end of it. None of the spatial dimensions are bounded, so 'squishing' has no reason to happen.

YET 'this one' STILL WILL NOT REVEAL WHAT THE 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

'Neutron stars', SUPPOSEDLY, DO a so-called 'pretty good job' of 'what', EXACTLY?

Squish matter.

While 'black holes' ONLY DO A 'good job' OF 'tearing apart', correct?

you GET a so-called 'your science' FROM ONLY the TRUE, RIGHT, ACCURATE, and CORRECT VERSIONS and INTERPRETATIONS OF 'things' ONLY, right?

No, from peer reviewed sources.

WHICH HAVE OBVIOUSLY FALTERED and BEEN Wrong ON OCCASIONS, correct?

Those are mathematically consistent, else they'd not pass peer review.

LOL 'This one', STILL, BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the Universe, Itself, MUST FOLLOW and/or FALL INTO LINE', WITH what are so-called 'mathematically consistent'.

The pop sources are not peer reviewed and are about as correct as answers from a chatbot.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'chatbot' gets ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE ONE of its ANSWERS FROM you human beings.

LOL So-called 'peer reviewed sources' are littered WITH Falsehoods, INCONSISTENCIES, Wrongs, and MISTAKES. And, this is NOT even taking into account ALL of the JUST GUESSES, ASSUMPTIONS, and THEORIES WITHIN them.

AGAIN, and LAUGHINGLY, if, and WHEN, 'peer reviewed textbooks' CLAIMED that the sun revolves around the earth, that the Universe began, or that the Universe is expanding, then this one WOULD JUST BELIEVE that 'it' IS TRUE, JUST FOLLOW ALONG BLINDINGLY, and then ACCEPT ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing ELSE that they HAD TO SAY, and CLAIM.

LOL If 'this one's' peers SAID that inside of a 'black hole' matter is 'torn apart', and NOT 'compressed', then this one WOULD ACCEPT 'this' IN ABSOLUTE BLIND FAITH, and BELIEVE that 'it' IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT. That is; UNTIL its CHOSEN 'peers' SAID OTHERWISE or CONTRARY.

Or, is 'this', which you ARE, here, CLAIMING ACTUALLY EXISTS and ACTUALLY OCCURS, MORE LIKE just what you PRESUME and/or BELIEVE IS true, and right, RATHER THAN what has ACTUALLY BEEN PRESENTED AS IRREFUTABLE Fact?

That tidal forces pull things apart is irrefutable.

OBVIOUSLY. BUT, is it an IRREFUTABLE Fact that what HAPPENS and OCCURS WITHIN 'black holes' ARE 'things' GETTING PULLED APART.

There are many real examples of this occurring (the demise of Shoemaker-Levy 9 being a wonderful example), and none where it causes compression.

SO, TO "noax" anyway, there is NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE IN the WHOLE Universe, Itself, of ABSOLUTELY ANY thing CAUSING 'compression', itself.

The mathematics predicts this.

The 'mathematics' ALSO PREDICTED 'things', which DID NOT END UP NOT COMING TRUE, right?

The existence of black holes, while being irrefutable, is still only conjecture since one has never been seen or measured.

Which IS, EXACTLY, what I have been ALLUDING TO, ALL ALONG, here.

But, you DID NOT SEE and RECOGNIZE 'this' BECAUSE you were TOO BUSY TELLING 'me' and the readers, here, that WHAT HAPPENS IN 'black holes' is that 'things' ARE NOT COMPRESSED, as 'things' GET TORN APART.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, 'that' what you ARE ACTUALLY CLAIMING, here, what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS, OR, just MORE LIKE just what you PRESUME and/or BELIEVE IS true, and right, INSTEAD?

The mathematics does not prove their existence, it only describes them.

LOL

AGAIN, 'this one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the Universe, and EVERY thing WITHIN It, HAS TO DO what 'mathematics' SAYS or PREDICTS.

LOOK "noax",

1. you have NOT BEEN INSIDE A 'black hole'.

2. 'Mathematics' does NOT describe 'black holes' AT ALL. In fact 'mathematics' does NOT 'describe' 'things.

3. NOTHING, including 'mathematics', CAN 'describe' what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS WITHIN 'black holes'.

What ACTUALLY 'describes' what HAPPENS and OCCURS IN 'black holes' IS what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS WITHIN 'black holes'.

AGAIN, the ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE Truth of things, IS SO SIMPLE and SO EASY TO FIND, and SEE.

But hey, the existence of you is also mere conjecture.

AGAIN, when they were IN DOUBT, the would RESORT TO REMARKS like 'this one', here.

You use the word 'IRREFUTABLE ' a lot despite it being a very weak claim.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you USE the 'it' word A LOT despite ACTUALLY INFORMING ANY one of what 'it' IS ACTUALLY REFERENCING.

LOL HOW CAN some thing, WHICH IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE, be a so-called VERY WEAK CLAIM.

There is NOT A 'time' WHEN I HAVE USED the IRREFUTABLE word, and I AM NOT ABLE TO back up 'that word'.

I mean, the existence of unicorns is irrefutable, but that doesn't mean I think they exist.

LOL Are you NOT AWARE of the CONTRADICTION, here?

you appear to THINK that 'unicorns exist' IS IRREFUTABLE, while AT THE EXACT SAME NOT necessarily THINK that 'unicorns exist'.

Are you ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW and WHY this CONTRADICTION is appearing, here, EXACTLY?

It just means that one cannot prove that there are no unicorns.

What IS the 'it' word, here, REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

you REALLY DO APPEAR VERY MIXED UP and CONFUSED, here.

'This', here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of just how the MEANINGS of words, in one country/culture, can be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and EVEN OPPOSING to others IN other countries/cultures.

What does the word 'irrefutable' even MEAN, or IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, TO you?

For example, if A so-called 'unicorn' has NEVER been PROVED TO EXIST, then how could the CLAIM, 'The existence of unicorns is irrefutable', BE A True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct STATEMENT, EXACTLY?

Do you NORMALLY ACCEPT things, which have NOT YET BEEN PROVED, to be 'IRREFUTABLE'?

TO me, anyway, 'The existence of unicorns' is IRREFUTABLE, ONLY, WHEN ACTUAL PROOF OF 'existing unicorns' HAS BEEN PROVIDED and/or PRESENTED.

So, the so-claimed 'tidal forces', which are claimed to be existing WITHIN 'black holes', themselves, and which is what is claimed to 'tear' 'matter', itself, apart, was, 'now' SUPPOSEDLY, KNOWN EVEN BEFORE the mentioned "issac Newtown", presumably LIVED, right?

Known about before, but first formally (mathematically) described by Newton.

ONCE AGAIN, you are MISSING 'the point'.

Even on the VERY DAY when this is being written, it is NOT KNOWN, FOR SURE, what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING WITHIN 'black holes'.

So, HOW and WHY you KNOW that it was KNOWN that there WERE 'tidal forces' RIPPING APART 'things', WITHIN 'black holes', BEFORE, LAUGHINGLY, 'black holes' were even KNOWN TO EXIST, would leave 'me' BEWILDERED, that is; if I did NOT ALREADY KNOW HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, EXACTLY.

it SOUNDS LIKE that it was just so-called 'tidal forces', which CREATED the so-claimed BEGINNING and EXPANSION of the Universe, Itself, correct?

I said nothing of the sort. Tides do not cause beginnings nor do they cause spatial expansion.

Okay, if you say so.

The 'big rip' does.

SO, it was the so-called 'big rip' that CAUSED 'the beginning' AND the 'spatial expansion'.

(Which, by the way, do NOT EVEN HAPPEN, NOR OCCUR.)

It also can tear a proton into its component quarks.

WHO CARES?

What I CARE ABOUT, here, is your CLAIM that 'things' GET 'torn apart' and NOT 'compressed' WITHIN 'black holes'.

A big rip used to be one of the hypothesized scenarios for the end of the universe.

BUT, there WAS NO END, and there IS NO BEGINNING.

Also, WHY is SO MUCH OF your BELIEFS and CLAIMS, here, based UPON 'theories', of ALL things?

Some, by the way, might just say and claim that this phenomenon is just caused and created by 'gravitational forces'.

Tidal forces are usually caused by gravity, but EM tidal forces also exist. You can see it if you play with magnets and a ferrous liquid.

But, there is NO 'gravity' IN 'black holes', right?

you can also be, what is called, killed, by forces, for instances, if you orbit too close to the sun, and do not actually fall onto it, right?

No.

Are you SURE?

If yes, then you might BELIEVE that you could survive with just more fluids maybe?

The local tidal force near the sun surface is far to weak to dismember you.

How far away from the sun is the 'tidal force', EXACTLY?

The heat will kill you if you're not well insulated, but not the tides.

But I NEVER ASKED you ABOUT 'tides'.

I JUST ASKED you what I did, to which you replied, 'No'.

The Parker probe got close enough to touch it,

So, some probe got close enough to the sun to touch 'the tides', right?

but it dealt with the heat by having a very eccentric orbit that quickly carried it away (all the way back to Venus) each time, giving it plenty of time to cool off. The probe was not shredded by tidal forces.

Okay, if you say so.

How 'long' is 'a while', here, TO you, EXACTLY?

It's not relative to me, but relative to the thing falling in

So, when you SAY and WRITE things like, 'where ONE can fall into it and still LIVE a while.', you are NOT talking ABOUT NOR REFERRING TO 'you' NOR TO 'you human beings', right?

.Into Sgr-A (our galaxy), ~40 seconds is all you got. For the largest black hole known, about 1.5 weeks.

WHY did the term 'free fall' 'now' ENTER 'this discussion'?

I cannot think of anything torn apart by tidal stresses that wasn't in freefall. It can happen, but I cannot think of an example.

Also, WHY are 'you' TELLING 'us' that 'tidal forces' are NOT 'expansion' FOR, EXACTLY?

Not sure. Certainly not to educate you. Nothing accomplishes that.[/quote]

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FOR SURE, that there is NOT A SINGLE 'thing' in the ENTIRE Universe that does NOT so-call 'educate' me?

It was probably because you suggested that I suggested something along those lines.

WHEN, and WHERE, EXACTLY, did I, SUPPOSEDLY, 'suggest' such A thing?

What IS 'stress energy', EXACTLY?

I also cannot explain stress energy to my cat. Let's stick with the layman answer.

So, ONCE MORE, you can NOT ELABORATE ON, NOR CLARIFY, what you BELIEVE and CLAIM is ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT, here.

Also, some say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the sun to turn into a 'black hole'. (But that information would be coming from so-called, 'pop science articles and videos, and NOT from peer reviewed texts', correct?

Not sure who says that.

WHO CARES if you are NOT SURE who says that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the sun to turn into a 'black hole'?

It was 'you' who CLAIMED that it WAS POSSIBLE for the sun to compress into a 'black hole'.

A tiny black hole (one the mass of the moon say) could come from somewhere and fall in, absorbing all the material in short order, but without significantly disrupting its momentum or mass.

WHY are you, AGAIN, DEFLECTING, here?

Are you NOT AWARE WHEN you DO 'this'? Or, are you AWARE and are just DOING SO, ATTEMPTING TO BE DECEPTIVE and TO DECEIVE the readers, here, FROM the Fact that you CLAIMED that it WAS POSSIBLE for the sun to compress (even overnight) INTO A 'black hole'?

Physics does not forbid such a scenario, so it isn't impossible.

WHY do some of you human beings think or BELIEVE that 'physics' has some sort of CONTROL OVER 'things'?

What even IS 'physics', TO you, "noax"? Or, in other words, what does the word 'physics' MEAN or REFER TO, TO you, EXACTLY?

The point of considering this was to work out the effect of this on the orbits of the planets. Answer: no change.

What IS the QUESTION, EXACTLY, which the ANSWER TO IS, supposedly, 'no charge'?

How long does this, supposed, 'nothing has changed' CLAIM, last for, EXACTLY?

Well, the sun was scheduled (in 7.6 GYr) to grow into a red giant and swallow the first three planets.

WHO and/or WHAT WROTE OUT 'this schedule'?

That won't happen if it's a black hole,

But, some SAY and CLAIM that it IS IMPOSSIBLE for the sun to turn into a 'black hole'. So, WHO, EXACTLY, IS RIGHT, here? you OR them?

so the inner 3 planets orbit longer than they would otherwise. Gives time for the moon to eventually fall to Earth and get pulled apart by tidal forces.

WHERE, EXACTLY, DOES the moon END UP in 'this scenario'?

The sun swallow thing will happen long before the moon falls, so it will never occur if the sun continues to shine.

If you SAY SO.

So, how long UNTIL ANY of the planets rotating around the sun WILL GET 'sucked into' or 'swallowed' by 'this black hole'?

Earth would need to lose orbital energy.

you have NOT CONSIDERED HOW 'black holes' ACTUALLY WORK, and/or BEHAVE if one prefers.

It currently does so at a rate of about 200 watts, so untold trillions of years, all assuming nothing comes by in all that time and knocks Earth out of its orbit.

you REALLY HAVE NOT YET CONSIDERED ALL of the VARIABLES, here, have you?

Those trillions of years are a long time to hope that something of that nature never happens. Earth has already be knocked up once. Who knows where it orbited before that hit.

WHO CARES?

[Noax]

WHY do you CONSIDER that ALL the matter of earth is 'compressed' to 'zero volume', EXACTLY?

I didn't say it was. It was an illustration of something (Earth's volume) being singular relative to one coordinate system and not relative to another. Being singular is often a coordinate effect, not a physical one. Also, 'compressed' was your word. I don't consider coordinate effects to be compression, merely length contraction.

Also, and by the way if 'zero matter' is what you have been thinking or BELIEVING when I have used the 'compressed' word, here, then this would EXPLAIN WHY you have been appearing so ABSOLUTELY LOST and CONFUSED, here.

If you think I had said 'zero matter' somewhere, then quote it. Else, I'm not the one lost & confused.

What are 'those regions' made up of, exactly?

If some one wants to talk ABOUT 'regions', TO me, then I WILL ASK them TO CLARIFY things.

OK, I need clarification. What region exactly? If it was the Earth example, then the region is made up of rocks and water and mailboxes and such. If it's a null surface, well, that's just a plane that moves (relative to any valid local inertial frame) at the speed of light, and just about anything could be crossed by that plane, or just vacuum.

I have NOT so-called 'screamed' a single word ANYWHERE, here.

lmao

So, you CLAIM that an 'event horizon' FORMS BEHIND an 'accelerating object'. Did you MEAN that an 'event horizon' forms behind an 'accelerating object', or NOT?

The event horizon is a coordinate property that is part of the accelerating coordinate system in which said physical object is stationary over time. It doesn't actually 'form'. It is a property of the coordinate system, and the object becomes stationary in that coordinate system when it commences whatever acceleration is needed to keep it thus stationary.

if you can not explain some thing simply, then you do NOT understand it well enough'.

I can explain it, and have to others. I just cannot explain it to you. You lack the prerequisite skills in several areas, as illustrated by all the requests to define some of the most basic concepts. I don't in any way owe a rude troll a middle school education.

1. you did NOT SHOW ANY such thing

See? If you had (quite a bit) more education, you would realize that it had actually been shown.

Although this is ONLY A 'mathematical abstraction', right, as there is NO ACTUAL 'thing/place' WHERE this so-called 'event horizon' EVEN HAPPENS and OCCURS, correct?

Of course there's an actual place.

YET IT WAS you, "noax", who, PREVIOUSLY, SAID and CLAIMED:

An event horizon is not a physical thing at all, but rather a mathematical abstraction.

BUT, 'now', there IS, SUPPOSEDLY, an ACTUAL 'place'.

Exactly. Coordinate systems are abstractions, not anything physical. But spatial coordinates refer to physical locations (which you'd know if you'd passed third grade). The north pole is a coordinate location corresponding to a physical location on Earth. There's nothing physically extraordinary there and you can't tell it from a place kilometers away. Interestingly, 'east' is singular there. There is no direction you can point that is meaningfully 'east'. That's a nice example of a singularity that doesn't involve high density of anything. The north pole isn't "made up of, EXACTLY" anything. There's no pole in the ground unless somebody has stuck one nearby, but if there was, that symbol is not what makes it the north pole.

I JUST ASKED you, 'How is the claimed expansion (of the Universe) created?'

OK, I got the question wrong. There does not seem to be a time when there wasn't expansion, so it doesn't seem to be a process that qualifies as having been 'created'.

So, AGAIN, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is that NOTHING is ACTUALLY FORMED, right?

Depends on one's definitions. Did the north pole ACTUALLY FORM or is it just an abstraction, or both, or neither? It all depends on what one designates as actual or not. Why is this important to you? There are events from which emitted light can escape, and other events from which emitted light cannot escape. The boundary between those two sets of events is an event horizon.

To be specific, nothing can travel faster than c relative to an inertial frame. That's hardly an absolute statement.

So, what is AN ABSOLUTE STATEMENT, here?

Take away the 'relative to an inertial frame' and my statement above becomes an absolutely worded statement, and a wrong on at that since empirical evidence shows otherwise.

What is the 'its', here, word REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

you SAID and WROTE, Even sitting at a table you are, yes. But the acceleration needs to be constant for you to remain perpetually stationary in the accelerating frame which defines said event horizon. You can cannot do that, so light from beyond its event horizon will eventually reach you.
Are you 'now' ABLE TO ANSWER and CLARIFY?

'its' refers to the accelerating reference frame.

BELIEVES the WHOLE Universe, Itself, ONLY WORKS in 'the ways' that so-called 'mathematics' SAYS or AGREES WITH.

No, the other way around. The mathematics is only correct if it describes how the universe works.

What even is 'angular momentum', TO you, EXACTLY, in regards to 'black holes'?

Same thing it is anywhere else. Same as the Newtonian concept, measured in the same units. Ditto with charge and mass.

If you can NOT just EASILY explain some thing, SIMPLY, here, in regards TO what you HAVE ACTUALLY SAID, WRITTEN, and CLAIMED, here, then HOW WELL do you REALLY KNOW and UNDERSTAND 'it' "yourself"?

Years of education isn't easy and the topics not always simple. I cannot give you that. A null surface is admittedly a simple concept. and I defined it above.

'Peer reviewed textbooks' do NOT necessarily HOLD the Truth.

Science would be pointless if they did.

'What' ACTUALLY HOLDS the Truth is 'that', which IS IRREFUTABLE.

The vast majority of irrefutable things are falsehoods. I gave an example in the prior post. As I said, calling something irrefutable is a weak claim, and even then. much of what you assert is refutable.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'chatbot' gets ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE ONE of its ANSWERS FROM you human beings.

Not true. Plenty of content comes from sources other than human beings. Maybe even from you, except I don't see any answers to mine, just foaming.

SO, TO "noax" anyway, there is NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE IN the WHOLE Universe, Itself, of ABSOLUTELY ANY thing CAUSING 'compression', itself.

A single thing causes compression to itself. Earth for instance is under significant pressure deep down. This is caused by EM forces accelerating the mass (giving it weight). Tidal forces are exerted by one mass upon another nearby mass.

The 'mathematics' ALSO PREDICTED 'things', which DID NOT END UP NOT COMING TRUE, right?

No doubt. Mathematics predicted 15 cm of snow two nights ago and we only got about 8.

you USE the 'it' word A LOT despite ACTUALLY INFORMING ANY one of what 'it' IS ACTUALLY REFERENCING.

Interesting. You seem incapable of gleaning the referent from a pronoun. Maybe didn't even make 3rd grade.

LOL Are you NOT AWARE of the CONTRADICTION, here?

you appear to THINK that 'unicorns exist' IS IRREFUTABLE, while AT THE EXACT SAME NOT necessarily THINK that 'unicorns exist'.

That's right, and you lack the logic skills to see that none of that is contradictory. Can you refute an assertion that unicorns exist? I don't think you can. Therefore their existence is irrefutable. Your wording suggests that you hold a belief in their nonexistence. That also is a valid belief. There's no contradiction identified at all, so instead you result to endless blather with lots of caps and no content, and a fallacious conclusion of a contradiction where none exists.

Do you NORMALLY ACCEPT things, which have NOT YET BEEN PROVED, to be 'IRREFUTABLE'?

'Things' having been proved or not is irrelevant. What relevant is if 'things' can be refuted. You seem incapable of understanding the difference, but the unicorn example was meant to illustrate that difference.

The 'big rip' does.

SO, it was the so-called 'big rip' that CAUSED 'the beginning' AND the 'spatial expansion'.

No, it's and end to time, not a beginning.

What I CARE ABOUT, here, is your CLAIM that 'things' GET 'torn apart' and NOT 'compressed' WITHIN 'black holes'.

I noticed. It is irrefutable, if that helps.

But, there is NO 'gravity' IN 'black holes', right?

Gravity is curvature of spacetime, and the curvature is very strong within black holes. The tidal forces in/near a black hole are gravitational.

How far away from the sun is the 'tidal force', EXACTLY?

No limit. Tidal forces fall off with an inverse cube law, so it gets weak fairly quickly but never zero.

So, some probe got close enough to the sun to touch 'the tides', right?

A tide is a force, not something to touch. The probe touched the sun itself.

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FOR SURE, that there is NOT A SINGLE 'thing' in the ENTIRE Universe that does NOT so-call 'educate' me?

Off topic, and I didn't claim that.

It was 'you' who CLAIMED that it WAS POSSIBLE for the sun to compress into a 'black hole'.

Yes, and I showed how.

WHY are you, AGAIN, DEFLECTING, here?

The discussion about the sun becoming a black hole was to correct your misconception that such an occurrence would have any effect whatsoever on anything that orbits the sun, to correct your mistaken notion that gravity is in any way a function of density.

WHO, EXACTLY, IS RIGHT, here? you OR them?

Mt claim is irrefutable. Theirs is not since I gave a refutation.

[Age]

WHY do you CONSIDER that ALL the matter of earth is 'compressed' to 'zero volume', EXACTLY?

I didn't say it was. It was an illustration of something (Earth's volume) being singular relative to one coordinate system and not relative to another. Being singular is often a coordinate effect, not a physical one. Also, 'compressed' was your word. I don't consider coordinate effects to be compression, merely length contraction.

Also, and by the way if 'zero matter' is what you have been thinking or BELIEVING when I have used the 'compressed' word, here, then this would EXPLAIN WHY you have been appearing so ABSOLUTELY LOST and CONFUSED, here.

If you think I had said 'zero matter' somewhere, then quote it. Else, I'm not the one lost & confused.

What are 'those regions' made up of, exactly?

If some one wants to talk ABOUT 'regions', TO me, then I WILL ASK them TO CLARIFY things.

OK, I need clarification. What region exactly? If it was the Earth example, then the region is made up of rocks and water and mailboxes and such. If it's a null surface, well, that's just a plane that moves (relative to any valid local inertial frame) at the speed of light, and just about anything could be crossed by that plane, or just vacuum.

I have NOT so-called 'screamed' a single word ANYWHERE, here.

lmao

So, you CLAIM that an 'event horizon' FORMS BEHIND an 'accelerating object'. Did you MEAN that an 'event horizon' forms behind an 'accelerating object', or NOT?

The event horizon is a coordinate property that is part of the accelerating coordinate system in which said physical object is stationary over time. It doesn't actually 'form'. It is a property of the coordinate system, and the object becomes stationary in that coordinate system when it commences whatever acceleration is needed to keep it thus stationary.

if you can not explain some thing simply, then you do NOT understand it well enough'.

I can explain it, and have to others. I just cannot explain it to you. You lack the prerequisite skills in several areas, as illustrated by all the requests to define some of the most basic concepts. I don't in any way owe a rude troll a middle school education.

1. you did NOT SHOW ANY such thing

See? If you had (quite a bit) more education, you would realize that it had actually been shown.

Of course there's an actual place.

YET IT WAS you, "noax", who, PREVIOUSLY, SAID and CLAIMED:

An event horizon is not a physical thing at all, but rather a mathematical abstraction.

BUT, 'now', there IS, SUPPOSEDLY, an ACTUAL 'place'.

Exactly. Coordinate systems are abstractions, not anything physical. But spatial coordinates refer to physical locations (which you'd know if you'd passed third grade). The north pole is a coordinate location corresponding to a physical location on Earth. There's nothing physically extraordinary there and you can't tell it from a place kilometers away. Interestingly, 'east' is singular there. There is no direction you can point that is meaningfully 'east'. That's a nice example of a singularity that doesn't involve high density of anything. The north pole isn't "made up of, EXACTLY" anything. There's no pole in the ground unless somebody has stuck one nearby, but if there was, that symbol is not what makes it the north pole.

I JUST ASKED you, 'How is the claimed expansion (of the Universe) created?'

OK, I got the question wrong. There does not seem to be a time when there wasn't expansion, so it doesn't seem to be a process that qualifies as having been 'created'.

So, AGAIN, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is that NOTHING is ACTUALLY FORMED, right?

Depends on one's definitions. Did the north pole ACTUALLY FORM or is it just an abstraction, or both, or neither? It all depends on what one designates as actual or not. Why is this important to you? There are events from which emitted light can escape, and other events from which emitted light cannot escape. The boundary between those two sets of events is an event horizon.

To be specific, nothing can travel faster than c relative to an inertial frame. That's hardly an absolute statement.

So, what is AN ABSOLUTE STATEMENT, here?

Take away the 'relative to an inertial frame' and my statement above becomes an absolutely worded statement, and a wrong on at that since empirical evidence shows otherwise.

What is the 'its', here, word REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

you SAID and WROTE, Even sitting at a table you are, yes. But the acceleration needs to be constant for you to remain perpetually stationary in the accelerating frame which defines said event horizon. You can cannot do that, so light from beyond its event horizon will eventually reach you.
Are you 'now' ABLE TO ANSWER and CLARIFY?

'its' refers to the accelerating reference frame.

BELIEVES the WHOLE Universe, Itself, ONLY WORKS in 'the ways' that so-called 'mathematics' SAYS or AGREES WITH.

No, the other way around. The mathematics is only correct if it describes how the universe works.

What even is 'angular momentum', TO you, EXACTLY, in regards to 'black holes'?

Same thing it is anywhere else. Same as the Newtonian concept, measured in the same units. Ditto with charge and mass.

If you can NOT just EASILY explain some thing, SIMPLY, here, in regards TO what you HAVE ACTUALLY SAID, WRITTEN, and CLAIMED, here, then HOW WELL do you REALLY KNOW and UNDERSTAND 'it' "yourself"?

Years of education isn't easy and the topics not always simple. I cannot give you that. A null surface is admittedly a simple concept. and I defined it above.

'Peer reviewed textbooks' do NOT necessarily HOLD the Truth.

Science would be pointless if they did.

'What' ACTUALLY HOLDS the Truth is 'that', which IS IRREFUTABLE.

The vast majority of irrefutable things are falsehoods. I gave an example in the prior post. As I said, calling something irrefutable is a weak claim, and even then. much of what you assert is refutable.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'chatbot' gets ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE ONE of its ANSWERS FROM you human beings.

Not true. Plenty of content comes from sources other than human beings. Maybe even from you, except I don't see any answers to mine, just foaming.

SO, TO "noax" anyway, there is NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE IN the WHOLE Universe, Itself, of ABSOLUTELY ANY thing CAUSING 'compression', itself.

A single thing causes compression to itself. Earth for instance is under significant pressure deep down. This is caused by EM forces accelerating the mass (giving it weight). Tidal forces are exerted by one mass upon another nearby mass.

The 'mathematics' ALSO PREDICTED 'things', which DID NOT END UP NOT COMING TRUE, right?

No doubt. Mathematics predicted 15 cm of snow two nights ago and we only got about 8.

you USE the 'it' word A LOT despite ACTUALLY INFORMING ANY one of what 'it' IS ACTUALLY REFERENCING.

Interesting. You seem incapable of gleaning the referent from a pronoun. Maybe didn't even make 3rd grade.

LOL Are you NOT AWARE of the CONTRADICTION, here?

you appear to THINK that 'unicorns exist' IS IRREFUTABLE, while AT THE EXACT SAME NOT necessarily THINK that 'unicorns exist'.

That's right, and you lack the logic skills to see that none of that is contradictory. Can you refute an assertion that unicorns exist? I don't think you can. Therefore their existence is irrefutable. Your wording suggests that you hold a belief in their nonexistence. That also is a valid belief. There's no contradiction identified at all, so instead you result to endless blather with lots of caps and no content, and a fallacious conclusion of a contradiction where none exists.

Do you NORMALLY ACCEPT things, which have NOT YET BEEN PROVED, to be 'IRREFUTABLE'?

'Things' having been proved or not is irrelevant. What relevant is if 'things' can be refuted. You seem incapable of understanding the difference, but the unicorn example was meant to illustrate that difference.

The 'big rip' does.

SO, it was the so-called 'big rip' that CAUSED 'the beginning' AND the 'spatial expansion'.

No, it's and end to time, not a beginning.

What I CARE ABOUT, here, is your CLAIM that 'things' GET 'torn apart' and NOT 'compressed' WITHIN 'black holes'.

I noticed. It is irrefutable, if that helps.

But, there is NO 'gravity' IN 'black holes', right?

Gravity is curvature of spacetime, and the curvature is very strong within black holes. The tidal forces in/near a black hole are gravitational.

How far away from the sun is the 'tidal force', EXACTLY?

No limit. Tidal forces fall off with an inverse cube law, so it gets weak fairly quickly but never zero.

So, some probe got close enough to the sun to touch 'the tides', right?

A tide is a force, not something to touch. The probe touched the sun itself.

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FOR SURE, that there is NOT A SINGLE 'thing' in the ENTIRE Universe that does NOT so-call 'educate' me?

Off topic, and I didn't claim that.

It was 'you' who CLAIMED that it WAS POSSIBLE for the sun to compress into a 'black hole'.

Yes, and I showed how.

WHY are you, AGAIN, DEFLECTING, here?

The discussion about the sun becoming a black hole was to correct your misconception that such an occurrence would have any effect whatsoever on anything that orbits the sun, to correct your mistaken notion that gravity is in any way a function of density.

WHO, EXACTLY, IS RIGHT, here? you OR them?

Mt claim is irrefutable. Theirs is not since I gave a refutation.

Just about every response of yours, here, can be Correct, however I am not going to bother to do so because you have just proved, once again, that at the moment you do not have the ability to listen to and to see anything else other what you already believe and/or presume to be true.

But, if absolutely anyone else would like to know where and what can be Corrected, here, and, exactly, how, then just let me know.

Just about every response of "noaxs", here, was not even in regards to what I was actually saying, and meaning.

[Will Bouwman]

Gravity is curvature of spacetime...

That's one hypothesis. I haven't seen an explanation for how matter/energy curves spacetime. Do you know any hypotheses that posit a mechanism?

[Impenitent]

if space time cannot exist outside of matter- don't the forces resultant from matter (gravity) have to effect it?

light bends with gravity- but the field of spacetime through which light travels bends, not the light itself...

(that's what google said anyway- it kind of makes sense because light has no mass)

2 cents from a non astrophysicist

-Imp

[Cerveny]

Gravity is curvature of spacetime...

That's one hypothesis. I haven't seen an explanation for how matter/energy curves spacetime. Do you know any hypotheses that posit a mechanism?

If you imagine physical space as a crystal lattice and matter as a defect in such a structure, then you can easily imagine the elastic deformation of the lattice, its tension (physical field) in the vicinity of matter, in the vicinity of the damaged structure (of space)...

[Cerveny]

Gravity is curvature of spacetime...

That's one hypothesis. I haven't seen an explanation for how matter/energy curves spacetime. Do you know any hypotheses that posit a mechanism?

If you imagine physical space as a crystal lattice and matter as a defect in such a structure, then you can easily imagine the elastic deformation of the lattice, its tension (physical field) in the vicinity of matter, in the vicinity of the damaged structure (of space)...

We must accept the fact that the microworld has a quantum, discrete structure (just as it was when solving the “ultraviolet catastrophe”) and that there are only a limited number of its configurations (elementary particles)… and gravity is only a macroscopic matter

[Noax]

That's one hypothesis.

There are others, not all of which support the concept of spacetime. The alternatives deny at least one (typically both) of the premises of SR.

I haven't seen an explanation for how matter/energy curves spacetime. Do you know any hypotheses that posit a mechanism?

That would be metaphysics, and science doesn't particularly get into metaphysics. The philosophers seem to not harp on that issue so much, any more than they attempt to explain the 'how' behind something like EM interactions. So I am indeed unfamiliar with any attempt at such explanations.
Then again, perhaps a unified field theory would at least put a little more metaphysics into the physics realm.

[Age]

That's one hypothesis. I haven't seen an explanation for how matter/energy curves spacetime. Do you know any hypotheses that posit a mechanism?

If you imagine physical space as a crystal lattice and matter as a defect in such a structure, then you can easily imagine the elastic deformation of the lattice, its tension (physical field) in the vicinity of matter, in the vicinity of the damaged structure (of space)...

We must accept the fact that the microworld has a quantum, discrete structure (just as it was when solving the “ultraviolet catastrophe”) and that there are only a limited number of its configurations (elementary particles)… and gravity is only a macroscopic matter

But what causes or creates 'gravity' is at both the so-called 'elementary particle' AND 'macroscopic matter' levels.

[Cerveny]

If you imagine physical space as a crystal lattice and matter as a defect in such a structure, then you can easily imagine the elastic deformation of the lattice, its tension (physical field) in the vicinity of matter, in the vicinity of the damaged structure (of space)...

We must accept the fact that the microworld has a quantum, discrete structure (just as it was when solving the “ultraviolet catastrophe”) and that there are only a limited number of its configurations (elementary particles)… and gravity is only a macroscopic matter

But what causes or creates 'gravity' is at both the so-called 'elementary particle' AND 'macroscopic matter' levels.

Unlike discrete electric charge and spin, elementary particles do not have any immediate “gravitational” characteristic, a gravitational “number”. Gravity is only an indirect, secondary, “unintended” consequence of their “configuration”, of their way of irregularity of the aether structure. The gravitational “field” is a dilatational stress in the elastic structure, in crystal lattice of the aether (let’s say of “space”) in the vicinity of accumulated structural defects, of inadequacies (of elementary particles, of matter…).