Larni, well..there are two ways not to believe in God. Some people and that would include most of those posting here would say that they don't believe in God because there is no evidence for such. Others, myself included, would just find the concept perfectly contradictory and absurd and they would find that the term itself has never been defined really making any alleged evidence for such an ill-defined entity irrelevant. To me the ideas of Big Bang and Black Holes are very much like God in this respect. If my scepticism seems a fallacy to you, I am happy to stay fallacious leaving to you all the good logic to enjoy.
Well, Crankdriver, you are not helping me to overcome my ignorance. You are not enlightening me. Do you want to say that the only requirements for a black hole is to be a light trapping region surrounded by an event horizon and that in your version of what the entity should be it may not have a singularity at its center? No infinities, no zero anything, everything is countable beyond the horizon is what you are saying? Also the event horizon is a contradictory concept. The traffic is supposed to be one way only and that requirement is satisfied for light and whatever the hole is gobbling up, yet as you must know gravity is a relation of at least two bodies. Inverse square law is talking about mutual relation between two masses as a function of distance between them. Now a black hole in this scenario is one mass and the galaxy going around is another. The event horizon lies between them. Gravity seems to be crossing the horizon in either direction. How do you explain that? If light is trapped on itself inside the hole why the gravity is not? When they define event horizon, they talk also about information going in one direction only. Does your theory hold that gravity of a black hole does not represent any information passed to the galaxy spinning around it?
Do you want to say that the only requirements for a black hole is to be a light trapping region surrounded by an event horizon and that in your version of what the entity should be it may not have a singularity at its center?
I don't want to say that - that is simply the way it is. And we don't even need the event horizon, as we could never have the globally required god's-eye view to determine if it exists. An apparent horizon is good enough.
yet as you must know gravity is a relation of at least two bodies.
I certainly must not know, as it is blatently untrue. Depending on context, gravity is the reaction of the metric to itself and the stress-enegy distribution (essentially the mathematics of General Relativity); or it is the reaction of a test body to the metric (essentially the physics of General Relativity.)
Inverse square law is talking about mutual relation between two masses as a function of distance between them.
Yes, if we are talking about Newtonian gravity and mechanics. But as we are discussing black holes, we are actually talking about General Relativity and have left such basic concepts long behind.
Gravity seems to be crossing the horizon in either direction.
Gravity does not "cross" anything. The space-time metric has a particular form around the black hole, and external bodies will move according to that form. There is no gravity "force" at this level of discussion, and gravity cannot be "trapped" inside the horizon - although one could look at propagating fluctuations in the metric (gravitational waves) and these are indeed trapped.
Actually, an almost identical situation occurs with the electromagnetic field, where propagating fluctuations are trapped (i.e. light cannot escape), but static field configurations can straddle the horizon as we see with electrically and magnetically charged (Reissner-Nordstrom) black holes.
When they define event horizon, they talk also about information going in one direction only. Does your theory hold that gravity of a black does not represent any information passed to the galaxy spinning around it?
Information does become trapped until the point where the black hole evaporates away. But we are now moving through semi-classical relativity into quantum gravity, and this certainly does not belong in a discussion that is still clinging to Newtonian concepts and terminology.
I was just marvelling at the thought that, relative to me, the Plank length is about as small as the universe is big.
Well, the comparison is off by 10 orders of magnitude.
And the "coincidence" is an artifact of our choice of measurement units. For example if our measurement unit was 10 plank units, then the length of a plank unit would be 0.1, while the universe would measure 10^60. We could pick a unit that would make your "marvelous" observation seem downright miraculous. I believe CS has already calculated the correct size for your height to make that work out.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison