Genady

Is it correct to say, that for an outside observer the electrons (as anything else) will never disappear behind the BH horizon, and their charges will never disappear behind it, too?

However, it happens all the time. A car moves as seen by a person standing outside, and it does not move as seen by its passenger. No contradiction.

A car moves and doesn't move. Is it a contradiction?

In other words, yes, time could exist without gravity and without space, if I understand your statement correctly.

I don't have any idea what is/was their believe.

Do you mean seasons as in spring-summer-fall-winter?

Haven't I been taught what?

"Taught"? I said, "told."

One can be told fairy tales. One cannot be told a human institution.

Yes, it is. Perhaps I should've said, "religion as a human institution vs religion as a bunch of fairy tales." PS. Sorry, I like to read but I avoid listening because of APD.

As @Markus Hanke has pointed, the gravity (as we know it) would not exist without time. Would time (as we know it) exist without gravity? Without space?

The link is "physical" as it can be measured. And it "stretches" across space. The paradoxes arise from seeing something else, I guess.

Yes, I also think that distinction between religion and theism is only technical. What is distinct for the purposes of this discussion, I think, is a human institution vs fairy tales.

There is a shorter way to reply to only a part of a post. Select the part, a floating text appears offering to quote the selection (see below), click on it, the rest is the same minus a need to remove anything.

just a very tiny insignificant correction: 2nd.

is it not?

We don't have a choice. We can think about past and anticipate future, but we do this - as well as everything else - in the present, i.e., in the moment.

Since Sir Isaac Newton invented gravity, "Newtonian gravity" is a well-defined notion, i.e., gravity as per Newton. Thus, we are free to talk and to mean whatever we want discussing Galilean, Aristotelian, Keplerian, Pythagorean, Copernician, etc. gravities. What is attributed to Galileo is a notion that a constant velocity does not modify bodies' behavior. This means that in a system S' that moves with velocity v relative to a system S along x-axis, x'=x-vt t'=t Any model of anything which assumes this coordinate transformation, is Galilean. Newtonian is such. GR is not.

Not necessarily. E.g., (-1) + (-1) = (-2)

It does indeed.

I am interested. I think this article is directly related although I didn't read it: Free_fall_in_the_Schwarzschild_field.pdf

What is your belief about the sub quantum/sub electric nature of the universe? Why is the standard model doesn't even describe where positivity and negativity come from? The universe is infinitely unique. No, I've asked first: Why is it unlikely?

We could say that his second law was F=mv, and his first law was the tendency of things to go back to their natural place. And these two laws were mutually inconsistent. So much to Aristotelian logic.

Is "Aristotelian gravity" a thing?

I don't see why not. Why?