Genady

I don't know if there are data to support this statement, but I'm ready to believe it. I am ready to believe it, because this phrase is repeated so often, that if they remember anything about black holes, then they remember it.

But that was exactly what I meant in the OP when I wrote, "as if light is expected to escape from everything" (bold emphasis added). Anyway, I think this phrase is just a popular cliché. I've conducted a little experiment five minutes ago. I've asked ChatGPT for a short description of black hole. Of course, its answer represents common patterns in these descriptions. And the first sentence is,

Aha! To somebody, it does:

Newtonian BH does not have singularity. But if they think that light is unaffected by gravity, then how does the black hole's effect on light emphasize its gravity?

This clock could be made of the LEDs from the OP's other post and thus cool the Earth atmosphere while disseminating time.

Perhaps so, I don't know. In my mind, a much more powerful emphasis of how strong the gravity of BH is, would be a phrase, e.g., "nothing, even a spacecraft with an infinitely powerful engine, can't escape it." As I said here, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132131-why-even-light/?do=findComment&comment=1246405, "A powered spacecraft, a ladder, a tower, a rope hanging from an orbiting spacecraft, etc."

What is unclear to me is a role of the word "even" in it.

Yes, this is right. A powered spacecraft, a ladder, a tower, a rope hanging from an orbiting spacecraft, etc.

If this is the case, then the comparison to light is simply wrong, because one does not need a high velocity to escape a Newtonian BH. One could just crawl out of it.

Why? How about "nothing gets out ..."?

I can't decipher this paragraph. Looks like a bad translation.

It is clear. It can be clearly understood by a layman. Therefore, there is no such a room. I do. I know why it doesn't escape. It is simple and consistent. There are no ambiguities. This is what has happened in your case, I assume.

Very smooth! +1

Bravo. +1. Yes, it does

The part two of that quote is:

This quote only needs a small 100-year update:

After a couple of comments regarding "no equations" phrase in the title I've realized that it would be better to clarify, like:

Indeed. +1

Right. +1

"No equations" is a vague statement, I realize. Let's say, equations are not needed, but allowed. Don't take this part too seriously. We are asked to find the area of the square in m2. Please provide your answers using the "Spoiler" feature for others not to be affected.

Yes, all correct. The last three are equal squares. This square's area is the question. Right. +1. The steps are not needed, but would be interesting to see, as they might be different.

No, it is not

OTOH, a scientist in SFn:

Well, you equate an unknown to something known - this is an equation indeed, but you don't need to solve this equation to find the unknown. Anyway, this is rather semantics, and the fact is that your answer is correct. +1 I'd like to ask you to hide your solution using the Spoiler feature, so that others could try as well.