MJ kihara

At every phase in history there seems to be a well defined coherent way of thinking for the majority of people at that particular phase of history only later to be realised that there were hidden layers of ideas within those coherence. I tried to overthink about that phrase when I came across it to understand it, it lead me to alot of things... sometimes even ambiguous phrases can lead to deeper meaning when you try to search for clarity out of those phrases...to me 'even light' seemed to emphasize the indestructible nature of Blackhole to say the least,this gave me the urge to over think about it to go beyond the established facts.

What is thinking straight? It depend on the range of thinking,the narrower the range it is,the straighter it appears,that is what I think. I totally agree with this.... yeah atleast nothing gets out.

Talking past each other...we are not in speculation section I could have asked you further questions and provided my arguments to clarify...of which so far am not near...am not intending to hijack the thread... personally am not a fun of pets but I will learn to...so that I learn how to dress them to be presentable. What is the difference between escaping and emission..in your context?

When the science behind the reasons is not clear esp in a form that can also be clearly understood by a layman it creates a room for ambiguous terms and phrases to be used. If you have the science behind it you would really know why it doesn't escape...which on itself will really lead you to something wonderful,that is,what escape from the Blackhole..... simplicity and consistency in scientific explanations leads to reduction in ambiguities....sometime when you try to bring clarity you end up with a pet theory.

Massive graviton decays to massless spin 2 spacetime particles which are 'virtual', that form gravitational waves as they move at the speed of light causing disturbances in spacetime fabric and forming it. You don't get graviton in gravitation waves nor do you get it in tides...tides are good example to study effect of gravitation. Want to detect graviton go to super massive bodies e.g blackholes,neutrons stars or produce microblackoles. I think there is confusion between gravitons and spacetime particles that majority here will say don't exist.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230711133118.htm&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwivipmb6aiAAxW7U6QEHWy0D2QQFnoECAAQAg&usg=AOvVaw1xn9rH4C5E90mojFshqDLz The idea of 'tired light' I happen to get along with it and i think it's deeper than it appears/sounds since it requires re-evaluation of photon properties and the concept of electromagnetism.... However the issue of replacing cosmological constant with a constant accounting for evolution of coupling constants does not appear to be clearer to me.

Where did +2 come from....did you just fixed it to suit your arguments?

Clarification pliz line 3 to line 4 where is denominator c^2 going?

Where there is smoke...their is fire ....keep following the smoke...when did you start developing this concept?

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjwm8Tzyuv_AhWWVqQEHSG2DWIQFnoECAQQAg&usg=AOvVaw1ys9e3P9SVsLKg64lOVYAR In the words of Dirac:[55] The light-quantum has the peculiarity that it apparently ceases to exist when it is in one of its stationary states, namely, the zero state, in which its momentum and therefore also its energy, are zero. When a light-quantum is absorbed it can be considered to jump into this zero state, and when one is emitted it can be considered to jump from the zero state to one in which it is physically in evidence, so that it appears to have been created. Since there is no limit to the number of light-quanta that may be created in this way, we must suppose that there are an infinite number of light quanta in the zero state... ......an infinite number of light quanta in zero state.

I When calculating the number of photons...is zero point energy and dark energy taken into consideration?

Does the number of photon varies as the universe expand?

Is there anything like a purely symmetric sphere in the universe? given π=3.14.....to infinitiy...and given that it's used in derivation of 10^-43, at such a point, we can say that gravitational waves were present.... maybe they were infinitely strong such that their wave length were infinitely small..that is, what led to expansion rate varying in other local place during inflation...we can say that anisotropy in this case begins with π not terminating,as long as, it's presently known...hope my thinking on this is not mistaken.

What are the least possible requirements of such conditions?

Comparing speed with time directly and linking that to gravity can lead to misconceptions about gravity...speed should be viewed as a ratio of length and time....then look at how gravity affects length..and..then look at how gravity affects time( in this case 'and' is very important.) After that use the ratio to conclude about speed or if you like velocity. though I also think there should be much more fundamental explanations about time..to make it's arguments on issues like time dilation more logical.

Sand flow quickly because near source of gravity length is dilated..if the sand is free falling towards gravity at a constant time...what you will be perceiving is increase of speed. Remember definition of speed=distance (length)÷time...increase distance while keeping time constant speed increases In this case gravity is affecting length (distance).

When having one fundamental field that undergoes changes and deformations at close range to exhibit properties of other fields...the divergences diminishes once those changes and deformations that leads to other fields infinitely reduces at a distance.

Diagram seem more logical to me...given my math background,of which I expect with more training on math both will become logical... anyway...am still not getting how.. Assuming...gravity renormalise through formation of graviton,at the event horizon and at the edges of the universe....those are my assumptions.. I still don't get how adding other particles fields to gravitation fields causes divergence? Are they not suppose to couple?

A diagram illustrating divergence-vector field or a curl and mathematical equations explanation for divergence and curls which one is one is more logical?

Some clarification on this pliz...what's the issue with adding other particles fields?

We can't brush off gravitational renormalization especially the fact that BH are real objects not just hypothetical...it's critical to address it,if not,have reasons to state otherwise.

Silly... really is that the best u get out of that diagram...I think you are anti science...you fear exploration. Those are your words and conclusions... NOT MINE...am still around in the forum if not banned...you will get to know why am saying they are ultralight....and PLIZ DON'T JUMP INTO CONCLUSIONS...I know lorentz factor...square of a negative has to be taken into consideration. Learn to listen to other people's ideas and opinion....where your not getting you ask for clarification so that you can conclude...it's time you accept and appreciate there are great ideas going around in this forum...it's not just a mere forum.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230614220651.htm University of Toronto. "Astronomers discover new link between dark matter and clumpiness of the universe." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 June 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230614220651.htm>. Can someone over there inform those great researcher that their theoretical breakthrough has been under the discussion in this forum under my posts for quiet sometime though as part of a basic theory of the universe. The axions here am referring them to dark photons...which is well illustrated in one of the diagram....zoom to be clear to see the photon zoo after dark matter... Wonderful current most updated research on cosmology...just published on cosmological journal the other day.... Dark photons being part of photon zoo they are ultralight....which can go FTL....I don't want to duel on that here to dilute this thread.

We need deeper explanations concerning constancy of c,so that transition from Galilean relativity to SR becomes more appealing to the commonsense....otherwise,to the majority... without physics degrees, it will ever appear to be a conspiracy...I tend to think nature had enough reason to make common sense to be Galilean as our first step of developing intiution.