MigL

You went on holiday in Italy ( Pisa ) ? Haven't you heard of Coronavirus ?

If your abstract doesn't post any specifics ( just claims ) then, what is there to discuss ? I shouldn't have to follow a link to your ideas, and copy/paste sections I'm rebutting. Otherwise my answer, also as an abstract, is simply "More of the usual unsupported claims, and garbage, we usually get." If you have a good idea, post the basics, show some effort at backing math, and predictions that your idea makes. Then we can discuss it. edit X-posted with Swansont.

She is a very good looking woman by anybody's standards. But I can't bring myself to see any good in her, as long as she chooses to stay with that prick/idiot husband of hers. He has no respect for women/marriage ( actually, no respect for anything ), and I'm sure she realizes this; is she staying just for his money and Presidential power ?

Fracking involves pumping water ( with some biocide ) into underground cavities containing gas/oil. And is already a dangerous process as it leads to seismic instability. And you intend to pump chemicals which will essentially dissolve gold ore ???

You should be familiar with the rules ... Post discussable ideas, not links.

Ill-posed questions are missing one or more of the following properties ... a solution exists, the solution is unique, the solution's behaviour changes continuously with the initial condition From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-posed_problem Maybe the OP can scrap this one, and try again.

You're always the best, Dim. She plagiarised … again ?

This is the accepted view. This is not. Because energy , motion, light ( frequency/wavelength ), and relativistic mass ( variant ) are all frame dependent !

Thanks John. That did occur to me shortly after I posted, and I was trying desperately to think of a way to track differing isotopes.

And Heaven is a beautiful land of milk and honey. ( no virgins though, I like my women experienced ) I t must be true; you just can't communicate the information back to the living after you die.

I would appreciate being educated as to WHY you won't. Thank you in advance.

A point I'd like to make, is that BHs grow regardless of your 'mechanism' All BHs we know of are assumed to be the result of gravitational collapse, and as such, have a minimum size ( no evidence of primordial BHs ). The 'temperature' of a BH is inversely dependent on its size; large BHs are very cold. Even in the absence of any accretion, the BH temperature is much cooler than the CMB radiation, and as a result, will be a net absorber of radiation. And grow in size. Only when the universe approaches 'heat death' will 10 stellar mass BHs actually start to shrink due to radiation losses.

Now you are being narrow in your definition. Molecules also collide among themselves, with resultant 'Brownian' motion of the impacted molecule. IOW, if you can identify a single water molecule in the liquid, with a radioactive marker, say O15, you will see it do the random walk of Brownian' motion.

Article does not mention any candidate supernova that may have been at a distance of 65 light years 350 million years ago. Would be nice to identify the neutron star or Black Hole remains that led to the extinction. And send them the bill for the damage caused.

I would call random motions of the whole molecule, 'Brownian'; not vibrational. Darn definitions !

Seems John and Strange are considering intramolecular vibrations, otherwise known as stretching, bending and twisting. Studiot's intermolecular vibration is considering only harmonic motion of the CoM of the molecule; and that does require a restoring force. A narrow definition, to be sure, but he did qualify it.

Problem with 'remnants' ... Planck-sized remnant[ "To contain the information from any evaporated black hole, the remnants would need to have an infinite number of internal states. It has been argued that it would be possible to produce an infinite amount of pairs of these remnants since they are small and indistinguishable from the perspective of the low-energy effective theory." Large macroscopic remnant "Hawking radiation must stop before the black hole reaches the Planck size, which requires a violation of semi-classical gravity at a macroscopic scale." from the link I previously provided. Both "remnant' solutions necessarily involve Hawking radiation/evaporation. I thought your proposal assumes BH growth only. How would a BH shrink to a 'remnant' by getting larger ?

My understanding is that the unitary condition is what determines information loss. If we assume that a Black Hole devolves many physical states into a single state, then the 'classic' BH, by definition, doesn't just capture information, but destroys it. I believe it was J Bekenstein ( along with S Hawking ? ) who proposed that the information is encoded in domains on the Event Horizon surface, which led to entropy of BHs, and the Bekenstein bound. This proposal then implies that states are preserved in a BH ( but still destroyed once Hawking radiation leads to evaporation ). The implication is then, that if you're of the opinion that BH entropy , and therefore Hawking radiation/evaporation does not exist, then BHs violate unitarity, and destroy information. If you assume BH entropy, and resultant Hawking radiation/evaporation are a real effect, then BHs don't violate unitarity and destroy information until they start evaporating. Either way, your proposal has some explaining to do.

Don't be so US-centric, Ten oz. Other countries have liberals and conservatives. Only in the US are liberals/conservatives generally equivalent to Democrats/Republicans. My apologies if the OP's intent was to consider only American 'left' and 'right'.

My apologies. You are, of course, correct. There was some confusion on my part, with some of the solutions to resolve the information paradox. R Penrose's proposed conformal cyclic cosmology makes the assumption that unitarity is lost when gravitational effects are involved and information is lost in Black Holes. IIRC, there was to be some tests conducted by WMAP, and while positive results were announced, there has been some push=back as to the validity of those results. Another is Einstein-Cartan gravity theory which adds intrinsic angular momentum ( and torsion) to GR, and separates information from our universe once inside the event horizon through an Einstein-Rosen bridge ( wormhole ? ). It avoids singularities due to spin coupling between the torsion and Dirac spinors, and consequently also allows fermions to be 'spatially extended' ( minimum size ) instead of point particles. There are various problems with the theory, not the least of which is the fact that is much more complex than GR.

Not by accretion, but if you localize enough mass/energy ( by primordial BHs, dark matter, direct collapse of gas clouds, or any other mechanism ) you can create as big a BH as you want. So the problem is not BH 'growth', but having enough initial mass/energy to collapse into a supermassive BH. And that IS related to galaxy formation. I don't think you understand the information paradox... "The black hole information paradox[1] is a puzzle resulting from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Calculations suggest that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a core precept of modern physics—that in principle the value of a wave function of a physical system at one point in time should determine its value at any other time.[2][3] A fundamental postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function up to when the wave function collapses. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox Information is lost once behind an event horizon, even if there is no evaporation or Hawking radiation. IOW, your 'conjecture is in the same boat, and needs quantum gravity to stay afloat. Several people already have. You simply dismiss them with "That doesn't apply to my idea." Take some time; go back and re-read. And you haven't exactly said 'WHAT' your proposal is. Possibly to avoid 'pigeon-holing' yourself, so as to avoid the expected counter-arguments.

That is evident, Phi. Social conservatives often don't see the value in an education for the sake of knowledge, they see it only as a path to higher income/security. Even so, comparisons can be tricky, unless strictly controlled. I have often said Canadian, or ( some ) European conservatives are more liberal than American Democrats.

GR certainly does predict the mass of supermassive BHs. There is no upper limit on BH size/mass. We don't yet understand the localization of large amounts of mass/energy in the early universe to account for them. But again, that is a problem with galaxy formation; you have it backwards. Pray tell. How does your model cope with the information paradox ? How does it preserve information once behind the event horizon ? Why can you easily 'see' problems with BHs as defined by GR, or as defined by Ghideon in his demonstrative thought experiment, but you are totally oblivious to the problems in your conjecture ? Take off the blinders !!

If you're going to generalize about certain groups, you had better ( at least ) specifically define those groups. Left/right or liberal/conservative can be vastly different from Democrat/Republican. While Democrats/Republicans favor well-defined policy issues, left/right, or liberal/conservative, are relative terms.

HaHa! GR doesn't prohibit singularities either. So by your argument, THERE ARE singularities ( or at least a valid theory of singularities ) within the EH ?