MigL

No, not yet. Wachu talkin' bout, Willis. I don't have a clue what that means. You just go on living that drudgery you call life, never venturing out of your mental sandbox. Leave the 'big picture' stuff to those with a sense of wonder and a need to know, who have done the heavy lifting to gain knowledge and expand their horizons.

Your notion of acceleration is not totally valid even for classical systems. Your 'push'/'pull' analogy only works for contact forces; it does not work in the case of gravity, or electromagnetic forces, where the whole body interacts with the force, not just the contact surface. Quantum mechanically things are no different. Contact forces, such as the LHC, are treated the same because the EM part of the interaction is small/weak compared to the collision part. One slight difference is that, classically, most people use Newtonian mechanics, but any 'advanced' treatments, including Quantum mechanical and Relativistic, use Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics ( energy of the system ), as Swansont alluded to previously..

I believe Dim is referring to proper time, tau, ( not co-ordinate time ) which ticks by at exactly one second per second, in everyone's own frame. If so, he is correct.

My mistake. I realized both observer and the light source ahead of him are falling towards the future, but forgot to take into account the light source is ahead of the observer temporally, not spatially. I guess a barefooted observer, falling into a small enough BH, would notice his toenails need trimming, as they may be months ahead of him, in the future.

You're going to have to elaborate, Gemady. I don't see how an observer would be able to see anything ahead of himself upon passing through the Event Horizon, as there are no geodesics for light to follow in the outwards direction. The only available geodesics are forward in time to the center.

I had considered only an outside observer. An infalling observer will see things differently I suppose. But if you fell through the EH of a huge BH, along with a much smaller BH, would you be able to see it ? It it was ahead of you, I don't think you would, and I have my doubts even if the small BH was alongside you. You may be able to see it if it followed you through. And even if we don't consider different observers, how long can the two EHs remain distinct? They are essentially mathematical constructs denoting a region of extremely curved space-time

the word 'paese' can have two meanings. It can mean town, or it can mean country. I imagine this stems from the city-states that were scattered across the Italian peninsula, long before it became the country of Italy.

It was for exactly this reason (food defrosts in a microwave ) that I assumed it was bond stretching and bending, rather than translational and rotational. Thanks for looking into it. No wonder French people drink so much wine; they need the alcohol to cut the fatty foods 😄 .

I don't really understand the proof, but I find some of the approaches interesting.

Not 100% sure, but I would think as soon as the Event Horizons of the two BHs come into contact, they would merge and immediately assume a larger spherical configuration. As to the interior configuration/composition, I don't think we can say much. I'm basing this on Oppenheimer/Wheeler theory, however; I'm sure some computational modelling has been done for merging BHs in relation to gravitational waves.

Here is a ( long ) video illustrating some of the approaches to understand the Collatz Conjecture

Not replying specifically to you; just some general observations. right. And no, nothing stops at the EH; using different co-ordinate systems for a Schwarzschild BH will yield a non-singular EH.

I'm no Chemist, but I do believe you are right.

The geometry of space-time 'starts' at the Big Bang; geodesics extend forward in time, but not backwards. Somewhat like lines of latitude and longitude at the North Pole; they only extend in one direction ( to use Markus' analogy ). A Black Hole is different. The Event Horizon of a Schwarzschild BH ( non-rotating and non-charged ) appears differently to different observers. While an infalling observer may note nothing peculiar falling through the EH ( no time slow-down or tidal forces for large BHs ), a distant observer will note all information transmission from the infalling object slowing on approaching the EH, and finally stopping at the EH. To the outside observer it would appear as if time had stopped at the EH, along with geodesics leading into the EH. The EH is known as a co-ordinate singularity, and this apparent freezing of time does not happen in the proper time of the infalling observer.

Cooking involves applying heat to foodstuffs. Most always externally, as with fire, electrical heating elements, or even infrared radiation. A microwave oven works by pumping microwave radiation ( which is NOT hot ) into the foodstuffs. This microwave radiation is at the right wavelength/frequency to stretch/bend the intramolecular bonds of water ( and few other materials ), thereby heating the water, which then cooks/boils the foodstuffs. IOW, no internal water content ... no cooking. Haven't you ever wondered why the glass tray inside your microwave doesn't heat up ? That would seem very much like 'internal' cooking to me. Hard to dispel a 'myth' that happens to be true.

Does time exist ? It exists in the same way length, width and height exist. We measure length with rulers, which are a length. Similarly, we measure the passing of time with an ideal clock, which is the passing of time. But no one seems to ask "What is length ?" Yet all four concepts, time, length, width and height are indispensable as tools to describe our world. Or is it a problem with the meaning of 'exist' ? One could argue that the chair you're sitting on does not exist. After all, one of the most successful theories of modern Science suggest that chair is made up of nothing but fields, which are themselves, nothing butquantities assigned to each point in space. Butwhether the chair 'exists' or not ( according to Quantum Field Theory ), there is no denying that the theory does provide useful information and valid predictions about that chair and how it behaves. So, does 'exist' refer to what something is, or does it refer to how it behaves ?

It is not hate at all. It is ridicule.

There is no 'ground zero' for the Big Bang. It happened everywhere because it is an expansion of everything, not an explosion that blasted stuff out into a void. I guess we were both right. Wikipedia links are above your level of understanding, and your understanding does seem to be at a grade 3 level.

Looking at far-away galaxies that were in the early universe at about 10 Billion years ago, we note similar galactic rotation curves, indicating that, except for a few anomalies, Dark Matter was similarly distributed and concentrated in the early universe. Since then, the expansion of the universe has undergone a continual acceleration, indicating that the Dark Energy forcing this expansion has undergone a change, IOW Dark Energy has changed in the 10 Billion year interval; Dark Matter has not. Makes it hard to imagine they could be co-dependent or related. NASA called. They said you should stop mis-interpreting their link.

Didn't we have a poster a few years back, who was very hard-headed in his views of modern Cosmology, and who also claimed to be an early investor in Apple ? IIRC, he got banned.

That's why I assumed it was at a level you could understand.

A static universe is NOT stable. Einstein originally included a Cosmological Constant term to his equations, which he later removed. "Einstein originally introduced the constant in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effect of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion that was the accepted view at the time. Einstein's cosmological constant was abandoned after Edwin Hubble's confirmation that the universe was expanding.[3] From the 1930s until the late 1990s, most physicists agreed with Einstein's choice of setting the cosmological constant to zero.[4] That changed with the discovery in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, implying that the cosmological constant may have a positive value" From Cosmological constant - Wikipedia The CC turns out to be a valid concept, and may, in fact, be Dark Energy.

Didn't know we had amateur 'chefs' here. Do we need a Recipe forum ?

In the second Friedman equation for the scale factor of universal expansion, the indication is that energy density and pressure ( as in the equation of state of an ideal fluid/gas ) are the governing factors. Positive energy density and positive pressure decelerate expansion. Alternatively, large negative pressure ( due Dark Energy acting like a fluid with a negative parameter in its equation of state ) will cause expansion to accelerate. The above is available here Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia Nowhere in the Friedman equations, nor in Einstein's equations for GR, is mass a determinant for expansion, or gravity, as you state ( see bolded, by me, in the quote )

I really don't understand your definition of 'inanimate' or 'animate'.