MigL

The charge is visible to the outside world, just as mass/energy and angular momentum are. These 'quantities' are stored in the configuration and size of the Event Horizon, and are conserved in the classical model of a BH that arises from the solutions provided by GR and the EFEs. Hawking radiation is a Quantum Mechanical result of the temperature of a BH ( all bodies at a temperature emit black body radiation ), and the BH's temperature is a result of its entropy. See Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, which is a statistical thermodynamic treatment of micro-states, again encoded on the surface of the Event Horizon ( Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia ). Essentially, all a BH presents to the outside universe is made available only by the Event Horizon. I have found, that unless you are a 'Stephen Hawking.', it is best not to mix classical and quantum models

Science does not address 'spirituality'; nor do we on this Science Forum.

Sorry, my mistake. Max eccentricity is listed as 0.057 I rounded up to 0.06 , but forgot to add a zero. Maximum eccentricity and minimum vary over a period of 92000 years, and the minimum is 0.005. Your value is the current eccentricity.

Charge, along with mass/energy and angular momentum, is a classically conserved quantity in Black Hole formation. There are solutions to the EFE for a charged non-rotating Black Hole. See here Reissner–Nordström metric - Wikipedia

I tend to agree. We wouldn't get seasons as we now know them, but I wouldn't word it as strongly as you have. Earth's orbital eccentricity is 0.6; not that great, but enough to have some measurable effect

There are valid reasons why 'charged' Black Holes would not be plausable. They would tend to attract opposite charges much more strongly than gravitationally. Similarily, once you start to accumulate charge, it becomes more and more difficult to add additional charge, and gravity is certainly not strong enough to overcome the repulsion.

This may have worked for tribes and small groups, but the largest city in the world, nearly 5000 years ago, Uruk ( Uruk - Wikipedia ), in Sumer/Mesopotamia had 40000 dwellers. Many tribes had to co-habitate; a much more uncontrollable situation without societal structures imposing social mores. That is the 'so what' I am talking about. And for clarification, I fully agree with Sethoflagos, I am not religious myself, but I don't deny others the choice to live their lives according to their own beliefs. ( I omly 'bitch' about it when they try to impose those beliefs, whatever they may be, on me )

i offered as much evidence as you did. Ancient Sumerian societies did develop towns based on agriculture in the fertile crescent, but the town grew around temples. Most 'political' leaders were also religious leaders. "Sumer was divided into many independent city-states, which were divided by canals and boundary stones. Each was centered on a temple dedicated to the particular patron god or goddess of the city and ruled over by a priestly governor (ensi) or by a king (lugal) who was intimately tied to the city's religious rites." From Sumer - Wikipedia

Ok, I'm always interested in your view. Please elaborate.

I disagree. Religion imposed structures on early tribal societes.

t doesn't change the fact that some of mankind's earliest societal structures that led to civilization were based on religion. It did have some use; even if only to control our animalistic and instinctive anti-social urges.

It can also be 'carried' by holes, the absence of electrons. How fast do they 'travel' ? Changes in the field propagate at c , but the limiting factor is how fast you can move the electron. Semantics or Physics ?

Would we even have civilization without religion's influence ?

A lot of misunderstandings about the 'block' universe and what it represents. This is a good explanation ...

I suggest you get a new calendar; the year is 2022, soon to be 2023, and not 1916. There has been over 100 years of observational evidence. I suggest you look it up; I'm not here to spoon feed you. And if you wish to discuss the failings of GR, which are also well documented, start another thread.

Most people should be able to differentiate between religious beliefs and fairy tales ( as INow states ), and some of the sentiments expressed by religion, like peace and good will for all, which can be worthy of respect. Religion is a human construct and as such, it has flaws which can be exploited by the unscrupulous to their advantage and the suffering of the many. But religion does have some redeeming qualities, like the sentiment mentioned above. Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater ?

It isn't the 'ultimate theory, but it is the one best supported by observational evidence. Do I need to go through the 100 years of evidence accumulated in support of GR ? Theories don't explain why, they explain how. And IIRC, your 'theory' did neither, other than conjecture, and had no supporting observational evidence.

All these types of questions have as many answers as available frames of reference, as timings are frame dependent. Unless the question includes the observer's frame, it is an ill posed question.

The glaze is a 'glass', but sometimes develops little hairline cracks which allow the staining of the porous substrate.

Fields ( EM or gravity ) will cause movement through space, which Genady is referring to, and answers the questionGeorief was asking about. however in certain configurations, you could end up with a negative pressure situation which may cause spatial expansion, which is what Mordred is referring to.

Similar to the example posted by Mordred above, where the radii of test masses, in flat space, converge on the CoM ( tidal ), and we could call this convergence 'gravity', in curved space, as on a globe ( positive curvature where a triangle's angles add up to more than 180o ), two parallel lines of longitude, at the equator, converge to a point ( south or north pole ) and we can also ascribe this convergence to 'gravity'. This can also be done with negative curvature ( saddle shape where a triangle's angles add up to less than 180o ). In our particular case, the curvature involves space-time, which is 4D.

Me too. I've done some research looking for an experiment that demonstrates what distance is and failed to find even one attempt at proving that distance is fundamental. This is because there is no measurethat can show distance as a thing. x-posted with Swansont

Seems to me that if there can be as much as a 30% discrepancy between GR and the Newtonian limit for rotational systems like galaxies, the effect should be detectable in the case of the Solar System, where we have done fly-bys of Pluto using the Newtonian 'approximation'. Still, very interesting.

Thanks Markus.

We only ever get information about 'reality' by interacting with it. Whether by touch, sight, or our other senses, or, by the use of instruments to augment our senses. This is especially true of Quantum Mechanics, which tells us that there is no 'reality' until an interaction/observation defines or fixes a state. IOW, we can never know what 'reality' is, only how it is affected, and responds, to our prodding interactions.