The person on the outside wouldn’t be able to see the person on the inside they would only see warped space from the other side of the event horizon until they cross the threshold.

The person on the inside would see have a heavily redshifted and distorted view.

There's like 1 sentence quoting the Chinese space agency and the 90% of the article is by the author.

If you have issues with the content of the article, its really on the author.

Well, you can use the word "annoying" if you'd like, but I would call it a rather elegant reconciliation of a lot of the problems I was having.

For example, if one were to have a mastery of mechanics such that they could dip in and out of an event horizon, how could there be any continuity of what they perceived versus what they did? No need for any of that with this explanation, because it necessarily cannot happen.

correct there is no counterforce to bring anything back out of a black hole. More accurately spacetime curves to the degree that “back out” just doesn’t really exist past the event horizon. Think of spacetime curving in in itself (sorta) it’s not even about massive force or not, space is bending in such a way that escape is simply not a path through space.

Oh. If you keep my amateur theory consistent, there is no actual singularity. Any nothing would ever approach it.

To the observer, all of this happens at the same time, while they pass the event horizon. The center of the black hole would take an infinite amount of time to approach.

Black holes are really annoying, because most of their calculations result in "undefined" or "zero" and there's not much in between.

Agreed with “tackleberry2219”, it would be nice to hear about it B-4 it happened. I have a Granddaughter that already knows all of the Clouds Names that are in the sky, & she was only 5 years old at the time. Both She & I would have loved to C that amazing Planetary Lineup in the Heavens.

Whatever the other end of the string is attached to will head into the black hole

He should know his role and shut his mouth

[removed]

Get lost bozo!

(These are references to a show and are purely in jest)

[removed]

Sorry for being curious and trying to learn!

But, we aren’t known for having solar system lifespans. So, rare, indeed, for humans.

Well said, OP sounds like a jabroni

>hawking radiation would annihilate anything that just passed the event horizon immediately from its own perspective

This is perhaps the most interesting point I've read all night.

Thinking about an observer's "perception" from within a black hole circles me back to all of the same problems we have with time/FTL travel, which makes sense.

An observer from "inside" a black whole should be able to perceive all of the photons arriving at the event horizon after they did simultaneously, but "infinite blue shift" should imply that any causality information would be lost (Think of a binary pulse... Physically, a 1 would be unable to arrive before a 0 or vice versa)

Yeah man... That makes total sense, because from the perspective of the observer falling in toward the black hole, they would arrive at the singularity at the same instant that it evaporates due to hawking radiation at the end of the universe. This fits very neatly with some of the other "causality protection" conjectures.

[removed]

Okay.

Technically, yes. If you wait a finite amount of time, and use several observable universes worth of energy to pull it out, you could. Whatever object would have to survive a lot of radiation.

But yeah, sure. Kinda. But it never crossed the event horizon.

The moment it crosses, physics doesn't work, and the object isn't an "object" anymore. It goes to a place where time and space swap places and it takes an indefinite amount of time to reach there. One of my amateur theories on the matter is that objects don't cross the event horizon, the event horizon "reaches up" to engulf objects at it approaches the black hole. There's not enough time in the universe for objects to pass the event horizon.

Now, if you wait until the CMB is colder than the black hole's hawking radiation, you might be able to see the energy of your object become hawking radiation, and when you pull your string, you get just the string. Pulling the string would still require the energy of observable universes.

"Infinitely strong" anything is probably going to collapse into a black hole itself when you try to apply physics to it.

[removed]

Temperature is a measurement of vibrations in particles essentially. That is wholly dependent on time passing. Mathematically time stops in a singularity. If that is so then, in my incredibly layman-style interpretation, Temperature is physically the same as absolute 0 K. Would you like to explain what you mean? I love learning. I'm very curious. Or you can make condescending statements, or rather half-statements, without providing any explanation and then downvoting my curiosity. Your choice, I suppose, but I was eager to see an intelligent conversation on this. You have offered no conversation nor any intelligence. I would enjoy it if you did.

First of all, there is no singularity. That is a mathematical object not a physical object. It represents where our math fails. Also you don't even have a complete picture because there are in fact multiple mathematical singularities inside a spinning black hole and it is far more complex than you are probably aware of. You have a novice interpretation of it.

Secondly, for you time is not slowed from your perspective. You pass towards the center of the black hole and reach it at a normal rate.

You would definitely die before the black hole does.

Spinning black holes (which they all are)... https://youtu.be/kIbP2Sg8y18

https://youtu.be/-q7EvLhOK08

It's more 'being annoyed at the blatant overstatement and propagandistic tone' but sure, call it being triggered.

Let me recommend you a youtube channel: "But Why?" They will be able to answer this question better than I ever will, but their video essentially says that objects are not as we see them, they are billions of molecules bonded in a manner that is the object in our hand. However, fundamentally, everything is just that, molecules. So when the string would cross the event horizon, the entire string would not be sucked in, but all that has crossed the event horizon would undoubtedly be gone forever. The molecules that composed that part of the string have lose their bond to the object, and are now destined to fall into the singularity.

I do recommend the channel, though. He has a video where he asks this very question, although I don't remember which one it is.

that’s a guess based upon a model

I know Chinese astronomers work with colleagues outside of China, but I mean specifically when it comes to instruments and telescopes like this. And sure, there are specific use cases where more similar instruments are better - but the pressure on 6m-class telescopes isn't that high. It's also not observing a different part of the sky, so then you're getting into the pure time series coverage thing, which again, nice, but not particularly groundbreaking either, and certainly not deserving of this level of hyperbole.