[removed]

Yes it is. I have checked this over multiple times and even consulted multiple physicists.

But let me clarify. They move towards each other at greater than the speed of light from a third party's reference frame. From the objects own reference frame nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

What I mean to say is that from your reference for frame you are moving the speed of light you will not observe anything outside of your reference frame and time will not move at all as far as you can tell

Which is why I specifically said that from their own reference frames the two objects will never observe each other because there will never be a time where they will observe each other meeting because time dilation does not allow them to do so.

(This isn't the best way to say this but I am driving. If this isn't clear enough let me know and I will better explane)

However from a third party's reference point they will be moving towards each other at faster than the speed of light or if they're going half the speed of light then they will be going towards each other at the speed of light.

So you’re quite correct on almost everything, except for the bit about being annihilated by Hawking radiation. This is the firewall problem. The event horizon cannot be defined objectively in general relativity; rather the event horizon is defined relative to an observer at a specified location. That’s because if the event horizon was a defined location, it would dictate a universal reference frame, which violates relativity.

So the event horizon cannot be accompanied by a firewall of deadly Hawking radiation. The currently accepted solution is that Hawking radiation is emitted from quantum fluctuations which are not only uncertain in energy but are also uncertain in location. And those fluctuations are redshifted or blueshifted relative to the observer, and so relativity is preserved.

> If two objects are moving near the speed of light and they happen to be moving in opposite directions then they are moving towards each other at faster than the speed of light.

That's not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

This is what actually falling into a simple Schwarzschild black hole would look like. The physicist behind this, Andrew Hamilton, also has some for more realistic types of black holes but they are harder to understand. Notice that locally nothing special happens when crossing the "true" event horizon, and there is still an outside view of the universe. The only way you get a tunnel effect upward with darkness in every other direction is if you use a great deal of energy just outside the true event horizon to accelerate against the gravity of the black hole.

The ending of this video is hitting the singularity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLPePyDhKIw

That's not true, you never locally exceed the speed of light pre-singularity in a black hole. You also don't notice anything special when crossing the event horizon, there is always an apparent event horizon ahead of you even when you have crossed the "true" event horizon already.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It depends on the size of the black hole. For a supermassive black hole like Sagittarius A*, the average density is less than liquid water, and the tidal forces at the event horizon are negligible.

Yes, that’s the best solution we have. The information is encoded in quantum fluctuations in the shape of the event horizon, and Hawkins radiation is both caused by those fluctuations and carries that information away with it.

[removed]

[removed]

You'd be spaghettified and die long before the evaporation of the black hole or hitting the singularity or the end of the universe.

[removed]

That's what it looks like to a distant external observer. Except even then the person gets redshifted to invisibility pretty quickly. If you're inside time still passes "normally" locally.

I suspect that's where this question came from

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/zyyzgv/how_do_i_contact_the_united_nations/

That would be what is referred to as "soft hair," yes?

[removed]

Hawking had an idea about infalling objects being smeared on the event horizon. https://qz.com/487418/stephen-hawking-explains-how-to-escape-a-black-hole

Hello u/JediMastoras, your submission "In which space simulator can I see science fiction stuff?" has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

ufo [Unidentifiable flying objects] doesn't automatically mean aliens.

[removed]

Dyson Sphere program is exactly what it entails. You get to design and build a mega structure. I made a dyson sphere that was a giant flower engulfing the sun. One of the most beautiful times ive had in a space game. But its also a factory game, so expect hundreds of hours of your life to be forfeit. But as you stand on the cold dead world you have exhausted of resources of and the crazy shit you just put in the sky, its very worth.

Also space engineers is a pretty good sandbox for space structures and i think they got a space elevator, no megaprojects though.

There is no connection whatsoever between the two parts of that sentence. There are reasonable arguments against nuclear power, but “it just boils water” isn’t one of them.