[oneshtein]

Two event horizons, because gravitation cancels out in the center of a black hole.

ps. Energy is sucked up from the center by second event horizon, but matter is pushed inside, forming a dense and cool crystal, a solid foundation for second order effects to play.

[uoaei]

That assumes there is gravity, or even universe, "inside" the black hole. We don't have any evidence of that.

[mr_mitm]

Black holes are a prediction of general relativity. The same theory predicts that all properties of spacetime exist up until the singularity. You cannot simultaneously believe in black holes and some sort of discontinuation of spacetime before the singularity.

[uoaei]

That is a theory that makes predictions, not evidence. As you may note in my comments above, I am speaking exclusively to evidence.

[mr_mitm]

It doesn't make sense to talk about black holes outside the context of GR. What do you even mean by black hole if you can't describe it in the language of GR?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What do you even mean by black hole if you can't describe it in the language of GR?

You’re right. But playing devil’s advocate, there are QM objects that look like black holes [1] as well as observations of a supermassive object at Sagittarius A*.

[1] https://arxiv.org/html/2307.06164v2

[uoaei]

The parts of GR we trust in order to interpret the data from our instruments is trusted precisely because there is evidence to back up those parts of the theory. We have no idea if that theory holds on the other side of a boundary across which no causation can occur.

[mr_mitm]

The data we have about black holes is nothing more than evidence of objects with a size and density which are only consistent with black holes according to GR. Without assuming GR is true, you have only evidence of unusually dense objects, nothing more.

[oneshtein]

Occam's razor says that you must present a proof that they are not existing in a black hole.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Occam's razor says that you must present a proof that they are not existing in a black hole

Occam’s razor absolutely doesn’t predict that the weird thing that breaks physics occurs twice and then precipitates a crystal.

[oneshtein]

Physics is fine, it just model, which breaks.

However, we can see that stars are eaten by black holes, and then can be partially released back years later, so it's proven that 1) «an event horizon» exists, 2) matter can pass the «event horizon» in both directions, 3) light cannot pass the «event horizon» in one direction.

I do not introduce a new physics, like a «singularity», without any evidence. Occam's razor is in my hands now.

[zardo]

> 2) matter can pass the «event horizon» in both directions

Where was this proven?

[mitthrowaway2]

The comment you're responding to didn't assert that it is proven, but regardless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Emission_pro...

[oneshtein]

See there: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/10/black-hole-bu...