Physics "break down" inside and we can't see them so isn't it safer to just assume black holes simply don't exist?

It exists because it transforms information that it interracts with.

> tfw the existence of black holes is empirically substantiated.
To be clear, the "existence" of the singularity and all that implies is not empirically substantiated. When something gets really big and dense, our models suggest that their volume will collapse and will never stop collapsing. We don't know of a mechanism that would ever stop them from collapsing, hence the singularity. As far as I am aware, it is technically possible that the singularity doesn't really exist in the way that we like to talk about it and that there is some unknown phenomenon that prevents black holes from getting too small, but just small enough to look like black holes to us.
Pretty sure the same cannot be said for the event horizon. Our observations confirm without possible doubt the reality of event horizons.

Maybe we should correctly explain bicycles first, and then move on to more complicated issues.

don't be silly, we're unable to explain bicycles, you're literally proposing to correctly explain something that doesn't exist

If I'm falling into a black hole, after I fall past the event horizon, would I be falling faster than the speed of light?

No. Passing the event horizon is not like some threshold for things falling in, With a very large black hole, you'd not notice anything. You can't get out, though.

I don't think he is exaggerating. Einstein's equation, in fact Maths, don't work inside a black hole, so the expression is well used: it breaks down. Besides, they are trying to enhance Einstein's theory in order to solve the singularity, which is called like that because no Maths are applicable there.

Why not? Wouldn't I be traveling near the speed of light? If I wasn't, why couldn't I get out them?

Do the math for how long it would take an outside observer to see the charge enter

I hope I see a naked girl some day...

Gravity is a thing that exists.

I hope to see a resonance cascade some day

>Physics "break down" inside and we can't see them so isn't it safer to just assume black holes simply don't exist?
Except we can "see" them indirectly and while physics appears unphysical within the event horizon that's fine since everything we can measure isn't past the veent horizon so it doesn't matter

Nothing escapes from the event horizon, not even light.

Beyond the horizon space is curved so much that moving in any direction just moves you closer to the singularity, kinda like you can only travel forward through time.

So the escape velocity thing doens't have anything to do with it?
In pratice what would happen if I was in a rocket and accelerated in the opposite direction of the black hole? Would I fall towards it faster?

Yes, any acceleration would only increase your rate of "decent". All directions are now down.

no, but close to if not at it, we dont know.

>orbiting black hole at highest almost exactly light speed, so that you are feet from the event horizon and essentially moving at the speed of orbiting light (which i assume would be stable only at the horizon exactly)
>at periapse, stick your head into event horizon while still keeping your body (and center of mass) outside
>your orbit carries your head out as you pass periapse and move back safely to your spaceship which is in a further orbit
Would this work?
The thing is, if light can't move back toward your eyes, you would probably just see all black - even light which falls in and reflects off of your hand or suit would just fall back down again instead of being picked up by your eyes, it seems. Doesn't seem like you'd get any EM Radiation info whatsoever, so it might be worthless.

if i came inside a black hole would she swallow it

>Physics "break down" inside and we can't see them so isn't it safer to just assume black holes simply don't exist?

It means our understanding of nature isn't good enough yet. "Physics breaks down" means that our current models produce nonsense past a certain point - that point is reachable with cosmology, but terrestrial experiments have been broadly incapable of probing the energies needed to find the limits of understanding.

Event horizons exist, we can observe them, as well as their effects, we have no other functioning theories for mechanisms which can create them, and current theories predict them, some of which we depend on for day to day life, as well as to make these observations. If there are no singularities, none of this should be working.

Mind, we have tried to come up with other explanations, or at the very least tried to "tweak" the definition of singularity into something more palatable, sometimes by simply bypassing them, but thus far, all such efforts have failed.

We do ignore their existence, in a way, in that the only thing we can say about the singularity itself, even mathematically, is "yup, that's a singularity."

There are some ugly truths in the universe that suggest there will always be some limit to our understanding of it, this is merely one of them. It's kinder than some, as while they are critical to the formation of the universe, they aren't all-pervading, unlike some other, more fundamental limitations.

Shit happens, and reality simply does not always function in the most clean, pleasing, intuitive, or palatable way. Sometimes the truth is just inexplicable and scary:

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1504995975359.webm

But I suppose that terror does provide some comfort in hinting that you're on the right path, and not simply making up a story to your liking.

The singularity is really not the mysterious multiverse portal that everyone hopes and imagines. It's a hyperdense point. It's interesting to theorize on how the matter behaves at that density(its probably turned into energy) but theres nothing else to it really.

>our current understanding of physics doesn't agree with this one thing, therefore said thing doesn't exist
Brainlet: The Post

Fucking die you retarded necrobumper