So, I solved the information paradox. If from the point of view

>>7810508
Describe what you think you mean by time dilation?

>>7810508
I'll take it one step further. From the point of view of an external observer an event horizon and thus black hole never even forms to begin with because such a process would take an infinite amount of time, so even considering the possibility of an object falling in it is pointless

>>7810512
Yeah right...this won't have your name on it. This isn't something I'll share.

>>7810516
I'm saying that if the center of the hole is 'fast' then the slow edge will tear everything past light speed and to the cent of the hole

and if the black holes center is sub 0 kelvin slow then the increase in speed will draw the data directly to the center of the hole

but personally I'm working on heat scaling's in the vacuum
Want to talk about that if you don't want to talk about yours?

>>7810521
>Want to talk about that if you don't want to talk about yours?
Want me to help you or something? Can't do it on your own?

- - - - - - The Troll vs. The Schizophrenic - - - - - -

Round 1, FIGHT!

>>7810526
no, I'm just chatty and don't really care for taking care of an ego

>>7810508
Define never

>>7810535
Ok then, let's talk about it

File: 1367576841756.jpg (44KB, 488x410px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 488x410px

>>7810539
'ave returned

basically the modulate of the formula has the likeness of the center of a torus with that frame being inside the frame of the edge of a plane that is using a cubed sort of, as it could be likened to, Banach ball to elaborate on the multiple capable frames that a second dimensional referencing system could tap in order to layer itself while not compromising the utility of the singlet dimension orientating itself inside the frames of the plane, which basically turn into turns into the the orientating singlet dimension into a, in a nutshell, a 'squeeze' on the planes field that looks so of like the inside of an orange.

The conditions that the edge exists and how they get to the orange factoring of the metaphor is simple enough to digest, thoughts?

Also,
> >>7810536, OP srs tho whats your definition of never?

>>7810513
IIRC, this is a real conjecture. Collapse would be reinterpreted as the matter getting sufficiently close to the "hypothetical event horizon" to be for most intents and purposes a black hole. Hawking radiation would be reinterpreted as the energy bleeding off - possibly according to the same processes.

>>7810687
>turn into turns into
what?
>thoughts?
Yeah man, look, when you're dealing with stuff like Banach balls, tori, and geometry you're on your own. Not my field

Look at you cucks prepping the Jew bull by arguing about something that nobody has ever even observed before.

>>7810508
lol

anyways, i thought i might mention that there is a statement of the hawking information paradox which is more precise

given a quantum mechanical system with a discrete set of energies (like a black hole!), then the long time average of certain correlation functions is nonzero but exponentially small in the entropy of the system.

for a black hole, the long time behavior of the correlation function tells you how the black hole is releasing information through hawking radiation. no one has calculated this long time behavior

so all of you fucking retards (and apparently these retards include strominger and hawking himself) who think you can weasel your way out of the problem by saying some stupid shit based off of shitty assumptions about quantum gravity can go fuck yourselves. unless you can explain this O( e^-S ) contribution to correlation functions, you dont have anything real to contribute