Viewing black holes

A couple questions have been bothering me for a while. We all know the event horizon is an area beyond which no information can pass to the outside universe. However, if I was to hover just outside the event horizon, wouldn't I be able to take information from outside the event horizon as I see...

Well that depends on what you mean by encountering.. because systems such as the GPS rely on relativistic calculations to be correct, normal mechanics wont do in this situation.

Ok, you got me. I was thinking along the lines of "most people don't get to play with particle accelerators."

In any case, relativity is meant to make sense and it does. The only small detail is that you need to understand it, not such a simple thing.

It seems that the two great theories of the universe are relativity (Einstein's GRT) and quantum but they remain separated to date while researchers continue to find the uniting theory (TOE) from the 'small end" of particle concepts. I have read that perhaps we should consider the "large end" of cosmic structures to find such a unified theory. Does such a suggestion include Hawking's use of quantum theories to black holes and the use of Mandelbrot set theory applied to these large cosmic structures?

I would preose that we would have to expand on sense itself.

"Hey that doesnt make sense"

We hear that allot, we say that allot.

However, what is required to create something that is sensible.

For example; the number 1 does not make 'sense'. (A thought that scares me for it in the use of the unit for c, but that is a different topic all together.)

The number 1 does not make sense in its definition

A quick google defintion on the word one reveils:

# used of a single unit or thing; not two or more; "`ane' is Scottish"
# one(a): having the indivisible character of a unit; "a unitary action"; "spoke with one voice"
# one(a): of the same kind or quality; "two animals of one species"
# one(a): used informally as an intensifier; "that is one fine dog"
# one(a): indefinite in time or position; "he will come one day"; "one place or another"
# the smallest whole number or a numeral representing this number; "he has the one but will need a two and three to go with it"; "they had lunch at one"
# being a single entity made by combining separate components; "three chemicals combining into one solution"
# a single person or thing; "he is the best one"; "this is the one I ordered"
# matchless: eminent beyond or above comparison; "matchless beauty"; "the team's nonpareil center fielder"; "she's one girl in a million"; "the one and only Muhammad Ali"; "a peerless scholar"; "infamy unmatched in the Western world"; "wrote with unmatchable clarity"; "unrivaled mastery of her art"

However, to have 1 you must either be that ONE, or be the other ONE of which to describe/define/observe the one in the frame of reference, (the one we are referring to.)

So the number 1 makes no sense like it is to imagine the universe all as one thing including yourself, so much so, either everything is the same or nothing is everything-everything is nothing. However you need to refer to it.

So to have one we must have two.

Relating this back to the topic of discussion I find one shall see that sense is not found in singularity.

The very heart of relativity is based on the proposal (postulate) that there is no such thing as an absolute, an all important ONE.. This is not only due to the consequences involved in relativity but also due to the fact of it not making "SENSE".

What seems to make No sense, no matter how you attempt to look at it, tends to not be capable to exist in our known realm of existence.

If the particular thing as it were, exists without our knowing, it may be so, just as one was un-aware earth could be observed as a relative sphere in comparison to it being flat, and it being possible when involving a certain velocity, time, or distance.

There is much that leans towards black holes as being singularities, and as we may have learned here in this post, singularities do not make sense, and thus a black hole does not make sense, and thus a black hole could be defined as a non existence, nothing , or everything.

Information of a black hole is found in being capable to make an observation of course. to make an observation, a space-time frame must intermingle with the frame of the black hole, and thus, at the cost of giving up the mingling with the other frames we know and see today.

Each probe would experience its closer partner probe as further itself from its own locality of space and time which information determines (space-time), thus any form of information should follow suite.

Hope this made sense.