Few human artifacts are older and more widely distributed than statues of bare large-breasted women. In nearly 10,000 years, learning about the birds and the bees is about the ONLY thing accomplished by humans physiologically indistinguishable from us; they did not even manage the most basic metalworking (and I do not mean metallurgy either; even polishing and sharpening copper ore was beyond them.)

Well, if memory serves it was something I heard on PBS years ago; I cannot source it (could not even remember whether Planck was the physicist mentioned.) Yet that was not the first time I heard a reliable reference claim the physics consensus at the turn of the last century was that the science was all but "complete." Wave/particle duality itself was not trivial, but it seems to have been the Higgs of its day, at least until Rutherford, Thompson and the Curies arrived; the problem, as is so often the case in physics, is that discovering the "answer" (to the extent we ever did) just spawned a lot more even more complex questions.

That was my point: Paradoxes tend to be hazy and troublesome, but their resolutions are often (and understandably) revolutionary. It seems save to say that resolving the contradictions between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will be no less earthshattering than resolving the contradictions between the theory of light-as-wave and light-as-particle. Hopefuly we can come up with something a bit more precise and satisfying than "both."

Yeah, I saw that; that is, um, a lot of Greek. I am enough of a layman that saying something "is Rindler in terms of tau=t/4M and rho=2u" tells me very little. I can see how we end up with an equation where T is equal to a formula with M in the denominator, but that does not explain the mechanics in operation. It only relates to temperature (i.e. elctromagnetic radiation) though, so the same relationship would not necessarily follow for some kind of stimulated graviton emission, which one would expect to be proportional to mass to at least some degree. It was just a spur of the moment notion though, spitballing; I am certainly not married to it, but am curious about the nuts and bolts (even if I may not have the math to follow them.)

I was not thinking of them being blocked so much as the possibility dissolution of a (relatively) larger object (not necessarily by the black holes action) might generate gravitons the same way pair production yields electrons/positrons and the like: It is not that photons are COMPOSED of either or both, but the energy lost cannot truly be "lost" and is sufficient to produce the pair, so it goes there. Although, when I think about it that way (i.e. in quantum and thermodynamic terms) it amounts to indirectly positing antigravity, and since that seems literal science "fiction" I do not want to go there.

As long as it is not an arbitrary one. It is very odd to think of matter without gravity though; anything, really, given equivalency. Gravity seems fundamental in a way that goes much deeper than either Newton or Einstein. It certainly intrigues me more than the Higgs "completing" the Standard Model; a Standard Model without a graviton does not feel all that complete, just another reminder quantum and relativity remain unreconciled.

Essentially that even Brownian motion would not hold intervening particles at or even near kinetic equilibrium, because our hypothetical onions volume dictates "rimward" energy sources will always greatly outnumber "coreward" ones. Therefore the intervening matter could and would absorb the difference and move about, rather than being locked in place and reemitting it toward the core. It will still radiate the difference "minus whatever small amount is going into momentum," but that "small amount" ought to be relatively LARGE for low densities (like, say, the interstellar medium.) The low mass and surface area does not allow much energy absortion per unit volume in the first place, and the low mass and negligible drag means it does not take much of it to get them moving, and every erg going to motion is not re-emitted. There is no core radiation bombardment because the exces all goes to motion, if only motion of very rarefied matter.

Right, the kinetic energy is practically (if not technically) nil, because so diffuse nothing can be done with it. Sorry, I sloppily said, "potential energy," instead of "matter," but of course the potential energy of matter at that point will be ACTUALLY rather than PRACTICALLY zero (that is kind of the point.)

I never said it was insoluble, only that the solution is apt to be revolutionary, the more so the longer it eludes us, since we can only find it by continually increasing our understanding. Our understandings expansion is only possible in its paradoxes and frontiers. Maybe that is why we can never answer all questions: We could no longer ask them if we did.