>>16832630
that's why the event horizon and edge of the observable universe are both called 'horizons'. they behave the same. any light you see from that quasar was emitted a long time ago. but even if a quasar's velocity is 5x c you'd still see it. but you don't see it when the expansion of space is accelerating fast enough

>>16832693
singularities don't exist, it's just maths. if you wanna mock popsci bullshit then start there. but black holes existing is rock solid even if we don't understand what's going on inside

>>16832630
>why is it that when a quasar has an apparent recession velocity 5x c it is still visible but highly redshifted while when "muh black hole" has an escape velocity greater than the speed of light it becomes magically invisible?
you can still see something if it's receding faster than light. the light will eventually reach you. black holes are different since the geodesics all point toward the 'singularity' inside
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope

>>16832693
singularities don't exist, it's just maths. if you guys wanna focus on popsci bullshit that's actually where you start. there's a whole consortium of fake bullshit like wormholes and time travel and string theory and the universe splitting in two for every decision made that's peddled as real science by science communicators. black holes existing is solid science