421–430 of 647 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the larger universe is identical to the contained universe, like a fractal. That would solve the question. ;)
Then we gotta find the black hole in our universe that contains that universe, and nuke it before they come to take our fluids!
Oh I have so many questions on this topic. I've often wondered about this. I don't have any direct physics training, but it's something that felt really plausible after I learned that the mass of a black hole is linearly proportional to its swarzschild radius. As the size of the black hole goes up, its overall density must decrease. Combined with the other observation that our universe has uniform density at large sc…
There was a thread a while ago on here where the hypothesis for why things are moving apart at faster rates is down to time moving at different speeds due to mass. So time in the void between galaxies is moving quicker than time in the galaxies, but on the grand scale of the universe the differences as up a lot. I quite liked this theory, think is make sense, at least from my very limited understanding of this stuff.
Oh I have so many questions on this topic. I've often wondered about this. I don't have any direct physics training, but it's something that felt really plausible after I learned that the mass of a black hole is linearly proportional to its swarzschild radius. As the size of the black hole goes up, its overall density must decrease. Combined with the other observation that our universe has uniform density at large sc…
> As the size of the black hole goes up, its overall density must decrease. The center of a black hole is infinitely dense. That's why it even exists. The event horizon is not the black hole. > and the fixed density of our observed universe Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed. You really want to be thinking about this in terms of entropy and not matter.
> The center of a black hole is infinitely dense. That's why it even exists. The event horizon is not the black hole.
>> and the fixed density of our observed universe
> Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed.
These are both correct and germane points. So why was this post downvoted? Physics isn't a popularity contest, it relies on evidence.
Is this OnlyFans ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As the size of the black hole goes up, its overall density must decrease. The center of a black hole is infinitely dense. That's why it even exists. The event horizon is not the black hole. > and the fixed density of our observed universe Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed. You really want to be thinking about this in terms of entropy and not matter.
> The center of a black hole is infinitely dense. That's why it even exists. The event horizon is not the black hole. Arguing semantics is rather boring when it's obvious you understood the point he was trying to make. > Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed. None of that precludes uniform density at large scales.
> None of that precludes uniform density at large scales.
According to observation, the universe is expanding. An argument that it's really static at a large scale would require contradicting observational evidence, but none exists. A theory that requires abandoning observational evidence bears a special burden, which this theory lacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This theory is in the same space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection I don’t think it has a hypothesis for the origin, though
See also the recent HN discussion about Blowtorch Theory, which has roots in (but doesn’t necessitate) CNS
building on ten years of earlier research for a book on cosmological natural selection
I loved this overview on our current approaches to measure the expansion: https://youtu.be/WNyY1ZYSzoU
I've read somewhere an article which posited that our 3D universe might be inside a 4D black hole. When you cross a black hole's event horizon, the radial coordinate becomes timelike, so you lose one degree of spatial freedom. Movement is still possible in the tangential directions however, so what you get is basically an N-1 dimensional universe. So maybe our 3D universe is actually matter that fell into a 4D black…
Yes, and then there's the parlor game of guessing what familiar property of our known universe is actually a spaghetified fourth dimension. I guessed c once. It would be a constant. Maybe all the constants are spaghettified remains of a superior universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is a good thing. This is where the economy surplus went. Not to 5 days of leisure for everyone. But to jobs that keep us occupied, engaged, and motivated but aren't strictly required. The alternative is just either starving everyone to death, except for a few elite and their slaves, or everyone being bored out of their minds and wondering what the point of life is.
Suggested hard sci-fi light reading: "Cosm" by Gregory Benford, 1999. A universe the size of a bowling ball created in a laboratory. The scientist responsible for it, keeping it safe and on the run from gvt spooks. They want to protect it for as long as it lasts, and since its time is as relative as its size, they won't have long to wait.
This sounds similar to Horton Hears a Who.
The title's use of the word "research," and the paper's content, suggest the idea resembles science more than speculation. But in fact, the paper has no observational evidence, nor a proposal for acquiring evidence, to distinguish it from other similar speculations.
To put it simply, at the center of a black hole is a singularity, a domain where existing theories can offer no guidance. So a new idea about singularities -- about black holes -- should suggest a testable property, to distinguish it from other similar ideas.
I say "idea" here to avoid use of the term "theory," which in science requires observational evidence to move past the realm of speculation.
Don't get me wrong -- speculations have an important role to play in science. But tendentious phrases like "research suggests" wrongly imply the presence of something more than speculation.