Here: youtube.com/watch?v=RaELad94KZs
Something's stopping me uploading links
The title is: Hubble Spots Thousands of Objects Traveling Faster Than Light | NASA'S Unexplained Files
Hubble Spots Thousands of Objects Traveling Faster Than Light | NASA's Unexplained Files - YouTube
Something's stopping me uploading links
The title is: Hubble Spots Thousands of Objects Traveling Faster Than Light | NASA'S Unexplained Files
Hubble Spots Thousands of Objects Traveling Faster Than Light | NASA's Unexplained Files - YouTube
Last edited by a moderator:
I dug up the interesting fact a while back that if the Universe was a Black Hole, it would be exactly 13.7 Billion light years radius. The exact current size of our universe.
Schwarzschild radius - Wikipedia
Viktor T. Toth - Hawking radiation calculator
What if we really are in a black hole? Our universe/black hole would have been formed somewhere in the multidimensional multiverse. The word Outerverse kind of pop in my mind just like that to identify the universe where a singularity came to pass forming our universe/black hole. We have no idea why our universe is expanding. It is possible that matter is being absorbed through the event horizon in the Outerverse to appear in our universe evenly distributed as dark matter. Event horizon of our universe then expand as a consequence of the increase in mass. As I said, a "what-if" thought experiment, no data and nothing scientific.
Do try and stay on-topic, my friends. Some of you seem to be more "Transmit" than "Receive".
We are considering the notion that we live in a Black Hole. You follow?
Do you not appreciate that the World is a globe?
We Europeans are 5 hours ahead of you Canadians?
Ventusky - Wind, Rain and Temperature Maps
Reason why Superbowl keeps us up late at night. Nightmare.
We Europeans are 5 hours ahead of you Canadians?
Ventusky - Wind, Rain and Temperature Maps
Reason why Superbowl keeps us up late at night. Nightmare.
We have formulas valid to estimate characteristics of black holes that forms within our universe. I wonder which of the characteristics are equally valid looking from the inside. Probably our resident physicist can voice his guesstimation.I put 2.7K (temperature) into this Black Hole calculator and got about half the mass of the moon. Which doesn't help a lot. I put 13.7 Bn years into it and got 7K temperature for a Black Hole with that lifetime. Wiki's mass of 8.8E52 kg gives the correct 13.7 Bn LY size. Bit stumped for anything else to try.
As an example, viewed from the outside Hawking radiation is simple emission, but a self contained emission when viewed from the inside.
Last edited:
If the universe is a black hole, why is it expanding? A BH grows as far as I understand because it feeds off matter falling into it. If nothing gets sucked it, the diameter remains the same.
Eventually, they fizzle out (Consequence of Hawking radiation) after a very long time.
I’ve put this up before, but it discusses what’s inside the BH which some may find insightful.
Inside Black Holes
Separately, I am reading Graham Farmello’s biography on Paul Dirac - quite incredible that someone (Dirac) can be that smart.
Eventually, they fizzle out (Consequence of Hawking radiation) after a very long time.
I’ve put this up before, but it discusses what’s inside the BH which some may find insightful.
Inside Black Holes
Separately, I am reading Graham Farmello’s biography on Paul Dirac - quite incredible that someone (Dirac) can be that smart.
Last edited:
I've come across the 'Big Bounce' hypothesis in which our universe is conjectured to be the offspring of a 'mother universe'.
The idea is that a black hole within our mother universe collapsed to into a tiny "seed" with the mass of billions of suns. This seed, unlike a singularity, had a real existence.
Spinning rapidly up to speeds approaching that of light, the tiny seed wound itself up until finally, like opening the lid of a jack in the box, it suddenly unsprung itself in a Big Bang or a 'Big Bounce'.
The 'Big Bounce' spawned our universe which, although it has been expanding ever since, could still be hidden within the the event horizon of the black hole within our mother universe.
To summarise:The 'Big Bounce' hypothesis suggests that our universe exists with the event horizon of a black hole which exists within another universe.
Can't help think there's a kind of a Russian doll feel about that hypothesis, but remember, it is only a hypothesis!
If our universe/black hole was formed in an Outerverse/Mother universe then it is possible that it is actively absorbing surrounding matter. How can we find out? Nothing we currently have can accommodate knowledge beyond the event horizon.
Did you bother to read the comments on that video, Pete?
Here are just some of them:
"I remember when Science Channels actually reported new developments in Science, rather than being click-bait crap."
"This video is BULLSH*T!!!"
"We have pretty much known for quite some time that space-time can do whatever is required to maintain the laws of physics for our particular universe. Pure Click-Bait. Space can stretch as fast as it needs to in order to maintain balance."
"I saw the title. I knew it would be clickbait. I clicked anyways. I read the comments, confirmed the clickbait. Yet I still watched the whole video. I can only be mad with myself."
"There is a typo in the name, it should be: The Science Fiction Channel."
I watched the video myself to see if the above comments were warranted, only to find that it ends up by suggesting Hubble was watching interstellar spacecraft moving away from us at warp speed!
Honestly! There's more science fact in an episode of Star Trek!!!!
I didn't get on very well with the Einstein Field Equations, which were a bit too mathematical to grasp easily. But will persevere with a rewatch of the second half.
Black Hole Cosmology seems to be an established field of study:
Black hole cosmology - Wikipedia.
More graspable was this article on the CMB, being 2.7K. We are seeing the Big Bang at 380,000 years when the fog cleared and hydrogen atoms formed:
Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang | Space
Black Hole Cosmology seems to be an established field of study:
Black hole cosmology - Wikipedia.
More graspable was this article on the CMB, being 2.7K. We are seeing the Big Bang at 380,000 years when the fog cleared and hydrogen atoms formed:
Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang | Space
Yes, Steve, the 'Big Bounce' hypothesis to which I referred is the brain child of Dr. Nikodem Poplawski.
Nikodem Poplawski, Ph.D. - University of New Haven
Nikodem Poplawski, Ph.D. - University of New Haven
I agree.Did you bother to read the comments on that video, Pete?
Here are just some of them:
"I remember when Science Channels actually reported new developments in Science, rather than being click-bait crap."
"This video is BULLSH*T!!!"
"We have pretty much known for quite some time that space-time can do whatever is required to maintain the laws of physics for our particular universe. Pure Click-Bait. Space can stretch as fast as it needs to in order to maintain balance."
"I saw the title. I knew it would be clickbait. I clicked anyways. I read the comments, confirmed the clickbait. Yet I still watched the whole video. I can only be mad with myself."
"There is a typo in the name, it should be: The Science Fiction Channel."
I watched the video myself to see if the above comments were warranted, only to find that it ends up by suggesting Hubble was watching interstellar spacecraft moving away from us at warp speed!
Honestly! There's more science fact in an episode of Star Trek!!!!
Click bait title. BS video.
So Galu, in perspective, all in perspective. The narrator is clearly out to lunch capitalizing on an honest phenomenon. The speakers in that vid were perplexed in the observation of the hubble. They didn't make any declarations or come to any conclusions. Another article I recently read about extreme red shift caused by distant galaxies in conjunction with the expansion of the universe makes it appear to us they are receding faster than c. Apparently there is a distance past which this phenomenon occurs. So in their own vicinity they are in balance with known science. But when you combine expansion, expected red shift is more extreme.Did you bother to read the comments on that video, Pete?
Here are just some of them:
"I remember when Science Channels actually reported new developments in Science, rather than being click-bait crap."
"This video is BULLSH*T!!!"
"We have pretty much known for quite some time that space-time can do whatever is required to maintain the laws of physics for our particular universe. Pure Click-Bait. Space can stretch as fast as it needs to in order to maintain balance."
"I saw the title. I knew it would be clickbait. I clicked anyways. I read the comments, confirmed the clickbait. Yet I still watched the whole video. I can only be mad with myself."
"There is a typo in the name, it should be: The Science Fiction Channel."
I watched the video myself to see if the above comments were warranted, only to find that it ends up by suggesting Hubble was watching interstellar spacecraft moving away from us at warp speed!
Honestly! There's more science fact in an episode of Star Trek!!!!
So my contention is just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean the actual rate at which that galaxy in question is moving away (from us) isn't moving faster than c.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.