Hole Forum
⚡ ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Hole Forum
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
The "7 National Titles Football Forum" is the place where Gopher football fans gather to talk about the team, college football, recruiting and the program's march back to Pasadena.
GophersInIowa
Jul 30, 2022
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A_Slab_of_Bacon
Thursday at 8:46 PM
2
GopherHole Staff
Dec 6, 2019
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
UpAndUnder43
Tuesday at 10:09 AM
2
3
4
5
Rick Mons
Dec 11, 2009
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
TonyLiebert
Sunday at 8:48 AM
2
3
4
GopherHole Staff
Tuesday at 6:19 PM
2
GopherWeatherGuy
Tuesday at 7:36 PM
TheNorthernAmir
Oct 1, 2022
2
3
4
5
6
Some Day...Maybe
Saturday at 2:36 PM
2
3
4
Contact us
Terms and rules
Privacy policy
Help
Home
RSS
Max Online: 304 @ 01/23/20 09:39 AM
Generated in 0.016 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 6 queries. Zlib compression enabled. Powered by UBB.threads™ 7.5.3
"A fisherman's portal for NJ inshore and offshore waters"
You are not logged in. [ Log In ]
Barnegat Fishin' Hole
Sorry guys, nothing going on right now.
11/13/06 06:41 PM
Sponsors' Nook
by DewJigger
4 registered ( Fishnfool , Mailman , maja , lbifranko ),
38
Guests and
6
Spiders online.
Privacy statement ·
Board Rules ·
Mark all read
Default Style koniro1 ubbthreads
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
New media
New comments
Search media
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Billboard
Trophies
Thread starter
SIDexplorer
Start date
Jul 16, 2022
What are the chances of our Universe being inside a giant black hole? What's your argument in denial or support of this statement?
'There being multitude of black holes in the observable Universe don't prove otherwise'.
No, we cannot be inside a black hole. Inside one everything moves towards the center point. In our universe (on large scales) everything moves away from us.
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
What are the chances of our Universe being inside a giant black hole? What's your argument in denial or support of this statement?
If the universe is a vacuum, it must be in something. Black hole may be symentics,
Definitions I gleaned from reading:
- Universe: All existing matter and space as a whole
- Observable Universe: All signals since end of inflationary epoch (10^-33s)
- Visible Universe: Signals emitted since recombination (ie: 3°K CMB)
And, yes, the univere cannot be "inside" anything as that "thing" would be part of the universe.
The universe could, however, be a giant black hole as some theorists maintain.
I don't think it is, since galaxies are acellerating away from each other, as measured at large distances, not flowing towards a central singularity.
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
The observable universe is a ball-shaped region of the universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time, because the electromagnetic radiation from these objects has had time to reach the Solar System and Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion .
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
If the universe is a vacuum, it must be in something. Black hole may be symentics,
Yes, scientists denote the "visual universe" as that which we can see, beginning with the 3°K remnant of the radiation emitted during recombination.
They refer also to the "observable universe" which goes back farther in time to the end of inflation.
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
That is a very interesting write-up.
However, it seems to still have some assumptions about space and time that might not be true. Our Big Bang Theory postulates that space itself is infinitely expandable and contractible, and can change "dimensions" faster than the speed of light. So, the real question is "How do we know what is expansion and contraction by observations, if we and things around us are all expanding or contracting together? And, what if the expansions and contractions are not uniform everywhere ?
So, thinking about measuring everything collapsing into a single point while we are doing it seems much more problematic to me than what I typically see written.
If we were/are inside a black hole, thinking first about just the radial direction, things closer to the center would be accelerating toward it faster than us, and things farther away from it than us would appear to be getting farther behind. So, that could look like 'expansion" to us.
Now, think about the other directions besides along our own radial line into the center (not necessarily a singularity, BTW). If space itself is becoming smaller in the radial direction from everywhere , then so are the things that we perceive to measure it by observations. All of the write-ups I have read seem to falter in that regard, seeming to just assume that things will look like they are traveling through space, rather than thinking about how they would look when traveling with space, and maybe even shrinking along with space, as we assume happened in reverse with the Big Bang .
Putting it another way, if space and time are both being changed together along all radial lines toward some huge attractor for all that we observe, would we really be able to tell that by observations from a single point over a tiny amount of time (in the cosmological scale of time)? If so, how?
The other issue about falling into a black hole is whether those doing it see time "going backwards" But, if that direction of time is all we know about, to us it is "forward", right? How would we know what "backwards" is or even looks like? I guess we could try to use entropy, and suppose that things would look like order increases when going backwards. But, that would look like things like energy are attractive forces rather than dissipative forces. And I guess that gravity would look like a dissipative rather than an attractive force. If that is all we ever experienced, then wouldn't we think that those were the laws of nature, just like we now think that gravity is an attractive force? We really don't know how gravity works - we just know that our equations fit our very limited observations.
Conceptualizing cosmological things with a human mind is limiting because our minds have developed to rationalize what we observe into useable expectations for the situations that directly affect us . So, when we try to imagine things that have not affected us in perceivable ways during our evolution, we are really stretching our cognitive abilities. We can intuitively conceive of particles that can fly though emptiness and waves that can transmit energy through materials with mass, but we are already stumbling when trying to deal with experiments that make the same things look like particle sometimes and waves through massless "fields" other times. We really have no intuitive idea how waves propagate through "nothings" that have no mass or other physical properties. Then, finding that light appears to travel at the same speed no matter how it is observed really gets us out of our intuitive understanding of space and time.
We can deduce some equations to quantify our observations, but many of those equations are difficult or impossible for us to solve without making assumptions. And, extrapolations of those equations that are made by using "simplifying" assumptions gets us right back into stumbling around with our intuitive biases on what things "should" be like. That is what I think I am seeing in how people are writing about how things would look to us if we are inside a black hole's event horizon and falling toward it center. Some people are conceptualizing that it would look like an expanding universe, and others are thinking it would have to look different from what we see.
Neither side has convinced me that they have it figured out properly, yet.
Started by Atlan0101
Today at 3:02 AM
Replies: 0
Started by Admin
Monday at 9:28 AM
Replies: 0
Started by DrJoePesce
Feb 14, 2022
Replies: 196
Started by Helio
Mar 9, 2022
Replies: 163
Started by CaptainBill
Wednesday at 12:20 AM
Replies: 5
Started by Helio
Jan 18, 2022
Replies: 100
Started by shellyhe
Oct 4, 2022
Replies: 5
Latest: CaptainBill
Yesterday at 10:19 PM
Latest: Phillip Huggan
Tuesday at 10:05 PM
Latest: PearlieFPalmer
Tuesday at 2:52 AM
Space.com is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site .
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA.
All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
More stories to check out before you go
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
Everywhere
Threads
This forum
This thread
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
New media
New comments
Search media
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Billboard
Trophies
Thread starter
SIDexplorer
Start date
Jul 16, 2022
What are the chances of our Universe being inside a giant black hole? What's your argument in denial or support of this statement?
'There being multitude of black holes in the observable Universe don't prove otherwise'.
No, we cannot be inside a black hole. Inside one everything moves towards the center point. In our universe (on large scales) everything moves away from us.
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
What are the chances of our Universe being inside a giant black hole? What's your argument in denial or support of this statement?
If the universe is a vacuum, it must be in something. Black hole may be symentics,
Definitions I gleaned from reading:
- Universe: All existing matter and space as a whole
- Observable Universe: All signals since end of inflationary epoch (10^-33s)
- Visible Universe: Signals emitted since recombination (ie: 3°K CMB)
And, yes, the univere cannot be "inside" anything as that "thing" would be part of the universe.
The universe could, however, be a giant black hole as some theorists maintain.
I don't think it is, since galaxies are acellerating away from each other, as measured at large distances, not flowing towards a central singularity.
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
The observable universe is a ball-shaped region of the universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time, because the electromagnetic radiation from these objects has had time to reach the Solar System and Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion .
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
If the universe is a vacuum, it must be in something. Black hole may be symentics,
Yes, scientists denote the "visual universe" as that which we can see, beginning with the 3°K remnant of the radiation emitted during recombination.
They refer also to the "observable universe" which goes back farther in time to the end of inflation.
Catastrophe
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
That is a very interesting write-up.
However, it seems to still have some assumptions about space and time that might not be true. Our Big Bang Theory postulates that space itself is infinitely expandable and contractible, and can change "dimensions" faster than the speed of light. So, the real question is "How do we know what is expansion and contraction by observations, if we and things around us are all expanding or contracting together? And, what if the expansions and contractions are not uniform everywhere ?
So, thinking about measuring everything collapsing into a single point while we are doing it seems much more problematic to me than what I typically see written.
If we were/are inside a black hole, thinking first about just the radial direction, things closer to the center would be accelerating toward it faster than us, and things farther away from it than us would appear to be getting farther behind. So, that could look like 'expansion" to us.
Now, think about the other directions besides along our own radial line into the center (not necessarily a singularity, BTW). If space itself is becoming smaller in the radial direction from everywhere , then so are the things that we perceive to measure it by observations. All of the write-ups I have read seem to falter in that regard, seeming to just assume that things will look like they are traveling through space, rather than thinking about how they would look when traveling with space, and maybe even shrinking along with space, as we assume happened in reverse with the Big Bang .
Putting it another way, if space and time are both being changed together along all radial lines toward some huge attractor for all that we observe, would we really be able to tell that by observations from a single point over a tiny amount of time (in the cosmological scale of time)? If so, how?
The other issue about falling into a black hole is whether those doing it see time "going backwards" But, if that direction of time is all we know about, to us it is "forward", right? How would we know what "backwards" is or even looks like? I guess we could try to use entropy, and suppose that things would look like order increases when going backwards. But, that would look like things like energy are attractive forces rather than dissipative forces. And I guess that gravity would look like a dissipative rather than an attractive force. If that is all we ever experienced, then wouldn't we think that those were the laws of nature, just like we now think that gravity is an attractive force? We really don't know how gravity works - we just know that our equations fit our very limited observations.
Conceptualizing cosmological things with a human mind is limiting because our minds have developed to rationalize what we observe into useable expectations for the situations that directly affect us . So, when we try to imagine things that have not affected us in perceivable ways during our evolution, we are really stretching our cognitive abilities. We can intuitively conceive of particles that can fly though emptiness and waves that can transmit energy through materials with mass, but we are already stumbling when trying to deal with experiments that make the same things look like particle sometimes and waves through massless "fields" other times. We really have no intuitive idea how waves propagate through "nothings" that have no mass or other physical properties. Then, finding that light appears to travel at t
Hard Ass Anal Porn
Cbt Handjob
Free African Porn