Do We Exist Inside a Black Hole?

[rhythmiq]

If so, the light we see from stars and other objects would be spaghettified and seem further away than it really is, and challenge the age and size of our universe.

 

[COLGeek]

No. Else you wouldn't have been about to post anything here, because there would be no here.

 

[Atlan0001]

Nowhere and nothingness. Everywhere and everythingness. Somewhere and somethingness ("Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial," -- Thomas S. Kuhn).

An infinite density is at once an absolute void, leaving local-relative finite potentials (ever discreet quanta) of both.

 

[Classical Motion]

No. But all life exists within a highly controlled container of mass. So far we have found only one container.

The error in our measurements will be recognized and accounted for in the future. It's an elementary error.

It's a blur error. When we remove the blur we will see it. Faster switches will help do it. Slicing flux will expose it.

Not only propagation flux, but an atom's nuclear flux.

But fast switches alone will not do it. We need a stable clock. A rotational clock. Not affected by gravity or acceleration. Or atomic state.

This will allow much more accurate cosmic and atomic measurements. And their revelations.

Much clearer peeking to look forward to.

 

[billslugg]

For a sufficiently large black hole, one would not know they were going through the event horizon. The tidal forces are less and less, at the radius of the event horizon, as the black hole becomes more massive. All one would know is they were traveling through space at some velocity. In the forward direction would be an extremely bright dot, in the rearward direction, pure darkness. This is not what we see, therefore, we are not in a black hole.

 

[Atlan0001]

For a sufficiently large black hole, one would not know they were going through the event horizon. The tidal forces are less and less, at the radius of the event horizon, as the black hole becomes more massive. All one would know is they were traveling through space at some velocity. In the forward direction would be an extremely bright dot, in the rearward direction, pure darkness. This is not what we see, therefore, we are not in a black hole.

The collapsed cosmological constant Planck/Big Bang "'Event' Horizon."

And you are wrong big time in one respect, Bill. There is no such thing out there between worlds, between stars, between galaxies, as any constant of "velocity." It constantly varies as a constant variable. There is only gravitational, or self-powering, wave constants of acceleration. That and navigating distant position points fore and aft, side and side, and side . . . navigating light's crossroads of coordinate point SPACETIME histories past-future (future-past).

And last but not least, there is no such thing as a constant of distances, a constant of ground, a constant of mile markers, a constant of SPACE, for any fast movers, for movers, period . . . even drifters.

 

[billslugg]

In outer space there is no preferred location, every location sees itself as being at the center of the observable universe. There is, however, a preferred velocity. When we look at the CMBR, it shows a dipole asymmetry. We are headed in a particular direction at a particlar speed.

 

[Atlan0001]

In our space there is no preferred location, every location sees itself as being at the center of the observable universe. There is, however, a preferred velocity. When we look at the CMBR, it shows a dipole asymmetry. We are headed in a particular direction at a particlar speed.

Bill, oh Bill. That center point is where Einstein took his mind's eye trip to and is the "Grand Central Station of the Universe" of Hawking's description. Everything else in the universe outside of it is always (eternally) in motion excepting that Einstein-Hawking dead center point. Movement that will apparently grow in directions and magnitude of motions into infinities of histories and disordering chaos with all increasing distance from center point. The fact that that center point itself numbers infinity (Schrodinger magic, Heisenberg's principle, Einstein's "spooky action(s) at a distance", among other things) makes not the slightest difference.

 

[Astro]

If so, the light we see from stars and other objects would be spaghettified and seem further away than it really is, and challenge the age and size of our universe.

Well, do you have any tangible evidence we could be living in a black hole? No? i thought so.

 

[Greenlight]

Most people think that every black hole must have a singularity, but i do not.
I believe that we could be in a black hole. One without a singularity.

if so, the hubble constant cannot determine the age of the universe, it only can determine the rate at which our blackhole universe is radiating energy.

 

[space101]

No. Else you wouldn't have been about to post anything here, because there would be no here.

Thank you

 

[Classical Motion]

The background motion Bill speaks of does not come from universe motion, it comes from our solar system motion. The dipole asymmetry is from our motion. Because both dipole sides have shift.

Light has two separate UN-equal shifts. Emitter motion cause a asymmetric shift in duty cycle, not direction. And solar system(detector) motion causes symmetrical shift in duty cycle.

It's all very complicated. Decades to understand. And at least two PhD's are required.

When an emitter moves, the shift is asymmetrical. When the detector moves, the shift is symmetrical. If BOTH are moving, then both shifts occur.

Nothing can be as complicated as length mechanics. The motion of a length can not be understood.

 

[Gibsense]

If so, the light we see from stars and other objects would be spaghettified and seem further away than it really is, and challenge the age and size of our universe.

I think that looking out from a black hole you would be able to see the universe because light can get in to your eyes. More likely I think we are a white hole universe produced by a black hole in a different universe.

 

[billslugg]

If you were falling through the event horizon of a black hole you would be travelling at the speed of light, all you would see is a bright point of light ahead of you and total darkness to the side and also behind you. To any external observer you would be frozen still, emitting EM waves of infinitely long wavelength. Basically invisible.
There are only three quantities that determine a black hole, mass, charge and angular momentum. A spinning black hole would appear oblate. Non spinning black hole is spherical.

 

[Gibsense]

If you were falling through the event horizon of a black hole you would be travelling at the speed of light, all you would see is a bright point of light ahead of you and total darkness to the side and also behind you. To any external observer you would be frozen still, emitting EM waves of infinitely long wavelength. Basically invisible.
There are only three quantities that determine a black hole, mass, charge and angular momentum. A spinning black hole would appear oblate. Non spinning black hole is spherical.

Hi billslug !

I was not convinced so I asked "Copilot"
The reply was as follows:


"So, if you were falling into a black hole, you would indeed be moving toward the singularity (the central point of infinite density), but your velocity would not reach or exceed the speed of light. The event horizon is like a cosmic “point of no return” where even light cannot escape 2. It’s a fascinating and mind-bending concept, but it doesn’t involve moving at the speed of light within the event horizon."

 

[billslugg]

Yes, one cannot reach the speed of light as their energy would be greater than the total energy of the universe, but one does approach it asymptotically.

 

[Gibsense]

Yes, one cannot reach the speed of light as their energy would be greater than the total energy of the universe, but one does approach it asymptotically.

To be sure we had it right I also asked Gemini:
"
An observer who has already fallen inside the event horizon of a black hole would indeed be able to see light from outside, for a brief period. Here's why:

• Event Horizon is one-way for escape, not entry: The event horizon only prevents information (including light) from escaping the black hole, not from entering.
• Light cone dictates what's visible: Imagine a cone of light emanating from the observer. Any light within that cone is theoretically observable by them. Light from outside that hasn't yet crossed the event horizon can still fall within the observer's light cone, allowing them to see it.

However, there are some caveats:

• Limited view: The view wouldn't be the entire outside world. It would be restricted to a specific cone-shaped region behind them.
• Redshift and eventual darkness: As the observer falls deeper, the immense gravity would cause the light to redshift (stretch its wavelength) making it appear fainter and eventually invisible.
• Short-lived view: Due to the warping of spacetime near the event horizon, the light from outside wouldn't be visible for very long.

In essence:

An observer inside the event horizon would have a brief glimpse of the outside world through the light that entered before they crossed the horizon. However, this view would be limited, distorted, and fade away quickly."

So given a bit of time passing it seems you would be correct that we would see nothing when looking back. However, this discussion stimulates a thought that supports my idea that we live in a white-hole universe:
The white hole would act oppositely to a black hole so far as light passing the event horizon is concerned i.e. none would pass into the white hole from beyond the event horizon. Presumably though, light would pass from within to without.

 

[Gibsense]

Hi again Bill, sorry billslugg, That leads to a further thought. I remember reading one of Hawkin's books talking about our event horizon. I had not really connected that with the observable universe; our observable universe.
I guess he must have meant the event horizon which, from any chosen position, the boundary would be receding at 'c'. uniqually to each chosen position. Applying previous thoughts then this would identify my receding boundary as enabling light to escape beyond.
Clearly, for anyone positioned near my event horizon this would be the case.
At the risk of extrapolating too far; would it not be the case that our (supposition) white hole (obserable universe) would exist within the larger universe - that we cannot see.
This implies that the reason we cannot see other (any) white holes is because we cannot see beyond our observable universe (white hole).
Or even we might observe another one expanding within our own boundary as an overlap (black holes do occupy same regions as others in places so why not white ones?).