# schwarzschild radius of the universe.

#### ASTROSTONER

google schwarzschild radius of the universe. and you get "approximately 13.7 billion light-years"

The age of the universe according to BB is Age: 13.787±0.020 billion years

is that just a coincidence?

Does the schwarzschild radius of the universe grow proportional to the age of the universe?

Gibsense

#### ASTROSTONER

Is that a valid number for the schwarzschild radius of the universe?

Schwarzschild radius, also called gravitational radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse.

Are we under irreversible gravitation collapse?

#### Atlan0001

google schwarzschild radius of the universe. and you get "approximately 13.7 billion light-years"

The age of the universe according to BB is Age: 13.787±0.020 billion years

is that just a coincidence?

Does the schwarzschild radius of the universe grow proportional to the age of the universe?
Of course not. It is permanently the near fourteen-billion-year age, the radius, it is measured to be. It is an unrecognized constant measure . . . an unrecognized constant of 'Horizon'. Any long-lived traveler traveling in some kind of super ship, trying to travel to it will simply be out of luck because it will still be [about] fourteen-billion years constant, fourteen-billion light-years constant, in distance from him after traveling an infinity of space and eternity of time.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Is that a valid number for the schwarzschild radius of the universe?

Schwarzschild radius, also called gravitational radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse.

Are we under irreversible gravitation collapse?
Not when the universe, the verticality of the universe, is already there at 0-point (as Stephen Hawking told those physicists who were sweating their reductionist findings in their math). In other words, once more, our whole local universe that we are in is already the largest Black Hole of them all with a constant Horizon, a duality of Horizon, it shares [with / as] the Big Bang (up and out) / Planck (down and in) / Infinite (collapsed) Horizon . . . so nothing to bother about. (The trees are in the forest || The forest is in the trees.)

The (.... / .... / Infinite) collapsed Horizon has non-local gravity ingredient permanently counterpoised to all its constituent local centers of gravity. Total them all up to their infinity (their "infinities") of gravity and all you have is the Big Bad Boy's 'Horizon' already -- permanently constant (so what if its redundant) -- in existence [as / to] the rim 'Infinite' (collapsed) Horizon. The wormhole-like [hook around] dimensions of White Hole / Black Hole Horizons (Horizon). As Horizon it deals in both, including its infinity of 0-point-portals ((1) point || (2) portal). "Spooky action at a distance."

Last edited:

#### ASTROSTONER

How do you even age a black hole? Doesn't time dilate to infinity?

we age the Universe hole by its size assuming it was a singularity to start and constant expansion.

but must that be the case?

must black hole have a singularity? or can a its constituent matter tally up in an expanded space?
is a singularity just a relative concept from an external reference frame?

#### rod

google schwarzschild radius of the universe. and you get "approximately 13.7 billion light-years"

The age of the universe according to BB is Age: 13.787±0.020 billion years

is that just a coincidence?

Does the schwarzschild radius of the universe grow proportional to the age of the universe?
I used 4.5 x 10^22 solar masses and get just about 13.8 billion light year radius here. So normal matter in the universe points to the radius as seen from Earth - without the Big Bang model Just my observation.

#### rod

Cosmology calculators show the comoving radial distance for the universe at z=1100 is about 46 billion light years. You get this size too using 1.5 x 10^23 solar masses for the Schwarzschild radius for a black hole size. Intrriguing how this works, without the Big Bang

#### rod

I double checked here. Using 4.42E+22 solar masses, the Schwarzschild radius = 1.3797E+10 ly or 13.8 billion light years radius as seen from Earth. You can get this without dark matter or BB cosmology

#### Atlan0001

The eternally 'averaged' time . . . age . . . of all longest-lived components of the universe is about 14-billion years (14 billion light years) from beginning there (and here) to end here (and there). The eternally 'averaged' length of time . . . eternally 'averaged' length of age! The 'eternal' 'Schwarzschild (averaged) radius' of all the "observed relative" finite of the universe.

An infinity of finite lengths of time, in that timeline, totaling an infinity, an eternity, of 'Time' all told (T = fbb2 0|1 (unity). The eternal single hand (frozen) Time pointer to '0|1' on the clock at the center of Stephen Hawking's 'Grand Central Station' of universe.

Last edited:

#### Unclear Engineer

The calculation of Schwarzchild's radius is for a mass of matter that is separated enough from other matter that it acts gravitationally as one body.

But, is that what the universe really is - a finite mass with nothing beyond what we are currently conceptualizing? What is the actual universe is infinite, but clumpy, with no actual"center" for everything to fall into? In that case, it would be like how stellar mass black holes manage to be created without sucking in the rest of their gallaxies, just on a larger scale. Think of replacing stars in a galaxy with gallaxies in a "universe" or just a region of a universe The local density gets high enough to cause a rapid collapse, but elsewhere, the local density is not high enough to cause an overall collapse.

What we currently envision as "the universe" may just be a part of an unimagined larger realm of space and matter.

#### Atlan0001

The calculation of Schwarzchild's radius is for a mass of matter that is separated enough from other matter that it acts gravitationally as one body.

But, is that what the universe really is - a finite mass with nothing beyond what we are currently conceptualizing? What is the actual universe is infinite, but clumpy, with no actual"center" for everything to fall into? In that case, it would be like how stellar mass black holes manage to be created without sucking in the rest of their gallaxies, just on a larger scale. Think of replacing stars in a galaxy with gallaxies in a "universe" or just a region of a universe The local density gets high enough to cause a rapid collapse, but elsewhere, the local density is not high enough to cause an overall collapse.

What we currently envision as "the universe" may just be a part of an unimagined larger realm of space and matter.
An infinite density is the emptiest of empty holes, a so over loaded space that it is empty space. One dimension of "everything" ('1' (unity)). One dimension of "nothing" ('0' (null unity). The third dimension of the two dimensions, the finite dimension of "something" (parity 0 | (+/-)1 (unity)).

My usual analog is the tree, the trees, and the forest, for those who can't or won't see in sets as I visualize them to be. The forest is infinite, the infinity absolute of the finite relative of the tree and any grouping of the trees, except the infinite grouping, the infinite set of all trees. The tree and trees are in the forest, and the forest is in each and all the trees (the constituency is in the set and the set is in the constituency.

The tree and the trees are finite local. The forest is non-local to the local of the tree and trees, therefore it goes, collapses, into an absolute of 'Horizon', a Horizon of all of an infinity of horizons far up and outside, and far down and inside, of the relative finite locality. It, that Horizon ('h') will have physics, such as ('G') and ('c'). 'G' being the gravity of the Infinite set . . . gravity to the non-local infinity of universes in the Horizon, rather than to the relative finite locality. It can never pull anything apart because it is of the constituency, of itself, the set. It is "self-similar."

But that does not mean it does not exist, nor that it does not show up. It just shows up as push gravity, the energy to push, to the outland Horizon between its own element constituency.

The "cloud" is all parts, all horizons, of the Cosmic total. It is the creative soup at beginnings, and it is the unraveling of the creations in the ends, all at once! Like the quantum cloud, which it is by the way, the energy can and does go both ways at any and all times, high and low, up and down scale, any time and all times. A Volumatic warp-space-bubble, c^1, c^2, c^3.... c^-1, c^-2, c^3 (And, a Volumatic warp of mass and energy (e = mc^2, e = mc^3.... ((+/-) to include the negative . . . the mirror).

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Is that a valid number for the schwarzschild radius of the universe?

Schwarzschild radius, also called gravitational radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse.

Are we under irreversible gravitation collapse?
"Are we under irreversible gravitational collapsed?"

Of course we are, but you are thinking of a crinkling, squashing, effect and that isn't the way this irreversible gravitational collapse, this contraction of the universe, at once exactly paralleling the expansion of the universe, works. Think of it working both ways at once, that spacetime is not an absolute but is relative and that you aren't going to get squished in the contraction, nor stretched in the expansion. That because of the contraction, the expansion in turnabout, though actually occurring due to the infinity absolute, goes to "nowhereland," into "nothingness," and because of the expansion, the contraction in turnabout, though actually occurring due again to the infinity absolute, goes to "nowhereland," into "nothingness."

What is the net relative effect of the two opposing "absolutes," the two opposing effects? You are living the "relative," living inside the "relative horizon" of the net "relative" effect.

Some people think that because we exist within a local relative finite, a warp-space-bubble of spacetime, essentially a hologram if you will, it could just up and disappear at any moment. If you think about the two opposing infinity absolutes, the two opposing effects, you will realize the sheer impossibility of such a disappearance. Not the impossibility of disappearance as in change, but the impossibility of the holographic frame of local-finite coordinate relativity ever disappearing,

If you could approach the boundary horizon of a black hole without being destroyed in the debris field, you would find you are entering fast upon an expanding universe inside the horizon, and you contracting just as fast into it without being stretched or squashed, again providing your force field held up and you get that far. Think about how a contracted Earth (less than a black hole) expands (less than a black hole) for an approaching visitor to Earth until it almost fills the universe for the UFO, er, visitor, or traveler coming home. You wouldn't think you have a 0-point (portal) graviton singularity to thank for it, but that graviton singularity is exactly what you would have to thank for it . . . for what you take so absolutely for granted.

Every time I define infinite (infinite (infinitesimal) / infinitesimal (infinite) / infinity of.... / Infinities of....) I'm defining a 0-point (portal) graviton singularity. I'm defining a point. Even if it, that point, is primal / fundamental binary base 2 0}1 and (+/-) parity, farthest up and out, farthest down and in. Nothing above it. Nothing below it. Nothing outside it. Nothing inside it (thus everything above it. Everything below it. Everything outside it. Everything inside it). Horizon . . . micro / macro, 'Cloud' Horizon.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Think of the contraction to "Nowhere Land's" ("Everywhere Land's") infinity (the infinitesimal (thus, infinite)) [IN-FILLING!] the expansion to "Nowhere Land's" ("Everywhere Land's") infinity (the infinite (thus, infinitesimal)). The infinities of the horizons of a multi-faceted, a multi-dimensional, universe: The infinities of multiverse universes.

#### Gibsense

google schwarzschild radius of the universe. and you get "approximately 13.7 billion light-years"

The age of the universe according to BB is Age: 13.787±0.020 billion years

is that just a coincidence?

Does the schwarzschild radius of the universe grow proportional to the age of the universe?
Not coincidence. The universe expands with age. Aschwazschild Radius implies a n-sphere universe. We can take the radius of the sphere as age i.e. years or as distance i.e. light years. They are equivalent for this purpose.

#### Unclear Engineer

Not coincidence. The universe expands with age. Aschwazschild Radius implies a n-sphere universe. We can take the radius of the sphere as age i.e. years or as distance i.e. light years. They are equivalent for this purpose.
That is just an assertion without justification or explanation.

The issue is how can the universe be expanding if it is at or below its Schwarzschild radius? And, the pseudo "answer" is "inflation" and "dark energy". In other words, theorists simply made-up some parameters that they cannot explain nor detect, to make the theory that the apparent expansion of the existing universe can be extrapolated back in time to a single point, despite the existing theories telling us that such a mass should collapse, rather than expand.

Discoveries of new physical laws have come from inferences of new physics emerging from theorizing explanations of unexplained phenomena. However, that does not mean that all inferences are correct. We need some supporting observations and a workable equation of state for "inflation" and "dark energy" before we simply accept them as true.

#### Gibsense

That is just an assertion without justification or explanation.

The issue is how can the universe be expanding if it is at or below its Schwarzschild radius? And, the pseudo "answer" is "inflation" and "dark energy". In other words, theorists simply made-up some parameters that they cannot explain nor detect, to make the theory that the apparent expansion of the existing universe can be extrapolated back in time to a single point, despite the existing theories telling us that such a mass should collapse, rather than expand.

Discoveries of new physical laws have come from inferences of new physics emerging from theorizing explanations of unexplained phenomena. However, that does not mean that all inferences are correct. We need some supporting observations and a workable equation of state for "inflation" and "dark energy" before we simply accept them as true.
There is much evidence and there are explanations too although I agree there are gaps and doubts. However, the Standard Theory is the best science can do at the moment; something to work with and if possible develop.
In some sense all facts are assertions but if we accept your meaning then your statement is easily disputed I think. For example, Black Holes Expand even though they are below their Schwarzschild Radius. A special case may be that they 'feed' to do so! The point is that it is possible eg The universe is a feeding black hole or some other possibility - inflation. I suppose both could combine as an answer.
So, I agree that all theory needs challenge which is what you are doing..
Was there some other point you assert was unsupported?

#### Unclear Engineer

Was there some other point you assert was unsupported?
Aschwazschild Radius implies a n-sphere universe.
as an answer to why the estimated Schwarzdhild radius for the observed density of the universe happens to be the same as the look-back estimate for the actual radius of the universe that we can observe.

Please explain. And, specify in that explanation whether the estimated density of the universe includes the estimated abundance of dark matter, or just observable matter.

#### Gibsense

as an answer to why the estimated Schwarzdhild radius for the observed density of the universe happens to be the same as the look-back estimate for the actual radius of the universe that we can observe.

Please explain. And, specify in that explanation whether the estimated density of the universe includes the estimated abundance of dark matter, or just observable matter.
Please bear in mind that what follows is my interpretation of reality and should be used with caution but also consideration maybe Having said that I am unaware of any errors and will do my best to respond to criticism in a helpful way.

Ok, I have missed off, on most of my relevant posts, my reasoning regarding the Schwarzschild radius as the current finite limit of our unbounded universe. I assume this radius is understood to be our very own event horizon. Again I am assuming this is our universe and not just an observable universe but I may be wrong on that point.

I am interpreting the internal event horizon as where "now is".
I must be careful here as I am unsure of the reality of an internal and external event horizon. If you have had a look at some other posts I have made you will realise that I model this universe as a Black Hole (as a Hypersphere)

To continue. As said the "now" is the event horizon which is of course 3d space and spherical (the surface of a Hypersphere is 3 dimensional). Note our passage within 4D is at 'c'. Our universe time (a process of radial expansion is time) direction increases at 'c'.

You will know that the size of a Black Hole is directly related to its mass. So whatever way we consider it (your density issue) the reality in this scenario is self-fulfilling; dark matter or not. You may be able to calculate the reality of Dark Matter given this scenario.

Ok so perhaps this feels too weird, however, in a different post I show that the two Hubble measurements (from the CMB and separately the Hubble Telescope) match, with reasons, very closely the two measurements everyone is trying to reconcile.
HCs of approximately 71 and 69 respectively.

I have not previously admitted that I think Black Holes are Hyperspheres i.e. 4 spatial dimensions with time as a process imposed by radial expansion.
I may as well mention here that this is an obvious avoidance of the need for a singularity. The Black holes "start" with a 4d volume and a mass. If they shrink they explode at a critical point (so Hawking said).

Given all this of course there is a Hierarchy problem, but that's nothing new. better shut up for a bit

#### Unclear Engineer

I am not following your words and logic sufficiently to understand what you mean.

You seem to be saying that you think of the universe as a black hole, with us on the inside. That makes some intuitive sense if you think the mass and radius are sufficient. The issue is why is it expanding, or at least seeming to expand. I have read some statements that the solution to Einstein's Field Equations for the inside of a black hole would make observers inside see things as expanding, rather than contracting. But, I have no way of knowing it that is a proper solution of just somebody blowing smoke on the Internet.

And, if the universe is effectively uniform and much larger than the Schwarzchild radius for the observable (from here, now) density, then collapse due to gravity would not necessarily occur. But, there is still the question about why it seems to be expanding. Yes, you can speculate that there is some unknown energy form driving the expansion. Or, you can speculate that there is some unrecognized phenomenon that makes it seem like things are expanding to us.

So, it seems that there is no conclusive evidence that anybody really understands why we are seeing what we are seeing in astronomy today.

I don't have problems with people speculating. I just have problems with people who claim they know the answer, and make it sound like accepted fact.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Purely as an example of the implications of "Science and Sanity" (General Semantics) as postulated by Alfred Korzybski, and totally without any specific personal allusion, may I add my agreement with Unclear Engineer in his above comment:

I don't have problems with people speculating. I just have problems with people who claim they know the answer, and make it sound like accepted fact.

A speculation results from the workings of the speculator's sensory abstraction from his/her observational universe, usually coupled with prior speculations of others, all filtered through what I call the Korzybski Barrier, epitomised by "the map is not the territory" or "the menu is not the meal". This circuitous path, coupled with further meaning of meaning ramifications, evidences the ample opportunities for misinterpretation/misunderstanding / misrepresentation (unintentional or otherwise) of the subject matter. This is, of course, applicable to all human "communication".

I have suggested elsewhere other interpretations of multiverse and, whether anyone agrees or not, these could be in accordance with the above viz. range/extension of senses. Any perceived agreement could, of course, be coincidental and I am not suggesting mutual proof.

Cat

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

I am not following your words and logic sufficiently to understand what you mean.

You seem to be saying that you think of the universe as a black hole, with us on the inside. That makes some intuitive sense if you think the mass and radius are sufficient. The issue is why is it expanding, or at least seeming to expand. I have read some statements that the solution to Einstein's Field Equations for the inside of a black hole would make observers inside see things as expanding, rather than contracting. But, I have no way of knowing it that is a proper solution of just somebody blowing smoke on the Internet.

And, if the universe is effectively uniform and much larger than the Schwarzchild radius for the observable (from here, now) density, then collapse due to gravity would not necessarily occur. But, there is still the question about why it seems to be expanding. Yes, you can speculate that there is some unknown energy form driving the expansion. Or, you can speculate that there is some unrecognized phenomenon that makes it seem like things are expanding to us.

So, it seems that there is no conclusive evidence that anybody really understands why we are seeing what we are seeing in astronomy today.

I don't have problems with people speculating. I just have problems with people who claim they know the answer, and make it sound like accepted fact.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Following post #20, the following quote https://www.socratic-method.com/quo...rmer-begets-knowledge-the-latter-ignorance(my emphasis may be of interesr:

### Hippocrates: 'There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.'​

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.

In his notable statement, Hippocrates encapsulates the dichotomy between science and opinion, emphasizing how one leads to knowledge while the other perpetuates ignorance.

The straightforward interpretation of this quote is that science, through its rigorous methodologies and empirical foundations, generates knowledge and understanding. On the other hand, opinions, often driven by personal biases, preconceived notions, and limited information, can hinder the acquisition of true knowledge. This quote serves as a reminder of the fragility and malleability of human understanding and the importance of seeking factual evidence in the pursuit of knowledge.

However, delving deeper into the quote, we can introduce an intriguing philosophical concept that adds an unexpected twist to the article. This concept is the notion of the "perception of reality." Throughout the ages, philosophers and thinkers have contemplated the nature of reality and the subjective lens through which we perceive it. This idea challenges the very foundation of knowledge, suggesting that our understanding of truth is not an objective reality, but rather a collection of personal and societal constructions, influenced by our senses, biases, experiences, and cultural backgrounds.

While science strives to eliminate subjective biases and achieve objectivity through empirical investigation, the quote by Hippocrates hints at the intrinsic limitations of our own perceptions and interpretations. Science, while a powerful tool for uncovering truths about the natural world, is conducted by fallible human beings who are influenced by their own subjectivity. The scientific method itself acknowledges this challenge by encouraging replication, peer review, and rigorous methodology to minimize personal biases.In contrast, opinions are often fueled by personal experiences, emotions, and social constructs. They can be shaped by incomplete information or influenced by groupthink, leading to the propagation of misinformation and ignorance.

However, it is important to note that opinions can also serve as catalysts for critical thinking, creativity, and innovation.
They provide us with a platform for self-expression and the exploration of diverse perspectives, nurturing a healthy discourse and societal progress.To truly embrace the profound significance of Hippocrates' quote, we must recognize that science and opinion are not polar opposites, but rather interconnected forces. They represent different spectrums along a continuum of human understanding. Science, with its demand for evidence, is a means to distinguish between factual and unfounded claims. Opinions, on the other hand, act as a catalyst for questioning established paradigms and fueling intellectual curiosity.As individuals, we must strive to strike a delicate balance between the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the exploration of opinions. It is through the interdisciplinary engagement of science, philosophy, and critical thinking that we can expand our comprehension of the world around us. By acknowledging the limitations of our own perceptions and fostering a healthy skepticism, we can approach knowledge with humility and an insatiable desire for truth.In conclusion,

Hippocrates' timeless quote serves as a powerful reminder of the dichotomy between science and opinions. While science leads us toward objective knowledge, opinions – infused with subjectivity – can hinder our quest for truth, perpetuating ignorance.

However, by introducing the concept of the "perception of reality," we unveil the nuanced relationship between science and opinions. Recognizing the limitations of both viewpoints and embracing a balance between scientific inquiry and open-mindedness enables us to tread the fine line between knowledge and ignorance, ultimately propelling humanity forward in its pursuit of understanding.

Cat

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

I have just reread my responses. Frankly, I am not surprised you are unclear.
Some parts are 'Standard Theory' mixed with personal ideas which are, to my mind, easily supportable. Perhaps I should identify which is which by using a * against points which are generally accepted as fact. So, my apologies, as in my school report, very many years ago "must try harder"

1. *Schwarzschild Radius: "The Schwarzschild radius is a physical parameter in the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equations that corresponds to the radius defining the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole"

2. Event Horizon: Our own environment/universe has an Event Horizon according to S Hawking ( a book ). However, asking 'How fast is our universe expanding ?' usually has a response quoting the Hubble Constant. A normal response from an Astronomer describing expansion from the point of view of normal 3d space. So, this different view needs explanation which I will attempt at point 3 to explain lucidly to avoid confusion.

3. Assuming the universe is expanding* this can be expressed with an analogy. That is imagine our universe exists on the surface of a balloon/sphere. On the balloon are marks representing Galaxies.

As the balloon/sphere expands the galaxies separate due to space added between them. This is described by the 'Hubble Constant'. However, as well as expansion described by the surface increase (Hubble Constant) it can be described by the increase in the balloon/sphere radius.
It is this radius that is expanding at the speed of light*.
As a result, light cannot escape and therefore we have an event horizon to our spacetime universe.

NB* Effectively this is a description of a hypersphere (a 4d sphere) achieved by dropping a dimension to be able to visualise.

4. Your point is, I think, whether the total mass available in our universe is/is not sufficient (given the event horizon) to be a Schwarzschild Radius (?)

5. There are black holes in our universe*. They (most maybe) Feed and expand*

6. My suggestion (many have suggested but been discounted mostly although still believed feasible I think) is that we/our universe is a Black Hole which is being fed from another universe hierarchically 'Above' ours.

7. That the feed/food/mass that we receive is Dark Energy - the stuff causing expansion (so far as I know this is original/ my contribution)

8. This scenario demands that the view of causation to produce a black hole with the hierarchical universe 'above' be different to the assessment of mass/schwarzscchild radius you raise (?) That is, mass was sufficient to cause a black hole in the 'upper' universe to produce ours but the mass provided is configured differently. Speculation indeed but I think worth exploring eg 9. below

9. Could it be that in producing a black hole (now looking at the black holes in our universe) our mass is at least partially converted to space inside the hole? Or that space pours in from us to it. Or some other wild speculation!

10. Just a note: This scenario avoids a black hole singularity and therefore supposedly avoids one of our own. Perhaps this is a major weakness of this idea; we can currently get very close to a potential singularity in our universe. Duh! Need to think about that, lol

Anyway, I hope this clarifies where I was coming from. In the end, I seem to have defeated myself!!

#### Gibsense

Following post #20, the following quote https://www.socratic-method.com/quo...rmer-begets-knowledge-the-latter-ignorance(my emphasis may be of interesr:

### Hippocrates: 'There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.'​

In his notable statement, Hippocrates encapsulates the dichotomy between science and opinion, emphasizing how one leads to knowledge while the other perpetuates ignorance.

The straightforward interpretation of this quote is that science, through its rigorous methodologies and empirical foundations, generates knowledge and understanding. On the other hand, opinions, often driven by personal biases, preconceived notions, and limited information, can hinder the acquisition of true knowledge. This quote serves as a reminder of the fragility and malleability of human understanding and the importance of seeking factual evidence in the pursuit of knowledge.

However, delving deeper into the quote, we can introduce an intriguing philosophical concept that adds an unexpected twist to the article. This concept is the notion of the "perception of reality." Throughout the ages, philosophers and thinkers have contemplated the nature of reality and the subjective lens through which we perceive it. This idea challenges the very foundation of knowledge, suggesting that our understanding of truth is not an objective reality, but rather a collection of personal and societal constructions, influenced by our senses, biases, experiences, and cultural backgrounds.

While science strives to eliminate subjective biases and achieve objectivity through empirical investigation, the quote by Hippocrates hints at the intrinsic limitations of our own perceptions and interpretations. Science, while a powerful tool for uncovering truths about the natural world, is conducted by fallible human beings who are influenced by their own subjectivity. The scientific method itself acknowledges this challenge by encouraging replication, peer review, and rigorous methodology to minimize personal biases.In contrast, opinions are often fueled by personal experiences, emotions, and social constructs. They can be shaped by incomplete information or influenced by groupthink, leading to the propagation of misinformation and ignorance.

However, it is important to note that opinions can also serve as catalysts for critical thinking, creativity, and innovation.
They provide us with a platform for self-expression and the exploration of diverse perspectives, nurturing a healthy discourse and societal progress.To truly embrace the profound significance of Hippocrates' quote, we must recognize that science and opinion are not polar opposites, but rather interconnected forces. They represent different spectrums along a continuum of human understanding. Science, with its demand for evidence, is a means to distinguish between factual and unfounded claims. Opinions, on the other hand, act as a catalyst for questioning established paradigms and fueling intellectual curiosity.As individuals, we must strive to strike a delicate balance between the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the exploration of opinions. It is through the interdisciplinary engagement of science, philosophy, and critical thinking that we can expand our comprehension of the world around us. By acknowledging the limitations of our own perceptions and fostering a healthy skepticism, we can approach knowledge with humility and an insatiable desire for truth.In conclusion,

Hippocrates' timeless quote serves as a powerful reminder of the dichotomy between science and opinions. While science leads us toward objective knowledge, opinions – infused with subjectivity – can hinder our quest for truth, perpetuating ignorance.

However, by introducing the concept of the "perception of reality," we unveil the nuanced relationship between science and opinions. Recognizing the limitations of both viewpoints and embracing a balance between scientific inquiry and open-mindedness enables us to tread the fine line between knowledge and ignorance, ultimately propelling humanity forward in its pursuit of understanding.

Cat
Amazing, you nailed it.

Catastrophe

#### Unclear Engineer

Gibsense,

I understand what you mean, now. I have thought about that concept myself several times, and I don't see any way to disprove it with current knowledge.

The issue is that we are not good at thinking about what "space" is from a dimensional perspective. And I include "time" as one of those dimensions that we are particularly bad at conceptualizing. General Relativity Theory breaks down at interfaces like black hole event horizons, so that, from the outside, we think we cannot see anything cross it because we perceive time as stopping its passage at the horizon.

I would like to see more theoretical work on what "space" and "time" look like from inside an event horizon. If we are willing to believe that "space" is as expandable as the BBT hypothesizes, then it seems that we should also be willing to believe that space is just as compressible. And, we need to better understand what happens as "space" is compressed or collapses or whatever we call its dimensional changes. Is it really like compressing matter into a smaller dimension? Or, is matter also changed into smaller dimensions so that the "fit" is the same at all scales?

The BBT is a hodge-podge of mixed thinking about that. For instance, the BBT seems to think that the speed of light was sufficient to transit the entire universe quickly while it was highly compressed just after the Big Bang. But, General Relativity Theory says that observers will always get the same speed of light result from measurements, due to changes in the perceived speed of time passage as well as changes in the perceived physical dimensions of objects. To me, that argues for the conclusion that light speed would never be sufficient to transit the universe fast enough to keep it homogenous for the amount of time passage that the theorists need to make the BBT work. I am saying that I think their "solution" to the "horizon problem" violates everything we are able to measure to validate General Relativity Theory.

So, yes, I am open to the idea that our universe, so far as we can observe it, could exist inside a black hole in a larger universe, as well as that there could be other universes that we cannot observe inside of the black holes that we can detect in our own universe. Maybe there are even black holes within the black holes that we can detect. Logically there might be a cascade of universes possible with event horizons inside event horizons with no reason for a limit on how many levels could exist.

What argues against that concept is only our intuitive belief that "there isn't enough room inside a black hole for another universe." But, General Relativity Theory proves we are not good at intuitively understanding space/time in situations much different from where we evolved here on Earth.

And, General Relativity has its limits, because it is really only a mathematical rationalization of the perceptions that we have based on our observations. It has always worked so far as we have been able to test it.

But, the BBT is based on the idea that GRT must not be able to correctly predict what the universe was like when it's observed radial expansion is extrapolated backwards to make it the size smaller than what we now perceive as the radius of an atomic nucleus. "Inflation" is introduced specifically to make the BBT work despite GRT working against it.

If that violation of GRT is accepted by most theorists as "the best model", then I strongly believe that they need to be open to the idea that their own, far less well validated theory, might not be the only way to conceive of the reality we are all trying to grasp.

Replies
0
Views
812
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
841
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K