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?

 

[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.

 

[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."

 

[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.

 

[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).

 

[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.

 

[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.