Are we the product of something that passed through a black hole?

a reply to: stu119

a reply to: mysterioustranger

I do know a bit about this and was familiar with topic. Looking at my library, I'm thinking a discussion on this wasbin a book or books from the late 1970's.

I think i started with the likes of "A Brief History of Time".

*PS I think maybe we got it backwards. We ARE the Black Hole.

Sounds like a metaphorical interpretation rather than a literal one.

Taken in such context, i suppose it could hold water of sorts.

Thnx, God Bless

Same to you mate and the sentiment is appreciated.

I need to go do some work now.

a reply to: andy06shake

God bless your day, my friend!✌️🤙

a reply to: stu119

Are we the product of something that passed through a black hole?

Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

a reply to: stu119

Are we the product of something that passed through a black hole?

Yeah. A deposit from the cloaca universalis

As a kid I was preplexed about the fact you cannot stand still in space, or atleast not know it when you do.

a reply to: Spacespider1111

I suppose it's a bit of a mind-boggling concept because we're so used to experiencing motion and stillness in relation to objects around us on Earth.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Imagine drawing tiny little dots all over a grenade, then setting it off, we are one of those dots...its an analogue for the big bang.

Yeah, I kinda imagine it like being one of an infinite amount of baloons all rubbing against eachother and the friction heats up the air inside and they're slowly inflating. They all move eachother away slowly while growing until they pop.

a reply to: nerbot

The question begs through nerbot, what are all the balloons in?

Another balloon?

Is the multiverse some kind of Russian doll-type affair?

Interesting concepts to ponder but answers to such are probably above humanities pay grade really at least for the time being and given the sheer scale, size, and grand totality of it all.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: nerbot

The question begs through nerbot, what are all the balloons in?

Another balloon?

Is the multiverse some kind of Russian doll-type affair?

Like I said, Turtles All The Way Down. Or is it "up"... lol

.... and given the sheer scale, size, and grand totality of it all.

Or is it tiny weeny itsy bitsy like a single drop of water in a snowflake on a sleeve?

You’re on an ever revolving wheel but you’ll never truly know it. Round and round we go. Sometimes we get closer. Sometimes we move further away.

a reply to: nerbot

Like I said, Turtles All The Way Down. Or is it "up"... lol

As good an answer as any i suppose given the question.

Or is it tiny weeny itsy bitsy like a single drop of water in a snowflake on a sleeve?

That would be down to perspective.

And ours is rather limited down here on Earth at the arse end of the stars gravity well.

Situated in one of our galaxy's spiral arms relatively nowhere in particular.

a reply to: stu119

According to the Big Bang hypothesis, the universe was birthed from a singularity - which would in essence be a massive black hole.

The thing is, as the universe inflated subsequent to that singularity, it appears to have undergone an acceleration of expansion, such that its outer edges are probably now travelling faster than the speed of light and are therefore forever lost to our view. The relative smoothness of the distribution of matter within the observable universe and the fairly constant value for red-shift would indicate a fairly even dimensional inflation, such that the more distant objects from us appear to be moving away faster than objects closer to us.

It isn't like an explosion that releases great energy and then everything slows to a stop over time, it is more like a constant inflation of dimensionality within the universe.

I believe also that the 77,000 kph is the rotational speed of the outer arm of the Milky Way galaxy (that contains the Solar System), around the galactic core (and 77,000 kph is nothing compared to 'C').

The galaxy is believed to have been caused by the gravitational capture of matter causing it to gradually accumulate towards its centre. As this matter falls inwards, there is a slight Coriolis force similar to that seen in water going down a sink. Instead of the wated flowing straight down the sink, it rotates, following a least energy path that is the result of a complex of forces.

In centrifugal rotation, as the rotational diameter reduces, so does the orbital velocity increase in proportion. The classic analogue is a ballet dancer pirouetting - as they bring their arms closer in to their body, they spin faster.

To some extent, the movement of the outer arms of the galaxy exceed the rotational velocity theorised, and therefore it has been surmised that there must be more mass that is somehow invisible, and which is imparting a greater rotational velocity at such distances from the galactic core. This hidden missing mass has been called 'dark matter', and, as there is a mass-energy equivalence, there must also be significant hidden energy, too (dark energy).

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: andy06shake

I do know a bit about this and was familiar with topic. Looking at my library, I'm thinking a discussion on this wasbin a book or books from the late 1970's.

If I can find reference, I'll post it.

*PS I think maybe we got it backwards. We ARE the Black Hole.

Thnx, God Bless

There is a hypothesis that we don't actually live in a 3D universe, but it only appears that we do, and that the extra dimension/s is/are encoded holographically. And this would mean that we are, in fact, in a black hole, somewhere just above the point of singularity.

The suggestion is that we actually live on the event horizon of a, to us, invisible singularity, and that everything that is there now, got there by falling-in and has compressed down to now existing as a 2D surface, now with the spatial and physical relationships of the infalling matter being stored holographically (i.e: in phase relationship to the other matter that was collapsed to 2D).

This holographic universe hypothesis is useful for allowing us to do math on calculations of forces that don't provide any sensible 'path of action', but that obviously there is some sort of relationship - physically - between spatially separated parts of the universe that we can't see (because those interactions would be outside of our plane).

The hypothesis does have one drawback, though, in that the over-universe that contains the singularity has to be multidimensional beyond 'our' holographic surface, and there is no reason to believe that even the over-universe itself isn't a holographic encoding on the surface of an over-over-universe. Nor does it stop there!

Pretty soon, you are swimming in turtles all the way down, and the 'men' are coming in the van to fit you in a 'canvas smoking jacket' with sleeves that tie conveniently in the back.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The hypothesis does have one drawback, though, in that the over-universe that contains the singularity has to be multidimensional beyond 'our' holographic surface, and there is no reason to believe that even the over-universe itself isn't a holographic encoding on the surface of an over-over-universe. Nor does it stop there!

Perhaps it's so much simpler than that if we consider that we are only able to detect limited sound and light frequencies by natural means.

Those who have the tech and resources may be able to manipulate our physical world beyond our 5 natural senses using methods we can only speculate on, until "they" have a need to implement that tech into society to continue an agenda, hense why we are now "allowed" to understand and use holography, night vision, sound frequency, radio waves etc in everyday life.

Think "They Live" the movie but on a much grander scale.

a reply to: nerbot

Those who have the tech and resources may be able to manipulate our physical world beyond our 5 natural senses using methods we can only speculate on

The problem is that we have more than 5 senses.

So for that to work they would need to be able to manipulate them all in conjunction with one another.

Else some people are apt to peek behind the proverbial curtain and catch the wizard at his game.

Loved "They Live" all the same, surprised they have not made a show/series from that movie given the potential.

a reply to: Spacespider1111

You don't need to stand still.

I've thought about this a lot and come to the conclusion that time is motion and motion is time.

If you're in constant motion, that is our constant for everything in our local systems, including our measurements of physics. It accounts for everything.

It also accounts for when you send a clock around the sun and it comes back a different time to a second clock on earth, or why people would technically age at a different rate in space. These things are travelling at different speeds to the observer.

Our universe is born of an explosion of a single supermassive black hole. We cannot see beyond it, because it is just that.

There was probably still other stuff and matter outside of what we know as the universe. It will be forever out of reach unless we can travel beyond the pale using wormholes or something.

As for the origins of everything, who knows. The existence of the universe could be eternal. It could be a simulation, a creation or just exist. But our reality is finite, based on time and what we can perceive.

Finally, this means that time travel backwards is impossible. You can catapult yourself into the future, but never backwards. You can look back into the distant past away from us using photons, but we will never be able to perceive ourselves in the past.

originally posted by: Spacespider1111
As a kid I was preplexed about the fact you cannot stand still in space, or atleast not know it when you do.

Yeah, but how many postplexs do you have now at this time?