Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 14, 2014 at 14:54 comment added Christian Hollstein I read the article called2voyage is referring to. It argues completely from within the big bang / expanding universe model. Maybe that happened long ago. But this does not rule out a today's collapsing universe with redshift observed overall. Milkyway / Andromeda blue shift / Great Attractor: Maybe that's just a "small" turbulence in our local group of galaxies. On a large cosmological scale I would not put to much weight on the observed blue shift between us and our neighborhood
May 14, 2014 at 14:47 history edited Christian Hollstein CC BY-SA 3.0
The "not" was missing and inverted the sense of my statement. This is what I wanted to express: Einstein's general relativity field equations does ***not*** make a big difference.
May 14, 2014 at 13:18 comment added frodeborli @called2voyage Okay, fair enough. Imagining a universe inside a singularity, requires everything to be on the same place when viewed from outside - but viewed from within, affected by time dilution and other GR effects perhaps doesn't require a center.
May 14, 2014 at 13:16 comment added called2voyage @frodeborli Another black hole creating our universe would not require our universe to have a center.
May 14, 2014 at 13:14 comment added frodeborli @called2voyage How can you be completely certain that there is no center? Are there any certain ways to know that the universe is NOT inside another black hole? That all matter we see was ripped apart when crossing the event horizon of a black hole in an "earlier" universe, and now have been forming new stars after billions of years inside this superhole? Just curious as to how anybody can be certain and just shoot down that idea. Because a black hole certainly has a center when viewed from outside.
May 14, 2014 at 12:31 comment added called2voyage -1 There could not be a central black hole because the universe has no center. See this question: astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/669/…
May 14, 2014 at 9:58 comment added frodeborli I've asked about this in the past as well at marilynvossavant.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=376
May 14, 2014 at 9:51 comment added frodeborli The problem with finding two identical quasars is that you'll be looking at it vastly different distances - a young quasar and an older quasar. You could also imagine that if the milky way was falling toward a giant black hole, you'd see ourselves directly "behind" us. The mirrored milky way would appear to be on collision course with us. The idea came as an alternative explanation for the "Great Attractor" and the fact that the Andromeda Galaxy appears to be on collision course with us, much faster than the galaxies mass can account for.
May 14, 2014 at 9:43 comment added frodeborli I've been through the a similar line of thought as you, and I also believe that due to 1/r^2 you would see uniform redshift. While falling toward the hole, you would see an accelerating red shift in every direction. I've taken the line of thought a little further: once you cross the event horizon, tidal forces will rip everything apart into the the primary elements - electrons, neutrons or whatever. When this mixture comes closer to the absolute center - they will be less affected by tidal forces and can start to form hydrogen, stars and new black holes - inside the first black hole.
S May 14, 2014 at 7:30 review Late answers
May 14, 2014 at 12:31
S May 14, 2014 at 7:30 review First posts
May 14, 2014 at 13:12
May 14, 2014 at 7:07 history answered Christian Hollstein CC BY-SA 3.0