Timeline for World line coordinate finiteness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2014 at 23:19 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | Incidentally - and rather ironically - see this question: astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/6305/…. I think this supports my point. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 19:41 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | This makes no sense, and all stems from the theory that we're all inside a black hole. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 19:19 | comment | added | frodeborli | Finally; I fully adopt the notion that time and space is exactly the same. This implies that also physical distance is four dimensional, allowing us to observe particles as not being at the same "spot" i.e. have a physical shape - while another observer may see it as a singularity. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 18:30 | comment | added | frodeborli | @HDE226868 It seems obvious that at crossing the event horizon an object is "spaghettified" recursively until you're left with the tiniest of particles, or perhaps some energy/particle hybrid. Eventually that particle will reach the center of the singularity, and the spaghetification will be working internally on the particle more than externally. This will look like universal shrinking, which I believe is indistinguishable from an accelerating universal expansion - leading to a big freeze. In any direction, you're looking at the center of the black hole we originally entered - leading to CBR. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 22:23 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | It doesn't matter, this doesn't relate to the question. And how did you draw those conclusions? | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 22:19 | comment | added | frodeborli | @HDE226868 There are many observed effects that I believe can be explained by such a "sub universe". For example accelerating universal expansion, isotropy of cosmic background radiation, big freeze seems a natural consequence, | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 20:51 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | Apologies; looking back, that sounded overly snarky. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 20:42 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | I would argue that you're talking about fringe science and any statements to that effect would be off-topic. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 20:40 | comment | added | frodeborli | @hde226868 It depends on your perspective on the universe. I believe "our" universe is simply the center of a black hole in a much older and larger universe. New energy can certainly be introduced into such a "sub universe", without violating the law of conservation of energy. You can of course argue that I'm not talking about the "grand universe" then - but for all intents and purposes we can't exit this black hole I believe we're inside. Thus, for us it will be the universe. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 18:15 | answer | added | Walter | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 14:13 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAstronomy/status/504995187308113920 | ||
| S Aug 27, 2014 at 17:12 | history | suggested | HDE 226868♦ |
Added "big-bang-theory" and "space-time" tags.
|
|
| Aug 27, 2014 at 17:09 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | It seems like the answer is in your first sentence. Both objects originated at the same point in "time". To address the second part: introducing new matter into the universe would violate the law of conservation of energy. You would of course be right to object that the big bang introduced new matter and energy into the universe, but that period in history is still not well understood - though many have, and still are, trying. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 16:59 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 27, 2014 at 17:12 | |||||
| Aug 27, 2014 at 16:35 | history | asked | frodeborli | CC BY-SA 3.0 |