Timeline for Is it possible that a ultra-large portion of the space we live in is already inside a black hole? How could we refute this?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/ with https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 10, 2014 at 17:13 | answer | added | Anixx | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 20:35 | vote | accept | Ian Moriarty | ||
| Sep 11, 2014 at 12:03 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAstronomy/status/510035882699939840 | ||
| Sep 10, 2014 at 16:12 | comment | added | Ian Moriarty | Updated question to fork the second half to a new Question. | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 16:12 | history | edited | Ian Moriarty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Moved second half of question to separate inquiry.
|
| Sep 10, 2014 at 1:57 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | Indeed, large black holes are relatively low in density: mass/volume. Supermassive black holes are often said to have the density of a cup of water. My understanding is that mass estimates put us at just under the density for a black hole the size of the observable universe. On the other hand, the cosmological horizon is in many aspects equivalent to a black hole event horizon. I lack a handy reference right now, otherwise I'd be posting this as an answer. | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 0:00 | answer | added | HDE 226868♦ | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 9, 2014 at 23:04 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | Also (second comment because I hit the exact character limit for the first!), I would argue that this should stay open because it is not a personal theory, and, in fact, asks how it could be proven wrong. I'm just adding all of this because I'm worried that this question could be closed, and I don't think it deserves that. | |
| Sep 9, 2014 at 23:02 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | I think that this is a partial duplicate of astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/6057/…. I say "partial" because a) only part of your question (i.e. title) fits that description, and b) the other question has several close votes against it because it's pretty darn unclear. I don't know what others think of this one, but I'm just going to say that I think it should stay open. On [what has now been reduced to] a side note, the second part of your question seems to be unrelated. Could you relate it to the first part, or post it separately? | |
| Sep 9, 2014 at 20:19 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 10, 2014 at 0:40 | |||||
| Sep 9, 2014 at 20:17 | history | asked | Ian Moriarty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |