I’ve been thinking a lot about Hawking’s latest theories, as well as a fringe theory that suggests our entire universe could be the 3 dimensional event horizon of a 4 dimensional black hole. Now the 4th dimension we interpret as “time” would be the one pointing TOWARDS the singularity, and keep in mind once you cross the event horizon, FOREVER AFTER you’d have another “virtual event horizon” right in front of “your eyes”, you could NEVER “see” anything “forward”, just like TIME is for us: we can “see” the past, but NEVER the future (ignoring psychics and other quacks of course). This would explain SO MUCH! Like the speed limit of particles with mass (slightly less than the speed of light, ie the escape velocity of the Black Hole.) The “Arrow of Time”, the Law of Increasing Entropy. Even the “Big Bang” because as we looked away in any direction (laterally in 3 dimensions around the singularity), we’d be looking back in time to the edge of the universe, and keep in mind the 4th dimension (time) would curve around the black hole and back in and GUESS WHAT WE’D SEE?!?! “Another” singularity! Or what scientists call “the big bang” a singularity that somehow blew up, but actually its the SAME one we’re already in! (or more accurately a time-reversed version of what we’re falling INTO, yes (so I’ve read) the equations say this is possible, think “Imaginary Time” from Hawking’s “Universe in a Nutshell”) it would also explain the equations that say that traveling faster than light is the same as going back in time (going to a higher “altitude” out of the black hole, in the 4th dimension) it would explain relativity, it would explain so many things. But I’m having trouble fully explaining what’s in my head, I am not an Astrophysicist. I’m sure y’all tearing this theory to shreds well help me get a better handle on it, thanks in advance!
Also, sorry, but it’s time to get theosophical here, everyone could already be on the way to “hell”, the “bottomless pit” as spoken of in the Bible. I’ve ALWAYS thought that was a black hole, ever since i was a kid, but we’re ALREADY in it. EVERYONE is “on the road to hell”. Scientifically speaking, it would take a VERY POWERFUL being OUTSIDE of the event horizon to pull ANY of us out…kinda makes yah think?
One thing to appreciate with many of the theoretical physics concepts that we hear about: black holes, dark matter, tachyons, wormholes etc, is that these concepts involve very complicated mathematics, and often rely on a deep understanding of other theories, and so often can’t really be related to the layman. Instead, various metaphors and simplifications are used, but they can be misleading.
I realized some time ago that even though I had read scores of pop sci books, I had no real understanding. It was still the case when some new theoretical physics revelation appeared in the news, it sounded completely arbitrary to me until someone broke that down into a metaphor for me, rinse repeat.
I just say this because many people believe that they can add to this domain of knowledge with some off the cuff analogy, but if you don’t have a real understanding of the existing theories, including the mathematics behind them, it’s a pretty safe bet that the analogy is worthless.
For example, you mentioned explaining why particles with mass can’t travel at c. But that’s not a mystery; that falls out of the mathematics of relativity, a theory that is astonishingly successful and accurate.
Since mankind would be defenseless if Earth found itself on a collision course with a big asteroid, I wonder what difference any better theories of the universe can make.
Scientifically speaking (which here seems to mean ‘making shit up’) there would BE no ‘outside’, and even if there was, there could be no sufficiently powerful force to pull things out, and even if there was, pulling you out would rip you to shreds.
Well if you say it’s a badly formed analogy, lets hear whats wrong with it! I said it needed work, HELP me! If you’re up to the challenge.
[quote=“crowmanyclouds, post:4, topic:753406”]
And they all should remember it’s puff, puff, pass!
Yes that’s EXACTLY what I was doing when I came up with this while watching a Morgan Freeman documentary, pass it this way brother!
Well for one thing, it could help us DIVERT the asteroid, perhaps using a better understanding of gravity. But thats not the point, I want to know the flaws in the theory.
Yes, there would have to be a couple assumptions, for example:
[ol]
[li]an “outside” (the 4 or more dimensional universe the black hole is in)[/li][li]The existence of a soul[/li][li]Said soul being ENERGY based, not physical.[/li][/ol]
But for now please forget the meta-physical stuff and focus on the physics. And I’m pretty sure flames are supposed to be in a different section of the forums here.
What distinguishes a scientific theory from science-fiction or just guess is that it makes specific, quantifiable predictions that we can compare (whether experimentally or theoretically) against known results. What you wrote is vague, ill-formed, and has zero predictive power. It’s complete nonsense.
[ol]
[li]OK, so assuming there’s an outside… now what?[/li][li]Ummmm… OK, but to what extent are you just assuming the things you want to prove?[/li][li]BZZZZT! Energy IS physical.[/li][/ol]
As I understand it, the universe appears to be expanding. If we were inside the event horizon of a black hole, what dynamic would yield that appearance?
No, I said I was tired of Christian amateurs mucking about with cosmological models. I mean at least a Shintoist “theory” would have the virtue of novelty.
But here I’ll help. There is no evidence of a soul and even if there was such a thing and it adhered to your “ENERGY based, not physical” assumption I’d have to tell you that energy is a physical phenomena and is measurable.
So why not go and prove the soul first before you try to dream up N dimensional holographic models where Hell is a singularity and God sits outside the universe?
I think I sense the term ‘Spiritual Energy’ marching in the direction of this thread with ill-deserved confidence.
OP: If you’re thinking of trying that argument, and you still want your idea to turn into a scientific theory, you will need to define the term and describe how it might be measured.
Only strictly speaking–The Pit differs only in that one can cuss there more freely and direct “you are a…” personal insults are allowed. Passive aggression is totally permissible everywhere else. The method of fighting ignorance around here has morphed from “provide facts to refute and reform” to “administer smug abuse until those in need of knowledge turn instead to silence.”