Does reality comprise only 5% of the Universe?

[AV1611VET]

I've spent the last few posts showing your standards are illogical and contradictory ...

And I've spent the last few posts showing you where you're wrong.

 

[sjastro]

If you estimate the total mass of the Universe and calculate its Schwarzchild Radius, you'll realize this Radius is well within the known boundary of the Universe.

What that means is the Universe we know, or at least, most of it, including ourselves exist inside an extremely large black hole roughly the size of our Universe.

If you want to know what's inside a black hole, look no further and pinch yourself, that's you! But as silly scientists go, they can't predict what goes inside the black hole, it is the region of space where physics don't make sense...... At the scale of the Universe, we begin to deal with the "macroscopic" version of quantum mechanics. Our universe could even be somebody else's atom.

.....Why many things in our Universe, don't make sense....that's because it's inside a really huge black hole! OR we are just really really tiny and we don't even know it!

No the universe is not inside a black hole for the simple reason space-time outside beyond a black hole's event horizon is static not expanding where as the universe is.
The universe's singularity more resembles a white hole which is a time reversed black hole where nothing can enter the event horizon but emits signals from the inside to outside the horizon.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Good question. We can touch, smell, see, experience and do stuff with the reality we live in. Not so much with Dark Energy.

What about neutrinos? Are they "real"? You can't do anything with them. You can't experience them, touch them, or see them.

 

[sjastro]

And I've spent the last few posts showing you where you're wrong.

Saying God did it is not a satisfactory answer as you haven't shown how God did it while your standards remain logically inconsistent as you haven't provided any counterarguments to suggest they are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Saying God did it is not a satisfactory answer as you haven't shown how God did it while your standards remain logically inconsistent as you haven't provided any counterarguments to suggest they are.

Suit yourself.

I'm not going over all this again.

I corrected a big mistake you made (see Post 127), and I don't feel like going over all this again.

 

[sjastro]

Suit yourself.

I'm not going over all this again.

I corrected a big mistake you made (see Post 127), and I don't feel like going over all this again.

You must suffer from selective blindness or a lack of basic comprehension skills.
The logical inconsistencies in post #127 remain as shown in this post and a follow up post.

 

[dlamberth]

What about neutrinos? Are they "real"? You can't do anything with them. You can't experience them, touch them, or see them.

We know neutrinos exist with abundance in the 5% of the Universe. Their mass is known and even spin. Knowing the kind of stuff that I read in Wiki, most of which I have no idea what they are talking about, it's clear that neutrinos are well studied and defined. So I can't say that neutrinos are invisible to us. Far from it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We know neutrinos exist with abundance in the 5% of the Universe. Their mass is known and even spin. Knowing the kind of stuff that I read in Wiki, most of which I have no idea what they are talking about, it's clear that neutrinos are well studied and defined. So I can't say that neutrinos are invisible to us. Far from it.

It really felt like you were talking about using ones "senses". Before they were detected, neutrinos were "identified" by their missing nature impacting other things (like neutron decay). Dark matter and dark energy are detected by the same sort of indirect methods.

 

[dlamberth]

It really felt like you were talking about using ones "senses". Before they were detected, neutrinos were "identified" by their missing nature impacting other things (like neutron decay). Dark matter and dark energy are detected by the same sort of indirect methods.

It's my understanding that dark matter and dark energy is still hypothetical, at least in their makeup. And that it's their negative gravity force that tells us they fill 95% of the Universe. I claim no authority on this at all. It's just amazing to me that our physical world makes up such a small percentage of the Universe.

 

[timewerx]

Who is that?

He's one of the chief researchers in a start up company called "Prestige Worldwide"

AKA Will Ferrell.

 

[timewerx]

No the universe is not inside a black hole for the simple reason space-time outside beyond a black hole's event horizon is static not expanding where as the universe is.
The universe's singularity more resembles a white hole which is a time reversed black hole where nothing can enter the event horizon but emits signals from the inside to outside the horizon.

Most of the matter falling into a black hole is ejected away. And our "location" inside our 'black hole universe' is possibly near one of the "ejection" points (South or North Pole).

Space-time curvature is utterly convoluted at these regions that everywhere we look, we see the "ejection zone". So we think the Universe is expanding but what we're seeing are simply all kinds matter being ejected out and away from our black hole home.

Since our 'black hole home' is a really really big one, things don't get "spaghettified" when they reach its Event Horizon, they just fall in fully intact and then fall out unscratched. It doesn't have an accretion disc either simply due to its incredible size....My point is, everything will look "normal". We won't see evidence of this giant black hole because it doesn't possess many of the features of a "normally" sized black hole.

 

[Kylie]

Was the once upon a time our reality that we are living in?
What about today? What's going on now where there are electrons.

I think you missed the point.

The fact that dark energy and dark matter is not understood by us does not mean those things are real. It is just the same as the fact that there was once a time when we did not understand electrons, or even know about them. Yet electrons were still part of reality at that point.

 

[timewerx]

I think you missed the point.

The fact that dark energy and dark matter is not understood by us does not mean those things are real. It is just the same as the fact that there was once a time when we did not understand electrons, or even know about them. Yet electrons were still part of reality at that point.

Everything gets clear once you accept we're just living along the fringes of space that is actually inside a very large black hole.

It's plainly obvious the entire mass in the known Universe is enough to make a Schwarzchild Radius within the bounds of our known Universe.

What most people are not familiar about black holes is that most of the matter that falls into it is ejected out the poles. This movement of material at the poles which is incredible in terms of mass and speed (close to the speed of light) is sufficient to 'warp and drag' space time along with it that some of the matter stream could be moving faster-than-light! - a phenomenon called "Linear Frame Dragging" which is the basis of some warp drive concepts (I personally believe can be turned into practical working device using BEC and lasers, using light/photons to warp space).

Astrophysicists have predicted that some of the galaxies moving away from us, especially the ones that are no longer visible (gone beyond all detectable forms of EM radiation) are already moving away from us at faster-than-light speeds!

It could easily explain why the universe's "expansion" is accelerating. Galaxies that are being ejected away at incredible speeds is also dragging space with it that is sufficient to overcome gravity. Expansion is accelerating because our region of space is probably about to be ejected as well.

Space can be so distorted at this region being close to the "Event Horizon, and combined linear frame dragging caused by mass ejection of galaxies that everywhere we look, we see the the "ejection point" thinking, everything is moving away from us but in reality, everything in our region of space is simply moving in one direction. Like entering a house with many windows and all showing the same view! Many of the hypothetical shape of our Universe involves a tunnel. May it be a donut or something like a worm, the immediate region is a tunnel. It's something I agree with fits well with the idea we're inside a black hole and about to be ejected off of it.

 

[sjastro]

Most of the matter falling into a black hole is ejected away. And our "location" inside our 'black hole universe' is possibly near one of the "ejection" points (South or North Pole).

Space-time curvature is utterly convoluted at these regions that everywhere we look, we see the "ejection zone". So we think the Universe is expanding but what we're seeing are simply all kinds matter being ejected out and away from our black hole home.

Since our 'black hole home' is a really really big one, things don't get "spaghettified" when they reach its Event Horizon, they just fall in fully intact and then fall out unscratched. It doesn't have an accretion disc either simply due to its incredible size....My point is, everything will look "normal". We won't see evidence of this giant black hole because it doesn't possess many of the features of a "normally" sized black hole.

Here are the problems with your model.
When an object or observer reaches a black hole’s event horizon and passes through it is curtains and can never reemerge.
This can be explained with a Minkowski space-time diagram.

The observer’s present time and location is where the observer’s past and future light cones meet.
The region inside the past light cone is where events have occurred in the observer’s past and events which will happen in the observer’s future fall inside the future light cone.

As the observer approaches the event horizon the light cones narrow due to gravitational time dilation and when it passes inside the event horizon at r = rₛ the time like and distance like terms in the Schwarzschild metric are interchanged.
Geometrically the light cones “tip over” and the singularity is in the observer’s future light cone and the event horizon is in the observer’s past light cone.

To travel back towards the event horizon requires the observer to travel back into his past which needless to say is impossible.
This eliminates the idea of the universe existing inside the event horizon of a giant black hole as your matter is ejected outwards to the event horizon and therefore into the past.

The other issues with your model is when we observe matter ejected from supermassive black holes in the form of quasars and galaxies with active galactic nuclei (AGN) an accretion disk is necessary.
As the material from the accretion disk approaches the event horizon it is heated up to millions of degrees K due to friction and the conversion of gravitational potential energy into heat.

Matter is ionized along with the creation of X-ray and gamma ray photons.
Ionized matter can have sufficient kinetic energy to never reach the event horizon and is ejected as jets the dimensions of which depend on the thickness of the accretion disk.

Since the ejected matter travels through space time it is subject to the laws of special relativity where it cannot exceed the speed of light.
Yet galaxies with redshifts exceeding z = 1.46 have recession velocities exceeding the speed of light and therefore are not ejected through space-time.
Instead galaxies are being carried along by space-time expansion known as the Hubble flow where the speed of light is not an upper limit.

 

[AV1611VET]

AKA Will Ferrell.

Thank you, sir.

 

[dlamberth]

I think you missed the point.

The fact that dark energy and dark matter is not understood by us does not mean those things are real. It is just the same as the fact that there was once a time when we did not understand electrons, or even know about them. Yet electrons were still part of reality at that point.

I've not said that they are not real. Can you point towards how we in our everyday lives interact with dark energy and dark matter? I sure can't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've not said that they are not real. Can you point towards how we in our everyday lives interact with dark energy and dark matter? I sure can't.

This discriminant (not in our everyday lives) also applies to neutrinos, gamma rays, mesons, muons, and cosmic rays, yet all of these things are real.

You could also say similar things for the strong nuclear force. Sure it interacts with the components of the nuclei in the atoms of your molecules (holding them together), but you don't notice it and you'd need an nuclear physics experiment to detect even the effects.

 

[timewerx]

Here are the problems with your model.
When an object or observer reaches a black hole’s event horizon and passes through it is curtains and can never reemerge.
This can be explained with a Minkowski space-time diagram.

View attachment 330896​

The observer’s present time and location is where the observer’s past and future light cones meet.
The region inside the past light cone is where events have occurred in the observer’s past and events which will happen in the observer’s future fall inside the future light cone.

As the observer approaches the event horizon the light cones narrow due to gravitational time dilation and when it passes inside the event horizon at r = rₛ the time like and distance like terms in the Schwarzschild metric are interchanged.
Geometrically the light cones “tip over” and the singularity is in the observer’s future light cone and the event horizon is in the observer’s past light cone.

View attachment 330897​

To travel back towards the event horizon requires the observer to travel back into his past which needless to say is impossible.
This eliminates the idea of the universe existing inside the event horizon of a giant black hole as your matter is ejected outwards to the event horizon and therefore into the past.

The other issues with your model is when we observe matter ejected from supermassive black holes in the form of quasars and galaxies with active galactic nuclei (AGN) an accretion disk is necessary.
As the material from the accretion disk approaches the event horizon it is heated up to millions of degrees K due to friction and the conversion of gravitational potential energy into heat.

Matter is ionized along with the creation of X-ray and gamma ray photons.
Ionized matter can have sufficient kinetic energy to never reach the event horizon and is ejected as jets the dimensions of which depend on the thickness of the accretion disk.

View attachment 330899​

Since the ejected matter travels through space time it is subject to the laws of special relativity where it cannot exceed the speed of light.
Yet galaxies with redshifts exceeding z = 1.46 have recession velocities exceeding the speed of light and therefore are not ejected through space-time.
Instead galaxies are being carried along by space-time expansion known as the Hubble flow where the speed of light is not an upper limit.

You did not pay very careful attention to some of the things I wrote but that's alright.

A black hole the size of the Universe is going to pretty big obviously. So big the lines of gravity at the Event Horizon (EH) is going be virtually parallel even with "lines" that are many light years apart.

What that means is despite the incredible gravity at the EH, the ones acting to compress matter would be so little, it won't even factor in. Tidal forces are also going to be incredibly little, no 'spaghettification' of matter will ever occur.

With almost negligible compression and tidal forces. there won't be an accretion disc present in universe-sized black holes.

 

[dlamberth]

This discriminant (not in our everyday lives) also applies to neutrinos, gamma rays, mesons, muons, and cosmic rays, yet all of these things are real.

All of those things are detectable, are they not?
Dark matter and dark energy not so much.

You could also say similar things for the strong nuclear force. Sure it interacts with the components of the nuclei in the atoms of your molecules (holding them together), but you don't notice it and you'd need an nuclear physics experiment to detect even the effects.

I'm sitting here wondering how a person would detect dark matter and dark energy in the realm of "ordinary matter" as @sjastro described in post 86?
"Ordinary matter can be explained with a non phenomenological theory which describes the nature of matter through the standard model of particle physics and is based on quantum field theories.
This is supported by particle accelerator experiments."

 

[sjastro]

You did not pay very careful attention to some of the things I wrote but that's alright.

A black hole the size of the Universe is going to pretty big obviously. So big the lines of gravity at the Event Horizon (EH) is going be virtually parallel even with "lines" that are many light years apart.

What that means is despite the incredible gravity at the EH, the ones acting to compress matter would be so little, it won't even factor in. Tidal forces are also going to be incredibly little, no 'spaghettification' of matter will ever occur.

With almost negligible compression and tidal forces. there won't be an accretion disc present in universe-sized black holes.

If anyone hasn’t been paying attention to the point of outright ignoring it would be you.
Your model doesn’t work for three reasons specified in my previous post.
(1) Inside the EH to move outwards would require to travel backwards in time which is impossible.
(2) Accretion disks are required as “fuel” for objects which have supermassive black holes at their centres such as quasars and AGNs.
(3) The jets travelling in space-time cannot exceed the speed of light.

This is only scratching the surface, the size of a black hole is the radius of the EH with a point mass singularity at the centre.
Taking the mass of the universe ≈10⁶⁰ kg at the singularity and a 1 kg point mass 14 billion light years away which is the EH for a flat non expanding universe, the gravitation force on the mass is only of the magnitude of 10⁻³ using the inverse square law.
This is not incredibly high by any stretch of the imagination.

While quasars and AGNs propel charged particles as jets, you haven’t explained the mechanism how large objects such as galaxies are ejected in the first place let alone how they are formed inside the EH.
Can you explain the cosmic radiation background or how atoms, elements and stars are formed using your model?
What is the observational evidence supporting your model?