Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Last I saw, estimates were that we're within experimental uncertainty 
> about whether we're within our own Schwartzchild radius.

  If GR is right, then the universe would look a lot different if we were
inside that radius. The GR equations have funny properties inside this
radius. For instance, all geodesics, including timelines, go to the
singularity, and there's no escaping it. Even if you try to keep away
from the singularity you just can't, because advancing in time is equal
to advancing towards the singularity.

  As far as I know, the universe is *expanding*, not going towards a single
point.

> > (Because if it was caused by mass, it would mean that the entire universe
> > is actually inside its own Schwarzschild radius, which is clearly not the
> > case.)

> Not sure why you would think that. If there's enough mass to eventually 
> collapse the universe back to the "big crunch", then by definition we're 
> in a "black hole" out of which no light can escape. It's just a really 
> big one, hundreds of billions of light years in diameter. :-)

  A star is not a black hole even during its own collapse. Not until it
gets inside its own Schwarzschild radius. Collapse does not mean that
the thing which collapses is a black hole.

> >   I don't find any kind of logic in that. Why would there be a "similar",
> > "parallel" version of anything if you travel far enough? It doesn't make
> > any logical sense.

> Probably in the "inifinite monkeys type shakespear" kind of way.

  Which is a fallacy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message