|
|
Warp wrote:
> As far as I know, the universe is *expanding*, not going towards a single
> point.
If there's enough mass, then eventually gravity will pull everything
into a "single point", just like everything came from a single point
during the big bang. (At least, that's my lay understanding.)
>> 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'm not sure "Schwarzschild radius" makes sense in the context of "all
of space-time". I.e., what does "radius of the universe" mean?
>>> 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.
I didn't say it was right. :-) But yah, I guess if you strictly mean
"in any logical sense", it isn't logical.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|