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