Epos Nix on 29/3/2006 at 09:49
Read the article and saw no mention whatsoever about us existing within a blackhole. As a matter of fact, it seems as if the scientists in that article are trying their hardest to debunk blackholes as a theoretical entity. Instead, they are trying to replace every instance of "blackhole" with "dark energy star" and are trying to work out the physics that would allow such a thing to exist. At the same time though, they still at this point make a distinction between "blackhole" and "dark energy star", so I do not believe they are equal.
...or did I read wrong?
Bjossi on 29/3/2006 at 11:10
A black hole is a star, but the matter and the mass are just crushed to a tiny dot, full of energy too. But don´t go near, even light can´t escape those tiny monsters. :eww:
Epos Nix on 29/3/2006 at 11:22
That is nothing like what they describe these dark energy stars to be. As a matter of fact, they claim these stars emit infrared radiation...
Bjossi on 29/3/2006 at 11:40
Radio waves too I think. These things poop many types of waves. :p
Para?noid on 29/3/2006 at 11:59
Hurrr working out the universe with mathematics. Actually black holes are hella observable, I thought. Anyway, the universe is expanding. Throw that in an equation to do with black holes and it will probably fuck everything up.
Epos Nix: Black holes radiate all kinds of shit. Hawking radiation in all, or if a star is too close to one, an accretion disc forms out of the matter it is sucking into its dark ass core.
Bjossi on 29/3/2006 at 12:01
Yep, and how it sucks the sun´s gas, looks beatiful from the documentary I saw about these black holes. :p
BEAR on 29/3/2006 at 12:57
black holes smack holes, white holes are some crazy shit.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/3/2006 at 17:06
I don't see how positing that the Universe is a black hole gives us anything. Nothing about a black hole explains why we see the Universe expanding, nor does it give us any inkling as to why it's structured the way it is. The evidence for the Big Bang is solid and there's no analogous processes for black holes.
In other words if we're in a black hole why does the entire Universe look like it was created from a rapidly expanding singularity? That isn't black hole-ish at all. It seems to me that assuming the Universe is the interior of a black hole raises a lot more questions than it answers.
Bjossi on 29/3/2006 at 17:16
Doesn´t that mean that there is a black hole where the expanding of the universe started? Like a super-black hole and all the galaxies flying around it.
Epos Nix on 29/3/2006 at 17:20
Quote:
I don't see how positing that the Universe is a black hole gives us anything.
Um... is that directed at the forum posters or the article that was referenced? Here's what the article says about an expanding universe and how it complies with their findings:
Quote:
Sure enough, in place of black holes their analysis predicts a phase transition that creates a thin quantum critical shell. The size of this shell is determined by the star's mass and, crucially, does not contain a space-time singularity. Instead, the shell contains a vacuum, just like the energy-containing vacuum of free space. As the star's mass collapses through the shell, it is converted to energy that contributes to the energy of the vacuum.
The team's calculations show that the vacuum energy inside the shell has a powerful anti-gravity effect, just like the dark energy that appears to be causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Chapline has dubbed the objects produced this way "dark energy stars".
