SP:' You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event
horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being
inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.'
MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance
within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black
hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the singularity,
would it not?
2/ I once heard someone on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's
Radio National Science Show [on every Saturday after the midday news]
describing our universe in these terms. His point was that whatever we
might think about what was 'beyond' the bounds of 'our' universe,
nothing from here can escape to 'there'. As I understand it this is in
line with Einstein's concept of the universe being closed in upon
itself, the key cause of which is gravity, the curvature of space-time.
MP: Going off at a tangent, I have a question which is quite possibly a
dumb question that just needs to be asked because it CAN be asked.
Preamble: The expansion of the universe, characterised by the Hubble
Constant I believe, is usually explained non-mathematically by analogy
with the stretching of the surface of a balloon as the balloon is
inflated. The balloon surface is stretched uniformly, pretty much, by
its having everywhere the same tensile strength and elasticity and by
the force which causes the deformation being applied equally all over
because it is the averaged effect of all the gas particles within the
contained volume. That much makes sense, and the overall effect is to
cause point locations on the surface of the balloon to recede from one
another at a rate which is proportional at any given moment to the
distance between the points, measured along the surface.
Question: Would it be mathematically equivalent, or significantly
different, to consider the measured change in size and in distances as
a uniform *contraction* of the metric, ie the measuring system, rather
than an expansion of the location, so to speak. In particular, why is it
not feasible to consider the Big Bang and subsequent Inflationary epoch
as being in effect a collapse?
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On 3/8/07, *Mark Peaty* <mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:mpeaty.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
>
> NB: I hope that my imaginary destination in your speculation of
> possible
> post mortem exploits for my erstwhile sceptical soul is not a
> post-Freudian slip. I know that many of my contributions to this and
> other lists have lacked the erudite succinctness of those with greater
> talents; failure of concentration [AKA 'ADD'] has been a
> characteristic
> of life for me, but I think that 'awaking' to the innards of a black
> whole would do more than wonderfully concentrate the mind:
> concentration
> itself would become the major problem even for a ghost! =-O
>
>
> You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event
> horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being
> inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Mar 08 2007 - 10:46:32 PST