|
|
Ben Bradley wrote:
In
sci.astro.seti,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.sf.science,
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:34:24 -0700, Erik Max Francis <max@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
{ snip calculations }
So we should be (by definition) in a black hole...
Except we're not, because the Universe is expanding. The Universe
appears open, and furthermore the expansion appears to be accelerating.
Saying that "by definition" we're in a black hole only makes sense if
you're making some useless semantic distinction, rather than talking
about the actual physical properties of a black hole.
Presuming for a moment that we ARE in a big black hole, why are we
not compressed into an infinitesimal point at its center?
The "gravastar" theory posits that black holes are in the shape
of a "bubble", and not a "point".
see: http://www.answers.com/topic/gravastar
From the article:
In astrophysics, the Gravastar theory is a proposal by Emil Mottola and
Pawel Mazur to replace the black hole. Instead of a star collapsing into
a pinpoint of space with virtually infinite density, the gravastar
theory proposes that as an object gravitationally collapses, space
itself undergoes a phase transition preventing further collapse, being
transformed into a spherical void surrounded by a form of super-dense
matter.
...
According to the theorizers Emil Mottola and Pawel Mazur the universe
itself could very well be the inside of a giant gravastar.
...
Oxidized
|
|