Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought

The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.

Good going figuring that out, given that they’re separated from us by spacelike intervals. What statistics did you use to establish randomness? ;)

Right, black holes are always spitting out mass, which is why they never get too big. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Physicists take this hypothesis seriously due to a few striking mathematical similarities between black holes and our universe:

The Density Match: If you calculate the average density of all the matter inside our observable universe, it perfectly matches the density required to form a black hole of that exact size.

Mirrored Horizons: The event horizon of a black hole marks a boundary from which light can never escape. Similarly, our universe has a cosmic horizon—a boundary beyond which light has not had enough time to reach us since the beginning of time.

This makes sense:

The Big Bounce over the Big Bang: Instead of our universe beginning as an infinitely dense singularity, the theory relies on a concept called the Big Bounce. When a massive star or gas cloud collapses into a black hole in a parent universe, extreme quantum effects or spacetime torsion prevent it from shrinking indefinitely. The matter reaches a peak compression point, halts, and rebounds violently—creating a rapidly expanding new spacetime that looks exactly like the Big Bang to anyone inside it.

Maybe not purely random, but chaotically random...

Interestingly, NASA scientist Donald Kessler was originally inspired by the evolution of the asteroid belt when he formulated his 1978 thesis. When cosmologists and astrophysicists look at the universe through the lens of a Kessler-style cascade, they apply it to the macro-evolution of celestial bodies.

Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape a black hole.

Black holes emit Hawking radiation from their event horizons.

This is lot less than the mass of the earth (5.9722 × 10²⁴ kilograms)

Bigger black holes do emit mass, but they can capture it too, and are more likely to get bigger than smaller. The earth captures meteors all the time.

LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.

Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light. So gravity shouldn't prevent gravity from escaping a black hole. But it prevents everything ELSE from escaping. We're getting close to reactionless anti-propulsion here, I think.

/Non sequitur./

They do not. There are no geodesics that lead from inside a black hole to its outside when that lies in our universe. That is what _defines_ a black hole.

There _is_ a limit to the size of a (non-eternal) black hole not only because how it forms, but because it grows by clearing its environment (the radius/diameter of a Schwarzschild black hole is proportional to its mass), and so does, simplified Newtonian speaking, the gravitational acceleration in its environment due to it decrease. IOW, the speed of objects that is required for them to not fall into it decreases, and so does the probability of the black hole growing further.

F'up2 sci.physics

Old McDonald wrote in sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design: ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please get a real name. Please do not do that again.

^hole

Pseudoscientific nonsense. Instead:

_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black holes, _gravitation_ is understood as _a consequence of_ _the curvature of_ _spacetime_, and black holes _are_ curved _spacetimes_. See below.

As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.

Your entire idea of _gravitation_ being an object instead of an effect is wrong from the outset. (It is already wrong in Newton's theory of gravitation.)

Not gravitation does that, but the curvature of spacetime. All possible futures of everything inside a black hole lie inside that black hole; no spacetime geodesics lead out of it (into our universe):

My public YouTube playlist "Black holes"

Nonsense.

F'up2 sci.physics

You can't possibly mean that the densities match. Or the sizes, in any spatial dimension, volume, whatever.

Are you saying that if you calculate how much mass exists in our observable universe, it perfectly matches the mass required to form a black hole of that exact mass?

I try to be deliberately silly sometimes, because nobody really knows much about this stuff. But they've got the credentials and sound confident. You may be right about whatever you're thinking above, but there's a language problem.

Right, a bunch of verbiage without some kind of analytical support is a vacuum in and of itself.

Consulting AI (again):

The Schwarzschild Radius and Density: To turn any mass (\[M\]) into a black hole, you must compress it into a sphere smaller than its event horizon, known as the Schwarzschild radius R_s. The formula is: 2GM/c^2 (where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light. Because volume grows much faster than radius (\(V \proportional to R^3\)), larger black holes actually require much less density to form than smaller ones. While a stellar-mass black hole is unimaginably dense, a supermassive black hole can have a density lower than water. If a black hole is large enough—say, the size of the observable universe—its required density drops to nearly nothing. 

The Critical Density of the Universe: Cosmologists measure the density of the universe to see if it is "flat," meaning space isn't warped on a cosmic scale. This is called the critical density, rho _c, calculated using the Hubble constant H: rho_c=3H^2/(8.pi G). When you plug in the observed numbers for our universe, this critical density is incredibly low—about 10^{-26} kg/m^3, which is equivalent to roughly six hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space.

The Perfect Match: If you take the radius of the observable universe (the Hubble radius,R_H = c/H, and calculate how much total mass M is inside it based on that critical density, an amazing mathematical cancellation happens. If you solve for the Schwarzschild radius of that total cosmic mass, the horizon radius of the universe perfectly equals its Schwarzschild radius R_H = R_s, making the thesis of a universe within a universe quite remarkable.

No. Gravitational waves spread through the spacetime fabric at light speed, however curved that fabric may be.

LIGO has picked up gravitational wave passage lasting from a couple tenths of a second to 100 seconds.

Waves are fleeting. Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists. So there is no speed of gravity, it's always there.

That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature of space it generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum.

You just said that mass moves at the speed of light in a vacuum. Yes, you DID.

Old McDonald wrote sci.physics, sci.electronics.design, sci.astro: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Which part of "please do not do that again" did you not understand?

Followup-To (F'up2) _only_ sci.physics again.

The fact that spacetime is not a fabric aside, that is what I said. I merely was more precise than you: The speed with which gravitational effects propagate is not the speed of light (which varies depending on the optical medium), but the speed of light _in vacuum_, c.

Nonsense. It took merely 10 ms for GW150914 to propagate from LIGO Livingston to LIGO Hanford, as expected (they are ca. 3000 km Euclidean distance apart).

Vacuous statement.

And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.

I thought so once, too. But that would violate causality, so it cannot be correct:

Veritasium: There Is Something Faster Than Light

You can find it in my "General relativity" playlist:

No, they did NOT.

F'up2 sci.physics

Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All immediate and simultaneous.

You seem to have decided to parse the sentence to make it mean that.

My intention was to point out that mass can move, and the curvature of the space-time around that mass moves with it.

There was no implication that the mass was moving at the speed of light, merely that the curvature of space time tracked the movement of the mass with the usual speed of light delay.

That reiteration of the original idea probably isn't idiot-proof either.

And very localised. Dirac postulated spontaneous particle-pair creation, but the only place where it seems to matter is at the event horizon of black hole, when one of the pair ends up outside the event horizon as Hawking radiation.