4d ago

New Nasa data hints we could be living inside a black hole

www.independent.co.uk New Nasa data hints we could be living inside a black hole

Black hole cosmology suggests our entire universe formed inside a black hole from another universe

Black hole cosmology suggests that the Milky Way and every other observable galaxy in our universe is contained within a black hole that formed in another, much larger, universe.

The theory challenges many fundamental models of the cosmos, including the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.

It also provides the possibility that black holes within our own universe may be the boundaries to other universes, opening up a potential scenario for a multiverse.

Mine blown 🤯

You're viewing a single thread.

98 comments

Using data from Nasa’s James Webb Space Telescope, researchers at Kansas State University in the US discovered that the majority of the galaxies were rotating in the same direction.
This goes against previous assumptions that our universe is isotropic, meaning there should be an equal number of galaxies rotating clockwise and anticlockwise.
“It is not clear what causes this to happen, but there are two primary possible explanations,” said Lior Shamir, associate professor of computer science at Kansas State University.
“One explanation is that the universe was born rotating. That explanation agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole.”
yeah it's just the most headline grabbing possibility
- Dude, after reading the paper from start to finish, this whole thing seems off.
  The guy's an associate professor of computer science and has no degree in cosmology, but he's talking about cosmological implications of these findings.
  Every single paper cited supporting his argument was written by himself (in exactly one case, it was written by himself and a coauthor). In total, Shamir cites himself ~~106~~ 130 times.
  Numerous other papers by numerous other authors (some mentioned by this paper in attempted rebuttals) using a variety of methodologies find this not to be the case.
  It violates the cosmological principle used by major and highly successful models of the universe.
  The way he performed this analysis was an algorithm which he wrote. When he cites papers that have used this algorithm, he only cites himself, indicating no other academic in the world has thought this algorithm is seriously useful for this application.
  When speaking to The Independent (which is of really middling quality), instead of speaking about the data itself and how he arrived at it, he (again with no formal background in cosmology) starts talking about the most clickbaity possible implications of this data.
  It's totally possible Shamir is right and that there really is a massive bias. That would be extremely cool. However, he's published numerous papers on this over the last decade yet still seems to be the only one who agrees with it. Which to me is highly unusual.
  
  Can I just say your thoroughness here is a real fucking impressive skill. Thank you for sharing.
  
  This guy reads.
  
  This is what I missed on r/science. The thorough paper critique! Thank you so much!
  
  Thanks for breaking that down, I wish newspapers or even BBC News did this. They do now have BBC Verify but its never super clear of their findings, certainly not in the format that you've just used. Perhaps theirs should be called BBC Balance. The only thing I would say with regard to your first point is that I'm not against the idea that any individual could make a breakthrough. At least with regard to theory.
  We already know that throughout the history of cosmology, whole experts have been wrong when a new discovery is made. E.g. Highly likely that not everyone believed that Earth was centre of the Universe (like the earlier science communities claimed). The issue with this guy is he's using his own biased ideas and data and some people believe whatever is printed in a newspaper must be right.
  Only silver lining is at least there clickbaity headlines give the public something more substantial to think about for 60 seconds instead of what the next Kardashian is up to...
  
  To be sure, I agree with your interpretation of your first point. I was establishing that as part of a pattern rather than an end-all "you can't do science without a degree in that field", especially since applied CS is monumentally important to every field. It's that lack of formal education in cosmology combined with a pattern of only citing oneself for support of one's arguments combined with this being a long-held and broadly successful assumption combined with numerous cosmologists using a variety of methodologies which they think are acceptable combined with no cosmologists choosing to use his algorithm combined with ostensibly using his time with The Independent talking almost exclusively about deep cosmological implications.*
  This last one could be The Independent's fault; it's technically possible Shamir talked their ear off about CS stuff and methodology and previous attempts and what he wants to do going forward but The Independent only ran with the juicy sfuff.
  
  Thanks for doing the news org's job for them. They either don't know how or aren't willing to do it.
- @Bitswap@lemmy.world (moderator), can we have a rule about clickbait headlines.
  I’m kind of getting sick of these pop-science articles that exagerrate everything times 1000x in the headline. In any other discipline that kind of hyperbole would be considered a lie.
  
  I'm open to the idea, but these articles bring out some of the highest levels of engagement, discussion and often bring in new readers.
  Start reporting them when you see them.
- I have always wondered about this and it's always been the question I would want to ask neil degrasse tyson about if I ever met him... I never realized there was a term for it or even other people believed it...
  My other crazy theory is that we are always in a state of jumping between realities... As a state of self preservation... We exist in the reality where we keep living. With the possibility of realities being infinite and the possibility of a subset of those infinites being basically the same as the one you're in...
  Who knows maybe it's just a reassuring way to be happy knowing that one day your actually going to die instead of all those times you have felt like you have almost died being truly a time you have died...
  
  As I understand it, the idea of Quantum Immortality is a bit more nuanced then that. It's not that you would be "jumping between realities". It's more-so that, as the reality where you are alive is the only one you can possibly be aware of, any reality where you would die simply wouldn't be seen by you. The splits where the potential to die exist would only be seen as "close calls" to the consciousness that is you. It's more so a resolution of logic than a cross-dimensional mind swap. A pop-culture example of this is sort of seen in
  
  Those bastards are always one step ahead of me... At least I learned what they call it...
  
  Our consciousness continuously transferring between realities to stay alive is kinda crazy ngl
  What's the big question you've always wondered about though? It's not clear from your comment
  
  If the whole observable galaxy is inside a black hole...
  Black holes get bigger and expand as does our observable universe... I always wondered if the two were connected...
  But from reading everything in this post it seems like the theory doesn't hold up... But also who knows...
  I like my other theory better anyways.
  
  If we are going based off of evidence to support it, I wouldn't go crazy for your other theory either
- My theory is that the Big Bang is local and there have been other big bangs outside our observable universe and our entire existence is inside a multi trillion year expanding and contracting space foam
  Big Crunch and white holes and all that
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(time)
  The concept of recreation is pretty old

98 comments