[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells
avant at sollegro.com
Sun Jan 7 20:49:17 UTC 2018
John Clark wrote:
> ?A few years ago the idea that ?causal cells and black holes were
> equivalent was popular but the discovery that the universe is accelerating
> made holding that view much more difficult. Recently I saw a picture of
> a galaxy and the caption said it was 13.3 billion light years away, the
> most distant galaxy known. What that meant is that the light traveled for
> 13.3 billion years before it entered
> one of out telescopes, so that's what it looked like a very long time ago
> not now, and due to the expansion of the universe today it is much further
> away than 13.3 billion light years, in fact it is in a very real sense
> infinitely far away today.
John, the nature of nested Schwarzschild geometries makes sense out of all
our observations to date. Observers within causal cells can never see
anything actually leave their causal cell. The image of whatever crossed
an event horizon is forever squashed on the event horizon getting redder
and redder until it fades out at infinite time. It is the same whether you
are falling into a black hole or leaving our observable universe. Nobody
ever *sees* you leave.
And no, John it can't be an infinite distance away because it has not had
infinite time to accelerate.
> ?The universe is not only expanding it is accelerating, ?so by now that
> galaxy is moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Space itself
> can move faster than light but spaceships can't so there is no way we
> could ever visit that galaxy in finite time, we can no longer influence it
> in any way and it can no longer influence us. And yet we can see it, so
> billion years ago it must have been in our causal but it no longer is.
I have already explained that the outward acceleration is caused by the
black hole that swallowed our causal cell. When that happened, our causal
cell went from being a black hole to being a time-reversed black hole: a
Now our causal cell is spewing all the energy, matter, and information
that it had ever swallowed in its former life as a black hole into the
interior of the larger black hole.
The larger black hole's own Schwarzschild radius grew larger as a result
of swallowing us by just a little less than than a Hubble radius which is
what our causal cell's Schwarzschild radius is.
> the universe were a black hole and that galaxy were in our black hole
> billion years ago it still should be. But it isn't. So black holes and
> causal cells are not equivalent. Because of that acceleration as time
> goes on there is less and less stuff that we can influence and less and
> less stuff that can influence us.
Well it won't go on forever. At some point we too will be ejected from our
white hole causal cell, and enter the containing causal cell. Then as we
fall toward that causal cell's singularity, we would experience a *long*
free fall followed by spaghettification about 1/10th of a second before
the "big crunch".
That is unless a still larger black hole intervenes by swallowing our
container cell. And again reversing the arrow of time for us.
>> I have the math to back it up
> ?It's not the math I'm worried about its the physics.?
What's wrong? Don't you trust general relativity? All I did was generalize
it still further.
More information about the extropy-chat