It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LostProphet
I'm not buying it..a black hole is a callapsed star..how is that a tiny universe? And the "indestructable layer" around it if I'm not mistaken is called an event horizon. If that's wrong someone correct me because I'm going on my memory here.
Galaxies still exist because they are perpetually reborn in a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction or 'breathing' that makes up the cosmic wind
Originally posted by High_Lord_Warrior
Hm..... I read in a book once(a rather old book, keep in mind) that black holes are more like gateways to alternate/other universes rather than being complete destroying masses or simply containing new universes. Also, it'd be pretty contoversial, even if they were these "new universes". Does anyone actually think that NASA'd waste valuable astronauts trying to go to the center of the galaxy just to see what's inside a black hole? I mean, c'mon.
Secondly, how could even a supermassive black hole contain the smallest universe? It would take billions of years for the black hole to consume the universe, and even then, could the b.h. even get that far?(we really don't know how long until the hypothesized "Big Crunch")
And, if the universes are supposedly "infininate"(which this new hypothesis seems to put down) and black holes cannot move from the deep imprint in space/time that they make, then how could one "eat" an entire universe?
Just some things to put out there in the discussion.