On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:13:56 AM UTC-5, Gerry Quinn wrote:   
   > In article <84041e74-d5a7-4749-b32e-57d3a30ad7f1@googlegroups.com>,   
   > lawrence.crowell@jeffersonchristianacademy.org says...   
   > >   
   > > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 4:14:09 PM UTC-6, toadast...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > > > 170108   
   > > >   
   > > > If I were in a black hole the size of the observable   
   > > > universe and it was not expanding but evaporating,   
   > > > would my acceleration towards a singularity be easily   
   > > > distinguishable from my being in an expanding space   
   > > > filled homogeneously and isotropically with all this   
   > > > stuff we see?   
   > > >   
   > > > If there were a "firewall" at the inner horizon, would   
   > > > it look like the CMB?   
   > > >   
   > > > Thanks,   
   > > > mark jonathan horn   
   > >   
   > > If we were in a black hole with mass M ~ 10^{53}kg of mass   
   > > the horizon would be around where the cosmological horizon   
   > > is. We might locally find conditions not too different from   
   > > what we now see. However, black holes have a Weyl curvature   
   > > tensor components. These are ~ GM/c^2r^3 and positive along the   
   > > radial direction and negative along distances perpendicular   
   > > to the radius. This means there would be one direction where   
   > > galaxies are red shifted and a planar set of directions   
   > > where galaxies are blue shifted. The large scale structure   
   > > of the universe would be very different.   
   >   
   > Also, both the GR Schwarzschild solution of GR and the 'firewall'   
   > concept apply only to stable, well-developed black holes.  It doesn't   
   > seem possible for any life initially within the boundaries of such a   
   > black hole to survive until stable conditions are reached.   
   >   
      
   I think that makes sense; it appears to have taken about   
   10 billion years for conditions to converge and stabilize   
   enough for observers to emerge and survive in this place.   
      
   > An observer can fall into a large GR black hole and survive inside for a   
   > time, but this results in the scenario described above - anything that   
   > fell in earlier - i.e. anything lying in the direction of the   
   > singularity - will be red-shifted.   
   >   
   > And you can't really fall into a 'firewall' black hole - you will be   
   > destroyed in the region of the horizon.  So this is a different scenario   
   > entirely.  Firewall and Schwarzschild black hole models look similar   
   > from the outside, but are completely different inside.   
   >   
   > - Gerry Quinn   
   >   
      
   Perhaps my view is too literal; I'm defining the singularity,   
   in the simplest case of the Schwarzchild black hole, as being   
   the endpoint of evaporation, not as a singular point at the   
   geometrical center of the volume enclosed by the horizon.   
   This may or may not be the case with an astrophysical black   
   hole forming within the larger horizon of our world, but I   
   don't know.   
      
   If cosmic censorship is to be respected however, I would   
   suggest that the singularity always be defined as the endpoint   
   of the evaporation, thereby ensuring discretion and modesty   
   behind a horizon that only need be defined once.  It also   
   suggests that entropy gets reset to zero at the end.   
      
   I was born on the inside, amidst other observers who consider   
   the concept of "outside the universe" as meaningless.  I would   
   agree, and suggest "outside," beyond the near-field of the modes   
   propagating on the horizon, be defined as the classical vacuum,   
   i.e. absolutely nothing.  Just ask a physicist what the universe   
   is expanding into, and invariably they'll reply in one of two ways:   
      
   a) that's a meaningless question, or   
   b) NOTHING.   
      
   I'll suggest that only nothing can fall into this world from   
   "outside;" observers cannot.   
      
   This may be a crucial distinction between the universe and any   
   black hole forming within:  The horizon of our world is bounded   
   by a classical vacuum, whereas astrophysical black holes, quite   
   independent of their size, are bounded by a quantum vacuum, the   
   vacuum of this space we observers are already in.   
      
   But maybe that difference is moot; I'm afraid I can see no clear   
   distinction between the concept of "singularity" and that of   
   "nothing," and as an observer whose existence must come to an end   
   at that point, I really don't think it matters.  More realistically,   
   I don't believe there will be any observers at that time to fuss   
   over it.  Something like 10e166 years if evap_time ~ M^3/h_bar.   
      
   Cheers,   
   mark jonathan horn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)