howtobeterrell asked: Anyone answered whether or not we live in a black hole already? Or if the shit is even possible? Did I ever see the movie contact?
There have been some emerging theories from cosmology to astrophysics about whether or not we are in a black hole. While there’s no evidence yet, there doesn’t seem to be anything that rules out the possibility.
Most recently I read an article that theorized the possibility of hyper black holes in Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? which posited that:
In a paper posted last week on the arXiv preprint server, Afshordi and his colleagues turn their attention to a proposal made in 2000 by a team including Gia Dvali, a physicist now at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, Germany. In that model, our three-dimensional (3D) Universe is a membrane, or brane, that floats through a ‘bulk universe’ that has four spatial dimensions. Ashfordi’s team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do.
So while there isn’t any smoking gun on this theory that makes it a sure thing due to technical complications and limitations to how far we can see into the cosmos, it does kind of make sense considering how nature tends to repeat itself. It could very well be that this Universe is existing within a hyper black hole that’s existing in a 4D universe. If you wanna do some further reading check out: Every Black Hole May Hold a Hidden Universe
and "Advanced civilizations may live safely inside the supermassive black holes in the galactic nuclei without being visible from the outside.".
I saw Contact :) one of my favorites cause it’s one of the few scifi movies that does the concept of wormholes some justice.
The entire history of eugenics should make clear the falsity of claiming that science is ‘objective’ and ‘non-dogmatic’.
Science itself is NOT dogmatic, however, it can be used in dogmatic ways, as eugenics has. Evolution itself has no dogma, it is just stating observable facts and coming to a conclusion based on them. People using it to try to create a master race is adding politics to the science, thus adding dogma.
No, this is just not right at all.
Science isn’t some a priori natural law of the universe that humans ‘discovered’ and is unaffected by us. It’s a discourse that has been developed and cultivated, fully affected by other cultural and political currents that have shared space with it. It’s not a-historical, as you’re asking us to address it as.
The very fact that an entire scientific field can arise simply to confirm and justifies racial supremacist ideology, and that this movement was largely accepted by the scientific community up until the point it became politically unpopular (remember, eugenics was not scientifically debunked until well after eugenics became politically suspect) and that to this day people like Richard Dawkins claim science is completely a-political and non-ideological, or for that matter your hairsplitting post above, is as I said dogma per excellence.
emotion and opinion do not influence truth in the hard sciences
whoaaaa hold up. this isn’t true at all. “scientific truth” (and the notion that it is always objective and uninfluenced by status quo beliefs) has been used throughout history to justify racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression…
And there’s a difference between “what the evidence suggests” and “what we do with the evidence”.
After all, the thing we call “science” is a collection of mental models that, yes, tries to reflect how the universe works as closely as humanly possible. The problem with that? Is that it’s a collection of mental models that run in human brains.
Run through a series of experiments that exploit gaps in human perception — the one with the basketballers is famous, as is the one about the human faces is also worth a look — and you’ll get the idea that your perception of reality is false.
"But those are cognitive illusions," I hear some of you say. "I know my emotions and opinions; they don’t get in the way of science."
(Please reconsider that belief)
But that’s beside the point: the reasons why I showed you those experiments was because those effects persist, even when you know those things happen. Your reality is constructed — never, for a minute, were you a perfect observer of objective reality. And if you can’t be right about even the most basic things — like, say, the existence of a person in a gorilla suit — what makes you think you’d be able to easily recognise your privilege, which is invisible to you, and is affirmed on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis?