I get no attention in the physics world because of being a heretic, but this guy deserves the attention: A wild new theory suggests the observable universe is the result of matter rebounding after the collapse of a black hole in another parent universe. A wild new theory suggests the observable universe is the result of matter rebounding after the collapse of a black hole in another parent universe. © Andriy Onufriyenko - Getty Images Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: A new hypothesis from physicists at the University of Portsmouth in the U.K. challenges the long-standing Big Bang Theory as the ultimate origin of the universe. This new “Black Hole Universe” hypothesis, suggests that our universe possibly “bounced” from the formation of larger black hole in another parent universe. While intriguing, the Big Bang Theory is the undisputed cosmological champ for a reason, so it'll take lots of rigorous experiments to confirm its theoretical conclusions. Throughout human history, there has been no greater question than “where do we come from?” This existential curiosity has spawned entire religions, philosophies, and (more recently) serious scientific inquiry. Amazingly, as science and technology have progressed over the past century, we’ve begun to actually answer that age-old question. Thanks to groundbreaking discoveries in the 20th century—not the least of which was the accidental discovery of the cosmic microwave background in the 1960s—we now know that the universe most likely formed from a rapid expansion of matter known formally as the Big Bang. NEVER TOO LATE FOR LOVE! Ad NEVER TOO LATE FOR LOVE! asiansouls.com call to action icon But just because the Big Bang is our best answer for the beginning of everything, that doesn’t mean it’s the only one. In the early years, the main competitor to Big Bang Cosmology was the Steady State Universe (though the discovery of the CMB largely put that idea to rest). But in recent years, new alternatives have emerged to challenge the Big Bang’s cosmological supremacy. One of the latest in this contrarian family is detailed in a new paper published in the journal Physical Review D, in which physicists from the University of Portsmouth in the U.K. theorize that maybe our universe formed within an interior black hole of a larger parent universe. Yeah, let’s dig into it. Comparisons between black holes and the cosmology of our universe make some sense—after all, both contain singularities of a sort and horizons beyond which we can’t hope to glimpse. However, this new theory, which is called the “Black Hole Universe,” suggests that our black hole-generated universe is just one step in a cosmological cycle driven by gravity and quantum mechanics. Related video: This is what the Big Bang sounded like, according to astronomers (Metro) Metro This is what the Big Bang sounded like, according to astronomers “The Big Bang model begins with a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. This is a deep theoretical problem that suggests the beginning of the Universe is not fully understood,” Enrique Gaztanaga, lead author of the study from the University of Portsmouth, said in a press statement. “We’ve questioned that model and tackled questions from a different angle—by looking inward instead of outward. Instead of starting with an expanding Universe and asking how it began, we considered what happens when an overdensity of matter collapses under gravity.” The genesis of this theory and others like it stems from the fact that we simply don’t know what goes on the heart of black hole. And because knowledge (like nature) abhors a vacuum, scientists begin crafting hypotheses in an attempt to understand this unknown. In Gaztanaga and his team’s case, they’ve shown that a gravitational collapse doesn’t necessarily end in a singularity, but can instead “bounce” into a new expansion phase. “Crucially, this bounce occurs entirely within the framework of general relativity, combined with the basic principles of quantum mechanics,” Gaztanaga’s team said in a press statement. “We now have a fully worked-out solution that shows the bounce is not only possible—it’s inevitable under the right conditions. One of the strengths of this model is that it makes predictions that can be thoroughly tested.” As a science coordinator on the ESA mission Analysis of Resolved Remnants of Accreted galaxies as a Key Instrument for Halo Surveys, or ARRAKIHS (a true master-class in science acronym-ing), Gaztanaga hopes to use the instrument’s ability to analyze ultra-low surface brightness structures in the outskirts of galaxies to see if data points to a “Black Hole Universe” or the undisputed scientific champ, the Big Bang. Presenting alternative ideas to long-standing theories is a key function of the scientific method, as it rigorously tests what we think we know from new angles. Even if ARRAKIHS confirms our Big Bang suspicions (as it most likely will), this alternative hypothesis still take us one step closer to truly understanding a question that’s followed our species for hundreds of thousands of years.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment