One of many sources for the fabric of space is moving allowing for FTL travel at sublight velocities:
http://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ And no light can ever reach us from such superluminal spaces: http://www.universeadventure.org/fundamentals/media/model-hubbledistance.swf Oh, and thinking about it the direction of space movement (if you consider gravity to be a movement of space and not a 'bending') would be opposite, unless again you come back to the argument that we don't know what is going on inside a black hole. Still nothing about a black hole really requires gravity when you consider that all you need is a distortion of space that is so extreme that light can't escape which is precisely what this would proposes to be. John On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, so this is a trippy thought, but you may be aware of one theory that > stars are opposite ends of the universe might be moving apart with a > relative velocity greater than C, but that this is ok since space in this > case is considered to be moving along too... > > I could find a reference but it is a theory that is taken at least > somewhat seriously. > > And one of the implications of this is meant to be if I have it right, is > that light from a star at one endge of the universe could never reach the > other side due to this. > > And this then seems to quality it as an event horizon! > > And one made from moving space whatever that means. > > But an object falling into gravity is considered not to be accelerating > relative to space since space is in effect accelerating and the mass is > just going with it, this is pretty close to what has been said by other > before about gravity... > > So then in what way is a conventional black hole event horizon > fundamentally different to an expanding universe???? > > Sure, geometrically it might be the inverse, but that could be seen as > being in the inside of a black hole instead of the outside. > > And you could argue that it occurs over a larger swath of space, namely a > universe sized swath of space, but what we don't know of the geometry of > space from the inside of an event horizon is, well everything. > > So I am not taking this seriously, really just a jab at the Frankenstein's > monster created by extending the little we know of physics to the little we > know of cosmology and have the cheek to think it is somehow a science. > > John >
