Well, I still can’t get to that Depak Chopra I wanted to share. Something a physicist could appreciate I’m sure. I want others to analyze the statement, it goes pretty deep.
Now, back to this universe theme.. Do we really need to be there physically, to confirm what’s actually out there? One would think, and since none of ‘us’ have been, speculation is valid. Human beings will always want the hard proof, it’s in their nature.
Unless your into ‘remote viewing’ and can share something different with us?
Ive got two random speculations about the universe. 1) As vast as it is, space itself eventually runs out of ‘space.’ So what is on the other side of that, that it is pushing up against? 2) Has it been conclusively proven yet as to what is on the other side of the ‘black holes?’ Inquisitive minds..>>
One idea is that space itself is an entity and is the fabric of the universe. It has also been called space-time. Outside the universe is nothing. There is no outside since whenever we get there or even see it, something is there so it isn't outside the universe.
I have fairly recently become very enthusiastic about the idea that space-time is an emergent phenomenon from an underlying quantum mechanical reality independent of it. The 4-dimensional manifold arises from the entanglement of different states.
As yet, this idea is fairly new and still being developed, but a fascinating fact is that in a sort of simplified physics model, the laws of general relativity has been shown to arise in this way.
I am inclined to bet this idea really is the truth.
Good article on the research:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/
Regarding the black hole, I once read an excellent paper on the subject. I think the authors were from Cambridge University. I'm not a mathematician by any means but it wasn't mathematically top-heavy. They described each stage of compression right up to the ultimate that could be imagined due to gravitational force. I think it ended with plasma at extraordinarily high pressures. It was many years ago since I read it and the internet is not what it was, as you've found out. Many things can no longer be found.
After that it's just speculation. According to Reginald Kapp, for instance, the centre of a black hole would be the focus of material dematerialising. The material would simply cease to exist, rather than going anywhere. It would not do so at a rate incompatible with the continued existence of the black hole, which is drawing in material due to its gravitational field. At least, I think so. It would be self-rectifying. Kapp speculated that all matter and space has a half-life, which would explain gravity perfectly.
Black holes are so extreme, they may have led to errors of intuition in the past. The classical treatment starts with a fully formed black hole with an event horizon and a singularity. No mass is needed except that which has ended up at the singularity. But to anyone outside a black hole, this description is always in the infinite future! The gravitational time dilation slows the apparent formation of the black hole to zero, so it always seems to be just on the verge of forming a black hole.
I believe that what happens from the point of view of a hypothetical observer with extreme longevity, that a black hole stays in this state of appearing to be almost formed until eventually it evaporates in the way deduced by Hawking et al. This may mean there really is nothing beyond the event horizon because the event horizon is a mere abstraction that would take forever to form.
Another reason to doubt a classical viewpoint is that if any energy or matter falls into a classical black hole, it has acquired infinite energy by the time it reaches the event horizon. That is because the escape speed at this point is the speed of light, so by symmetry a mass falling in (unimpeded) would reach the speed of light. This is an extreme that makes reasoning using the physics we know unreliable: it does not work at infinite energies, only up to where the LHC can reach!
[Oh, and as for those errors of intuition, I don't claim I am immune from them in the above 
]
lol. elroch, maybe you want to mellow down with the red penning in these parts.. i mean.. obviously Opti can get under anyone skin with his mixture of conspiracy and polarity. and he admittedly said so himself.
but red penning is globally recognized as an error marking by authorities. and no one like authorities here. especially not a self proclaimed authority.
I use blue as often as red. It doesn't really have much connection with the content, given that the purpose is to distinguish text from different people. I really don't think my statements are viewed as more authoritative if they are in red. It happens that in that case they are more correct!