It would also imply that our whole universe is rotating - the only reason this happens on Earth is because of our planets rotation and the Coriolis effect.
I think there is a men in black scene, where an alien is rotating the universe globe like a toy they are playing.
I think in general it would be unusual if they didn’t rotate. Any large non-uniform mass of gas or rocks when colliding will induce some rotation. What is odd though is that for galaxies we see more of them spinning one way than another.
And yes, I'm familiar with Dawkins' famous retort when someone asked how magnets repel things.
I'm not. I was unable to substantiate that anyone named Dawkins, Richard or otherwise, made or is popularly associated with a comment about magnets. What was the retort?
Maybe there is an 'incentive' for universes to form with physical constants tuned to produce black holes with the available energy in that universe.
The density makes the scale recursion less mysterious.
We can say that any particle inside the horizon is inevitably headed to the center. (That's why we can't say any more: no other information can escape.) That does lead to a problem in that all of the mass would be concentrated at a single point at the center, whose density is division-by-zero.
But I wouldn't put too much weight on that. We already know from quantum mechanics that there isn't really any such thing as a "point". The math is still a problem, but the solution almost certainly lies in that direction.
[^]: Ignoring ejections. But black holes also don’t “eject” mass. Or maybe they do? Hawking Radiation is weird.
Similarly, the dynamical spacetime around a black hole not near any other black hole can couple with quantum fields -- even fields in a no-particle "vacuum" state as measured by an observer, for example one in orbit around the black hole -- with the result that Hawking radiation is produced.
Both gravitational radiation and Hawking radiation carry away energy (in the sense of ability to do work, per the "sticky bead" argument) from the environment immediately around a black hole. This in turn means that the horizon radius will be less than it could be.
So as a Hawking-radiating isolated black hole will tend to shrink (if it's not fed by hotter cosmic microwave background radiation, for example), the mass of a post-merger binary black hole will be less than the sum of the unmerged binary.
Just because things can't cross from the inside of a black hole horizon to the outside doesn't mean the horizon is always the same -- the horizon can grow and shrink dynamically when interacting with other self-gravitating bodies, with matter like dust or starlight, or with "the quantum vacuum".
If you were inside a black hole you wouldn't be able to see light from "deeper" because it wouldn't be able to travel towards you.
This is not what we see within the universe, so I don't think we can be inside a black hole
I'll have to read up on that, I always had the vague sense that on ~finite scale of time there existed a region of space where you couldn't really tell the difference if you're inside of a big enough black hole or not.
Which sounds like I'm probably just wrong.
The way I see it is every surface inside an event horizon is another slightly "stronger" event horizon
While I agree with your correction and this always bugs me, the common usage of the phrase "begs the question" seems to have become synonymous with "raises the question", as opposed to what I understand to be its former — and perhaps original — meaning which was associated with the informal logical fallacy by the same name.