The article doesn't even suggest what they might be hiding.
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
3 points (54.1% liked)
Space
2031 readers
85 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instanceโs local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Saved me a click.
It's hidden well than.
Huh? This bit answers that imo
But I suspect that nature could very well have played a different trick altogether, and made black holes a gateway to something far more unusual โ a region where the rules of spacetime themselves transform into something weโve never seen before. Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within. Finding out whether thatโs true will require peeling back the shell of reality itself. And humankind is getting closer to doing exactly that.
It's already known by the definition of a Black Hole that physics has no explanation for the laws governing the singularity.
So restating the definition of a word as a conclusion of a long essay is silly.
If the title of the essay was "An introduction to Black Holes", it would be acceptable. But the title was click bait which poisons the reading when no payoff (new research or information) occurs.
It's already known by the definition of a Black Hole that physics has no explanation for the laws governing the singularity.
Yeah. But that doesn't imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what's beyond the event horizon. THAT'S the point they're making.
Not that singularities are unknown to us and we'd face something unexpected, that's obvious. What isn't is that we might face a completely new set of physics in each different black hole.
Edit perhaps the quote was a bit on the longer side so:
Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.
But that doesn't imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what's beyond the event horizon. THAT'S the point they're making.
It's beyond the event horizon. It's unknown by definition. They restated the definition.
Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.
And maybe a black hole is filled with pudding. Again this is restating the definition: Maybe there's something unknown inside an object that's defined to be something that is unknown.
Using two paragraphs to say there's unknown inside of an object defined as being unknown inside is ridiculous.
Again if this was an essay titled, "A beginners guide to Black Holes.", it would have been perfectly fine.
They restated the definition.
No, they didn't. Your reading comprehension just blows.
They didn't provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.
It's fucking unknown. That's the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what's inside an unknown object.
It is no different if I titled an article "Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding." Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with "No one knows so maybe it's chocolate pudding."
Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?
I'm not here to prove their ideas, so getting mad at me for you disagreeing with them is... juvenile.
I'm not "defensive" in the slightest. You just feel attacked, so you're projecting that, despite my comments being extremely neutral.
You claimed I had a reading comprehension problem. That's a personal attack.
I did not.
I commented on your reading comprehension, and not even in as surly a tone as you had been using at me.
You're directing anger towards me for them having sensationalism in their piece? How does that make sense?
I'm merely pointing what the text states.
I'm directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn't even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn't a personal attack. You commented "the article doesn't even suggest what they might be hiding".
It does.
You didn't see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn't understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.
Saying "it might be different inside" without absolutely any support isn't a valid suggestion. That's why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn't valid, it isn't a suggestion.
So you're back to pretending I've written the article. I haven't. I'm merely explaining to you what it said, since you couldn't figure that out yourself.
Please contact the authors of the article if your want to tell them they're wrong.
So you're back to pretending I've written the article. I haven't.
Read my post and quote where it implies you wrote the article.
Reading comprehension, indeed.
The author's suggestion wasn't valid and therefore wasn't a suggestion at all.
So might Deez nuts
Its candyland
Oh no!! Theyโre about to discover the space rabbitsโ hiding place!!