[mtgx]

Doesn't it mean that only the space around the black hole sees that "infinite amount of time" pass, and not the whole universe?

So in that case, you wouldn't be seeing the "future of the universe" just the "future" (I guess) of the space around the black hole.

I kind of see blackholes in space as vortexes in a lake. Anything that gets "trapped" in the vortex moves much faster, including the water (space-time) itself. It doesn't impact the rest of the lake, except for the things that are on a collision course with the vortex, and then get swallowed by it (and spit back out?).

[AgentME]

I think you've got it backwards. As on object approaches a black hole, an outside observer will see that object's clock slow down and eventually stopping as it hits the event horizon. Conversely, the object falling into the black hole will see the rest of the universe's clocks speed up. It could watch stars (far from the black hole) be born and die. If you take a trip close to a black hole's event horizon and then fly away, you could find yourself in the far future.

[shullbitt0r]

> As on object approaches a black hole, an outside observer will see that object's clock slow down and eventually stopping as it hits the event horizon.

So I had the idea that smaller black holes are at the center of the sun, the earth and so on, being the principle source of gravity and the "movement" that we see is just us falling into different black holes at the same time, which are also falling into each other. So micro black holes must be at the center of massive particles too. The world line of a photon on the other hand is just the intersection of two event horizons as they grow, so you get a wave model. And that's why you have entanglement: circles have two intersections, so if your model is two dimensional, you get two entanglements. But you can have vastly more complicated geometries and thus assembles of entangled particles.

I don't know the "standard model" well enough to take the analogy any further, not to mention string theory and all that jazz.

[AgentME]

It's really reaching a lot to assume black holes are the sole source of gravity or time. (If you want to distill it really far, I think it's more right to say they counteract time than that they cause or provide it. You go near a black hole, and you age less and have less time to do things between the times of external events not near the black hole.)

>So micro black holes must be at the center of massive particles too.

If an object has a schwarzschild radius smaller than its own radius, then it isn't a black hole. That literally describes all non-black-hole objects with mass. That's just the standard manifestation of gravity.

>The world line of a photon on the other hand is just the intersection of two event horizons as they grow, so you get a wave model. And that's why you have entanglement: circles have two intersections, so if your model is two dimensional, you get two entanglements.

Is there any connection here besides that an event horizon and the sum of all possible paths of a photon in a given amount of time are both spheres?

If there were a micro-black-hole inside of a particle, its event horizon would have to be within the particle, or else the particle would just be indistinguishable from a black hole. The particle wouldn't be like a normal particle with an invisible spherical event horizon surrounding it and affecting its interactions.

[shullbitt0r]

> including the water (space-time)

I think you meant to say ether.