An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it misinterprets the actual consensus of the actual experts in the community and/or quotes them out of context...
I think the fallacy applies here because it's ambiguous what the quoted text even means, what the expert is even saying such that it's applicable in the first place. I didn't feel like looking up a more appropriate fallacy, at any rate. It's a fallacious argument because he never states why I'm wrong, he goes on about how I'm not an expert. I agree I'm not an expert, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
In this case, it's hard to tell, but I think the point he is making (if you'll allow me to try, RB) is that we are presently unable to define this equilibrium thus unable to discuss it, especially as fact and truth, particularly by referencing something that is such a target for vandalism.
What makes us unable to define it? It is fact and truth that, if the universe is a closed system and it does not end in a big crunch, that it will suffer a heat death where there are no more stars because all star fuel gets used up. It's not an idea of my invention, it's stuff I've read in books and online and from physicists both directly (once, anyhow) and in videos. Further, it makes damned good sense.
The difference is that the proposed universe wouldn't suffer heat death through
exclusively stars running out of fuel, but also the wearing down and eventual cease of functioning of the central black/white hole. After that central hub wears down and stops, though, it's normal heat death time. Of course, because the shape of the universe brings everything back to the central point, it's far more likely to big crunch, possibly before the heat death happens. This, then, would probably be a more applicable full-entropy state; the universe collapses into a singularity. Even then, though, the universe is not a singularity, and is thus not in that end-state.
This, I believe, is the point of contention. Other people, I think, do not believe the central hole would wear down. However, entropy would not allow it to continue forever. If we imagine the hole not as a black hole/white hole singularity duo thing, then we could pretend it's simply a narrow "area" with no singularity. Relatively narrow. It'd still be large enough to let a good chunk of the rotating universe through. However, then we're left, essentially, with the universe simply spinning upwards in the center and downwards at the sides. It's essentially the same model, but no physics mumbo jumbo quantum BS can be hand-waved in as an explanation for why it could continue indefinitely.
In this case, the condensed gravity of the center would slow down the momentum of passing universal matter such that it wouldn't rotate out as far on it's next pass even if the reduction in speed is minute. It would continually slow down and, eventually, stop. I see no reason why this wouldn't be the case just because we pop a black hole in there instead of a slim nexus of space. Indeed, the black hole would make the matter worse because all matter would pass through the same point and pull back with as much possible energy as the amount of mass in there at the time could, because it's so
very close. In fact, it being matter, it couldn't escape the black hole... except for this silly white hole opposite which shoots everything back out, magically, which that hasn't been explained yet, but I've been accepting it for the sake of argument, so whatever.
I formally propose that we informally adopt the fallacy of Wikipedia into our collective reasoning.
It's too easy to read a Wikipedia article, possibly misinterpret it, and feel informed on a subject.
That's fine. Wikipedia physics articles are generally just stubs or go all the way and end up way over my head either way, so I don't really look at them much anyhow.
