This is a good post with all of the right reasons to be skeptical. However, with the really fringe stuff like this, I feel that the answers could come through i

This is a good post with all of the right reasons to be skeptical. However, with the really fringe stuff like this, I feel that the answers could come through intuition. On that note, her central premise is that we can't study black holes. But I'm feeling more and more convinced that the universe itself is inside of a black hole. If that's the case, then maybe we can study the inside after all. On a whim, I searched for "hawking radiation hubble constant" and stumbled onto a bunch of stuff like this (the Download PDF button works): https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202101.0017/v2 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202101.0017/v2 I'm not a physicist, but if I assemble a bunch of ideas, I can make a bunch of insights like: if black holes evaporate faster as they shrink, then maybe galaxies slipping outside of our observable universe is causing it to become less massive, which is increasing its rate of expansion. Someday we may see everything shooting away from our reference point faster and faster until we ourselves pop, like reversed spaghettification. But then again, that doesn't seem quite right, because the galaxies slipping away from us faster than the speed of light probably don't experience anything catastrophic themselves. And also the galaxies might not actually be moving away, just more space has been constructed between us and them like a balloon stretching. I feel like without a solid understanding of this process, it's going to be hard to understand black holes.