That’s not an empirical observation nor a new discovery though. It just an analogy that leans on the definition of Schwarzschild Radius. No one is seriously implying, that we’re somehow trapped in the very center of a black hole with the Hubble limit as the event horizon equidistant around us.
In fact, the analogy only holds, if the Hubble parameter is not constant and this new result, if it holds up, would still indicate, that it is not constant. As was expected by the standard model of cosmology. If the Hubble constant is decreasing, and consensus is that it does, than the Hubble radius is also different from an event horizon in the following way: light reaching us from more than 5 billion years ago comes from regions that have always been receding from us at speeds faster than light.
The Hubble radius of the universe is also equal to its Schwarzschild radius, which is a requirement for any “we’re inside a black hole” theory.
That’s not an empirical observation nor a new discovery though. It just an analogy that leans on the definition of Schwarzschild Radius. No one is seriously implying, that we’re somehow trapped in the very center of a black hole with the Hubble limit as the event horizon equidistant around us.
In fact, the analogy only holds, if the Hubble parameter is not constant and this new result, if it holds up, would still indicate, that it is not constant. As was expected by the standard model of cosmology. If the Hubble constant is decreasing, and consensus is that it does, than the Hubble radius is also different from an event horizon in the following way: light reaching us from more than 5 billion years ago comes from regions that have always been receding from us at speeds faster than light.