Black Holes

[Thief]

Why?

without the rotation in play ...first....
the expansion would have been uniform is it's display
one hollow sphere of a percussion pulse

the roatation BEFORE the bang insures the slower expansion as the energy works with gravity
thus we see spirals when we use our telescopes

 

[Thief]

Maybe you should first try to prove a god exists, before you make claim that a god can create universal entities.

*sighs*

maybe you could disprove God....before making denials

duh

 

[siti]

without the rotation in play ...first....the expansion would have been uniform is it's display...one hollow sphere of a percussion pulse

Why?

 

[Thief]

Why?

like a child tugging at my pant leg

sit still and see it in your mind for a while

 

[siti]

like a child tugging at my pant leg

Tee-hee!

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

But, deliberate misapplication of scripture notwithstanding, my point was that your explanation was a non-explanation...

It is not necessary for spin and rotation be primordial, just asymmetry - and we know from the cosmic microwave background radiation that directional asymmetry (anisotropy) was 'built in' in the very early universe - we have no idea why or how - perhaps we never will. But once there is anisotropy, then you get clumping of matter - stars and galaxies - and then gravity does the rest - spin and rotation are natural consequences, not supernatural impositions.

 

[Thief]

Tee-hee!

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

But, deliberate misapplication of scripture notwithstanding, my point was that your explanation was a non-explanation...

It is not necessary for spin and rotation be primordial, just asymmetry - and we know from the cosmic microwave background radiation that directional asymmetry (anisotropy) was 'built in' in the very early universe - we have no idea why or how - perhaps we never will. But once there is anisotropy, then you get clumping of matter - stars and galaxies - and then gravity does the rest - spin and rotation are natural consequences, not supernatural impositions.

you have adotted...you have no idea....how or why

I will hold to my how and why

 

[1robin]

yeah....I posed the op with the answer in it

but you say there is no infinite?
I have seen a theoretical physicist display an equation with a result.....infinity+infinity+infinity....infinitely

There are no actual natural infinites, but infinity can exist as an idea. When I was getting my math degree we used infinity but it was almost always a boundary condition. It was a place holder for what an equation couldn't do or be. If you look up asymptotic equations you will get an idea of what a boundary condition is.

The instant you make the idea of infinity into anything real you wind up with a great big mess or self contradictory answers. I will give you an example. Lets "pretend" that we have an infinite number of coins randomly scattered about. If I asked how many are heads the answer would be infinite, if I asked how many are tails the answer would be infinite, if I asked you to remove all the heads you would wind up with infinity minus infinity equals infinity. The moment you turn the idea of infinity into an actual infinity, nothing works. However if you think actual natural infinites can exist then you should be able to easily give me an example.

he then struck a thoughtful pose for the camera as he narrates himself.....
'physicist have a problem with infinity.'

but the number do lean to point.....
somethings go on forever

The rest of the above looks like some pretty horrific poetry that I don't really get.

 

[siti]

I will hold to my how and why

But you haven't explained why...that was the point of repeating my 5-year-old-child-like question...why, given that the gravitational effects of anisotropy would naturally give rise to spin and rotation in 4-D spacetime, is it necessary to have spin and rotation otherwise built in primordially? And how?

I am not saying its wrong - it might be right...but...if there was, say, a hyper-massive black hole at the beginning of the universe - which would, probably, be spinning, and would, probably, have asymmetry built in then...

(a) it was not, in fact, a 'singularity' at all but a black hole, and

(b) there is no need to invoke supernatural causation because it could very adequately be explained as the incredibly dense, incredibly dark remnant of a previously existing...something... a hyper-massive galaxy, an enormous super-cluster, a contracting previous universe...whatever we think of that would be massive enough to cause a hyper-massive black hole when it collapsed.

So the answer to your 3 questions in the OP remains no, even if your speculation that the universe might have sprung from a black hole is correct.

So if you are maintaining that rotation and spin were somehow supernaturally pre-ordained, the question still remains - why? Why would such an explanation be necessary?

 

[Thief]

There are no actual natural infinites, but infinity can exist as an idea. When I was getting my math degree we used infinity but it was almost always a boundary condition. It was a place holder for what an equation couldn't do or be. If you look up asymptotic equations you will get an idea of what a boundary condition is.

The instant you make the idea of infinity into anything real you wind up with a great big mess or self contradictory answers. I will give you an example. Lets "pretend" that we have an infinite number of coins randomly scattered about. If I asked how many are heads the answer would be infinite, if I asked how many are tails the answer would be infinite, if I asked you to remove all the heads you would wind up with infinity minus infinity equals infinity. The moment you turn the idea of infinity into an actual infinity, nothing works. However if you think actual natural infinites can exist then you should be able to easily give me an example.

The rest of the above looks like some pretty horrific poetry that I don't really get.

you have applied infinity to a substance

how about......the random action of motion?

take the number of dandelions and plot all flight paths for each one

take your time (which could be infinite)

 

[Thief]

But you haven't explained why...that was the point of repeating my 5-year-old-child-like question...why, given that the gravitational effects of anisotropy would naturally give rise to spin and rotation in 4-D spacetime, is it necessary to have spin and rotation otherwise built in primordially? And how?

I am not saying its wrong - it might be right...but...if there was, say, a hyper-massive black hole at the beginning of the universe - which would, probably, be spinning, and would, probably, have asymmetry built in then...

(a) it was not, in fact, a 'singularity' at all but a black hole, and

(b) there is no need to invoke supernatural causation because it could very adequately be explained as the incredibly dense, incredibly dark remnant of a previously existing...something... a hyper-massive galaxy, an enormous super-cluster, a contracting previous universe...whatever we think of that would be massive enough to cause a hyper-massive black hole when it collapsed.

So the answer to your 3 questions in the OP remains no, even if your speculation that the universe might have sprung from a black hole is correct.

So if you are maintaining that rotation and spin were somehow supernaturally pre-ordained, the question still remains - why? Why would such an explanation be necessary?

place yourself to the very beginning
nothing is moving
the singularity is with you.....held in place

you are going to let it go

if you do so without touching it....the expansion will be one pulse of a percussion
if your pinch it and snap your fingers
you create an axis of rotation

then let it go 'BANG"

WHY?
because you want to

 

[siti]

WHY?
because you want to

Well that's that cleared up then!!!

 

[Thief]

Well that's that cleared up then!!!

name another Source of the rotation

and it needs to be in place BEFORE the bang

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

No, no and no - in that order.

A black hole is actually the incredibly dense remnant of a dead star

Actually that is not how all blackholes are formed.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

name another Source of the rotation

and it needs to be in place BEFORE the bang

Yeah lets go back to a point in time before time existed.

 

[1robin]

you have applied infinity to a substance

how about......the random action of motion?

take the number of dandelions and plot all flight paths for each one

take your time (which could be infinite)[/QUOTE]

1. No, I said that no actual natural infinites can even possibly exist.
2. Acts of motion are never random. In the macro they are completely explained by Newtonian physics and in the atomic they are currently being explained by Quantum physics. If you add in miracles the events are still not random, but strictly determined by God's will.
3. I do not have to examine all dandelions to know there are not an infinite number of them. There are only a finite number of dandelions and each one takes one and only one path.
4. I asked you to point out an actual infinite natural thing. You didn't. I will give you one last shot to provide me an actual natural infinite anything.

 

[metis]

According to researcher Leonard Susskind, he says most cosmologists now lean in the direction of we are just one tiny speck of time in infinity. However, logically, it will never be proven.

Therefore, I take the position of whatever happened, happened.

 

[Thief]

how about......the random action of motion?

take the number of dandelions and plot all flight paths for each one

take your time (which could be infinite)

[/QUOTE]
the beginning was not random

it was first

 

[siti]

A black hole is actually the incredibly dense remnant of a dead star

Actually that is not how all blackholes are formed.

Well yes - but they are all formed from the gravitational collapse of something - as I clarified in a later post. They don't just appear miraculously out of no-where and no-when - and certainly not as a "singularity" and certainly not (as far as we can possibly tell) with supernaturally pre-ordained spin and rotation - the rotation of a black hole is also a remnant - of whatever it was that collapsed to make the black hole.

 

[1robin]

the beginning was not random

it was first

The subject under discussion was infinity not randomness.

Something isn't non-random because it is first. It isn't random because it was willed.

But again randomness was not the topic.

 

[Thief]

According to researcher Leonard Susskind, he says most cosmologists now lean in the direction of we are just one tiny speck of time in infinity. However, logically, it will never be proven.

Therefore, I take the position of whatever happened, happened.

The subject under discussion was infinity not randomness.

Something isn't non-random because it is first. It isn't random because it was willed.

But again randomness was not the topic.

in a field of nothing.....the first motion is as random as it gets
(in the beginning there would be no line drawn for random....
and intention can dealt at at whim)

but of course.....to say I AM!.....you might want a creation to show for it