Would a non-spinning BH Create a Universe?????

Yes it would explode and release its "singularity" The theory I have
for this goes like this.(1) it has reached a critical mass that it and
the space field make it to heavy(infinite inertia) to spin. (2) the
space field can not support its weight,and the explosion releases it
into our universe(a bubble inside an infinitly big,and old bubble) That
has infinite bubbles(mini-bangs before) What I like about this theory
is a non spinning blackhole creates a perfect sphere.,and nature abhors
a perfect sphere Like to have you all think about this and tell me your
thoughts. That is what discussing is all about. Bert

Charles:



Charles D. Bohne wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:08:12 -0500 (EST),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:


Yes it would explode and release its "singularity"


Who told you it has ever exploded? We are all still INSIDE.
C.


Charles:

That's non-sense. The universe is not a singular entity.

The universe is a continuing plurality of existents. That's my definition
that corresponds to the Identity Axiom that is the basis of all
science. All human actions and the identifications of all scientists in all
of history are based on the fact that everything in the universe taken
together continues to exist, always has existed, and will continue to
exist.
The universe is eternal. Also, there is no evidence to the contrary that
numerous entities exist in the universe, and that the universe is plural.

If you disagree, and have some facts of evidence to show that is not
true - post your objections. Or be silent on that topic.

Ralph Hertle

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message That's
non-sense. The universe is not a singular entity.

The universe is a continuing plurality of existents. That's my definition
that corresponds to the Identity Axiom that is the basis of all
science.

Please could you clarify this. It seems close to saying that matter can't be
changed into energy and vice versa.

All human actions and the identifications of all scientists in all
of history are based on the fact that everything in the universe taken
together continues to exist, always has existed, and will continue to
exist.

No, a huge number of scientists believe that the universe had a creation
point, and that before that event, the universe was quite unlike what we
know today.

The universe is eternal.

Please point to empirical evidence for this.

Also, there is no evidence to the contrary that
numerous entities exist in the universe, and that the universe is plural.

If you disagree, and have some facts of evidence to show that is not
true - post your objections. Or be silent on that topic.

Ralph Hertle

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Yes it would explode and release its "singularity" The theory I have
for this goes like this.(1) it has reached a critical mass that it and
the space field make it to heavy(infinite inertia) to spin. (2) the
space field can not support its weight,and the explosion releases it
into our universe(a bubble inside an infinitly big,and old bubble) That
has infinite bubbles(mini-bangs before) What I like about this theory
is a non spinning blackhole creates a perfect sphere.,and nature abhors
a perfect sphere Like to have you all think about this and tell me your
thoughts. That is what discussing is all about. Bert

1. Kudos for posting a What If with a proper subject line, and as a new
thread. Well done.
2. I disagree that nature abhors the sphere. A sphere is a near perfect
shape. Equal and outward expansion in all directions.
3. Why does the spin matter? Could not the inertia of the BH traveling
through space provide the movement needed?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

OG:

OG wrote:
"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message

That's non-sense. The universe is not a singular entity.
The universe is a continuing plurality of existents. That's my definition
that corresponds to the Identity Axiom that is the basis of all
science.


Please could you clarify this. It seems close to saying that matter can't be
changed into energy and vice versa.




The concept of the 'universe' is quite broad. That includes all
metaphysical
existents (meaning all things that are physical including matter and
energy)
and also epistemelogical existents (meaning ideas), philosophically
speaking.

In the metaphysical context we konw that matter and energy can be changed
into one another. The term 'universe' includes all outcomes of all
processes
of change.




All human actions and the identifications of all scientists in all
of history are based on the fact that everything in the universe taken
together continues to exist, always has existed, and will continue to
exist.


No, a huge number of scientists believe that the universe had a creation
point, and that before that event, the universe was quite unlike what we
know today.




The religionists and creationist-expansionists are clinging to the remnants
of euclidean geometry that is inherent in the BB theory, and also to their
assertions. They refuse to acknowledge the facts that underly the theory
that light photons result in lowered energy levels due to inelastic
collisions
with gravitational existents, photons, and hydrogen atoms, for example.
There is factual and proven experimental evidence to support that view.

True and valid science identifies the facts of reality regardless of the
number of scientists, professors, students, adherents, polititions, and
news writers, for example. Facts are facts. At some point in history many
Spaniards thought the Earth was flat. The Earth, however, was round
even if all Spaniards thought that the Earth was flat.

Your notion of a huge number of scientists may reflect that there may be
a huge number of scientists, but that fact in no way has anything
whatsoever to do with the actual facts of existence qua physics.

You say that, " the universe had a creation point", and you say that,
"before that event, the universe was....." , and these two notions are
contradictory. You cannot claim a starting point and have something
existing before, in the same respect. That violates the axiom that is
as fundamental to the science of physics, the Identity Axiom (Aristotle,
Rand), and that is the axiom called the Law of Contradiction (Aristotle,
Rand). The Law of Contradiction is basic to all identifications of facts
in physics, basic to all experimental and demonstrative proofs, and it
is basic to mathematics.

You want 'your cake and have eaten it too'.




The universe is eternal.


Please point to empirical evidence for this.




Sorry, I don't subscribe to the philosophy of Empiricism, nor to its
offspring, Pragmatism.

If you mean logical and factual evidence I suggest that you get real.
You should contact reality or existence. Note that it is really there,
and that all the entities have properties. The plural stuff of the
universe that you observe, you will note, that is there in the current
instant, was there previously, and will be there in the next instant.
There aren't three universes (past, present, and future), there is only
the one, and the existents that make up the universe only change
their forms and relationships from time to time according to their
properties and potentials for change.

The meaning of the term 'eternal' is that the universe is what it is.
That it always is what it is. Its parts may change, but the identities
of everything taken together remain as existing. Not that the Law of
Identity is a basic concept to the principle of the Conservation of
Energy and Matter in the universe and in physics.

Existence is existing (Rand).




Also, there is no evidence to the contrary that
numerous entities exist in the universe, and that the universe is plural.

If you disagree, and have some facts of evidence to show that is not
true - post your objections. Or be silent on that topic.

Ralph Hertle


Ralph Hertle

Bert, I got to hand it to you. You can troll the netloons like no one else I
know.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Yes it would explode and release its "singularity" The theory I have
for this goes like this.(1) it has reached a critical mass that it and
the space field make it to heavy(infinite inertia) to spin. (2) the
space field can not support its weight,and the explosion releases it
into our universe(a bubble inside an infinitly big,and old bubble) That
has infinite bubbles(mini-bangs before) What I like about this theory
is a non spinning blackhole creates a perfect sphere.,and nature abhors
a perfect sphere Like to have you all think about this and tell me your
thoughts. That is what discussing is all about. Bert

During a perfect moment of peace at Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:08:12 -0500
(EST), (G=EMC^2 Glazier) interrupted with:

Yes it would explode and release its "singularity"

But which type of non spinning black hole. There are two types you
know, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html. Why
would one do what you say and not the other. Is charge important, why?

Why wouldn't a spinning hole achieve the same results? Especially
given that spinning the hole is essential to your 'model'.

The theory I have
for this goes like this.(1) it has reached a critical mass that it and
the space field make it to heavy(infinite inertia) to spin.

Given the galaxies central black hole is a few million solar masses,
what is critical mass? How is this acheived?

(2) the space field can not support its weight,and the explosion releases it
into our universe(a bubble inside an infinitly big,and old bubble) That
has infinite bubbles(mini-bangs before)

What is a 'space field'? and why is this not able to support the
weight of a hole. For that matter, what is the weight of hole? Weight
depends on the mass and gravitational force, how and where do you
measure that field?

What I like about this theory
is a non spinning blackhole creates a perfect sphere.,and nature abhors
a perfect sphere

This sounds like the old saw about nature abhors a vaccuum. We know
how inaccurate that was. Why would nature abhor a perfect sphere, as
opposed to a cube or tetrahedron or other geometric form.

Like to have you all think about this and tell me your
thoughts. That is what discussing is all about. Bert

And if we show you to be wrong?

--
While the Hobbits may be proud of spreading the "art" of smoking
pipe-weed, I would imagine that nowadays the Shire might be the seen of many
a class action lawsuit.Aaron Clausen on news://alt.fan.tolkien

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Yes it would explode and release its "singularity" The theory I have
for this goes like this.(1) it has reached a critical mass that it and
the space field make it to heavy(infinite inertia) to spin. (2) the
space field can not support its weight,and the explosion releases it
into our universe(a bubble inside an infinitly big,and old bubble) That
has infinite bubbles(mini-bangs before) What I like about this theory
is a non spinning blackhole creates a perfect sphere.,and nature abhors
a perfect sphere Like to have you all think about this and tell me your
thoughts. That is what discussing is all about. Bert

Bert actually has the universe all figured out inside his head.
Unfortunately the universe inside Bert's head bears very little resemblance
to the one "out here".

DaveB Yes it is OK to prove my theory wrong. The space field does come
out of my head,and I use it as part of my "SPin is in Theory" If you
read yesterday's "What If" how motion and an intrinsic space field can
create mass particles out of energy. That fits with giving reality to
E=MC^2. Bert PS DaveB I got more positive email on yesterday's
"What If" Than any other one. Seems I might get a big head.

BV That is a very good thought that the BH movement through the space
field could have its mass go up. That indeed goes with my theory. I'm
looking for a critical mass of maybe 15 billion Milky Way's I feel it
would take 22 billion years for such a huge mass. There for about every
22 billion years a blackhole explodes,.and another universe is created.
BV That is why we find structures older than this present universe our
Milky Way galaxy is in . These very old structures are very far
away,and that is another reason for my theory. Witten goes with
this thinking,for I use his "bubbles within bubbles" This also takes
care of multi-universes that are in just about every book I study. My
thinking is spinning is a way for the blackhole from having its horizon
crushed to its core(angular motion) Well to those that don't like me I
say just attack the theory(I'm really a very nice person however)
It is a good exercise in thinking. Space itself having a field to me is
not far out thinking its just not in the book. Bert