Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Scripture-consistent Cosmology

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Greg Armel/">Greg Armel on April 14, 1999 23:37:05 UTC

Greg: First Sir, allow me to say that you are most gracious, both a gentleman and a scholar, and it has been my pleasure to converse with you. Richard: You must be a real theorist to claim that black holes result from an Equation of State. I think they result from the death of sufficiently large stars. Greg: The present view is that Black Holes are a result of the implosive force resulting from the explosion of a Super Nova of at least 10 solar masses in size. The cold equation of state defines the formation of Neutron Stars, which are the most compact formation of stellar mass capable of maintaining an existence in this Universe. Once this final state is overcome, a Black Hole is the only option. Richard: Likewise, I think that singularities only exist in mathematics, not in nature. The black hole central singularity is a product of classical physics, not of nature. Greg: The mathematics describes the Nature of Reality and is a result of our attempts to understand that Reality. So if the mathematics predicts the existence of something, and subsequent observation verifies this prediction as being so, we can only assume the mathematics describes Nature. This is the case with Black Holes. Richard: The components of the construction of universes I described is discussed in Briane Greene's book, THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE. Brian made some of the original contributions to those ideas. Each new universe generated by a black hole is a separate Big-Bang with a new beginning for time. White holes would generate a sub-universe that would have to fit into the old universe, a much more messy endeavor in which the laws of physics were already established; whereas in black hole creation of completely separate universes, new laws of physics have the opportunity to evolve, an opportunity denied by white hole creation. I think I got you with your own argument there. Greg: I was only refering to White Holes as the closest perception that fit Black Hole Creation. If you consider the Creation of a new Universe instead of a worm hole construct of the White Hole's classical definition, you can see what I was refering to. This would still require the consideration of new infalling mass from this Universe once the Black Hole had formed, which would result in a Fountain of Creation in the new Universe, as Black Holes in this Universe become permanent structures devouring matter forever more, only growing ever larger circumferences defined by the Scwartzchild Radius. Richard: However, I agree with you on one issue. The black hole singularity is not beyond our theoretical conception. Superstring theorists are now in the throes of trying to understand it. So I looked at the latest on-line published papers to get a better understanding of what I call the central membrane of the black hole. The site is The most recent appropriate paper is JHEP 12(1998)002, "Tachyons and black hole horizons in gauge theory" by Kabat & Lifschytz from Princeton, home of the foremost string theorists. To my amazement, I must confess, they agree with you. The black hole membrane is at the Schwarzchild radius. I had conceived of the membrane as occupying the volume we normally associate with the classical singularity, perhaps on the order of a Planck volume, not the whole black hole. I won't really believe it until I see a few more papers saying the same thing. Of course, their result may be restricted since it was derived under conditions where the entire black hole was roughly the size of a Planck volume. Greg: Thank-you for the website address. I will check it out. Richard: On another level, we seem to be arguing over a Vishnu Cosmology vs. a Krishna Cosmology. It's ironic that in Hindu thought, these are presumably different names for the ONE god. What fascinates me is that physics is in a position to decide between two different religious views. From another angle, perhaps god wanted to cover all bases so that whatever science finally decides, there is a ready scriptural cosmology to agree with it. Greg: My understanding of Krishna is limited, but I thought it related to the Universe being God's Dream while God Slept. I believe all scripture is simply a different perception of God that God wanted to share with Mankind, and so gave Mankind these different perceptions while Mankind was separated by geography, knowing that one day Mankind would overcome this geographical separation. As each perception contains a portion of Truth, this would allow Mankind to come together in brotherhood sharing the Love of God. It hasn't quite worked this way because Mankind has become more interested in arguing over who knows the True Name of God, rather then trying to perceive the Truth in each other's views. We've become quite adept at pointing out the fallicies in each other's views. My Personal definition for God is simply: Omnipresent, Omnipotent, OmniLove, providing Omniscience for Omnifarious, Omnivorous, Creation. My own religious inclination is that of a Taoist. Thanks again for sharing your view points. I'll check out that website so I can improve my view of SuperString Theory.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins