they're coming....

[Omicron]

If something were to somehow be a white hole, powerful enough to have an even horizon that spanned the galaxy, how long would it take for it to completely throw out all its mass? And then wouldn't we be finding particles in this present day universe that repel all other matter?

It is just an idea, one which I don't pretend to understand.

But Lank, you say that those sciences support evolution, well, yes, most people think that. Because that's all they are ever told. Geology supports a world wide flood.

But that was me replying to your replies. Lets not start an evolution - creationism debate, not here on OoH! That's not what this place is about.

[lank]

If something were to somehow be a white hole, powerful enough to have an even horizon that spanned the galaxy, how long would it take for it to completely throw out all its mass?

the thing is, a white hole is just the time reversed version of the schwarzchild metric. it contains a singularity at r = 0, and an event horizon where nothing that is outside can pass inside. a black hole doesn't actively s00k in matter - only matter (or radiation) on trajectories that intersect its event horizon will fall in. it's hard to say how a white hold would behave, or that it would necessarily radiate anything unless its singularity were to somehow "shed" bits of matter or radiation - but then if all its matter were concenrated near r = 0 but not in it, it would most likely explode in an instant. it's a curiosity, but purely a mathematical one according to all observations, both in cosmology and in our particle accelerators.

And then wouldn't we be finding particles in this present day universe that repel all other matter?

as far as we know, there are no particles with negative mass. i'm not sure that any quantum gravity candidates predict such things either. it's hard to say what a white hole would be made out of or contain or emit.

It is just an idea, one which I don't pretend to understand.

understood. frankly, i think that's what humphries and his fellow professional creationists rely on for their credibility, sadly.

But Lank, you say that those sciences support evolution, well, yes, most people think that. Because that's all they are ever told.

with all due respect, evolution happens and has happened. it's not that that's all anyone is ever told - it's what happens in the lab, it's what happens in selective breeding programs, it's what we observe by the twin nested hierarchies, by palaeontology (there's more than one sequence of fossils showing the evolution and evolutionary radiation of some genera or families in quite good detail - not to mention the spectacular prediction that a creature like tiktaalic (a fish-amphibian transitional) would be discovered in exactly the layers of rocks in exactly the part of the world that it should have been in only if mainstream geology and evolution are correct) and genetic analyses and much, much more. people (including people that i know personally and have seen at work) make it happen and see it happen, and an overwhelming amount of evidence exists that it has happened.

Geology supports a world wide flood.

i respectfully and absolutely disagree with that statement. just one of many, many, many reasons why: incised meanders.

But that was me replying to your replies. Lets not start an evolution - creationism debate, not here on OoH! That's not what this place is about.

true enough. i'm happy to have a discussion with you on the topic, if you're interested, but you're quite right we shouldn't clutter up OoH with it! peace.

[vinylrake]

my two religion cents.

i don't have a problem with a belief or experiences with unscientifically proven spirituality, it's just when people try to make up rules and codify feelings and beliefs into a 'religion' with all the implicit 'my religion has all the truth from god, so there is only one way to think/believe about everything, if you disagree you are threatening me/my beliefs' thinking - that's when I think we start to get problems. e.g. I don't have a problem with someone saying that 'god' created the universe, or loves humanity, but i respectfully reserve the right to be skeptical when someone tries to interpret literally literary stories derived from thousands of years of oral storytelling passed down from one generation to the next, and from that literal interpretation extrapolates a precise age to the universe or humanity.

[side note: I always found it odd to believe in a precise literal interpretation of a text that has been translated multiple times in different ways over thousands of years. No offense to anyone intended, anyone can believe whatever they want as far as I am concerned, and beliefs don't have to be logical or rational (that's why they are called 'beliefs') - at least as long as no one is trying to force me to believe the same thing they do, but If EVERY word is directly from 'god', and EVERY word is the exact right word 'god' wanted to use, why are the translations so different over time, WHICH translation is the 'right' one? I know I digress, but I grew up in a xian tradition that was based on a very literal interpretation of the english bible and i've never really heard a rational logical explanation about this question that made any sense]

ps. on a more astronautical topic, did you know that with google sjy view you can travel back in time to see how the stars looked at any point in history (i am sure there some limits)?

http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/1 ... ravel.html

[Omicron]

WHICH translation is the 'right' one?

If every word was directed from God, then what language was it written in? So there is your rational explanation of that issue. Which translation? None of them. That is why many people, when analyzing something in the bible, go back to the original Hebrew or Greek words when trying to understand a passage. If they don't, I would doubt their intentions. Or at least their work ethic.


All right I meant my last post to be my last, but this is! I will not post again! Wild Lanks and VRs couldn't drag me back into this topic.

[vinylrake]

yes, it's always better to go back to the source, the problem i see (and you don't meed to rebut or defend, this isn't meant as an attack) is that most parts of the old testament existed for hundreds of years or more as oral tradition - e.g. stories passed down from one generation to the next (the were the history of the hebrew people) - long before they had writing or a way of writing and storing the story. so, even if one accepts/believes that the stories in the old testament were spoken directly from god to one or more humans at points before the written word, it's inconceivable to me that an oral story, even one told by god, could pass from one storyteller to another over hundreds (or thousands) of years and remain 100% intact and word for word be faithful to the original story as told by god.

of course if you believe that god 'retold' the accounts to the people who are considered tha authors and that the writers of the different books of the bible were merely acting as stenographers, writing down everything god told them directly, word for word, then that quite neatly solves the question of how an oral story told and retold over thousands of years wouldn't change over time.