[dipayankar]

Right but why should that actually affect the gravity? The amount of matter that will accumulate at the equator will not be probably 10% more than those in the axis...

Originally Posted by dleviwing

All black holes are spinning at enormous speeds and thus mass will accumulate with higher density at the equator due to centripetal force. Have you ever seen a spherical galaxy? Particulate matter would fly apart at such spin velocities. Remember what I said about uniform motion producing mass even if it is called relative mass.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Right but why should that actually affect the gravity? The amount of matter that will accumulate at the equator will not be probably 10% more than those in the axis...

Dip;
If black holes behaved like a solid object this would be true; however they behave more like a fluid analogous to a spinning fermion condensate.

[dipayankar]

That is interesting. But to what percentage would energy leave the black hole? Also are all mass converted to energy when they enter the event horizon??

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Dip;
If black holes behaved like a solid object this would be true; however they behave more like a fluid analogous to a spinning fermion condensate.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

That is interesting. But to what percentage would energy leave the black hole?

Unknown! IMO black holes manufacture the subatomic particles that eventually form the stars and galaxies.

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Also are all mass converted to energy when they enter the event horizon??

Einstein’s equation is referring to radiant energy conversion to mass and visa-versa. In that regard the conversion would be the other way around; energy would convert to mass.

[dipayankar]

So what came first?? Stars or black holes??? Kind of chicken and egg story I guess

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Unknown! IMO black holes manufacture the subatomic particles that eventually form the stars and galaxies.
Einstein’s equation is referring to radiant energy conversion to mass and visa-versa. In that regard the conversion would be the other way around; energy would convert to mass.

[Fluent Piffle]

So what came first?

You must believe in some kind of 'creation' to posit 'what came first'. However, if you see 'creation' as something that happens all around us, all the time, then existence just exists. The 'paradox' is eliminated, and all 'things' are merely aspects/parts of an entire existence.


pif.

[dipayankar]

I do not believe in creation. The post from dave said that black holes spew out material that create the stars. Then how did the first stars come into existance? Was it due to the black holes or was it because of some other process that created them??

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

You must believe in some kind of 'creation' to posit 'what came first'. However, if you see 'creation' as something that happens all around us, all the time, then existence just exists. The 'paradox' is eliminated, and all 'things' are merely aspects/parts of an entire existence.


pif.

[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

I do not believe in creation. The post from dave said that black holes spew out material that create the stars. Then how did the first stars come into existance? Was it due to the black holes or was it because of some other process that created them??

Well, look at what you are saying, firstly. "I do not believe in creation." - "Then how did the first stars come into existance?"

If you do not believe in 'creation', why even ask questions about 'first' stars?

It is quite obvious, that 'creation' is an ongoing process, that is, a re-cycling process. Why do we need to believe in it 'starting', if this is just how existence works?

Is there some 'puppet master' making you 'work'? - Or are you just going through the natural motions of the entity you have evolved (more motions) to be? If you say, "I do not believe in creation", you must choose the latter.

The answer, then, to your question of "how did the first stars come into existance?" has no relevance, because they are just Natural motions of what exists. The comment from Dave, regarding 'black holes spew out material that create the stars', is in full accordance with the reality, in this instance.

It is not a question of believing anything, but of Knowing Truth, or the non-contradiction that true science strives for...


pif.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

I do not believe in creation. The post from dave said that black holes spew out material that create the stars. Then how did the first stars come into existance? Was it due to the black holes or was it because of some other process that created them??

Hi Dipayankar;

It came from the big bang, your logic is excellent.

Best,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

The answer, then, to your question of "how did the first stars come into existance?" has no relevance, because they are just Natural motions of what exists. The comment from Dave, regarding 'black holes spew out material that create the stars', is in full accordance with the reality, in this instance.

It is not a question of believing anything, but of Knowing Truth, or the non-contradiction that true science strives for...pif.

Pif, the question concerning absolute creation is as you state, but the creation of finite matter black-holes from the FS must have a geometry, that formed finiteness from the infiniteness. This area of investigation is well worth persuing, as I see it as the only way to un-boggle the metaphysical, from the physical. This needs to be done, to create the full scientific truths of the entire universe's completed geometries...

It is still valid to ask, "What is quanta geometry", as it is, yet, truly unknown and an imcomplete science... Or, "What is the quanta geometry of FS...?"

Lloyd