An intriguing new hypothesis suggests some black holes could have formed before the formation of our universe.The work by Professor Bernard Carr from Queen Mary University in London and Professor Alan Coley from Canada's Dalhousie University, examines a cosmology in which the universe goes through cycles of birth and death.
According to their work published on the pre-press website arXiv.org, some black holes could be remnants of a previous universe that collapsed in a big crunch and was then reborn in the big bang - 13.7 billion years ago.
Called primordial black holes, they would be formed in the hyper dense conditions existing in the moments after the big bang. That makes them even more exotic than other black holes formed from the collapse of massive stars or at the centre of galaxies.
Carr and Coley say if the universe expands and contracts in cycles of big bangs and big crunches, some primordial black holes may survive.
HMMM...
IF BLACK HOLES CAN BE VIRTUALLY ETERNAL, THEN WHY NOT G-D?
6 comments:
Where does the energy come from?
Watch as the next theory will state that Black Holes created the Universe.
The usual reason that stories like this are bandied about in the press, is to undermine the Creation account in the Book of Genesis and thereby attack the Judeo-Christian tradition (if there is no Creator, there are no rules that we have to follow) -- and unwittingly to pave the way for the Caliphate.
If something existed before the universe began, then the universe was not created -- or so these atheistic science popularizers would like us to believe.
But the article itself contradicts its bold statement:
"Called primordial black holes, they would be formed in the hyper dense conditions existing in the moments after the big bang."
If they were formed after the big bang, then they are part of this universe, and were created along with it.
Of course, the idea that there were universes created and destroyed before this one does not contradict the Creation account at all, but these atheistic science popularizers wouldn't know that, because they are completely unfamiliar with any authentic religious tradition, and moreover they probably have never even read the Bible carefully in any serious way at all.
I LOVE HOW ALL THE SERIOUS COSMOLOGISTS ACCEPT THAT THEIR THEORIES ARE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AND PROVISIONAL, BUT THE ATHEISTIC LAYMEN FEEL THAT THEY'RE PROVEN AND FINAL AND THAT THEY IPSO FACTO DISPROVE ANY POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING A CREATOR.
IDJITS.
THIS MISUSE OF PHYSICS TO DISPROVE G-D IS AS RIDICULOUS AS THEIR MISUSE OF IT TO BOLSTER SO MANY OF THEIR POSTMODERN IDIOCIES.
A MUST READ ON THIS IS ALAN SOKOL'S FASHIONABLE NONSENSE.
A MUST READ:
MUST:
http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078
Amazon.com Review
In 1996, an article entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" was published in the cultural studies journal Social Text. Packed with recherché quotations from "postmodern" literary theorists and sociologists of science, and bristling with imposing theorems of mathematical physics, the article addressed the cultural and political implications of the theory of quantum gravity. Later, to the embarrassment of the editors, the author revealed that the essay was a hoax, interweaving absurd pronouncements from eminent intellectuals about mathematics and physics with laudatory--but fatuous--prose.
In Fashionable Nonsense, Alan Sokal, the author of the hoax, and Jean Bricmont contend that abuse of science is rampant in postmodernist circles, both in the form of inaccurate and pretentious invocation of scientific and mathematical terminology and in the more insidious form of epistemic relativism. When Sokal and Bricmont expose Jacques Lacan's ignorant misuse of topology, or Julia Kristeva's of set theory, or Luce Irigaray's of fluid mechanics, or Jean Baudrillard's of non-Euclidean geometry, they are on safe ground; it is all too clear that these virtuosi are babbling.
Their discussion of epistemic relativism--roughly, the idea that scientific and mathematical theories are mere "narrations" or social constructions--is less convincing, however, in part because epistemic relativism is not as intrinsically silly as, say, Regis Debray's maunderings about Gödel, and in part because the authors' own grasp of the philosophy of science frequently verges on the naive. Nevertheless, Sokal and Bricmont are to be commended for their spirited resistance to postmodernity's failure to appreciate science for what it is. --Glenn Branch --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Publishers Weekly
The authors of this audacious debunking apparently want nothing less than to embarrass some of the foremost academic stars of the postwar period?including Jacques Lacan, Luce Irigaray and Paul Virilio, among other luminaries in the humanities?for their "abuse of science." Sokal, a professor of physics at NYU, and Bricmont, a theoretical physicist with the Universite de Louvain in Belgium, offer an argument that's an offshoot of Sokal's notorious 1996 prank in which he submitted an article, high in jargon and low in logic, to a cultural studies journal, which accepted it immediately. After Sokal revealed the hoax, bitter debates raged within academia. Here, he and Bricmont continue where the hoax left off, waging a war of wits with thinkers who, they say, adopt science as a metaphor for their own more literary purposes. The authors also attack critics who fabricate pseudoscientific theories of their own, and much of their book is dedicated to building methodical cases against the academics' principles and logical flaws. The authors fervor and the precision of their writing makes this a most engaging read.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
See all Editorial Reviews
This is what the ancient Asian Indians believed, that life is birth, death and rebirth for ever: eternal renewal.
Post a Comment