Here's my theory (of course someone else could have had same theory though
mine is independent)...

There were always been black hole and matter....

Silly religious idea that universe must have BEGINNING is probably
wrong....

And "the" big bang is just "a" big bang cause by collision of 2 black
holes.

"onegod" <spamone@msn.com> wrote in message
news:LvgDb.6320$Oh1.4921@twister.socal.rr.com...

Here's my theory (of course someone else could have had same theory
though
mine is independent)...

There were always been black hole and matter....

That's quite a lot to start out with, free and clear without a cause.

Silly religious idea that universe must have BEGINNING is probably
wrong....

I didn't realize the big bang was religious.

And "the" big bang is just "a" big bang cause by collision of 2 black
holes.

How do two black holes colliding create the universe?

Clear Skies

Again, by what mechanism do you
propose that the accreting material
obtains a component of velocity directed
towards the poles???

By what mechanism do you propose that >the accreting material obtains a
component of velocity directed towards
the poles???

Again, the analogy of a centrifugal pump. It naturally intakes by way of
the hub, not the rim of the spinning impeller wheel. This is an
_analogy_, remember, not meant to imply a BH *is* a pump.

Picture the BH in side-on view, in extreme close-up. The
infall from the accretion disc must follow the route of least resistance
_into_ (not 'onto') the BH. This would force the infall to divide into
two flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump, then plunging down the
twin 'bathtub drain' vortices head-on into the poles. The higher the
spin rate, the more acutely the infall must favor the poles.
Of course, if a non-rotating BH were to exist, it would
accrete in the same manner as any other object. But in the real
universe, all stars rotate, and when collapsed to a neutron star,
angular momentum imparts spin rates that can go to hundreds of revs per
second (as seen in millisecond pulsars). When collapsed to a BH,
spin-rates would go orders of magnitude higher yet.
The extreme spin-rates of BHs dictate their polar-accretion
dynamic.. AND the essential _gravitic bipolarity_ of all (spinning) BHs.
This bipolarity would be obvious only in extreme close-up; at distance
it drops below resolution and the BH becomes a monopolar point source.
oc

There is no "repellant zone" for the
infalling material to encounter. There is
nothing of substance that could impart its >angular momentum to the
infalling
material...

You're engaged in some frantic arm
waving here.... Nothing but more frantic
arm arm waving.

Again, by what mechanism do you
propose that the accreting material
obtains a component of velocity directed
towards the poles???

OK let's try it again. Bert has no trouble understanding it.

A spinning
body gravitates most strongly at the poles and least strongly at the
equator, due to the centrifugal effect (centrifugal _effect_ , not
"force" lest we get into a quibble over semantics).

The accreting material, as you say, is introduced
radially from the disc, moving inward on the equatorial plane. If the
gravitating body is rotating slowly (like a normal star), there is
negligible polar affinity, so the material simply falls out, largely
onto the equatorial regions.
But then you have neutron stars, which can have spin
rates of up to 700 rps, or 42,000 RPM (!). Then black holes, which can
go an order of magnitude higher still. And the accreting material, as it
moves in, encounters this repellant zone. Picture it as shaped like two
cymbals joined back to back. It's 'dimpled in' at the poles- the route
of least resistance *into* the BH, which resides at the exact center of
the system.

In order for the radially-moving infall to reach the
poles, it must cleave into two flows, riding 'up and over' the repellant
zone, finally plunging axially, head-on, into the poles.. as
mirror-imaging twin 'bathtub drain' vortices aligned on the polar axis.
The higher the BH's spin rate, the more acutely the infalls must align
to the polar axis.
Again, this bipolar accretion mechanism would be apparent
only in extreme close-up. oc

Hi oc Well if blackholes are created by a great explosion than what
greater explosion than the big bang.

Who said black holes are created by a great explosion? The other supernova
remnants are created by a great explosion. But the black hole is created by
a great collapse (implosion).

Moreover while the popular expression "big bang" seems to imply an

The ergosphere of a Kerr BH is defined
by its frame-dragging characteristics.
Perhaps we need to postpone this
discussion....

There is no "repellant zone" for the
infalling material to encounter. There is
nothing of substance that could impart its >angular momentum to the
infalling
material...

Think of it as a somewhat broadened ergosphere of the Kerr model. And
no, we won't get into frame dragging.

You're engaged in some frantic arm
waving here.... Nothing but more frantic
arm arm waving.

That's supposed to be *hand* waving, isn't it?

Ahswah mammy, I plumb give up on dat boy. <g
oc