Happy Hippy wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Happy Hippy wrote:


The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.



There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%3AarX iv.org


Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.

Where did it get its spin? When it was in the same
Super Black Hole that created ALL the galaxies we
can see!

Of course all the galaxies we can see plus their brethren
that we can't see are not the only matter in the
Universe; simply that making up the stars and planets
of ONE Super Galaxy.

One of many, many, many such Super Galaxies.
Each separated by *VAST* volumes of empty space.

So, yes, in the Universe there are pockets of spin, which
are surrounded by smaller and smaller pockets of spin.

"There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole...." is infinite.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://www.users.accesscomm.ca/john
sorry
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

Happy Hippy wrote:

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.


One property of black hole is angular monentum... At least
you got that correct... progress.

"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight writes:

JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.

What's there to comment?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight writes:

JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.

What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted this
paper!

I note that it is now extensively cross posted as Yoon's sock puppets
are understandably upset that their master's work has been plagarised.

What sort of University is Missouri-Rolla?
Their website appears quite plausible.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, Martin Brown wrote:

Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight writes:
JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.

What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted this
paper!
[snip]
Regards,
Martin Brown

Well maybe you need to keep up with astro related news,
there has been a paper(s) that suggest that most spiral galaxies
DO NOT have _MASSIVE_ black holes at their center.

So this paper _may_ have been a follow-up to that premise,
to explain the mass observed in those regions.

I have posted often that small bright stars are inordinately
difficult or even impossible to see with the best telescopes and
the longest exposures, a fact that may have been misconstrued
to support the estimate of the number of black holes existing.

Even with the best telescopes it is even difficult to image
pulsars without the ability to zero in to the coordinates with
radio telescope data.

Most of the exciting stuff about General Relativity is
likely to be found in astrophysics, there isn't much new
going on on this planet.

Joe Fischer

In message , Martin Brown
writes
Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight
lid writes:

JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted
this paper!

None, surely? It's an ArXiv.org e-print. I've seen the "rigid sun"
interpretation of the TRACE results on web sites, but this is the first
"paper" I've seen.

In message , Jonathan
Silverlight writes
In message , Martin Brown
writes
Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight
alid writes:

JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something
to sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted
this paper!

None, surely? It's an ArXiv.org e-print. I've seen the "rigid sun"
interpretation of the TRACE results on web sites, but this is the first
"paper" I've seen.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but the web site in question is Michael
Mozina's http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ (I found it via an ad on
the Heavens Above site), and all I can say is "you ain't seen nothing
yet" :-)
Here's a nice example

"The neon layer that composes the penumbral filaments is the layer our
eyes can see. This layer has another VERY important function, specially
to COOL the lower layers. Neon is used as a cryogenic refrigerant
because of its incredible "cooling" abilities."

Looking at Oliver Manuel's site at http://web.umr.edu/~om/ he's been
Professor Emeritus since 2000. Would anyone like to comment on
http://web.umr.edu/~om/picpages/compsun.html?

In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:


The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.


There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"


http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%3AarX iv.org

Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.

No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity. Zero
volume, infinite density.


Where did it get its spin?

From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.

When it was in the same
Super Black Hole that created ALL the galaxies we
can see!

Of course all the galaxies we can see plus their brethren
that we can't see are not the only matter in the
Universe; simply that making up the stars and planets
of ONE Super Galaxy.

One of many, many, many such Super Galaxies.
Each separated by *VAST* volumes of empty space.

So, yes, in the Universe there are pockets of spin, which
are surrounded by smaller and smaller pockets of spin.

"There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole...." is infinite.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://www.users.accesscomm.ca/john

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Happy Hippy wrote:


The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.


There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"



http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%3AarX iv.org

Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.


No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity. Zero
volume, infinite density.


hahaha


Where did it get its spin?


From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.


Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?


When it was in the same
Super Black Hole that created ALL the galaxies we
can see!

Of course all the galaxies we can see plus their brethren
that we can't see are not the only matter in the
Universe; simply that making up the stars and planets
of ONE Super Galaxy.

One of many, many, many such Super Galaxies.
Each separated by *VAST* volumes of empty space.

So, yes, in the Universe there are pockets of spin, which
are surrounded by smaller and smaller pockets of spin.

"There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole...." is infinite.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://www.users.accesscomm.ca/john

Happy Hippy wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Happy Hippy wrote:


The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.


There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"



http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%3AarX iv.org

Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.


No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity. Zero
volume, infinite density.


hahaha


Where did it get its spin?


From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.


Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?

I don't know why you would think that. Just because a galaxy has a Big
Old Black Hole in the core does not mean that there are no other black
holes in the galaxy.

PD



When it was in the same
Super Black Hole that created ALL the galaxies we
can see!

Of course all the galaxies we can see plus their brethren
that we can't see are not the only matter in the
Universe; simply that making up the stars and planets
of ONE Super Galaxy.

One of many, many, many such Super Galaxies.
Each separated by *VAST* volumes of empty space.

So, yes, in the Universe there are pockets of spin, which
are surrounded by smaller and smaller pockets of spin.

"There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole...." is infinite.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://www.users.accesscomm.ca/john