Universe's Biggest Black Hole

[G=EMC^2]

I go with the galaxy M95. We see it face on,and that gives us a
perfect view Its center is the brightest of all galaxies. It has
almost circular arms coming out of this hub and they are almost as
bright as the hub. If not for the.great intensity of its black hole
it could not be seen. It is 36,000,000 LY from us. Its only 63,000
light years in size. Add this in Its outer arms are very
circular,and I'm sure its big black hole is the cause.of a more
perfect round shape TreBert PS I believe its black hole will
swallow up all the stars. The end of M95 will be a hole in the fabric
of space.

[HVAC]

Why on earth would you believe that?









--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[john]

On Dec 12, 9:37 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 9:20 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> > I go with the galaxy M95. We see it face on,and that gives us a
> > perfect view  Its center is the brightest of all galaxies. It has
> > almost circular arms coming out of this hub and they are almost as
> > bright as the hub. If not for the.great intensity of its  black hole
> > it could not be seen. It is 36,000,000 LY from us. Its only 63,000
> > light years in size.  Add this in  Its outer arms are very
> > circular,and I'm sure its big black hole is the cause.of a more
> > perfect round shape   TreBert  PS I believe its black hole will
> > swallow up all the stars. The end of M95 will be a hole in the fabric
> > of space.
>
> Why on earth would you believe that?
>

Why would anyone believe that
matter all by itself can cause itself to collapse?
Without any other participant?

Stupidest idea ever.

john
who types in his own sig that kids can read too

[HVAC]

On 12/12/2011 10:42 AM, john wrote:
>
>>
> Why would anyone believe that
> matter all by itself can cause itself to collapse?
> Without any other participant?
>
> Stupidest idea ever.

Exactly. It is gravity that is the participant.

[john]

On Dec 12, 10:24 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 10:42 AM, john wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why would anyone believe that
> > matter all by itself can cause itself to collapse?
> > Without any other participant?
>
> > Stupidest idea ever.
>
> Exactly. It is gravity that is the participant.

You need two to tango.
A cause can't be it's own effect.

A body can't exert a force on itself,
which causes the body to compact, exerting even more
force on the smaller body, compacting it more............
stupidest idea ever.

Wake up, you guys, how can you even think that?

john

[PD]

It's not a single body. It's a collection of bodies.
A collection of bodies can certain exert a force on itself.
If you have a collection of bodies A, B, C, D, E, F, G, this is how it
happens: A acts on B, C, D, E, F, G. B acts on A, C, D, E, F, G. C acts
on A, B, D, E, F, G. Etc. Why? What did you think happens?

How do you think the solar system stays together?

[G=EMC^2]

Not stupid but based on the fact that gravityforce is proportional to
the masses of the objects involved. Massive black hole plus stars
getting pulled closer and closer means galaxyM95 is falling into its
black hole. Reality is the stars could be falling in at an
accelerating rate. I predict a complete blackout in just 2.4 billion
years. Keep in mind gravity always keeps tugging.away .

[G=EMC^2]

Your wasting your time with these dim wits. They are non thinkers.
They have no idea how the compression force of gravity works. No idea
that black holes absorb stars that get to close. No idea how gravity
creates stars(fusion) They are GOPer fascist thinkers that say "Its
Jewish physics" TreBert

[saul...@cox.net]

JUST AS YOU'RE A HOLE IN THE SENILE UNIVERSE, BEERT!

Saul Levy

[saul...@cox.net]

WHY 2.4 BILLION YEARS, BEERT?

YOUR LOGIC IS VERY SCREWED UP!

Saul Levy

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:25:23 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > I go with the galaxy M95. We see it face on,and that gives us a
>> > perfect view  Its center is the brightest of all galaxies. It has
>> > almost circular arms coming out of this hub and they are almost as
>> > bright as the hub. If not for the.great intensity of its  black hole
>> > it could not be seen. It is 36,000,000 LY from us. Its only 63,000
>> > light years in size.  Add this in  Its outer arms are very
>> > circular,and I'm sure its big black hole is the cause.of a more
>> > perfect round shape   TreBert  PS I believe its black hole will
>> > swallow up all the stars. The end of M95 will be a hole in the fabric
>> > of space.

[HVAC]

On 12/12/2011 1:12 PM, john wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. It is gravity that is the participant.
>
> You need two to tango.
> A cause can't be it's own effect.
>
> A body can't exert a force on itself,
> which causes the body to compact, exerting even more
> force on the smaller body, compacting it more............
> stupidest idea ever.

It's because you are looking at gravity as a force.
It's not. It's an effect. The 'body' is distorting
the local space.

Once you truly grasp that concept, all becomes clear.

[HVAC]

On 12/12/2011 1:25 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> Not stupid but based on the fact that gravityforce is proportional to
> the masses of the objects involved. Massive black hole plus stars
> getting pulled closer and closer means galaxyM95 is falling into its
> black hole. Reality is the stars could be falling in at an
> accelerating rate. I predict a complete blackout in just 2.4 billion
> years. Keep in mind gravity always keeps tugging.away .

You're forgetting the inverse square law.

[G=EMC^2]

The inverse square law is the reason it will take 2.4 billion years.
TreBert

[john]

Well, something's distorted, but
it's not the 'space' around the body.
Describe how the 'space' around the body is different.

john

[G=EMC^2]

John Let me warn you John I have been trying to reason with these
non-thinkers for years. They don't know why large planets,and stars
are round. They don'tnow why a man weights more at the poles than at
the equator. They don't realize that the core of the Sun is merely 7%
of its volume,but half of its mass. Nor the reason for this TreBert

[Brad Guth]

The one and only job of our resident FUD-masters and ZNR approved
idiots like HVAC, is to make all Usenet/newsgroups as forbidden or
taboo to kids as possible. Hitler had the exact same idea.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Brad Guth]

BTW; at the center of all spherical mass is zero gravity and perhaps
even zero pressure because, without a core or some kind of micro BH
point-source of gravity is where pressure becomes meaningless when
nothing has any central mass related gravity to offer.

Geode rocks prove that a hollow mass of any size can exist.

[G=EMC^2]

Reality is the Earth made itself round by trying to pull all to its
center. Its spin made it out of round. All stuff spins and thus
there is no perfect circle. All this comes out of my "Spin is in
theory" A Nobel prize type theory. TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

Hitler was a fascist Hagar and HVAC are GOPer fascists. Sheriff
Hansell is a GOP fascist. They use HATE the way police use pepper
spray.Their LOVE was for Nixon and Bush Get the picture TreBert

[john]

Well, purely accidentally, you have
it right but at the wrong scale. And
you still have the gravity (impossibly) pulling.

Matter exerts a pushing force on all
other matter because the other matter absorbs
that force. Since gravity affects over such a large
distance, there is a large amount of push coming from
the rest of the (local) universe. LeSage gravity.

And, yes, it would principally be a
collection of bodies like you say that would be the
principal players in the local gravity environment
(warped spacetime matter/push).

john

[G=EMC^2]

Mach used the gravity of the stars to explain centrifugal force.
(inward curve of water in a swirling bucket) TreBert

[john]

You have to look at this awhile (I did, anyway),
to grasp some of the connotations:

cool connotation #1- gravity has a limit. No Black Holes.
cool prediction from that- when planets get large-enough, they will
appear
much less dense than they are, because
their cores
will be gravitationally-invisible. We
will think they
are gaseous and are surprised when the
asteroids
splash.
john

[Brad Guth]

Loud and clear.

BTW, some of the worst religions are about as fascist mafia like as
you can get, and hardly anything on Earth beats the fascist policy and
closed mindset of Zionist Jews. I've worked for them, and I've seen
first hand how they treat others, including those of their own kind.

The mainstream faith-based groups that do not bother to police their
own kind might as well be modern-day Nazis, because their actions
prove as such. Either taming or getting rid of the bad ones seems to
be necessary, and the internet as well as my plan could help make that
happen. Our doing absolutely nothing is simply not an option.

[saul...@cox.net]

GEODES AREN'T EMPTY, YOU FUCKING VILLAGE IDIOT!

I USED TO HAVE ONE WITH WATER IN IT (ENHYDRO)! IT LEAKED AWAY OVER A
LONG TIME PERIOD.

MOST ARE EITHER SOLID OR HAVE AIR IN THEM, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

Saul Levy

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:41:23 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Geode rocks prove that a hollow mass of any size can exist.
>

> Brad Guth, YES I AM FUCKING INSANE!

[saul...@cox.net]

YOU FUCKING RACIST NAZI PIG!

I TREAT YOU VERY WELL AS THE FUCKING RACIST NAZI PIG YOU TRULY ARE,
GOOF!

Saul Levy

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:09:12 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Loud and clear.
>
>BTW, some of the worst religions are about as fascist mafia like as
>you can get, and hardly anything on Earth beats the fascist policy and
>closed mindset of Zionist Jews. I've worked for them, and I've seen
>first hand how they treat others, including those of their own kind.
>
>The mainstream faith-based groups that do not bother to police their
>own kind might as well be modern-day Nazis, because their actions
>prove as such. Either taming or getting rid of the bad ones seems to
>be necessary, and the internet as well as my plan could help make that
>happen. Our doing absolutely nothing is simply not an option.
>

> Brad Guth, I'M A CLONE OF THE PIG!

[saul...@cox.net]

FUCKING SENILE OLD GOAT FOOL!

WE DO KNOW ALL THOSE THINGS, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

IDIOTS ARE THAT STUPID! WE ARE NOT!

Saul Levy

[PD]

On 12/13/2011 7:30 AM, john wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:22 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 12:12 PM, john wrote:
>>
>> It's not a single body. It's a collection of bodies.
>> A collection of bodies can certain exert a force on itself.
>> If you have a collection of bodies A, B, C, D, E, F, G, this is how it
>> happens: A acts on B, C, D, E, F, G. B acts on A, C, D, E, F, G. C acts
>> on A, B, D, E, F, G. Etc. Why? What did you think happens?
>>
>> How do you think the solar system stays together?
>>
> Well, purely accidentally, you have
> it right but at the wrong scale. And
> you still have the gravity (impossibly) pulling.
>
> Matter exerts a pushing force on all
> other matter because the other matter absorbs
> that force. Since gravity affects over such a large
> distance, there is a large amount of push coming from
> the rest of the (local) universe. LeSage gravity.

And how is it that a positively charged ping pong ball can repel another
positively charged ping pong ball and *attract* another negatively
charged pith ball?

[john]

Dark pingpong matter dances around to just
the right side to cause all that.
Helped by dark pingpong energy of course, but we haven't
yet figured that one out. :)

john

[PD]

Well, there's the rub, ain't it, John.
You say that attraction can't happen and that it all has to be the
result of a push, and so you say LeSage gravity must be the way to go.

But when it comes to something that by all observation BOTH attracts and
repels, you suddenly have to wave your hands and say, "something dances
around to make that happen".

[HVAC]

On 12/13/2011 8:23 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> The one and only job of our resident FUD-masters and ZNR approved
>> idiots like HVAC, is to make all Usenet/newsgroups as forbidden or
>> taboo to kids as possible. Hitler had the exact same idea.
>>
>>
>

> Hitler was a fascist Hagar and HVAC are GOPer fascists. Sheriff
> Hansell is a GOP fascist. They use HATE the way police use pepper
> spray.Their LOVE was for Nixon and Bush Get the picture TreBert

Why so venomous, Bert?

[john]

What's good for the goose...................
Dark Matter was brought in like a magic
spell so our gravity theory would not
be seen to be wrong. You've been hand-waving
since then.

john

[PD]

We've talked about this before, John.
There are TWO possibilities:
1. That the theory of gravity is wrong, and that all the matter we see
is all there is.
2. That the theory of gravity is right, and that there is another sort
of matter previously missed.

A *good* scientist will investigate both possibilities, and in fact that
is being done.

The difference between your hand-waving "ping-pong matter dances around
just so" and the dark matter conjecture is that people have generated
real and *predictive* models of dark matter, with observational tests of
how to tell if dark matter is really there. These tests are completely
different from, and independent of, dark matter's presumed gravitational
influence. That is, physicists have come up with *measurable* proposals
of the form, "IF option 2 is right, and there is dark matter, then you
should be able to see evidence of it in this way: ______."

If you will spend just two hours reading up online about it in a google
search (might I suggest "observational tests of dark matter" or
"experimental tests of dark matter"?) you will see those specific
predictions and experimental proposals.

Contrast this with your "ping-pong matter dances around just so" without
any independent method of verification whatsoever.

[saul...@cox.net]

SENILITY IS VERY UGLY, HVAC!

Saul Levy

[saul...@cox.net]

THAT'S A NO-BELL FOR SURE, BEERT!

Saul Levy

[G=EMC^2]

On Dec 12, 10:37 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 9:20 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> > I go with the galaxy M95. We see it face on,and that gives us a
> > perfect view  Its center is the brightest of all galaxies. It has
> > almost circular arms coming out of this hub and they are almost as
> > bright as the hub. If not for the.great intensity of its  black hole
> > it could not be seen. It is 36,000,000 LY from us. Its only 63,000
> > light years in size.  Add this in  Its outer arms are very
> > circular,and I'm sure its big black hole is the cause.of a more
> > perfect round shape   TreBert  PS I believe its black hole will
> > swallow up all the stars. The end of M95 will be a hole in the fabric
> > of space.
>
> Why on earth would you believe that?
>

> --
> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

Try to think when you read,and you would know where I'm coming from.
Don't knock it till you have thought about it. TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Dec 12, 9:20 am, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I go with the galaxy M95. We see it face on,and that gives us a
> perfect view  Its center is the brightest of all galaxies. It has
> almost circular arms coming out of this hub and they are almost as
> bright as the hub. If not for the.great intensity of its  black hole
> it could not be seen. It is 36,000,000 LY from us. Its only 63,000
> light years in size.  Add this in  Its outer arms are very
> circular,and I'm sure its big black hole is the cause.of a more
> perfect round shape   TreBert  PS I believe its black hole will
> swallow up all the stars. The end of M95 will be a hole in the fabric
> of space.

M87 with over a trillion stars must have a huge black hole. Its
elliptical so its black hole is not as easy to see as spiral galaxy.
The picture of the Whirlpool galaxy (M51) its a classic,and needs much
study. It crying out "Look at my density waves" and "look at my red
old stars. Old red stars are not in its arms,but close in at its hub.
Did the shockwaves push the dust and gas further out in time? Can we
think that new stars form out of the wake. of these density waves?
TreBert

[saul...@cox.net]

BLACK HOLES CANNOT BE SEEN AT ALL, YOU SENILE OLD FOOL!

DIE ALREADY, MORON!

Saul Levy

[saul...@cox.net]

EVERY DAY YOU COME FROM GREATER AND GREATER SENILITY, BEERT!

IT'S VERY UGLY!

DIE ALREADY!

Saul Levy

[G=EMC^2]

M95 has the biggest BH of the galaxies,but the biggest black hole that
equals all the stars in the universe is located at the center(Hub) of
the universe. This black hole was created by the implosion of the big
bang. It was mother natures first balancing act.,for every action
there is an equal reaction. Both explosion and implosion take place at
the exact same time. There force is equal.One is compression other is
expansion. They are two sides to the same coin. Both created all that
is. Implosion created matter particles. Explosion created the force
energies of waves,and fields TreBert

[HVAC]

On 12/16/2011 9:13 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> M95 has the biggest BH of the galaxies,but the biggest black hole that
> equals all the stars in the universe is located at the center(Hub) of
> the universe. This black hole was created by the implosion of the big
> bang. It was mother natures first balancing act.,for every action
> there is an equal reaction. Both explosion and implosion take place at
> the exact same time. There force is equal.One is compression other is
> expansion. They are two sides to the same coin. Both created all that
> is. Implosion created matter particles. Explosion created the force
> energies of waves,and fields TreBert

That's about the stupidest shit I've ever read.
And coming from YOU, that says a lot.

The exact center of the universe is EXACTLY, PRECISELY
where I am sitting.

As for the rest of your post, well...Pure garbage.

[G=EMC^2]

If that is true that you are sitting in the exact center of the
universe than it has no black hole at its center it has an Ass Hole.
get the picture TreBert

[Brad Guth]

No doubt that bogus contributor "HVAC" is at least one of the biggest
Ass Holes in the universe. Such pretend-Atheists seem to prefer
having us at the center of their kosher hole.

[HVAC]

On 12/16/2011 10:05 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> That's about the stupidest shit I've ever read.
>> And coming from YOU, that says a lot.
>>
>> The exact center of the universe is EXACTLY, PRECISELY
>> where I am sitting.
>>
>> As for the rest of your post, well...Pure garbage.
>>
>> --
>>
>

> If that is true that you are sitting in the exact center of the
> universe than it has no black hole at its center it has an Ass Hole.
> get the picture TreBert

The picture I get is one of a moron that not only is
semi-literate, but doesn't even have the most basic
grasp of physics.

Hint: That would YOU.

[john]

When I said "ping-pong matter dances around just so", it was
in reference to YOUR theory of gravitation- which postulates
something that emanates from matter in all directions and exerts
a PULLING force on whatever matter it encounters. That
pulling force you have explained only as far as "the presence
of matter warps spacetime".
Using this concept it has been impossible to
explain galactic rotation curves without invoking Dark
Matter (ping-pong matter dances around just so.)

Furthermore, although it has been said that a torus of dark matter
around
a galaxy would cause the galactic rotation curves, nobody
has been able to computer-simulate that yet, and I
don't think it's possible.

So- unless you can show me the math, or better yet the
computer simulation (which is 3D math) where Dark
Matter fixes your rotation curve issue- I think you
should give up on the idea of gravity sucking. It doesn't work.
Galactic rotation curves proved it.



john

[saul...@cox.net]

BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS, INSANE JOHN!

BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE MIGHTY FUCKED IN THE HEAD MORON! YOU ARE VERY
INSANE!

BECAUSE YOU ARE AS STUPID AS THE PIG (WARPHOLE)!

ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT IS YOUR WACKO VERSION OF BEING A BUDDIboi!

TIME FOR ANOTHER OF YOUR CRACKPOT ENEMAS?

Saul Levy

[john]

What WOULD work, however, and it is
very similar to what you are saying, is if
all matter gave out a PUSH in all directions, and all
matter absorbed an equal amount of PUSH from all
directions. Then you do the whole LeSage thing, and if it is
electron radiations at a smaller scale and higher
speed, that works great! The protons absorb the
gravitation/inertia and feed their electrons, which need to be
fed constantly because they RADIATE.

There! Matter causes gravitation, but not
local matter, so you do away with Black Holes and
you have a limit to how much gravity
can be experienced on a planet. Now that you have this
limit, you have a lot of unseen matter at planet/suns' centers,
and larger bodies appear to be much less dense than
they are. So if you were to have a larger planet, such as
Saturn, Jupiter, or Neptune, or a Sun, it would appear to be
mostly gaseous when in fact it is rock and lava just like us.
Hmmm. Missing matter.

john
galaxy model

[Painius]

Well, you may be right, Saul on the Ball.

In this case, though, John could be right. How many times have I said
that for a star to generate both the outward-pushing mass/energy force
AND the inward-containing gravitational "effect" (force) is actually
ridiculous. Why would a star be expected to generate both?

Instead, the FORCE that contains the absolutely awesome and
unconscionable outward pushing mass/energy force of a star, what we
have known for a very long time as "gravity" or "gravitation", may
come from OUTSIDE the star.

As kooky as you may think I am, and as kooky as you may think this
idea to be, it's high time that astronomers bring back "push gravity",
because neither "pull gravity" not "gravity is an effect, not a force"
has gotten us very far, now, has it.

Scientists still don't know what causes gravitation. When a new
avenue presents itself, then it really should be FULLY investigated,
don't you agree, Falling Saul in the Fall? (Autumn)

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is a great warrior within all of us. What wakes yours up?"

PS. Fall is almost over. It's final day is December 21st. Then
Winter begins. Autumn is *extremely* gravitational, you know, and
THAT'S why they call it "FALL"!

[saul...@cox.net]

SHUT THE FUCK UP, PEENUSINTHEASS!

YOU ARE AGREEING WITH A CERTIFIED INSANE CRACKPOT BUDDIboi?

MAKE UP MORE WACKO SHIT NONSENSE!

MAY YOUR PEENUS FREEZE OFF!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:59:47 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com>
wrote:

[Painius]

First of all, John, you have probably surmised by now that I agree
with you that gravitation is a PUSH FORCE and neither a pull force nor
a wimpy effect.

I also agree that the galaxy rotation curve cannot be explained by
Keplerian laws. So scientists have invoked the mysterious "dark
matter" to explain it. Quantum mechanics yields the answer with the
postulated "spacetime foam". This foam may actually *comprise*
spacetime rather than just "being in it". Either way, the mass of
spacetime foam would not only explain dark matter over gigantic areas
of spacetime, such as found within the confines of a galaxy, the foam
would also fit within a PUSH-FORCE theory of gravitation without the
problems of the old, Le Sage-type models. Spacetime foam might "flow"
into matter, with mass acting as a flow-sink, and cause gravity.

>What WOULD work, however, and it is
>very similar to what you are saying, is if
>all matter gave out a PUSH in all directions, and all
>matter absorbed an equal amount of PUSH from all
>directions. Then you do the whole LeSage thing, and if it is
>electron radiations at a smaller scale and higher
>speed, that works great! The protons absorb the
>gravitation/inertia and feed their electrons, which need to be
>fed constantly because they RADIATE.

In a "spacetime-foam model" of gravitation, there would be only the
absorption by matter of the spacetime foam. Plus, in this type of
model, one would be able to get rid of the "push vs. pull" mental
image of gravitation. Since the formulas work either way, push or
pull matters very little, and the relativistic "effect" of matter on
spacetime would also be a keeper, as long as it is recognized that the
spacetime foam does actually "forcefully" flow into matter to keep our
feet on the ground.

>There! Matter causes gravitation, but not
>local matter, so you do away with Black Holes and
>you have a limit to how much gravity
>can be experienced on a planet. Now that you have this
>limit, you have a lot of unseen matter at planet/suns' centers,
>and larger bodies appear to be much less dense than
>they are. So if you were to have a larger planet, such as
>Saturn, Jupiter, or Neptune, or a Sun, it would appear to be
>mostly gaseous when in fact it is rock and lava just like us.
>Hmmm. Missing matter.

Well, there's really no way of knowing what is actually forcing
spacetime foam into a highly pressurized, extremely energy-dense
system that actually sustains the forces of each and every atom of
matter it flows into and through. Any description of such a driving
force would be an even less credible type of speculation, simply
because the driving force would have to be so great that it could not
be anything astronomers have observed thus far.

The important thing is that matter does not actually "cause"
gravitation, because matter, even the matter of which you speak above
(non-local) is just not much of a power source. What is needed is a
powerful ENERGY source and some idea how to convert energy into
matter. THAT is the type of driving force that would actually CAUSE
the spacetime foam to flow into matter.

It's not really "incorrect" to say that matter causes gravity. Just
as with spacetime foam, if that concept is correct, we can say that
spacetime foam causes gravity. Each time we step to a new level, the
question will ALWAYS remain, i.e., "What causes matter to 'attract'
things?" Ans. "spacetime foam". "What causes spacetime foam to flow
into matter?" Ans. "use your imagination and speculate". What causes
*whatever* it is that you imagine? (and so on, and so on).

Our present level of technology, while rising more quickly, say, than
a decade ago, is still insufficient to be able to confirm spacetime
foam, let alone what the magnificent force would be that drives
spacetime foam into all matter.

Now, "dark ENERGY"! That's another story!

[Painius]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:22:34 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/16/2011 10:05 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That's about the stupidest shit I've ever read.
>>> And coming from YOU, that says a lot.
>>>
>>> The exact center of the universe is EXACTLY, PRECISELY
>>> where I am sitting.
>>>
>>> As for the rest of your post, well...Pure garbage.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>> If that is true that you are sitting in the exact center of the
>> universe than it has no black hole at its center it has an Ass Hole.
>> get the picture TreBert
>
>
>The picture I get is one of a moron that not only is
>semi-literate, but doesn't even have the most basic
>grasp of physics.
>
>Hint: That would YOU.

This, hereby, is certification that the poster known as "HVAC" has
officially, undeniably, completely and totally LOST this argument.

(Since nazis weren't invoked, Godwin has to work overtime)

Yours very truly,
Godwin

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 16, 10:59 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> Well, you may be right, Saul on the Ball.
>
> In this case, though, John could be right.  How many times have I said
> that for a star to generate both the outward-pushing mass/energy force
> AND the inward-containing gravitational "effect" (force) is actually
> ridiculous.  Why would a star be expected to generate both?
>
> Instead, the FORCE that contains the absolutely awesome and
> unconscionable outward pushing mass/energy force of a star, what we
> have known for a very long time as "gravity" or "gravitation", may
> come from OUTSIDE the star.
>
> As kooky as you may think I am, and as kooky as you may think this
> idea to be, it's high time that astronomers bring back "push gravity",
> because neither "pull gravity" not "gravity is an effect, not a force"
> has gotten us very far, now, has it.
>
> Scientists still don't know what causes gravitation.  When a new
> avenue presents itself, then it really should be FULLY investigated,
> don't you agree, Falling Saul in the Fall? (Autumn)
>
> --
> Happy Holidays!
>   and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
> Indelibly yours,

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "There is a great warrior within all of us.  What wakes yours up?"
>
> PS. Fall is almost over.  It's final day is December 21st.  Then
> Winter begins.  Autumn is *extremely* gravitational, you know, and
> THAT'S why they call it "FALL"!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:59:09 -0700, saulle...@cox.net wrote:
> >BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS, INSANE JOHN!
>
> >BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE MIGHTY FUCKED IN THE HEAD MORON!  YOU ARE VERY
> >INSANE!
>
> >BECAUSE YOU ARE AS STUPID AS THE PIG (WARPHOLE)!
>
> >ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT IS YOUR WACKO VERSION OF BEING A BUDDIboi!
>
> >TIME FOR ANOTHER OF YOUR CRACKPOT ENEMAS?
>
> >Saul Levy
>
> >On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:42:07 -0800 (PST), john
> ><johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Why would anyone believe that
> >>matter all by itself can cause itself to collapse?
> >>Without any other participant?
>
> >>Stupidest idea ever.
>
> >>john
> >>who types in his own sig that kids can read too

New deductive investigations are obviously not going to be permitted
unless you've been Semite and NASA/DARPA approved. Yourself as an
outsider, showing up with the real 'Holy Grail' and butt-loads of
objective evidence in support, as such isn't going to be worth squat,
and especially worthless when published here in these public
accessible Usenet/newsgroups, because it's the public-funded job of
all ZNR approved brown-nosed clowns and FUD-masters to systematically
topic/author stalk and disqualify and/or bash all outsiders to death,
regardless of the consequences.

[Brad Guth]

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "There is a great warrior within all of us.  What wakes yours up?"

Isn't antimatter a kind of "dark energy" as well as capable of being a
push force?

[PD]

Be careful, John, I was talking about electrostatic attraction and
repulsion with the ping-pong balls -- which is a simple, observational
fact you can replicate in your living room.

I asked *you* for an accounting of how you imagine that can happen.

Reminder: You can have a positively charged ping-pong ball which both
REPELS another positively charged ping-pong ball and at the same time
ATTRACTS a negatively charged pith ball. Both at the same time.

You say that since nothing can produce *attraction* between the two, it
must be the result of a *push*. So I'm asking you to account for this
simple observation above with just pushes.

> That
> pulling force you have explained only as far as "the presence
> of matter warps spacetime".
> Using this concept it has been impossible to
> explain galactic rotation curves without invoking Dark
> Matter (ping-pong matter dances around just so.)
>
> Furthermore, although it has been said that a torus of dark matter
> around
> a galaxy would cause the galactic rotation curves, nobody
> has been able to computer-simulate that yet, and I
> don't think it's possible.
>
> So- unless you can show me the math, or better yet the
> computer simulation (which is 3D math) where Dark
> Matter fixes your rotation curve issue-

Actually, the results of those computer simulations have been published
in the literature. You know how to use scholar.google.com?

[john]

Provide a link.
What's the shape?

john

[G=EMC^2]

On Dec 16, 3:30 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

Painius Things do attract. Pushing away starts with things
touching(easy thinking) Attraction with space in between (attraction
over distance) not easy to explain So hard to come up with how its
done even Newton said "He will leave the answer to future people" My
spin is in theory has the answer. TreBert

[PD]

On 12/16/2011 4:42 PM, john wrote:
> On Dec 16, 3:21 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Be careful, John, I was talking about electrostatic attraction and
>> repulsion with the ping-pong balls -- which is a simple, observational
>> fact you can replicate in your living room.
>>
>> I asked *you* for an accounting of how you imagine that can happen.
>>
>> Reminder: You can have a positively charged ping-pong ball which both
>> REPELS another positively charged ping-pong ball and at the same time
>> ATTRACTS a negatively charged pith ball. Both at the same time.
>>
>> You say that since nothing can produce *attraction* between the two, it
>> must be the result of a *push*. So I'm asking you to account for this
>> simple observation above with just pushes.

John, I simply don't see any viable response to this.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> That
>>> pulling force you have explained only as far as "the presence
>>> of matter warps spacetime".
>>> Using this concept it has been impossible to
>>> explain galactic rotation curves without invoking Dark
>>> Matter (ping-pong matter dances around just so.)
>>
>>> Furthermore, although it has been said that a torus of dark matter
>>> around
>>> a galaxy would cause the galactic rotation curves, nobody
>>> has been able to computer-simulate that yet, and I
>>> don't think it's possible.
>>
>>> So- unless you can show me the math, or better yet the
>>> computer simulation (which is 3D math) where Dark
>>> Matter fixes your rotation curve issue-
>>
>> Actually, the results of those computer simulations have been published
>> in the literature. You know how to use scholar.google.com?
>>
>>
>>
> Provide a link.

Sure: http://scholar.google.com. I presume you would know how to use a
search engine.

> What's the shape?

That's in the publications.

[saul...@cox.net]

SHUT UP, GOOF!

Saul Levy

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:11:00 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:59:09 -0700, saulle...@cox.net wrote:
>> >BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS, INSANE JOHN!
>>
>> >BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE MIGHTY FUCKED IN THE HEAD MORON!  YOU ARE VERY
>> >INSANE!
>>
>> >BECAUSE YOU ARE AS STUPID AS THE PIG (WARPHOLE)!
>>
>> >ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT IS YOUR WACKO VERSION OF BEING A BUDDIboi!
>>
>> >TIME FOR ANOTHER OF YOUR CRACKPOT ENEMAS?
>>
>> >Saul Levy
>
>

>New deductive investigations are obviously not going to be permitted
>unless you've been Semite and NASA/DARPA approved. Yourself as an
>outsider, showing up with the real 'Holy Grail' and butt-loads of
>objective evidence in support, as such isn't going to be worth squat,
>and especially worthless when published here in these public
>accessible Usenet/newsgroups, because it's the public-funded job of
>all ZNR approved brown-nosed clowns and FUD-masters to systematically
>topic/author stalk and disqualify and/or bash all outsiders to death,
>regardless of the consequences.
>

> Brad Guth, BEING INSANE I CAN DO ANY DAMN THING I WANT!

[john]

"… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-
distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is
uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no
restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence
of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today …
whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of
expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the
observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced
interpretation of the observational results"

— E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936 [8]


"[If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they
stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and
dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if
redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the
region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant
portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."

— E. Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 97,
513, 1937 [9]

Hubble himself laid it out for you, PD.
Your interpretation leads to anomalies
that must be corrected by DM and DE.
A new matter and a new energy or you're wrong.

My bet is you're wrong.

john

[john]

"if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and
the
region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant
portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."

In other words, what Hubble is saying, is that if the redshift
is due to tired light, then everything is normal.

Also, if quasars are allowed to have intrinsic redshift, they are
no longer all at great distances with exagerated energies- they
are normally-spaced, normally integrated.

I don't know what this fascination is that you have for
fantastic, illogical scenarios. They should be the last resort.

john

[PD]

On 12/16/2011 7:47 PM, john wrote:
> On Dec 16, 4:58 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>>>> So- unless you can show me the math, or better yet the
>>>>> computer simulation (which is 3D math) where Dark
>>>>> Matter fixes your rotation curve issue-
>>
>>>> Actually, the results of those computer simulations have been published
>>>> in the literature. You know how to use scholar.google.com?
>>
>>> Provide a link.
>>
>> Sure:http://scholar.google.com. I presume you would know how to use a
>> search engine.
>>
>>> What's the shape?
>>
>> That's in the publications.
>
>

Try again, John. There was no observational evidence that pointed to
dark matter in Hubble's day in the 1930s.

Have you tried doing a search with "dark matter distribution" as the
search terms?

>
> — E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936 [8]
>

>

> — E. Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 97,
> 513, 1937 [9]
>
> Hubble himself laid it out for you, PD.
> Your interpretation leads to anomalies
> that must be corrected by DM and DE.
> A new matter and a new energy or you're wrong.

That's exactly right, John. A new matter and a new energy, or general
relativity is wrong.

That's why it's worth checking for the new matter and the new energy.

>
> My bet is you're wrong.

I get that's your hunch.
But scientists don't make conclusions based on bets. They test things
with observations.

[PD]

That was in the 1930's, John. What does that have to do with dark matter?

And I'm pretty sure Hubble made no comment about tired light. You did.
He referred to something unknown. Tired light hypotheses have been
tested by lots of observational measurements and found in trouble. So
you see, it simply is not true that "everything is normal" if tired
light is assumed. Perhaps that's why Hubble did not say that everything
is normal if tired light is assumed.

>
> Also, if quasars are allowed to have intrinsic redshift, they are
> no longer all at great distances with exagerated energies- they
> are normally-spaced, normally integrated.
>
> I don't know what this fascination is that you have for
> fantastic, illogical scenarios. They should be the last resort.

There is nothing illogical about the *unusual*, John. You seem to have
this propensity that says, "Everything should be ordinary, and something
unusual should be entertained only as a last resort." Why?

>
> john

[G=EMC^2]

Reality is quasars are billions of LY away and its their great
brightness(1,000 times brighter than a normal galaxy) lets us observe
them. The kicker is the great energy is at a tiny core showing what a
supermassive black hole can do. First quasar was discovered in 1963.
Radip telescope picked up a radio source(3C 273) This quasar has the
energy of 40 Milky Ways,and it only takes up very little space. 30
million times less space than the Milky Way. Yes I am looking at a
picture of 3C 273 as I type. Its a radio image. Get the picture
TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

Older photons than red are radio,and our radio telescopes like the
Parkes in Australia measures 210 feet in diameter and can be pointed
in every direction.With the use of electron coupling its great.We have
the Jodrell and it was built in 1957 and it still is right up there
with the largest radio dishes in the world. You can't get a good idea
of the size and age of the universe untill the largest radio
telescope can't find anymore radio waves. TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Dec 16, 3:30 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

Well I have best not leave out 3C 273 as up there with the most
massive black hole, Every year it swallows up a star TreBert

[saul...@cox.net]

A WHOLE STAR EVERY FUCKING YEAR?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BASED ON WHAT WACKO THEORY OF YOURS, YOU SENILE OLD GOAT?

Saul Levy

[saul...@cox.net]

JODRELL BANK HAS BEEN UPGRADED MANY TIMES, BEERT!

THAT'S HOW YOU STAY UP WITH THE NEWER TELESCOPES!

YOU FUCKING SENILE OLD GOAT!

Saul Levy

[G=EMC^2]

I relate 3C 273 to being a quasar in the making. Right now its
swollowing up just one star,and only 40 time brighter than the Milky
way. I predict in 100,000,000 years it will be 1,000 times brighter.
Get the picture TreBert

[Painius]

>Isn't antimatter a kind of "dark energy" as well as capable of being a
>push force?

Since I do not accept the need for dark energy, Brad, I would only
accept antimatter for what it is: Anti-matter. A force would only
come from antimatter's interaction with matter. If that doesn't
happen, then antimatter is as benign (or as active) as matter.

--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,

Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/