Understanding Black Holes
jdawe
than there is energy\matter 'At Rest'.
In our solar system:
There is more energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the sun ) than there is energy
\matter 'In Motion' ( the planets ).
So negative gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the planets will be
inverted into matter before the star gets inverted into energy.
In a galaxy:
There is more energy\matter 'In Motion' ( the planetary systems ) than
there is energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the galactic centre ).
So positive gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the galactic centre
will be inverted into energy before the planetary systems get inverted
into matter.
Because the positive gravity of all the planetary systems 'In Motion'
on the galactic centre is so great any energy\matter in the galactic
centre gets inverted almost instantly into energy. Giving the false
image of a 'black hole'.
-Josh.
Androcles
"jdawe" <mrj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:673db97b-69ab-482e...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Sam Wormley
> Black holes are created when there is more energy\matter 'In Motion'
> than there is energy\matter 'At Rest'.
ILLUCID
Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi
dedanoe says: http://sites.google.com/site/dedanoe/Home/fistyhello.JPG
BURT
Matter reaches the speed of light in the event horizon. And if there
is more stronger gravity inside it will fall faster than light but SR
says motion cannot even reach light speed. So there is a problem with
black hole theory. It should become gravity with a light speed limit
that is never reached. This gets rid of the event horizon where time
stands still. We are seeing the extreme of limited gravity noit of a
black hole.
The no boundary principle of Stephen Hawking started by Einstein could
apply to black hole theory localy as it applies to the universe
globally.
Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Al
>
> Black holes are created when there is more energy\matter 'In Motion'
> than there is energy\matter 'At Rest'.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
jdawe
You are only thinking along the lines of 'one' gravity. You must
understand the opposing force effect of gravity ( energy\matter 'In
Motion' ) and the inverse of gravity ( energy\matter 'At Rest' ).
Gravity = positive force.
Inverse of gravity = negative force.
Energy will begin to invert into matter if there is more negative
force acting on it than positive force.
Matter will begin to invert into energy if there is more positive
force acting on it than negative force.
Let's take a look at the earth and our moon for a second.
To the moon the earth is 'At Rest' producing negative force. To the
earth the moon is 'In Motion' producing positive force. Therefore, the
moon has the effect of inverting matter of the earth into energy. The
earth has the effect of inverting the energy of the moon into matter.
This is why the moon is almost entirely inverted into a dead mass of
'matter' with no energy. Not only does the poor moon have the negative
force of the sun acting on it but also the negative force of the earth
acting on it.
On the flip side of the coin, even though the earth gets a great
amount of negative force from the sun, the moon 'In
Motion' ( generating positive force ) around the earth acts as a
little energy generator ensuring tsome of the matter of the earth will
be inverted into energy allowing it to be a live mass of both energy
\matter for a long time to come.
-Josh.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gravity passes through itself because there are always multiple
objects in each other fields.
Mitch Raemsch
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again you are choosing to recognise only one force - 'gravity'.
This is a flow on mistake from choosing to recognise only one state -
'In Motion'.
As soon as you choose to recognise 'In Motion' has an opposing state
'At Rest' you will understand the opposing forces of positive and
negative gravity.
-Josh.
Magnetic
In a dozen of days CERN’s LHC will kill all of you and all of your
relatives.
Take action, to save your souls!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/7e292b42c079aa35?hl=en#
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/biz.html
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/tezeng.html
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html
john
> Idiots, what are you discussing now?
> In a dozen of days CERN’s LHC will kill all of you and all of your
> relatives.
> Take action, to save your souls!
Besides the fact that the LHC will never run,
black holes don't grow.
If they did, galaxies 12 billion light years away
wouldn't look basically like ours.
But they do.
This means the idea that gravity collects and
runs amok resulting in a black hole is just
plain stupid.
Galaxies have been around forever- their
centers are black holes.
The other black holes around are atomic centers
(proton[s]).
There are none in between, and the LHC wouldn't
have nearly enough energy to create even a proton.
john
galaxy model for the atom
Sam Wormley
>
> Besides the fact that the LHC will never run,
Sure LHC will run.
> black holes don't grow.
Of course then do.
> If they did, galaxies 12 billion light years away
> wouldn't look basically like ours.
> But they do.
No they don't -- take a look at some of those blotchy
adolescent galaxies.
Magnetic
BURT
Magnetism flows through itself.
Mitch Raemsch
Magnetic
But with great probability their secretaries will drop my letters into
rubbish.
So, if you do not want to play in Russian Roulette, compose your own
letter or agree with mine.
Dear President!
I am the author of the theory of magnetic hole. According to this
theory magnetic holes can be created soon at the Large Hadron
Collider. That will lead to the collaptical explosion of the Earth.
November the 30-th, according to the preliminary plan for the Large
Hadron Collider, the collisions of protons with energies of 0.45 TeV
will be implemented, the 14-th of December - collisions with energies
of 3.5 TeV. If the magnetic collapse starts, it will be impossible to
stop it. It will end with ejection of the Earth’s shell into outer
space.
I give the following probabilities:
A. 10% - magnetic collapse will start at 0.45 TeV;
B. 50% - magnetic collapse will start at 3.5 TeV, if A did not
happen;
C. 70% - magnetic collapse will start at 7 TeV, if B did not happen.
30% I leave to my mistake.
Why is such confidence?
Compare Newtonian black hole and magnetic hole:
GMm / r = mc^2 / 2;
pB = mc^2.
It was obtained two independent proofs that the equality pB = mc^2 is
reached at the energies, achievable in modern colliders,
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html
There are many arguments in favor the fact that magnetic holes exist,
and astronomers see them, but call them on the error as black holes,
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html
It was found several crude errors and criminal lies in the assessment
documents about the safety of LHC, http://darkenergy.narod.ru/tezeng.html
The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small
region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is
about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters.
--
> > According to Russian online “opinion poll” at November 6, 2009, 52% of
> > respondents had said that LHC is the dearth threat.
> > But as we can see, CERN continues their preparations to this crime
> > experiment. Conclusion - the science is criminal now!
> So you think some country will bomb the LHC before it can get'm?
To bomb the LHC now is better, than LHS destroy the Earth. CERN
physicists do not want to listen about magnetic hole. They are
potential killers of our planet. CERN physicists must be put into
prison now; - otherwise they kill all of us.
The rate of MH’s growth is not known exactly. Magnetic Hole can
destroy the Earth in the period from 1000 seconds to 1000 days. If
the
second is correct, then you will wish to bomb the LHC yourself. But
then it would not save you already. Because Magnetic Holes would
already grow inside the Earth.
I repeat: the probability of Earth explosion, caused by LHC, is about
50 %.
--
Listen, “Inertial”.
You did not understand what magnetic hole is. It is quite had.
But you can try if I am a liar or a stupid boy by solving two my
simple problems.
1. Let the length of free path of a particle is equal to 1 meter, r =
1 m.
Let the radius of the object is equal to 1000 meters, R = 1000 m.
How many collisions will undergo the particle in order to exit the
object?
Solution. R/r = 1000. N = (R/r)^2 = 1 000 000.
2. How many Earth’s protons will ruin the dangerous particle if R/r =
10^9?
A. CERN’s solution: N = (R/r)^2 = 10^18.
B. My solution: The Earth has its own gravity field. Consequently,
the
trajectory of a particle between collisions will not be straight
line,
but curved to the center of attraction. As a result the dangerous
particle will constantly drift to the center of the Earth. As a
result
the dangerous particle will ruin about N/n Earth’s protons, where:
N – the total number of Earth’s protons; n – the number of created
dangerous particles.
Dear "Inertial", which solution is correct: mine or CERN’s?
That was one crude error, made in the CERN’s safety documentation.
I had fount three such errors and one false assertion.
CERN will kill you if you will not ruin this criminal organization.
Harry, you have only about 20 days to do that and save your and your
children’s lives.
--
> Are you seriously suggesting that science should be driven by public
> opinion?
Physicists in their majority are confident that heavy particles,
created at LHC will decay.
That is a crude error.
LHC can create a particle with the mass by 10 000 times greater than
the mass of proton.
To imagine this, compare the masses of a human and of a railway train.
Imagine the situation if biologists would make a creature with the
mass of railway train, but having the human size. What will happen to
you if this creature would seat at the roof of your house, exactly
over you? Any roof will be broken and you would be smashed into a
thin
film and pushed deep into the ground.
Now imagine a proton, as soap bubble, and a liquid drop of the same
size.
What will happen to protons, if the bubble has a field, attracting
protons?
Protons would be ruined and their remnants would condense onto the
drop.
Particle physicists have no such imagination. Those idiots think that
proton consists from three point-like quarks. In fact proton is
composed from some continuous substance, rotating with relativistic
velocity. This rotating substance creates three mixed electro-
magneto-
weak poles: u, u, d. At strong magnetic field this three-pole
construction can be ruined, and the two-pole construction can be
created. This process is accompanied by ejection of positron.
There are two independent math proves that this reconstruction can be
performed at energies about 0,25 TeV per colliding particle, if the
magnetic moment of resulting two-pole particle is the same as the
magnetic moment of proton. If its value is different, then the needed
energy would also be different.
Official science is corrupted and rotten organism. It will never
approve the idea, created at the camp of independent researchers.
Official science would better explode the Earth, than say that
magnetic holes are possible and that LHC is deadly dangerous for our
civilization. That is why the official science is criminal now. So,
do
not think that CERN would stop the LHC. CERN will kill us all with
probability about 50%
--
Note 2:
The time needed the microscopic black hole capture the whole Earth is
mach greater than million years. Consequently, they are safe for now
living people on the Earth.
The time needed the magnetic hole capture the whole Earth is about
1000 seconds. Consequently, magnetic holes can explode the Earth and
Solar system.
Note 3:
We know two types of explosions chemical and nuclear.
Astronomers see the third type of explosions – collaptical.
At nuclear explosion only few thousand’s parts of explosive rest
energy is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of
fragments.
At some stellar collaptical explosions about a half of rest energy of
the star is realized in the form of radiation and kinetic energy of
the rejected stellar shell.
What type of collaptical explosions do astronomers observe:
gravitational into black hole or magnetic into magnetic hole?
Is it possible to switch the magnetic collapse at collider?
My answers: The observed collapses are magnetic ones. Magnetic
collapse can be switched on by powerful colliders.
LHC will be switched on in the mead-November; the first collisions
are
waited in a few weeks later. Do we survive or do we start into outer
space?
Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of
Stephen Hawking.
In the CERN's article “The safety of the LHC”
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html you can find a
dozen of comparisons with cosmic rays.
Hawking: "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on.
The
LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur
millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing
terrible
happens."
This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.
The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.
Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make
microscopic magnetic holes.
Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter
are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have
relativistic velocities.
Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger
hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic
velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy,
relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately.
Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles.
Physicists observe such showers.
Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear quasi-hole” with the behavior
of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:
A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies,
equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.
Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
...
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->...; Y+n ->...
two branches;
...
four branches;
...
eight branches;
...
Collaptical explosion!
B. Evaporation. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the
backward order in crude approximation.
Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic
forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear quasi-
holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is
the food, - the matter of planet or star.
Physicists, did you see the difference?
Look here: fig. SN 1987A.
That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not
the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic
dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.
john
At the very edge of our visual
perception, some galaxies look blotchy?
Not surprising.
Others look just like ours, and it has
already been allowed that
whether or not black holes grow,
they definitely do not grow
past a certain point.
What has not yet been proven is if they grow at all.
Don't forget, the concept of the
black hole "grew" out of our theory
of gravity- it was one of the first egregious
paradoxes that came from that error.
It has been followed by dark matter, dark energy,
and all the other things that definitely
won't survive the light of cold reasoning.
Unfortunately, QMers pride themselves on
their lack of reason.
Sam Wormley
> On Nov 10, 12:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>
>>> Besides the fact that the LHC will never run,
>> Sure LHC will run.
>>
>>> black holes don't grow.
>> Of course then do.
>>
>>> If they did, galaxies 12 billion light years away
>>> wouldn't look basically like ours.
>>> But they do.
>> No they don't -- take a look at some of those blotchy
>> adolescent galaxies.
>
>
> At the very edge of our visual
> perception, some galaxies look blotchy?
> Not surprising.
> Others look just like ours, and it has
> already been allowed that
> whether or not black holes grow,
> they definitely do not grow
> past a certain point.
Ya got some numbers to support your claim, John?
>
> What has not yet been proven is if they grow at all.
>
> Don't forget, the concept of the
> black hole "grew" out of our theory
> of gravity- it was one of the first egregious
> paradoxes that came from that error.
> It has been followed by dark matter, dark energy,
> and all the other things that definitely
> won't survive the light of cold reasoning.
Science used empirical observation mor so than reasoning.
PD
> On Nov 9, 11:00 pm, Magnetic <magnetic.t...@yandex.ua> wrote:
>
> > Idiots, what are you discussing now?
> > In a dozen of days CERN’s LHC will kill all of you and all of your
> > relatives.
> > Take action, to save your souls!
>
> Besides the fact that the LHC will never run,
We'll see, John. Circulating beams at 450 GeV on 11/20. Collisions at
1.1 TeV by mid-December. If it turns out the LHC runs, would you be
willing to raise your eyebrows and say, "Shucks, guess I didn't guess
right"?
> black holes don't grow.
> If they did, galaxies 12 billion light years away
> wouldn't look basically like ours.
Why? What makes those galaxies different than ours?
> But they do.
> This means the idea that gravity collects and
> runs amok resulting in a black hole is just
> plain stupid.
What do you think happens to a galaxy when a black hole forms in the
middle of it?
> Galaxies have been around forever-
We don't have any evidence of any galaxies older than 16B years old.
Do you?
> their
> centers are black holes.
Which by *definition* are those places where gravity has run amok,
which you said can't happen, and yet you just said does happen.
> The other black holes around are atomic centers
> (proton[s]).
What makes you think those are black holes, John?
> There are none in between, and the LHC wouldn't
> have nearly enough energy to create even a proton.
Protons have already been created in much smaller accelerators, John.
Look up the "Bevatron".
PD
What paradox? I don't see any contradictory statements. Do you?
> It has been followed by dark matter, dark energy,
> and all the other things that definitely
> won't survive the light of cold reasoning.
>
> Unfortunately, QMers pride themselves on
> their lack of reason.
What do you think is unreasonable?
>
> john
> galaxy model for the atom- Hide quoted text -
PD
I just love the phrase "collaptical explosion".
BURT
> On Nov 10, 3:43 am, Magnetic <magnetic.t...@yandex.ua> wrote:
>
> I just love the phrase "collaptical explosion".
Energy cannot disapate from the center. It cannot reach the horizon
from the singularity. And Hawking radiation is supposed to be cause by
negative particles falling in but they are created along side of
positive energy particle which would have equal oportunity to fall in.
In this way the energy is blanced. Black holes in Hawking theory would
be in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Mitch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 10, 12:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > john wrote:
>
> > > Besides the fact that the LHC will never run,
>
> > Sure LHC will run.
>
> > > black holes don't grow.
>
> > Of course then do.
>
> > > If they did, galaxies 12 billion light years away
> > > wouldn't look basically like ours.
> > > But they do.
>
> > No they don't -- take a look at some of those blotchy
> > adolescent galaxies.
>
> At the very edge of our visual
> perception, some galaxies look blotchy?
There are pictures all over the Internet. Do I have to supply you
with a URL for the Hubble Telescope's images?
> Not surprising.
> Others look just like ours,
Cite two.
> and it has
> already been allowed that
> whether or not black holes grow,
> they definitely do not grow
> past a certain point.
Who "allowed" this? Cite or retract.
> What has not yet been proven is if they grow at all.
>
> Don't forget, the concept of the
> black hole "grew" out of our theory
> of gravity- it was one of the first egregious
> paradoxes that came from that error.
What "paradox"?
> It has been followed by dark matter, dark energy,
> and all the other things that definitely
> won't survive the light of cold reasoning.
Nobody cares about your reasoning. Evidence matters. Got any?
> Unfortunately, QMers pride themselves on
> their lack of reason.
What part of Quantum Mechanics do you think provides a theoretical
foundation for Black Holes?
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
The singularity would have a wave function.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
alien8er
> On Nov 11, 9:47 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 10:15 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
(snip)
> > > Unfortunately, QMers pride themselves on
> > > their lack of reason.
>
> > What part of Quantum Mechanics do you think provides a theoretical
> > foundation for Black Holes?
>
> The singularity would have a wave function.
Hey, Mitch, how are those Nobel prizes coming along?
By the way, black hole theory is founded in classical mechanics.
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
GR violates SR for black holes. But science has made excuses for it. I
have demonstrated that.
And I can do it again.
Mitch Raemsch