For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not.

[Odd Bodkin]

John Sefton is incensed about the idea of a black hole, because he read
somewhere that the central idea of a black hole is infinite gravity, and
he will insist that gravity has to be finite (even though he believes
the size of the universe is infinite). And because he believes this is
the central lynchpin of black holes, then a belief in finite gravity
means to him that black holes are denied.

But John is kinda missing the boat on what makes a black hole.

First of all, let's get straight what a black hole is. A black hole
happens when a sufficiently large but FINITE amount of matter falls
inside a sufficiently small but FINITE radius. This radius is called the
Schwarzchild radius. That radius is r = 2GM/c^2. All you have to do is
get more mass than M inside that radius r, and you will have a black
hole. A black hole simply means that ANYTHING that falls inside this
radius will never get out or send anything out. Things outside of this
radius can be perfectly happy, orbiting around and never falling in. The
idea of a black hole swallowing everything on the OUTSIDE of this radius
is just bullshit, gradeschool bullshit. Some stuff will fall in, sure,
just like some stuff falls into the sun, but the planets have not fallen
into the sun for billions of years.

So far, there is absolutely nothing about infinite anything here.

So now the question is, why don't ALL stars compress under gravity and
become black holes. The reason is that there are sources of outward
pressure, obviously, and if the outward pressure equals the inward pull
of gravity, then collapse doesn't proceed.

In ordinary burning stars, what provides the outward pressure is heat
from nuclear fusion. Heat pushes matter outward, as anyone who has
watched a firecracker knows. If gravity is enough to pull it in (more
than a firecracker's gravity, for sure), then there can be a balance,
which is like our sun.

When the fuel for fusion is gone, then there is no fusion to provide
heat to push things outward, and the star starts to collapse, until a
new outward force pushes it out. That outward force is almost exactly
the same thing that makes a metal solid. It's called electron
degeneracy, and it's basically the Pauli exclusion principle at work.
Electrons in the same state cannot get too close to each other, because
they are fermions. It's this repulsion, not from electrostatics, but
from Fermi statistics and the Pauli principle, that makes metal solid,
and it also makes burnt-out stars resist gravitational collapse.

But if you get enough gravitational pressure coming from the further
collapse, then you can introduce something that only happens extremely
rarely in solid materials, and that's the electron being squeezed into
the nucleus for long enough periods of time that it interacts with a
proton and generates a neutron. Do this enough, and all of the atoms
collapse into the size of their nuclei, which is a trillion times
smaller and more dense. Since there are equal numbers of protons and
electrons, you're going to end up with something like a solid again, but
now made up entirely of neutrons. The good news is that neutrons are
also fermions, and the Pauli exclusion principle also applies to them,
and so you can't just squeeze neutrons together forever, before they
want to push each other away and you now have outward pressure. When
that balances gravity, then you have a stable neutron star, of which
we've seen plenty.

But if this neutron star collapse brings enough mass close enough
together that you're inside the Schwarzchild radius, then gravity is
strong enough to not be balanced by neutron degeneracy. So then another
collapse happens just like the previous ones. The difference here is
that we're not aware of any other layer of degeneracy pressure that
might cause another balance with gravity. So AS FAR AS WE KNOW, there is
nothing to stop the collapse from gravity and it is ASSUMED that it will
just continue unstopped. However, as this all happens inside the
Schwarzchild radius, we WILL NEVER KNOW anyway, because we can't see
anything coming out to tell us what's going on.

All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical
must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity
to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a
black hole, and what happens inside after that is moot.

So John .... get over it. The crap comic book stuff you read about black
holes is cheapo, sloppy, popularization nonsense.


--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Edward Prochak]

Very nice exposition there Odd. Good work.
ed

[john]

Odd

"All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical
must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity
to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a "

I think the limit precludes that, Odd.

[Odd Bodkin]

Calculate the limit, John.
You make a quantitative claim, and you will need to demonstrate your
rationale.

[reber G=emc^2]

Yes gravity force goes to infinity.It creates when it is the strongest force.BHs can only in gain weight and density.Alway keep in mind G=EMC^2 TreBert

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?
An infinite amount ? more ?  Where does this energy come from ? !

There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
in fact, Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics rules it out.
Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example.

To update your "knowledge" of "Black Holes" ( past the classical ),
please read:  WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Black_star_%28semiclassical_gravity%29

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/18/17 8/18/17 5:37 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?

That depends on what you mean.

> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;

Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes lie near
the center of most galaxies. This evidence has convinced most astrophysicists
that these are indeed black holes, so it is not at all "zero".

The supermassive object at the center of the Milky Way exhibits several key
aspects that are explained by it being a black hole, and which are not explained
by any other known object:
* X-rays characteristic of infalling matter, without the resulting
collision with a surface.
* the cutoff and redshift of emissions from that infalling matter are
consistent with it being a black hole.
* stars orbiting it come closer than the radius of any other known type
of object with comparable mass (~ 4.1E6 solar masses).

In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions between
black holes.

Attempting to argue from your own ignorance is never a good plan.

Tom Roberts

[hanson]

Glazier, you have shown, as seen in PS1 below,
that you get very angry when somebody disagrees
with you.
>
Bert, you also have posted that you really hate the
reminders that follow your posts as show in PS2.
>
So, Bert, all you have to do is to post a single
sentence that says something like:
>
***** "I, Glazier get irate, like most other posters do,
***** when they do disagree with me, Bert, which is
***** why I posted what I wrote in PS1 -- Trebert".
>
That's all, Bert. Do that and PS1 and PS2 will NOT
be posted anymore.
>
>
[PS1] .... which, if so, will not be posted anymore:
>

Glazier really aims to tell them the same thing that Bert told...
(1)
On 9Aug2017 to Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com>
Paul, you are too low witted to understand what I post.Its way
over your head.Your sitting on your brain.Sad but true TreBert
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>:
Reality is you, Benj always post under me for you are an ass
kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert.... & addinng
>
On 03Aug2017:
benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears.
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Jew Pig Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, Mr....@gmail.com,
Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
>
[PS2].... which, if so, will not be posted anymore:
>
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>,
_____ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim ________
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>
<http://tinyurl.com/Jew-Swine-Glazier-cries>
<http://tinyurl.com/SwineBert-s-WRONG-Predictions>
<http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve>
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>,
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>.
<http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017>

[Lofty Goat]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:54:14 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Good explanation, and a good example of why I read these newsgroups.

Two things worth noting:

> ... Things outside of this radius can be perfectly happy, orbiting
> around and never falling in....

There actually is a minimum stable orbit outside the event horizon. A
brief explanation of that can be found, e.g. here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innermost_stable_circular_orbit

... or in more detail, e.g. here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46332/what-happens-to-orbits-at-small-radii-in-general-relativity/46527#46527

Also, the same people who tell us that infinite gravity probably won't
work are also trying to explain why point objects with mass, like
electrons, don't behave like black holes.

I'm not bright enough to figure stuff like that out on my own, but happy
in a world that will always provide us with new puzzles. [grin]

--
Goat

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied:
> > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
> 
> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes
> lie near the center of most galaxies.

A very dense objects, yes.
TRUE black holes, no.

Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

> Attempting to argue from your own ignorance is never a good plan.

Hopefully, if you repeat this enough,
you'll take your own advice one day.

To update your "knowledge" of "Black Holes" ( past the classical ),
please read:  WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Black_star_%28semiclassical_gravity%29

[john]

Lofty
What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects. Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of us Humans anymore.

[john]

Jeff

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied:
> > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>
> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes
> lie near the center of most galaxies.

A very dense objects, yes.
TRUE black holes, no.

Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
"

There's no object there, at all.
That's spinning aether; the next lower Matter field.
It goes too fast for charged Matter to survive in it, because the charges blow away from each other when you spin them that fast. It's black because light actually gets trapped.

[john]

Jeff

A thought here;
Light may actually power Black Holes.

[pora...@gmail.com]

====================
yes indeed good detailed explanation
now
I am not sure that odd indicate that
some energy **does** go out the back hole
ie
EM WAVES ARE EMITTED FROM SOME center OF BLACKHOLE

and me
Y.Porat
proved that
EM WAVE HAS MASS !! THE ONLY MASS !!!
-----
TIA
Y.Porat
==========================

[benj]

Hey John, haven't you been listening to Banjo? The pakistanis have
invented perpetual motion where limitless energy is obtained just by a
certain placement of magnets.

This is certainly the end of problems for civilization.

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff
>
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied:
>>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>>
>> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes
>> lie near the center of most galaxies.
>
> A very dense objects, yes.

Very dense objects that do not shine.

> TRUE black holes, no.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How are you distinguishing a "true"
black hole from something that looks and behaves like a black hole?

Or are you saying that you believe in things that behave just like black
holes but want to believe they are something else instead?

>
> Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

What? Try to explain that.

> "
> There's no object there, at all.
> That's spinning aether; the next lower Matter field.
> It goes too fast for charged Matter to survive in it, because the charges
> blow away from each other when you spin them that fast. It's black
> because light actually gets trapped.

That last sentence is what "black hole" means, John.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Takuya Saitoh ) replied:
> > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
> > in fact, Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics rules it out.
> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example.
> 
> "Quantum Mechanics is a Quantum Statistics", didn't you say ?

Yes, quantum events are statistical, not mechanical;
so: There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists.

[NobelPrize.ORG]

You ( Odd Bodkin ) replied:
> > Very dense objects, yes.

> > TRUE black holes, no.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. How are you distinguishing a "true"
> black hole from something that looks and behaves like a black hole?

Google "SemiClassical Black Star".

> Or are you saying that you believe in things that behave just like
> black holes but want to believe they are something else instead?

"Somewhat like", not "just like".
Stephen Hawking has been saying it since 2004, 13 years ago,
long after you stopped learning about it ( due to dementia, I assume ).

> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>
> What? Try to explain that.

Quantum events are statistical, not mechanical;
so: There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists.

If you have REAL DATA to the contrary,
you get the Nobel prize, along with Bert.

Quantum Correlations are acausal, like a series of dice tosses.
The Correlations say nothing about the next roll of the dice,
but they _can_ tell you that, in 100 tosses,
2 ( snake eyes ) happens less often than 7 ( 3 + 4, 1 + 6, etc. ).

Intrinsically, each toss is fully causal, not random.
SemiRandomness is SemiIgnorance, nothing more.

[john]

Light may power black Holes.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

NobelPrize.ORG @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>

Idiot

--
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Light may power black Holes.

Babbling nonsense. What is there to power?

[Serg io]

All electrical sockets have two or three little black holes in them.

That is where the plug goes.

[john]

A BH is a vortex in the aether.
A photon is a wave of energy in the aether.
Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out.
BH increases in energy

[Odd Bodkin]

How is this experimentally distinguishable from general relativity?
Remember the criteria of scientific thinking?
What is the minimum mass of a black hole by your idea? Remember the
criteria of scientific thinking?

[Odd Bodkin]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A BH is a vortex in the aether.
>> A photon is a wave of energy in the aether.
>> Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out.
>> BH increases in energy
>>
>
> How is this experimentally distinguishable from general relativity?
> Remember the criteria of scientific thinking?
> What is the minimum mass of a black hole by your idea? Remember the
> criteria of scientific thinking?
>

Or maybe you'll reply, screw that, I'm only interested in the idle
speculation.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>A BH is a vortex in the aether.

Kook Babble. There is no aether.

>A photon is a wave of energy in the aether.

More kook babble.

>Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out.

Wow, you actually got something correct for once!!

>BH increases in energy

Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all
we detect is the mass. More accurate to say the BH increases in mass.
(remember, E=mc^2, where E is the energy added by the photon E=hf)

Regardless, this doesn't answer my question, what do you mean "powering"
a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger?

[pora...@gmail.com]

========================
just remember that
E=hf HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS !!!!
===
ATB
Y.Porat
================================

[john]

MM

" question, what do you mean "powering"
a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? "

There is NO MATTER inside the BH.
It is SPINNING 'SPACETIME'.
No charges can remain together in the extreme spin, and they are blown out as jets.

But what maintains the spin? Radiation.

[reber G=emc^2]

A BH reaches its critical mass density when there is no space between the neutron and proton.The electron also is not a cloud anymore.The cloud is now a
point Also time and space are one.(merged) The BH now implodes into a singularity.Do not go to Google to find all of this.Its from the thinking of Treb and I.In reality Treb is 285 years ahead of Earth time.Get the picture.TreBert

[john]

We've been here before, Michael.
Remember?
'ITS A CYCLE, MICHAEL'

Galactic centres absorb radiation.
Electrons use their energy to continue radiating.

[hanson]

Get the picture.TreBert

[hanson]

"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Get the picture" that SwineBert loves to be reminded
that Glazier is what it said in the following links about:

>
>
_____ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim ________

<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>,

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>" question, what do you mean "powering"
>a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? "

>There is NO MATTER inside the BH.

Kook Babble, John. A black hole is defined as being an object so massive
and dense that its gravity is so powerful that the escape velocity reaches
c, so nothing can escape. See the word "massive"? That is from all the
mass inside it.

>It is SPINNING 'SPACETIME'.

More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin".
(and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?)

>No charges can remain together in the extreme spin, and they are blown
>out as jets.

Kook babble again.

>But what maintains the spin? Radiation.

Physical objects such as the earth rotate all by themselves without
radiation or anything else needed to 'maintain' it. Conservation of
angular momentum.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>We've been here before, Michael.
>Remember?
>'ITS A CYCLE, MICHAEL'

We've been here before, John.
Remember?

You are spouting kook babble, John.

[john]

MM

"
More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin". "

Or "warp/bend"?

(and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) "

Show me one- not on paper

[Lofty Goat]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:26:15 +0000 (UTC),
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin".

Maybe not, but it can swirl. [grin]

--
Goat

[john]

Goat

"Maybe not, but it can swirl. [grin]
"

Big time!
:)

[Double-A]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:09 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?
> An infinite amount ? more ? Where does this energy come from ? !


Seems like I calculated one time that the energy for an object to escape a black hole would be exactly equal to the total energy it's mass could contain (E=mc^2). Not a hopeful prospect.

Double-A

[Serg io]

On 8/19/2017 8:33 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A BH is a vortex in the aether.
>
> Kook Babble. There is no aether.

Great Future for Aether Engineers !! (Midnight News)

>
>> A photon is a wave of energy in the aether.
>
> More kook babble.
>
>> Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out.
>
> Wow, you actually got something correct for once!!

he was thinking billiard balls (photons) and side pockets (hole)

>
>> BH increases in energy
>
> Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all
> we detect is the mass.

I dont think one can detect mass inside a BH,
that pesky (-1)^(1/2) thing does a number on reality.

and going through the EH, or 'onto' the EH, one and his instruments get
strung out into atoms and stuck into a place where time is not advancing
anymore.

Wish someone would make a realistic movie following the Math, as they go
slowly into/onto a BH.

[john]

Io

"

>
>> BH increases in energy
>
> Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all
> we detect is the mass.

I dont think one can detect mass inside a BH,
that pesky (-1)^(1/2) thing does a number on reality.

and going through the EH, or 'onto' the EH, one and his instruments get
strung out into atoms and stuck into a place where time is not advancing
anymore.

Wish someone would make a realistic movie following the Math, as they go
slowly into/onto a BH.
"

They saw what happens.
It's a whirlpool.
The star goes faster and faster around the Center as it gets closer, then the ATOMS SHRED and two jets carry HEPs in opposite directions at .9c.
No atoms left- all exploded

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>NobelPrize.ORG @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>
>
>Idiot

Don't you "love" people who, because of their own stupidity and
ignorance, think that they know better than everyone else?

--
"Only Linux shitware is so braindead as to use case-sensitivity." -
DumFSck

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 5:26:47 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 08/19/2017 02:07 AM, john wrote:
> > Lofty What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and
> > people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is,
> > there is no free lunch.

How mean. My father has done a lot to establish orphanages where orphans
get not only free lunches but breakfast and dinner too. And schooling and board.
All paid for by kindly altruists.

Here in Australia, lots more than free lunches are given to the unemployed,
the elderly, refugees, disabled, etc.

Everything has to come from somewhere. Money
> > doesn't grow on trees.

Not any more. Money is made by machines and distributed by machines.

Energy can't be produced by manipulating
> > proximity of objects.

Yes it can. Energy is always getting created and destroyed with kinetic
interaction of matter following the fundamental forces of electricity.

Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of
> > us Humans anymore.

All those who believe in e=mcc are embarrassments to humanity and science.
> >
>
> Hey John, haven't you been listening to Banjo? The pakistanis have
> invented perpetual motion where limitless energy is obtained just by a
> certain placement of magnets.

Yes, they have made a successful realisation of the Perendev simulation, and
that is a huge breakthrough in physics. It validates what I found back in
1999.
>
> This is certainly the end of problems for civilization.

True.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/19/17 1:07 AM, john wrote:
> Lofty

> What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects.

By making sure that water gets more proximal to the center of the earth
through a directed channel, hydroelectric dams have been generating lots
of electricity for Las Vegas and cities like that for some time now, John.

Where have you been?

Matter falling under the influence of gravity producing great gobs of
energy near the centers of galaxies is a straightforward extension of
that little dabbling with water over a couple hundred feet that we do.

> Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of us Humans anymore.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/19/17 2:00 AM, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:01:14 PM UTC+3, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:54:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> John Sefton is incensed about the idea of a black hole, because he read
>>> somewhere that the central idea of a black hole is infinite gravity, and
>>> he will insist that gravity has to be finite (even though he believes
>>> the size of the universe is infinite). And because he believes this is
>>> the central lynchpin of black holes, then a belief in finite gravity
>>> means to him that black holes are denied.
>>>
>>> But John is kinda missing the boat on what makes a black hole.
>>>
>>> First of all, let's get straight what a black hole is. A black hole
>>> happens when a sufficiently large but FINITE amount of matter falls
>>> inside a sufficiently small but FINITE radius. This radius is called the
>>> Schwarzchild radius. That radius is r = 2GM/c^2. All you have to do is
>>> get more mass than M inside that radius r, and you will have a black
>>> hole. A black hole simply means that ANYTHING that falls inside this
>>> radius will never get out or send anything out. Things outside of this
>>> radius can be perfectly happy, orbiting around and never falling in. The
>>> idea of a black hole swallowing everything on the OUTSIDE of this radius
>>> is just bullshit, gradeschool bullshit. Some stuff will fall in, sure,
>>> just like some stuff falls into the sun, but the planets have not fallen
>>> into the sun for billions of years.
>>>
>>> So far, there is absolutely nothing about infinite anything here.
>>>
>>> So now the question is, why don't ALL stars compress under gravity and
>>> become black holes. The reason is that there are sources of outward
>>> pressure, obviously, and if the outward pressure equals the inward pull
>>> of gravity, then collapse doesn't proceed.
>>>
>>> In ordinary burning stars, what provides the outward pressure is heat
>>> from nuclear fusion. Heat pushes matter outward, as anyone who has
>>> watched a firecracker knows. If gravity is enough to pull it in (more
>>> than a firecracker's gravity, for sure), then there can be a balance,
>>> which is like our sun.
>>>
>>> When the fuel for fusion is gone, then there is no fusion to provide
>>> heat to push things outward, and the star starts to collapse, until a
>>> new outward force pushes it out. That outward force is almost exactly
>>> the same thing that makes a metal solid. It's called electron
>>> degeneracy, and it's basically the Pauli exclusion principle at work.
>>> Electrons in the same state cannot get too close to each other, because
>>> they are fermions. It's this repulsion, not from electrostatics, but
>>> from Fermi statistics and the Pauli principle, that makes metal solid,
>>> and it also makes burnt-out stars resist gravitational collapse.
>>>
>>> But if you get enough gravitational pressure coming from the further
>>> collapse, then you can introduce something that only happens extremely
>>> rarely in solid materials, and that's the electron being squeezed into
>>> the nucleus for long enough periods of time that it interacts with a
>>> proton and generates a neutron. Do this enough, and all of the atoms
>>> collapse into the size of their nuclei, which is a trillion times
>>> smaller and more dense. Since there are equal numbers of protons and
>>> electrons, you're going to end up with something like a solid again, but
>>> now made up entirely of neutrons. The good news is that neutrons are
>>> also fermions, and the Pauli exclusion principle also applies to them,
>>> and so you can't just squeeze neutrons together forever, before they
>>> want to push each other away and you now have outward pressure. When
>>> that balances gravity, then you have a stable neutron star, of which
>>> we've seen plenty.
>>>
>>> But if this neutron star collapse brings enough mass close enough
>>> together that you're inside the Schwarzchild radius, then gravity is
>>> strong enough to not be balanced by neutron degeneracy. So then another
>>> collapse happens just like the previous ones. The difference here is
>>> that we're not aware of any other layer of degeneracy pressure that
>>> might cause another balance with gravity. So AS FAR AS WE KNOW, there is
>>> nothing to stop the collapse from gravity and it is ASSUMED that it will
>>> just continue unstopped. However, as this all happens inside the
>>> Schwarzchild radius, we WILL NEVER KNOW anyway, because we can't see
>>> anything coming out to tell us what's going on.
>>>
>>> All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical
>>> must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity
>>> to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a
>>> black hole, and what happens inside after that is moot.
>>>
>>> So John .... get over it. The crap comic book stuff you read about black
>>> holes is cheapo, sloppy, popularization nonsense.

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>

>> Very nice exposition there Odd. Good work.
>> ed
> ====================
> yes indeed good detailed explanation
> now
> I am not sure that odd indicate that
> some energy **does** go out the back hole
> ie
> EM WAVES ARE EMITTED FROM SOME center OF BLACKHOLE

Nope. There is no EM wave emitted from inside the event horizon. Zero. Nada.

>
> and me
> Y.Porat
> proved that
> EM WAVE HAS MASS !! THE ONLY MASS !!!
> -----
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ==========================

[Serg io]

but black holes accumulate angular momentium, so they must spin,
especially if two BHs combine.

here are 2 more opinions
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842


"The object falling through, from its own perspective, however, notices
nothing. There is no local measurement that you can make that will tell
you if you are inside of an event horizon. You will eventually fall into
the singularity, though, a point where space and time come to an end.

Because the gravitational tidal forces that result from falling into a
singularity become infinite as the singularity is reached, even
particles as small and strongly held together as protons or neutrons
will still be ripped apart by the tides as they actually reach the
singularity, however."

[john]

Odd

"Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects.

By making sure that water gets more proximal to the center of the earth
through a directed channel, hydroelectric dams have been generating lots
of electricity for Las Vegas and cities like that for some time now, John. "

Mm hmmm.
The energy OF THE SUN is used and brings the water to where a dam can redirect it.

[john]

Sergio

"

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842


"The object falling through, from its own perspective, however, notices
nothing. There is no local measurement that you can make that will tell
you if you are inside of an event horizon. You will eventually fall into
the singularity, though, a point where space and time come to an end.

Because the gravitational tidal forces that result from falling into a
singularity become infinite as the singularity is reached, even
particles as small and strongly held together as protons or neutrons
will still be ripped apart by the tides as they actually reach the
singularity, however."

Nothing will ever fall "straight into" a black hole. Try paddling a canoe "straight into" a whirlpool. Same thing- it will make you go around faster and faster. I don't know what "tides" they imagine, here- THATS word salad- but when the acceleration reaches a certain point, it blows the charges apart on opposite directions. and you get jets.

[Serg io]

On 8/19/2017 2:26 AM, benj wrote:

> On 08/19/2017 02:07 AM, john wrote:
>> Lofty What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and
>> people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is,
>> there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money

>> doesn't grow on trees. Energy can't be produced by manipulating
>> proximity of objects. Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of
>> us Humans anymore.
>>
>

> Hey John, haven't you been listening to Banjo? The pakistanis have
> invented perpetual motion where limitless energy is obtained just by a
> certain placement of magnets.
>

> This is certainly the end of problems for civilization.

hard to buy one though, the exchange rate sucks: 105 PKR to a buck

And they have to send a technician over with it to re-adjust the magnets
if it dosen't work.


I just ordered one of these for only $10,000,000 PKR !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Aag0J0Qe4


Delivery in 26 weeks

[no need for pesky magnets or alignment, or technician]

[Serg io]

darn, I did not order the accelerator bottle....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwOblAnQnh4

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"
>More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin". "

>Or "warp/bend"?

No, that is its effect on mass-energy within it. Not the same as your kook
babble.

>(and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) "

>Show me one- not on paper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
http://spiro.fisica.unipd.it/~antonell/schwarzschild/
http://aesop.phys.utk.edu/ads-cft/L2.pdf

[john]

MM

"I said 'not on paper'.
In other words, they're all math kook babble.

[pcard...@volcanomail.com]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:09 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?
> An infinite amount ? more ? Where does this energy come from ? !
>

What an absurd question. A theory says 'X can't happen', and you ask 'where does the energy come from to do X?'
Your head must contain a lot of high-pressure stupidity, because it's leaking out and making a mess.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>MM

>>(and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) "

>>Show me one- not on paper

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
>http://spiro.fisica.unipd.it/~antonell/schwarzschild/
>http://aesop.phys.utk.edu/ads-cft/L2.pdf
>"I said 'not on paper'.

What do you expect me to do, go to my local hardware store and buy a
Schwartzchild black hole and send it to you in Canada? Do they have an
import duty?

>In other words, they're all math kook babble.

Meanwhile, all you have is kook babble. And you don't even see it.

[Odd Bodkin]

The energy of the sun elevates the water, yes. The fall of the water
makes that energy available to do other things.

It is still the case that you can get energy be manipulating the
proximity of objects. This is what potential energy is all about. It is
location-based energy.

[reber G=emc^2]

285,000 miles before a spaceship enters the BH event horizon it measures 66,000 miles in length macro,and all atoms are oval relative to macro.Rate of time is one tick every million Earth years.Its speed increases to 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of c.The end of spacetime.Acceleration and gravity emerge as one.Gravity as always on top When acceleration + gravity move a neutron to 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of c it becomes as heavy as the universe.It will be a BH that has to implode.I'm explaining G=EMC^2 in a round about way,and it still fits well with my "Mass Density Theory that Creates BH Implosion" Trebert

[hanson]

"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> whose handle

anagrams to __"reber A. Hitler, z0g@ gmail.com"__, wrote:
"I'm explaining G=EMC^2 in a round about way,and it still
fits well with my "Mass Density Theory that Creates

___Bert's Hemorrhoids___" (BH) Implosion", whose
G=EMC^2 says: "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism".
>
Bert has shown for the whole last last week, & made it clear
that Glazier is a Judeo-Nazi, a Bigot, a Racist, a Hater, a
Mooch & a Swine that has the inner need to be reminded
that Glazier is a Face Shitter & a criminal Graveyard vandal,
just like it says in the following links about:

>
>
_____ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim ________
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>,
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>
<http://tinyurl.com/Jew-Swine-Glazier-cries>
<http://tinyurl.com/SwineBert-s-WRONG-Predictions>
<http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve>
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>,
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>.
<http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017>

5)---------------------------------------------------------

[john]

Odd

"
makes that energy available to do other things.

It is still the case that you can get energy be manipulating the
proximity of objects. This is what potential energy is all about. It is
location-based energy.
"

Let's call each level a field.
We have the galaxy field and the atom field.
We can travel between them, our starship among the galaxies, but made of atoms, forever.
Then there is the sub-atom field. Fractal starships with fractal us inside can travel among the atoms, which to them are galaxies, forever.
And so on. It is the same thing. The sub-atom field. And it goes down.

[john]

So, a Black Hole is a place in the atom field where no atoms can exist. It is an actual hole in our level. And that is because the sub-atom field, on which atoms depend for structure, is spinning too fast, right there.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/18/17 9:30 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote: >> Jeff-Relf wrote:
>>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes lie
>> near the center of most galaxies.
>
> A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no. Black Holes violate the
> Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate the observational evidence that
black holes exist. For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.

Moreover, I believe that the violation of the HUP occurs deep inside the
horizon, not outside where the observational evidence is. Nobody expects the GR
model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, because we expect quantum effects
to become significant there, and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.

And you completely ignored the other evidence:
> In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions
> between black holes.

Tom Roberts

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
> makes that energy available to do other things.
>
> It is still the case that you can get energy be manipulating the
> proximity of objects. This is what potential energy is all about. It is
> location-based energy.
> "
>
> Let's call each level a field.

Let's not. You're using a perfectly good physics term for some meaning
private to you, and you have no idea what the physics term "field" means.

Just begging for talking past each other. You might as well walk into a
store in Paris and say, "I'm going to speak Mandarin, OK?"

> We have the galaxy field and the atom field.
> We can travel between them, our starship among the galaxies, but made of atoms, forever.
> Then there is the sub-atom field. Fractal starships with fractal us
> inside can travel among the atoms, which to them are galaxies, forever.
> And so on. It is the same thing. The sub-atom field. And it goes down.
>

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
> collisions between black holes.

They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;
more data, from more observers, is needed.

> > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> 
> That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
> the observational evidence that black holes exist. 

There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

> For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
> theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.

Like what ?  It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".

> Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, 
> because we expect quantum effects to become significant there, 
> and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.

Exactly, we don't know.

[john]

Odd

"
>
> Let's call each level a field.

Let's not. You're using a perfectly good physics term for some meaning
private to you, and you have no idea what the physics term "field" means. "

Well, what term is correct for the different iteration sizes? What term would you like?

[john]

How about "iteration "? Galactic iteration. Atomic iteration. Subatomic iteration. Subsub iteration.
I like it.
Okay, Odd?

[benj]

On 08/21/2017 07:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Odd
>> "
>> makes that energy available to do other things.
>>
>> It is still the case that you can get energy be manipulating the
>> proximity of objects. This is what potential energy is all about. It is
>> location-based energy.
>> "
>>
>> Let's call each level a field.
>
> Let's not. You're using a perfectly good physics term for some meaning
> private to you, and you have no idea what the physics term "field" means.
>
> Just begging for talking past each other. You might as well walk into a
> store in Paris and say, "I'm going to speak Mandarin, OK?"

Works for Odd. He always just defines words using his own fantasies and
wonders why everybody thinks he's an iudiot!

[Odd Bodkin]

First off all, you have not established ANY repeating pattern with layers
or iterations or fractal dimensions or whatever. So suppose you just lay
out in a LIST the milestone objects that you think demonstrate a repeating
pattern.

[Odd Bodkin]

I follow the definitions that physicists have agreed upon. This is the
jargon of physics. It is not mine. Nor is it identical to ordinary
colloquial language you find in a dictionary. It has to be learned. Don't
want to? Fine, get left behind. Enjoy the memories of the century gone by,
and sit on your front porch yelling, "You damn kids get off my lawn!"

[john]

Odd

"First off all, you have not established ANY repeating pattern with layers
or iterations or fractal dimensions or whatever. So suppose you just lay
out in a LIST the milestone objects that you think demonstrate a repeating
pattern. "

The iterations are galaxy- atom - subatom.
Each shoots off its own radiations.
Galaxy shoots quasars (redshifted because they are speeding).
Atom shoots photons.
Subatom shoots subphotons.

[Michael Moroney]

How about 'kook babble'?
Or maybe simply word salad?

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> tarded:

>Odd
>"First off all, you have not established ANY repeating pattern with layers
>or iterations or fractal dimensions or whatever. So suppose you just lay
>out in a LIST the milestone objects that you think demonstrate a repeating
>pattern. "
>The iterations are galaxy- atom - subatom.
>Each shoots off its own radiations.
>Galaxy shoots quasars (redshifted because they are speeding).

You really don't even know what quasars are?

Hint: Galaxies don't 'shoot' quasars. Quasars are extremely bright objects
at the center of some galaxies. They are believed to be accretion disks
around supermassive black holes at the center of the galaxies.

They 'shoot' ordinary photons (but lots and lots of them).

>Atom shoots photons.

>Subatom shoots subphotons.

No evidence of that, of course.

[john]

Odd

"
at the center of some galaxies. They are believed to be accretion disks
around supermassive black holes at the center of the galaxies.

They 'shoot' ordinary photons (but lots and lots of them).

>Atom shoots photons.

>Subatom shoots subphotons.

No evidence of that, of course. "

Halton Arp saw pairs of Quasars that HAD BEEN the accretion discs travelling away from their parent galaxy in exactly opposite directions (entangled photons) at .11c
Read some Arp- open your eyes

[john]

MM
Sorry, called you Odd.
Okay, at each iteration, in your starship made of that gauge matter, you look up and see galaxies stretching away forever, and you could go on forever and it would still be that size of everything. The Black Hole is where there is NO MATTER of your gauge because the gauge below is in a vortex, and any matter that falls in gets shredded and shot back out. It's a HOLE in our reality, though, so the name is good. But the gauge below matter is "aether", and photons are waves in that aether, so when they encounter the vortex, they are sucked in.

[john]

MM/Odd
This spinning volume of Space should be able to absorb the radiations of that matter produced by that Space, and thus appear to be an absorbing body, when in fact there is nothing there but spinning Space.

[Odd Bodkin]

John --
Two observed points do not establish a pattern. Adding a fictional and
imaginary third one does not solve this problem.

John, as I said, you have not established ANY repeating pattern of
agreed-upon observations that other people would recognize. It is
therefore foolish to try to account for a pattern that does not exist.

[Michael Moroney]

Kook Babble, no matter what new words (gauge) you add to your word salad.

[Michael Moroney]

Kook Babble. And how can there be spin if you explicitly state that there
is no matter in there to spin?

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Halton Arp saw pairs of Quasars that HAD BEEN the accretion discs
>travelling away from their parent galaxy in exactly opposite directions

Yeah, I can see that in the case of merging galaxies that their central
black holes can interact in such a way they may go flying off. So what?

>(entangled photons)

What do entangled photons have anything to do with quasars?

[john]

MM

"
Yeah, I can see that in the case of merging galaxies that their central
black holes can interact in such a way they may go flying off. So what?
"

Boy, you're a BH savant, Michael!!
"BHs interact and go flying off".
Why don't you show us the equation?

[Michael Moroney]

F=GMm/r^2.

[john]

MM
"- show quoted text -

Kook Babble. And how can there be spin if you explicitly state that there
is no matter in there to spin?
"

None of OUR iteration of matter.
There is only that smaller matter that matter is built from- the submatter/aether. There is none of OUR matter, but wouldn't you agree, Michael, there is no such thing as nothing. Everywhere there must be structure at some level.

When the next smaller matter/aether spins, it can go much faster than our matter. When our matter gets in, it turns into jets of HEPs.

[benj]

Hey Odd, our own Archie has proved that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is nothing
but a single huge atom! And that establishes a repeating pattern from
the very to to the very bottom. What more proof do you need? You need
Banjo to to affirm it for you?

[benj]

On 8/21/2017 9:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

So you and the physicists that you "like" (not all of them are wandering
fantasy land with you) have generated your own land of lollipops and
magic and the fact that you've all agreed between you means it's all
true, right? This is not science. That is journalism.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, it is jargon. Jargon IS one of those things determined by consensus,
just like the definitions of words in colloquial usage. (Yes, that is a
majority vote thing.) Don't like it? Don't want "cool" to mean anything
other than a temperature or a mood? Tough. Language is set by the community
that uses it, by consensus.

You want to piss upwind about it? Up to you.

[Odd Bodkin]

WHAT "iteration"? You have no established pattern of anything!

[john]

Odd

"WHAT "iteration"? You have no established pattern of anything! "

It's called "The Galaxy Model for the Atom".
It says that when you bring galaxies and atoms to the same size, they are equal.
So, if galaxies are atoms, then atoms are galaxies, and are composed of yet another iteration of matter. This subatomic Space is the aether. Photons make waves in it. BHs are vortices in it.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"WHAT "iteration"? You have no established pattern of anything! "

>It's called "The Galaxy Model for the Atom".

Which, as you have demonstrated, has no basis in reality. No pattern
of anything for "iteration".

>It says that when you bring galaxies and atoms to the same size,

They are not the same size at all.

> they are equal.
>So, if galaxies are atoms,

They are not.

> then atoms are galaxies,

They are not.

> and are composed of yet another iteration of matter. This subatomic
>Space is the aether. Photons make waves in it. BHs are vortices in it.

Kook babble.

[john]

MM

"
>It says that when you bring galaxies and atoms to the same size,

They are not the same size at all. "

Uh, okay Michael. Anyone else notice that Odd and Michael seem to have become almost demented in their stupidity?

[Odd Bodkin]

Let me repeat: two points do not establish a pattern. You have no pattern
in OBSERVED things established.

[john]

Odd

"Let me repeat: two points do not establish a pattern. You have no pattern
in OBSERVED things established. "

When 'fundamental ' particles were proposed and installed in Standard Model, wasn't that the whole hypothesis?
That it's a one and only?
The hypothesis, here, is an equality of galaxies with atoms OUTSIDE of size and time differences. Matter is a RECURRING pattern like Russian Dolls. Galaxy. Model. for. the. Atom.

Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with. Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting.

[john]

A Black Hole is a spinning vortex in the aether that doesn't allow any of our atoms to exist in that space. The aether is structured from a much smaller version of our matter, and can turn far faster than our charge-based atoms can take, so when our atoms fall in they shred and are blown away as jets.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 11:53:36 PM UTC+10, john wrote:
> Odd
> "Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects.
>
> By making sure that water gets more proximal to the center of the earth
> through a directed channel, hydroelectric dams have been generating lots
> of electricity for Las Vegas and cities like that for some time now, John. "
>
> Mm hmmm.
> The energy OF THE SUN is used and brings the water to where a dam can redirect it.

Yes, and the energy from the Sun is everlasting.
The magnetic field interacts with the plasma to move matter, which hit each
other to create radiation.
Endlessly.
That energy is destroyed as it goes further and further into the universe
When intercepted, as by Earth, it is used to do plenty of things such as
raising water up into the air.
All beautiful, wonderful, everlasting... part of the infinite and unending
chain of material existence.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/22/17 9:32 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "Let me repeat: two points do not establish a pattern. You have no pattern
> in OBSERVED things established. "
>
> When 'fundamental ' particles were proposed and installed in Standard Model, wasn't that the whole hypothesis?
> That it's a one and only?

There is no hypothesis of fractal "layers" or self-similarity with the
standard model. None.

You have a hypothesis of an infinite number of "layers" or "iterations"
or whatever, but you do not even have an observable pattern that
exhibits any of that. Two points do not make a pattern. A mouse and an
elephant 100,000 times different in mass and both being mammals
exhibiting four legs and a tail does not even SUGGEST that there is a
four-legged, tailed mammal that is 100,000 times more massive than an
elephant, or a four-legged, tailed mammal that is 100,000 times less
massive than a mouse.

Two points do not exhibit an observed pattern. Period.

> The hypothesis, here, is an equality of galaxies with atoms OUTSIDE of size and time differences. Matter is a RECURRING pattern like Russian Dolls. Galaxy. Model. for. the. Atom.
>
> Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with. Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting.
>

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/21/17 6:46 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
>> the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
>> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
>> collisions between black holes.
>
> They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;

No. They merged in a ways consistent with black holes in GR, and inconsistent
with any known type of material objects.

>> > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
>> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>>
>> That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
>> the observational evidence that black holes exist.
>
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

Yes, there is. Your "none" is WRONG. YOU may not be convinced by it, but a
majority of the astrophysics community is.

>> For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
>> theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.
>
> Like what ? It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".

No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from the infalling matter
hitting the surface of such an object.

>> Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon,
>> because we expect quantum effects to become significant there,
>> and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.
>
> Exactly, we don't know.

There are things we do know, and things we don't know. We DO know that there are
objects in the universe which are MUCH better described as black holes than as
any other type of object.

HERE'S MY KEY POINT:
Until some better model is developed, scientists will model them as black holes.
You seem to be seeking some sort of "complete and absolutely true knowledge" --
that simply is not possible for humans in the world we inhabit.

> more data, from more observers, is needed.

Always true, and this is no different from essentially any other field.

Tom Roberts

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > > For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
> > > theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.
> > 
> > Like what ?  It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".
> 
> No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from
> the infalling matter hitting the surface of such an object.

We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need 
INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.

Quoting " Black  Stars, not Holes ", 2009: ＜＜

  Quantum effects may prevent true black holes from forming
  and give rise instead to dense entities called black stars.
            [...]
  Deeper shells would have higher temperatures, 
  just like smaller ­mass black holes do. ＞＞
  https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/AST2002/R9-Barcelo-Black%20stars,%20not%20holes.pdf

[reber G=emc^2]

Heat is created by photons.BHs radiate no photons.Nothing comes back out of BHs event horizon.BHs are absolute zero.BHs can only take up more space.Gravity is a one way force.TreBert

[john]

Odd

"There is no hypothesis of fractal "layers" or self-similarity with the
standard model. None. "

That's what I'm saying.
On the basis of zero evidence, Standard Model says the buck starts here.
I really don't understand why you would think that possible, or likely, or credible in any manner. But as you have said, you're not a logical person. I wonder why you attempt to do Science?
Odd?

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 10:32:20 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
[]

> The hypothesis, here, is an equality of galaxies with atoms
> OUTSIDE of size and time differences. Matter is a RECURRING
> pattern like Russian Dolls. Galaxy. Model. for. the. Atom.

Sorry John. I have told you before, physicists have looked at
that idea and rejected it. It has been tested and found lacking
any predictive power.

>
> Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with.

A framework that doesn't work. Again, in peer reviewed journals,
such research is not accepted because when analyzed with real
data, it just doesn't work.

> Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way
> symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting.

The Standard Model has some very clear patterns. Your failure
to understand them does not make them invalid. And the Standard
Model has successfully predicted other particles. IOW, it works.
The similarity principle (Galaxies<==>atoms) is tested and fails.

Sorry John, but nature just doesn't seem to work the way you want.
Murphy's 5th law: Mother Nature is a B....

Enjoy.
Ed.

[Edward Prochak]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 11:53:36 PM UTC+10, john wrote:
> > Odd
> > "Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects.
> >
> > By making sure that water gets more proximal to the center of the earth
> > through a directed channel, hydroelectric dams have been generating lots
> > of electricity for Las Vegas and cities like that for some time now, John. "
> >
> > Mm hmmm.
> > The energy OF THE SUN is used and brings the water to where a dam can redirect it.
>
> Yes, and the energy from the Sun is everlasting.

Long lasting? yes.
Ever lasting? no.

> The magnetic field interacts with the plasma to move matter, which hit each
> other to create radiation.
> Endlessly.

You really don't know stellar life cycles at all.
The sun does not last forever.

> That energy is destroyed as it goes further and further into the universe

Wow, what real misconceptions you have!

> When intercepted, as by Earth, it is used to do plenty of things such as
> raising water up into the air.

Hey you got this right.

> All beautiful, wonderful, everlasting... part of the infinite and unending
> chain of material existence.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Well we can agree that the universe is a wonderful place to be.
Ed

[john]

ed

"
Sorry John. I have told you before, physicists have looked at
that idea and rejected it. It has been tested and found lacking
any predictive power. "

When? How? By whom.

">
> Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with.

A framework that doesn't work. Again, in peer reviewed journals,
such research is not accepted because when analyzed with real
data, it just doesn't work. "

When? How? By whom.

"> Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way
> symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting.

The Standard Model has some very clear patterns. Your failure
to understand them does not make them invalid. And the Standard
Model has successfully predicted other particles. IOW, it works.
"

There are countless particles when you break an atom.

"The similarity principle (Galaxies<==>atoms) is tested and fails. "

Again- when, how, by whom.?

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:

>We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need
>INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.

Doesn't matter, it's the size of the event horizon that counts, not
the singularity. As long as there is enough mass inside an event horizon
there is a black hole, even if there is weird physics unknown to us
inside that prevents formation of a singularity. We can never know what
happens inside an event horizon.

We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
that are orbiting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)
amongst others

[john]

MM

"
happens inside an event horizon.

We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
that are orbiting it.
"

How do you know there's matter there?
You don't see any.
Why couldn't it be "Dark Matter", if there is, indeed, matter?
Why couldn't it be a whirlpool in Space, that absorbs gravity?