Mark Oliver wrote:

The current accepted theory of a black hole is NOT consistent with current
accepted physics. Here are the problems;

1) All accepted calculations of gravitational pull are based upon mass and
the distance between two objects. It is not based upon the density or
dimensions of the same "singular" mass. Thus, when a quasar collapses it is
still the same amount of mass, only denser (smaller dimensions). Then why
would we assume that its gravitational pull will change, when its mass does
not change? Here is proof, measure the mass of 100 steel ball bearings on a
scale, then melt all of the steel bearings to a single mass from the 100
smaller bearings. The mass will not change, thus its gravitational pull
does not change either.


That is a well reasoned argument - one of a type that is exceedingly rare
in discussions of science these days.

The universal premise that you use is that mass is independent of the
shape, or shapes, of the thing, and that the mass is a property of that
existent that is the amount of its substance. Mathematics, as a measurement
science, can identify and calculate the precise amount of the mass of a
particular thing.

I would add, that the identification of that type of concept, whereby all
the specific properties except for the defining characteristic in a
scientific context, as a universal premise, is a fundamental discovery of
physics by Archimedes. He clarified for science Aristotle's concept of the
defining characteristic of a concept, one that differentiates the
discovered concept from all others.

Ralph Hertle