accepted black hole theory voilates accepted physics

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.

2) A black hole would be a self-feeding energy force, and grow at such a
fast rate, it would swallow the entire Universe at an accelerated rate.

This is an economic concept of a compounded gain. If you save a dollar, you
also didn't spend a dollar, thus your theoretical gain is 2, not just 1.
The same idea applies to a black hole, as it pulls matter and energy to its
surface, its mass and subsequent gravity would increase. Thus its
gravitational pull would reach further and further, pulling in more and more
mass, this would become a self-fulfilling cycle until it pulled in the
entire mass of the Universe.

A new Unified Theory was recently released that logically explains a Black
Hole, based upon accepted physics. It utilizes Newton's laws, the
Bernoulli's Principal of fluid dynamics, and Einstein's Equivalence
Principal, without contradiction.

NEW BLACK HOLE THEORY - a black hole is a region of space that has been
perfectly balanced, as matter and energy are separated to singular values
when a quasar expels its nuclear fuel. Matter and energy are different
manifestations of the same, thus as energy is released, matter no longer
exists. Therefore, since force and inverse square resistance are now
perfectly balanced (1=1 squared), this is a highly resistive region of space
that light cannot penetrate, as there is no distinction between force and
resistance. We observe this space as a vacuum, as force and resistance begin
to balance, yet in reality they negate each other, and become ambiguous.
This is the same effect as in noise cancellation. When force and resistance
become equals, a black hole is formed, and since light is energy, it cannot
penetrate this highly resistive region of space. Therefore, a black hole is
indeed just a black hole, where nothing can exist distinctly, not even light
energy.

If you wish to review this new Unified Theory, its posted at www.threexd.com

Mark Oliver

"Mark Oliver" wrote in message
. ..

[much crap sniped]

If you wish to review this new Unified Theory, its posted at
www.threexd.com

Mark Oliver

From your "Paper" ...

"The most famous is his mass to energy calculation called the Equivalence
Principle (E=MC^2 )."

NOTE!!! E=MC^2 is NOT the "Equivalence Principle"!!!

Learn a little physics before you set out to create a "Unified Theory."

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message . ..

"Mark Oliver" wrote in message
. ..

If you wish to review this new Unified Theory, its posted at
www.threexd.com

Mark Oliver

From your "Paper" ...

"The most famous is his mass to energy calculation called the Equivalence
Principle (E=MC^2 )."

NOTE!!! E=MC^2 is NOT the "Equivalence Principle"!!!

Yes, Mark, however i can see where Einstein's formula depicting the
"equivalence" between mass and energy might be easily confused with
his equivalence principle, which is given fair treatment here...

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modul...uivalence.html

Googling "equivalence principle"...

http://www.geocities.com/starswirler/search.htm

yields a wealth of info on the subject. E=mc² might be called an
energy/mass "equivalence formula," however it is very different from
his equivalence principle, which brings out that gravity and inertia
cannot be distinguished from each other.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Tender is my love for thee
Oh star so close at hand,
Warming those so dear to me
As we lay on the sand...

It's so easy to believe
In all this beachin' fun,
That some day you and i will be--
Altogether one.

Paine http://www.painellsworth.net

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.

From a distance, for any practical purpose, this is correct. But from
up close the two situations will be different. Assuming the
ball-bearings are packed in a spheroidal clump in free space, a test
particle near the surface of the clump will experience a somewhat
weaker pull than when similarly situated WRT a solid cannonball of
the same mass, because it'll be further from the centre of gravity in
the former case. (Moreover a particle located in one of the gaps
between the ball-bearings, and near the centre of the clump, will
experience next to no net gravitational force.) The more concentrated
is a mass, the stronger the gravity at its surface will be. A small
illustration from our solar system: the Jovian satellite Callisto has
a mass about 50% greater than our Moon's, but its surface gravity is
about 25% less, because it's only a little over half as dense.

Likewise, from a great distance a black hole's gravitation will be
pretty much indistinguishable from that of a star of equal mass.
However, from nearby, because of the black hole's small radius the
gravitational gradient (or space-curvature) is extremely great,
making for a qualitative difference in its behaviour -- the formation
of an event horizon -- as compared to ordinary matter.

--
Odysseus

from nearby, because of the black hole's small radius the
gravitational gradient (or space-curvature) is extremely great,

....sliced light...


_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

...sliced light...

....angled oversight...

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

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?

It is not assumed that its gravitational pull will change. But, if a black hole
is the power source for quasars, that black hole will be smaller than the mass
distribution that led to its formation. This means one can get much closer to
the mass concentration than in that extended state, reaching regions around the
mass concentration where the pull would be greater (of course, if one uses
terminology from relativity, one would not speak of pulls but a steeper gradient
of space-time, with the result being the same)


2) A black hole would be a self-feeding energy force, and grow at such a
fast rate, it would swallow the entire Universe at an accelerated rate.

The size of a black hole is linked to its mass. It can only grow if it is fed,
but at great distances from it, the gravitational influence it has on distant
objects is no different than the equivalent in its original mass distribution.
So things far away from it would not be pulled toward it to feed it any more
than they would have been pulled toward it when it was not a black hole. Black
holes are not vacuum cleaners, but a redistribution of preexisting mass.

"J. Scott Miller" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
It is not assumed that its gravitational pull will change. But, if a
black hole
is the power source for quasars, that black hole will be smaller than the
mass
distribution that led to its formation.

Since quasars are very old (high z = high distance) how so many
ultrapowerful black holes could be formed in the early ages of universe?
And why we don't have quasars with low z? Now we have a lot of black holes
formed in the last 13,7 billion years and some of these black holes could be
the power source of new quasars.

Or maybe I don't understand a thing of quasars?

Luigi Caselli

very old (high z = high distance) how

How many
The middle of the night 12
O'clock.
....hobbyhorse
Galloping ~
Just a New York School,
Painting flight's site
In the middle ~

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

smaller than the
mass
distribution that led to its formation.

Meditations!
Half-told confessions ~
One rotation,
12's clock.
Rock.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A