accepted black hole theory voilates accepted physics

Odysseus wrote:


Consider neutron stars, which are much less dense than black holes,
but even they no longer have any atomic structure. They're thought to
be made of 'degenerate' matter, sometimes called "neutronium", in
which all the empty space has been squeezed out of the atoms, fusing
the protons and electrons into what's in effect a gigantic nucleus.


This has been my thinking as well. Going only by the laymans
explainations, I'd thought it similar to the newly witnessed
'Bose-Einsteinian Condensates'. Similar in that as a whole mass, it's
makeup is bound as one piece, if that makes any sense.

Were you perhaps thinking of Kepler, who (beside his more famous
astronomical work) did some research into polyhedra, IIANM
discovering a number of stellated forms?


I did some research on this and I don't think it's Kepler but more like
Archimedes or Euclid (or any of the other hundred or so geometers of the
past).

Southern Hospitality:


Southern Hospitality wrote:

Odysseus wrote:

[clip]
Were you perhaps thinking of Kepler, who (beside his more famous
astronomical work) did some research into polyhedra, IIANM
discovering a number of stellated forms?


I did some research on this and I don't think it's Kepler but more like
Archimedes or Euclid (or any of the other hundred or so geometers of the
past).

[end of original]


From what you say you did no research on that. No rational and factual
research would result in thew conclusion that, "I (you) don't think its
Kepler". There is no evidence for that.

And, you say, "more like"...? That is the puniest attempt at lying about
the facts of science that I have heard yet. "More like"? Is that some sort
of Platonic approximation that "Archimedes or Euclid" created the theory
concerning the stellated geometric solids? Really, now....is it the one, or
is it the other....just to pin down your claim with a little anti-Platonic
precision of thought.

If you knew the facts you would have said, for example, that the theory of
the primary closest packing solids, and the discussions of their properties
and proofs, was first set forth by Pythagoras.

Plato, some two hundred years later, plagiarized that theory and claimed to
have originated the 'Platonic solids' and 'closest packing solids' (a
modern term). Plato's claim of authorship was false.

Aristotle made many comments on not so much the content of Pythagoras's
geometrical discoveries, rather upon the methods used to construct his
system of geometry. Aristotle forever change the course of geometric and
scientific inquiry as well as defining correct thinking and validation of
concepts.

In the time of Euclid or before, "the other hundred or so geometers of the
past" had little to do with the proofs of the concepts or definitions of
polyhedra. They were more concerned with the fundamental concepts of
geometry and also the methods of the discovery, formulation, and
identification of concepts, as well as the proof and validation of
concepts. Methods of presentation of scientific matters and argumentation
were also developed and refined. The several of them created the basic
methods that are still in use today.

Another one hundred or so years after Plato, Euclid did work in defining
the geometry of solids, and he cataloged the appropriate works of
Pythagoras in "The Elements". Euclid did further developmental work, and he
furnished proofs of many of the basic stellated solid forms. (That is the
Aristotelian concept of form [meaning functioning causal scientific
principle], and not Plato's [meaning ideal unknowable idea] ).

Many modern scientists lie about the works of Euclid with their claims that
Euclid's works are invalid for modern science because they are supposed to
have dealt only with plane geometry. Two of the books of the "Elements"
deal exclusively with proofs of solid entities. Actually, all of the
"Elements" dealt with solid geometry, and only some of the geometric
principles of the "Elements" (a majority) had proofs that were reduced for
simplicity's sake to planar elements.

Or course, since that time numerous stellated forms have been discovered
and cataloged by geometers, and their properties have been proved. Geodesic
solids are one class of stellated solids that are more recent. Actually,
the stellated solids would be a subclass of the geodesic solids. The
'closest packing' solids, in a selected context would also be a subclass,
and all are a subclass of geometric solids.

Ralph Hertle

Southern Hospitality wrote:

I did some research on this and I don't think it's Kepler but more like
Archimedes or Euclid (or any of the other hundred or so geometers of the
past).

Your saying the source was hundreds of years old (rather than
thousands) made me think of Kepler. The simplest polyhedra are named
"Platonic" (the five fully regular solids) and "Archimedean" (IIRC
there are fourteen of these, having two kinds of regular faces,
meeting in the same pattern at every apex), but I don't know the
details of their sequence of discovery or who first described the
individual members. Otherwise I'd associate the sort of mingling of
geometry and metaphysics your comment suggests with the Pythagoreans.

--
Odysseus

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:05:27 GMT, Odysseus
wrote:

[....]
Consider neutron stars, which are much less dense than black holes,
but even they no longer have any atomic structure. They're thought to
be made of 'degenerate' matter, sometimes called "neutronium",

Perhaps the next stage is when the star collapses further into
"adminstratium"?

What evidence is there for the existence of a "neutron star"? The
concept is just another patch applied to current cosmology because it
cannot come up with an explanation for millisecond pulsars.
Rather than re-examine the current theory when it can't explain how a
star sized object could possible rotate so fast, and look for a better
explanation, such as electrical oscillation, we conjure up an
imaginary substance, such as dark matter", "dark energy", "neutorn
star".
Maybe it's made of condensed milk.

SunDancingGuy wrote:
What evidence is there for the existence of a "neutron star"? The
concept is just another patch applied to current cosmology because it
cannot come up with an explanation for millisecond pulsars.
Rather than re-examine the current theory when it can't explain how a
star sized object could possible rotate so fast, and look for a better
explanation, such as electrical oscillation, we conjure up an
imaginary substance, such as dark matter", "dark energy", "neutorn
star".
Maybe it's made of condensed milk.

Whether you're right or wrong, you do make an excellent point that I
would like to have an answer to. I never put pulsars together with dark
energy/matter, but I agree that the current explainations are hard to
swallow. I'd be more inclined to put my betting dollar on cold fusion
before dark matter/energy.

Mark Our sun is 99% of the mass (gravity force ) of the solar system.
Mark ask yourself why everything has not fallen into the sun. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Mark Our sun is 99% of the mass (gravity force ) of the solar system.
Mark ask yourself why everything has not fallen into the sun. Bert

Inertia.

BV.

Mark Oliver:

Mark Oliver wrote:

The current accepted theory of a black hole is NOT consistent with current
accepted physics.

[clip]


The problem with that argument is that you would ultimately need to justify
the validity of the concept, "accepted".

Social acceptance, e.g., acceptance by one or many persons as a
justification for any scientific claim claim is fallacious. That would be
an example of the fallacy of 'primacy of consciousness' rather than of the
primacy of existence. What people say, is not scientific justification.
Only the facts of existents in the universe pertaining to the subject
matter being identified, and logical proof are proper justification.

The idea of, "accepted physics," implies a selected or chance number of
physicists who presumably would agree on the subject matter being claimed
true. The number of such endorsements has nothing to do with the truth of
the scientific identifications being claimed. That is the fallacy called,
'ad populem', or the appeal to quantity. In fact some theories could be
true, and at the same time no physicists would endorse the theory. Would
that mean the theory is false? No. Social metaphysics is no justification
for anything whatsoever.


The matter of "accepted" physics implies a certain level of quality of
claims submitted as well as a group of esteemed, tenured, approved,
degreed, licensed, or even, employed physicists who would decide the
acceptance of the claims being made. They would determine the social
metaphysical 'truth'. That is the fallacy of the 'appeal to authority', and
that is no justification for any claim. Simply because one or more famous
people approves of a claim or can be used as a reference for any claim does
not make that claim true.

Lastly, there is the claim that you make in the subject line that there is
indeed an agreement between the concept of the BH and what physicists
think. That is the fallacy of, 'non-sequitur', meaning that the premises
given do not result in in the conclusion stated. You allow the ready to
place commonly used notions as the premises for the statement. You have not
offered any type of scientific evidence for that claim. My guess is that
most physicists are probably highly suspicious for any claim of the
existence of, or functioning of, a Black Hole. Again, you provide and
explain no evidence.

You assert, as if it is an axiomatic truth, that there is in reality an
existent that is a Black Hole. You have not justified that. That is just
one more 'non-sequitur'.

BTW, the correct spelling is, "violates." Use a spell checker on your posts.

Ralph Hertle

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

In which realm Macro(our realm of locality? or the micro realm with
nonlocality? Bert