accepted black hole theory voilates accepted physics

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" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On 6 Oct 2004 17:27:05 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

"Mark Oliver" wrote in alt.astronomy:


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.

It is. Escape velocity is the critical factor that makes it impossible
for anything, including light, to escape a black hole.

So, how do the gravitons get past the event horizon to pull things
into the black hole?

Very simple. Gravitons don't exist.
Gravity is only space distortion, it's not based on particle exchange like
other forces.
So things fall in black holes like falling in a vortex.

Luigi Caselli

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

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:59:59 GMT, "Luigi Caselli"
wrote:

"SunDancingGuy" ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .
On 6 Oct 2004 17:27:05 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

"Mark Oliver" wrote in alt.astronomy:


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.

It is. Escape velocity is the critical factor that makes it impossible
for anything, including light, to escape a black hole.

So, how do the gravitons get past the event horizon to pull things
into the black hole?

Very simple. Gravitons don't exist.
Gravity is only space distortion, it's not based on particle exchange like
other forces.
So things fall in black holes like falling in a vortex.

Luigi Caselli

Hi Luigi -
The best theory of everything is at:

http://www.geocities.com/recycling_universe/index.htm

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:59:59 GMT, "Luigi Caselli"
wrote:

"SunDancingGuy" ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .
On 6 Oct 2004 17:27:05 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

"Mark Oliver" wrote in alt.astronomy:


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.

It is. Escape velocity is the critical factor that makes it impossible
for anything, including light, to escape a black hole.

So, how do the gravitons get past the event horizon to pull things
into the black hole?

Very simple. Gravitons don't exist.

OK.

Gravity is only space distortion, it's not based on particle exchange like
other forces.

Awright. So how does matter distrot space?

So things fall in black holes like falling in a vortex.

The ultimate fate of the universe must be a gigantic black hole that
swallows everything!

On 9 Oct 2004 22:12:24 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

SunDancingGuy wrote in alt.astronomy:


So, how do the gravitons get past the event horizon to pull things
into the black hole?


As soon as it's proven that they exist I'll come back to you.

Furthermore, in GR gravity isn't a force that leaves a black hole in
quantum packets - a particle. It's a distortion of space-time. The
distortion will pull back the stuff into the black hole, and not
gravitational "radiation" from particles.

The quantum school of thought claim their gravitons do it, but go near
a black hole and suddenly, it's "forget all that - let's talk
space-time distortion."
Can you have it both ways?

black hole that
swallows everything

A swallow perches
On pools edge,
Drinks black night from glittering surface ~
Takes flight again ~
A night wind riffles Morning Wood
Once again ~
Beneath the pool's glittering ledge
A silver perch swims ~
Swims...

_______
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

A silver perch swims ~
Swims...

Another silver perch swims ~

_______
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

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Hi S.H. Particles formed after the BB Before the BB the cosmos was in a
quantum foam state.(bubbles) Don't be a wise guy and ask where the
bubbles came form. nightbat will tell you I;ll throw a dart,and give you
a sci-fiction answer(better than none) Bert


I prefer no answers than sci-fiction answers.
It's not so difficult to admit that we don't have an answer at all about the
before BB.

Luigi Caselli



Sure enough, we really don't know what was before the BB. We can only
speculate based on what we do know of the basic ingredients that are
observable now. We know that stars go through many stages before they
die and super-massive ones often collapse into a black hole. Does
anyone speculate that the black holes also go through stages? If they
do not evolve (aside from theorizing that they grow larger) couldn't one
assume that the internal makeup is a perfect arrangment of the particles
inside? Perfect in that there is absolutely no space in between for
any type of energy to escape.

they
die and super-massive ones often collapse into a black hole.

Have I died,
I asked, unsure,
My question serious.
Unclear, what is this
Happening to me?
An explanation not
Forthcoming,
I resigned, quit this game.

through stages?

I wondered, perhaps this,
It's purgatory?
You travel through, as Dante
Told his tale, and the challenge,
Or one, is no one tell you?
No Virgil to guide you?
None to mark your
Pathless way?
So, alas, with this thought,
I found some peace,
Thought, yes, perhaps.
So alas, I'll do my best,
See where this leads.

couldn't one
assume that the internal makeup is a perfect arrangment

....of what would evolve,
After death?
Yes, that occured to me.
Yes, I think, now, that's true.
But still, how to find love,
When it was so hard before
To find? To make?
Will this be better,
I asked? But who would answer?
Who would be here...
Waiting for me.
Who?
Or you?

_______
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