Very simple reason for no black hole

On Nov 2, 12:41*pm, jon car wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:06*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 1, 6:12*pm, jon car wrote:

How can a black hole form with zero gravity at its center?
Drop off gravity inside means zero gravity center.
But what about the black hole? how is the center
having strength?

I have a candidate for looking alike for the black hole; that is a
result of limit in strength with General Relativity. There is
something short of a black hole that redshifts by its gravity just the
same. That is supermassive neutronium form; not a black hole.

Mitchell Raemsch

That's entirely possible. *It really does not require all that much
density in order to exceed a surface gravity of 300,000 km/sec.

However, if a black hole is a shell instead of a solid, though perhaps
the core being positrons isn't impossible.

A black hole should be able to safely contain antimatter.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

There ought to be many dark matter black holes surrounding the galaxy.
But I don't believe in either black hole or dark matter.

Mitchell Raemsch

If general relativity is valid, then there is no such thing as a
dark matter black hole. Or even a light matter black hole.
If general relativity is valid, there is no way for an outside
observer to tell what fell into the black hole. Most of the
information of what went into the black hole is lost.
Some information is left after an object falls into a black hole
which relates to conservation laws. For instance, a black hole can
hold an electric charge. A black hole can hold angular momentum. A
black hole can hold linear momentum. A black hole can hold total
energy. Since these are preserved by conservation laws, they can be
determined by an outside observer after the object has fallen into the
black hole.
There is no conservation law for dark matter or light matter.
Therefore, there is no way an outside observer can tell whether dark
matter, light matter or plain light fell into the black hole. Hence,
there can be no dark matter black hole.
The qualifier is if general relativity is true. If you know of
an alternative theory, which permits the existence of a "dark matter
black hole," then you should mention it. However, you shouldn't take
it for granted that the existence of dark matter implies the existence
of dark matter black holes.

On Nov 4, 3:08*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:41*pm, jon car wrote:





On Nov 1, 10:06*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:12*pm, jon car wrote:

How can a black hole form with zero gravity at its center?
Drop off gravity inside means zero gravity center.
But what about the black hole? how is the center
having strength?

I have a candidate for looking alike for the black hole; that is a
result of limit in strength with General Relativity. There is
something short of a black hole that redshifts by its gravity just the
same. That is supermassive neutronium form; not a black hole.

Mitchell Raemsch
There ought to be many dark matter black holes surrounding the galaxy.
But I don't believe in either black hole or dark matter.

Mitchell Raemsch

* * *If general relativity is valid,

It is an incomplete theory as are the rest.
Its a first shot that is closest to the truth.
It will advance to a limited strength gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

then there is no such thing as a
dark matter black hole. Or even a light matter black hole.
* * If general relativity is valid, there is no way for an outside
observer to tell what fell into the black hole. Most of the
information of what went into the black hole is lost.
* * *Some information is left after an object falls into a black hole
which relates to conservation laws. For instance, a black hole can
hold an electric charge. *A black hole can hold angular momentum. A
black hole can hold linear momentum. A black hole can hold total
energy. Since these are preserved by conservation laws, they can be
determined by an outside observer after the object has fallen into the
black hole.
* * *There is no conservation law for dark matter or light matter.
Therefore, there is no way an outside observer can tell whether dark
matter, light matter or plain light fell into the black hole. Hence,
there can be no dark matter black hole.
* * * The qualifier is if general relativity is true. If you know of
an alternative theory, which permits the existence of a "dark matter
black hole," then you should mention it. However, you shouldn't take
it for granted that the existence of dark matter implies the existence
of dark matter black holes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 2, 9:15*am, Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:28*am, Brad Guth wrote:

Are you saying that falling at 300,000 km/sec is not faster than c?

* * *Maybe you mean "escape velocity", not "gravity"?
* * *The rate of fall can not describe gravity. Newton #1: An object
in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted on by an outside
force. Therefore, an object can be moving at any velocity even if
there was no gravity.
* * *Gravitational acceleration would be in the units of km/sec^2, not
km/sec. One can not compare an acceleration to a velocity, since they
are in different units.
* * * There is such a thing as escape velocity. That is the minimum
velocity necessary to leave the surface without coming back in the
absence of any force other than gravity. However, it is not uniquely
determined by the surface acceleration. It is determined by the
gravitational potential.
* * Escape velocity can be compared to c, since they are in the same
units. Both escape velocity and c can be expressed in units of km/sec.

So, how much surface gravity as referenced in km/sec/sec does it take
to keep photons from exiting?

On Nov 2, 9:41*am, jon car wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:06*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Nov 1, 6:12*pm, jon car wrote:

How can a black hole form with zero gravity at its center?
Drop off gravity inside means zero gravity center.
But what about the black hole? how is the center
having strength?

I have a candidate for looking alike for the black hole; that is a
result of limit in strength with General Relativity. There is
something short of a black hole that redshifts by its gravity just the
same. That is supermassive neutronium form; not a black hole.

Mitchell Raemsch

That's entirely possible. *It really does not require all that much
density in order to exceed a surface gravity of 300,000 km/sec.

However, if a black hole is a shell instead of a solid, though perhaps
the core being positrons isn't impossible.

A black hole should be able to safely contain antimatter.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

There ought to be many dark matter black holes surrounding the galaxy.
But I don't believe in either black hole or dark matter.

Mitchell Raemsch

How about the singularity of anti-matter positrons?

How many electrons or positrons would it take in order to form a
sufficient singularity that would keep it from emitting any photons?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 2, 2:39*pm, jon car wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:26*pm, Alfonso wrote:



On 02/11/11 01:12, jon car wrote:

How can a black hole form with zero gravity at its center?
Drop off gravity inside means zero gravity center.
But what about the black hole? how is the center
having strength?

I have a candidate for looking alike for the black hole; that is a
result of limit in strength with General Relativity. There is
something short of a black hole that redshifts by its gravity just the
same. That is supermassive neutronium form; not a black hole.

Mitchell Raemsch

Let's take a reality check. If black holes exist, and I see no reason
why not,

I can give you a reason why not and show what is a better answer.
Science itself has admited to a lie of ommision comming from the very
first time black holes were looked at. Which by the way
Einstein rejected them.

Space contraction was swept under the rug because it disproved GR at
its extreme right off of the bat.

Some of us inherited the lie. Some in the past perpetrated it.
One correction is enough to prove GR needs to go further and become
limited strength gravity theory. It is proven incomplete.
Limited strength gravity is where it needs to go.

Mitchell Raemsch


there is no reason at all to assume that one can extrapolate
the know laws of physics ad infinitum and end up with a singularity. At
the centre of a black hole there could exist quite a large dense object
and there is absolutely no way of knowing how big. We cannot see into a
black hole neither can we test the laws of physics in the extreme
conditions involved. Physics has become the playground of mathematicians
and the boundaries between science and recreational mathematics has
become blurred.

Why can't there be black dwarfs? (spent neutron stars?)

Why can't the universe be considerably older or recycled?

On 11/5/11 10:49 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, how much surface gravity as referenced in km/sec/sec does it take
to keep photons from exiting?

The escape velocity at the surface of a black hole is 299792 km/s.

Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...f_a_black_hole

On Nov 6, 3:10 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/5/11 10:49 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much surface gravity as referenced in km/sec/sec does it take
to keep photons from exiting?

The escape velocity at the surface of a black hole is 299792 km/s.

Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...avity_of_a_bla...

wrong, objects at that velocity is what does not escape,
but follow their geodesic path, which is free fall

On Nov 5, 8:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:39*pm, jon car wrote:





On Nov 2, 2:26*pm, Alfonso wrote:

On 02/11/11 01:12, jon car wrote:

How can a black hole form with zero gravity at its center?
Drop off gravity inside means zero gravity center.
But what about the black hole? how is the center
having strength?

I have a candidate for looking alike for the black hole; that is a
result of limit in strength with General Relativity. There is
something short of a black hole that redshifts by its gravity just the
same. That is supermassive neutronium form; not a black hole.

Mitchell Raemsch

Let's take a reality check. If black holes exist, and I see no reason
why not,

I can give you a reason why not and show what is a better answer.
Science itself has admited to a lie of ommision comming from the very
first time black holes were looked at. Which by the way
Einstein rejected them.

Space contraction was swept under the rug because it disproved GR at
its extreme right off of the bat.

Some of us inherited the lie. Some in the past perpetrated it.
One correction is enough to prove GR needs to go further and become
limited strength gravity theory. It is proven incomplete.
Limited strength gravity is where it needs to go.

Mitchell Raemsch

there is no reason at all to assume that one can extrapolate
the know laws of physics ad infinitum and end up with a singularity. At
the centre of a black hole there could exist quite a large dense object
and there is absolutely no way of knowing how big. We cannot see into a
black hole neither can we test the laws of physics in the extreme
conditions involved. Physics has become the playground of mathematicians
and the boundaries between science and recreational mathematics has
become blurred.

Why can't there be black dwarfs? (spent neutron stars?)

Why can't the universe be considerably older or recycled?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Those are not the same things. A pulsar that doesn't radiate anymore?

On Nov 6, 9:59*am, jon car wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 2, 2:39*pm, jon car wrote:

On Nov 2, 2:26*pm, Alfonso wrote:

On 02/11/11 01:12, jon car wrote:

How can a black hole form with zero gravity at its center?
Drop off gravity inside means zero gravity center.
But what about the black hole? how is the center
having strength?

I have a candidate for looking alike for the black hole; that is a
result of limit in strength with General Relativity. There is
something short of a black hole that redshifts by its gravity just the
same. That is supermassive neutronium form; not a black hole.

Mitchell Raemsch

Let's take a reality check. If black holes exist, and I see no reason
why not,

I can give you a reason why not and show what is a better answer.
Science itself has admited to a lie of ommision comming from the very
first time black holes were looked at. Which by the way
Einstein rejected them.

Space contraction was swept under the rug because it disproved GR at
its extreme right off of the bat.

Some of us inherited the lie. Some in the past perpetrated it.
One correction is enough to prove GR needs to go further and become
limited strength gravity theory. It is proven incomplete.
Limited strength gravity is where it needs to go.

Mitchell Raemsch

there is no reason at all to assume that one can extrapolate
the know laws of physics ad infinitum and end up with a singularity.. At
the centre of a black hole there could exist quite a large dense object
and there is absolutely no way of knowing how big. We cannot see into a
black hole neither can we test the laws of physics in the extreme
conditions involved. Physics has become the playground of mathematicians
and the boundaries between science and recreational mathematics has
become blurred.

Why can't there be black dwarfs? (spent neutron stars?)

Why can't the universe be considerably older or recycled?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Those are not the same things. A pulsar that doesn't radiate anymore?

Why not, or perhaps just too much gravitational redshift?

As far as anyone knows, the actual surface or neutronsphere of a
neutron star can't be seen because of its enormous gravitational
redshift, whereas a 1 Ms white dwarf photosphere can be detected
because of its limited 3430 km/sec/sec of gravitational redshift
simply isn't sufficient to keep photons from getting away..

Isn't the main sequence of a 100+ Ms star going to happen quickly
enough?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 6, 6:10*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/5/11 10:49 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much surface gravity as referenced in km/sec/sec does it take
to keep photons from exiting?

* *The escape velocity at the surface of a black hole is 299792 km/s.

* *Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...avity_of_a_bla...

so, any item capable of generating a surface escape gravity redshift
of 300,000 km/sec/sec is going to be invisible to us. Seems a neutron
star should qualify, although its surrounding atmosphere might not
qualify.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”