Very simple reason for no black hole

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

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”

On 11/2/11 12:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
It really does not require all that much
density in order to exceed a surface gravity of 300,000 km/sec.

Um, Brad, 300,000 km/s is a velocity, not a measure of surface
gravity. Any mass with in its Schwarzschild radius is a black
hole from which light cannot escape.

On Nov 1, 10:16*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/2/11 12:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

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

* *Um, Brad, 300,000 km/s is a velocity, not a measure of surface
* *gravity. Any mass with in its Schwarzschild radius is a black
* *hole from which light cannot escape.

It shouldn't require that much gravity. A surface pull of 300,000 km/
sec should do the trick.

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

So, what is the radius of an electron?

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.

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

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, 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.

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.

On Nov 2, 12:15*pm, 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.

xxein: (2*G*Mkg/r)^.5 me, (2*Mme/r)^.5 pc , (2*Mme*c^2/r)^.5
meters. I don't think you will ever will ever figure out the
notation. But nonetheless, it is a calculus and a conversion for
escape velocity. Would you rather see gravity instead? OK. G*Mkg/
r^2, Mme*c^2/r^2 .

Take this to the bank. M, mass. Kg in kilograms. Mme is mass
converted into meters of mass. G/c^2 = 7.42425890641371E-28 m/kg.

Don't blame me for this conversion. Try Wheeler or Hawlking.

Confused yet?

On Nov 2, 6:24*pm, xxein wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:15*pm, 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.

xxein: * (2*G*Mkg/r)^.5 me, *(2*Mme/r)^.5 pc , *(2*Mme*c^2/r)^.5
meters. *I don't think you will ever will ever figure out the
notation. *But nonetheless, it is a calculus and *a conversion for
escape velocity. *Would you rather see gravity instead? *OK. *G*Mkg/
r^2, *Mme*c^2/r^2 .

Take this to the bank. *M, mass. *Kg in kilograms. *Mme is mass
converted into meters of mass. *G/c^2 = 7.42425890641371E-28 * m/kg..

Don't blame me for this conversion. *Try Wheeler or Hawlking.

Confused yet?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who would bow to authority?

Go to hell.