Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Black Holes Do Not Exist! * 2
    #26452733 - 01/25/20 11:43 PM (4 years, 22 days ago)

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,
I invite you to join me on a stroll through the properties of the universe. Along the way we shall pay close attention what Mother Nature is telling us. We shall consider what modern theories tell us. We shall also look for discrepancies and try to better interpret mother nature's behavior if we find any. I suspect we will find discrepancies, but I digress, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Please accompany me on a journey along the frontiers of science.

Almost a hundred years ago, the Chandra Satellite's namesake, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was working out the effects of extreme pressures on subatomic particles in context of supermassive stars and supernovae. There's now a "Limit" named after him that's directly related to how much pressure it takes to crush electrons into protons, thus creating neutrons. Any star that surpasses that limit will crush protons and electrons together turning the object into a neutron star. More intriguing is what happens when we add even more pressure. A neutron star is made of the densest material possible. It cannot be crushed any further without something very remarkable happening. When Chandrasekhar tried to work out the math on crushing that system further the result was infinities. More precisely, he tried to work out what happens at neutron degeneracy pressures and infinity was the result. That still happens today. Every time we ask the mathematics of prevailing theory what happens at that threshold we get the same answer: infinities. "Infinity" is a nonsensical result. "Infinity" is no result at all. It's the mathematical equivalent of crashing and burning. "Infinity" is the math saying, "I don't know what you're talking about". This is an important point because anywhere we go from here is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific/mathematic precedence to direct us to a next step. We are completely blind here.

Prevailing theory tells us the result of "crushing" neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption in the mathematics of particles. (Other mathematical structures do lend themselves to the notion of singularity, but the scope of those models is not sufficient to dictate anything about this situation.) Once armed with this assumption theorists can build independent mathematics that describe the properties of this singularity/black hole, and then use some duct tape and glue to bind the independent theories together. It should be noted that this type of speculation is superb science!!! We need to generate new ideas and then we need to see how said ideas align with what the universe is telling us. So now that we have this new idea, let's see how it aligns with observation... On the surface, singularity is a very reasonable solution to the question of neutron degeneracy, but if we dig deeper we may find that solution isn't telling us the same story the universe tells us.

One issue we find involves quasars/active galactic nuclei. [This one is more mathematically intensive than the other points and I want to keep this essay accessible to all, so please comment if you would like further elaboration on this point, or any point.] Modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation. The problem is there is far more energy within the jets than the accretion disk can account for. Clearly, we need to take a honest and in-depth look at the mechanisms within prevailing theory to find out what's going on there. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals there are no mechanisms to be found at all. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals the substance of the theory is essentially this: the supermassive object in the center simply must be a black hole, so it's a black hole; and the jets can't be coming from a black hole, so it simply must the angular momentum from the accretion disk powering them... ...And that's it! That is the full extent of modern “scientific” description involving quasars/active galactic nuclei/galactic jets. The truth is prevailing theory doesn't understand what's going on there... At best, using accretion disks to power the jets is a hypothesis. It is, in fact, a poor hypothesis. There is no trait within any area of physics that could even potentially explain how to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet. Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets. Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge there is NO process within that approach that can account for the energy being released in cosmic jets, at all. -if you do the math, constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don't add up, no matter what. Now that is interesting... Perhaps we can make some sense of it... I'm certain we are going to find out....

Another issue with black hole/singularity theory involves what happens during a supernova explosion. Stars that are massive enough will crush neutrons when they run out of nuclear fuel. They will collapse under their own weight and matter in the core will achieve Schwarzchild Radius. [To achieve Schwarzchild radius you need to exceed neutron degeneracy pressures. When you have squeezed a fixed amount of neutrons together so tightly they cannot be squeezed into a smaller space without destroying them, smaller yet is Schwarzchild Radius.] According to modern theory, Schwarzchild Radius is the threshold that creates a black hole. Schwarzschild radius IS the event horizon of a black hole. By unconventional yet mathematical definition, event horizon and Schwarzchild radius are same; for any given mass, the event horizon of a black hole is located at Schwarzschild radius. Mass that gets trapped within Schwarzchild radius is doomed; that much is certain. Is that mass doomed to singularity as prevailing theory describes? If singularity were the case it would set very specific parameters on the behavior of supernovae. The mathematics/physics of the system would demand the system evolve in certain ways. The physics of prevailing theory dictates this: the core will collapse into singularity thus forming a black hole. ...and that's about all the math says. Prevailing theory does however, seemingly arbitrarily, add in a shockwave that creates a "nova", though it's not really clear where that shockwave comes from. You see, the initial collapse would press the core into Schwarzchild Radius. Nothing escapes Schwarzchild radius/the event horizon; we are talking about the inside of a black hole: nothing gets out! Thus, this potential shockwave didn't originate within the core, it could not have gone though the core, nor could it be associated with bouncing something off of the event horizon. So, the shockwave remains a mystery, but I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow this phantasmic shockwave to power the nova anyway. Thus prevailing theory says the when a supermassive star collapses the core turns into a black hole, and there's some shady shockwave which creates a nova. Please note: the physics of prevailing theory demands that whole process takes less time than it took you to read that last sentence. Huston, we have a problem: there are discrepancies between that story and what observation tells us.

First of all, supernovae are known to outshine their own galaxy. We graciously allowed the shockwave, but who said anything about it having enough energy to enable one star to outshine its entire galaxy? ONE star!!! -outshine hundreds of billions of stars?!? Via a phantasmic shockwave? Powered, apparently, by neutrinos? When neutrinos need 4 lightyears of lead to be reliably stopped? That's asking a whole lot. It's asking way too much -there is no process in the physics of prevailing theory that can explain how this could be. According to the physics of prevailing theory, one star should not be able to outshine its galaxy; it's not permitted!!! There's no room for it in the physical system the math represents. We witness observations that are quite literally against the laws of physics as we know them. Even worse is we have observed varying periods of maximum intensity. Varying periods of maximum intensity is a problem because there is no mechanism within prevailing theory to support anything of the sort. That proposed shockwave is going to come and go in an instant. The physics of prevailing theory demands the process happens very quickly. The math says we should not be observing supernovae that have extended periods of maximum intensity, at all. They should only last for mere seconds, but that's not what we observe: some last for weeks. This is inexplicable within prevailing theory. I think we're have to face the possibility prevailing theory is not telling the same story the universe is telling us.

There seems to be a trend within the above examples. In both cases we find observations prevailing theory cannot explain. Also in both cases, the intensity of the objects is one of the most pertinent and troublesome issues. We are talking about the most vivid objects in the universe! We have a lot of energy to account for! And thinking in terms of black hole/singularity doesn't seem to be accounting for what we observe. I think we should try to throw some other ideas out there to see if there's another concept that fits observation better. Einstein, where are you now? We could use your help here. "E=mc^2", you say? Yea, I know, Einstein; you rock. Wait a second, that could be it!!! ...So we're back at square one, looking at Chandrasekhar's work, also wondering what happens when we crush neutrons beyond their breaking point. We explored singularity; it was less than completely convincing. Let's explore the reverse. What if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when matter achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwarzchild radius? Let's explore the properties of that story and see how it relates to observation.

What if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when we achieve neutron degeneracy/Schwartzchild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of "nova". The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn't related to shockwave, it's a change in the state of matter/energy. It's exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.

Okay, we have a different definition of "nova" to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that's collapsing. We know it's going to achieve Schwarzchild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzchild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy. Hmm, perhaps that's how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source. It seems as though our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn't be explained previously!

Observation tells us supernovae have greatly varying periods of maximum intensity. Some are very short lived, some last for weeks. This cannot be explained within prevailing theory. Our current notion of nova, on the other hand, has an elegant solution for this one too: it's a matter of how massive the star is. Say we had a supermassive star that was just barely massive enough to crush a few neutrons. It would not have very far to go before it reached equilibrium. Subsequently, it would reach equilibrium rather quickly and the period of maximum intensity would be very short. Thus is the nature of our short-lived supernova. There are also supermassive stars that bring the term "supermassive" to new heights. With this much larger variety, there is much more mass to burn off before equilibrium can be reached. Those stars will subsequently have much longer periods of maximum intensity. [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of "nova". Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]

Our thought experiment is enjoying some successes! As we've seen above, it can account for the intensity of supernovae. And now we see it can account for their varying periods of maximum intensity as well. If we scrutinized all the other properties observed within supernova in relation to this approach, we would find the same thing: our new story better matches the story observation is telling us. The singularity story isn't standing to observation as well. While inspiring, we scientists at heart must press on. It seems quasars, active galactic nuclei, and cosmic jets were a part of this discussion too. We must find out what they have to say about our concept.

Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that's the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.

The cores of quasars ["active" galaxies, like our own] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we've discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don't thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they maintain Schwarzchild radius! Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzchild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy's chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets

That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that's the only viable model of quasars humanity has EVER produced; before this, humanity didn't have a plausible explanation. I'm beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what's going on here.

"Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.

Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.

“These events are extremely rare,” says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. “It’s the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months.”

-Courtesy of: http://sciencerocksmyworld.com/astronomers-see-star-pulled-into-black-hole-and-what-happened-next-amazed-them/


What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn't. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it's a one way street once you're inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we're left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.

This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzchild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.

Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I'm going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close. The only model of the universe that takes that approach is the Nova model. That is to say the Nova Model is the only model known to humanity that will survive achieving Schwarzchild radius in the lab. Every other model of the universe seems to think the sample will go singularity. We know the sample will go nova. Well, I, at least, know the sample will go nova. I, therefore, know with confidence: black holes don't exist! -Mother Nature told me so.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26452737 - 01/25/20 11:45 PM (4 years, 22 days ago)

We got black holes from Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild’s solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes.

Let’s step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein’s Relativity was born of Galileo’s Relativity (better articulated by Newton… -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the “constancy of light speed” (-that all observers see light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics light speed would have to be… It’s not wrong! -The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent.  It remains a profound and cherished innovation.  Still, let us make this very clear: Relativity is an outline of circumstances…the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…). The extent of Relativity’s scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens in those circumstances, but it is by no means any type of authority on all macro circumstances. Relativity’s view is far too narrow to have the audacity to presume authority beyond its circumstances.

For instance, the notion that nothing can escape Schwarzschild radius after it’s been created, not even light because of escape velocity…  The problem with that is electromagnetism is an afterthought.    The theory considers only gravity; within the mathematics Schwarzschild Radius is formed out an idealized ball of gravitation.  It doesn’t work that way in the universe though.  The universe isn’t made of idealizations.  As explained in the TIME essay, particles are effectively light, in mutual association.  The particles of our universe bear both gravitational and electromagnetic traits.  Understanding the universe necessarily requires incorporating all known traits into our models.  It follows Schwarzschild radius is 10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity. As soon as real particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free.  It’s going to produce gamma ray bursts [nova], not singularity*; robust understanding of physics as well as observation are both very clear about that.

*(“Singularity” may be taken to read whatever quantum information fluctuation interpretation is being preferred at this moment.  Planck length hasn’t permitted singularity to exist within black holes for a while now.  What’s coming out of that work all reads like adding epicycles to a failing theory to me, so I tend not to pay close attention to all the cutting edge developments anymore.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBayerPhi
Always Learning


Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,884
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone] * 2
    #26452740 - 01/25/20 11:53 PM (4 years, 22 days ago)

Ah, the magic of Adderall.


--------------------
Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε

:alert: Mycology Fundamentals and Misc. Info :mushroom:

:chemistry: Stains, Reagents, and Media :alert:

Tradelist


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: BayerPhi]
    #26452743 - 01/26/20 12:00 AM (4 years, 22 days ago)

Quote:

BayerPhi said:
Ah, the magic of Adderall 21st century physics.



Fixed that for ya...  As long as mother nature supports your stance, you're all good.  :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesk8fast
Tripping skater
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/02/10
Posts: 401
Last seen: 15 days, 8 hours
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26452747 - 01/26/20 12:16 AM (4 years, 22 days ago)

Black holes have been captured by a telescope and proven. They exist.:facepalm3:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: sk8fast]
    #26452750 - 01/26/20 12:22 AM (4 years, 22 days ago)

Quote:

sk8fast said:
Black holes have been captured by a telescope and proven. They exist.:facepalm3:



We have an image of an accretion disk.  What's inside is a matter of interpretation!  :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesk8fast
Tripping skater
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/02/10
Posts: 401
Last seen: 15 days, 8 hours
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26452755 - 01/26/20 12:32 AM (4 years, 22 days ago)

We have captured different types of black holes. light distortion around the edges show light is being sucked in, an accretion disk is a certain type of black hole


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: sk8fast]
    #26452766 - 01/26/20 12:50 AM (4 years, 22 days ago)

Quote:

sk8fast said:
We have captured different types of black holes. light distortion around the edges show light is being sucked in, an accretion disk is a certain type of black hole



The two images were of Sagittarius A and M87(pretty sure).  Nothing about the images determines the structures to be black holes -that is pure interpretation...faulty interpretation, as the properties of the universe rather definitively declare.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBph
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/11/18
Posts: 1,466
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26452799 - 01/26/20 01:21 AM (4 years, 22 days ago)

Thanks that was fun.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBayerPhi
Always Learning


Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,884
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26453085 - 01/26/20 07:47 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Quote:

BayerPhi said:
Ah, the magic of Adderall 21st century physics.



Fixed that for ya...  As long as mother nature supports your stance, you're all good.  :wink:




:hahthatsrich:
Ok, I like you.

Do you happen to have any credentials?
I'm asking because you've laid out your argument with one supporting reference.


--------------------
Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε

:alert: Mycology Fundamentals and Misc. Info :mushroom:

:chemistry: Stains, Reagents, and Media :alert:

Tradelist


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: BayerPhi]
    #26453176 - 01/26/20 09:05 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

BayerPhi said:
Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Quote:

BayerPhi said:
Ah, the magic of Adderall 21st century physics.



Fixed that for ya...  As long as mother nature supports your stance, you're all good.  :wink:




:hahthatsrich:
Ok, I like you.

Do you happen to have any credentials?
I'm asking because you've laid out your argument with one supporting reference.


=)

you mean like degrees and shit?    na, I'm autodidact.  My credentials are my science breaks everything in its way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Bph]
    #26453187 - 01/26/20 09:10 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

Bph said:
Thanks that was fun.



=)  glad you enjoyed it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBayerPhi
Always Learning


Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,884
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26453190 - 01/26/20 09:12 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

Rift Zone said:
=)

you mean like degrees and shit?    na, I'm autodidact.  My credentials are my science breaks everything in its way.




Well I suggest you get some so that your argument will be considered and challenged/accepted by your Physics and astronomy peers (not my field).

Ok, so a Black "Hole" isn't the correct way to describe it--then what is it?


--------------------
Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε

:alert: Mycology Fundamentals and Misc. Info :mushroom:

:chemistry: Stains, Reagents, and Media :alert:

Tradelist


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: BayerPhi]
    #26453210 - 01/26/20 09:28 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

BayerPhi said:
Quote:

Rift Zone said:
=)

you mean like degrees and shit?    na, I'm autodidact.  My credentials are my science breaks everything in its way.




Well I suggest you get some so that your argument will be considered and challenged/accepted by your Physics and astronomy peers (not my field).

Ok, so a Black "Hole" isn't the correct way to describe it--then what is it?



I'm not exactly a very patient man so I'm not waiting for academia to knowledgeable my scientific aptitude.  You're more or less looking at ground zero of a hostile takeover of physics, significant portions of soft sciences, and religion/spirituality...simultaneously: https://rift.zone/nova

they're neutron stars.


Edited by Rift Zone (01/26/20 09:29 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBayerPhi
Always Learning


Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,884
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone] * 1
    #26453236 - 01/26/20 09:44 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Ok. May I suggest you delete this kind of material?

Quote:

I’m a science geek. Academia is my natural environment. It is where I always thought I belonged. It is where “my people” are, or were supposed to be. I never thought much about taking my own path. Ultimately, science is science, and scientists are scientists. Irrespective of the path, I took, academia was where I was going, the entire time. Feynman didn’t have to mentioned: “Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible.” -I was already doing did that, and it paid off!  My education was not available for purchase anywhere, I had to earn it the old fashion way; and good thing too, ‘cuz at least I know what I’m talking about. I can understand not putting me in a Ph.D program as freshman, but once I was operating on post doc levels I never could see any sense in shunning me. That’s how it happened, though. How naive I was.  Holding proof of being a scientist made no difference at all. Didn’t matter if I was better explaining time, anti-matter, quasars…even small stuff like the origin of Earth’s continents was treated the same way. I never got the time of day. I’ve been wanting to “go home” for years. Couldn’t even get a job at the Exploratorium (love that place). Academia apparently has rules about who tells whom what’s what, and outsiders are not exactly included in that consideration. The thing is, academia is going bow to science whether or not they like it (soft sciences: you will not be able to break the spirituality work either…you may consider it to be your 21st century update).  And I’m going to assert myself as an astrophysicist…because I’ll compromise your title while affirming mine if contested.  I can assure you my sincere peers have more clout than yours.  Rather be friends.  I would much prefer being with my people.  I trust you’ll choose the right side of science, intellectual integrity, and history at some point.    Soon, I imagine…physics and other students know truth when they see it, they know the system serves to screw them, supporting demonstrably wrong scriptural geophysics and cosmology is rather suspect, and the noble within Nobel isn’t exactly ordained by any god. You either represent science or not; choose.




In fact, you may just need to change your entire rhetoric. Your tone reads a lot like this guy:


I'm not saying you're not well read or informed in the subject matter, but you will be met with obstruction at every step you take with this type of attitude.


--------------------
Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε

:alert: Mycology Fundamentals and Misc. Info :mushroom:

:chemistry: Stains, Reagents, and Media :alert:

Tradelist


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: BayerPhi]
    #26453283 - 01/26/20 10:23 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

I'm challenging a system...  Scientific lines of research are determined by the politics of that system.  There's a reason this is a hostile take over...  Not to mention the challenge to religion reasonably expects a charismatic leader type issues -my true nature as a science geek warrior is something they'll never see coming, and will likewise be hard to reconcile with their scripture.  as soon I gain any type of notoriety at all I'll formally challenge the whole of academia and establish myself as the world's foremost physicist...then start handling other agendas.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBayerPhi
Always Learning


Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,884
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26453284 - 01/26/20 10:25 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

All right. Well goodluck!
Sorry I have nothing of substance to contribute, like I stated--not my area; but I did enjoy the read.


--------------------
Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε

:alert: Mycology Fundamentals and Misc. Info :mushroom:

:chemistry: Stains, Reagents, and Media :alert:

Tradelist


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: BayerPhi]
    #26453291 - 01/26/20 10:34 AM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

BayerPhi said:
All right. Well goodluck!
Sorry I have nothing of substance to contribute, like I stated--not my area; but I did enjoy the read.



Hay, thx for that!  no worries man.  I do appreciate the input.  no question I have an attitude problem, and it won't always serve me well, but I will get shit handled with it.  =)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 10 months, 28 days
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: BayerPhi]
    #26453663 - 01/26/20 02:32 PM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

BayerPhi said:
Ah, the magic of Adderall.



Delusions of grandeur are the best delusions.  :rollsafe:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: chibiabos]
    #26453718 - 01/26/20 03:01 PM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
Quote:

BayerPhi said:
Ah, the magic of Adderall.



Delusions of grandeur are the best delusions.  :rollsafe:



But of course!  No question I'm either seriously batshit crazy, or am really good with complex systems that interact non-linearly...  Mother Nature and history will be making those determinations, however.  ...which is to say everything said here and on my site is certainly arguable -in principal; good luck with that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* wow, well it looks like black holes can kill stars. amyloid 1,340 9 02/23/04 11:08 PM
by FrankieJustTrypt
* Hawking cracks black hole paradox MAIA 1,381 6 07/27/04 09:50 AM
by MAIA
* I wonder what the black stuff/space is made off. Fliquid 1,851 13 03/06/03 02:28 AM
by TheHateCamel
* Worm Holes Fucknuckle 445 1 11/23/04 02:13 PM
by amyloid
* Big Bang Theory Put To Test Jackal 957 6 06/19/03 08:18 PM
by whiterasta
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 8,495 47 01/29/04 04:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy
* Black hole of Windows driver problems poke smot! 1,347 16 08/22/04 05:00 PM
by Ythan
* The Schwarzschild Proton - Nassim Haramein BrainChemistry 1,950 11 01/15/12 01:40 PM
by BrainChemistry

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,587 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.