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: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: bodhisatta]
    #26471579 - 02/06/20 07:13 AM (4 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

bodhisatta said:
Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Quote:

chibiabos said:
You should probably lay off of the shrooms if you want to get through your undergrad stuff.  :shrug:




I'd watch your talk about "undergrad stuff" when NASA, JAXA, CERN, The ESA, National Academy of Science, and every other post doc / Nobel Laureate are the ones looking to get schooled here.  you're playing the "inept" game with the wrong mofo, I'll tear all y'all apart.



But you chose shroomery to post it because you wanted to broadcast it to people who might eat it up. If you posted this with your "peers" you would be the one "torn apart"



good luck with that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Mindful Mage
Friend of the Cosmos
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/05/20
Posts: 9
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26471663 - 02/06/20 08:20 AM (4 years, 10 days ago)

Can you define a black hole for me, based on your own understanding of modern theory? I want to compare that with your nova theory.


--------------------
What you seek, is seeking you.


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: The Mindful Mage]
    #26471734 - 02/06/20 09:24 AM (4 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

The Mindful Mage said:
Can you define a black hole for me, based on your own understanding of modern theory? I want to compare that with your nova theory.



Sure...  Schwarzschild radius is the mathematical equivalent of event horizon.  Both perspectives agree S.radius is established in our universe, and that the particles caught within are effectively destroyed.  The difference is basically what happens to that energy/mass: sequester, or release.  Originally, it was felt the entire system would collapse into singularity, however Planck Length prohibits singularity in more modern iterations where QM has a greater presence.  Mathematically, black holes are just as layman understanding of them explains them to be; they're fairly simple constructs.


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: Rift Zone]
    #26472093 - 02/06/20 01:38 PM (4 years, 10 days ago)

An event horizon is the mathematical equivalent of an event horizon.  The Schwarzschild radius determines some properties of the event horizon but the event horizon itself is a surface (versus some term that defines how far away two points on the surface are from each other).


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]
    #26472173 - 02/06/20 02:27 PM (4 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
An event horizon is the mathematical equivalent of an event horizon.  The Schwarzschild radius determines some properties of the event horizon but the event horizon itself is a surface (versus some term that defines how far away two points on the surface are from each other).



Really?!?  [smh]  Then please share what the precise relationship between Schwarzschild radius and event horizon is.  How does that work out?  It determines what properties? how?

The event horizon is a surface?  Exactly what is the nature of that surface?


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: Rift Zone]
    #26472771 - 02/06/20 08:33 PM (4 years, 10 days ago)

But you're so much smarter than I could ever hope to be!  :whatever:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Mindful Mage
Friend of the Cosmos
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/05/20
Posts: 9
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26473156 - 02/07/20 01:20 AM (4 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Quote:

chibiabos said:
An event horizon is the mathematical equivalent of an event horizon.  The Schwarzschild radius determines some properties of the event horizon but the event horizon itself is a surface (versus some term that defines how far away two points on the surface are from each other).



Really?!?  [smh]  Then please share what the precise relationship between Schwarzschild radius and event horizon is.  How does that work out?  It determines what properties? how?

The event horizon is a surface?  Exactly what is the nature of that surface?




I don't have the background study to converse about this using the conventional lingo, however I have done a fair amount of contemplation on the nature of the universe. I might be able to meet you at a philosophical level (not to imply that philosophy is lesser than physics or math).

Are you saying that modern physics basically puts a big question mark at the middle of a black hole? In the same way that modern physics can't explain what happened "before" this universe existed?

In my own understanding, black holes are energy converters. I make an analogy between black holes and the lysosomes within animal cells. This makes sense especially from the perspective that the whole universe is essentially a very large organism.

Are you really saying that black holes don't exist? Or are you giving a clear definition of what black holes actually do, one that did not exist before?

Also, in regard to black holes having a surface: If timespace is warped to a sufficient degree in a specific location, it can create a surface. Similarly to how a very strong electromagnetic field can feel like a surface.

It's all just forces anyway.


--------------------
What you seek, is seeking you.


Edited by The Mindful Mage (02/07/20 08:48 AM)


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: The Mindful Mage]
    #26473487 - 02/07/20 08:56 AM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
An event horizon is the mathematical equivalent of an event horizon.  The Schwarzschild radius determines some properties of the event horizon but the event horizon itself is a surface (versus some term that defines how far away two points on the surface are from each other).





Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Really?!?  [smh]  Then please share what the precise relationship between Schwarzschild radius and event horizon is.  How does that work out?  It determines what properties? how?

The event horizon is a surface?  Exactly what is the nature of that surface?





Quote:

chibiabos said:
But you're so much smarter than I could ever hope to be!  :whatever:




Your lesser capacity and physics aptitude was never in question here.  Your physics, however, is in question; now what type of insipid bs were you spouting?  You read a wiki page once and thought you knew something about physics or something?  ...and according to your remedial self who demonstrates less grasp of prevailing theory than your average 'tweenager', S.radius is what in relation to the event horizon of a black hole?  I mean, I know you don't know physics for shit, but now I'm just curious to know if you have any competence at all...this outta be good. 



Quote:

The Mindful Mage said:
I don't have the background study to converse about this using the conventional lingo, however I have done a fair amount of contemplation on the nature of the universe. I might be able to meet you at a philosophical level (not to imply that philosophy is lesser than physics or math).

Are you saying that modern physics basically puts a big question mark at the middle of a black hole? In the same way that modern physics can't explain what happened "before" this universe existed?

In my own understanding, black holes are energy converters. I make an analogy between black holes and the lysosomes within animal cells. This makes sense especially from the perspective that the whole universe is essentially a very large organism.

Are you really saying that black holes don't exist? Or are you giving a clear definition of what black holes actually do, one that did not exist before?

Also, in regard to black holes having a surface: If timespace is warped to a sufficient degree in a specific location, it can create a surface. Similarly to how a very strong electromagnetic field can feel like a surface.

It's all just forces anyway.




There is no "spacetime".  The universe is a system that operates by mathematical law.  How those laws fit together define what can be and how it can evolve.  black holes have been definitively ruled out by mother nature herself; those contructs are not compatible with the structure of the universe.period.  This is not a philosophical discussion, it's an outline of a very specific mathematical system who's properties and capacities are clearly defined.  Can't really take philosophical approaches to physics/cosmology and expect to get much more than anthropocentrism out it.    Black holes, space-time, a beginning to universe, are all properties of a mathematical system(s) that do not directly apply to physical reality as they are purported to.


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: Rift Zone]
    #26474028 - 02/07/20 02:18 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Your lesser capacity and physics aptitude was never in question here.  Your physics, however, is in question; now what type of insipid bs were you spouting?  You read a wiki page once and thought you knew something about physics or something?  ...and according to your remedial self who demonstrates less grasp of prevailing theory than your average 'tweenager', S.radius is what in relation to the event horizon of a black hole?  I mean, I know you don't know physics for shit, but now I'm just curious to know if you have any competence at all...this outta be good. 




I already told you that its a parameter that defines an event horizon (in part, at least).

Maybe you ought to suck it up and actually study what those dumb-brain academics have been writing.  And if the math gives you trouble then you should probably study that for a while.  :shrug:


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]
    #26474144 - 02/07/20 03:26 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
I already told you that its a parameter that defines an event horizon (in part, at least).




You mean you concede. 


Quote:

chibiabos said:Maybe you ought to suck it up and actually study what those dumb-brain academics have been writing.  And if the math gives you trouble then you should probably study that for a while.  :shrug:




I'm afraid you don't have the capacity to know how intimate my relationship with mathematics is.  -It's why my physics smokes everything it challenges!  I imagine you'd put that together at some point, but you do seem oblivious to how physics actually works so I felt you could use a tip or two.   

In order for any complexity to arise in any system there simply must exist fundamental relationships.  Mathematics is, of course, the language of relationships.  The complexity of our universe necessarily arises out of mathematical relationships, however our universe is comprised of more than relationships; its structure extends beyond the realms of math.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Holographic Universe principals, and all other notions akin to “all properties of the universe are mathematical in nature” display profound misunderstandings about the capacity and nature of mathematics, as well as its relationship to physics.  Such musings are novel but it’s not physics; it’s rhetoric, intractable abstraction.  Mathematics is an expression [indulgence] of relationships.    Mathematics alone is not capable of possessing the properties observed within our universe.  The photoelectric effect and culmination of other nuances within our realm demand inherent structure. 

To demonstrate a point, the question “what is gravity?” amounts to a purely scientific inquiry.  That’s a 100% scientific question.  Unfortunately, we’re never gonna get a scientific answer out of that, directly.  All we can do with science is explain the relationships; how it works, interacts, evolves, relates. -those things are defined.  We can then take that understanding, culminate it into a model, and infer such and such out of it…physics isn’t gonna tell us everything directly, can’t.    The structure of particles is no different; we can answer a lot of things, but the universe has no classification for a sample of it.  Science just connects the dots for us; the picture we get out of it is slightly removed from what pure science can tell us.    Know how philosophy is an integral part of science? -that’s why!    The universe CAN’T define certain things for us; Mother Nature is a physicist not a philosopher, and “what is” is philosophy.    Running out of definitions the universe can offer us is not running out of things to define.    Translating that circumstance into “it’s all math” is remedial.

 
-https://rift.zone/nova

You were saying?
There is an issue with galactic rotation that Big Bang Theory addresses by fabricating “dark matter”.

Actually, the real issue is the density of the universe has to be a very specific value for the Big Bang Theory to be remotely plausible. The theory does not permit the universe to be any other value but “Omega”. If the density of the universe is not “Omega”, then the theory proves itself to be irrelevant to our universe; self-refutation. The measured density of the universe is was ~3% of what it “should” be. So, for BBT to work at all, it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to find the missing mass… or walk away from the theory.

The galaxy rotation issue gave BBT theorists fair reason to fabricate that missing matter/energy because spiral galaxies rotate faster than gravity alone can account for. Plus, if you fabricate enough “dark matter”, arbitrarily pick exactly how and where to distribute it, you can mimic the angular velocity of spiral galaxies reasonably well.  Later we observed red-shifts that were too extreme to be accounted for through that model and dark energy was born.

First of all, we know why galaxies move like they do. It’s a matter of plasma physics. -explained on the Plasma Cosmology essay. Secondly, there was a astronomer who got labeled “the modern day Galileo”. Halton Arp arguably got thrown under the bus for researching “anomalous galaxies” because their traits have potential to undermine BBT.    His work was applicable to intrinsic redshifts of celestial bodies not accounted for by prevailing paradigm.  It’s still applicable. Structures like NGC 7603 and NGC 4319 demonstrate the way redshift is interpreted by prevailing physics and the ways they manifest in the universe are not always the same.

Do you know how to determine if theories are worthy? They make predictions that we can then test. BBT has never made an accurate prediction. NEVER! Ever, nada, zip, zilch, none.    There is no question that circumstance is related to taking the weakest of all forces, effectively determining it’s the only force then building a universe out of it.  It sounds just as suspect as it is.  One should certainly not assume we’re gonna get a reasonably accurate picture out of such an approach.

What I love best about BBT is how it cannot explain the formation of accretion discs, at all, yet assumes them in their models because their so ubiquitous in the universe. I trust you understand the implications of: the universe cannot build accretion disks with gravity. The physics of gravity does not have the capacity to organize anything into a disk. Every spiral galaxy in this universe is a clear and utter refutation of the physics of BBT.

Disks are ubiquitous in our universe because they’re a plasma physics phenomenon.  Solar systems, spiral galaxies, all of the universe’s accretion discs arose through plasma physics.  The denial of plasma physics in favor of an exclusively gravitational model makes accretion disks against the laws of physics put forth by BBT.  [To be sure, planetary systems, once formed, are stable with gravitation alone, however the fact remains gravity alone cannot build them.]

BBT is the story of fabricating physics when you should be paying attention to existing / known physics. NGC 7603 and many others severely compromise the interpretation of doppler “expansion”.  Thus a fair amount of that mass needed to make Omega = ~1 is compromised. Furthermore, plasma physics says we don’t need to dark matter to account for galactic motions. Galaxies are plasma! -plasma physics along with gravitation explains their motions perfectly!  This, of course, removes the dark matter conjecture and now BBT is left with an omega value that proves its own inconsistency.

There’s a place for BBT! It’s right next to Platomic Solids and their epicycles on the shelf of failed science. You will be put in your place, BBT. Make no mistake about that.

Quote:

chibiabos said:
dumb-brain academics



ah yes...  well, that's one way of putting it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26474147 - 02/07/20 03:28 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Hmm.. But why do you say dark matter doesn’t exist. Seems like a good explanation for the missing density...
Hasn’t dark matter been detected already?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: feldman114]
    #26474148 - 02/07/20 03:28 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)



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: feldman114]
    #26474164 - 02/07/20 03:38 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

feldman114 said:
Hmm.. But why do you say dark matter doesn’t exist. Seems like a good explanation for the missing density...
Hasn’t dark matter been detected already?



Quote:

feldman114 said:
Yep....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/only-one-experiment-has-detected-dark-matter-now-the-plot-has-thickened/amp




lol  Cool story bro.
smh


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 7 hours, 35 minutes
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: feldman114]
    #26474177 - 02/07/20 03:49 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Feldman dawg you didn't even read it... That article repeats multiple times that they have not yet found anything conclusive.

Only one experiment out of many being able to detect it is a BAD thing! That means either 3/4 of the scientists happen to be doing it wrong, or there is something fundamentally wrong with their experiment, hence the; "the plot has thickened".


--------------------
LAGM2020
LAGM2021


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]
    #26474179 - 02/07/20 03:49 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

This universe is plasma; that is to say 99.999+% of all matter in the universe exists in plasma state. Plasma could rightfully be construed as the primary state of matter in the universe, while the gaseous, liquid, and solid states of matter that we and most of our environment is made of are the anomaly in the universe. Plasma is an ionized, electrically conductive gaseous state. Plasma is found in our world, but it mostly exists as an anomaly, just as our states of matter are mostly an anomaly elsewhere. Fire is a form of plasma, lightning is plasma too. Neon lights contain plasma when they’re on, and then the atoms within settle into a simple gaseous state when the light is off. The most famous planetary plasma may be the aurora -huge sheets of dancing glow in the skies. Plasma “dances” because electromagnetism guides its behavior. If we look into Maxwell’s Equations (the ones famous for describing light), which describe the behavior of electromagnetism, they tell us things get rather “swirly” when electric and magnetic forces are applied. Subsequently, the ubiquitous plasma structures of our universe don’t behave in the manner described by Relativity, where affects are interactive in linear fashion alone. Relativity (indeed, all of modern astrophysics/cosmology) considers gravitation alone, it is the only “force” represented in the mathematics. The tensor mathematics of Relativity may be somewhat difficult to deal with, but the concepts it describes are fairly simple: gravitation draws things in, along straight lines, adjusted only by the “curved space-time” they travel through; and the inverse, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, or our Dark Energy: repels things, along straight lines, adjusted only by the “curved space-time” they travel through. And, of course, the presence and concentrations of those things affect the geometry of “space-time”, telling space how to curve… As we know, there is success within that approach; Relativity is honored for good reason! Just the same, Relativity is missing something; the universe absolutely does not behave precisely as Relativity describes.

Of the 4 equations that describe electromagnetism, 2 describe the properties of fields: magnetic and electric. The other two equations describe what happens to particles within those fields. The mathematics of Maxwell’s latter Equations contain a value within known as “curl”. “Curl” is not a linear coming and going. Curl is “swirly”, it’s tangential, it’s more indicative of angular momentum than linear interactions. How that curl manifests in our universe is not a simple thing to grasp; it makes the tensor equations of Relativity look like child’s play.  Furthermore, this it not a negligible affect; electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravitation! A cheap, crappy refrigerator magnet stands as testament to how powerful of a force electromagnetism is: that tiny magnet, with poor strength, is fighting Earth’s entire gravitational field, and winning!!! It stays on the fridge in spite of an entire planet’s worth of gravitation trying to bring it down.

When we look into the universe, we observe plasma everywhere. Our Sun is a big ball of plasma. From it constantly flows a stream of plasma in all directions, known as solar wind. That solar wind gets channeled by Earth’s magnetic field toward the high latitudes, fluoresces our atmosphere, and we revere it as aurora. The solar wind ends at the extent of the heliosphere, where it then contributes to the plasma structure of the our galaxy. All stars in the Milky Way have solar wind that ultimately contributes to the plasma structure of our galaxy. The galaxy itself is plasma. The “arms” are plasma structures. The filamentary structures between galaxies are plasma. The filamentary “web” of the universe on the largest scales, is plasma… This whole universe is plasma! In fact, every time you read “filament” in astrophysical/cosmological/astronomical contexts, they expressly mean plasma! Every one of those “filaments” is a plasma structure.

The story of Plasma Cosmology starts over 100 years ago within the works of Birkeland and others, but Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén was the first to significantly apply plasma physics to space sciences.  Thus, Alfvén stands as the founder of this intellectual lineage.  His works amount to first generation Plasma Cosmology.  More recently, we have the works of Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory and others bringing a more modern iteration of plasma cosmology to being. When interrogating mother nature about her structure, it becomes clear the merits of plasma models make them a far more accurate foundation than purely gravitational models.  It is clear a reasonable theory of our universe CANNOT be established through exclusively gravitational models.      The reason why such things exist at all may have a lot to do with:

“It turns out it has all to do with magnetic fields, which is a very long running joke in astrophysics, that we all don’t think about magnetic fields, because it’s very very complicated, but it turns out they’re the solution to *many* of astrophysics’ problems.”

-Dr Becky Smethurst, astrophysicist

Found here  ~10:40 minute mark.


This is plasma physics, courtesy of  www.plasma-universe.com:


^it’s a simulation of plasma physics done by Peratt.  We see real plasmas doing the same thing in labs all the time.  Those angular momentum values are consistent with spiral galaxy rotation.  One does not need to invoke postulated physics to approximate reality; it can be explained with known, observed,  legitimately supported physics.  Humanity’s physics is about to come out of its dark age.

By the way, thanks to modern physics evaluating motions through gravitation alone, the values they gain for the masses of many, if not most, of celestial objects are inherently flawed.  Prevailing approach attributes all motion to gravity/mass, when the reality of the situation is motions in the universe are governed by both electromagnetism and gravity.  You must factor in both gravitation and electromagnetism for a reasonably accurate evaluation of mass; modern physics fails at this task, and subsequently produces and utilizes erroneous data.

Nova is a third generation iteration of Plasma Cosmology. Nova takes quite a significant step beyond the second generation of Plasma Cosmology understood by academia today, as presented by Peratt and colleagues. This is something new. It distinguishes itself from all other models through how it interprets QM and relativistic phenomenon, nova, and more.  Nova represents a significant departure from all known models of the universe. Nova stands as the most comprehensive and well supported understanding of the universe known to humanity.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Svetaketu]
    #26474212 - 02/07/20 04:13 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Quote:

feldman114 said:
Hmm.. But why do you say dark matter doesn’t exist. Seems like a good explanation for the missing density...
Hasn’t dark matter been detected already?



Quote:

feldman114 said:
Yep....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/only-one-experiment-has-detected-dark-matter-now-the-plot-has-thickened/amp




lol  Cool story bro.
smh




Cool reply bro. I was one of the very few people who wasn’t being a dick to you, but w.e.

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
Feldman dawg you didn't even read it... That article repeats multiple times that they have not yet found anything conclusive.

Only one experiment out of many being able to detect it is a BAD thing! That means either 3/4 of the scientists happen to be doing it wrong, or there is something fundamentally wrong with their experiment, hence the; "the plot has thickened".




Ok, does NASA qualify as a reputable source?
https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
Quote:




NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter




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: feldman114]
    #26474237 - 02/07/20 04:37 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

feldman114 said:
Cool reply bro. I was one of the very few people who wasn’t being a dick to you, but w.e.

NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter







I'm not trying to hate on you, but I have a lot of contempt for your dark matter.  The recent post on plasma cosmology explains why.  It's a bunch of crap...it's not even science, if we're being true to science.  Meanwhile, plasma cosmology is science, and utterly refutes darkwhateverthefucks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblebodhisattaMDiscordReddit
Smurf real estate agent
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,890
Loc: Milky way
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26474241 - 02/07/20 04:39 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Electromagnetism and gravity are factored in. Dark matter is theorized book mark to be the explanation for the missing gravity AND source of electromagnetism that would explain the motion of Galaxies


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: bodhisatta]
    #26474252 - 02/07/20 04:45 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Learned something new today:shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 7 hours, 35 minutes
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: feldman114]
    #26474260 - 02/07/20 04:49 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

It's not about what's a reputable source, the fact is that dark matter has not yet been "detected". Evidence of a thing is different than actually detecting the thing... Kind of like finding deer tracks versus an actual deer.

I'm not saying dark matter is fake, and I'm not pretending to know enough about physics to know if Rift is right or wrong.

But these sciences are still in their infancy... Why be so dismissive of alternative theories? 100 years ago people were eating poison because they thought it was medicine. It would not surprise me to discover that a large portion of what we "think" we know about space is completely backwards.

I agree he came off like a dick in a few responses, but y'all are dicks 80% of the time too :lol: I'm just trying to be objective here.


--------------------
LAGM2020
LAGM2021


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

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


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 2 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 0.025 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.