Black Holes

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

That Hawkings is or is not who he claims to be is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. That you would voluntarily leave the conversation thread because the idea Hawings is not who he claims to be is childish and hyperbolic. Fine, censure yourself. Good day, sir.



Newly-formed white dwarf stars are small to our perception as they are mainly motion FTL and are only beginning to COOL and EXPAND in space as they HEAT and CONDENSE in time due to temporal gravity (gravity in 3D time, not 3D space). Multiple, intense magnetic fields (2D motion) are created as thermal motion extends into a second dimension of equivalent space.

As the white dwarf cools and expands in space it moves from being a net X-ray emitter (HF EM) to an emitter of EM radiation in the visible light, IR, and RF spectrum (LF EM). This trend continues over a period of clock time.

EM radiation given off depends on which side of the unit speed boundary from which the motion occurs (from the observer's point of view). As the zone of isotopic stability flips (2Z + G -> 2Z - G) for FTL motion, atoms must go through a series of radioactive decay processes before they are to achieve stability in their new environment. X-rays, having a waveduration, not a wavelength like other LF EM, are this means of achieving isotropic stability in this region (speed, not location). Note: gamma ray emission is similar in that gamma is HF EM and so also has a waveduration (wave in time, structure in space). Gamma rays are emitted when ultra high-speed (3-x) matter drops below FTL speeds. Dependent on the magnitude of the supernova, some matter may be accelerated to ultra high-speed and so gamma ray radiation may also be observed as individual atoms (of motion) drop back to the low speed region.

Outward explosion in time has as its reciprocal an INWARD explosion in space (we call this an implosion). As you and I are material observers we observe the equivalent inward in 3D space (we cannot directly observe 3D coordinate time.... bummer) and so the object appears to us as to be a massively dense point in space that appears... "not there" (what we erroneously take to be a “black hole.")

The inner, heavier layers, being confined in space, IMPLODE in space (out in time) with the heavier elements closer to the plane of explosion (the new surface of the supernova'ed star, really the core in time) with the lighter elements more abundant going inward. A reverse density gradient... inside-out from a typical "star." If Sol-like stars are Yang, then the White Dwarf star is all Yin, baby.

FTL motion would be observed as anti-gravity motion. White dwarf stars don’t suck, they blow.
(As they say, there’s no gravity, the Earth sucks! That's a joke.)

It's one of those moments, you're dancing around the edges of theoretic physics with your theory and there are sections that would be very very hard to dissprove , despite going against convention.
However real proven ,science has been done to back up conventional science so i think it is unlikely to be all wrong.

I have a theory on many things that don't fully align with consensus but it has to be said most of science seams solid to me, i do take issue with dark energy and matter since the amount of matter, that astounds scientists with it's unexpected existence, each year has me perplexed.
and i personally theorise the increasing expansion of the universe to be due to variations in the foam of the universe ie the flow of galaxys seams to be around voids in a foam like strucure of nothingness, (again Bs as its clearly one hell of a black hole that blew out the bubble in the early universe).

But in these voids of matter time would go faster making a smaller inertial change exaggerated.
To explain it imagine a man, no a nuclear robot who is running in a straight line, down a hypothetically never ending path for 200 light years at a constant speed.

You should be able to work out the time it takes easy ,,but in my head, the space between here and there runs at varying time based speeds, meaning only the robot could ever know that math's of how long it would take and only from his perception , gravitational based time dilation is proven at planetary scales ,imagine the effect at galactic scales.

 

[FCG]

From point of view of sci-fi fan this thread rocks and as to who is right or wrong ...i'll wait untill i can pick jar of delicious black holes from the shelf in tesco and read label on back.
ps.( Anti gravity jar, patent pending) .

That's just the thing. You can buy a bag of hammers, or a jar of acetone.
You cannot buy a pack of speed 1/2... 1 unit of space per 2 units of time (or 1/2 the speed of light)

What we call matter is a 3D temporal rotational displacement from unity (scalar rotationally outwards in time, scalar linear inward in space).
There are no gravity waves and there is no graviton or other inter-mediating particle of force. Merely the establishment of "mass" creates the inward motion in space which we call gravity. This is why we can't block gravity like we can shield electrical or magnetic fields... gravity is the inherent equivalent space motion as a result of the reciprocal motion on the other side of the unit boundary in the Time Region of the atom.

Our outward motion in time is observed as inward motion in space (gravity) due to our spacial vantage point.

What is thermal motion? Thermal motion is a linear vibration within the Time Region of the atom. We measure this effect as temperature. As 1/2 of the linear vibration is co-incident in the direction of the natural reference system (outward from unity), it is non-effective; only the inward 1/2 of the vibration is effective. Inward in time is outward in space (reciprocal: s/t = 1) and so as thermal motion increases the effect is to push matter apart in space (really the progression is increasing in expression, being the default state of everything).

We see this in the various phase transitions for what we call solid, liquid, and gas, all of which can only exist in the low-speed region (1-x) found within a gravitational limit. To wit: if we heat a solid we eventually reach a transition temperature (really a range as the property of an aggregate that we call "state" is really a property of each individual atom which comprises that aggregate) that we label as the melting point. At this point the thermal motion is sufficient to partially nullify the inward force of gravity result in an additional (scalar) dimension of freedom... our 3D aggregate has become 2D with one dimension progressing at the speed of light. We call this the liquid state. We were to further heat (increase thermal motion) of the atom we will eventually nullify a second (scalar) dimension of inward gravitational motion (2D -> 1D) resulting in an additional dimensional degree of freedom (heat of latent vaporization... energy level). We call this the gaseous state. We even model the force of "attraction" between the individual atoms in a gaseous state as a 1-dimensional, two-headed ball-and-stick! Wiki can't be wrong, right?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas

That all mass is moving inward scalarly to the same point in space does not mean to imply that matter "attracts" other matter. If you were driving from Orlando, FL to Dallas, TX, and your buddy was driving from Sacramento, CA, to Dallas, TX, would you say the two of you are being attracted to one-another simply because you both are headed to the same place? Preposterous... both have the same destination (in this case, Dallas = inward towards unity), and so it could be easily confused for some sort of mutual force of attraction which will result in a meeting in Dallas, no "force" or medium of transport of said "force" required.

 

[lexluthermiester]

my IQ is like 50

I know this is off topic, but deserves saying; I promise, your IQ is much higher than 50.

Outward explosion in time has as its reciprocal an INWARD explosion in space (we call this an implosion).

Except that such a concept, and that's all it is, doesn't work in the real world.

 

[FCG]

Except that such a concept, and that's all it is, doesn't work in the real world.

Is this really anymore unbelievable than the creation of singularity in both space and time?

I'm suggesting our understanding of what we think is a "black hole" is fundamentally flawed. It DOES work in the "real world..." what you are calling a black hole is in actuality a newly-formed white dwarf star, one half the bi-product of a supernova of a Main Sequence star.

As well, let's please not forget... "Black Holes" are but a theoretical concept, too:
From the almighty Wiki of the Sky (oh, bless us, oh Wiki of all knowledge and truth): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

"A black hole is a region of spacetime exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing—not even particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from inside it.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts..." (emphasis mine)

 

[lexluthermiester]

Is this really anymore unbelievable

Yes, it is.

than the creation of singularity in both space and time?

As well, let's please not forget... "Black Holes" are but a theoretical concept, too

Oh, that's where your understanding of a Black Hole is flawed. We know they exist. Their presence has been observed.

 

[FCG]

Oh, that's where your understanding of a Black Hole is flawed. We know they exist. Their presence has been observed.

An affect is observable, with an accompanying theoretical explanation...
Well, put this one in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Drone]

Black holes are giant stars that underwent implosion (like Kip Thorne said 'back in the day they said collapse, now we say implosion') and gravity won.
Some astronomers believe there might be black holes that were created directly from giant gas clouds (without intermediate giant star phase).

There are other hypothetical types of black holes
1) Mini black holes, aka quantum mechanical black holes (introduced by Stephen Hawking)
2) Planck particle - a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius and its mass ≈ Planck mass

Normal black holes definitely exist (Ligo, Lisa and Event Horizon confirmed/will confirm their existence).
Mini black holes and Planck particles? Dunno, maybe they exist or even can be created

 

[Frontino]

You imagine that photons are buzzing by at the "speed of light;" not quite, YOU just gravitated into the photon at the "speed of light." This goes for any "light-speed" EM radiation that does not occupy all 3 dimensions of SCALAR space/counterspace (i.e. at least one free dimension to allow for the progression).

I'm not following: if photons are still, how is a light source emitting omnidirectionally?

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm not following: if photons are still, how is a light source emitting omnidirectionally?

He's a troll. Just ignore him.

 

[FCG]

I'm not following: if photons are still, how is a light source emitting omnidirectionally?

Scalarly outward in the natural reference system has no inherent direction in equivalent space except to say outward from all other locations.
In other words, outward has no preferred direction. Due to the law of probability, this becomes all directions.
Similarly you ask, which way is scalar inward in space? To which the answer is: all directions... inwards towards all other mass... all mass wants to get together as all mass is heading in the same direction... INWARD!

Black holes are giant stars that underwent implosion (like Kip Thorne said 'back in the day they said collapse, now we say implosion') and gravity won.

This is not far from the truth.... although gravity doesn't "win."
The inner layers of the star, at the nickel-colbalt-iron layer are confined in space during the supernova blast and are accelerated FTL.
The inner, hotter layers containing the heavier elements explode in TIME (outward in time -> inward in space).
The lighter, relatively coolers layers explode in SPACE (outward in space *** WE OBSERVE THIS PART*** -> inward in time).

Just as (spacial) gravity eventually re-condenses the matter in 3D space, forming a new proto-star (which then begins to work back into and up the Main Sequence) -> Red Giant, Orange Giant, Yellow, Yellow-white (Sol is here and is becomes more white by the day it seems), White, finally Blue Giant... temporal gravity also re-forms the white dwarf in 3D time. As the white dwarf (at this point, what looks like a black hole due to the intense anti-gravity which will have pushed (sorry, no sucking here) all other low-speed matter away in space) appears as a dark position in the cosmos. X-rays and possibly gamma rays are also emitted as ultra high-speed (3-x) and intermediate speed (2-x) atoms fall back into the low speed range (1-x).

A thought occurs to me... there is no familiarity with this concept of SCALAR MOTION AS SPEED as the reader is likely only familiar with vectorial motion. Scalar motion has no inherent direction in space. It is critical that we first discriminate between coordinate dimensions and scalar dimensions of motion. To this end I have attached Fundamentals of Scalar Motion for reference... this is a must read.

There are two limits which can trigger a supernova.

1. Type I supernova occur when the star reaches a thermal limit.
2. Type II supernova occur when the atoms that are the star begin to reach their age limit (compound motion rotation in time reaches an isotopic mass limit, becomes unstable, and essentially flies apart as radiation by-products)

Type I supernova occur when a Blue Giant (end of life) class stars reach a thermal limit (a limit to the ability for thermal motion to be expressed)

Type II supernova can occur when a star is anywhere in the life cycle which is the Main Sequence.

Type II supernova are far, far more energetic than Type I supernova.

Normal black holes definitely exist (Ligo, Lisa and Event Horizon confirmed/will confirm their existence).

The affect observed which you and many others have attributed to the "black holes" exists, yes... not sure why you keep making the leap to the conclusion this means that "black holes" definitely exist.

They ("black holes") are an attempted theorized explanation (and not a very good one at that). There are other (better) explanations... I am attempting (not so successfully it seems) to introduce another possibility for consideration.

I'm not trying to tell you that the affect that you call the "black hole" is not observed... I am telling you your reason for believing so is fundamentally flawed. There is no "black hole," its a newly-formed white dwarf star.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I am telling you your reason for believing so is fundamentally flawed. There is no "black hole," its a newly-formed white dwarf star.

Next you'll be telling us all about the benefits of over-unity generators.

 

[FCG]

Tesla understood all of this, at least from an electrical perspective.
Nowadays Tesla is just a joke of a car manufacturer.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Tesla understood all of this, at least from an electrical perspective.

Tesla was brilliant certainly, but he did not understand the universe the way we do now.

Nowadays Tesla is just a joke of a car manufacturer.

That is your opinion. Electrically driven and powered vehicles are the future and Tesla is pioneering many of the technologies needed to make that future a reality. Hardly a joke.

 

[AmioriK]

Maybe when they take a picture of a black hole you will accept they exist? So how does a White Dwarf star consume nearby matter if it pushes it away?

Are you saying the gravitational force at the centre of spiral galaxy is a star? again the EHT will disprove your theory lol

 

[Bones]

Already done - Scientists have already confirmed that a "Black Hole" lies at the center of our galaxy and others too.

The affect observed which you and many others have attributed to the "black holes" exists, yes... not sure why you keep making the leap to the conclusion this means that "black holes" definitely exist.

They ("black holes") are an attempted theorized explanation (and not a very good one at that). There are other (better) explanations... I am attempting (not so successfully it seems) to introduce another possibility for consideration.

I'm not trying to tell you that the affect that you call the "black hole" is not observed... I am telling you your reason for believing so is fundamentally flawed. There is no "black hole," its a newly-formed white dwarf star.

Gotcha on the above - NASA themselves state Black Holes DO exist - The thing you refer to going from White to Black is in reference to a Dwarf, not a Black Hole so a Black Hole as it's known is not what you said it was.
It depends on the evolutionary path the star takes as it nears the end of it's life cycle.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/educators/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html

Wanna contradict?
Take it up with NASA, it's their info - I'm just posting the reference link to it.

 

[AmioriK]

Already done - Scientists have already confirmed that a "Black Hole" lies at the center of our galaxy and others too.

Gotcha on the above - NASA themselves state Black Holes DO exist - The thing you refer to going from White to Black is in reference to a Dwarf, not a Black Hole so a Black Hole as it's known is not what you said it was.
It depends on the evolutionary path the star takes as it nears the end of it's life cycle.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/educators/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html

Wanna contradict?
Take it up with NASA, it's their info - I'm just posting the reference link to it.

NASA? Pffffft. they'are all frauds. Imposters like Stephen Hawking!

/s

 

[Caring1]

Perhaps "Black Hole" is a misnomer, but it is what they have named the unknown quantity which they are still trying to quantify.
So far nobody knows if it is a hole in the true sense, or some force or body which we know nothing of.
Time will tell, but maybe not in our generations.

 

[Frontino]

Scalarly outward in the natural reference system has no inherent direction in equivalent space except to say outward from all other locations.
In other words, outward has no preferred direction. Due to the law of probability, this becomes all directions.
Similarly you ask, which way is scalar inward in space? To which the answer is: all directions... inwards towards all other mass... all mass wants to get together as all mass is heading in the same direction... INWARD!

Like, if I turn on a lightbulb in a room, if light diffuses, reflects and refracts it's because the room and everything inside is collapsing at the speed of light?

 

[Caring1]

Like, if I turn on a lightbulb in a room, if light diffuses, reflects and refracts it's because the room and everything inside is collapsing at the speed of light?

Maybe you better start with "Electricity for Dummies"
Welcome to TPU.

 

[Frontino]

all mass wants to get together as all mass is heading in the same direction... INWARD!

1. So, for this Recyprocal System Theory, light is massless?
2. Is it possible to digitally simulate a small scale universe with the Recyprocal System Theory?
3. What's the shape of the universe for the RST?

 

[hat]

View attachment 119098

This... doesn't make any sense. Stars do not begin life as red supergiants and then get smaller and hotter later in life. And Sol, being a main sequence star right now, doesn't go straight to white dwarf. In time, as Sol is in the final stages of its life, it will begin to run out of "fuel" (hydrogen) to fuse in the core, and fusion of heavier elements, such as helium, begins. This causes the star to swell in size, yet "burn" cooler, resulting in a red giant stage. Sol is not large enough to fuse heavier elements beyond a certain point which would cause a rapid collapse (nova), so when it runs out of fusible fuel, it simply fades into a white dwarf - the white hot leftover core of the star.

Supernovas occur in much larger stars than Sol. They appear blue due to the higher energy given off by, well, more fusion happening simultaneously. But, these stars are powerful enough to fuse elements heavier than Sol can at the end of their life. Eventually, fusion of iron begins... which, interestingly, results in energy being consumed rather than released. As there is no more energy keeping this massive star from collapsing in on itself, it does so with a bang (supernova). In this spectacular heat and pressure, the heaviest elements are fused and born, and what's left is either a neutron star, or a black hole.

This image here defies all logic. How does a red supergiant suddenly stop fusing heavier elements and begin fusing hydrogen again to become a main sequence yellow star, and furthermore suddenly have the capacity to burn enough of it at once to become a blue giant?

 

[Bones]

I believe the entire thing from him has been a running joke all along.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" is the approach used in his posting.

Best thing to do is pay him no mind from this point foward because you'll only get more of the same baffling from him.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Best thing to do is pay him no mind from this point foward because you'll only get more of the same baffling from him.

Not so much baffling as it is just bizarre.

 

[Bones]

Bizzare is as bizzare does.
Not gonna read any further into it.

 

[witkazy]

All this black hole talk got me curious enough to start wondering what would happen if one tried to overclock black hole
i guess merging two black holes oughta give nice boost
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q6.html