Black Holes part 2
Black Holes part 2 |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 37 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
So why attack them only on this forum? Why not register with their forums & attack them directly? At least they can answer you there - they cannot here! Ahhhhh..... cos they don't have a forum or message boards where i can personally insult them! And cos this is where i hang out in my spare time to entertain myself. John. | |
ID: 1292648 ·  Reply
Quote
| |
So why attack them only on this forum? Why not register with their forums & attack them directly? At least they can answer you there - they cannot here! ....& keeping us entertained at the same time :) ____________    | |
| ID: 1292653 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
John, you reveal yourself. As I have previously stated you have a great sense of humor, and the people who try to rebut you don't realize your joke. | |
| ID: 1292680 · Reply
Quote
| |
euh... which 'missing mass' ?? all is there ! what is missing ? ____________ | |
| ID: 1292736 · Reply
Quote
| |
barycentre (plural barycentres) We think that a black hole is an item in space where the gravity is so intense that it can swallow up stars and stop light from escaping, therefore there is a lot of mass at it's centre. We think there is one at the centre of our own galaxy the Milkyway. This item may be technically called a barycentre by astronomers and scientists, it is also colloquially known by the public as a black hole. They are both one and the same thing (whatever they are) A barycentre IS a black hole in relation to galaxies Johnney! | |
| ID: 1292742 · Reply
Quote
| |
John, you reveal yourself. As I have previously stated you have a great sense of humor, and the people who try to rebut you don't realize your joke. betreger, Sometimes i do say things in a joking or sarcastic manner. But most of the stuff i post is not a joke. I'm very serious when i discuss black holes and my personal view that they don't exist. That is not a joke, i'm very serious about that! Its part of my physics research. I'm also very serious about the "old book" research i am carrying out. Thats not a joke either. I really am researching an "old book" or "old books" that have very serious implications for humanity. John. | |
| ID: 1292746 · Reply
Quote
| |
We think that a black hole is an item in space where the gravity is so intense that it can swallow up stars and stop light from escaping, therefore there is a lot of mass at it's centre. We think there is one at the centre of our own galaxy the Milkyway. This item may be technically called a barycentre by astronomers and scientists, it is also colloquially known by the public as a black hole. They are both one and the same thing (whatever they are) Ohhhhhhh.... Chris! I have to stop you there! Your wrong!!! In Black hole theory, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Astronomers do NOT refer to black holes as Barycenters!! And theoretical Black holes are very very different to a Barycenter!! Do not confuse the two things Chris, they are very very different! A Barycenter is like a fulcrum in the law of the lever; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Law_of_the_lever In the Law of the Lever, a weight hangs on both sides of the Fulcrum. This balances the lever. So the fulcrum point is where the Mass of both weights rests. But the fulcrum itself does not have any mass, the mass is in the weights. A Barycenter acts in a similar fashion. Today, astronomers searching for exoplanets around other stars use the "wobble method" or the "Radial Velocity" to find the exoplanet. The Radial Velocity method shows you what a Barycenter really is. Watch this video and you will see a Barycenter; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BuwWtMygxU And no Chris, astronomers do NOT describe Black holes as Barycenters! I personally describe Black holes as Barycenters, its my theory. You have never heard it anywhere else but here, from me! A Barycenter completely contradicts current black hole theory! So i stand alone with this theory! You didn't hear it on the telly, you didn't read it on another website, you didn't read it in any book. You only heard it from ME! John. | |
| ID: 1292749 · Reply
Quote
| |
But the fulcrum itself does not have any mass, the mass is in the weights. A Barycenter acts in a similar fashion. So if the black hole you call a barycentre doesn't have any mass itself, how come it appears to swallow stars and light? A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. | |
| ID: 1292753 · Reply
Quote
| |
So if the black hole you call a barycentre doesn't have any mass itself, how come it appears to swallow stars and light? Thats the thing Chris, it doesn't swallow light, or stars, that is NOT what we "see". Be careful here with what information is REAL scientific data from telescopes, and information that is "theoretical". If the information is "theoretical", then it might or might not exist. In black hole theory, the black hole swallows light, or the light cannot get out. But Chris this has never been observed with a telescope, because you can't observe or measure it. Its just a theoretical assumption. Very dangerous to "assume" anything!! In reality, what we really see with telescopes, is a Barycenter with nothing in the dead centre. What we also see with telescopes is jets or beams of light being emitted from galactic centres. Right now today, our Milkyway's black hole is emitting very little, its quiet, because no star has fallen into it since they started watching it very closely about 20 years ago. So in reality, we see stars falling in and disappearing, so where do they go? They are ripped apart and the material from the star is violently smashed together and, instead of magically disappearing into nothing, its ALL converted to energy and emitted out as light, in the form of x-rays, gamma-rays and other light. In other words, what goes in, also comes out. Matter goes in, and pure energy comes out, ALL OF IT!! None of it magically goes missing anywhere! In my theory, you can measure everything!! In my theory nothing goes missing!! And no blind faith in Stephen Hawking's bad black hole mathematics is needed. Chris i will never get credit for discovering it cos i'm just some guy on a message board. But remember where you heard it first Chris! You heard it from me! On the internet information travels very fast, and my name will just get lost into the oblivion of information on the internet. But anyway, you will know Chris. But just so you know something else, i have left out one key piece of information - the mathametics. And the maths will trip up anyone that tries to latch onto the theory. Right now today, you should be able to discredit my Barycenter theory, if you were clever. John. | |
| ID: 1292770 · Reply
Quote
| |
Right now today, you should be able to discredit my Barycenter theory, if you were clever. Johnney, this paper provides all the math and observational data one needs to show the "Barycenter hypothesis" is an insufficient explanation. Clever? All one needed to do was follow the links Skildude provided earlier. The "theorists" provide their math and data, where's yours? ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...  | |
| ID: 1292815 · Reply
Quote
| |
Right now today, you should be able to discredit my Barycenter theory, if you were clever. Geee Bobby, You really are clever. Would you ever go through that paper for me and extract the part that discredits my theory. I'm not clever like you, i couldn't read all that stuff. John. | |
| ID: 1292876 · Reply
Quote
| |
Right now today, you should be able to discredit my Barycenter theory, if you were clever. Sure you are, you've come up with a "theory" that shows it to be wrong, haven't you? ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1292920 · Reply
Quote
| |
Wikipedia page has the radius of the electron; well then light should not escape from it. Looks like a black hole or not ?? | |
| ID: 1293053 · Reply
Quote
| |
Odd, there's a wiki page on the subject. ... Thanks for that. That is a really good and interesting article, and some good physics conjectures for further thought. (For the 'religious' types: Please note the difference in Science between "conjecture" and "hypothesis" and "theory"... I'm using the scientific sense.) Also very good food for thought is how structure(s) develop as you move up the range of scales from the Planck length through to galactic and beyond... Keep searchin', Martin ____________ See new freedom: Mageia5 See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1293224 · Reply
Quote
| |
Wikipedia page has the radius of the electron; How you view the electron, in all respects, is an "interesting case"... ;-) Keep searchin', Martin ____________ See new freedom: Mageia5 See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1293225 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
And here's some interesting astronomy to watch: | |
| ID: 1293279 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
but why they show a picture showing ... telescopes ? | |
| ID: 1293383 · Reply
Quote
| |
but why they show a picture showing ... telescopes ? That's only due to the media dumbing-down the story for their monosyllabic childlike readers to follow. It also helps the journalists throw the article together more quickly... Maybe there was such journalistic haste that they got the wrong end of the telescope? Or that particular picture was conveniently 'to hand'? Or there was 'artistic' license in that the telescopes plus sexy-laser "looked more pretty" and "eye catching" than the real news. All goes with the deliberately ambiguous/misleading headlines... You want information, or do you want news entertainment?... Such is the dumb news... And such is my rant! :-( Between the news media's usually negative portrayal and the unaware politicians, it's amazing we have any Science at all! And yet our modern society utterly depends upon Science. But that's for another thread... Keep searchin', Martin ____________ See new freedom: Mageia5 See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1293419 · Reply
Quote
| |
|
This is another interesting article about early stars and black holes. | |
| ID: 1301106 · Reply
Quote
| |
And here's some interesting astronomy to watch: Oh yes, ML; that's going to produce some very interesting results, just a shame that we will have to wait the 11 odd years though....I bet Einstein ends up being proved right. ____________ The Kite Fliers -------------------- Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes. | |
| ID: 1301513 · Reply
Quote
| |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2
| Copyright © 2016 University of California |
