Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields?



 Science > Physics > Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "cinquirer"
Date: 27 Oct 2003 03:52:34 PM
Object: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields?
In these times when dark energy, dark matter, etc. are being
scrutinized. It is good to ask questions about the real nature of
matter itself. What is matter? Are there non-local informational
fields that in-forms it? The following discusses such possibility and
the mechanisms of interactions (written by the physicist Conforto).
I read in the Scientific American last month that stated some
physicists believe particles are oscillations of superstrings. So
the idea is not so crazy at all.
For scrutiny:
"Human deception results even more evident, when the spatial form of
an event horizon is calculated, through Einstein's General Relativity;
its form depends on the geometry of matter composing a body and on its
gravity. For instance, the horizon of a spherical body is a sphere as
well.
According to physics, a closed event horizon defines a black hole. The
hole is "black", because a closed event horizon is like a spherical
shell woven by light beams wound up onto themselves and therefore
unable to reach the far off observer, who doesn't receive any luminous
signal from it.
A closed event horizon is not a rare case, but just a trivial one.
Elementary particles (Chap. 2) which compose all the observed bodies
of the universe are mini black holes. This is the main scientific
discovery, formerly suggested by superluminal theories... TOE (Theory
of Everything)........ that explains why we do live in a platonic
cave, where we don't observe the true reality, but just its faint
shadows. Mini black holes reveal our millenary illusion.
As they are so minute, elementary particles have very small event
horizons which each generate a strongly curved spacetime, as
Einstein's equations show. Hidden, inside the minute closed horizon, a
new, unsuspected inner world is revealing itself.... which connects
all the particles of the universe in "real time, showing their
intrinsic and instantaneous oneness.
As I have already mentioned, physics hasn't realized that the event
horizon is not a chaotic ball of light beams, but a lightscreen where
images are focused. Elementary particles are mini monitors of the
supercosmic cyberspace; monitors, that are quite different from the
man-made ones which connect to Internet though. Natural mini monitors
are in four dimensions, 4D, that is in three spatial dimensions and
one time dimension: they can move and be organized by the Information
flowing through cyberspace.
The images of the event horizon are actually bodies of light, or
better dynamic holograms. Bodies of 1ight generate order within the
physical matter around them. This fact was partially recognized by S.
Hawking, who discovered that an event horizon is a source of order. He
proved it mathematically and showed that a black hole increases
syntropy, that is the order of the particles which surround it. In
other words, a black hole organizes physical forms.
At the cold temperatures of planet Earth, atoms come into play as
"indivisible" entities. Although they are composed of elementary
particles, they also have a global function, as the ancient Greek
scientist, Democritus, advanced in his times. Atoms are peculiar
terminals, monitors able to pick up peculiar messages, that flow
through cyberspace.
This is the very secret of mother matter its infinite structures are
all terminals: the more complex they are, the higher quality the
Information they can receive from cyberspace is: the simplest is the
hydrogen atom, followed by the whole series of chemical elements,
whose event horizons probably coincide with their outer electronic
shells, able to link to each other, to form molecules, crystals,
minerals, cells, etc.
Through atoms, distant and apparently distinct physical bodies may be
organized. On the event horizon of each atom, the whole image of a
body is contained, like a hologram. All the atomic event horizons
compose themselves in one global event horizon of the whole body,
forming a 4D hologram or a body of light. It is the body of light
which generates the formal appearance of every body; it actually
in-forms its physical form, i.e. organizes surrounding atoms, in order
to let them compose a physical body."
.

User: "Alfred Einstead"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 08 Nov 2003 06:52:44 PM
(cinquirer) wrote:

According to physics, a closed event horizon defines a black hole.

The answer is no. A black hole with the same charge and mass as
an electron (or any of the other fundamental particles) would have
no event horizon. It would be a bare naked singularity.
.
User: "ueb"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 09 Nov 2003 04:22:45 AM
Alfred Einstead <whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

cinquirer@yahoo.com (cinquirer) wrote:

According to physics, a closed event horizon defines a black hole.

The answer is no. A black hole with the same charge and mass as
an electron (or any of the other fundamental particles) would have
no event horizon. It would be a bare naked singularity.

As long you follow above "logic", ok. But I have *practically*
calculated with that,
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/ ,
with the result that nature behaves other way than people think.
One must simply take the chaos into consideration.
BTW: The integration constants for most stable solutions coincide
just with known particle numbers. This *fact* should excellently
support the thoughts explained on above mentioned site.
Ulrich Bruchholz
.


User: "Brian Gaff"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 03:05:42 AM
Been on the Radish wine again, I see....
Look I'm great at the ***** but this takes the biscuit, and the
Radish.....
Though obviously, there is some evidence that the true nature of matter is
hidden from us, I hardly subscribe to living in a world of holograms....
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:

____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/03
.
User: "Arid ace"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 06:51:13 AM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:05:42 -0000, "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
*Been on the Radish wine again, I see....
*
*Look I'm great at the ***** but this takes the biscuit, and the
*Radish.....
*
*Though obviously, there is some evidence that the true nature of matter is
*hidden from us, I hardly subscribe to living in a world of holograms....
*
*Brian
Some are baffled by a hologram, unable to see it's but a different way of coding
information: each element of an object is spread over the entire surface of the
photographic film in interference patterns, containing amplitude and phase
information whereas an "ordinarily" taken pic contains "just" amplitude
information.
How the nature of matter is hidden can be shown, by using a radar with fixed
polarization, and trying to determine the form and location of a moving and
rotating metal strip, 1.1 wavelength long and 0.1 wavelength wide while the
system only allows reading out the reflected data by taking a few samples.
The finishing touch of the model would be to make the metal strip so light that
the radar beam interferes with its motion.
Cheers :-)
.


User: "Uncle Al"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 27 Oct 2003 05:15:46 PM
cinquirer wrote:


In these times when dark energy, dark matter, etc. are being
scrutinized. It is good to ask questions about the real nature of
matter itself.

***** meter is uncrated.

What is matter? Are there non-local informational
fields that in-forms it?

***** meter pins without being hooked up.
[snip]

All the atomic event horizons
compose themselves in one global event horizon of the whole body,
forming a 4D hologram or a body of light. It is the body of light
which generates the formal appearance of every body; it actually
in-forms its physical form, i.e. organizes surrounding atoms, in order
to let them compose a physical body."

Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
User: "eugen negut"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 27 Oct 2003 08:20:25 PM
Mr Al,
You can find the demonstration that the elementary particle are the true and
unique black hole!
See :
www.freephysics.org
This fact is hidden in Maxwell equation since them discovery!
If you don't belive please see :
www.freephysics.org/en/pp
a paper officially published in a official review!
Eugen Negut
.
User: "cinquirer"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 06 Nov 2003 04:34:39 AM
"eugen negut" <negutz@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<Pnknb.24758$He4.980529@wagner.videotron.net>...

Mr Al,
You can find the demonstration that the elementary particle are the true and
unique black hole!
See :

www.freephysics.org

This fact is hidden in Maxwell equation since them discovery!

If you don't belive please see :

www.freephysics.org/en/pp

a paper officially published in a official review!


Eugen Negut

The idea of particles as mini black holes published in official
scientific paper? Well. Can someone debunk overwhelmingly the
following concepts (see figures & text below) by Conforto. What
she is basically saying is that there are singularities inside the
particles or mini-black holes and if we can strip it, then physical
object can experience localized spacetime anomalies to the extent
of vanishing itself. The following stretches the whole thing too
much that let's treat it as a physicist utmost hypothetical scenerio
and she needs other wizards input to point out where she did wrong
and silence her overwhelmingly. You know what. If a physicist can't
disengage himself from the following thought (Conforto). It would
become an object of science fiction or cult that attempts to
convince the uninformed, so may someone debunk it overwhelmingly
with logic and precise scientific principles. And I'd convey
the illogic to her and challenge her to submit or defend
scientifically.
Conforto wrote:
see figures first:
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/forscrutiny2/Fig18.JPG
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/forscrutiny2/Fig49.JPG
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/forscrutiny2/Fig50.JPG
"The ring singularities we have close at hand are the elementary
particles that compose our own physical bodies so microscopic though,
they are much, much smaller than the "the eye of a needle" that is not
easy to pass through. The whole body's centrifugal horizon is also
very small, while the centripetal one, related to its nuclear mass and
therefore its weight which keeps us on the ground, is quite large.
Here is where another opportunity suggested by physics comes to our
aid, still trying to explain the exit and disappearance from this
universe: to strip off the old personality, the only possibility for
the human body to become a naked singularity. Rotation seems to
suggest how. Rotation of a singularity drags space-time with it in
fact, just like a spoon does when we stir a cup of hot chocolate.
If the rotation speed increases, the inner centrifugal horizon can
become so wide it goes beyond the outer centripetal one, and sweeps
away the spacetime around it. In that case both horizons disappear and
the singularity becomes naked.
To strip a singularity seems to imply an "increase" in rotation speed;
according to some improbable time-machine plans it means rotating very
fast like a spinning-top. These plans denounce how strong the
conviction is in many physicists that physical matter is unalterable,
even though force that could transform it have already been
discovered. To strip a singularity doesn't imply an "increase" in
their speed, because fast spinning tops, in any physical body, already
exist: they are the elementary particles that compose it, all gifted
with a spin or intrinsic rotation. The "increase" in total rotation
speed may be obtained by aligning all the spins.
All particles rotate on themselves at an extraordinary speed, even if
we don't realize it, because they are so minute. The fact is though
that in a normal physical body, some are right-handed and others
left-handed, so that the total rotathe particles together is usually
almost zero (See Fig. 50). If the spins were all aligned in the same
versus, though, the total rotation speed would be so high as to form a
centrifugal horizon which would exceed the centripetal one. That body
would then become a naked sing ularity, disappear from usual
perception and find itself instantly in a parallel universe.
Therefore it is simple to "strip off" a physical body, at least in
theory. In practice it's a desperate feat, impossible for anyone who
has the idea of doing it alone. Nuclear particles which compose the
human body are billions of billions of billions. A lot more energy is
necessary than any single human body can possess. From an energetic
point of view the human body is at the bottom of a cave, inside a
`potential hole" as physicists would say, and to get out, i.e. ascend
to a parallel universe, it would n eed a high quality energy.
Aligning all the spins is a highly qualified task that requires an
extra fine energy: for the electrons, which are lighter, perhaps the
simple electromagnetic field would be enough, but for the nuclear
particles, that are far more massive than electrons and are bound by
the nuclear field, the appropriate Force would be Life: electroweak
field, that, effectively has the ability to transform nuclear matter
and induce alchemy. In the greatest majority of chemical elements that
compose the human body, alchemy i s only virtual though and hardly
ever becomes real. Why? Because the nuclear force wins. In the
nucleus, the vital field cannot align the spin alone. For this reason
a field of even higher energy than Life is required. The Source of
Life is necessary, the One Source from which all flows: Nun or Higgs
field, the only one that can modify the relationship between the GEN
(Gravity, Electroweak, Nuclear) forces and effects nuclear alchemy.
As small so large. As in the heart of man who is looking for oneness,
as in the nucleus of an atom, a cell, Earth and Sun, the GEN forces
can join together: only their fusion can align nuclear spins and make
alchemy real. In a human being it corresponds to alchemical marriage,
also called resurrection of the body or genetic cellular evolution,
for which man's will is necessary, but not sufficient (see Chap. 4).
(Cinquirer note. What she is implying is that the Higgs Field has
extensions on the level of Consciousness or principle of
Interconnected or Non_locality, etc. which science doesn't encompass
in their theories. Anyway, disregarding all this for a moment. My
question is that can the weak force and Higgs field align all the
spins of the nuclear particles and can this form a body wide
singularity in any target physical object supposing we have the
technology to artificially induce that alignment on external object???)
Before answering it. The following text comes before the above. I
didn't mention the following first because it is the introduction
and it may bore people and that's why I first shared the technical
details. I'd continue my comment after it).
Quoting Conforto:
"Hyperspace travel - The hope of leaving the restricted horizons of
space - has become a real possibility with the discovery of spacetime
singularities, i.e. white and black holes. Singularities are escape
routes from the physical observed universe, paths towards parallel
universes.
Mathematics, therefore human mind, goes beyond his present perception
limits and reveals possibilities which have been considered miracles
up till now. Spacetime singularities are instantaneous connections
between universes, the collapse of physical laws, the interface
between what is normally considered "natural" and what is
"supernatural": i.e. the mere observable 10%, and the unobservable
90%, but not for this inexistent.
Until a few decades ago, calculations were still approximate and
seemed to advise men against hyperspace travel. only static black
holes were considered and to cross them seemed a desperate feat. In
order to reach the singularity, which is in the center of a black hole
(Fig. 4), a series of dangerous acrobatics was required: first of all
to cross the event horizon, the traveler would have had to go faster
than light, then to reach the center, immerse himself in cyberspace,
whose terrible tides would have wr ung him out, elongating him along a
radius like spaghetti.
Spaghettification or also meatball effect were the terms used to
define the poor tourist's adventure. In that reduced state the
incautious worlds explorer would have had the possibility of coming
out into a parallel universe, but perhaps not of enjoying it.
Spaghettiffication or meatball effect were the results of
calculations, not adhering to actual situations though, because static
black holes do not exist. Instead spinning black holes, both giant
astrophysical and microscopic ones are the rule: elementar y particles
which compose all physical bodies, including man's are all spinning
mini black holes. Calculations demonstrate that spin and charge
radically change the physical conditions of hyperspace travel, so that
is not so dangerous and would be like traveling in time. The first
scientist to discover it was K. G6del, the great mathematician author
of his famous theorem, who lectured at Princeton University, where his
great friend A. Einstein was r esearching too.
Godel gave Einstein a very unusual present for his birthday: the
solution to his famous field equation, in the case of a rotating
universe: he illustrated it in one of the university lecture-rooms
packed with lecturers and students who had come to celebrate
Einstein's birthday. The results were incredible: a cosmic tourist
could leave from Earth, have a trip around the universe and then come
back to Earth before his departure date: he could go back into the
past as far as he wanted. They say that Einstein, who had listened
attentively to Godel with great interest and satisfaction, said to
him: "but God won't let you do it".
Godel's was the first scientific hypothesis on a time-machine and the
discovery that the universe itself is a time~machine. The rotation of
Godel's universe was very close to the real one, because it considered
every point like a rotation center, i.e. like a spin as it actually
is: in fact the universe is composed of particles, stars, planets and
galaxies which all rotate on their own axis. Since then hyperspace
travel has received a lot of theoretical attention, that considers it
a possibility outside, but not inside man.
Hyperspace travel doesn't necessarily require spacecraft, but the
evolution of that vehicle, man already possesses: his physical body.
The human body is composed of elementary particles, therefore
spacetime singularities or hyperspace tunnels: it is potentially a
natural hyperspace vehicle or else a timeship, but it needs a few
"touch-ups" to make its super cosmic journey without any damage. To
understand the meaning of these "touch-ups" better, it's useful to
have a look at scientific results, from which we can see what
conditions are necessary for a vehicle to make a similar trip.
"Rotation is a main condition: as it is spinning, each spacetime
singularity shows not only one but two event horizons: an inner
centrifugal one and an outer centripetal one, which enclose the
"impossible ring", cyberspace (Information Space), instantly
connecting parallel universes. Theory states that we can enter the
ring, and come out into a parallel universe, neither exceeding the
speed of light nor becoming a meatball. there, inside the ring, a very
strange phenomenon occurs: the force of gravity changes sign, it
becomes repulsive instead of attractive."

(Note: the continuation of this text is at the very start above where
she mentions the technical details. Before I go. Let me emphasize the
inquiry I'm making especially to those who believe that particles
are black holes (such as eugin who detailed it in www.freephysics.org
and even publishes some in official science paper). My question is,
can the weak force and Higgs field align all the spins of the nuclear
particles and can this form a body wide singularity (supposing particles
are mini-black holes) in any target physical object such as fighter plane
given that we have advanced futuristic technology to artificially
induce that alignment of all the nuclear spins on that target object
and its subsequent spacetime dislocation or travel??? This would
have such an application in military technology and stealth
weaponry.
c
.
User: "Old Man"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 06 Nov 2003 01:49:35 PM
"cinquirer" <cinquirer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69cb3a95.0311060234.7668752e@posting.google.com...

"eugen negut" <negutz@videotron.ca> wrote in message

news:<Pnknb.24758$He4.980529@wagner.videotron.net>...

Mr Al,
You can find the demonstration that the elementary particle are the true

and

unique black hole!
See :

www.freephysics.org

This fact is hidden in Maxwell equation since them discovery!

If you don't belive please see :

www.freephysics.org/en/pp

a paper officially published in a official review!


Eugen Negut


The idea of particles as mini black holes published in official
scientific paper? Well. Can someone debunk overwhelmingly the
following concepts (see figures & text below) by Conforto. What
she is basically saying is that there are singularities inside the
particles or mini-black holes and if we can strip it, then physical
object can experience localized spacetime anomalies to the extent
of vanishing itself. ....

The smallest possible black hole has size of one Planck length,
1.6 x 10^(-35) meter, and has mass of one Planck mass,
2.2 x 10^(-8) kg. This is a very large mass compared to that of
elementary particles. A black hole with mass of one Planck mass
will decay in one Planck time, 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds. Bodies with
less mass will decay in shorter time, so elementary particles with
their relatively small mass and relatively long lives couldn't possibly
be black holes. [Old Man]
.
User: "cinquirer"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 06 Nov 2003 11:44:02 PM
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<3fa95451_1@newsfeed.slurp.net>...


The idea of particles as mini black holes published in official
scientific paper? Well. Can someone debunk overwhelmingly the
following concepts (see figures & text below) by Conforto. What
she is basically saying is that there are singularities inside the
particles or mini-black holes and if we can strip it, then physical
object can experience localized spacetime anomalies to the extent
of vanishing itself. ....


The smallest possible black hole has size of one Planck length,
1.6 x 10^(-35) meter, and has mass of one Planck mass,
2.2 x 10^(-8) kg. This is a very large mass compared to that of
elementary particles. A black hole with mass of one Planck mass
will decay in one Planck time, 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds. Bodies with
less mass will decay in shorter time, so elementary particles with
their relatively small mass and relatively long lives couldn't possibly
be black holes. [Old Man]

She is looking at it from the Superstrings and Superspace
point of view. In these models, the particles are either oscillations
or mini-cables connecting to a higher space full of energy. So it's
not the same astronomical black holes because the energy comes
from the other side powering up the mini-black holes themselves.
So when you strip the singularity of a particle and becoming naked
singularity, the analogy is like becoming the strings themselves
and no longer the particles.. or no longer bound by the space/time
law created in the oscillations of the particles. She got her theory
from Superstrings and others. I guess I have to read Ellen Green's
book Elegant Universe first that discusses Superstrings so I'd
know more clearly where she is coming at (and where she may
have it all messed up if this is the case).
c
.




User: "cinquirer"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 27 Oct 2003 11:48:29 PM
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F9DA722.397924BF@hate.spam.net>...

cinquirer wrote:


In these times when dark energy, dark matter, etc. are being
scrutinized. It is good to ask questions about the real nature of
matter itself.


***** meter is uncrated.

What is matter? Are there non-local informational
fields that in-forms it?


***** meter pins without being hooked up.

[snip]

All the atomic event horizons
compose themselves in one global event horizon of the whole body,
forming a 4D hologram or a body of light. It is the body of light
which generates the formal appearance of every body; it actually
in-forms its physical form, i.e. organizes surrounding atoms, in order
to let them compose a physical body."


Idiot.

If that physicist is an idiot... can you offer another model. The
premise goes like this. Informational fields permeate the atoms.
Thought is Information with non-local properties. Just like each
cell of the body contaning DNA that has blueprint of the entire
body. Each atom is connected with one another in a non-local
field. And I want to understand the mechanism of how this occurs.
Like how the atoms can communicate with each other via a superluminal
channel.
Hmm... of course this idea may sound non-sensical but it's just a
theory that consciousness permeate everything including down to
the atomic level. We have been discussing this in another group for
months and perhaps we just stick to that group for continuity of
topics (as there is a long train of threads about them).
c
.


User: "John Sefton"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 27 Oct 2003 06:01:02 PM
cinquirer wrote:

In these times when dark energy, dark matter, etc. are being
scrutinized. It is good to ask questions about the real nature of
matter itself. What is matter? Are there non-local informational
fields that in-forms it? The following discusses such possibility and
the mechanisms of interactions (written by the physicist Conforto).
I read in the Scientific American last month that stated some
physicists believe particles are oscillations of superstrings. So
the idea is not so crazy at all.

For scrutiny:

"Human deception results even more evident, when the spatial form of
an event horizon is calculated, through Einstein's General Relativity;
its form depends on the geometry of matter composing a body and on its
gravity. For instance, the horizon of a spherical body is a sphere as
well.

According to physics, a closed event horizon defines a black hole. The
hole is "black", because a closed event horizon is like a spherical
shell woven by light beams wound up onto themselves and therefore
unable to reach the far off observer, who doesn't receive any luminous
signal from it.

A closed event horizon is not a rare case, but just a trivial one.
Elementary particles (Chap. 2) which compose all the observed bodies
of the universe are mini black holes. This is the main scientific
discovery, formerly suggested by superluminal theories... TOE (Theory
of Everything)........ that explains why we do live in a platonic
cave, where we don't observe the true reality, but just its faint
shadows. Mini black holes reveal our millenary illusion.

As they are so minute, elementary particles have very small event
horizons which each generate a strongly curved spacetime, as
Einstein's equations show. Hidden, inside the minute closed horizon, a
new, unsuspected inner world is revealing itself.... which connects
all the particles of the universe in "real time, showing their
intrinsic and instantaneous oneness.

As I have already mentioned, physics hasn't realized that the event
horizon is not a chaotic ball of light beams, but a lightscreen where
images are focused. Elementary particles are mini monitors of the
supercosmic cyberspace; monitors, that are quite different from the
man-made ones which connect to Internet though. Natural mini monitors
are in four dimensions, 4D, that is in three spatial dimensions and
one time dimension: they can move and be organized by the Information
flowing through cyberspace.

The images of the event horizon are actually bodies of light, or
better dynamic holograms. Bodies of 1ight generate order within the
physical matter around them. This fact was partially recognized by S.
Hawking, who discovered that an event horizon is a source of order. He
proved it mathematically and showed that a black hole increases
syntropy, that is the order of the particles which surround it. In
other words, a black hole organizes physical forms.

At the cold temperatures of planet Earth, atoms come into play as
"indivisible" entities. Although they are composed of elementary
particles, they also have a global function, as the ancient Greek
scientist, Democritus, advanced in his times. Atoms are peculiar
terminals, monitors able to pick up peculiar messages, that flow
through cyberspace.

This is the very secret of mother matter its infinite structures are
all terminals: the more complex they are, the higher quality the
Information they can receive from cyberspace is: the simplest is the
hydrogen atom, followed by the whole series of chemical elements,
whose event horizons probably coincide with their outer electronic
shells, able to link to each other, to form molecules, crystals,
minerals, cells, etc.

Through atoms, distant and apparently distinct physical bodies may be
organized. On the event horizon of each atom, the whole image of a
body is contained, like a hologram. All the atomic event horizons
compose themselves in one global event horizon of the whole body,
forming a 4D hologram or a body of light. It is the body of light
which generates the formal appearance of every body; it actually
in-forms its physical form, i.e. organizes surrounding atoms, in order
to let them compose a physical body."

Protons are mini--black holes.
.
User: "hanson"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 01:34:17 PM
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f9dafcc$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...

cinquirer wrote in

news:69cb3a95.0310271352.67621f16@posting.google.com...
dark energy, dark matter, etc. are being scrutinized.
What is matter? Are there non-local informational fields that
in-forms it? see Conforto & Scientific American that stated some
physicists believe particles are oscillations of superstrings.

... a closed event horizon defines a black hole. The hole is "black",
because a closed event horizon is like a spherical shell woven
by light beams wound up onto themselves [& do not emit]
any luminous signal from it.
.....that explains why we do live in a platonic cave,
where we don't observe the true reality, but just its faint
shadows. Mini black holes reveal our millenary illusion.

The images of the event horizon are actually bodies of light, or
better dynamic holograms. Bodies of 1ight generate order within the
physical matter around them. S. Hawking, discovered that an event
horizon is a source of order, ...... that is the order of the particles
which surround it. IOW, a black hole organizes physical forms.

Through atoms, distant and apparently distinct physical bodies may be
organized. On the event horizon of each atom, the whole image of a
body is contained, like a hologram. All the atomic event horizons
compose themselves in one global event horizon of the whole body,
forming a 4D hologram or a body of light. It is the body of light
which generates the formal appearance of every body; it actually
in-forms its physical form, i.e. organizes surrounding atoms, in order
to let them compose a physical body." -- Cinq


Protons are mini--black holes. -- John

Yo, Cinq & John. Good show dudes!
You may get with your speculations one step further if you view them
as Self-similarities, processes related to analogies. Do not take the
term "self-similar" in/as the usual math def for reiteration, but more
in the sense the word itself, which points out similarities on different
scales like SA particles * N1 ---> atoms *N2 ---> Star/Planet system*N3
---> Galaxies *N4 ----> Universe. The Nn in these self-similar scaling
laws, I suspect, will turn out to be multiples or fractions of N_A,
Avogadro's Number, a fundamental physical constant. A lot is going on
about N_A these days, for it is hoped that N_A can be used to fix the unit
size for mass, the kilogram experimentally, and replace the Parisian
Pt/Ir kg. The relation between N_A and mass is straight forward:
------------ m_pl / m_e = N_A* a * pi*sqrt(3) -------------
1 mole of electron masses m_e = ~ the amount of the Planck mass, m_pl
a = Finstructure, pi for a closed form and sqrt(3) from equipartition.
Since m_pl is defined by other fundamental constants as sqrt(hbar*c/G)
one can easily see why heuristic interests are moving in these directions.
When dreaming about you guys' wider swath that all particles stem from,
arise out of or can be seen as manifestations of some energy, playing games
in and around event horizons then also here relatively simple numerological
projections can be made which turn out to be rather accurate.
Take such a mini black hole with a Schwarzschild event horizon [c^2/2G] of
Planklength size [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] that is surrounded by an EM halo/accretion
disk/Coulomb sphere [I_H/(f_L*F)] and is internally coupled by its toroidal
geometric ratio of [3*pi^2] and the Finestructure constant fraction of
[sqrt(2a)],
then you get the mass of the proton. Check it out yourself. Here it's again IOW:
m_H = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
=1.67E-24 gr, the mass of the proton derived from fundamental physical
constants. It says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_H) is a black hole with ****
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of, the
--- H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5, [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
..... and is further governed by, depending on the model either,
--- string oscillations or toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].
*** = Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.
In case of leptons, here the electron, the e-shell Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
= 9.09E-28 gr the mass of the electron.
It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted ,
there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry
is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom)
Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr blackhole
type character with the Kerr [c^2/G] event horizon, instead of the
Schwartzschild [c^2/2G] type.
Fill in the numbers and you'll get ~ the right mass for the electron.
This dimensionally correct and numerically close speculation may say:
The electron consists of a
--- rotating Kerr blackhole limit or event horizon of (c^2/G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3)
and is shrouded by/into
--- a Coulomb mantle "accretion zone", being the product of 1/(f_L*F)
--- which is manifest in the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler), and is
further governed by geometry demands of (pi*sqrt(3)/3) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by the Finestructure const [a]
AHAHAH.....have fun you guys, and always remember that all theories
are just stories, more or less fucked or fucking, but stories never the less.
Don't get uptight about it, it ain't worth it, unless they are reality for
you like the Easter bunny, Santa, Yahweh or Allah et al.
Then all bets are off.......ahahahaha.........ahahahahahanson
.

User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 27 Oct 2003 10:35:06 PM
John Sefton wrote:


Protons are mini--black holes.

John, a proton is made up of three quarks and can change to a neutron
via Beta decay as is the case in the p-p chain fusion reaction in our
Sun. Internal structure of a black hole is forbidden knowledge. Protons
do not exhibit the properties of black holes.
Black Hole
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
Proton
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html
.
User: "John Sefton"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 09:27:55 AM
Sam Wormley wrote:
Internal structure of a black hole is forbidden knowledge. Protons

do not exhibit the properties of black holes.

You are confusing the 'theoretical Black Hole' caused
by gravitational collapse with the observed centers
of galaxies which seemed at first to BE black holes.
They aren't. Huge quantities of matter have been seen
to be coming away from galactic centers. BHs were never theorized
to give off matter. Precisely the opposite; they were supposed
to take all matter and light in and keep it- thus one
would never get any 'feedback' about what was inside.
'Forbidden knowledge' meaning NOTHING COMES OUT.
(It amazes me how people versed in QM can hold two
completely contradictory ideas in their head at the
same time and vouch for both of them. It's a
wonderful talent, I wonder what it's good for-
perhaps a good night's sleep? :-) )
What is it, Sam? Are galactic centers BHs? If so, is there
then no knowledge coming from them in the form of the
billions of suns' worth of matter that spews from them constantly?
If galactic centers aren't BHs, then where are the BHs?
I'll give you a clue. Check out any of my posts from 1995 on:
there are no Black Holes. Gravity don't work that way, bud.
Protons may not exhibit the (theorized) properties of
(non-existent) black holes, but it will be shown that
they exhibit the properties of galactic centers.
John
Galaxy Model for the atom.
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/
.
User: "Double-A"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 04:37:42 PM
John Sefton <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<3f9e890d$1@news3.accesscomm.ca>...

Sam Wormley wrote:
Internal structure of a black hole is forbidden knowledge. Protons

do not exhibit the properties of black holes.

You are confusing the 'theoretical Black Hole' caused
by gravitational collapse with the observed centers
of galaxies which seemed at first to BE black holes.
They aren't. Huge quantities of matter have been seen
to be coming away from galactic centers. BHs were never theorized
to give off matter. Precisely the opposite; they were supposed
to take all matter and light in and keep it- thus one
would never get any 'feedback' about what was inside.
'Forbidden knowledge' meaning NOTHING COMES OUT.
(It amazes me how people versed in QM can hold two
completely contradictory ideas in their head at the
same time and vouch for both of them. It's a
wonderful talent, I wonder what it's good for-
perhaps a good night's sleep? :-) )

What is it, Sam? Are galactic centers BHs? If so, is there
then no knowledge coming from them in the form of the
billions of suns' worth of matter that spews from them constantly?

If galactic centers aren't BHs, then where are the BHs?

I'll give you a clue. Check out any of my posts from 1995 on:
there are no Black Holes. Gravity don't work that way, bud.

Protons may not exhibit the (theorized) properties of
(non-existent) black holes, but it will be shown that
they exhibit the properties of galactic centers.

John
Galaxy Model for the atom.
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/

John,
Do you have any idea what the mechanism would be for galactic centers
to spew out new matter?
It is easy to picture how gravity could create black holes, but it is
not so easy to understand how massive bodies could be ejecting matter.
Yet we observe suspected black holes, not even at galaxy centers,
spurting out streams of matter conservatively estimated to be
travelling at .99c. What is causing this? Frame dragging? You would
think the inward pull of gravity at the poles of a rotating massive
body would be the strongest since matter there would not be caught up
in the rotation. But that seems to be where it is ejected.
Of course mainstream thinking has it that all matter ejected is from
in falling matter that has not crossed the event horizon. That way
the "black hole" can still be growing.
But do you contend that the matter is coming from inside the massive
body? Is it therefore depleting itself and shrinking? Or is there
some process going on by which matter is being created? Perhaps out
of energy, or space, or aether, or dark matter?
Double-A
.
User: "John Sefton"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 07:32:49 PM
Double-A wrote:

John Sefton <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<3f9e890d$1@news3.accesscomm.ca>...

Sam Wormley wrote:
Internal structure of a black hole is forbidden knowledge. Protons

do not exhibit the properties of black holes.


You are confusing the 'theoretical Black Hole' caused
by gravitational collapse with the observed centers
of galaxies which seemed at first to BE black holes.
They aren't. Huge quantities of matter have been seen
to be coming away from galactic centers. BHs were never theorized
to give off matter. Precisely the opposite; they were supposed
to take all matter and light in and keep it- thus one
would never get any 'feedback' about what was inside.
'Forbidden knowledge' meaning NOTHING COMES OUT.
(It amazes me how people versed in QM can hold two
completely contradictory ideas in their head at the
same time and vouch for both of them. It's a
wonderful talent, I wonder what it's good for-
perhaps a good night's sleep? :-) )

What is it, Sam? Are galactic centers BHs? If so, is there
then no knowledge coming from them in the form of the
billions of suns' worth of matter that spews from them constantly?

If galactic centers aren't BHs, then where are the BHs?

I'll give you a clue. Check out any of my posts from 1995 on:
there are no Black Holes. Gravity don't work that way, bud.

Protons may not exhibit the (theorized) properties of
(non-existent) black holes, but it will be shown that
they exhibit the properties of galactic centers.

John
Galaxy Model for the atom.
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/




John,

Do you have any idea what the mechanism would be for galactic centers
to spew out new matter?

It is easy to picture how gravity could create black holes, but it is
not so easy to understand how massive bodies could be ejecting matter.

Yet we observe suspected black holes, not even at galaxy centers,
spurting out streams of matter conservatively estimated to be
travelling at .99c. What is causing this? Frame dragging? You would
think the inward pull of gravity at the poles of a rotating massive
body would be the strongest since matter there would not be caught up
in the rotation. But that seems to be where it is ejected.

Of course mainstream thinking has it that all matter ejected is from
in falling matter that has not crossed the event horizon. That way
the "black hole" can still be growing.

But do you contend that the matter is coming from inside the massive
body? Is it therefore depleting itself and shrinking? Or is there
some process going on by which matter is being created? Perhaps out
of energy, or space, or aether, or dark matter?

Double-A

I think that these are simply the centers of the standing waves
that make up atoms/galaxies.
The rotation is so fast- faster than the speed of light
close to the center- that incoming light is spun into
matter and spun back out into the galaxy. Incoming matter
simply never gets there; it gets going so fast it is
converted to charged particles and re-injected into
the galaxy.
These are not massive 'bodies'. There is no 'body'.
It is the center of the standing wave. Why does
the standing wave feed upon itself? It is
somehow 'in tune' with the universe. It is
the right size to resonate with the local universe's
frequency, and the right configuration to do
this very efficiently. So efficiently that protons
never spontaneously decay. Neither do galaxies.
It IS a hole. A hole that contains nothing- just
as every self-respecting hole should!
Where does the material caught in a tornado
get ejected? Out the axis of spin, of course.
John
.
User: "Double-A"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 29 Oct 2003 05:29:24 PM
John Sefton <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<3f9f16cd@news3.accesscomm.ca>...
[snip]

I think that these are simply the centers of the standing waves
that make up atoms/galaxies.
The rotation is so fast- faster than the speed of light
close to the center- that incoming light is spun into
matter and spun back out into the galaxy. Incoming matter
simply never gets there; it gets going so fast it is
converted to charged particles and re-injected into
the galaxy.
These are not massive 'bodies'. There is no 'body'.
It is the center of the standing wave.

If galactic centers are standing waves and not massive bodies, then
how do they exert so much gravity on surrounding stars?
Do you think that all the matter in galaxies has its origin in the
galactic centers?

Why does
the standing wave feed upon itself? It is
somehow 'in tune' with the universe. It is
the right size to resonate with the local universe's
frequency, and the right configuration to do
this very efficiently. So efficiently that protons
never spontaneously decay. Neither do galaxies.
It IS a hole. A hole that contains nothing- just
as every self-respecting hole should!

If these standing wave holes resonate because they are in tune with
the universe, then the universe must have many different frequencies
for all the holes from protons to galactic centers, and all the
apparent black holes in between, to be in tune with it.
If these are standing waves, then where are the moving waves? Usually
where you see standing waves, there are moving waves nearby. How do
the universe's moving waves manifest themselves?
How does the universe vibrate at all? Are these waves in space-time,
or Aether, or the sea of virtual particles? Where does the energy
come from originally?


Where does the material caught in a tornado
get ejected? Out the axis of spin, of course.


Makes sense.

John

Double-A
.



User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 10:15:59 AM
John Sefton wrote:


Sam Wormley wrote:
Internal structure of a black hole is forbidden knowledge. Protons

do not exhibit the properties of black holes.

You are confusing the 'theoretical Black Hole' caused
by gravitational collapse with the observed centers
of galaxies which seemed at first to BE black holes.
They aren't. Huge quantities of matter have been seen
to be coming away from galactic centers.

We see all kings of radiation and matter coming from the matter
falling INTO a black hole, but not coming OUT OF the black hole.

BHs were never theorized
to give off matter. Precisely the opposite; they were supposed
to take all matter and light in and keep it- thus one
would never get any 'feedback' about what was inside.
'Forbidden knowledge' meaning NOTHING COMES OUT.
(It amazes me how people versed in QM can hold two
completely contradictory ideas in their head at the
same time and vouch for both of them. It's a
wonderful talent, I wonder what it's good for-
perhaps a good night's sleep? :-) )

What is it, Sam? Are galactic centers BHs? If so, is there
then no knowledge coming from them in the form of the
billions of suns' worth of matter that spews from them constantly?

Orbital periods as short as 15 years clinch the case for a supermassive
black hole a the Galaxy's heart
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-2/p19.shtml?jsessionid=1902031066309310455
First Direct Evidence of Black Hole Rotation
http://www.aip.org/physnews/update/538-1.html
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
User: "John Sefton"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 12:02:55 PM
Sam Wormley wrote:

John Sefton wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:
Internal structure of a black hole is forbidden knowledge. Protons

do not exhibit the properties of black holes.


You are confusing the 'theoretical Black Hole' caused
by gravitational collapse with the observed centers
of galaxies which seemed at first to BE black holes.
They aren't. Huge quantities of matter have been seen
to be coming away from galactic centers.



We see all kings of radiation and matter coming from the matter
falling INTO a black hole, but not coming OUT OF the black hole.

And we can distinguish this............how?
Has matter actually been seen to fall INTO the BH? I thought
dust obscured this. How close did this matter and radiation get
to the BH before suddenly doing an about-face? Hawking radiation
was predicted, but billions of suns' worth of high-energy
plasma? We seem to be tailoring our theories on a day-to-day
basis according to observation, here, doesn't that bother you?
Recent images from as close as they can see shows
many arcs and tendrils of plasma-like energetic matter.
Would this not be more consistent with high-energy
PRODUCTION of matter?
Would not extremely short orbital periods of
15 years result in matter going appreciable fractions
of lightspeed and actually gaining huge amounts of
energy, converting to plasma, and being shot back out
into the galaxy?
A tornado will spin you around with extremely short
orbital periods, also, but there's NOTHING at its
center. :-)
John
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 12:06:20 PM
John Sefton wrote:


Sam Wormley wrote:

John Sefton wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:
Internal structure of a black hole is forbidden knowledge. Protons

do not exhibit the properties of black holes.


You are confusing the 'theoretical Black Hole' caused
by gravitational collapse with the observed centers
of galaxies which seemed at first to BE black holes.
They aren't. Huge quantities of matter have been seen
to be coming away from galactic centers.



We see all kings of radiation and matter coming from the matter
falling INTO a black hole, but not coming OUT OF the black hole.

And we can distinguish this............how?
Has matter actually been seen to fall INTO the BH? I thought
dust obscured this. How close did this matter and radiation get
to the BH before suddenly doing an about-face? Hawking radiation
was predicted, but billions of suns' worth of high-energy
plasma? We seem to be tailoring our theories on a day-to-day
basis according to observation, here, doesn't that bother you?

Massive black holes are not hot, but cold. Hawking radiation is
a function of temperature.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
.
User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of InformationalFie... 28 Oct 2003 01:49:50 PM
Hi Sam We can theorize that the interior of a BH has no moving
parts(maybe just one) That is why its a billion times colder than space.
Bert
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of InformationalFie... 28 Oct 2003 03:22:45 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:


Hi Sam We can theorize that the interior of a BH has no moving
parts(maybe just one) That is why its a billion times colder than space.
Bert


Hi Herb--A 2.68 x 10^20 kg black hole with radius 398 nm is hot enough
to boil water.
.
User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals ofInformationalFie... 28 Oct 2003 05:29:09 PM
Hi Sam I read that the interior of a BH is a million times colder than
the 2.7K of space. Bert
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals ofInformationalFie... 28 Oct 2003 09:57:24 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:


Hi Sam I read that the interior of a BH is a million times colder than
the 2.7K of space. Bert

Interior can't be measured Herb--What you probably read was that black holes
formed by collapsed stars are indeed millions of times colder than the
2.7 K of interstellar space. My point is that nano black holes are hot.
Whether there are any about at this point in the history of the universe
is another matter.
.
User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals ofInformationalFie... 29 Oct 2003 02:59:58 AM
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:57:24 GMT
<3F9F3A92.16B40CD6@mchsi.com>:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:


Hi Sam I read that the interior of a BH is a million times colder than
the 2.7K of space. Bert


Interior can't be measured Herb--What you probably read was that black holes
formed by collapsed stars are indeed millions of times colder than the
2.7 K of interstellar space. My point is that nano black holes are hot.
Whether there are any about at this point in the history of the universe
is another matter.

It gets weirder; the temperature of a black hole is
dependent on mass. There is a theory that we might see
so-called "white holes" -- very small primordial black
holes, or your "nano holes" -- that will radiate quite a
bit of power before they go "poof". I don't know how much.
How an astronomer tells that from a star, I can't say,
although there are a number of possibilities if one can
measure the energy density of the radiation coming from the
hole -- assuming other things (usually hot stellar gases)
aren't going into the hole, heating up and radiating in
their own right.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals ofInformationalFie... 29 Oct 2003 06:51:16 AM
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:57:24 GMT
<3F9F3A92.16B40CD6@mchsi.com>:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:


Hi Sam I read that the interior of a BH is a million times colder than
the 2.7K of space. Bert


Interior can't be measured Herb--What you probably read was that black holes
formed by collapsed stars are indeed millions of times colder than the
2.7 K of interstellar space. My point is that nano black holes are hot.
Whether there are any about at this point in the history of the universe
is another matter.


It gets weirder; the temperature of a black hole is
dependent on mass. There is a theory that we might see
so-called "white holes" -- very small primordial black
holes, or your "nano holes" -- that will radiate quite a
bit of power before they go "poof". I don't know how much.

How an astronomer tells that from a star, I can't say,
although there are a number of possibilities if one can
measure the energy density of the radiation coming from the
hole -- assuming other things (usually hot stellar gases)
aren't going into the hole, heating up and radiating in
their own right.

The Hawking radiation would most likely be a better fit to
the blackbody spectrum [more uniform] than star exhibit.
.






User: "Alfred Einstead"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 08 Nov 2003 07:00:33 PM
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:

Massive black holes are not hot, but cold. Hawking radiation is
a function of temperature.

More interestingly, the mass can actually increase or decrease
(as a backreaction) merely by moving matter toward or away
from it, with the matter remaining outside the event horizon.
The actual entropy is not 1/4 the area of the horizon, but
something a bit more complex that also accounts for the fields
in its vicinity; a generalization of Hawking's formula fairly
well-known in the literature.
.




User: "Roedy Green"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 02:43:16 PM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:27:55 -0600, John Sefton <vegan1@accesscomm.ca>
wrote or quoted :

Precisely the opposite; they were supposed
to take all matter and light in and keep it- thus one
would never get any 'feedback' about what was inside.

I thought they could radiate (still giving no information) by
capturing one half of a spontaneously created matter-antimatter pair.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
User: "Gregory L. Hansen"

Title: Re: Are Particles Mini-Black holes & Terminals of Informational Fields? 28 Oct 2003 08:28:02 PM
In article <r5ltpv0efqb5p5v8cmgrosdf1fo6dvi3rg@4ax.com>,
Roedy Green <see mindprod.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:27:55 -0600, John Sefton <vegan1@accesscomm.ca>
wrote or quoted :

Precisely the opposite; they were supposed
to take all matter and light in and keep it- thus one
would never get any 'feedback' about what was inside.


I thought they could radiate (still giving no information) by
capturing one half of a spontaneously created matter-antimatter pair.

That's the theory. But realistically large black holes would have an
equivalent temperature less than that of the background radiation. The
bigger they are, the colder.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.






  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER