| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Jun 2005 09:55:49 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
It is still a fantasy chasing a wild goose.
.
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
12 Jun 2005 10:13:43 AM |
|
|
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118588149.793407.53710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
Semantic quibbling.
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the ones the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
You certainly are not addressing the issue of whether or not the *objects*
which are _known as_ 'black holes' actually can and do exist.
The definition of 'black holes' that the rest of us use is here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
Note that there are only 3 physical properties that a black hole can
possibly possess - mass, charge, and angular momentum (all are quantities
conserved from the matter of which it could have been formed).
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical observation.
Can we detect the presence of an object so great in mass that it cannot emit
its own light, but that it can gravitationally refract light passing near
it?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalLensing.html
I believe the evidence for Einstein lensing is well verified.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/maverick_black_hole_000113.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
12 Jun 2005 04:19:21 PM |
|
|
[tadchem wrote]
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118588149.793407.53710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
Semantic quibbling.
[EL]
How about a distasteful name for starters?
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the ones the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
[EL]
If a cheep restaurant had "Pink salad topped with white nipples" on the
menu, and you like to go there to order it because you like how it does
not taste, then certainly it is your problem not mine.
I prefer the menus found at the Carlton Ritz Hotel Chain.
You certainly are not addressing the issue of whether or not the *objects*
which are _known as_ 'black holes' actually can and do exist.
[EL]
Unfortunately, the "had-been-looked-for" were supposed to not even emit
light.
The "claimed to be found" eject matter along the spin axis.
Like looking for a mother but finding a father and saying, "what the
heck, a course of hormones should do the trick". ;-)
The definition of 'black holes' that the rest of us use is here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
[EL]
Now I wonder if that was the definition or the re-re-re-re-definintion!
Note that there are only 3 physical properties that a black hole can
possibly possess - mass, charge, and angular momentum (all are quantities
conserved from the matter of which it could have been formed).
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical observation.
[EL]
Like in _Empirical Dreams_?
Can we detect the presence of an object so great in mass that it cannot emit
its own light,
[EL]
NO.
Absolutely not.
but that it can gravitationally refract light passing near it?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalLensing.html
I believe the evidence for Einstein lensing is well verified.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/maverick_black_hole_000113.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
[EL]
This type of debate is both exhausting and pointless.
The psychological obsession of relentlessly pursuing a multitude
"Empirical" verifications of a hypothesis should in fact reflects the
degree of confidence in the hypothesis.
Inventing equipment that produce numbers after being claimed to measure
something is easy to achieve.
Convincing every one with a specific interpretation of the alleged to
be found data is another thing.
In my days, one out of ten Ph. D. candidates could make it through the
seminar defending her / his work.
Today twelve out of ten and the coffee boy take the damn degree IFF
they provide a new verification of what Einstein "Genius" predicted
while scratching on paper.
Try eating fatty pork cutlets three times a day, seven times a week
then tell me if you can still enjoy the taste.
It makes you literally sick, health-wise and feeling-wise.
EL
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 05:00:27 AM |
|
|
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118611161.339170.56970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[EL]
How about a distasteful name for starters?
Is that an opinion or a request? <smirk>
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the ones
the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
[EL]
If a cheep restaurant had "Pink salad topped with white nipples" on the
menu, and you like to go there to order it because you like how it does
not taste, then certainly it is your problem not mine.
I prefer the menus found at the Carlton Ritz Hotel Chain.
Your metaphor is a little too outré for my comprehension, in addition to
appearing to be totally irrelevant to the issue of conventional definitions.
[EL]
Unfortunately, the "had-been-looked-for" were supposed to not even emit
light.
Agreed, I think. (your grammatical construction is a little nebulous here)
The "claimed to be found" eject matter along the spin axis.
AIUI, the jets are being ejected from the cloud of infalling matter, not
from the supermassive object itself. If the object has charge AND angular
momentum then a magnetic field is to be expected as well. Plasma in a
magnetic field will partition itself according to the angular momentum of
the individual ions, with some portions following the magnetic field more
closely than other portions.
Like looking for a mother but finding a father and saying, "what the
heck, a course of hormones should do the trick". ;-)
???
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical
observation.
[EL]
Like in _Empirical Dreams_?
Do you eschew empiricism? It *is* the cornerstone of the scientific method,
and the basis for all progress in science since Galileo, you know. It is
the *only* way we currently have to tell a good theory from a bad one, being
exempted from Goedel's Undecideability Theorem.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 05:45:10 AM |
|
|
[tadchem wrote]
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118611161.339170.56970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[EL]
How about a distasteful name for starters?
Is that an opinion or a request? <smirk>
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the ones
the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
[EL]
If a cheep restaurant had "Pink salad topped with white nipples" on the
menu, and you like to go there to order it because you like how it does
not taste, then certainly it is your problem not mine.
I prefer the menus found at the Carlton Ritz Hotel Chain.
Your metaphor is a little too outr=E9 for my comprehension, in addition to
appearing to be totally irrelevant to the issue of conventional definitio=
ns.
[EL]
Unfortunately, the "had-been-looked-for" were supposed to not even emit
light.
Agreed, I think. (your grammatical construction is a little nebulous here)
The "claimed to be found" eject matter along the spin axis.
AIUI, the jets are being ejected from the cloud of infalling matter, not
from the supermassive object itself. If the object has charge AND angular
momentum then a magnetic field is to be expected as well. Plasma in a
magnetic field will partition itself according to the angular momentum of
the individual ions, with some portions following the magnetic field more
closely than other portions.
Like looking for a mother but finding a father and saying, "what the
heck, a course of hormones should do the trick". ;-)
???
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical
observation.
[EL]
Like in _Empirical Dreams_?
Do you eschew empiricism? It *is* the cornerstone of the scientific metho=
d,
and the basis for all progress in science since Galileo, you know. It is
the *only* way we currently have to tell a good theory from a bad one, be=
ing
exempted from Goedel's Undecideability Theorem.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
[EL]
Out of my great respect to the quality of your posts, Tom, I will admit
to be "Old-Fashioned" when it comes to academic research and the
scientific method. If in my days a Ph. D. candidate came to me with a
prediction and wished to conduct experiments to look for some empirical
proof, I would have dismissed him outright as a clown.
We chemists do not "predict", we _Estimate_.
There is a fine "hair" between the two, and what a physicist may call a
prediction we might call an estimation or more empirically a titration.
If I had had a hypothesis and wished to investigate its validity, I
would rather conduct experiments related to the parameters and their
relational interactions to expose how they interact empirically and
then I may test my hypothesis rather than look for a phenomenon that
matches my dreams.
The Big-bang and the black-holes fiasco is totally out of my tastes and
contradicts the laws of cycles and recycles that nature persistently
demonstrate at every level and scale.
If there was any truth in this new-generation of alleged science I will
be more than happy to know that I am old enough not to see it come
true. To me it sounds like "Dead Zone" science-predictors with a pinch
of sorcery.
EL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raving Loonie" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 06:08:04 AM |
|
|
EL wrote:
[tadchem wrote]
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118611161.339170.56970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[EL]
How about a distasteful name for starters?
Is that an opinion or a request? <smirk>
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the on=
es
the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
[EL]
If a cheep restaurant had "Pink salad topped with white nipples" on t=
he
menu, and you like to go there to order it because you like how it do=
es
not taste, then certainly it is your problem not mine.
I prefer the menus found at the Carlton Ritz Hotel Chain.
Your metaphor is a little too outr=E9 for my comprehension, in addition=
to
appearing to be totally irrelevant to the issue of conventional definit=
ions.
[EL]
Unfortunately, the "had-been-looked-for" were supposed to not even em=
it
light.
Agreed, I think. (your grammatical construction is a little nebulous he=
re)
The "claimed to be found" eject matter along the spin axis.
AIUI, the jets are being ejected from the cloud of infalling matter, not
from the supermassive object itself. If the object has charge AND angul=
ar
momentum then a magnetic field is to be expected as well. Plasma in a
magnetic field will partition itself according to the angular momentum =
of
the individual ions, with some portions following the magnetic field mo=
re
closely than other portions.
Like looking for a mother but finding a father and saying, "what the
heck, a course of hormones should do the trick". ;-)
???
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical
observation.
[EL]
Like in _Empirical Dreams_?
Do you eschew empiricism? It *is* the cornerstone of the scientific met=
hod,
and the basis for all progress in science since Galileo, you know. It is
the *only* way we currently have to tell a good theory from a bad one, =
being
exempted from Goedel's Undecideability Theorem.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
[EL]
Out of my great respect to the quality of your posts, Tom, I will admit
to be "Old-Fashioned" when it comes to academic research and the
scientific method. If in my days a Ph. D. candidate came to me with a
prediction and wished to conduct experiments to look for some empirical
proof, I would have dismissed him outright as a clown.
We chemists do not "predict", we _Estimate_.
There is a fine "hair" between the two, and what a physicist may call a
prediction we might call an estimation or more empirically a titration.
If I had had a hypothesis and wished to investigate its validity, I
would rather conduct experiments related to the parameters and their
relational interactions to expose how they interact empirically and
then I may test my hypothesis rather than look for a phenomenon that
matches my dreams.
The Big-bang and the black-holes fiasco is totally out of my tastes and
contradicts the laws of cycles and recycles that nature persistently
demonstrate at every level and scale.
If there was any truth in this new-generation of alleged science I will
be more than happy to know that I am old enough not to see it come
true. To me it sounds like "Dead Zone" science-predictors with a pinch
of sorcery.
EL
Your comment is interesting for me, EL.
In it, I can see that chemists work with a paradigm which differs to
that of physics and/or astronomy; notwithstanding that each discipline
uses many paradigms. Each disicpline,.. each sub-discipline is it's
own breed ... holds to its own in-house perspective(s).
Until I read your posting, I did not realize the extent to which I have
been influenced by my own interaction with physical chemists.
RL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
12 Jun 2005 05:21:33 PM |
|
|
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1118611161.339170.56970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[tadchem wrote]
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118588149.793407.53710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
Semantic quibbling.
[EL]
How about a distasteful name for starters?
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the ones the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
[EL]
If a cheep restaurant had "Pink salad topped with white nipples" on the
menu, and you like to go there to order it because you like how it does
not taste, then certainly it is your problem not mine.
I prefer the menus found at the Carlton Ritz Hotel Chain.
You certainly are not addressing the issue of whether or not the *objects*
which are _known as_ 'black holes' actually can and do exist.
[EL]
Unfortunately, the "had-been-looked-for" were supposed to not even emit
light.
The "claimed to be found" eject matter along the spin axis.
Like looking for a mother but finding a father and saying, "what the
heck, a course of hormones should do the trick". ;-)
The definition of 'black holes' that the rest of us use is here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
[EL]
Now I wonder if that was the definition or the re-re-re-re-definintion!
Note that there are only 3 physical properties that a black hole can
possibly possess - mass, charge, and angular momentum (all are quantities
conserved from the matter of which it could have been formed).
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical observation.
[EL]
Like in _Empirical Dreams_?
Can we detect the presence of an object so great in mass that it cannot emit
its own light,
[EL]
NO.
Absolutely not.
but that it can gravitationally refract light passing near it?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalLensing.html
I believe the evidence for Einstein lensing is well verified.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/maverick_black_hole_000113.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
[EL]
This type of debate is both exhausting and pointless.
The psychological obsession of relentlessly pursuing a multitude
"Empirical" verifications of a hypothesis should in fact reflects the
degree of confidence in the hypothesis.
Inventing equipment that produce numbers after being claimed to measure
something is easy to achieve.
Convincing every one with a specific interpretation of the alleged to
be found data is another thing.
In my days, one out of ten Ph. D. candidates could make it through the
seminar defending her / his work.
I think that students can be glad that your days are over now:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MolBioBra.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MolBioBra2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Conclude.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Hbar.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LadySanity.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
12 Jun 2005 04:24:48 PM |
|
|
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
12 Jun 2005 06:00:07 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Nick
<macromitch@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 12 Jun 2005 14:24:48 -0700
<1118611488.916097.134150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
So OK, explain Cygnus-X1.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 02:18:03 AM |
|
|
[The Ghost In The Machine wrote]
In sci.physics, Nick
<macromitch@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 12 Jun 2005 14:24:48 -0700
<1118611488.916097.134150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
So OK, explain Cygnus-X1.
[EL]
Read.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1>
{Open Quote}
"considered to be one of the most likely black hole candidates."
{Close Quote}
The reasoning behind being such a candidate is:
{Open Quote}
"Cyg X-1 is a binary star that contains a O9-B0 super-giant (with a
surface temperature of 31000 kelvins) and a _compact object_. The mass
of the super-giant is approximately 20-30 solar masses. The compact
object has a mass of 7-13 solar masses; as the largest possible mass of
a neutron star can not exceed three solar masses, it is __believed__ to
be a black hole."
{Close Quote}
N.B. Within the quotes, the underline and the double underline are
mine.
{
Tiger Woods holds a dead rat by the tail to clear the golf grounds by
handing it over to his golf cart driver.
Then he softly drives the white golf ball into the dark hole in the
ground and scores.
}
To call a cold star "an object" was as far as the editor could betray
the honest expression and he seems to have dared not to call it a hole
right from start because it is not. Then when he came to conclude his
reasoning he writes: "it is believed to be a black hole" inducing the
same feeling Tiger Woods had when he was holding the dead rat by its
tail. I am sure that the editor is fundamentally an honest person who
was under great pressure to coin that paragraph, because he did not
dare to say "Then it must be a black hole"
Now remember how readily a white golf ball would fall under gravity
into a hole dug for the game.
Then switch back to the binary _STARS_, which means _TWO STARS_, that
is ONE STAR PLUS ONE STAR, and then all what follows must be a
speculative and interpretational talk-show.
Why would a relatively young Super-Giant of 30 solar masses find itself
in the company of the smaller yet extremely older cold star of 13 solar
masses
(less than half the mass comparing limits)?
How about the Big-bang then, or should we abandon and hide the
contradicting parts when boosting a fantasy of another part!
I was under the infallible impression that the radius of the universe
was a time axis such that one may not assume that parts of the solar
system was older than the solar system itself.
If that is the inevitable and logical fact to conclude, then why would
the smaller star collapse faster than the bigger star that is evidently
more massive, while under the same gravitational laws!
It is extremely absurd to assume that the only explanation is the one
we already speculated even though it is extremely improbable.
If the given data was absolutely precise and doubtless, then there
should be another explanation or interpretation to describe the physics
behind the found data.
Excluding the option of being a neutron star does not end all the
unknown yet options because scientific research did not come to an end
and should not come to an end.
In the old days of science, before the circus century, scientists would
study the data found by discoverers and experimenters, then extract the
conclusions deductively, rather than blindly predicting a fantasy then
looking for a candidate that is most likely and then believed to be
what was being looked for.
I am not an astronomy physicist, but if I had a first-hands-on raw
data, I may be able to work out a more logical hypothesis to model the
data.
Physicists are depriving themselves from the honour of putting forth
new theories by being enslaved to speculated predictions.
Every comedy farce show must come to an end, because the audience can
only laugh for sometime before they continue to carry on with their
lives.
EL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 02:20:00 AM |
|
|
[The Ghost In The Machine wrote]
In sci.physics, Nick
<macromitch@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 12 Jun 2005 14:24:48 -0700
<1118611488.916097.134150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
So OK, explain Cygnus-X1.
[EL]
Read.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1>
{Open Quote}
"considered to be one of the most likely black hole candidates."
{Close Quote}
The reasoning behind being such a candidate is:
{Open Quote}
"Cyg X-1 is a binary star that contains a O9-B0 super-giant (with a
surface temperature of 31000 kelvins) and a _compact object_. The mass
of the super-giant is approximately 20-30 solar masses. The compact
object has a mass of 7-13 solar masses; as the largest possible mass of
a neutron star can not exceed three solar masses, it is __believed__ to
be a black hole."
{Close Quote}
N.B. Within the quotes, the underline and the double underline are
mine.
{
Tiger Woods holds a dead rat by the tail to clear the golf grounds by
handing it over to his golf cart driver.
Then he softly drives the white golf ball into the dark hole in the
ground and scores.
}
To call a cold star "an object" was as far as the editor could betray
the honest expression and he seems to have dared not to call it a hole
right from start because it is not. Then when he came to conclude his
reasoning he writes: "it is believed to be a black hole" inducing the
same feeling Tiger Woods had when he was holding the dead rat by its
tail. I am sure that the editor is fundamentally an honest person who
was under great pressure to coin that paragraph, because he did not
dare to say "Then it must be a black hole"
Now remember how readily a white golf ball would fall under gravity
into a hole dug for the game.
Then switch back to the binary _STARS_, which means _TWO STARS_, that
is ONE STAR PLUS ONE STAR, and then all what follows must be a
speculative and interpretational talk-show.
Why would a relatively young Super-Giant of 30 solar masses find itself
in the company of the smaller yet extremely older cold star of 13 solar
masses
(less than half the mass comparing limits)?
How about the Big-bang then, or should we abandon and hide the
contradicting parts when boosting a fantasy of another part!
I was under the infallible impression that the radius of the universe
was a time axis such that one may not assume that parts of the solar
system was older than the solar system itself.
If that is the inevitable and logical fact to conclude, then why would
the smaller star collapse faster than the bigger star that is evidently
more massive, while under the same gravitational laws!
It is extremely absurd to assume that the only explanation is the one
we already speculated even though it is extremely improbable.
If the given data was absolutely precise and doubtless, then there
should be another explanation or interpretation to describe the physics
behind the found data.
Excluding the option of being a neutron star does not end all the
unknown yet options because scientific research did not come to an end
and should not come to an end.
In the old days of science, before the circus century, scientists would
study the data found by discoverers and experimenters, then extract the
conclusions deductively, rather than blindly predicting a fantasy then
looking for a candidate that is most likely and then believed to be
what was being looked for.
I am not an astronomy physicist, but if I had a first-hands-on raw
data, I may be able to work out a more logical hypothesis to model the
data.
Physicists are depriving themselves from the honour of putting forth
new theories by being enslaved to speculated predictions.
Every comedy farce show must come to an end, because the audience can
only laugh for sometime before they continue to carry on with their
lives.
EL
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 06:00:04 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, EL
<hemetis@gmail.com>
wrote
on 13 Jun 2005 00:20:00 -0700
<1118647200.023317.281150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[The Ghost In The Machine wrote]
In sci.physics, Nick
<macromitch@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 12 Jun 2005 14:24:48 -0700
<1118611488.916097.134150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
So OK, explain Cygnus-X1.
[EL]
Read.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1>
{Open Quote}
"considered to be one of the most likely black hole candidates."
{Close Quote}
The reasoning behind being such a candidate is:
{Open Quote}
"Cyg X-1 is a binary star that contains a O9-B0 super-giant (with a
surface temperature of 31000 kelvins) and a _compact object_. The mass
of the super-giant is approximately 20-30 solar masses. The compact
object has a mass of 7-13 solar masses; as the largest possible mass of
a neutron star can not exceed three solar masses, it is __believed__ to
be a black hole."
{Close Quote}
N.B. Within the quotes, the underline and the double underline are
mine.
[snip for brevity]
In the old days of science, before the circus century, scientists would
study the data found by discoverers and experimenters, then extract the
conclusions deductively, rather than blindly predicting a fantasy then
looking for a candidate that is most likely and then believed to be
what was being looked for.
I am not an astronomy physicist, but if I had a first-hands-on raw
data, I may be able to work out a more logical hypothesis to model the
data.
Physicists are depriving themselves from the honour of putting forth
new theories by being enslaved to speculated predictions.
Every comedy farce show must come to an end, because the audience can
only laugh for sometime before they continue to carry on with their
lives.
EL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_object
(linked to) suggests that the wording can apply to a white
dwarf, a neutron star, a strange star, or a black hole.
Since black holes don't exist in Nick's world, and Cygnus
X-1 is about 3 times M_sun, well above Chandrasekhar's
limit of 1.4-1.5 -- what is it?
Alternatives are mentioned; Gravastar in particular attempts to
deal with the black hole information paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar
Ultimately, one gets to another interesting system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_433
The article needs some editing (it's vs its, "obsevatories") but SS_433
apparently suffers from relativistic redshift.
Sounds like a nice place to visit from a scientific standpoint, but
living there is out of the question... :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 06:40:01 AM |
|
|
[EL]
Try to answer the questions you snipped "for brevity".
I really need to read some attempts to answer them.
Kind regards.
EL
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, EL
<hemetis@gmail.com>
wrote
on 13 Jun 2005 00:20:00 -0700
<1118647200.023317.281150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[The Ghost In The Machine wrote]
In sci.physics, Nick
<macromitch@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 12 Jun 2005 14:24:48 -0700
<1118611488.916097.134150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
So OK, explain Cygnus-X1.
[EL]
Read.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1>
{Open Quote}
"considered to be one of the most likely black hole candidates."
{Close Quote}
The reasoning behind being such a candidate is:
{Open Quote}
"Cyg X-1 is a binary star that contains a O9-B0 super-giant (with a
surface temperature of 31000 kelvins) and a _compact object_. The mass
of the super-giant is approximately 20-30 solar masses. The compact
object has a mass of 7-13 solar masses; as the largest possible mass of
a neutron star can not exceed three solar masses, it is __believed__ to
be a black hole."
{Close Quote}
N.B. Within the quotes, the underline and the double underline are
mine.
[snip for brevity]
In the old days of science, before the circus century, scientists would
study the data found by discoverers and experimenters, then extract the
conclusions deductively, rather than blindly predicting a fantasy then
looking for a candidate that is most likely and then believed to be
what was being looked for.
I am not an astronomy physicist, but if I had a first-hands-on raw
data, I may be able to work out a more logical hypothesis to model the
data.
Physicists are depriving themselves from the honour of putting forth
new theories by being enslaved to speculated predictions.
Every comedy farce show must come to an end, because the audience can
only laugh for sometime before they continue to carry on with their
lives.
EL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_object
(linked to) suggests that the wording can apply to a white
dwarf, a neutron star, a strange star, or a black hole.
Since black holes don't exist in Nick's world, and Cygnus
X-1 is about 3 times M_sun, well above Chandrasekhar's
limit of 1.4-1.5 -- what is it?
Alternatives are mentioned; Gravastar in particular attempts to
deal with the black hole information paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar
Ultimately, one gets to another interesting system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_433
The article needs some editing (it's vs its, "obsevatories") but SS_433
apparently suffers from relativistic redshift.
Sounds like a nice place to visit from a scientific standpoint, but
living there is out of the question... :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 02:00:49 AM |
|
|
[The Ghost In The Machine wrote]
In sci.physics, Nick
<macromitch@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 12 Jun 2005 14:24:48 -0700
<1118611488.916097.134150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
So OK, explain Cygnus-X1.
[EL]
Read.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1>
{Open Quote}
"considered to be one of the most likely black hole candidates."
{Close Quote}
The reasoning behind being such a candidate is:
{Open Quote}
"Cyg X-1 is a binary star that contains a O9-B0 super-giant (with a
surface temperature of 31000 kelvins) and a _compact object_. The mass
of the super-giant is approximately 20-30 solar masses. The compact
object has a mass of 7-13 solar masses; as the largest possible mass of
a neutron star can not exceed three solar masses, it is __believed__ to
be a black hole."
{Close Quote}
N.B. Within the quotes, the underline and the double underline are
mine.
{
Tiger Woods holds dead rat by the tail to clear the golf grounds by
handing it over to his golf cart driver.
Then he softly drives the white golf ball into dark hole in the ground
and scores.
}
To call a cold star "an object" was as far as the editor could betray
the honest expression and he seems to have dared not to call it a hole
right from start because it is not. Then when he cam to conclude his
reasoning he writes: "it is believed to be a black hole" inducing the
same feeling Tiger Woods had when he was holding the dead rat by its
tail. I am sure that the editor is fundamentally an honest person who
was under great pressure to coin that paragraph, because he did not
dare to say "Then it must be a black hole"
Now remember how readily a white golf ball would fall under gravity
into a hole dug for the game.
Then switch back to the binary _STARS_, which means _TWO STARS_, that
is ONE STAR PLUS ONE STAR, and then all what follows must be a
speculative and interpretational talk-show.
Why would a relatively young Super-Giant of 30 solar masses find itself
in the company of the smaller yet extremely older cold star of 13 solar
masses (less than half the mass comparing limits)?
How about the Big-bang then or should we abandon and hide the
contradicting parts when boosting a fantasy of another part. I was
under the infallible impression that the radius of the universe was a
time axis such that one may not assume that parts of the solar system
was older than the solar system itself.
If that is the inevitable and logical fact to conclude, then why would
the smaller star collapse faster than the bigger star that is evidently
more massive, while under the same gravitational laws!
It is extremely absurd to assume that the only explanation is the one
we already speculated even though it is extremely improbable.
If the given data was absolutely precise and doubtless, then there
should be another explanation or interpretation to describe the physics
behind the found data.
Excluding the option of being a neutron star does not end all the
unknown yet options because scientific research did not come to an end
and should not come to an end.
In the old days of science, before the circus century, scientists would
study the data found by discoverers and experimenters, then extract the
conclusions deductively, rather than blindly predicting a fantasy then
looking for a candidate that is most likely and then believed to be
what was being looked for.
I am not an astronomy physicist, but if I had a first-hands-on raw
data, I may be able to work out a more logical hypothesis to model the
data.
Physicists are depriving themselves from the honour of putting forth
new theories by being enslaved to speculated predictions.
Every comedy farce show must come to an end, because the audience can
only laugh for sometime before they continue to carry on with their
lives.
EL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
12 Jun 2005 05:25:09 PM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
Nick wrote:
Black holes do not exist but an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --
nightbat
Correct Nick and those fields are understood as inverse strong
gravity zones.
ponder on,
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Twittering One" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
12 Jun 2005 05:41:29 PM |
|
|
"Black holes do not exist
But an extreme of gravity does.
Mitch -- Light Falls --"
~ Nick
"Correct Nick,
And those fields are understood as
Inverse strong gravity
Zones."
~ nightbat
"... O, cursed spite,
that ever I was born to set it right!"
~ Hamlet,
Act I, Scene 5
"Perhaps, if so, you set your sights,
Your insightful inspiration, your inhaled breath,
Upon your Breadth of Soul, your Pithy Wit,
Death's
Vanished point, your diminished
Perspective?
If so, perhaps your sails cross
The Rubicon, as your keystone's center remembers
An intricare mechanism
That unlocks?"
~ Arrowroot
"The VOID ~ !
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. I Already Told You That |
12 Jun 2005 05:21:40 PM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
hemetis@gmail.com wrote:
[tadchem wrote]
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118588149.793407.53710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
Semantic quibbling.
[EL]
How about a distasteful name for starters?
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the ones the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
[EL]
If a cheep restaurant had "Pink salad topped with white nipples" on the
menu, and you like to go there to order it because you like how it does
not taste, then certainly it is your problem not mine.
I prefer the menus found at the Carlton Ritz Hotel Chain.
You certainly are not addressing the issue of whether or not the *objects*
which are _known as_ 'black holes' actually can and do exist.
[EL]
Unfortunately, the "had-been-looked-for" were supposed to not even emit
light.
The "claimed to be found" eject matter along the spin axis.
Like looking for a mother but finding a father and saying, "what the
heck, a course of hormones should do the trick". ;-)
The definition of 'black holes' that the rest of us use is here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
[EL]
Now I wonder if that was the definition or the re-re-re-re-definintion!
Note that there are only 3 physical properties that a black hole can
possibly possess - mass, charge, and angular momentum (all are quantities
conserved from the matter of which it could have been formed).
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical observation.
[EL]
Like in _Empirical Dreams_?
Can we detect the presence of an object so great in mass that it cannot emit
its own light,
[EL]
NO.
Absolutely not.
but that it can gravitationally refract light passing near it?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalLensing.html
I believe the evidence for Einstein lensing is well verified.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/maverick_black_hole_000113.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
[EL]
This type of debate is both exhausting and pointless.
The psychological obsession of relentlessly pursuing a multitude
"Empirical" verifications of a hypothesis should in fact reflects the
degree of confidence in the hypothesis.
Inventing equipment that produce numbers after being claimed to measure
something is easy to achieve.
Convincing every one with a specific interpretation of the alleged to
be found data is another thing.
In my days, one out of ten Ph. D. candidates could make it through the
seminar defending her / his work.
Today twelve out of ten and the coffee boy take the damn degree IFF
they provide a new verification of what Einstein "Genius" predicted
while scratching on paper.
Try eating fatty pork cutlets three times a day, seven times a week
then tell me if you can still enjoy the taste.
It makes you literally sick, health-wise and feeling-wise.
EL
nightbat
Ok, ok, fellows, then try selling nightbat licensed 1st Official
Contact Darla T-shirts to help provide adequate nutrition during higher
or post grad college schooling days versus suffering mal nutrition at
the hands of Ramen noodles and curled pork rinds. Forget Art Deco coffee
boy and so what if he may have gotten a higher degree in liberal arts or
communication. No match for the science boys looking for get out of my
way TOE or securing a Darla Starship.
ponder on,
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. I Already Told You That |
13 Jun 2005 09:28:39 AM |
|
|
nightbat <nightbat@home.ffni.com> wrote:
nightbat wrote
hemetis@gmail.com wrote:
[tadchem wrote]
<hemetis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118588149.793407.53710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
Semantic quibbling.
[EL]
How about a distasteful name for starters?
*Your* definitions of "black" and "hole" are not necessarily the ones the
rest of us are obliged to follow at all times.
[EL]
If a cheep restaurant had "Pink salad topped with white nipples" on the
menu, and you like to go there to order it because you like how it does
not taste, then certainly it is your problem not mine.
I prefer the menus found at the Carlton Ritz Hotel Chain.
You certainly are not addressing the issue of whether or not the *objects*
which are _known as_ 'black holes' actually can and do exist.
[EL]
Unfortunately, the "had-been-looked-for" were supposed to not even emit
light.
The "claimed to be found" eject matter along the spin axis.
Like looking for a mother but finding a father and saying, "what the
heck, a course of hormones should do the trick". ;-)
The definition of 'black holes' that the rest of us use is here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
[EL]
Now I wonder if that was the definition or the re-re-re-re-definintion!
Note that there are only 3 physical properties that a black hole can
possibly possess - mass, charge, and angular momentum (all are quantities
conserved from the matter of which it could have been formed).
The question of "do black holes exist" is resolved by empirical
observation.
[EL]
Like in _Empirical Dreams_?
Can we detect the presence of an object so great in mass that it cannot
emit
its own light,
[EL]
NO.
Absolutely not.
but that it can gravitationally refract light passing near it?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalLensing.html
I believe the evidence for Einstein lensing is well verified.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/maverick_black_hole_000113.
html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
[EL]
This type of debate is both exhausting and pointless.
The psychological obsession of relentlessly pursuing a multitude
"Empirical" verifications of a hypothesis should in fact reflects the
degree of confidence in the hypothesis.
Inventing equipment that produce numbers after being claimed to measure
something is easy to achieve.
Convincing every one with a specific interpretation of the alleged to
be found data is another thing.
In my days, one out of ten Ph. D. candidates could make it through the
seminar defending her / his work.
Today twelve out of ten and the coffee boy take the damn degree IFF
they provide a new verification of what Einstein "Genius" predicted
while scratching on paper.
Try eating fatty pork cutlets three times a day, seven times a week
then tell me if you can still enjoy the taste.
It makes you literally sick, health-wise and feeling-wise.
EL
nightbat
Ok, ok, fellows, then try selling nightbat licensed 1st Official
Contact Darla T-shirts to help provide adequate nutrition during higher
or post grad college schooling days versus suffering mal nutrition at
the hands of Ramen noodles and curled pork rinds. Forget Art Deco coffee
boy and so what if he may have gotten a higher degree in liberal arts or
communication. No match for the science boys looking for get out of my
way TOE or securing a Darla Starship.
ponder on,
the nightbat
Do these T-shirts go with the Star Trek pajamas, fruitbat?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/alexa/socks.html>
<http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/kazoo/kazoo.html>
"We don't live on "islands". The name of my home-world is Manda."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 08:28:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
It is still a fantasy chasing a wild goose.
Well, seeing a peak at the red wavelengths in the spectrum of blackbody
radiation is also going to set your teeth on edge.
I think I have a lovely black light poster of blackbody radiation
somewhere in my closet.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
13 Jun 2005 09:19:36 AM |
|
|
[PD wrote]
hemetis@gmail.com wrote:
There are things, but we may not call just anything a hole or call it
black because holes are the absence of material while black is the
absence of light.
It is still a fantasy chasing a wild goose.
Well, seeing a peak at the red wavelengths in the spectrum of blackbody
radiation is also going to set your teeth on edge.
I think I have a lovely black light poster of blackbody radiation
somewhere in my closet.
PD
[EL]
You criticism is noted and very well taken.
We use "black" to indicate the absence of visible-light rather than any
general concept of electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, I must
regretfully inform you that "Black-light" fluorescent lamps radiate
ultraviolet radiations, unlike the infrared of the black-body (heat)
radiation.
Since we are judging the postulates of black-holes, we should
understand that all of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum
propagates in vacuum at the same speed, therefore, postulating a
gravitational grip from which no light can escape, should encompass all
of the spectra including visible light the absence of which seems
black.
I cannot avoid thanking you deeply for your remark, because it only
increased the moronic name with extra idiocy, since what was really
meant by "black" in black-holes was the inability of all of the EM
radiation spectra from escaping that gravity. Hence, calling them black
would be of much lesser significance than if what was meant was only
the visible spectrum.
FYI. "BL" effect is caused by fluorescence, where higher energy waves
are absorbed then visible light is emitted when excited electrons
return to their original energy states. Calcium fluoride is the natural
compound after the name of which the phenomenon took its name.
Then the name "Black-light" does not mean that light is black but that
invisible radiations turn visible under the phenomenon of fluorescence,
and that is how the linguistic weight of invisible-visible would
correspond to black-light.
Oh! By the way, I lost all my teeth, thus no such edge could be found
for setting them. :-)
Kind regards.
EL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
14 Jun 2005 02:34:32 AM |
|
|
Ever hear the term "center of gravity"?
Well a galaxy has one, and to an outsider (and to a less observable
extent, an insider), might suffer the illusion that all the matter of
the galaxy is ACTUALLY at that position!
Voila', "black hole"
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
14 Jun 2005 03:09:12 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1118734472.815772.76910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ever hear the term "center of gravity"?
Well a galaxy has one, and to an outsider (and to a less observable
extent, an insider), might suffer the illusion that all the matter of
the galaxy is ACTUALLY at that position!
Voila', "black hole"
Pay attention, child.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
14 Jun 2005 03:21:57 AM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" wrote:
Ever hear the term "center of gravity"?
Well a galaxy has one, and to an outsider (and to a less observable
extent, an insider), might suffer the illusion that all the matter of
the galaxy is ACTUALLY at that position!
Voila', "black hole"
Jim G
c'=c+v
nightbat
No, no, I tell you it's a " Black Comet " the largest
theoretical natural object unseen in the Universe. Only the effects on
its surrounding local space bodies is observable but the body of the
comet itself is so elusive it's terrifying. Forget trying to main stream
catch up with their recent coined gravistars or gravastars, for the
original nightbat net Mother of all center of galaxy comets is your most
center of gravity fleeting one. The nightbat " Black Comet " is the one
that started it all, and look out for it might be coming to a friendly
bookstore nearest you. It's gigantic, it's horrific, it's colossal,
stupendous even, space-time altering, all come near it devouring,
apparent no end to its appetite, non light emitting, a monster of size
space event, and locally centrally hiding in our Milky way galaxy. Make
no mistake about it, it's huge very huge, it boggles the normal senses
huge. Even Dr. Einstein pondered about it but never got close despite
trying to figure it out all his life.
Yes, the nightbat profound singularity resolution of altered condensed
quantum fluid magnetic energy "Black Comet ", the one and only, get out
of its way, giant space body event. Nothing compares to it or even comes
close. The stuff new galaxies are made of, and that even Hawking finally
reversed himself about. A streaking black beauty with inverse pulling
horizon tail no one can catch and even if you did, heaven help you.
ponder on,
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
14 Jun 2005 06:57:47 AM |
|
|
nightbat wrote:
<snip>
No, no, I tell you it's a " Black Comet " the largest
theoretical natural object unseen in the Universe. Only the effects on
its surrounding local space bodies is observable but the body of the
comet itself is so elusive it's terrifying. Forget trying to main stream
catch up with their recent coined gravistars or gravastars, for the
original nightbat net Mother of all center of galaxy comets is your most
center of gravity fleeting one. The nightbat " Black Comet " is the one
that started it all, and look out for it might be coming to a friendly
bookstore nearest you. It's gigantic, it's horrific, it's colossal,
stupendous even, space-time altering, all come near it devouring,
apparent no end to its appetite, non light emitting, a monster of size
space event, and locally centrally hiding in our Milky way galaxy. Make
no mistake about it, it's huge very huge, it boggles the normal senses
huge. Even Dr. Einstein pondered about it but never got close despite
trying to figure it out all his life.
Yes, the nightbat profound singularity resolution of altered condensed
quantum fluid magnetic energy "Black Comet ", the one and only, get out
of its way, giant space body event. Nothing compares to it or even comes
close. The stuff new galaxies are made of, and that even Hawking finally
reversed himself about. A streaking black beauty with inverse pulling
horizon tail no one can catch and even if you did, heaven help you.
Just one thin dime! One tenth of a dollar! Come one! Come all! Step
right up!
<snirk>
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
14 Jun 2005 09:00:10 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, tadchem
<thomas.davidson@dla.mil>
wrote
on 14 Jun 2005 04:57:47 -0700
<1118750267.338324.96110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
nightbat wrote:
<snip>
No, no, I tell you it's a " Black Comet " the largest
theoretical natural object unseen in the Universe. Only the effects on
its surrounding local space bodies is observable but the body of the
comet itself is so elusive it's terrifying. Forget trying to main stream
catch up with their recent coined gravistars or gravastars, for the
original nightbat net Mother of all center of galaxy comets is your most
center of gravity fleeting one. The nightbat " Black Comet " is the one
that started it all, and look out for it might be coming to a friendly
bookstore nearest you. It's gigantic, it's horrific, it's colossal,
stupendous even, space-time altering, all come near it devouring,
apparent no end to its appetite, non light emitting, a monster of size
space event, and locally centrally hiding in our Milky way galaxy. Make
no mistake about it, it's huge very huge, it boggles the normal senses
huge. Even Dr. Einstein pondered about it but never got close despite
trying to figure it out all his life.
Yes, the nightbat profound singularity resolution of altered condensed
quantum fluid magnetic energy "Black Comet ", the one and only, get out
of its way, giant space body event. Nothing compares to it or even comes
close. The stuff new galaxies are made of, and that even Hawking finally
reversed himself about. A streaking black beauty with inverse pulling
horizon tail no one can catch and even if you did, heaven help you.
Just one thin dime! One tenth of a dollar! Come one! Come all! Step
right up!
<snirk>
A "black comet"? That's about as sensible as HW's Cepheid binaries.
(In other words, not very.)
Nightbat did get two things right though -- the central object at the
center of our galaxy is huge, and it has yet to be directly observed,
AFAIK. (I'm not sure how it can be directly observed, except perhaps as
a shadow on the CMBR.)
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist. |
14 Jun 2005 07:44:48 AM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
tadchem wrote:
nightbat wrote:
<snip>
No, no, I tell you it's a " Black Comet " the largest
theoretical natural object unseen in the Universe. Only the effects on
its surrounding local space bodies is observable but the body of the
comet itself is so elusive it's terrifying. Forget trying to main stream
catch up with their recent coined gravistars or gravastars, for the
original nightbat net Mother of all center of galaxy comets is your most
center of gravity fleeting one. The nightbat " Black Comet " is the one
that started it all, and look out for it might be coming to a friendly
bookstore nearest you. It's gigantic, it's horrific, it's colossal,
stupendous even, space-time altering, all come near it devouring,
apparent no end to its appetite, non light emitting, a monster of size
space event, and locally centrally hiding in our Milky way galaxy. Make
no mistake about it, it's huge very huge, it boggles the normal senses
huge. Even Dr. Einstein pondered about it but never got close despite
trying to figure it out all his life.
Yes, the nightbat profound singularity resolution of altered condensed
quantum fluid magnetic energy "Black Comet ", the one and only, get out
of its way, giant space body event. Nothing compares to it or even comes
close. The stuff new galaxies are made of, and that even Hawking finally
reversed himself about. A streaking black beauty with inverse pulling
horizon tail no one can catch and even if you did, heaven help you.
Tom
Just one thin dime! One tenth of a dollar! Come one! Come all! Step
right up!
<snirk>
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
nightbat
No, no, Tom, it has to be more then a dime, because a dime isn't
worth a plum nickel today! Ha, ha, ha, yes, that's the spirit, step
right up, don't be afraid. Los Alamos wasn't and now they try to
gravastar claim it, ha, ha, ha, ha, the most terrifying enigmatic
cosmological event possible. The original normal gravity defying
nightbat " Black Comet ". So massive, so flat out cool, nothing like it
in the entire Universe. Please don't lose your mind, stand back unless
you have nerves of steel, for it has black hole scientist fooled the
best until the nightbat. Hopefully streaking per Officer Double-A's
insistence to a local book store or library nearest you.
that's the ticket
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
