From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:49:44 +0100 Archived: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:08:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:04:34 -0400 >Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:37:59 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast >>Also completely discounted are 'worm-holes' and their so-called >>parental 'black holes'. I'm on record - see: >>http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/jan/m10-008.shtml >>but there's earlier posts) <snip> >Here is a recent article reporting 26 black holes discovered in >the Andromeda galaxy. >http://tinyurl.com/n5nqlak >As you said, the evidence is indirect. >"The researchers studied the peculiarities in the X-ray light >given off by the objects to determine whether they were more >likely to be black holes or dense objects called neutron stars. >They discriminated black holes belonging to Andromeda from >brighter, more distant supermassive black holes at the center of >other galaxies by studying the patterns of variation in their >brightness." Hello William, The usual claim of black-hole apologists - that "they're very difficult to spot by direct means, therefore we must infer their presence" is just rubbish. I.e if even one black hole existed in the observable universe its presence would be obvious - as a big circular 'target' of bent and re-focussed light, with a tiny dark centre (event horizon), surrounded by an unnaturally wide ring of darkness (no background starlight around it - that would've all been bent inwards by the "infinite" gravity of the 'black hole', to form that target of light). For anyone's peace-of-mind would recommend, whenever reading 'black hole', just substitute neutron star or massy body (or galactic core - which might well have either). There's several reasons to say there's no such thing as a 'black hole': defined as an infinitely dense mass surrounded by an 'event horizon' (for light). To see some of those reasons, put forward by sensible physicists, try googling "Black Holes Don't Exist". The original 'theory' was actually just speculative chat by a fairly accomplished mathematician physicist (not a 'real' physicist - Feynman quote), and was only talking about about the stages of density of star-like bodies, like "neutron stars" and possibly beyond. A real physicist would have been thinking in terms of physical limiting factors, like accretion and spin, way before the fanciful idea of a 'singularity' occurred to anybody. But mathematicians don't think much about reality. In fact decades later, when Hawking grabbed the idea as a 'sexy/scary' money-spinner he _still_ didn't initially realize that any putative 'black hole' would have to have gained huge spin - a prohibitive amount of spin, way past the point where 'conservation of angular momentum' allows the breakdown of the axis line, forcing plasma and radiation 'jets' of enormous energy to emerge from the poles, so re-distributing the matter of _any_ super-dense body well before a magic (and impossible) 'singularity' could happen. [His early mathematical 'design' was of a stationary, non-spinning object - if you can believe that!] If you think about it, a putative 'black hole' (an infinitely dense mass surrounded by an 'event horizon') breaks the 'laws of physics', notably the conservation laws, as does the Big Bang (another sexy/scary gimmick designed to keep tax-payers funding rolling in). Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp