Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429443 > unrolled thread

The Other Side of a Black Hole

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-19 10:55 -0700
    Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-19 20:23 +0200
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-19 11:50 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-20 13:16 +0200
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 09:08 -0700
            Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-26 09:45 +0200
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-26 01:05 -0700
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 11:36 -0700
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 13:05 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-19 14:25 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-19 20:19 -0700
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 21:46 -0700
            Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 20:54 -0700
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 22:31 -0700
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-19 22:09 -0500
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-20 12:00 +0200
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 17:32 -0500
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 12:53 -0700
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 15:30 -0500
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 10:55 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 11:32 -0700
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-22 00:17 -0700
            Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-22 20:33 -0700
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 09:21 -0700
    Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2017-08-20 09:20 -0400
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 11:34 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-22 19:40 +0200
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 10:56 -0700
            Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-23 19:29 +0200
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 12:57 -0500
                Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-24 08:01 +0200
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 12:15 -0700
                Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-24 08:05 +0200
                  Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:41 -0700
    Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-24 16:16 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#429443 — The Other Side of a Black Hole

The Other Side of a Black Hole


it appears that yous people
have no idea what lies, or
what it looks like at
The Other Side of a Black Hole.


Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#429447

Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
> The Other Side of a Black Hole
>
>
> it appears that yous people
> have no idea what lies, or
> what it looks like at
> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
>
>
> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
>

The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.


That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.

Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere. 
That is a black hole time reverted.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429448

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > The Other Side of a Black Hole
> >
> >
> > it appears that yous people
> > have no idea what lies, or
> > what it looks like at
> > The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> >
> >
> > Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> >
> 
> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> 
> That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
> 
> Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere.
> That is a black hole time reverted.
> 
> TH



How did you manage to get that right so quickly right off the bat?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429509

Am 19.08.2017 um 20:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole
>>>
>>>
>>> it appears that yous people
>>> have no idea what lies, or
>>> what it looks like at
>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
>>>
>>
>> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
>>
>> That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
>>
>> Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere.
>> That is a black hole time reverted.
>>
>> TH
>
>
>
> How did you manage to get that right so quickly right off the bat?
>

??

Actually I have written kind of 'book' about it:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


(It is actually a google.doc presentation, not a book, but one day I 
write a new version).

The question I try to solve is how to connect relativity and Quantum 
mechanics.

The concept I call 'structured spacetime'. This includes a mechanism to 
shift the axis of time into a spatial direction and what then happens to 
matter.

So a black hole is accompanied with a white hole 'on the other side'.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429837

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 19.08.2017 um 20:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>> The Other Side of a Black Hole
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> it appears that yous people
> >>> have no idea what lies, or
> >>> what it looks like at
> >>> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> >>>
> >>
> >> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> >>
> >> That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
> >>
> >> Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere.
> >> That is a black hole time reverted.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> >
> > How did you manage to get that right so quickly right off the bat?
> >
> 
> ??
> 
> Actually I have written kind of 'book' about it:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 
> (It is actually a google.doc presentation, not a book, but one day I
> write a new version).
> 
> The question I try to solve is how to connect relativity and Quantum
> mechanics.
> 
> The concept I call 'structured spacetime'. This includes a mechanism to
> shift the axis of time into a spatial direction and what then happens to
> matter.
> 
> So a black hole is accompanied with a white hole 'on the other side'.
> 
> TH


A black hole is like night and day...

nothing disapears
when it enters a
black hole..
it just turns on the lights
when it reaches the other side.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430049

Am 23.08.2017 um 18:08 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.08.2017 um 20:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it appears that yous people
>>>>> have no idea what lies, or
>>>>> what it looks like at
>>>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
>>>>
>>>> That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
>>>>
>>>> Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere.
>>>> That is a black hole time reverted.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How did you manage to get that right so quickly right off the bat?
>>>
>>
>> ??
>>
>> Actually I have written kind of 'book' about it:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> (It is actually a google.doc presentation, not a book, but one day I
>> write a new version).
>>
>> The question I try to solve is how to connect relativity and Quantum
>> mechanics.
>>
>> The concept I call 'structured spacetime'. This includes a mechanism to
>> shift the axis of time into a spatial direction and what then happens to
>> matter.
>>
>> So a black hole is accompanied with a white hole 'on the other side'.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> A black hole is like night and day...
>
> nothing disapears
> when it enters a
> black hole..
> it just turns on the lights
> when it reaches the other side.
>


The 'big bang' is the spot in space and time, from where our universe 
came from.

It is somehow plausible, that spot had and opposite to big bang. That 
would be 'big crunch' and that's what black hole do.

Now draw the axis of time through this black hole and you end up on the 
other side with a big bang.

Best way to visualize this is actually a Minkowski diagram in 2+1 
dimensions, called 'light-cone'.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png

The tip of the past light cone points towards a spot on the hyperplane 
of the present and beyond this the cone expands again.

Now 2+1 is less then 3+1, what is actually needed. But we can turn 2+1 
into 3+1 by a certain operation: multiply the picture by three.

Now this would turn circles into spheres. The past light cone is 
actually a set of nested sphere, where further away is also further away 
in time.

Now this is the same thing, that Ptolomei called '(nested) crystal spheres'.

IOW: what we call 'universe' is in fact our own past light cone.

This originated from a spot somewhere remote, we call 'big bang'.

But this (our) 'universe' is not real and not universal. In fact it is 
OUR universe, that originated from OUR big bang.

Therefore that big bang must also be 'relative' - to us Earthlings - 
hence would match the description of what we call 'observer' or 'zero 
point', moving along the axis of time on the hyperplane of the present.

Now this big bang is accompanied with a past 'universe' that vanished 
into the supposed 'big crunch'.

But since this is all 'relative', there is no real effect visible, if 
you would go to such a location, and the same phenomenon would be seen, 
where you had been before.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430050

W dniu sobota, 26 sierpnia 2017 09:45:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 23.08.2017 um 18:08 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 19.08.2017 um 20:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it appears that yous people
> >>>>> have no idea what lies, or
> >>>>> what it looks like at
> >>>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere.
> >>>> That is a black hole time reverted.
> >>>>
> >>>> TH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How did you manage to get that right so quickly right off the bat?
> >>>
> >>
> >> ??
> >>
> >> Actually I have written kind of 'book' about it:
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >>
> >> (It is actually a google.doc presentation, not a book, but one day I
> >> write a new version).
> >>
> >> The question I try to solve is how to connect relativity and Quantum
> >> mechanics.
> >>
> >> The concept I call 'structured spacetime'. This includes a mechanism to
> >> shift the axis of time into a spatial direction and what then happens to
> >> matter.
> >>
> >> So a black hole is accompanied with a white hole 'on the other side'.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > A black hole is like night and day...
> >
> > nothing disapears
> > when it enters a
> > black hole..
> > it just turns on the lights
> > when it reaches the other side.
> >
> 
> 
> The 'big bang' is the spot in space and time, from where our universe 
> came from.

Of course! Such a wise guru llike you could never
make a mistake.
And it's obviously confirmed by experiments, too. 
But which ones?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430079

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:45:43 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.08.2017 um 18:08 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 19.08.2017 um 20:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it appears that yous people
> >>>>> have no idea what lies, or
> >>>>> what it looks like at
> >>>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere.
> >>>> That is a black hole time reverted.
> >>>>
> >>>> TH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How did you manage to get that right so quickly right off the bat?
> >>>
> >>
> >> ??
> >>
> >> Actually I have written kind of 'book' about it:
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >>
> >> (It is actually a google.doc presentation, not a book, but one day I
> >> write a new version).
> >>
> >> The question I try to solve is how to connect relativity and Quantum
> >> mechanics.
> >>
> >> The concept I call 'structured spacetime'. This includes a mechanism to
> >> shift the axis of time into a spatial direction and what then happens to
> >> matter.
> >>
> >> So a black hole is accompanied with a white hole 'on the other side'.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > A black hole is like night and day...
> >
> > nothing disapears
> > when it enters a
> > black hole..
> > it just turns on the lights
> > when it reaches the other side.
> >
> 
> 
> The 'big bang' is the spot in space and time, from where our universe 
> came from.
> 
> It is somehow plausible, that spot had and opposite to big bang. That 
> would be 'big crunch' and that's what black hole do.
> 
> Now draw the axis of time through this black hole and you end up on the 
> other side with a big bang.
> 
> Best way to visualize this is actually a Minkowski diagram in 2+1 
> dimensions, called 'light-cone'.
> 
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png
> 
> The tip of the past light cone points towards a spot on the hyperplane 
> of the present and beyond this the cone expands again.
> 
> Now 2+1 is less then 3+1, what is actually needed. But we can turn 2+1 
> into 3+1 by a certain operation: multiply the picture by three.
> 
> Now this would turn circles into spheres. The past light cone is 
> actually a set of nested sphere, where further away is also further away 
> in time.
> 
> Now this is the same thing, that Ptolomei called '(nested) crystal spheres'.
> 
> IOW: what we call 'universe' is in fact our own past light cone.
> 
> This originated from a spot somewhere remote, we call 'big bang'.
> 
> But this (our) 'universe' is not real and not universal. In fact it is 
> OUR universe, that originated from OUR big bang.
> 
> Therefore that big bang must also be 'relative' - to us Earthlings - 
> hence would match the description of what we call 'observer' or 'zero 
> point', moving along the axis of time on the hyperplane of the present.
> 
> Now this big bang is accompanied with a past 'universe' that vanished 
> into the supposed 'big crunch'.
> 
> But since this is all 'relative', there is no real effect visible, if 
> you would go to such a location, and the same phenomenon would be seen, 
> where you had been before.
> 
> 
> TH

Another way to look at "Big Bang" is 
"Steady State and attenuation over time".

This is found experimentally with that as are
higher energy or larger experiments for the 
size of the universe and age of the universe, 
it's larger and older.

Somehow it really is both "Big Bang" and 
"Steady State".  

Some of the "conclusive" arguments for "Big Bang" 
are being adjusted for the day's sky survey.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429465

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 11:23:44 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > The Other Side of a Black Hole
> >
> >
> > it appears that yous people
> > have no idea what lies, or
> > what it looks like at
> > The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> >
> >
> > Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> >
> 
> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> 
> 
> That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
> 
> Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere. 
> That is a black hole time reverted.
> 
> 
> TH

I was in the other thread explaining my idea 
about the spherical nature of a black hole in 
terms of formation (as from the initial black 
hole formation), then about the boundary conditions 
of the event horizon then the layers as basically 
build the black hole in its own well of time.

This has the other side of the black-hole as 
for example the anti-matter (and even anti-
space) universe.

This is where, there's not much so organized 
within it at all.

One imagines transport quite different, if 
perhaps in the same "terms", on the one and 
the "other side" of the black hole.

Again this usually has the black hole consuming 
the matter as entirely disintegrating it and 
as by the forces of gravity or into the well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429482

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 11:23:44 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 19.08.2017 um 19:55 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > > The Other Side of a Black Hole
> > >
> > >
> > > it appears that yous people
> > > have no idea what lies, or
> > > what it looks like at
> > > The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> > >
> >
> > The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> >
> >
> > That is obvious, if you extend the axis of time through the black hole.
> >
> > Then (on the other side) what vanishes into nowhere pops out of nowhere.
> > That is a black hole time reverted.
> >
> >
> > TH
> 
> I was in the other thread explaining my idea
> about the spherical nature of a black hole in
> terms of formation (as from the initial black
> hole formation), then about the boundary conditions
> of the event horizon then the layers as basically
> build the black hole in its own well of time.
> 
> This has the other side of the black-hole as
> for example the anti-matter (and even anti-
> space) universe.
> 
> This is where, there's not much so organized
> within it at all.
> 
> One imagines transport quite different, if
> perhaps in the same "terms", on the one and
> the "other side" of the black hole.
> 
> Again this usually has the black hole consuming
> the matter as entirely disintegrating it and
> as by the forces of gravity or into the well.

do you realize how absurd you sound?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429498

Ross A. Finlayson

I was in the other thread explaining my idea 
about the spherical nature of a black hole in 
terms of formation (as from the initial black 
hole formation), then about the boundary conditions 
of the event horizon then the layers as basically 
build the black hole in its own well of time. 

This has the other side of the black-hole as 
for example the anti-matter (and even anti- 
space) universe. 

Yes... very logical idea you have ...
Like a Heterodyne of Space & Anti-Space

https://goo.gl/photos/nYaHYxs4RGS8xcFb6

https://goo.gl/photos/dwzMwVxnHGBotbCn9

https://goo.gl/photos/H6wRv5tyJcqMPH2N8

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid


http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vD.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429499

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:19:40 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson
> 
> I was in the other thread explaining my idea 
> about the spherical nature of a black hole in 
> terms of formation (as from the initial black 
> hole formation), then about the boundary conditions 
> of the event horizon then the layers as basically 
> build the black hole in its own well of time. 
> 
> This has the other side of the black-hole as 
> for example the anti-matter (and even anti- 
> space) universe. 
> 
> Yes... very logical idea you have ...
> Like a Heterodyne of Space & Anti-Space
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/nYaHYxs4RGS8xcFb6
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/dwzMwVxnHGBotbCn9
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/H6wRv5tyJcqMPH2N8
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid
> 
> 
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vD.pdf


In the original universe, now what went in is anti-matter.

One might imagine a black hole having a lot of 
energy and perhaps moving inertially from the 
effects of thus for example filling the black hole 
here and that the resulting change in gravity 
drew it back as a pebble in a sling.  Exchanging 
its center of gravity then for example with effects 
for example where there's the "gravity waves" 
and/or how it is so.  But, it seems mostly the singularity 
by the time of is esablishment currently as the result 
of some varieties of stars imploding in the lifecycles 
to black holes or the current larger or monster black 
holes arrived at in the center of the spiral galaxies, 
where along these lines, then among those.

One wouldn't have them moving very much at all, 
but they're massy bodies in terms of their geodesy.

It seems the idea is to build matter-to-energy conversion 
with the wavefront of media and so it goes out that 
way in the anti-matter universe, basically establishing 
a region of anti-matter in the black hole's universe, 
here that organization through that is in terms, but 
then for that there could be some "in anti-space there's 
white holes" here any different than just inside the black hole's 
universe (for example if it was built with "anti-matter").

That's an effective storage mechanism but still nothing's 
ever coming out except the conditions of all the mass in 
the black holes is possibly out to the event horizon, that 
the entire inner space of the black hole is a perfect vacuum, 
then like Hawking radiation the whole thing could fall apart 
(here with that as the what went in was anti-matter, what 
arrives out is the matter again).

No, there's no useful usual idea of the black hole of gravity 
in physics ever do anything after it forms but grow larger, 
here for example running into another one.

When I say "in physics" I mean in a usually quite properly 
reasonable, today, opinion in physics as its explanations.

So, the entertainment of the notion is in any theory, 
here that this theoretical conclusion or in terms then 
is about the theory of the formation and accretion of 
black holes of gravity and singularities, here is about 
the expected matter/energy conversion ratio matter 
and anti-matter, here for example to put in a black hole 
a message made by a radio wave of some matter/anti-
matter effect, and see if the input to the black hole 
was ever picked up from the whatever many "light years" 
away.

Or, for example, contained in the geodesy, the black 
hole made from "anti-matter" as for example in a 
laboratory of high energy physics with the capacity 
to produce "anti-matter" here might have different 
properties than Schwarzchild radius dynamics, which 
otherwise describe the gravity's simple annihilation 
into the singularity of all the surrounding matter 
in its geodesy.  

The black hole's gravity is at it grows, so it 
might not have much, but it doesn't move from 
any collision, just grows.  I was going to say 
"it doesn't move for anything" because "usually" 
after its formation it's the largest thing of the 
things orbiting it, where from all we know they 
might result from events in the lab here at particle 
scales.

It seems as reasonable otherwise they're as to 
the anti-matter, basically enough the matter 
and anti-matter share the same space, the 
space and anti-space, of the matter and anti-
matter, here is that they're in the same space.

That's just saying that anti-matter and matter 
are the occupants of space here plainly enough 
in material terms.

And the point about black holes is there's no 
way to change them their propensity to accrete 
matter after their formation, because not even 
energy can get out, for example for some relativistic 
system inside "lose" mass then that the singularity 
conditions fell off.  So, that being an example 
of what doesn't happen, it's furthermore that 
the "evacuating the center" of the event horizon 
is still here that much closer to changing the 
conditions of the Schwarzchild radius of the 
effective configuration of matter and space.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429876

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:46:31 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:19:40 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson
> > 
> > I was in the other thread explaining my idea 
> > about the spherical nature of a black hole in 
> > terms of formation (as from the initial black 
> > hole formation), then about the boundary conditions 
> > of the event horizon then the layers as basically 
> > build the black hole in its own well of time. 
> > 
> > This has the other side of the black-hole as 
> > for example the anti-matter (and even anti- 
> > space) universe. 
> > 
> > Yes... very logical idea you have ...
> > Like a Heterodyne of Space & Anti-Space
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/nYaHYxs4RGS8xcFb6
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/dwzMwVxnHGBotbCn9
> > 
> > https://goo.gl/photos/H6wRv5tyJcqMPH2N8
> > 
> > https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid
> > 
> > 
> > http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vD.pdf
> 
> 
> In the original universe, now what went in is anti-matter.
> 
> One might imagine a black hole having a lot of 
> energy and perhaps moving inertially from the 
> effects of thus for example filling the black hole 
> here and that the resulting change in gravity 
> drew it back as a pebble in a sling.  Exchanging 
> its center of gravity then for example with effects 
> for example where there's the "gravity waves" 
> and/or how it is so.  But, it seems mostly the singularity 
> by the time of is esablishment currently as the result 
> of some varieties of stars imploding in the lifecycles 
> to black holes or the current larger or monster black 
> holes arrived at in the center of the spiral galaxies, 
> where along these lines, then among those.
> 
> One wouldn't have them moving very much at all, 
> but they're massy bodies in terms of their geodesy.
> 
> It seems the idea is to build matter-to-energy conversion 
> with the wavefront of media and so it goes out that 
> way in the anti-matter universe, basically establishing 
> a region of anti-matter in the black hole's universe, 
> here that organization through that is in terms, but 
> then for that there could be some "in anti-space there's 
> white holes" here any different than just inside the black hole's 
> universe (for example if it was built with "anti-matter").
> 
> That's an effective storage mechanism but still nothing's 
> ever coming out except the conditions of all the mass in 
> the black holes is possibly out to the event horizon, that 
> the entire inner space of the black hole is a perfect vacuum, 
> then like Hawking radiation the whole thing could fall apart 
> (here with that as the what went in was anti-matter, what 
> arrives out is the matter again).
> 
> No, there's no useful usual idea of the black hole of gravity 
> in physics ever do anything after it forms but grow larger, 
> here for example running into another one.
> 
> When I say "in physics" I mean in a usually quite properly 
> reasonable, today, opinion in physics as its explanations.
> 
> So, the entertainment of the notion is in any theory, 
> here that this theoretical conclusion or in terms then 
> is about the theory of the formation and accretion of 
> black holes of gravity and singularities, here is about 
> the expected matter/energy conversion ratio matter 
> and anti-matter, here for example to put in a black hole 
> a message made by a radio wave of some matter/anti-
> matter effect, and see if the input to the black hole 
> was ever picked up from the whatever many "light years" 
> away.
> 
> Or, for example, contained in the geodesy, the black 
> hole made from "anti-matter" as for example in a 
> laboratory of high energy physics with the capacity 
> to produce "anti-matter" here might have different 
> properties than Schwarzchild radius dynamics, which 
> otherwise describe the gravity's simple annihilation 
> into the singularity of all the surrounding matter 
> in its geodesy.  
> 
> The black hole's gravity is at it grows, so it 
> might not have much, but it doesn't move from 
> any collision, just grows.  I was going to say 
> "it doesn't move for anything" because "usually" 
> after its formation it's the largest thing of the 
> things orbiting it, where from all we know they 
> might result from events in the lab here at particle 
> scales.
> 
> It seems as reasonable otherwise they're as to 
> the anti-matter, basically enough the matter 
> and anti-matter share the same space, the 
> space and anti-space, of the matter and anti-
> matter, here is that they're in the same space.
> 
> That's just saying that anti-matter and matter 
> are the occupants of space here plainly enough 
> in material terms.
> 
> And the point about black holes is there's no 
> way to change them their propensity to accrete 
> matter after their formation, because not even 
> energy can get out, for example for some relativistic 
> system inside "lose" mass then that the singularity 
> conditions fell off.  So, that being an example 
> of what doesn't happen, it's furthermore that 
> the "evacuating the center" of the event horizon 
> is still here that much closer to changing the 
> conditions of the Schwarzchild radius of the 
> effective configuration of matter and space.

Here the point of the relativistic system 
or otherwise energy system about testing 
whether when it goes into black hole, and 
loses energy, relativistically i.e. highly 
energetically kinetic matter that the combined 
condition and combining with the black hole 
is that the black hole would reverse out matter 
instead because it overall fell under the 
Schwarzchild condition, then the black hole 
could explode that otherwise it only grows 
forever.

This seems the point in the high energy systems, 
or a point, that for example what matter a 
black hole ejecting would generate, this 
probably being in terms of "exotic" matter.

This usual point is being that anything that 
goes into a black hole is lost forever into the 
black hole (in its own outer space).

Then as in the other thread the various approaches 
to black holes as attractors, then here with the fall 
gravity with the light and for example reflections the 
general idea of attenuation of light also the idea here 
that the attractive moment of a fall gravity with that 
otherwise the gravity is falling together, not pulling 
together.  This is a continuous model with the same 
results in the classical that the gravity as an effect 
in its field with "the" gravity and then light as the 
effective definitions of fields of matter configuration 
and space-scope.  This way then the field in effect 
to effectively establish and this continuosly maintain 
orbits is here their final collision or separation.  Then 
the case of eqilibrium here is connecting the centers 
of masses, just like the attraction of gravity for the 
attraction moment which is usual and classical and 
here Newtonian and with the effects of its influential 
frames, the force though is yet let out as these are 
bodies in the kinetic and kinematic system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429879

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:46:31 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:19:40 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson
> > >
> > > I was in the other thread explaining my idea
> > > about the spherical nature of a black hole in
> > > terms of formation (as from the initial black
> > > hole formation), then about the boundary conditions
> > > of the event horizon then the layers as basically
> > > build the black hole in its own well of time.
> > >
> > > This has the other side of the black-hole as
> > > for example the anti-matter (and even anti-
> > > space) universe.
> > >
> > > Yes... very logical idea you have ...
> > > Like a Heterodyne of Space & Anti-Space
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/nYaHYxs4RGS8xcFb6
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/dwzMwVxnHGBotbCn9
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/photos/H6wRv5tyJcqMPH2N8
> > >
> > > https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid
> > >
> > >
> > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vD.pdf
> >
> >
> > In the original universe, now what went in is anti-matter.
> >
> > One might imagine a black hole having a lot of
> > energy and perhaps moving inertially from the
> > effects of thus for example filling the black hole
> > here and that the resulting change in gravity
> > drew it back as a pebble in a sling.  Exchanging
> > its center of gravity then for example with effects
> > for example where there's the "gravity waves"
> > and/or how it is so.  But, it seems mostly the singularity
> > by the time of is esablishment currently as the result
> > of some varieties of stars imploding in the lifecycles
> > to black holes or the current larger or monster black
> > holes arrived at in the center of the spiral galaxies,
> > where along these lines, then among those.
> >
> > One wouldn't have them moving very much at all,
> > but they're massy bodies in terms of their geodesy.
> >
> > It seems the idea is to build matter-to-energy conversion
> > with the wavefront of media and so it goes out that
> > way in the anti-matter universe, basically establishing
> > a region of anti-matter in the black hole's universe,
> > here that organization through that is in terms, but
> > then for that there could be some "in anti-space there's
> > white holes" here any different than just inside the black hole's
> > universe (for example if it was built with "anti-matter").
> >
> > That's an effective storage mechanism but still nothing's
> > ever coming out except the conditions of all the mass in
> > the black holes is possibly out to the event horizon, that
> > the entire inner space of the black hole is a perfect vacuum,
> > then like Hawking radiation the whole thing could fall apart
> > (here with that as the what went in was anti-matter, what
> > arrives out is the matter again).
> >
> > No, there's no useful usual idea of the black hole of gravity
> > in physics ever do anything after it forms but grow larger,
> > here for example running into another one.
> >
> > When I say "in physics" I mean in a usually quite properly
> > reasonable, today, opinion in physics as its explanations.
> >
> > So, the entertainment of the notion is in any theory,
> > here that this theoretical conclusion or in terms then
> > is about the theory of the formation and accretion of
> > black holes of gravity and singularities, here is about
> > the expected matter/energy conversion ratio matter
> > and anti-matter, here for example to put in a black hole
> > a message made by a radio wave of some matter/anti-
> > matter effect, and see if the input to the black hole
> > was ever picked up from the whatever many "light years"
> > away.
> >
> > Or, for example, contained in the geodesy, the black
> > hole made from "anti-matter" as for example in a
> > laboratory of high energy physics with the capacity
> > to produce "anti-matter" here might have different
> > properties than Schwarzchild radius dynamics, which
> > otherwise describe the gravity's simple annihilation
> > into the singularity of all the surrounding matter
> > in its geodesy.
> >
> > The black hole's gravity is at it grows, so it
> > might not have much, but it doesn't move from
> > any collision, just grows.  I was going to say
> > "it doesn't move for anything" because "usually"
> > after its formation it's the largest thing of the
> > things orbiting it, where from all we know they
> > might result from events in the lab here at particle
> > scales.
> >
> > It seems as reasonable otherwise they're as to
> > the anti-matter, basically enough the matter
> > and anti-matter share the same space, the
> > space and anti-space, of the matter and anti-
> > matter, here is that they're in the same space.
> >
> > That's just saying that anti-matter and matter
> > are the occupants of space here plainly enough
> > in material terms.
> >
> > And the point about black holes is there's no
> > way to change them their propensity to accrete
> > matter after their formation, because not even
> > energy can get out, for example for some relativistic
> > system inside "lose" mass then that the singularity
> > conditions fell off.  So, that being an example
> > of what doesn't happen, it's furthermore that
> > the "evacuating the center" of the event horizon
> > is still here that much closer to changing the
> > conditions of the Schwarzchild radius of the
> > effective configuration of matter and space.
> 
> Here the point of the relativistic system
> or otherwise energy system about testing
> whether when it goes into black hole, and
> loses energy, relativistically i.e. highly
> energetically kinetic matter that the combined
> condition and combining with the black hole
> is that the black hole would reverse out matter
> instead because it overall fell under the
> Schwarzchild condition, then the black hole
> could explode that otherwise it only grows
> forever.
> 
> This seems the point in the high energy systems,
> or a point, that for example what matter a
> black hole ejecting would generate, this
> probably being in terms of "exotic" matter.
> 
> This usual point is being that anything that
> goes into a black hole is lost forever into the
> black hole (in its own outer space).
> 
> Then as in the other thread the various approaches
> to black holes as attractors, then here with the fall
> gravity with the light and for example reflections the
> general idea of attenuation of light also the idea here
> that the attractive moment of a fall gravity with that
> otherwise the gravity is falling together, not pulling
> together.  This is a continuous model with the same
> results in the classical that the gravity as an effect
> in its field with "the" gravity and then light as the
> effective definitions of fields of matter configuration
> and space-scope.  This way then the field in effect
> to effectively establish and this continuosly maintain
> orbits is here their final collision or separation.  Then
> the case of eqilibrium here is connecting the centers
> of masses, just like the attraction of gravity for the
> attraction moment which is usual and classical and
> here Newtonian and with the effects of its influential
> frames, the force though is yet let out as these are
> bodies in the kinetic and kinematic system.



what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429497

On 8/19/17 8/19/17   1:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.

No. Not even close. The FLRW manifolds define what "big bang" means, and they 
are not at all like any black hole manifold.

But some types of black holes have "another side", and some do not.

The black hole formed by a collapsing star has no "other side".

The Schwarzschild manifold does have "another side", but it is not possible for 
a timelike or null object to cross from one to the other.

The Kerr manifold has an infinite number of "other sides", and with care a 
timelike or null object can transition in one direction from one to the other. 
But there is no going back.

There are other types of black hole, but this should give the idea....

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429505

Tom Roberts amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups without F’up2:

> […] some types of black holes have "another side", and some do not.

See also <http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/> p.
 
> The black hole formed by a collapsing star has no "other side".
> 
> The Schwarzschild manifold does have "another side", but it is not
> possible for a timelike or null object to cross from one to the other.

If that is so, why do you think that a black hole (BH) formed by a 
collapsing star cannot possibly be described by the Schwarzschild metric 
(non-rotating, uncharged BH)?
 
> The Kerr manifold has an infinite number of "other sides", and with care a
> timelike or null object can transition in one direction from one to the
> other. But there is no going back.

If that is so, why do you think that a BH formed by a collapsing star cannot 
possibly be described by the Kerr (rotating, uncharged BH) or Kerr–Newman 
metric (rotating, charged BH)?

F’up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429656

On 8/20/17 5:00 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups without F’up2:
>> The black hole formed by a collapsing star has no "other side".
>> 
>> The Schwarzschild manifold does have "another side", but it is not possible
>> for a timelike or null object to cross from one to the other.
> 
> If that is so, why do you think that a black hole (BH) formed by a collapsing
> star cannot possibly be described by the Schwarzschild metric (non-rotating,
> uncharged BH)?

You are confusing manifold and metric. They are QUITE different.

The region outside the surface of a star that is collapsing in a spherically
symmetric manner, in vacuum, is described by the Schwarzschild metric (i.e. that
region is isometric to a region of the Schw. manifold).

But the Schwarzschild MANIFOLD has two regions that are isometric to that
region. The manifold of the collapsing star has only one. The Schw. manifold has
"another side" but the collapsing star does not.

>> The Kerr manifold has an infinite number of "other sides", and with care a 
>> timelike or null object can transition in one direction from one to the 
>> other. But there is no going back.
> 
> If that is so, why do you think that a BH formed by a collapsing star cannot 
> possibly be described by the Kerr (rotating, uncharged BH) or Kerr–Newman 
> metric (rotating, charged BH)?

Similarly, I suspect that the region outside an appropriately collapsing star is
isometric to a region of the Kerr manifold. But the Kerr manifold has an
infinite number of such regions, while the manifold of the collapsing star has
only one.

	For a spherically symmetric collapse we have Birkhoff's theorem
	that guarantees the isometry. But there is no such theorem
	related to the Kerr manifold. But I believe it holds.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429532

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:09:29 AM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/19/17 8/19/17   1:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> 
> No. Not even close. The FLRW manifolds define what "big bang" means, and they 
> are not at all like any black hole manifold.
> 
> But some types of black holes have "another side", and some do not.
> 
> The black hole formed by a collapsing star has no "other side".
> 
> The Schwarzschild manifold does have "another side", but it is not possible for 
> a timelike or null object to cross from one to the other.
> 
> The Kerr manifold has an infinite number of "other sides", and with care a 
> timelike or null object can transition in one direction from one to the other. 
> But there is no going back.
> 
> There are other types of black hole, but this should give the idea....
> 
> Tom Roberts

Have you ever thought of posting on physics stack exchange?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/

I feel your expertise is being wasted on some individuals here that have no interest in learning from you.

Larry Harson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429534

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Larry Harson
<johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:09:29 AM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
>
>> ... There are other types of black hole, but this should give the idea....
>> 
>> Tom Roberts
>
>Have you ever thought of posting on physics stack exchange?
>https://physics.stackexchange.com/
>
>I feel your expertise is being wasted on some individuals here that have no interest in learning from you.
>
>Larry Harson

Stack Exchange is a lot of fun.  Not just physics, they have
linguistics, math, computer science, infotech.  Yeah.

However, there are a good many people here and in the parent group who
read such posts with great interest.  Among them myself.

For example, Roberts' and Moroney's lengthy exchange about experimental
particle physics was most interesting, as are, to choose just one more
example, Couriann's discussion of the derivation of relativity starting
from the notion that energy has mass, and hence inertia.

And that's just a couple of instances.  A lot of interesting stuff is
written here, once you cut through the undergrowth.

A well-stocked killfile goes a long way toward accomplishing that.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429624

Larry Harson wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:09:29 AM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 8/19/17 8/19/17   1:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> >
> > No. Not even close. The FLRW manifolds define what "big bang" means, and they
> > are not at all like any black hole manifold.
> >
> > But some types of black holes have "another side", and some do not.
> >
> > The black hole formed by a collapsing star has no "other side".
> >
> > The Schwarzschild manifold does have "another side", but it is not possible for
> > a timelike or null object to cross from one to the other.
> >
> > The Kerr manifold has an infinite number of "other sides", and with care a
> > timelike or null object can transition in one direction from one to the other.
> > But there is no going back.
> >
> > There are other types of black hole, but this should give the idea....
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> Have you ever thought of posting on physics stack exchange?
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/
> 
> I feel your expertise is being wasted on some individuals here that have no interest in learning from you.
> 
> Larry Harson



a rubbish place... Whats all these zero answers about??? It's a Question forum, right,...not an Answer forum. Nobody likes to give wrong
answers because all the answers are always wrong! Science is the world of....Wrong Answers....but lots of Questions.



0
votes
0
answers
3 views 



1
vote
0
answers
17 views 



0
votes
0
answers
8 views 



0
votes
0
answers
9 views 



0
votes
0
answers
6 views 




0
votes
0
answers
12 views 


1
vote
0
answers
12 views 


1
vote
0
answers
9 views 



1
vote
0
answers
20 views

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web