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


Groups > sci.physics > #584708 > unrolled thread

NOTHING stays in a Black Hole

Started byjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
First post2016-06-13 09:09 -0700
Last post2016-06-15 14:08 -0700
Articles 11 on this page of 31 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics


Contents

  NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 09:09 -0700
    NOTHING stays in a Black Hole HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 09:34 -0700
    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 16:38 +0000
      Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 09:58 -0700
        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 10:35 -0700
          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 11:08 -0700
            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 20:02 +0000
              Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:17 -0700
                Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 02:58 +0000
                  Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 02:22 -0700
                    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 12:26 +0000
                      Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:32 -0700
                        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 16:48 +0000
                          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 10:46 -0700
                            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:56 -0700
                            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 00:39 +0000
                              Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 00:23 -0700
                                Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 14:39 +0000
                                  Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:52 -0700
                                    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 20:29 +0000
                                      Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 16:38 -0700
                                        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 17:17 -0700
                                          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 01:54 +0000
                                            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:24 -0700
                                              Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 12:59 +0000
                                                Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 06:06 -0700
                                        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 01:40 +0000
        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 19:50 +0000
          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:42 -0700
    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:45 -0700
    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 14:08 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]


#585065

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-15 16:38 -0700
Message-ID<2b268e2a-f3a7-4ced-bd74-9f5fdb11f436@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#585028
Michael

That's what's called a pyramid scheme.
There's a reason that they fail.
Do you know that reason?

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


#585069

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-15 17:17 -0700
Message-ID<658f6fd2-efc4-4d8d-b01b-cd317e5f0a5f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#585065
Michael
The reason that pyramid schemes fail,
and that BHs don't result from
self-crushed matter,
is that there is a LIMIT.
There is a limit to how many
customers are out there and
there is a limit to
how warped Space can get.

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


#585085

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-06-16 01:54 +0000
Message-ID<njt0th$evu$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#585069
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>The reason that pyramid schemes fail,

WHAT pyramid scheme?

>and that BHs don't result from
>self-crushed matter,
>is that there is a LIMIT.

Just because you say there is a limit doesn't mean there is one.  
Especially when you never provide any supporting evidence of your claims.

>There is a limit to how many
>customers are out there and
>there is a limit to
>how warped Space can get.

Gravity is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance.
As the distance gets smaller and smaller, gravitation gets stronger and
stronger.

There is no evidence that gravity deviates from the inverse square law
at very small distances. As long as this is true, there can be no limit to
the force of gravity at extremely small distances.

Normal matter (what you see daily) has atoms that are large enough so
that the distance (between nuclei) is large enough so that this is not an 
issue. Not the case for exotic stuff like neutron star stuff.

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


#585089

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-15 19:24 -0700
Message-ID<bdd00230-e444-4b66-8b28-8bb1c3016ba3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#585085
Michael
The point is: there aren't infinite people
to buy, so although it starts fast, it hits a limit.
Same with gravity- smaller bodies' gravity
increases with volume, but as they get larger,
the variance follows more and more the
increase in apparent area.

This is why larger planets 
and stars look  to be made
of lighter material- they're not

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


#585127

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-06-16 12:59 +0000
Message-ID<nju7s6$lss$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#585089
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>The point is: there aren't infinite people
>to buy, so although it starts fast, it hits a limit.
>Same with gravity- smaller bodies' gravity
>increases with volume, but as they get larger,
>the variance follows more and more the
>increase in apparent area.

>This is why larger planets 
>and stars look  to be made
>of lighter material- they're not

I don't know WTF that is supposed to mean, but the gravitation of an
object is proportional to its mass, not its volume.

There is a theory that gas giants ranging in masses from somewhere between
that of Saturn and Jupiter to the mass of the smallest star, will have a
diameter is about constant (that of Jupiter), is that what you meant?
That's just a secondary effect.

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


#585129

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-16 06:06 -0700
Message-ID<001b217c-c634-4442-a101-39dc6cea8d0b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#585127
Michael
I wrote very plainly.
You do not wish to understand.
You have always been so.

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


#585084

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-06-16 01:40 +0000
Message-ID<njt02g$evu$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#585065
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael

>That's what's called a pyramid scheme.
>There's a reason that they fail.
>Do you know that reason?

WHAT is a pyramid scheme?  Learn to quote so people know what the heck you 
are talking about.

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


#584751

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-06-13 19:50 +0000
Message-ID<njn2r0$ats$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#584716
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>John said
>>Of course, if current theory is right, 
>>we will NEVER see a release of 
>>any kind from a BH. 

>Mikey:
>And so far, we haven't. 

>John:
>You're sure about that?

Why yes.  When was the last time we saw stuff coming out of a black hole?
How about never??

>Or, everything that comes away
>"just bounced off the accretion disc".
>Right!!
>Look again, Michael

Produced by the accretion disk, not "bounced".  The physics are apparently
very complicated involving relativistic magnetic fields and so forth, but
greater minds have been working the physics out.  Maybe Google can find a
good explanation how it works for you.

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


#584776

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-13 14:42 -0700
Message-ID<1d642fc3-53ad-44fa-a9e9-b739d14e9e4d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584751
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:51:39 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:
> 
> >John said
> >>Of course, if current theory is right, 
> >>we will NEVER see a release of 
> >>any kind from a BH. 
> 
> >Mikey:
> >And so far, we haven't. 
> 
> >John:
> >You're sure about that?
> 
> Why yes.  When was the last time we saw stuff coming out of a black hole?
> How about never??
> 
> >Or, everything that comes away
> >"just bounced off the accretion disc".
> >Right!!
> >Look again, Michael
> 
> Produced by the accretion disk, not "bounced".  The physics are apparently
> very complicated involving relativistic magnetic fields and so forth, but
> greater minds have been working the physics out.  Maybe Google can find a
> good explanation how it works for you.

BHs have no hair.Area just outside black hole can both fall into BH and jet out into deep space.Hawking is wrong,and I'm on the money.Trebert

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


#584777

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-13 14:45 -0700
Message-ID<60647555-0b25-41ce-95c2-f7fa39ded257@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584708
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Scientists have observed a star
> falling into a BH.
> It shredded and immediately outgoing
> jets formed.
> 
> A Black Hole is a HOLE!!
> NONE of our matter can be in there.
> (Is there ever anything in a hole?)
> 
> Black Holes trap neutrinos. When matter
> falls in and is shredded, it combines
> with these neutrinos to become high
> energy particles that are shot back out
> as jets.
> 
> In regions of Space where there are excess
> neutrinos, the accretion discs become
> maximal, pulling the arms in by their gravity
> until a tipping point is reached, and
> the discs are released as the galactic
> equivalent of entangled PHOTONS.
> 
> Of course, if current theory is right,
> we will NEVER see a release of
> any kind from a BH. 
> 
> Ha ha.

All BHs have spin.All BHs can spin close to c. This comes out of my two greatest theories.Can you name them? I have posted them often.TreBert

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


#585033

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-15 14:08 -0700
Message-ID<13ed2b7b-3016-44c4-8f17-ec12a95af0a1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#584708
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Scientists have observed a star
> falling into a BH.
> It shredded and immediately outgoing
> jets formed.
> 
> A Black Hole is a HOLE!!
> NONE of our matter can be in there.
> (Is there ever anything in a hole?)
> 
> Black Holes trap neutrinos. When matter
> falls in and is shredded, it combines
> with these neutrinos to become high
> energy particles that are shot back out
> as jets.
> 
> In regions of Space where there are excess
> neutrinos, the accretion discs become
> maximal, pulling the arms in by their gravity
> until a tipping point is reached, and
> the discs are released as the galactic
> equivalent of entangled PHOTONS.
> 
> Of course, if current theory is right,
> we will NEVER see a release of
> any kind from a BH. 
> 
> Ha ha.

BHs are always taking in energy.Space sees to it.Trebert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web