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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429879

Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole

Show all headers | View raw

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?

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web