Black Hole Rings, and other possible shapes

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Pincho Paxton, Feb 13, 2010.

  1. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    My theory is that Black Holes do not have to be a spherical shape, all they have to do is hold their shape. I suggest that a Black Hole is made by collapsing material, and there are a few ways to collapse a material, and maintain its collapsed state. An eggshell type membrane would be possible if Gravity were an outside force rather than the actual pull of the black hole itself. If gravity were an outside flow similar to the old Aether flow suggested many years ago, then they are also much safer than currently suggested.

    I bring this topic to light because it is about to be realised anyway. The Hadron Collider is about to spin up, and attempt to create a sun on Earth. What would happen in my version of events?...

    The actual spin of atoms around the ring at high speed should be enough to put a pressure wave on the Aether before they even collide in the middle. From such forces you may get black holes in the ring itself.

    Not to worry though, as my idea also suggests that the forces need to be completely balanced to maintain the Black hole for a length of time. Black holes collapse if they are not completely equal forces, like a bubble of washing up liquid will eventually pop from its decaying membrane.

    Anyway, I am suggesting black holes, and Black Rings, black membranes, and other shapes where pressure can become balanced, due to a flow entering the suggested shapes through channels that don't close due to the channels having enough force to balance their ability to stay open.

    I am suggesting that Black Holes are formed by the breaking of Aether, and I am suggesting that their gravitational forces are created by a flow of particles entering the holes whatever shape they are.

    One final shape to mention is an interference circular wave pattern, trapping matter between rings... Saturn... and to some extent magnets.

    I know I will get so flaming, but like I said, the Hadron Collider should prove me right shortly.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    In 4 dimensional space-time black hole event horizons must be spherical according to GR.

    Since, unlike you, GR can actually model gravity I'd be more inclined to believe it than you. Can you show a rigorous derivation of your claims?

    The LHC is going to do nothing of the sort! 'Create a Sun' ? Nonsense. Why do you not bother to do any reading at all before making claims about things. Are you lazy or stupid? Or both?

    I take it back. You have obviously been Googling a lot (but not about the LHC or scientific methodology or rationality or logic) and found buzzwords like 'black ring' and 'black membrane'. I am certain you didn't understand what you read. For instance, a black ring can only form in space-time with more than 4 dimensions. In 5 dimensional space-time Birkhoffs theorem doesn't apply and you can find spinning configurations which have no overall angular momentum. Too bad you didn't realise they can't exist in our space-time.

    You deserve to be flamed. You have provided no actual model of anything, you haven't justified any claim you've made, you've made it obvious you either lie or make things up about things you don't understand and you're deluded about your level of understanding. How can you possibly claim the LHC will vindicate you when its obvious you don't even know what the LHC does! Come on, you know you don't know yet you post things trying to convince other people. Can't you just accept you don't know, rather than trying to swindle people into giving you a pat on the back?

    Your problem is you know so close to nothing that you can't make up BS which seems superficially viable. I am certain I could post a few threads talking about made up physics which would fool some people because I know some physics and can structure the post accordingly. You know so little that you can't even make up nonsense which will swindle anyone. At least learn what an experiment does before claiming it'll back you up.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I didn't read anything on Google. My whole theory is based on Aether creating gravity as a flow. I only have to look at the iron filing shapes to see the rings of black hole streams around a magnet.

    I suppose it is commendable that you did think that I looked on Google, but one day people will be looking for me on Google.

    Oh yeah, and actually My theory does have 5 dimensions...

    X,Y,Z,In,Out.. where in would be collapse, and out would be explode both at zero... sort of. All of my dimensions are visible to our Universe. I have no real paradox, no hidden dimensions.

    Time is not in my theory. I don't believe in it. That would come under physics, and movement.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You just happened to say 'black rings' and 'black membranes', which is the kind of buzzwords you'll come across when Googling for things relating to black holes.

    You think its commendable I believe you just buzzword quote mine on a search engine because I believe you are completely ignorant of gravitational theories and deceptive enough to lie about your understanding?

    I think you should look up 'commendable' in a dictionary.

    You have a laughably exaggerated view of your work and are seriously deluding yourself. You did crap in science in school, haven't studied it beyond the required level of basic education and now you believe you magically have all the answers? You posted a thread asking how you'd go about getting funding to do physics, in complete ignorance of the fact no one, no one, at any university would fund you to do physics because you can't do any physics. For instance, you ignored my challenge to provide 1, just 1, phenomenon you can actually model with your idea and to show how you derived such a model.

    A theory of everything which can't model anything is a theory of nothing.

    Well done, you just demonstrated you don't even know what 'dimension' means. Best check back to that dictionary! And you haven't provided any quantitative framework from your 'theory' so you have provided no justification for that claim. Provide your model.

    You have no paradoxes in your theory because you have no theory. You're only 'not wrong' because you haven't provided anything anyway.

    Then you are unable to describe the real world since you must parametrise motion somehow. Well done, you just killed your own work.
     
  8. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Well I haven't heard of those Buzzwords, but if you think about it, they are just descriptions really, and not words. The dimensions by the way are perfectly good dimensions. You need to think about collapse of planck a bit more. I use the word Planck, but the scale could be larger. I suggest that Planck is adjusted in scale to fit the smallest particle just like C was altered many times.

    I'll make another assumption based on what I am getting to grips with...

    Here is another way to see the flow of the Aether through Black Holes. The hair on our heads, and bodies actually show the flow of the Aether leaving our bodies. Most likely entering our bodies as we breath, and Eat, and through our other openings. The Aether leaving through our heads is obviously different for everyone, especially bald people. The main thing that our bodies want to achieve is to keep the flow as a stream. Blocked holes would create a build up of matter. All Aether flows are through black hole channels, therefore our hair indicates a Black Hole channel.

    Please only accept this thought as some random conclusion on the matter. But it makes sense to me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
  9. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Then on that note, another thought pattern would be...

    That Trees, and Grass, are Aether leaving the Earth, and that life is the ability to intake the Aether, and continue its flow back out again. Therefore colder planets don't have the ability to intake Aether because the flow is slowed down too much, like Bose-Einstein. In the Bose-Einstein experiment the flow is stopped completely so the Black Holes attract into one Black hole. The moon must be a bit similar to that. The sun is the other extreme, where the Aether is so fast that it shoots out as energy. This suggests that the Sun has an Aether river running into it, and an Aether river is Dark Matter.

    The Earth is the perfect balance, of intake, and out take of Aether.

    Feel free to flame me, so long as you accept my thread as a casual explanation of my thinking.
     
  10. Lawson's Criterion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    28
    Dear Pincho Paxton:

    Black holes, Dark matter, and Dark energy are theoretical constructs with circunstancial evidence at best.

    LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    Los Alamos, New Mexico.
     
  11. Lawson's Criterion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    28
    Dear Pincho Paxton:

    Black holes, Dark matter, and Dark energy are theoretical constructs with circunstancial evidence at best.

    LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    Los Alamos, New Mexico.
     
  12. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    What I am really talking about is collapse of Planck material leaving a hole in its place. This is taking into account a theory that Planck is elementary, and that its destruction is a hole followed by a wave which is light. So all of those spaces that you have mentioned, are just different shaped spaces. Hole, stream, etc. I don't know if I should rename Planck to something else, as I don't know the fundamental element's size at this point.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    No, they aren't. The dimensions are those linearly independent parameters which take values in a field, typically the reals.

    You said X, Y, Z, in and out. If 'in' and 'out' are related to the collapse of matter in a black hole then you describe such collapse via the X,Y,Z coordinates. (x,y,z) are Cartesian coordinates. You can change to spherical ones \((r,\theta,\phi)\) such that r is the distance from the centre of the collapsing sphere. r is a function of x,y,z via \(r^{2} = x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}\). Basic geometry.

    If you claim 'in' and 'out' are dimensions then you are wrong. You are using 'dimensions' in a way different to the definition. If you can't use words properly, don't say them.

    That isn't even a valid sentence! And I think its laughable you tell me to think about Planck scales, extra dimensions and black membranes. I have published work in those areas. I think about it because its my job!.

    Once again, you completely ignored all my direct questions. What have you got to hide, if I'm not thinking about this stuff and you are? Why can't you answer simple direct questions? You know its because you are making claims you can't back up, else you'd have at least tried to answer them. Instead you ignored them. You prove what I've been saying about you to be true.
     
  14. Lawson's Criterion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    28
    Dear Pincho Paxton:

    ''Strings'' might be able to help you describe properties of hadrons of all masses and how it relates bosons to fermions. High energy physics is very interesting.

    LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    Los Alamos, New Mexico.
     
  15. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    You are suggesting that In is X,Y,Z at zero to the centre of mass, but a larger scale of this, like my breathing for example does not cause a result of an explosion, therefore I prefer In, as it results in Out. Normal movement doesn't require a result, and normal movement doesn't create a Galaxy, and the Universe. If it did, you would have solved a lot of this by now. Also.. In, and Out creates particles, and Black holes, In, and Out are different to normal movement. For example.. two cogwheels grinding together don't have to be central to the mass of In, and Out which would be created if they were to grind together. Their planck material would. In is the centre of force. Besides which you opened with 5 dimensions are required for other shaped Black Holes, and here you have the extra two dimensions that you need. Otherwise 3 dimensions are all you would need. Maybe you just don't appreciate that we already use those words in society?

    The Universe is missing most of its matter, because half of it is holes, and veins, and the rest is actually invisible, because it produces light. The holes, and veins are supported by the invisible material due to flow force, and spin.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
  16. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Well I need to start with a spherical shape for certain reasons. My model of the Universe has a lot to do with the Kissing Problem of spheres. My Planck compression is the same, it requires the Kissing Problem to occur. In fact, I cannot take the sphere out of the equation at all. It is the fractal beginning to bigger things, like the seed of a diamond. The Universe is made from grain.
     
  17. Lawson's Criterion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    28
    Dear Pincho Paxton:

    This is rather unconventional. I believe you are trying a lattice approach to the universe. This has been proven to be very difficult, as this method is legendary for the infinities it produces.

    LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    Los Alamos, New Mexico.
     
  18. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I only have one infinity, and that is the quantity of the Planck material. I think that most infinities are removed by In. At the point where matter collapses into a wave (out). Remember that gravity in this case is a flow from infinite planck, and Black Holes therefore do nothing at all apart from sit there. With planck material as an elementary particle, and nothing smaller, I have stopped infinite regress. (Where planck may have to be adjusted to fit). Where you find more, there has to be something wrong.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You utterly failed to grasp what I said. Not surprising since even the high school geometry I used is something you don't understand.

    You have made up 'Planck material', so unless you define it don't say it.

    Wrong again. The derivation of the various types of black holes possible in 4 and 5 dimensions is done in general relativity. General relativity doesn't regard 'in' and 'out' as dimensions, as I explained in my previous post, so your system doesn't have the required dimensionality. General relativity in 5 dimensions would have x,y,z AND w, a fourth spacial direction, along with time t.

    You are on a physics website talking about physics. Hence when you use terminology you should use the physics terminology or explain what you mean by dimension. As I have explained, your definition of dimension is NOT the definition used in any area of mathematics or physics and thus you can't claim you've got the extra dimensions GR needs to make black rings. You can only claim that if you are working with the same definitions. Hence why its important you know the meaning of technical words, before you use them, because it prevents misunderstandings and confusion.

    Here's an example even you should grasp. Suppose my definition of 'elephant' is your definition of 'human'. If I said "You are an elephant" it is confusing because you think "But I don't have a trunk, walk on 4 legs and weigh several tons!" because you and I would be misunderstanding one another. I am certainly more aware than you about the layperson/technical terminology cross over as I actually know what technical terms in physics mean. 'Field' can mean 2 different things in mathematics, neither of which are the common layperson meaning.

    If you work with a different definition to everyone else then either you're being stupid or deliberately trying to deceive people.

    Do you really think anyone buys the crap you're selling?

    You don't have a model. I've asked repeatedly for you to provide a working model for just 1 phenomenon and you've ignored me repeatedly.

    Please state what phenomena in the universe you can model and provide the explicit derivation of said model for one of those phenomena.

    And given you don't know even the basic geometry taught in high school I don't think you're going to grasp problems like Kissing spheres.

    Something you have yet to define.
     
  20. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    General Relativity in my theory is the relationship of plank material entering a Black Hole with varying spin directions. So left travel spins the Aether anti-clockwise in the Black Hole, and right travel spins the Aether clockwise in a gravitational field. Now depending on the spin direction of the Earth, one is greater than the other through a clock with local spinning Aether (which you call electron) forces hence the atomic clocks show different times. That is why some of the relativity testing had a flaw. The direction of travel is then compressed in either direction, as the plank material is gathered together, the compression wave is restricted to spacing distance between planck, which is limited to C, unless you can move the planck out of the way before you move into it. The compression wave of two bodies in a head on collisions is combined into 1 compression wave. The flow through the body of an atomic clock.....

    ... and women's periods synchronise.. may as well stick with the full nature theme whilst I'm at it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Either you're a wind up or you're so staggeringly stupid that you actually believe your own delusions. Either way you make me despair for humanity since you're either someone who has too much time on his hands and wastes it baiting people or you lack basic reasoning and logic.
     
  22. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Well the fact is that the clocks are not running at the same speed.
    The fact is that the clocks were atomic.
    The fact is that their potential energy was spin.
    So to alter their times, you alter the spin of their potential energy.

    According to me...
    C is the averaged distance between grain spacing.
    The grain spacing although fairly equal is in motion.
    This produces a strobe effect of open areas to pass into.
    The strobe effect of spacing passes through the clocks.
    In one direction the spacing strobes differently to the other, because of the flow of the strobe.

    It's a bit like Frogger, but with whirlpools spaced apart, and acting like cogwheels.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ....sorry, about the visual reference, but that's how I think.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Coriolis Force has to be considered as a better example.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
  23. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    The distribution of Black holes in, and around the Earth.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And of course from that I don't need to tell you what Saturn's Black Hole distribution is.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010

Share This Page