Black holes may never actually form..!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You've got my answer, don't like it? Sorry. And really here we go again, complaining about off topic stuff and you continue posting lengthy rants! Oh you are funny!
Let's hope that you stick with discussing standard cosmological aspects in the science sections, and not the demolished crap like Black Neutron Stars, doubts over tidal gravity effects overcoming all forces within a BH, the aspect of being reasonably logically able to apply properties within the EH by observations outside the EH.
Otherwise you'll be confronted with requests for whatever you claim, comprende?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not funny, brucep. I appreciated that book reference you provided before. Thanks for that and your subsequent clarification. But I now must ask you to please leave me out of your past personal feuds with whomever you are imagining I am. I want to listen and learn from learned and respectful members here. My blood pressure problems are not able to handle aggravations from being dragged into other people's personal byplays no matter who they are or were. Thanks for your future help in keeping my blood pressure on the safe side by leaving me out of past or present personal off-topic byplays.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would have much preferred you had not tried on your personal byplay and prejudicing of a new member, me; then I would not have had to respond to ask you not to drag me into whatever it is that is going on personally between you and your perceived enemies here past or present. I told you why I can't afford to be caught up in other people's aggravating byplays and agendas which may spoil my experience at this forum.

I follow the science and logic argued and presented by learned members who are interested in all scientifically based aspects whether "standard" or not. If I were to take your advice I would have to reject all attempts by others to discuss speculative mainstream hypotheses in string theory, quantum theory, relativity and other alternatives still in the scientific discussions of possible alternatives as to what may lay beyond the standard model. It's all interesting to me and I keep open minded enough to discern what is reasonably worth exploring and not. In any case I did not need telling what I should or shouldn't discuss with other members who are more learned and less didactic than you who is a layman with personal agendas which get in the way of learning new things without making up your own misconceptions about the actual meaning of the scientific matter be it alternative or mainstream fact or speculation.

Claims require evidence. That is standard practice I am already well aware of. I have made no claims. I do not intend to make claims, only discuss points raised using accepted science and speculative ideas when the accepted science is insufficient (as GR maths is when it comes to the singularity and so on). I can learn, but only if I can avoid getting dragged into off-topic personal byplays by those who seem more interested in inciting and maintaining personal conflict than in learning new data and revelations as they come into the discussion. So, please, leave me out of your past and present conflicts with whoever, so I can learn more and enjoy my experience at this forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry for the double post. Pressed Reply instead of Edit button.

 

That's nice: Time will tell.

Firstly, Again, for the second time, GR is a classical theory and does not apply at the quantum level. Secondly re claims, that's great that you are not making claims doubting such overwhelmingly accepted theories such as Evolution, The BB, SR, GR and QM.
Because to rewrite or modify these aspects of science will not come from you, as a lay person, nor me either. Thirdly, I'll sit back for a while and see how you go, and how you operate.
Again in attempting to over ride the above mentioned theories, you need evidence, not just cheap words: They have all stood for a long time and are near certain as far as scientific theories go
Just saying.

 

It's probably true and I wasn't trying to be funny. I read you the first time you made a post. It's irrelevant to any new discussion you want to start. You're not a sock puppet trying to avoid a ban. You're somebody who wants to ban the terrible impression you made in your last.... Whatever....handle. First thing you're back trying to belittle PB for perceived injustice by coping this self righteous stance. All three of us know who you're and we know why you'll deny it. You want to prove me wrong quit the bullshit nonsense.

 

What are you talking about, brucep? My first two posts as a new member here were on-topic responses to the OP and discussion points raised by other people. I made no claims or attacks. My first post was in RJBeery's "Black holes may never actually form...!" thread. I suggested a further scenario for consideration, using equally massive merging BH masses and melding black hole EHs instead of the usual BH and much smaller test mass with which previous disagreements and arguments seemed to be getting nowhere near resolution. My second post was in BdS's "light propagates at c + v?" thread, where James R had brought up Terrell rotation to danshawen and I googled it and posted an interesting piece of information found on wiki regarding the recent correction of past and present misconceptions involving confusions by both layman and professional scientists about what relativity maths predicts and what it doesn't; explaining that images from moving objects are not actually reflective of the real physical effects on those moving objects due to their motions. I made no claims and attacked no-one so I have no "terrible impression" from me to overcome. Most subsequent posts were due to paddoboy's very first post trying to influence me and effectively prejudice me against his enemies. I asked that I want none of anyone's personal agendas because my blood pressure can't handle it. I ask again to not be dragged into others' past or present feuds and misunderstandings. Thanks.

 

Then take your hands off your shirt collar. You're dragging yourself in. This isn't my first rodeo. Back to ignore for you. Maybe because your thread was just sent to pseudoscience? Pseudoscience then you appear and start the self righteous indignation. That's a signature for you.

 

I repeat, what are you talking about, brucep? I am not your imagined enemy. I'm a new member who was approached improperly by an existing member who attempted to prejudice me against other members. That's not gentlemanly in my book; nor is it scholarly. I only want to be left alone to listen and learn from learned and competent members who have something to offer science discussions other than their past or present personal byplays with past or present enemies. That sort of thing is no longer acceptable in this new century of further discovery, correction or confirmation in many fields of science, and especially cosmology, relativity and quantum theory. I want to concentrate on keeping up with the exciting scientific discoveries, developments and the inevitable consequential discussions which follow on the internet. My blood pressure condition is such that I cannot allow myself to be dragged into others off-topic aggravations as well; which is why I reacted so quickly to others' attempts to do that so that I can nip it in the bud if at all possible. Thanks for putting me on ignore, brucep; that will probably be good for both of us.

 

Blackholes could never form based on high energy plasma; which is what the galactic core is made of.

The plasma is fluidic ; which means that it can not be depressed; it will push back.

Any fluid will; when compressed enough will be and act as a soild.

 

That is simply uneducated rubbish.
The galactic core is a SMBH as the evidence shows.
The rest is simply more uneducated rubish.
Off course all you need do is show some evidence for your claim though.
best of luck with that.

 

All your evidence is based on gravity; and gravity is the weakest force of all.

 

Stop spamming your drivel.

 

Stop commenting

 

What strenghens gravity is the density of mass; what weakens gravity is the limits of density.

The fluid density of high energy plasma is less density.

 

Yet it is responsible for BH's.
But anyway, you have avoided answering the question.

 

Thats the THEORY .

I did because who is has or did think of the compression of plasma in fluidic terms. ? Nobody.

 

Yep, that is the theory!
And what credentials do you carry to claim it is wrong?
Or are you still clinging to your Plasma/Electric universe?
And of course the conspiracy by our mainstream friends in stubbornly rejecting it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's nice, have fun, you are changing nothing and the incumbent theory and facts remain as is.

 

Gravity ....so out dated....oh well.

reason

Plasma Universe ; as I keep correcting you ; but you hope that I will say different; No

 

So out dated??? Really river that's the silliest cop out I have heard.
GR gravity is the overwhelmingly accepted theory of gravity, simply because it predicts better, and matches all observations and tests so far thrown its way

I don't really care what you say, believe or think. I know what the accepted mainstream thinking is, and why it is that way. That's all that matters, as you are changing nothing.
Your corrections are rejected by the way as wrong.
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html
The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology, and it is necessary to differentiate between the two. While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.