The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: White holes are the opposit of black holes in the univers.  (Read 11749 times)

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Well I read the Expanding Earth Theory

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory [nonactive]

That seems to have a problem explaining where the sea came from.

It has a problem with quite a few things, it's been fairly thoroughly discredited.

Wikipedia articles are unbiased with many references within them. Neal Adams is one.

Have you studied Neal Adams animations, both for Earth and various moons/planets.
It does seem a strong case can be made for an expansion phase in planets and moons.

Earth > newbielink:http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html [nonactive]
Mars > newbielink:http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip13.html [nonactive]
Europa > newbielink:http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip02.html [nonactive]

The experiment with Jupiters moon Europa is breathtaking

My interest however is in stars and planets cores.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2009 15:53:57 by Victor2009 »
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Do you believe the universe is expanding ?
It gives that appearance, so I provisionally accept it.

Do you believe in Red giants ?
Cetainly. Our understanding of nucleosynthesis as revealed by Hoyle et alcoupled with what we have deduced of the life cycle of stars renders their character unremarkable.

Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)
Although I am not much of a believer in eye witness testimony I have seen a couple of these myself. I found the Pioneer, Voyager and Magellan data much more compelling. So put me down as a believer.

Do you believe these images ? > newbielink:http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=stars%20exploding&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi [nonactive]
I believe some of them are artists impressions. However I do believe stars explode.

Your point?


Stars and planets are growing like balloons, Ophiolite

Additional matter is being pumped up from the inside.

There's a connection between stars/planets cores and black holes in the universe.



« Last Edit: 22/05/2009 16:17:25 by Victor2009 »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
You have presented zero evidence to support this contention. The sizes of stars, planets and other heavenly bodies is well addressed by current theory. That current theory provides explanations for these sizes that is detailed and quantitative, not a bunch of unsubstantiated hand waving.

I have no idea if you are uneducated, or merely delusional. However, I am certain that you are wrong. (And I am certain of very little in the universe, so you do at least enjoy that distinction.)
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Matter that enters our galaxy's central black hole is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.

That's why stars and planets are growing, exploding and returning to the our galaxy's central black hole.

That's just the way nature works, Ophiolite :)

Supporting evidence,

First of all it's a easy recognizable and very natural model. The difference is only in size and scale, it's a galactic ecosystem.

From our point of view, in time and space, we don't see our galaxy as it really is, we only see back through time.

In real time, everything spirals up to the top and then falls back through the center, to it's beginning, and so on.

So "the theory of relativity" is the best single piece of evidence in favour of my model.

That is if you understood it ?

Victor
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
I think most folks here understand the theory of relativity. I doubt that any of them would see it as evidence that your concept has any relation to reality. How do you see relativity phenomena as evidence that a black hole eats energy and matter and spews it back out in the centre of stellar and planetary masses?

What are the physical rules for such phenomena? It would have to be a real stretch from the rules that we are able to deduce from observations.

BTW: a theory is not evidence of anything. It is only observed phenomena that is evidence. :)
« Last Edit: 24/05/2009 12:35:45 by Vern »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Matter that enters our galaxy's central black hole is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.

That's why stars and planets are growing, exploding and returning to the our galaxy's central black hole.

That's just the way nature works, Ophiolite :)

Supporting evidence,

First of all it's a easy recognizable and very natural model. The difference is only in size and scale, it's a galactic ecosystem.

From our point of view, in time and space, we don't see our galaxy as it really is, we only see back through time.

In real time, everything spirals up to the top and then falls back through the center, to it's beginning, and so on.

So "the theory of relativity" is the best single piece of evidence in favour of my model.

That is if you understood it ?

Victor

I'm not sure that's what classes as supporting evidence.  It doesn't matter how nice it feels, or how complete it looks to you, or how much sense it seems to make - it has to fit with the facts.  If being a nice story and making sense was all we needed as evidence, then Kipling's Just So Stories would be considered as facts.

As I mentioned earlier, and your own wikipedia link also explains, you are basing all of this on a idea that has been discredited.  Expanding earth doesn't fit the facts, so we reject it.
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
I think most folks here understand the theory of relativity. I doubt that any of them would see it as evidence that your concept has any relation to reality. How do you see relativity phenomena as evidence that a black hole eats energy and matter and spews it back out in the centre of stellar and planetary masses?

What are the physical rules for such phenomena? It would have to be a real stretch from the rules that we are able to deduce from observations.

BTW: a theory is not evidence of anything. It is only observed phenomena that is evidence. :)

Vern,

You most certainly got the picture  ::)

Now look at our galaxy's central black hole.

What you observe right now, happend 26 000 years ago.

Mass you observe being swallowed right now, is already back at it's origin.

The spacetime continuum prevents you from observing this in real time.

Entry points and exit points that exists simultaneously seem unrelated.

Therefor the theory of relativity :)
« Last Edit: 24/05/2009 13:07:53 by Victor2009 »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
I have to admit that I have imagined things as weird as the scenario you suggest. However, I usually dismiss them immediately when I find no evidence that supports the idea. For your scheme to work we need some mechanism for instant transfer of material from the centre of black holes to stellar and planetary objects in the galaxy. Then we need some way to keep this happening in the local galaxy and not scattered around throughout the universe.

I can't imagine what observable phenomena would need this as an explanation.
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Try this image, Vern

Inside our galaxy's central black hole, our galaxy's lays in-folded

Outside of our galaxy's central black hole, our galaxy's lays out-folded

As our galaxy's is folding into our galaxy's central black hole.

It is instantly unfolding, distantly outside our galaxy's central black hole.

newbielink:http://i41.tinypic.com/e6p2ly.jpg [nonactive]

The observable phenomena in question is,

Matter that enters our galaxy's central black hole is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.

That's why stars and planets are growing, exploding and returning to the our galaxy's central black hole.

Victor
« Last Edit: 24/05/2009 18:39:56 by Victor2009 »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Ok; I can visualize that. The spiral image is nice. How does this fit with reality? Does it explain any phenomena better than established theory? :)
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Ok; I can visualize that. The spiral image is nice. How does this fit with reality? Does it explain any phenomena better than established theory? :)
Yes, Vern

The established theory has this black hole/dead end and cloudy star formation theory.

Whereas my galactic recycling theory connects our galaxy's central black hole with the globules that are all around the galaxy.

newbielink:http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/globule.html [nonactive]

Victor :)
« Last Edit: 25/05/2009 10:08:47 by Victor2009 »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Does it not bother you that there is no mechanism to transport the matter from the black hole centres to the globules?
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
transport line > black hole > worm hole > whith holes

Our galaxy's central black hole has a feedback process.

Our galaxy is a cyclone, recycling matter and energy at high speed

« Last Edit: 25/05/2009 20:16:32 by Victor2009 »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Nah!!! Sorry, but you are using one theory to back up another theory.

On that basis, I could claim that black, white and worm holes are evidence for my theory of Red Holes.

You must have some hard fact to back up a theory, not a bunch of other theories which, themselves, have no hard fact to back them.
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Nah!!! Sorry, but you are using one theory to back up another theory.

On that basis, I could claim that black, white and worm holes are evidence for my theory of Red Holes.

You must have some hard fact to back up a theory, not a bunch of other theories which, themselves, have no hard fact to back them.

My Galactic Recycling Theory (GRT) is trying to explain newbielink:http://crd.lbl.gov/DOEresources/2008highlights/ASCR_accomplishment_star_formation.doc [nonactive]

A question not even the astronomers and astrophysicists have a good explanation for.

And you ask for hard facts ?  :o

Victor
« Last Edit: 26/05/2009 21:17:24 by Victor2009 »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Don't spam us with links Victor - one in your profile will be quite enough...
 

Offline Victor2009

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
corrected, Ben Sorry  ::)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums