Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: GoC on 27/03/2017 21:25:43

Title: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 27/03/2017 21:25:43
?
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: LB7 on 27/03/2017 21:28:30
Could you be more precise ?

Is it the conservation of kinetic energy ? keep motion no ?

If yes, if my theory is correct it is the limit of speed of light. I spoke about the clock and the rotation of the basic-particle before. The basic-particle can't move faster than 'c' so when there is no translation, the rotation is symmetrically and the basic-particle rotates at 'c'. With a speed of translation, the half round in the direction of the translation can't move faster than 'c' so the rotation is now lower than 'c' in that half round. In the other half round the basic-particle can move faster than 'c' because the direction of velocities are in the contrary, so the particle moves faster than 'c'. This deforms the particles (and atoms and a body at final) and must give a potential energy that we called kinetic energy. After, why the body moves continuously ? because there is a translation and there is the limit speed of light (absolute velocity). It is logical like that, the movement can't change with any external force (or at least a synchronization with an external object, like gravity does).

Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: PhysBang on 27/03/2017 21:57:47
Since Newton, the answer has been "nothing". It is only acceleration that is caused. Motion simply exists in some amount in some direction entirely at the whim of the coordinate system that one chooses.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: Ethos_ on 27/03/2017 22:01:45
?
Curious question my friend, and one that will receive many different answers I'm sure. As to the cause, it all depends on the physical circumstances surrounding each independent frame relative to all others. I would rather answer this question: "Why is there motion?"

My answer: "Time",.............The fourth dimension.

Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: LB7 on 27/03/2017 22:10:51
?
question: "Why is there motion?"
My answer: "Time",.............The fourth dimension.
I'm agree. It was my reply at start but I changed because I know what causes time (and relative time) like time is the angular velocity (time=1/w) of the basic-particle the motion depends of the basic-particle. And time is not really something "measurable", in the contrary a rotation of the basic-particle it is.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 28/03/2017 12:00:39
Motion is always a mechanical transfer. Time = Motion = c energy.

LB7 yes electrons move as 1/w spin. Photons on the other hand move through space as a vector spherical radius as a wave of c energy.

Physbang nothing begets nothing and a belief in magic.

Ethos, yes why is there motion? Time is a fundamental energy transferring motion. Where did energy come from?
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: Ethos_ on 29/03/2017 00:38:25
Motion is always a mechanical transfer. Time = Motion = c energy.

LB7 yes electrons move as 1/w spin. Photons on the other hand move through space as a vector spherical radius as a wave of c energy.

Physbang nothing begets nothing and a belief in magic.

Ethos, yes why is there motion? Time is a fundamental energy transferring motion. Where did energy come from?
I would assume that the large majority of Physicists would answer that question with: "From the Big Bang".

As for me, that question is much more complicated than just simply blaming it all on The Big Bang. Surely, Energy was present before "The Big Bang" or there simply wouldn't have been any bang what-so-ever. I realize there are those that will disagree with this notion by conjuring up magical terms like: "Quantum Fluctuations" and claim that "The Big bang" simply happened without a required cause. I am unable to swallow that pill myself and have a personal theory about our Universal Genesis but will not bore our members with it at this time.

As a side; Something inclines me to the suspicion that Energy is directional akin to Entropy. While Entropy is the process by which the balance scales level out, so-to-speak, Energy or the available usage thereof will trend in that direction as well. According to the law of conservation, the total amount of Energy will still be there but will be inaccessible for use when Entropy has run it's course. Entropy has a direction and useful Energy rides along on the same train.

Alas, I confess to having no experimentally processed answer to your question; "Where did Energy come from?" I, and no one else has the ability to observe what lies beyond "The Big Bang" and the answer to that question will remain hidden for a great long while if not for ever.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: LB7 on 29/03/2017 10:04:35
Motion is always a mechanical transfer. Time = Motion = c energy.
My example to have T-V not constant needs time, true.

And for your question, the motion comes from before the big bang. But if the energy is not conserved it could come from the inner particles with special configuration and movement.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 29/03/2017 11:48:35
The evidence for the BB was premature. The size of the BH's being over 30,000 AU is equivalent to the bible suggesting humans only existed for 6,000 years.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: puppypower on 29/03/2017 11:55:12
If you look at our universe, there is a net spontaneous movement of matter making energy and not energy making  matter. This direction of potential flow, induced by the forces of nature, suggests that energy is at lower potential than matter, since energy is the terminal product of the forces of nature.

This direction of potential flow also suggests that the speed of light is the ground state of the universe, since this is the reference of the lower potential energy product. This means that matter and all inertial references exists at higher potential than the speed of light ground state. The potential for motion, in matter, is inherent in inertial reference and matter, because these contain potential relative to the speed of light ground state.

As an analogy, picture a large plateau in the desert. We live on top of this plateau. Even since we can remember, it has been assumed that all reference is relative and therefore plateau, for convenience, will be defined as the ground state of the observed universe. Even if we define the plateau as the ground state, in reality, this reference contains hidden potential energy, relative to the true ground state, which is the desert floor below.

If we do not want to change, but want to continue to assume the plateau is the ground state, eventually we will find energy anomalies that are not consistent with our choice of reference. We will see affect, but not have any direct lab proof for the assumed underlying cause(s), For example, we made need to postulate dark energy, which we cannot proven to be tangible in the lab. However, we nevertheless see an affect. But the affect is really due to the wrong choice of ground state, with the universe using the true ground state; C, and not the convenient earth reference on the plateau. The earth is not the true center of the universe even if this is our main observation reference. This goes back to middle ages traditions.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: puppypower on 29/03/2017 12:05:51
The evidence for the BB was premature. The size of the BH's being over 30,000 AU is equivalent to the bible suggesting humans only existed for 6,000 years.

Humans capable of persistent civilization only existed for about 6000 years. This date parallels an important invention, needed for civilization, which was the invention of writing. Genesis was the first published science theory that attempted to integrate both cosmology and evolution. A very difficult feat even by modern standards. I am not saying this was the final theory man would make, but it was the first to be published. This new type of human has only been around about 6000 years.

Human is symbolic of temperament, and not of DNA and biology. The ancient concepts soul and spirit have little to do with DNA and the biology of the body. The ancients saw this distinction and treated body/DNA as separate. The Atheist misconception is like saying, since Einstein is human, and he invented relativity, anyone with human DNA, could also invent relativity. The invention of relativity, is not about human DNA or body, but has to do with a very particular human mind set that uses abstractions. The invention of writing helped create the new human mind set. Humans changed from instinctive, to more willful and creative, with the invention of civilization. Civilization is totally contrary to instinctive living, thereby causing instinctive damming and repression, from which a new human appears.   

Before writing, civilization appeared hear and there, but always aborted. The ideas were being created, but lack of writing lead to forgetting, misunderstanding and returning to instinct by the next generation. Writing allowed the persistence of ideas leading to repression/transformation. This first transformation is symbolized by Adam and the second by Eve, In tradition, Adam was the first scientist and mathematician.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: tkadm30 on 29/03/2017 23:06:42
Quantum mechanical motion is caused by the (de)localization of a particle subjected to a force, yielding a potential energy.

In simpler terms, motion is the cause and effect of the Schrödinger's paradox.   

See: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5099.pdf
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 30/03/2017 11:34:41
If you look at our universe, there is a net spontaneous movement of matter making energy and not energy making  matter. This direction of potential flow, induced by the forces of nature, suggests that energy is at lower potential than matter, since energy is the terminal product of the forces of nature.
Why does the electron and photon have perpetual motion while mass has entropy?
Quote
This direction of potential flow also suggests that the speed of light is the ground state of the universe, since this is the reference of the lower potential energy product. This means that matter and all inertial references exists at higher potential than the speed of light ground state. The potential for motion, in matter, is inherent in inertial reference and matter, because these contain potential relative to the speed of light ground state.

Now you have to differentiate between types of energy.

Quote
As an analogy, picture a large plateau in the desert. We live on top of this plateau. Even since we can remember, it has been assumed that all reference is relative and therefore plateau, for convenience, will be defined as the ground state of the observed universe. Even if we define the plateau as the ground state, in reality, this reference contains hidden potential energy, relative to the true ground state, which is the desert floor below.
Large comes from small?
Quote
If we do not want to change, but want to continue to assume the plateau is the ground state, eventually we will find energy anomalies that are not consistent with our choice of reference. We will see affect, but not have any direct lab proof for the assumed underlying cause(s), For example, we made need to postulate dark energy, which we cannot proven to be tangible in the lab. However, we nevertheless see an affect. But the affect is really due to the wrong choice of ground state, with the universe using the true ground state; C, and not the convenient earth reference on the plateau. The earth is not the true center of the universe even if this is our main observation reference. This goes back to middle ages traditions.

Yes and for the same reason they were wrong we are now wrong. Observation limitations.

Quantum mechanical motion is caused by the (de)localization of a particle subjected to a force, yielding a potential energy.

In simpler terms, motion is the cause and effect of the Schrödinger's paradox.   

See: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5099.pdf

Motion is caused by motion and c is fundamental motion moving the perpetual state of electrons and photons. No paradox.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: tkadm30 on 30/03/2017 13:05:36
Motion is caused by motion

That's a horrible logical fallacy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 30/03/2017 14:44:58
Motion is caused by motion

That's a horrible logical fallacy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


Its hardly circular reasoning. There are two types of motion fundamental motion c and kinetic motion. One we can measure by a light clock and the other by physical observed changes. Fundamental energy motion allows kinetic motion. Or magic vs. mechanics. I chose mechanics. Perpetual electron cycle? Do you chose magic?
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: Thebox on 30/03/2017 14:57:01
?
F=ma

Rudimentary F=+ versus +  &  + versus -

 why do we have motion? because we have space to allow motion
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 30/03/2017 17:13:27
And since c motion is of space and not mass it is the cause of motion. What allows the perpetual motion of the electron and photon?
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 06/04/2017 02:31:32
The recipe that started motion:
  "somehow" add a C pattern to a frozen frame of energy.
 At this point you'll have the photon recipe. (kinetic energy)
 If one is to have enough energy to produce as many photons as possible, those photons will eventually converge into a single point, and acquire mass, subsequently the motion will literally interact with the original frame and trigger a self sustainable effect that will forever "convert" the original entity into kinetic motion.
  Energy cannot be destroyed, therefor nowadays the original entity is still presented inside each particle, except that now the original entity cannot be freed from the C pattern(sipping).

 So my guess is that:
 Photon is but a loose end of spinning C, created by the existence of the electron, and also the electron is originated by the existence of the photon.
 Not by magic, everything starts with a photon, and for the electron, lets say, by the existence of more then one photon.
 By the time the photon accumulate to become the electron, at that very moment the electron "forces space" to regenerate compatible "new photons", proportional to the electron energy characteristic.

 Electron ans photon are confounded for one is the source of the other, and the only difference in between both particles is the occurrence or not occurrence of entropy.
  A single photon or many single photons are but interference on C, a rouge pattern occurring on space, like a pitch less flat cyclone of sipping energy(a patter/interference, not a particle yet). The combination of photons created a pitch particle that we call the electron, that for its turn is now able to store energy and have mass. But it's only able to do that as long as it can force space to keep producing photons on the "loose ends" the electron produces when on comparison to C of gravity. Somehow I wonder that it's when PI should goes in, by being a constant related with the size of space. And that spinning C patter "never" independent of the particle/object radius, can "ever" achieve a perfect size(radius) that to match a perfect correlation with, to fulfill PI. Which I suspect will ever be for PI can only be violated if the particle/object has a radius that of the one of space itself. As long that keeps happening, any particle/planet while submitted to spinning C will always produce (loose ends) on its physical centrifugal motion, and each of those loose ends being like "photons/moons/planets/suns/bh". A rouge pattern caused and tied to the source "electron/sun" that as long the electron is still there will continue like a "attempt" to become an electron, where there is no mass to become an electron, therefore the "particle attempt photon" will absolve both references. C of gravity point to point when on light riding it and spinning C when on matter, spinning around the electron "its cause" attributing their virtual mass to the electron at the center, allowing the electron itself to cause entropy.

  Photon form this point can assume many different configurations, as on matter Vs light/spectrum, one configuration adds mass to a virtual center conserving energy, storing it. The other one should "ride" C of gravity (the source of its own kinetic energy).

 Motion for me seems to be resultant of the "on matter" photonic configuration, motion should exist because photon become electron, electron start to store energy of its own photons and the act of storing space energy when combine with entropy forces physical objects(with mass) to "absorb" quantum mechanics...
  But different from kinetic energy that is codependent with gravity, motion is codependent with spinning C.
 Reason why gravity and matter produce a lot of new patterns.
  Motion is the final result of quantum mechanics (matter) when on interaction with the source of it's source Sipping C.

 Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.

 Evens so, without knowing the entity (before) the so called big bang, there's no way to be sure. Not from here...
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/04/2017 12:31:41
Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.

Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: LB7 on 06/04/2017 16:27:03
Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.
For me, the motion creates the time.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 06/04/2017 17:11:25
Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.

Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.

Plank's time is the smallest of motion'

The BB 13.6 Billion years is a drop in the bucket compared to BH's reaching over 30,000 AU. The two are incompatible. Which one is observed and which one is theory?
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 08/04/2017 23:49:03
Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.

Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.

 Time for me is a simple causality that has no purpose except that as a tool for us.
 It has a huge effect on space, but again only from our perspective.

 You see time for me is basically inevitable, it starts to occur on and from space at the moment, that by any means, a "scale" is set.
  Everything once was frozen, and suddenly "do not know why" kinetic energy took place and bang.
 At that very moment everything within the event was at the speed of light, all the photons, for ordinary reasons the environment was not suitable for entropy to exist.
  At the moment mass started to occur, entropy started to "locally" affect the within BB volume.
  This caused time as we know to appear.

 You see we predict the universal expansion or wherever has a "speed" and a "time" on which it happens.
  But thing about PI, why is always there as it is?
 It's because a perfect circle does not need time to expand or contract or do anything. It's cheating,
  If the environment "space" is the thing ruling the "time" and "speeds" within "its" universal balloon, us, and if it's indeed a expanding circle(more like a bubble or hurricane flat disk) its irrelevant.

 -A expanding circle/radius, does not need "time" not "speed" to expand or contract.

 Drawn a circle on a sheet of paper.
 Mentally watch this circle expand or contract into a smaller or larger radius.
  Now the trick, our situation thinking about it.
 "A cone"
 Imagine now that you are looking to the circle trough a cone, where you eye is on the small side of it and the cicle is on the other, from here on out your looking to the whole "universe" the sheet of paper can't be seen from your perspective but it's simultaneously there, outside of you field of view.

 Do you realize where the "speed" or "time" the circle did or took to "expand or contract" was only presented on the "distance". Those illusions where happening only on the cone, when you pictured the circle expanding the cone get larger. When you pictured the circle getting small you cone was getting small.
  The circle(universe) could indeed be expanding and contracting, but such things as speeds and times were presented only on the "cone" from with you were looking, and it was happening backwards for you too.
 So I ask, motion first, time first, does it mater?
 The question is:
Which one was universe from the cone perspective?
 The whole circle at one end, or the electron at the center of you very eye at the other side?
 Both were and none!
 The only thing defining that the electron is not the planet is gravity, inside out, or outside in, and that is determinate by gravity. If gravity in the shore was to be stronger than gravity on the hill, everything would be running imploding "as everything is" but from outside in...

 it's irrelevant, but the concept remains.
  If the cone had the same exact "scale" on both ends of it?
 I ask with that in mind.
 Would there be time on that spiral?
or only speed of light, like a wormhole?
 Like on the photon configuration when the entropy of the electron is not presented?
 One must be the larger end and the other must be the other, and both must be different.
 At this moment, with different scales in between point A(electron) and point B(photon), scales are set, time starts to occurs.
 Increase the scale (if volume is presented/available) and one is to then reach our scale.

  Time, speed, charges, sizes an any other motion or vector happens only on the cone and because of the cone(Distance)? Interaction moves everything...
 Does any of this make sense?
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: tkadm30 on 10/04/2017 11:42:43
The big bang theory is the cause and effect of quantum mechanical motion.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_paradox
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 10/04/2017 15:24:11
The big bang theory is the cause and effect of quantum mechanical motion.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_paradox


I have generally found theories cannot cause nor affect physics.

How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU. Our suns volume as a BH would be about 1.7 miles in diameter. Our suns life cycle is about 10 billion years. Larger suns have shorter life cycles but what is average? 13.6 billion years old for the universe is the equivalent of suggesting man only existed for 6,000 years on the earth. Our galaxies BH is about 4.5 AU. How long was the galaxy around before the first sun turned into the first BH? Our inability to view past 13.6 billion years may be spectrum waves are not distinguishable as images past that point. If we follow relativity GR could be the cause of red shift and less SR. Accumulated dilation can be viewed as the lensing effect on a galaxy. This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.

13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: PhysBang on 10/04/2017 17:14:40
How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU.
I know that the evidence is that you don't really care about the actual content of physics or empirical evidence, but what is your source for that claim? Your claim about the size of black holes is at least one order of magnitude larger than the Schwartzchild radius of the largest recorded black hole.

Quote
This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.
Again, for those people who actually care about physics: cosmological expansion is entirely a GR phenomenon, SR is not a factor of cosmological redshift.

Quote
13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.
Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: GoC on 15/04/2017 13:36:53
How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU.
Quote
I know that the evidence is that you don't really care about the actual content of physics or empirical evidence, but what is your source for that claim? Your claim about the size of black holes is at least one order of magnitude larger than the Schwartzchild radius of the largest recorded black hole.
I do care about the content of physics. And I did make a mistake by a factor of about 100. 17 billion solar units. This would be around 314 AU. But you are avoiding the point by your insult. How could the universe be only 13.6 billion years old with a BH of 17 billion suns?

Quote
This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.
Quote
Again, for those people who actually care about physics: cosmological expansion is entirely a GR phenomenon, SR is not a factor of cosmological redshift.
GR is gravity red shift and SR is vector red shift. GR red shift does not necessary mean anything is moving away. Explain your GR version of the expansion of the universe.

Quote
13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.
Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.
Quote
History of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations ... In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an ... who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this 'big bang' idea" ... Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a ...

Insults rather than correcting my term coined the term BB? It was a Catholic Priest who proposed the BB but Hoyle did coin the phrase.

Physbang you are not a very generous person are you? You can be precise without being accurate and you can be accurate without being precise.

What is the possibility of a 13.6 billion year universe with a 17 billion solar BH? Our suns lifespan is about 10 billion years. Do you have an opinion or is you thoughts only in the form of insults.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: impyre on 15/04/2017 17:11:48
Physbang nothing begets nothing and a belief in magic.

I thought their answer was relatively insightful. I'm sure there's been leftover motion since the big bang. Momentum can be responsible for motion, but so can outside forces. Of course, this is bearing in mind that motion is indeed relative and that so too can accelerations be relative. The fact that it can all be relative doesn't change the fact that motion and acceleration clearly exist.
If your question is "what causes things to move relative to their own reference frame?", that can only be outside force resulting in acceleration.
If your question is "what causes things to move relative to my reference frame?", that could be either force or momentum.
If your question is "what allows things to move?" I'd probably argue in favor of some other posters and say time.
If your question is "why are the laws of physics what they are?" .... who knows.
Title: Re: What causes motion?
Post by: PhysBang on 19/04/2017 18:56:03
I do care about the content of physics. And I did make a mistake by a factor of about 100. 17 billion solar units. This would be around 314 AU. But you are avoiding the point by your insult. How could the universe be only 13.6 billion years old with a BH of 17 billion suns?
First, you haven't provided us with any source for your claim. Nor have you provided us with any reason to believe that there should be any upper limit on black hole size. You are, again, demonstrating that you don't really care about evidence.
Quote
GR is gravity red shift and SR is vector red shift. GR red shift does not necessary mean anything is moving away. Explain your GR version of the expansion of the universe.
Please see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Quote
Quote
Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.
Insults rather than correcting my term coined the term BB? It was a Catholic Priest who proposed the BB but Hoyle did coin the phrase.
I made no insult. It was the case that Fred Hoyle was trying to smear the primordial fireball model of cosmology (as it might have been known at the time) by calling it the "Big Bang" theory; Hoyle admitted this much. It is also true that Hoyle's theory failed to match the cosmological evidence. I know that the moderators here accept a certain amount of anti-Catholic bigotry and attempt to dismiss points because a Catholic may once have made a similar point, but that Georges Lemaitre did seminal work in cosmology means neither that the current theory has Catholic content nor that it doesn't match the evidence.
Quote
Physbang you are not a very generous person are you? You can be precise without being accurate and you can be accurate without being precise.
Given your tenuous grasp on the relationship between conclusions and evidence, I can accept that you might have a negative assessment of me.

Quote
What is the possibility of a 13.6 billion year universe with a 17 billion solar BH? Our suns lifespan is about 10 billion years. Do you have an opinion or is you thoughts only in the form of insults.
Again, I have no idea what kind of reasoning you are attempting to employ here and I have no idea what your source is for your claims about black holes.