0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So if we tunnel to the core of a planet we'll find a big shiny white hole then?
I suspect that black holes as well as white holes do not exist as accepted by most everyone. My speculation is that we will find some principle that prevents the singularity at the centre. When we find that principle we will be able to calculate the maximum possible density of matter IMHO.  I predict that it will be just short of the density required to restrict light from escaping.
It pleasing to see Victor's post receive the attention it deserves.
Well I read the Expanding Earth Theory...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINThat seems to have a problem explaining where the sea came from.
#1 yes#2 yes#3 yes#4 some of themAll these can be seen, but we can't see a black hole, only activity which might suggest their existence, so they are not an absolute certainty, therefore, your white hole cannot be supported.
Do you believe the universe is expanding ?
Do you believe in Red giants ?
Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)
Do you believe these images ? > ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
Quote from: Victor2009 on 19/05/2009 19:59:33Well I read the Expanding Earth Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory [nofollow]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.
Well I read the Expanding Earth Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory [nofollow]That seems to have a problem explaining where the sea came from.
Quote from: Victor2009 on 21/05/2009 16:39:12Do you believe the universe is expanding ?It gives that appearance, so I provisionally accept it.Quote from: Victor2009 on 21/05/2009 16:39:12Do 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.Quote from: Victor2009 on 21/05/2009 16:39:12Do 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. Quote from: Victor2009 on 21/05/2009 16:39:12Do you believe these images ? > http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=stars%20exploding&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi [nofollow]I believe some of them are artists impressions. However I do believe stars explode.Your point?
Do you believe these images ? > http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=stars%20exploding&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi [nofollow]
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 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. 
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? 
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.