Black holes are scientific fictions.

Black holes are scientific fictions.
In 1783 John Michell wrote that a big massive star would have
such a strong gravity field that light could not escape. Such objects
was called “black holes”.

In 1928 Chandrasekhar realized that a star of more than about
one and a half times the mass of our Sun would collapse to a zero size.
In the other words Chandrasekhar mass-limit law says that stars mush
bigger than our Sun cannot exist in Nature ( it is impossible to create
snowball as big as the mountain Everest) Chandrasekhar’s limit law
was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983.
So, in my opinion, “black holes” are scientific fictions.
a) But astronomers observed regions in the Universe without any light.
For example: unseen object called Cygnus X and a number of other
objects in our galaxy. Using entropy , quantum fluctuation ,
uncertainty principle astrophysicists say that the temperature of these
regions are only one ten-millionth of a degree above absolute zero.
The difference is so slight that I can say these regions have the absolute
zero temperature: T=0K.
( P.S.
Without entropy , quantum fluctuation . . . etc. their temperature is T=0K).

b) The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it
cannot ‘close’ the Universe into a sphere and therefore
the Universe as a whole is ‘open’, endless, infinite.

c) Only in local, limited regions this T=0K is broken.
In these limited, local regions the Newton’s and Einstein’s
Gravity limited laws are worked.

d) Book
“There has also been mounting evidence that so-called
“supermassive black holes” lurk in the cores of most galaxies,
including our own Milky Way. Today, many physicists suspect
that giant black holes may be among the most ancient and important
objects in the universe, likely guiding the evolution of the galaxies
that now harbor them”.
/ Book: “Universe on a T-shirt” , page 113, by Dan Falk /

My commentary.

  1. Chandrasekhar mass-limit law forbid existence of stars much
    bigger than our Sun and therefore the source of so-called
    “supermassive black holes” must be another

  2. As infinite cosmic continuum the Universe has the absolute
    zero temperature: T=0K and it is core / harbor / source of all galaxies

  3. The evolution of all galaxies was begun from T=0K by the scheme:
    a) first chemical element Helium II ( T=2,17K)
    b) second chemical element Helium I ( T=4,2K)
    Every scientific amateur knows about strange behavior of He-II and He-I
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Lets just skip the formalities. Internet is a small place, when it comes to philosophy and physics. You’ve been kicked out of most philosophy and physics forums, because your repetitive and people can’t make much sense out of you.

The forums go through a stage like we currently are AIambigious, trying to explain the incoherent mess, but despite some minor gains, it all ultimately falls apart. Everyone avoids you like a crackpot. Your aware of this, everyone is aware of this. Yet you compulsively continue.

So since there is no malice against you for the moment, your largely overlooked on this site, I’m going to try something different.

I don’t want you to explain your ideas is mathematical formulas, in statements, equations… it has obviously lead you nowhere, and your own linked in account suggests your not interested in the science itself, but Godthink.

So let’s just ditch the routine. Socratus, let’s do something radically different here… don’t explain your physics with algebra, I want you to draw it… on notebook paper or Microsoft Paint… as abstractly as possible. Your trying to express the Augustian approach of rational thought as the very substance of God, but you want it to fit static values as the thoughts of God, right? At root, that’s what your doing, it’s how your trying your mathematics and physics into your quest for hearing Gods thoughts.

Draw it. Don’t drawl it technically to scale, but abstract… emotional, with heart and spirit. Then… find the pattern in your hearts own movement. If God says he is just like us, a thinking being, and we have free will and all, then you’ve likely been barking up the wrong tree all these years in a misapplication of your intuitive ordering of logic.

Or… we can start down the repetitive path you’ve been on for years, people will make attempts to get you, and you will get squeezed out of this forum and the next, and the next, till you die.

I don’t advocate art like this to all, but it seems the exact opposite of your approach. Something entirely new at this point is called for. Go to the store and pick up some waterpaints, and don’t you dare touch a compass or a ruler. Lets the colors blend a bit, color outside the line a bit… it won’t hurt it to do it a little.

Blueshift ponders… black holes – fact or fiction?
By Sara Mitchell. December 17, 2010 … r-fiction/

@ James S Saint
Google: search images - black holes , more than 1000 images of BH . . . . … pxbT03dVt0


Shouldn’t the light be being sucked inward, rather than being pushed outward?

What you see is the light that got bent around the object - everything outside of the event horizon. You don’t see the light that got too close. Thus two things are proven:

  1. The object is of extreme mass
  2. There is an affectance field (a “mass field”) extending well outside the event horizon (thus literally everything is not “pulled in”).

And despite what anyone might tell you, there is no “singularity” at the center of a black-hole. Physical singularities don’t exist.

Okay, it makes sense.

So when aether is piled up, it becomes dense, like matter.
Matter reflects light, but dense aether only slightly reflects light, like 10%, slightly altering its trajectory.

Actually it makes sense. If you study the process of light reflection, you see that light reflecting off objects is not a cut and dry matter of “angle of incidence” on a surface normal. In fact, it has a randomized surface normal at the atomic level, multiple round balls it must collide against, and so the normals tend to be averaged because of the randomized angles of incidence.

Dense aether would be a little bit different, rather than hard round balls it is like a ball bouncing off a gel, so its even more random than the angles of incidence on hard round balls, and also less effective at changing the trajectory, it is only a percent value of the expected normalized angle of incidence based on its viscosity.

I don’t know anything about aether. When affectance builds up it IS matter. Mass particles are merely extremely high density affectance field spots (like spots of mold on a window pane). The gravitational field surrounding the particles is merely far less dense affectance.

If you look at the last frame of that anima, you can still see a small remaining bump of the particle. Then imagine many of those little remaining bumps all skittering around each other. That is what is inside a black-hole. Near the center, they are much closer together and harder to distinguish from each other than further from the center.

That is exactly what I meant, you and I are exactly on the same page.
Superdense is when they become atoms, but dense is when they are the field around blackholes.

And you automatically get three type of particles:

One of increasing affectance potential (positron)
One of neutral affectance potential (neutrino)
One of decreasing affectance potential (electron).

And realize that the extended ambient field from the central concentration is what causes gravity. Those particles (much the same for light) migrate toward the more dense affectance field and thus toward each other. There is no “force” pulling on them. They merely drift, changing their center of congestion because the field is denser on one side, usually the side facing the other particle.

Many beautiful pictures.
Somebody knows to use Photoshop.
Behind Photoshop’s beautiful pictures is hidden our ignorance.

You should make a video about the whole RM:AO that lasts about 20 or 30 minutes. The advantage is that such a video makes it possible to understand the whole RM:AO within 20 or 30 minutes and that you do not need to explain any single element of RM:AO again and again.

But this is a good exercize for James, repeating himself over and over, its good honest work and helps him with the flow.

For instance, Ill sometimes talk to nobody, about things and concepts, and it helps me iron out the flow, sometimes I even discover errors in it from time to time and it helps me fix those too.

Actors rehearse for movies. Teachers do too, in a way.

You guys have an astounding belief in atomos, that ultimately things cannot be further split [God particle stuff]. Strange when up until that point absolutely everything could be split!

Yes, that is right. And as far as I know him he wants some but not all people to challenge him because of that good exercize you mentioned.

I don’t know where you get your ideas of what we are talking about. You seem to always have it completely wrong and in this case exactly backward. RM:AO proposes that there is a substance that is infinitely divisible (unlike quantum physics - atomos). But there is a smallest particle size beneath which there can be no particles. That is quite provable and is a function of the speed of light.

Yes and no, but from where to begin? Everyone has their own confusions. RM:AO has an explanation for literally everything concerning it and that is a lot. So it isn’t so easy to just explain it all from the beginning. It isn’t just a vague notion of about how things are. Anything that truly answers all questions is not going to be a 20 minute video. There is just too much there.

But not having to repeat myself on every issue is why I use those pics and blog pages.

Black holes are simply vortices in the
underlying structure.
Atoms floating in Space are not floating
in Nothing: they are in a sea of the material that makes up atoms- call it aether, call it the next
fractal level down in I Fractal Universe.
Where this aether is spinning, it spins
much faster than our matter can spin, so
when our matter gets involved, it it
shredded. The charges actually repel
each other magnetically, because of the acceleration,
much more strongly than they can
attract each other electrically, and they
become two oppositely-directed jets
of High-energy particles.

a) A- bomb destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
b) Where did A-bomb’s masses come from?
They came from U-238
c) . . . etc.
a) Cold stars created black holes.
b) Where did cold star’s masses come from?
They came from hot stars.
c) Where did hot star’s masses come from?
“Hmm . . . . if I know where hot star’s masses come from,
then I didn’t need the rest scientific foolishness.” / Socratus /
The origin of supermassive black holes remains an open field of research.

Actually it is “affectance”, unlike aether a provable substance.

But I’m afraid that it is logically/mathematically impossible for the universe to be fractal. Although one can imagine such a thing, there can actually be no particles of any kind smaller than we already observe.

I am betting that someone answers the question long before Wiki publishes that the question has been answered. :sunglasses:

And the mass of all stars comes from the prior collision of black holes (and/or neutron stars).