Black holes are scientific fictions.

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).

You should begin with the definitions, the defintional logic, your concept of “existence”, of “affectance”, then show an example with a particle, of course. But maybe that you are right and a video is not the best medium to explain what RM:AO is, although it is possible to divide it into several "sub"videos: one for RM, one for AO, and more than one for other aspects of RM:AO.

Aether is a provable substance, aetheral wind is not.

Since Science proclaimed the non-existence of aether, how would you go about proving the existence of aether?

And of what is aether made?

Yes, that much I had figured out.

But those parts require a great deal of video graphics so as to be able to visualize. Words don’t convey the thoughts well enough. A 500 page book just requires a lot to make into video. They have a hard time making such books into 2 hour movies.

And there is also the issues of having to show why relativity and quantum physics are inherently included to the degree that they are relevant.

So you are not going to make any video about RM:AO?

Oh, I’m not making any promises. I started to do that by creating my own video creating program a few years ago (after finding out that the typical programs couldn’t do what I needed), but ran out of resources and that is really a young man’s game anyway. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it. :sunglasses:

I made a program to make a few animations for specific issues (which you have seen already), but never felt that it could handle everything needed (Did Einstein have to make a video? :confused: ).

My brain is a bit worn out.

Einstein had sponsors. And if you have sponsors too: Einstein had other sponsors. :wink:

The greater issue is actually “Who really wants to know?” If anyone wants to know, they can find out.

The only thing that I personally want for “them” to know concerns SAM. But SAM is an issue that doesn’t show up until very late in the whole RM:AO understanding. It is a bit pointless to talk about sending a rocket to the moon if the people involved haven’t learned considerable chemistry and physics. And the only reason anyone was interested in going to the Moon was to establish military supremacy in orbit (note that since then, no one went to the Moon any more).

In general, as in Einstein’s day, the only time anything significant changes is when there is a war issue at hand (which is why wars are created). War gives inspiration for the wealthy and influential to actually seek accomplishment beyond mere stasis maintenance. That has been the curse of Man since day 7.

Having the recipe for positive change doesn’t help if one hasn’t the ingredients.

Someone above said there is nothing
smaller than what we can observe.
Photons are what we use for observation,
and when an object is much smaller
than a lightwave, it is hard to interact.
Resolutions are getting much smaller, now,
using crossed beams, and the periods of
electrons are being measured at
~100 attoseconds (1 attosecond = 10^-18 sec)
Is there nothing smaller because photons
are too big?
Or is there lots and lots more smaller
stuff AND a whole emr spectrum of
lots smaller-based photons, representing
the radiated energies of that
lots and lots more small stuff.

It is that small stuff that makes
up subatomic particles. It completely
fills space. It has currents, tides and
vortices. The vortices are the
Black holes- which I agree are
scientific fiction in the sense that
a bunch of matter didn’t collapse
to make them. They are made in
the same extreme kinds of processes
that atoms are made in, and like atoms
they then persist indefinitely.

“what we have observed”.
Ever heard of the “electron microscope”?
Electrons are much smaller than light photons.

And when trying to detect, the angle of reflection or deflection is used, so it doesn’t matter if what is being detected is smaller. What is important is that it has affect. And if it has no affect, it doesn’t exist.

And the issue isn’t one of being able to detect, but rather the logic of why those particles exist in the first place. Particles can only form at a particular size, whether detectable or not. But in this case, they have already detected them anyway.

Thirty days ago the first gravitational waves were officially confirmed. They were caused by the collision
of two black holes over one billion years ago. And so your claim is not only false but demonstrably so too