Black holes are scientific fictions.

A supermassive black hole (SMBH) is the largest type of
black hole, on the order of hundreds of thousands to billions of
solar masses (M☉), and is found in the center of almost all
massive galaxies.

The origin of supermassive black holes remains an open
field of research.

My research.

  1. A supermassive black hole with temperature T=0K.
  2. Zero vacuum with the temperature T=0K.
  3. Ideal Gas with the temperature T=0K.
  4. Quantum Theory that says: zero vacuum (as a cosmic fabric)
    gives birth to “virtual” quantum particles.

My scenario.
According to QT the Zero Vacuum (as an Ideal Gas) gives birth
to the potential k-molar particles. The potential molar k-particles have
two forms of modifications:
a) Their collective movement creates conditions of heat: E=kT (logW)
b) Their individual movement create energy: E=(kb)*f .
The interaction between energy and heat created surrounded material
world of galaxies. But until today nobody explained the interaction
between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW).

You already know this. Science never disproved aether, they just disproved a silly nonsensical idea of aether as aetheral wind as a magic non relative entity which is independent of matter.

I asked how YOU would prove its existence and of what it is made.

I can tell you all about affectance and prove its existence, but not “aether”.

Aether is the same as affectance. I can prove it with an accelerating variant of the Michelson Morley experiment. But I’ll need some donations please.

How can you know that affectance is the same as aether?

Exactly what would your hypothesis be concerning the MM experiment?

Speaking of videos; I just made this simulation of a single sub-atomic particle which looks surprisingly like the emulation (if one could actually see ultra-minuscule EMR pulses) and could be included in a video. A black-hole would be merely a much, much larger version of that same thing.

But I really need to convey the following pic in an animated way:

That one isn’t so easy to simulate.

You do not need to simulate all your pics, James.

Yeah, but which do and which don’t?

I don’t know all your pics. And those which are really not easy to simulate should not be simulated, because there are many ways to explain RM:AO (and you probably know the saying: “time is short” [similar to: "time is money]).

Picture Bank 1
Picture Bank 2

@ Mithus
Thank you for links


Jaroslav Hasek
“. . . inside the globe there was another globe much bigger than the outer one.”
/ Good soldier Svejk, chapter 4 /

a) Thanks to science we know that the earth doesn’t
stay on three turtles.
Thanks to science we know that the heavens don’t
stay on the shoulders of the Atlas.
. . . . etc.

b) Thanks to modern science we know that existence began
from “big bang”.
Thanks to modern science we know that more than 90%
of masses in the universe are “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
Thanks to modern science we know that “supermassive black
holes” can “eat” all “big bang” matter.
Thanks to modern science we know that “string-particles”
exist in the 11-D or even in the 27- dimensions.
My conclusion.
Even having high modern technology doesn’t prevent scientists
to create myths on the physical / mathematical basis.


“Nothing can exit a black-hole”…
… except affectance and another black hole. :sunglasses:

I think science is actually a gag joke, like a tabloids. “Elvis presley gets a sex change, Madonna abducted by aliens, etc.”

The line “Scientists are baffled!” is part of the joke. It is their role, as boobs. Benjamin Franklin was a booby man.

I think they are not meant to be taken seriously, but is a secret joke, like the TV show Eureka, StarTrek or Back To The Future is a potrayal of the joke,
I don’t think scientists are supposed to make credible theories, but silly theories that will be disproven soon so they can use the line “Scientists are baffled!” over and over again like a Seinfield episode. Like any good movie, the characters are meant to make stupid decisions and have plotholes, so people can comment with each other, formulate their own theories and have a social commentary during the spectacle.

Aether is the all prevading material throughout space. The only thing different than it, is consciousness, the perciever, which uses energy (movement) based perception. Movement (time) is immaterial, people associate electricity with heated plasma but their is the underlying thing of “vibration”, heat vibration in heated plasma.

MM experiment would be redone as to compensate for lack of movement. Aether does not move independent of Earth as was earlier assumed. Earlier it was assumed aether had an unknown fuel source that caused it to move in a linear direction regardless of Earth’s atmosphere. This was silly. New theory is that is related to Earth’s atmosphere’s velocity. Hypothesis is that if an object is accelerating, a boat like wake will form around it, and hopefully some of the wake will be able to be measured. Problem is, the measuring object will also form a wake of its own, possibly shielding it from measuring its own wake, form a protective wake bubble and return a zero velocity value. Therefore this experiment may not be used to disprove aether, only possibly prove its existence.

How terribly, unfortunately true.

But is that merely a theory or is that your declaration of the definition of “aether”? There is a serious difference.

Affectance is not defined to be “whatever substance is throughout the universe”. It just turns out to be. And “Aether” was once defined to be “whatever medium in which light and particles travel”. Aether was not defined to be “the substance throughout the universe”, although strongly suspected to be. And how could one prove that it is throughout the universe? Perhaps there are places where light cannot travel? Perhaps there is yet another substance along with aether? When would the questioning end?

Affectance is necessarily in all places throughout the universe and is of what light, particles, and even time and distance are made. That is provable even without telescope or microscope. The quest is over.

Provability is the issue. Affectance is provable. Aether is merely speculatively supportable (maybe there is yet another substance causing the results being seen in the experiments?)

They already speculated that the aether was perhaps moving along with the Earth. But even with that consideration, they still didn’t get the results that they were expecting. Today, they can be far more accurate. But the problem is that they still don’t know what aether is and thus they don’t really know what to expect. If they get what they expect, it will not prove that aether exists, just as it would not prove that it doesn’t exist if negative results were obtained.

To prove something, one must know what it is that he is proving. “Aether” is merely a name for an unknown substance. Measuring an unknown substance yields unknown results.

We know what “affectance” is. We know exactly what to look for if trying to measure it. We know how it behaves. And we know that it is necessarily the make of all physicality.

And that is why I refuse to call it “aether” (else you might as well call it “God”).

I don’t believe aether is everywhere in the universe, there may be places where light and matter cannot travel.
Therefore it is different from affectance in that regard.
Also, light and matter need aether to exist and travel. HyperDense aether makes sphere atoms.

MM did not compensate for static motion relative to atmosphere. Was there a different experiment you are talking about that supposedly disproved aether?

No experiment disproved aether. They merely proved that there was nothing behaving as they speculated that aether would behave.

The essential problem was that they were only speculating as to how aether might behave. They have no means for knowing how aether would behave concerning possible wind effects. Demonstrating no aether wind has little to nothing to do with proving the existence or nonexistence of aether. The true fundamental substance that they were looking for simply doesn’t behave as they thought/think. Until they realize what it actually is, they could keep speculating forever.