Black holes are scientific fictions.

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

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