"black hole" idea

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

"black hole" idea

Unread postby Avant Garde » Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:09 am

Hi this is my first post. I was thinking the other day that a black hole might be a sort of reversal of regular matter. Where a regular proton has poles in which photons enter, and are then re-emitted from the equator and face -- black hole matter's face, the majority of the body, is like a giant pole where photons enter in -- and which are then re-emitted from its poles in a very linear, laser-like manner. This is the "jet streams" in existing theory. Black holes are "invisible" only because if you could actually see it from the very narrow window where its light would be visible, it means the jet stream of ionizing radiation would immediately strip the planet of electrons and we would die. Since we're alive, black holes are necessarily black and unseen.

Image

Image
User avatar
Avant Garde
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby rickard » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:39 am

Black holes does not exists ..... so you better use your intelligence on solving real problems ;)

https://www.learning-mind.com/american- ... mpossible/
rickard
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:36 am

Do you know the charge field was discovered by Miles Mathis?*

You can not apply it in the wrong way. All matter recycles photons the same way.

* in my paper about the charge field there are references > http://vixra.org/pdf/1811.0168v1.pdf , and the field is applied to real objects (stars and planets). There is no point in using it for objects that do not exist.

It is interesting what happens at galactic centers and i would agree it is a charge phenomena, a light hole.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby crawler » Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:47 am

If talking about polar ejections etc at blackholes or other spinning bodies then allow me to mention my idea re the centrifuging of aether. Aether is inertially pulled in to a spinning body near the equator & is then spat out at axially at the 2 poles. The inwards acceleration of the aether gives a faux-gravity. Proper gravity being due to the acceleration of the aether inflow due to aether being annihilated in mass. The ejection at the poles might result in the ejection of electrons etc, especially for stars & blackholes etc.

The same kind of thing happens to orbiting bodies, here the ejection would be near the orbit axis.
Likewize in spiral galaxies.

Re free-photons carrying charge, i dont see how. Charge can only be due to photaenos, photaenos are em radiation.
crawler
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby johnm33 » Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:27 am

For my part I suspect we're inside a black hole and the singularity is the indivisible aether, matter is simply built from holographic bubbles, representations of all the information within the aether in a permanent state of recreation. I can't see how one black hole could exist inside another but the opposite a plasmoid recycling heavy elements back to basics seems inevitable.
johnm33
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby Avant Garde » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:06 pm

crawler wrote: Re free-photons carrying charge, i dont see how. Charge can only be due to photaenos, photaenos are em radiation.


It's not that photons carry charge, photons are charge. Electrons and protons have charge and exchange charge -- but what the physical bodies which are expressed with the abstract function of "charge" which protons and electrons are exchanging are physical photons with spin and mass. "Charge" is nothing but the push exerted by photons bombarding another particle.

Photons are the matter of EM radiation, i don't know why you need to invent yet another new conceptual particle such as photaenos when photons are perfectly capable of being charge if you simply give them spin and mass.
Last edited by Avant Garde on Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Avant Garde
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby Avant Garde » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:08 pm

D_Archer wrote:Do you know the charge field was discovered by Miles Mathis?*

You can not apply it in the wrong way. All matter recycles photons the same way.

* in my paper about the charge field there are references > http://vixra.org/pdf/1811.0168v1.pdf , and the field is applied to real objects (stars and planets). There is no point in using it for objects that do not exist.

It is interesting what happens at galactic centers and i would agree it is a charge phenomena, a light hole.

Regards,
Daniel


I'm very aware lol. I initially thought this forum was entirely composed of proponents of Miles Mathis but I'm starting to realize it's a pretty broad community of various tendencies.
User avatar
Avant Garde
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby Avant Garde » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:26 pm

rickard wrote:Black holes does not exists ..... so you better use your intelligence on solving real problems ;)

https://www.learning-mind.com/american- ... mpossible/


That's why I called them Dark Stars. I'm not saying they have "singularities" at their center. But that doesn't mean to deny that there aren't dark stars with a lot of mass that emit no light except through their poles in the form of gamma ray jets. I don't think they violate physical laws or contain enormous mass at a "point" of infinite density and zero volume. Far from it. They're basically highly compressed crystal structures where matter is arranged in such a way that photons have no passage out except through discreet openings at the top and bottom of the object. I see it as a black crystal, not a physics violating singularity or paradox.
User avatar
Avant Garde
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:30 pm

Avant Garde wrote:
rickard wrote:Black holes does not exists ..... so you better use your intelligence on solving real problems ;) https://www.learning-mind.com/american- ... mpossible/
That's why I called them Dark Stars. I'm not saying they have "singularities" at their center. But that doesn't mean to deny that there aren't dark stars with a lot of mass that emit no light except through their poles in the form of gamma ray jets. I don't think they violate physical laws or contain enormous mass at a "point" of infinite density and zero volume. Far from it. They're basically highly compressed crystal structures where matter is arranged in such a way that photons have no passage out except through discreet openings at the top and bottom of the object. I see it as a black crystal, not a physics violating singularity or paradox.
I agree. Einsteinian singularity blackholes are nonsense. But there might be say 8 kinds of true black hole (& Dark Star).
crawler
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: "black hole" idea

Unread postby crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:33 pm

Avant Garde wrote:
crawler wrote: Re free-photons carrying charge, i dont see how. Charge can only be due to photaenos, photaenos are em radiation.
It's not that photons carry charge, photons are charge. Electrons and protons have charge and exchange charge -- but what the physical bodies which are expressed with the abstract function of "charge" which protons and electrons are exchanging are physical photons with spin and mass. "Charge" is nothing but the push exerted by photons bombarding another particle.
Photons are the matter of EM radiation, i don't know why you need to invent yet another new conceptual particle such as photaenos when photons are perfectly capable of being charge if you simply give them spin and mass.
Photons do hav mass, & spin, but i dont see how photons can explain charge. Only my photaenos can explain charge. Photaenos are emitted from the helical central part of all free photons & all confined photons. Photaenos hav spin & mass.

Photaenos (photaeno-drag) explain refraction diffraction & reflexion, the slowing of light near mass, the slowing of light in mass. Allso the strong force.

Standard science says that photons are em radiation & em radiation is photons. No they aint.
crawler
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Electrodynamic and 2 guests