"black hole" idea
- Avant Garde
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am
"black hole" idea
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.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm
Re: "black hole" idea
Black holes does not exists ..... so you better use your intelligence on solving real problems
https://www.learning-mind.com/american- ... mpossible/
https://www.learning-mind.com/american- ... mpossible/
- D_Archer
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: "black hole" idea
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
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 -
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am
Re: "black hole" idea
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am
Re: "black hole" idea
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.
- Avant Garde
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am
Re: "black hole" idea
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.crawler wrote: Re free-photons carrying charge, i dont see how. Charge can only be due to photaenos, photaenos are em radiation.
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.
- Avant Garde
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am
Re: "black hole" idea
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.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
- Avant Garde
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am
Re: "black hole" idea
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.rickard wrote:Black holes does not exists ..... so you better use your intelligence on solving real problems
https://www.learning-mind.com/american- ... mpossible/
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am
Re: "black hole" idea
I agree. Einsteinian singularity blackholes are nonsense. But there might be say 8 kinds of true black hole (& Dark Star).Avant Garde wrote: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.rickard wrote:Black holes does not exists ..... so you better use your intelligence on solving real problems https://www.learning-mind.com/american- ... mpossible/
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am
Re: "black hole" idea
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.Avant Garde wrote: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.crawler wrote: Re free-photons carrying charge, i dont see how. Charge can only be due to photaenos, photaenos are em radiation.
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.
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.
- Avant Garde
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am
Re: "black hole" idea
Why can't photons do exactly what you're saying photaenos do? That's just the same thing with extra unnecessary steps.crawler wrote: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.Avant Garde wrote: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.crawler wrote: Re free-photons carrying charge, i dont see how. Charge can only be due to photaenos, photaenos are em radiation.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am
Re: "black hole" idea
A photon gives us light (& other such radiation), & a photon gives us gravity (& mass & inertia).Avant Garde wrote:Why can't photons do exactly what you're saying photaenos do? That's just the same thing with extra unnecessary steps.crawler wrote: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.Avant Garde wrote: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.crawler wrote: Re free-photons carrying charge, i dont see how. Charge can only be due to photaenos, photaenos are em radiation.
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.
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.
But i don't see how a photon gives us charge & a charge field, or magnetism & a magnetic field.
So i invented the photaeno, which can give us charge & a charge field & magnetism & a magnetic field.
A photaeno is a vibration of aether, & there can be a number of different vibrations.
Or rather than having different kinds of vibration, we can posit that one kind of vibration can manifest in different ways depending on whether static or whether associated with something travelling at speed or whether accelerating or possibly down to the level of jerk.
But we all already know that a simple photon is still a simple photon in every case, static moving accelerating jerking, they make no difference. So how can a photon suddenly decide that it will be a charge photon or an electric photon or a magnetic photon.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests