Recent content by Newsbuff

  1. N

    2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

    How is it possible for a black hole to cast a shadow on anything? Light casts shadows, not blackness.
  2. N

    2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

    I’m a bit confused. I understand how light can cast a shadow. How can an infinitely dense by cast a shadow on its surroundings?
  3. N

    2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

    I agree with JM. Basically fake photos but just think about the money that has been made off this nonsense.
  4. N

    2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

    Current cosmology suggests that super large stars can’t explode. Their mass forces them to contract into BLs. My referenced star was low mass huge star so based on current theories it should have become a BH not a supernova. Read up on my referenced exploded star. It’s a very big anomaly on what...
  5. N

    2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

    Perhaps my comments are a little too succinct. I would suggest you read up on J0931+0038 and the respond back as to how a star thatlarge can explode rather than compress into a bh. I sincerely doubt the authenticity of these by images. Hocus Pocus from which much money is being made to support...
  6. N

    2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

    Furthermore, without light, there is no universe.
  7. N

    2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

    Let’s assume the impossible big bang did happen. The BANG happened without light which happened sometime later. Now you have a collapsed star becoming a bh. So now this bh is more than theoretical 13.8 billion?
  8. N

    Speed of Light and Wavelength : Which One Is Constant?

    My thought only. Redshift is a function of 2 variables. Frequency at source and distance travelled. If we know frequency at source, the frequency at our point of observation can tell us how far the light has travelled. This is all redshift can tell us. Nothing more.
  9. N

    The Truth Painfully Resurfaces in Post-Truth Physics

    Fair enough. Can you clarify your positions in plain English so a layman like myself can understand. I believe in the KISS principle.
  10. N

    The Truth Painfully Resurfaces in Post-Truth Physics

    What prediction was confirmed?
  11. N

    The Truth Painfully Resurfaces in Post-Truth Physics

    Could you please clarify.
  12. N

    The Truth Painfully Resurfaces in Post-Truth Physics

    Unless one knows the frequency of light emitted at source, there is no way to know how much it has been redshifted by the time it reaches the observer. It is wrong to assume redshift has anything to do with velocity of motion. If we know the frequency of light at its source, then redshift lets...
  13. N

    What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?

    Wave Propagation Theory Denies the Big Bang Peter Y.P. Chen Wave Propagation Theory Denies the Big Bang Peter Y.P. Chen Perhaps it is I who should have read your thoughts again. In any case I think we’re much on the same page. Building a universe theory is like building a house of cards. Pull...
  14. N

    Einstein and the Too Gullible World

    As i have shown on other posts, Hubble's Doppler Redshift is ridiculous. Therefore virtually everything that follows is ridiculous. I am not an original thinker but perhaps a very few who believe our universe is an electromagnetic plasma/electric universe may have a more plausible, cohesive and...