Black hole Mass.

[thenarmis]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;You rock! That is the best, most sane answer to the black hole nonsense I have ever read. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!!!! <br /> Posted by colesakick</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>More here: www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Unicorns.pdf</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[colesakick]

<p><font face="Arial">&nbsp;In the APM, mass is induced to be a linear dimension, whereas charge is induced to be a distributed dimension.&nbsp; Distributed (squared) quantities increase in magnitude quicker than linear quantities.&nbsp; And just as the reciprocal of a cubed quantity is less than the reciprocal of a squared quantity, the force acting on a distributed dimension will drop off much quicker than the force acting on a linear dimension.<br /><br />I don't buy the argument about localized currents.&nbsp; As the scale of the system increases its density decreases.&nbsp; The idea about localized currents is therefore misleading since the assumption is that current density will be the same for a satellite laboratory and galactic electric filaments.&nbsp; This is not true.&nbsp; Galactic or Intergalactic electric currents passing through space seem almost impossible to measure with a satellite because the density is so sparse.&nbsp; Yet, the current flows through a much greater volume of space than would an Earth-based lightning bolt, for example.&nbsp; We look at the Crab Nebula from clear across the galaxy and think we are looking at an object.&nbsp; If we flew a spacecraft into it we would find nothing but empty space.&nbsp; The dust and photons are so sparse that we can see through it even from our present vantage point.&nbsp; <br /><br />I think the real problem of why the Electric Universe is not accepted by the mainstream is because cosmologists are not appreciating the effect of scale on what they are observing.&nbsp; For some reason, they seem to think that a low local current density or low local magnetic flux density means the electric and magnetic physics are non-existent.&nbsp; It would be like an amoeba exploring the human body looking for some sign of intelligence.&nbsp; There are all these stupid cells connected to each other reacting to some other cells, but none of them seem to be self sufficient like the amoeba.&nbsp; The concept the amoeba would need to understand is the concept of scale.&nbsp; <br /><br />What modern cosmologists need to understand is how low current density can produce effects on scales much larger than our solar system and even larger than the Milky Way.&nbsp; One does not need high current density to create a huge current over a huge volume of space.&nbsp; In fact, a large scale electric current cannot stay structured if the current can interact meaningfully at a local scale.&nbsp; <br /><br />BTW, I agree that magnetic fields and electric fields must always coexist, however, I do not see any basis why the electric field should be primary to the magnetic field.&nbsp; One would have to assume that an object is more real than the environment containing it to make such a statement.&nbsp; But the environment must exist before it can be populated with something physical.&nbsp; The APM shows that both environment and matter are created simultaneously.&nbsp; However, observation shows that space can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without space.&nbsp; <br /><br />Electric particles have a particulate characteristic, whereas magnetic fields have an environmental characteristic.&nbsp; Electric particles are electrons and protons, whereas magnetic fields are surrounding Aether units which have been magnetically oriented toward the magnetic structures of the electron and proton.&nbsp; The real question is whether moving particles are the only source of action, or whether Aether can have an inherent vibration of its own, which can affect the movement of matter through it.&nbsp; Personally, I believe it is possible to alter the behavior of the Aether without first causing matter to move through it.&nbsp; To understand this requires studying the structure of the Aether and how conductance affects both Aether and matter.&nbsp; And to be fair about not hiding what I'm leading up to, conductance can be manipulated both by moving matter and by something non-material that can make choices (like the mind).&nbsp; If people would like to see physical demonstrations of the latter, they need to watch Alain Nu bend spoons while other people are holding them.&nbsp; Brant just recently shared a very interesting link about a Russian physicist who has performed scientific experiments along these lines.&nbsp; <br /><br />Regardless of whether we can ever agree on whether electric fields are more primary to magnetic fields, I think we can all agree the main problem with the EU not being accepted is that people have not grasped the concept of scale.&nbsp; A plasma demonstration in a lab has identical physics to plasmas in space, but the size of the space plasmas demand a corresponding reduction in plasma density.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font face="Arial">Secrets of the Aether, Dave Thomson's comments above. www.16pi2.com </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[colesakick]

Sorry guys, I posted to this thread instead of the intended thread, total accident. Please forgive the mistake<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[thenarmis]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If matter collapses to infinite density at a singularity, what distinguishes one collapsed mass from another?&nbsp;Wouldn't that mean that space was infinitely curved at that point? &nbsp;Isn't it more likely that matter collapses to some very highly dense but still finite state (quark star, string star etc) at the centre of a black hole, resulting in the different sizes of the event horizons?I don't understand where the assumption that matter must collapse to a singularity comes from when we still don't know how to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum&nbsp;Mechanics.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by pendelton</DIV></p><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">In relation to my previous post on this topic I might as well make the following additional remarks. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">According to Einstein, in his gravitational field, gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent, and also, in a sufficiently small region of his gravitational field his laws of Special Relativity must hold. Einstein's field equations for the static vacuum gravitational field, i.e. Ric = 0,violate his 'Principle of Equivalence' because the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and the laws of Special Relativity, cannot manifest in a spacetime which is by definition empty; that by definition contains no matter! QED. Consequently, if his energy-momentum tensor is zero there is no Einstein gravitational field. Hence his field equations must take the following form:<br /> <br /> Gij/k + Tij = 0,<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>(subscripts) i,j = 0,1,2,3,<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>k = constant,<br /> <br /> wherein the Gij/k are the components of a gravitational energy tensor. Thus the total energy of the gravitational field is always zero; the Gij/k and Tij must vanish identically; there is no possibility for the localisation of gravitational energy (i.e. there is no possibility for Einstein&rsquo;s gravitational waves). Moreover, this means that Einstein&rsquo;s General Theory of Relativity violates the experimentally well established conservation of energy and momentum, so if the usual conservation of energy and momentum is valid (bearing in mind that there is no experimental evidence to refute it) then Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is invalid. Also, Einstein invented his pseudo-tensor by which he and subsequent big bangers and LIGOers claim that his gravitational energy can be localized. However, Einstein&rsquo;s pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols for the following reason &ndash; it implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant which depends only upon the components of the metric tensor and their 1st-derivatives (to see this just contract his pseudo-tensor and apply Euler&rsquo;s theorem). But the pure mathematicians G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist! In addition, Einstein and the subsequent big bangers and LIGOers resort to linearisation of Einstein&rsquo;s field equations to localize his gravitational energy. This too is nonsense, because linearisation implies the existence of a tensor which, except for the particular case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist, as proven by H. Weyl in 1944. So the big bangers and the LIGOers and their international counterparts such as the AIGO in Australia and VIRGO in Europe, are all destined to detect nothing. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">For those who want the mathematical proofs, go here: </p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And here: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF</p> &nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p>