Is it possible that the exit point for all super massive black holes is the event known as the Big bang?

[rod]

Something moving around does not show that it is a black hole that they are moving around. The lack of observed objects does not itself prove the presence of an object or that the object is what you think it is. The only proof shown is that something is affecting everything around it. A plasmoid could do that. Also, explain the galactic jets coming out of black holes or the need to come up with dark energy/dark matter to explain why they are missing mass that they cannot account for in their models. We have stars older than the galaxy and stars with transuranic elements, both should not exist. At what point do we decide to throw things out and actually rebuild theories.

Your thinking here is something I am aware of and agree with to an extant. There are stars documented older than the Hubble time for the Big Bang event. However, astronomers and cosmology department folks will hold to the paradigm until a better paradigm explains the observations. A good example of testing is all the debate and argument over geocentric astronomy vs. heliocentric solar system. Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galieo, Kepler, Newton, Cassini, etc. It took a long time to overthrow the geocentric model and show the Earth is moving, e.g. stellar parallax. However, the thread is about black holes so I will leave this alone. I do not know how to test and show supermassive black holes are creating the Big Bang today

 

[sgtnos]

I think my initial and subsequent posts demonstrate and open mind. I engage in healthy discourse with people who are willing to share their ideas. Posting a bunch of youtube videos hardly qualifies anyone of being literate in science. Youtube is by far the least accurate source of any useful evidence. Only by study and sharing of OUR OWN ideas can we push science forward.

The idea the YouTube is a poor source is a closed minded idea. How many scientists have channels and did you forget that MIT and Harvard have channels. It is really obtuse to throw things out before looking at them and videos are often easier to get people to watch, than actually read a very long post or academic paper.

 

[georgenovak]

Why do you think rewriting a large amount of evidence down is better than using evidence provided by experts. Who are you saying is not a good source? Why do you think disproving ideas is bad science?

If you can explain here on this thread using you own words why black holes don't exist and how that disproves the ideas that I set forth, then I would be willing to have a conversation. If you seek to drop an endless stream of "expert" youtube videos and make me sift through their lectures, then I refuse. Understanding something means you can debate it. Posting videos just means you can click and watch.

 

[sgtnos]

Your thinking here is something I am aware of and agree with to an extant. There are stars documented older than the Hubble time for the Big Bang event. However, astronomers and cosmology department folks will hold to the paradigm until a better paradigm explains the observations. A good example of testing is all the debate and argument over geocentric astronomy vs. heliocentric solar system. Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galieo, Kepler, Newton, Cassini, etc. It took a long time to overthrow the geocentric model and show the Earth is moving, e.g. stellar parallax. However, the thread is about black holes so I will leave this alone. I do not know how to test and show supermassive black holes are creating the Big Bang today

Electric Universe Theory. They just don't try to come up with an idea of how it was all created because you cannot see into the past and to believe that you can trace the movement of everything is insane. We did not know our planet was traveling through an interstellar dust cloud until 1970, which would make observations before then absolutely wrong (in that they did not know they had variables they were not accounting for), especially observations based on light. Take a look at SAFIRE, one of the few actual experiments done in a lab. Transmutation at low energy and other great stuff.

 

[georgenovak]

The idea the YouTube is a poor source is a closed minded idea. How many scientists have channels and did you forget that MIT and Harvard have channels. It is really obtuse to throw things out before looking at them and videos are often easier to get people to watch, than actually read a very long post or academic paper.

I think any one sided exchange of information is a poor source. Even lectures and books are a bad way to meaningfully exchange our ideas. People need conversation and enlightened debate. To just post a video and say "what he said" is not a enough.

 

[sgtnos]

If you can explain here on this thread using you own words why black holes don't exist and how that disproves the ideas that I set forth, then I would be willing to have a conversation. If you seek to drop an endless stream of "expert" youtube videos and make me sift through their lectures, then I refuse. Understanding something means you can debate it. Posting videos just means you can click and watch.

Okay, I will definitely do that later and I will then expect you to deal with all of it given your combative attitude. I am retired and a scholar, you have just picked a fight with someone that likes to debate more than most and I typically have to deal with people that don't want what you are asking for (actively run away or refuse to address inconvenient facts saying it is an anomaly). Challenge Accepted.

 

[georgenovak]

Okay, I will definitely do that later and I will then expect you to deal with all of it given your combative attitude. I am retired and a scholar, you have just picked a fight with someone that likes to debate more than most and I typically have to deal with people that don't want what you are asking for (actively run away or refuse to address inconvenient facts saying it is an anomaly). Challenge Accepted.

"Combative attitude" is one of the nicest compliments I have received in a long time. Thank you... honestly.

As a 30+ year computer systems engineer, I frequently tell others that personal computers have devolved into autistic children; and the Internet has become a garbage fire. This personal idiom has unfortunately made it difficult for me to accept information coming from the Internet as scientific fact (even if it is scientific fact). So accepting my challenge to help me accept your information is rare and appreciated. I look forward to it.

 

[sgtnos]

Alright, I have to start with stars. Stars do not form through gravitational collapse and seem to form as if pearls on a string across galactic filaments. Every star, according to mainstream astronomy, is a gas and would not have a surface that can be struck. This is observably false. Stars are made of plasma, which does hold a shape under pressure and do not use fusion to produce energy. The current model completely ignores the differences in temperature between the surface of the sun, sun spots and the corona. Sun spots should yield the highest temperature under the standard gas model because they go deeper into the sun and that is supposed to be hotter. The surface of the sun should be warmer than the corona, but it is much, much cooler. If you observe the sun all of the discharges typically form an arc, this is because they are acting according to electrical theory. To better explain all of this, I do have to recommend watching the video on the SAFIRE project, as it is a lab study that shows no discrepancy with Electric Universe Theory. So I have to ask, do you think stars are gas or plasma? If no, then can you explain the actions and rotation of materials in a star and why it has what appears to be an obvious surface? If yes, then why do we keep acting as if they are gas in mainstream science if we know they are plasma? Stars that violate big bang through age/size/composition disprove the theory. This is just a little of the argument against consensus science on stars.

 

[sgtnos]

Also, as long as we do not devolve into name calling being combative is fine. Combative people are the ones that actually cause you to learn more, especially when two of them throw down gauntlets. I am fighting mainstream science, not a person, and for me it is about the problem I see with research projects that get way too much money based on what seems to be provable lies (dark matter/energy projects, etc.).

 

[sgtnos]

Your thinking here is something I am aware of and agree with to an extant. There are stars documented older than the Hubble time for the Big Bang event. However, astronomers and cosmology department folks will hold to the paradigm until a better paradigm explains the observations. A good example of testing is all the debate and argument over geocentric astronomy vs. heliocentric solar system. Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galieo, Kepler, Newton, Cassini, etc. It took a long time to overthrow the geocentric model and show the Earth is moving, e.g. stellar parallax. However, the thread is about black holes so I will leave this alone. I do not know how to test and show supermassive black holes are creating the Big Bang today

Okay, I was also getting confused because I am trying to have too many conversations. The Big Bang requires things like space that expands faster than the speed of light (Hubble Constant), but not actually move so that it does not disprove Special Relativity. The more they try to figure out, the more they continue to build a house on a sand foundation. Holy hell, they still say comets are balls of ice. Have you seen them impact a comet or what they gathered? How about the picture? The Oort cloud is treated as if it exists and comets are obviously not balls of ice. Science is actually ignoring things to make the theory hold together. It doesn't work even slightly.

 

[georgenovak]

Alright, I have to start with stars. Stars do not form through gravitational collapse and seem to form as if pearls on a string across galactic filaments. Every star, according to mainstream astronomy, is a gas and would not have a surface that can be struck. This is observably false. Stars are made of plasma, which does hold a shape under pressure and do not use fusion to produce energy. The current model completely ignores the differences in temperature between the surface of the sun, sun spots and the corona. Sun spots should yield the highest temperature under the standard gas model because they go deeper into the sun and that is supposed to be hotter. The surface of the sun should be warmer than the corona, but it is much, much cooler. If you observe the sun all of the discharges typically form an arc, this is because they are acting according to electrical theory. To better explain all of this, I do have to recommend watching the video on the SAFIRE project, as it is a lab study that shows no discrepancy with Electric Universe Theory. So I have to ask, do you think stars are gas or plasma? If no, then can you explain the actions and rotation of materials in a star and why it has what appears to be an obvious surface? If yes, then why do we keep acting as if they are gas in mainstream science if we know they are plasma? Stars that violate big bang through age/size/composition disprove the theory. This is just a little of the argument against consensus science on stars.

That is fascinating information, and quite frankly eye opening for me. I have been looking at the current theories and info regarding our Sun (particularly solar flares which tend to cause havoc to the systems I support); and I have noticed that even our small star exhibits qualities that often re-write long held theories. The huge temperature difference is something of note. If this information can act as a catalyst to change my thinking on black holes (heck, even my belief in them), then this fascinates me.
I need to research and contemplate your first bit of info, and I look forward to more. Thank you!

 

[sgtnos]

However, astronomers and cosmology department folks will hold to the paradigm until a better paradigm explains the observations.

Side question based on this, Do you not think that there will be plenty of stuff we cannot answer because we would have to literally be able to model space from the beginning of time particle for particle? They cannot even account for the formation of all of the planets, as some of the formation ideas contradict. It seems to be science was focused on beating God and ignored its own issues.

 

[sgtnos]

That is fascinating information, and quite frankly eye opening for me. I have been looking at the current theories and info regarding our Sun (particularly solar flares which tend to cause havoc to the systems I support); and I have noticed that even our small star exhibits qualities that often re-write long held theories. The huge temperature difference is something of note. If this information can act as a catalyst to change my thinking on black holes (heck, even my belief in them), then this fascinates me.
I need to research and contemplate your first bit of info, and I look forward to more. Thank you!

Recurrent Nova, That will blow your mind. Stars that nova more than once, there are multiple and we have no idea how many actually are. That breaks star lifecycles and they only come up with ideas on how it works based on fusion powered, gas stars.

 

[sgtnos]

Almost forgot to add that until recently they said electro-magnetic forces played little part and all of the stories that actually talk about how planet ____ has a much greater magnetic field than we would have thought. Also, this led to the ideas on metallic hydrogen and other things they said could not exist at one time. They need "results" to get funding and I think that cosmology is the easiest to lie about, which has led to a huge circle of lies. Colleges and Universities refuse to deal with academic dishonesty or even investigate the professors.

 

[sgtnos]

That is fascinating information, and quite frankly eye opening for me. I have been looking at the current theories and info regarding our Sun (particularly solar flares which tend to cause havoc to the systems I support); and I have noticed that even our small star exhibits qualities that often re-write long held theories. The huge temperature difference is something of note. If this information can act as a catalyst to change my thinking on black holes (heck, even my belief in them), then this fascinates me.
I need to research and contemplate your first bit of info, and I look forward to more. Thank you!

Gravity has not even been constant on Earth. The gravity on Earth could not have been the same during the time of the dinosaurs. Pterodactyls would not have been able to fly and Diplodocus would not have been able to move. We also saw examples of comets that speed up without displaying any jets, they immediately wrote it off as we could not see them. An electric charge would slow down or speed up objects moving through space. Ever wonder about all of the impact craters across space? Why are almost all of them near perfect circles? Ever wonder why they don't actually have many parts of any meteor on Earth? Everything in space is generally electrically charged. This is why you get the electric chimes from meteors sometimes and why they explode, electrical discharge and not simply heat. Stuff coming from outside our area of the solar system carries an opposite electrical charge, which is why we see discharges from comets (I believe it would happen to any rock personally, but the second they see jets its a comet), sometimes explosions near the sun and explosions in our atmosphere. That is why the tail on the comet points away from the sun and doesn't follow the solar wind, as a good gas should.

 

[rod]

Alright, I have to start with stars. Stars do not form through gravitational collapse and seem to form as if pearls on a string across galactic filaments. Every star, according to mainstream astronomy, is a gas and would not have a surface that can be struck. This is observably false. Stars are made of plasma, which does hold a shape under pressure and do not use fusion to produce energy. The current model completely ignores the differences in temperature between the surface of the sun, sun spots and the corona. Sun spots should yield the highest temperature under the standard gas model because they go deeper into the sun and that is supposed to be hotter. The surface of the sun should be warmer than the corona, but it is much, much cooler. If you observe the sun all of the discharges typically form an arc, this is because they are acting according to electrical theory. To better explain all of this, I do have to recommend watching the video on the SAFIRE project, as it is a lab study that shows no discrepancy with Electric Universe Theory. So I have to ask, do you think stars are gas or plasma? If no, then can you explain the actions and rotation of materials in a star and why it has what appears to be an obvious surface? If yes, then why do we keep acting as if they are gas in mainstream science if we know they are plasma? Stars that violate big bang through age/size/composition disprove the theory. This is just a little of the argument against consensus science on stars.

Okay, this is very interesting and a great place to star, the stars. sgtnos said "Stars are made of plasma, which does hold a shape under pressure and do not use fusion to produce energy."

This must be according to the Electric Universe Theory. I have a textbook, Advanced Stellar Astrophysics by William K. Rose from 1998 that covers the equations for p-p chain fusion, CNO, triple alpha and the equation of states used based upon E=mc^2 and mc^2=E. In the electric theory, how long can the Sun shine and radiate light on Earth? A good example is in the late 1800s, the Kelvin-Helmholtz Sun's age and lifetime compared to the present model.

Another question, does the Electric Universe Theory have all the equations of state developed to describe how the Sun radiates light like the Advanced Stellar Astrophysics textbook does, core to surface?

Thanks--Rod

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, this is very interesting and a great place to star, the stars. sgtnos said "Stars are made of plasma, which does hold a shape under pressure and do not use fusion to produce energy."

This must be according to the Electric Universe Theory. I have a textbook, Advanced Stellar Astrophysics by William K. Rose from 1998 that covers the equations for p-p chain fusion, CNO, triple alpha and the equation of states used based upon E=mc^2 and mc^2=E. In the electric theory, how long can the Sun shine and radiate light on Earth? A good example is in the late 1800s, the Kelvin-Helmholtz Sun's age and lifetime compared to the present model.

Another question, does the Electric Universe Theory have all the equations of state developed to describe how the Sun radiates light like the Advanced Stellar Astrophysics textbook does, core to surface?

Thanks--Rod

I am not trying to defend Electric Universe Theory, as my aim is to prove Relativity wrong.
I do know that the solar model (for EU) does not radiate core to surface.
On that note explain sunspots using your theory and then explain why they are cooler than the surrounding area if they go deeper into the sun. I am not going to lie, I have not really tried to understand all of the math, mostly because my arguments are based on observation and not computer models or 100+ year old observations from people that still think that comets are dirty snowballs (show me evidence in any of the close up pictures, cant they are dry, rocky surfaces). Don't try to use math to complicate things because you are wrong. Anyone can reverse engineer math problems to get the answer equal to an observation. Further your solar model does not explain recurrent nova, solar flares, sun spots (structure, temp, etc.), and it doesn't explain why the corona is so much hotter than the surface of the sun. Take that garbage back to the cult of Einstein.

SAFIRE (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTaXfbvGf8E
) is one of the best examples of where to go for lab testing showing the EU viability.
This video is fairly short and discusses the EU idea on the sun some more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYpVdkyVEYw&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UdAwCXUCvl23_5DOjGMPq7d&index=8
This channel can explain a lot of things you may ask, but I am not looking into right now.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL7QIOZteWPpBWBOl8i0e-g/videos?disable_polymer=1

 

[sgtnos]

I needed to rewrite that and clarify a few things. I am in my 30's and did not learn about the EU until a year or two ago. I am able to let go of things that are not correct and I think that a lot of people are unable to do so. I am here to argue against mainstream cosmology and astro physics. I will present EU ideas and I will argue them until proven wrong in most cases.

I am willing to debate things, I am willing to write out the basic ideas, I am willing to argue about Relativity, and discuss problems with other cosmological models.

I am not willing to teach you the entire subject. If you have a point get to it. If you are asking me to look up math or something that you could look up yourself, do not be lazy and I already provided a lot of my sources. I am not here to replace your current religion (scientific following) and I don't know how everything was created. I do know we will never get an answer while we hang onto incorrect theories.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

A black hole = compression of matter but also a compression of time.
Reason a black hole has no ability to compress forever is the compression of time/activity as it does.
Either relativity is wrong or the idea of gravity is wrong since we don't get infinite mass or gravity from a black hole.
No evidence of infinite anything other than maybe a near infinite compression of time.
Singularities are wrong for the above reasons.

Difficult to imagine an exit to a compression of time other than a FTL impact.
JMO