Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Sure Mog

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on October 4, 2002 18:17:23 UTC

Inverse theories may well be worth looking into. Lots of times there is a reciprocal mechanism to phenomena: action / reaction, for instance.

But this is not always the case. A friend of mine once had a little ongoing joke about lightbulbs not being radiators of light, but rather were darkness absorbers.

But I don't see any mechanism for either generating negative energy, or absorbing it and making it disappear; against Conservation.

Black holes are neither black nor are they holes. The north/south jets are now well known.

And if one is willing to question Relativity, then logical alternative explanations to Einstein's predictions/proofs readily offer themselves.

More specifically, energy is either piles of enthalpy, or dispersed as a positive level of entropy. I say it is repiled in Black Holes.

If one wants to come up with ordinary everyday solutions to quandaries; then things like 4-D spacetime, curved space, 11 dimensions, quintessence, dark energy, and dark matter have to be looked upon as indicating something very basically wrong with theoretical physics. They are obviously desperation-suggestions, having little support even from the people suggesting them.

Every new astronomical discovery of a new "phenomenon" is greeted with dismayed surprise, because there is no popular Umbrella Theory into which it fits. Considering the overwhelming amount of observational data that has been collecting since before Ptolemy, isn't this strange? They STILL don't have the answer?

The cosmological theory string of: Singularity, Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion, Acceleration and finally Death by Burnout and Expansion-to-Dissolution, is bizarre to say the least.

There are no solid, agreed-upon theories for Light, Gravity, Celestial Body Overall Magnetic Field Generation, Planetary Internal Heat Generation, Proto-Star Ignition Energy, Apparent Acceleration of Far-Object Redshift, Spiral Galaxy Stars' Orbital Velocity Curve, "Mysterious Blue Galaxies", "Spiral Galaxy Wind-up Dilemma", Magnetic Field Constituents, Electric Field Constituents.

Einstein suggested that Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass are equivalent. That's real funny, because gravitational mass in orbit is zero, where inertial mass is still the same.

I have an overall theory that puts it all together using ordinary BASIC university physics, if you want to hear it. It's remarkably simple, really.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins