Bilge wrote:
None:
Dear Colleagues,

Recently we published and advertised here our paper " On reality of
black holes " which rose an interest and many additional questions
(see the thread with the same name

The ``reality of black holes'' is an experimental issue. The
fact that general relativity agrees with experimental data better
than any previous theory of gravity and that general relativity
allows black holes in its soutions, is sufficient reason to seek
experimental evidence for their existence.

Dear Bilge, you adhere the same style. On one hand, it is
praise-worthy... 4-) On the other, stating that BHs have been strongly
substantiated, you have to agree that according to math. modelling, it
is not a mistake to analyse the solution not in those coordinates in
which it was modelled, and to arbitrary change the domain of existence
of new coordinates. Is it really correct? In the Supplement

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/black...p01/sup01.html

we showed that in measured coordinates, r-singularity remains only in
the centre of metric, i.e. where it has to be as the statement of
problem. The event horizon out of coordinate origin appears because
Schwarzschild has violated the turn-back condition of which I wrote you
above. Besides, in the paper and in supplement we showed a number of
gross mistakes inadmissible in developing a theory. Have you any claims
to our analysis? I would like to hear. If you have not, all your words
of experimental non-obviousness hang in the air without arguments. The
more that both in paper and in supplement we have analysed some
so-called discoveries of BHs - and they all appeared exaggerated.
Have you any claims to our analysis? I would like to hear. ;-)

Sergey

To nightbat:

nightbat 6 Sept 16:13
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy
From: nightbat
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:13:28 -0500
Local time: Tue 6 Sept 2005 16:13
Subject: Supplement to the paper on black holes

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi nightbat Let me paint a scenario(just an imaginary view) If a black
comet was revolving around a black hole how would you describe their
different features. Please leave out nothing that would tell me which is
which. Bert

nightbat

Good morning and you're so funny Officer Bert, a black hole is
a
non real world possibility I have advised so many times. Fantasy games
are for sci fi folks of which I am not one of them. I have tried
helping
you to dart be on target with your spin is in theory but you do love
imaginary stuff and your book friends that produce it. A " Black Comet
"
per my theory does not revolve around anything for it attracts
everything locally near or around it. The particular galactic
gravitational tug and pull of gravitational bodies goes on with the
center " Black Comet " once formed mostly winning as it gets central
galaxy condensed altered matter energy stronger and stronger. The 3/1
ratio you posted a while back is close. It is 4/1 being the strong,
weak, electromagnetic, and time versus gravity effect. Once the Chandra

upper mass collapsing central body achieves a now 3/2 ratio the " Black

Comet " theoretically is formed and starts to strong gravity field
accredit. Always remember it is centrally gravitational bound until it
reaches further increasing critical ratio condensed strong force and
gravity energy factor.

Dear Nightbat, I just wanted to ask you to give me a brief idea of your
theory, but this post quite clears your meaning. The point is, in the
phenomenology in which you are trying to formulate your Black Komet
conception, just as in Einstein's GR, there is a gross defect. You
are saying exceptionally of gravitation conditions of bodies formation,
but physics is not limited to gravity. Physics includes also
mechanical, electrical, thermal interaction. All these factors, with
all wish of relativists, cannot be taken into account by geometrisation
of gravity field, especially basing on 4-D interval whose invariance in
nonlinear spaces is highly doubtful.

If, when considering the conditions of your BK formation, you from the
very beginning try at least phenomenologically to account the factors
counteracting the unlimited gravity compression of substance, and if
you account that inside the substance (be it solid, liquid, gaseous or
dusty body) gravity force in the centre of body is zero, you will see
how the conditions of modelling of your BK will evaporate. For BH, we
showed it in our paper.

Thus, the conditions for unlimited compression are absent, and
conditions of unlimited growth of mass of gravitating body are absent.
As we showed in our work

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/contents3.html#c2a

as the body is compressed and heated, and especially as first
thermonuclear reactions begin, the substance intensively gets away its
electrons by way of thermoelectron emission. This is a well-studied
fact, even under terrestrial conditions, even the fire of usual gas
ring in your kitchen is not electrically neutral. This is used in the
devices for fire control. In a star, the charge of central body is
quite large, it forms the electron circulation shell (see Fig. 2.16 of
the reference) and so isolates the body from its environment, creates
the angular momentum of the body and provides the star structure
formation in that appearance which we see. This all has been described
in our chapter. If you take these factors into account, the limit of
possible star mass will diminish to several masses of Sun. Such mass is
basically unable to form any BH, BK, quasars or else black features,
nothing to say of some neutrino crystals.

That is the matter, dear Nightbat. I would only add, this undoubtedly
is your right to proceed from your personal considerations and to stay
at your limited position. But the factors to which I am drawing your
attention are reality that you must not ignore in modelling. If you
account them, your solution will be another. I would be really happy if
you understood these nuances.

Kind regards,

Sergey

This is achieved via dampening inter stellar
particular plasma sharing which prevents the neutron star at end
sequence critical 4/1 ratio detonation point from going upper mass
limit
Super Nova. The entire base field counter effect however is always
there
Officer Bert and no single condensed stellar body can win over the
entire field. But locally to itself, the " Black Comet " attempts to
condensing field renormalize and in the process tail inversely attempts

gathers all within. The entire expanding space field always wins out
with the end result a new reformed galaxy is born.


There are no black holes Officer Bert, the enigma was perplexing but now
solved via the nightbat " Black Comet " extremely very deep physics
theoretical model solution. I have not received your Earth Science Team

Officer shirt requisition yet. Officer Double-A should be getting his
this week. Science Team Officer recommended and President FEMA ordered
cruise ships arriving to ferry some of the Katrina survivors to safety.



ponder on,
the nightbat

G=EMC^2 Glazier 5 Sept 20:33
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy
From: (G=EMC^2 Glazier)
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:33:07 -0400
Local time: Mon, 5 Sept 2005 20:33
Subject: Supplement to the paper on black holes

Interesting thought is this. All things create a wave moving through
space. Like a ship moving through water.

Here, Bert, you are considerably contradicting SR. ;-)

To oc,and Painius my answer to
what is waving.? "Its the space field" Best to always keep in mind
gentelmen that quantum fields fill all of space. That also means they
are associated with quantum particles. Good example is,the charge of an
electron creates an electrical "field" that surrounds it.


Dear Bert, you are here in your full right to see nothing, to hear
nothing of things inconvenient for you. But before you represent waves
and force fields to be quantified, it would be not bad to agree the
very concept of quantum with physics. I multiply wrote of it and you
know much of what I wrote. Neither you nor other supporters of photons
replied to those my posts, as you have no answers to my questions.
Well, then it is senseless to speak of possibility of quantified
fields. We may not speak of a theory until its basis is not
self-consistent. In case of light waves, one of the main their
properties is independence of wave propagation in crossing beams. At
the same time we see interference in which the beams intensity is
summated vectorially, i.e. with account of phase of the waves arriving
to every point of space. If we consider this issue from the view of
photon theory, this requires, after Feynman, much more between-photons
distance and non-interaction of photons with each other. But EM wave
is, after all, a force field affecting the charged particle. If photons
are charged, they will interact with each other; this means, two light
beams in crossing have to disperse, but they do not. If photons are
uncharged, their size has to be proportional to the number of
wavelengths. In this case,

1. The size of photon for infrared and lower waves will well exceed the
quantum size.
2. Interfering, photons will pass through each other without
interaction, as we see the interference pattern at each point, not in
fragments.

This is not all, of course, but enough to deny quantum fields. You do
not want to see and hear this all, but your theory remains
self-discrepant. You can be unwilling to understand it, but that is the
matter. ;-)

Sergey

This is a part
of my "Spin is in Theory" I could easily theorize that gravitational
fields surround all that is(why not?) Could be a smart ass and continual
with "fields" are also associated with the strong force that hold nuclei
together. My mind is having a field day with fields. Kind
of interesting thinking. Beert