All the Singularities are the problem...they are the 'real' "Spaghetti Monsters"

I am banned again, this time for two weeks...

To see what I mean...

Someone please go to BAUT...to ATM...to "**Relatives**" time, oldest galaxies thread...

And Copy Paste MY last response into this thread, and we can go from there...(don't just copy the link, because I won't be able to see it)...you have to copy paste my whole last Post.

I am banned again, this time for two weeks...

To see what I mean...

Someone please go to BAUT...to ATM...to "

And Copy Paste MY last response into this thread, and we can go from there...(don't just copy the link, because I won't be able to see it)...you have to copy paste my whole last Post.

can't find it. When was the last post?

It was 5am yesterday...

It is the thread where Bob Angstrom brought in the whole Viv Pope POAMS...all photons are 'instantaneous' across distance without distance contracting/being 0...

Try going to the Banning's....most of the time now, they give a link to the thread you were banned for...

BUT, it is the ONLY thread in ATM (first page) that has "**Relative**" as the OP

Thanks Lyndon...

It is the thread where Bob Angstrom brought in the whole Viv Pope POAMS...all photons are 'instantaneous' across distance without distance contracting/being 0...

Try going to the Banning's....most of the time now, they give a link to the thread you were banned for...

BUT, it is the ONLY thread in ATM (first page) that has "

Thanks Lyndon...

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

There is one and only one value for the constant c and I agree with your value of 186,282.397miles per second. A double constant c makes no sense to me either. Einstein's c is a universally observed constant ratio between units of length and time and not to be confused with the speed of light. The speed of light can be measured as either c or instant depending on where we put our clocks but that does not change the amount of time found in a given amount of space which is the constant c found in SR and GR

Here is the bottom line...we know that we have to wait for the light signals sent to the Moon (So Bell cannot possibly come into play here!), our spacecraft (Or Here), Venus to get there and back...SO those signals CANNOT be traveling 'instantly'...period (and they are traveling in a straight line or they would take MORE time!!! unless of course the Shapiro Effect comes into play....BUT that is only very near the horizons of massive objects!!!)

Originally Posted by Wayne Francis

Take 2 clocks that are synchronised. Move them apart and then watch the clocks. We don't see the clocks as the are for our "now" but how they where based on the distance they are from us. IE Move a 2 clocks apart by 1 light minute and when you look at the 2nd clock it will be 1 minute behind yours and not the same time as yours.

And as I have repeatedly shown, Wayne is right here, as can also be attested to by our space missions just in our solar system. And those astronauts are losing bone density but are NOT being time dilated in the slightest.

All of the above has absolutely Nothing what-eo-ever to do with SR Relativity...that is all from "Our Perspective" 'earth rest frame' observer. Newton with Constant Time and "c" as a Constant 186,282.397 mps...Why, simply because "Relativity" does NOT measure time and distance. A light second OR a light year is meaningless in Relativity!

And in Post # 73 Wayne correctly says...

Originally Posted by Wayne

The fact that you think there is a speed of time shows you that you need to learn more about physics. The "speed" of something is the distance it travels / time so show me what that means. I'll give you a clue the times will cancel out and leave you with distance.**This doesn't mean 2 things separated by distance will appear to each other as having the same time. This would only be true if light propagated instantly which it doesn't. [/B.**

BUT, here is the Real key to finally understanding Time, and Wayne doesn't even really know what he actually did/showed here...in Post # 75

Originally Posted by Wayne

Agreed. All that says is that to the photon there is no time or distance. Whoopy. For the rest of us that have rest mass Relative's claims have already been proven to be wrong not only in thought experiments but actual experiments. Flipping from our reference frame to a photon's frame, which to us is not a valid reference frame anyway, makes no sense and does not support Relative's idea. All it does is bring the equations to a singularity and thus you can back out and get any meaningful answer. You might as well claim 1 / 0 = 2 + 5....you can't get past the 1/0.

Originally Posted by Bob Angstom

A double constant c makes no sense to me either.

This is absolutely correct...A "Constant" CANNOT have 2 different definitions, and the ONLY one that is Valid is Light speed at Constant 186,282.397mps with Time as a Constant

The definitions at the division by 0 of 1. 0 Time from Point A to Point B to ANY distance to Infinity 2. "Instantaneous" from point A to Point B at ANY distance to Infinity 3. distance contracted to 0 from Infinity are ALL Singularity definitions and DO NOT EXIST AT ALL!!!

And here is the "REAL" kicker, and I have absolutely determined this to be 100% correct...and I do not believe that this arguement/pure logic has ever been presented to ANY Relativity Guru, so just hand waving it aside, which seems to be the first thing that BAUTians are prone to do, would actually show that 'real consideration' and proper analysis of things being presented in honest attempts at actually coming to terms with what is "REAL" or not is sorely lacking...

Anyway....here it is...

It has to do with supposedly *Approaching lightspeed "c"* or 'taking the limit'...and the 'real' problem with having 2 defintions of 1 Constant both called "c"

As a observer/ship gets closer and closer to supposedly going the speed of light, once they are almost at the Max....ie'as close to light speed as possible without readhing "c" (supposedly because nothing with mass can OR it would take Infinite energy to do so...but both of those are actually meaningless)....then you get this...

Originally Posted by Grey

A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha Centauri, moving at arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the trip will take roughly four years for outside observers, but will be arbitrarily short for the person traveling. Depending on how fast you go, the trip could take a year as measured by the traveler, or a day, or a second, or a nanosecond. Essentially no time as measured by an outside observer, if the traveler is moving quickly enough. And it still scales. If you're traveling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.

Now, I included Grey's whole paragraph, BUT the bold is the key...

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the supposed "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

SO, you are NOT approaching light speed at all, you are approaching going Infinitely fast to Infinity, and all this time, for the last 100 years, this has NOT even been realized!

OR, you are "Shrinking"/contracting 4 Billion Light Years worth of Space/Distance of you got there in 1 second down to 186, 282.397 miles, but here too you are still approaching infintely fast, NOT light speed.

Sorry, BUT there is NO frame where photons are or ever could travel from Point A to Point B in 0 time...All photons that we see/dectect and measure are traveling at Constant "c" of 186,282.397 mps

Time dilation does not exist and swapping two observers motions is absolutely meaningless.

There is one and only one value for the constant c and I agree with your value of 186,282.397miles per second. A double constant c makes no sense to me either. Einstein's c is a universally observed constant ratio between units of length and time and not to be confused with the speed of light. The speed of light can be measured as either c or instant depending on where we put our clocks but that does not change the amount of time found in a given amount of space which is the constant c found in SR and GR

Here is the bottom line...we know that we have to wait for the light signals sent to the Moon (So Bell cannot possibly come into play here!), our spacecraft (Or Here), Venus to get there and back...SO those signals CANNOT be traveling 'instantly'...period (and they are traveling in a straight line or they would take MORE time!!! unless of course the Shapiro Effect comes into play....BUT that is only very near the horizons of massive objects!!!)

Originally Posted by Wayne Francis

Take 2 clocks that are synchronised. Move them apart and then watch the clocks. We don't see the clocks as the are for our "now" but how they where based on the distance they are from us. IE Move a 2 clocks apart by 1 light minute and when you look at the 2nd clock it will be 1 minute behind yours and not the same time as yours.

And as I have repeatedly shown, Wayne is right here, as can also be attested to by our space missions just in our solar system. And those astronauts are losing bone density but are NOT being time dilated in the slightest.

All of the above has absolutely Nothing what-eo-ever to do with SR Relativity...that is all from "Our Perspective" 'earth rest frame' observer. Newton with Constant Time and "c" as a Constant 186,282.397 mps...Why, simply because "Relativity" does NOT measure time and distance. A light second OR a light year is meaningless in Relativity!

And in Post # 73 Wayne correctly says...

Originally Posted by Wayne

The fact that you think there is a speed of time shows you that you need to learn more about physics. The "speed" of something is the distance it travels / time so show me what that means. I'll give you a clue the times will cancel out and leave you with distance.

BUT, here is the Real key to finally understanding Time, and Wayne doesn't even really know what he actually did/showed here...in Post # 75

Originally Posted by Wayne

Agreed. All that says is that to the photon there is no time or distance. Whoopy. For the rest of us that have rest mass Relative's claims have already been proven to be wrong not only in thought experiments but actual experiments. Flipping from our reference frame to a photon's frame, which to us is not a valid reference frame anyway, makes no sense and does not support Relative's idea. All it does is bring the equations to a singularity and thus you can back out and get any meaningful answer. You might as well claim 1 / 0 = 2 + 5....you can't get past the 1/0.

Originally Posted by Bob Angstom

A double constant c makes no sense to me either.

This is absolutely correct...A "Constant" CANNOT have 2 different definitions, and the ONLY one that is Valid is Light speed at Constant 186,282.397mps with Time as a Constant

The definitions at the division by 0 of 1. 0 Time from Point A to Point B to ANY distance to Infinity 2. "Instantaneous" from point A to Point B at ANY distance to Infinity 3. distance contracted to 0 from Infinity are ALL Singularity definitions and DO NOT EXIST AT ALL!!!

And here is the "REAL" kicker, and I have absolutely determined this to be 100% correct...and I do not believe that this arguement/pure logic has ever been presented to ANY Relativity Guru, so just hand waving it aside, which seems to be the first thing that BAUTians are prone to do, would actually show that 'real consideration' and proper analysis of things being presented in honest attempts at actually coming to terms with what is "REAL" or not is sorely lacking...

Anyway....here it is...

It has to do with supposedly *Approaching lightspeed "c"* or 'taking the limit'...and the 'real' problem with having 2 defintions of 1 Constant both called "c"

As a observer/ship gets closer and closer to supposedly going the speed of light, once they are almost at the Max....ie'as close to light speed as possible without readhing "c" (supposedly because nothing with mass can OR it would take Infinite energy to do so...but both of those are actually meaningless)....then you get this...

Originally Posted by Grey

A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha Centauri, moving at arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the trip will take roughly four years for outside observers, but will be arbitrarily short for the person traveling. Depending on how fast you go, the trip could take a year as measured by the traveler, or a day, or a second, or a nanosecond. Essentially no time as measured by an outside observer, if the traveler is moving quickly enough. And it still scales. If you're traveling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.

Now, I included Grey's whole paragraph, BUT the bold is the key...

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the supposed "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

SO, you are NOT approaching light speed at all, you are approaching going Infinitely fast to Infinity, and all this time, for the last 100 years, this has NOT even been realized!

OR, you are "Shrinking"/contracting 4 Billion Light Years worth of Space/Distance of you got there in 1 second down to 186, 282.397 miles, but here too you are still approaching infintely fast, NOT light speed.

Sorry, BUT there is NO frame where photons are or ever could travel from Point A to Point B in 0 time...All photons that we see/dectect and measure are traveling at Constant "c" of 186,282.397 mps

Time dilation does not exist and swapping two observers motions is absolutely meaningless.

Thank you so much Lyndon!!!

I am going to copy/paste it again so I can fix the quote tags and then we'll go from there.

I am going to copy/paste it again so I can fix the quote tags and then we'll go from there.

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

There is one and only one value for the constant c and I agree with your value of 186,282.397miles per second. A double constant c makes no sense to me either. Einstein's c is a universally observed constant ratio between units of length and time and not to be confused with the speed of light. The speed of light can be measured as either c or instant depending on where we put our clocks but that does not change the amount of time found in a given amount of space which is the constant c found in SR and GR

Here is the bottom line...we know that we have to wait for the light signals sent to the Moon (So Bell cannot possibly come into play here!), our spacecraft (Or Here), Venus to get there and back...SO those signals CANNOT be traveling 'instantly'...period (and they are traveling in a straight line or they would take MORE time!!! unless of course the Shapiro Effect comes into play....BUT that is only very near the horizons of massive objects!!!

Originally Posted by Wayne Francis

Take 2 clocks that are synchronised. Move them apart and then watch the clocks. We don't see the clocks as the are for our "now" but how they where based on the distance they are from us. IE Move a 2 clocks apart by 1 light minute and when you look at the 2nd clock it will be 1 minute behind yours and not the same time as yours.

And as I have repeatedly shown, Wayne is right here, as can also be attested to by our space missions just in our solar system. (And those astronauts are losing bone density but are NOT being time dilated in the slightest.)

All of the above has absolutely Nothing what-so-ever to do with SR Relativity...that is all from "Our Perspective" 'earth rest frame' observer. Newton with Constant Time and "c" as a Constant 186,282.397 mps...Why, simply because "Relativity" does NOT measure time and distance. A light second OR a light year is meaningless in Relativity!<span class='quoteauthor'>RussT

And in Post # 73 Wayne correctly says...[/quote said:</span>

Originally Posted by Wayne

The fact that you think there is a speed of time shows you that you need to learn more about physics. The "speed" of something is the distance it travels / time so show me what that means. I'll give you a clue the times will cancel out and leave you with distance. This doesn't mean 2 things separated by distance will appear to each other as having the same time. This would only be true if light propagated instantly which it doesn't.

[/B.BUT, here is the Real key to finally understanding Time, and Wayne doesn't even really know what he actually did/showed here...in Post # 75

Originally Posted by Wayne

Agreed. All that says is that to the photon there is no time or distance. Whoopy. For the rest of us that have rest mass Relative's claims have already been proven to be wrong not only in thought experiments but actual experiments. Flipping from our reference frame to a photon's frame, which to us is not a valid reference frame anyway, makes no sense and does not support Relative's idea. All it does is bring the equations to a singularity and thus you can back out and get any meaningful answer. You might as well claim 1 / 0 = 2 + 5....you can't get past the 1/0.

Originally Posted by Bob Angstom

A double constant c makes no sense to me either.

This is absolutely correct...A "Constant" CANNOT have 2 different definitions, and the ONLY one that is Valid is Light speed at Constant 186,282.397mps with Time as a Constant

The definitions at the division by 0 of 1. 0 Time from Point A to Point B to ANY distance to Infinity 2. "Instantaneous" from point A to Point B at ANY distance to Infinity 3. distance contracted to 0 from Infinity are ALL Singularity definitions and DO NOT EXIST AT ALL!!!

And here is the "REAL" kicker, and I have absolutely determined this to be 100% correct...and I do not believe that this arguement/pure logic has ever been presented to ANY Relativity Guru, so just hand waving it aside, which seems to be the first thing that BAUTians are prone to do, would actually show that 'real consideration' and proper analysis of things being presented in honest attempts at actually coming to terms with what is "REAL" or not is sorely lacking...

Anyway....here it is...

It has to do with supposedly *Approaching lightspeed "c"* or 'taking the limit'...and the 'real' problem with having 2 defintions of 1 Constant both called "c"

As a observer/ship gets closer and closer to supposedly going the speed of light, once they are almost at the Max....ie'as close to light speed as possible without readhing "c" (supposedly because nothing with mass can OR it would take Infinite energy to do so...but both of those are actually meaningless)....then you get this...

Originally Posted by Grey

A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha Centauri, moving at arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the trip will take roughly four years for outside observers, but will be arbitrarily short for the person traveling. Depending on how fast you go, the trip could take a year as measured by the traveler, or a day, or a second, or a nanosecond. Essentially no time as measured by an outside observer, if the traveler is moving quickly enough. And it still scales.If you're traveling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

Now, I included Grey's whole paragraph, BUT the bold is the key...

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the supposed "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

SO, you are NOT approaching light speed at all, you are approaching going Infinitely fast to Infinity, and all this time, for the last 100 years, this has NOT even been realized!

OR, you are "Shrinking"/contracting 4 Billion Light Years worth of Space/Distance if you got there in 1 second down to 186, 282.397 miles, but here too you are still approaching infintely fast, NOT light speed.

Sorry, BUT there is NO frame where photons are or ever could travel from Point A to Point B in 0 time...All photons that we see/dectect and measure are traveling at Constant "c" of 186,282.397 mps

Time dilation does not exist and swapping two observers motions is absolutely meaningless.

SO, as I have stated before....the ONLY thing that is "Real", is what is currently being called "Our Perspective" or "Earth Rest Frame" where time and light speed "c" are both Constant, and that has absolutely Nothing to do with "Relativity".

The SR 'rest frame observer' CANNOT be equal to 'the earth rest frame observer', SO Both of the SR observers are NOT seeing any reality at all.

all throughout this thread Wayne Francis was correctly tellingRelativeandBobthat they could NOT use "Instant" photons to see any 'reality' IE: distant things as they are NOW, not even realizing that he was correctly "Falsifying" SR as well!!!

BUT, to finally justify his position he would, as most do, switch from the "Linear Singularity" of SR to the "Spherical Singularity"...the Naked Infinite Singularity of Big Bang fame... the one that goes from a 'Point to Infinity' and includes the so called 'States/fates of the Universe'...

Einsteins orginal Lambda or "Static Universe" (where there is a "Force" holding the Universe back from contracting in on itself in perfect balance....which has been falsified) the "Closed Universe" (where gravity wins and the universe collapses...which has now been falsified) or the "Open Universe" (where the accelerated Expansion goes on forever...(But, guess what....WIMPS don't even exist....so now what???) and where Lambda was added to the CDM concordance model...surprise-surprise-surprise...they "FOUND" the 74% of the Universe that was "Missing")

BUT...when they consider the "Static Universe", "Closed Universe", "Open Universe"...they are sure they are covering "Every" potentiality of "How the Universe can be working...when in "Reality"...NONE of those even exist, and NEVER even had a chance of existing.

Since I started, 5 years ago, from the Premise of "When Do SMBH's become part of a galaxies life", I have been dealing with 'singularities' and everything from "First Principles" and finally I do understand the whole thing, and have step by step been able to correctly 'Falsify', from first principles, Relativity.

All I have been doing in reality is "Fixing" the singularity problems, BUT unfortunately that means that Relativity NEVER even had a chance of being "Real"...there are NO "Instant" photons anywhere in our Universe(s) and without those (Singularity definitions) it is "Impossible" that Relativity could even have ever existed at all....and yet they are defending it to the death.,.:<(((

[quote RussT]

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the supposed "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

SO, you are NOT approaching light speed at all, you are approaching going Infinitely fast to Infinity, and all this time, for the last 100 years, this has NOT even been realized!</div>

So....what, you don't believe me here???

Here is another thing I have definitely figured out...

In 1905, Einstein was using "Finite light speed" for the light going from A to B and back, and assumed that meant that those clocks were 'synchronized'.

AND, that was assumed to be correct for many years until**they **figured out it wasn't, and then 'switched' to the 'singularity' definition of 0 time photons to try to 'sync those clocks!!!

Clocks across distance CANNOT be sync'ed to read the same time "PERIOD"!!!

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the supposed "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

SO, you are NOT approaching light speed at all, you are approaching going Infinitely fast to Infinity, and all this time, for the last 100 years, this has NOT even been realized!</div>

So....what, you don't believe me here???

Here is another thing I have definitely figured out...

1. Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.Let a ray of light start at the ``A time'' tA from A towards B, let it at the ``B time'' tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' tA'.In accordance with definition the twoclocks synchronizeif tB - tA = tA' - tB.We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--

In 1905, Einstein was using "Finite light speed" for the light going from A to B and back, and assumed that meant that those clocks were 'synchronized'.

AND, that was assumed to be correct for many years until

Clocks across distance CANNOT be sync'ed to read the same time "PERIOD"!!!

Hi Russ,

If you are against relativity then you need to talk to these guys.

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Home

They have raised the funds to make a full length film against relativity .

I am presenting my paper in absentia at their annual conference - why?

because most of the presenters are relativity and i am not into that. I can't sort out all the problems of the universe so I am sticking with redshift. No point in my going

BUT. they do internet conferencing every week and store it so others can see .

I, Lyndon Ashmore, recommend this lot as they are VERY organised, UP FRONT, and i am glad that I got in with them.

Add to that Vixra.

Russ, you do that too.

Cheers,

lyndon

If you are against relativity then you need to talk to these guys.

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Home

They have raised the funds to make a full length film against relativity .

I am presenting my paper in absentia at their annual conference - why?

because most of the presenters are relativity and i am not into that. I can't sort out all the problems of the universe so I am sticking with redshift. No point in my going

BUT. they do internet conferencing every week and store it so others can see .

I, Lyndon Ashmore, recommend this lot as they are VERY organised, UP FRONT, and i am glad that I got in with them.

Add to that Vixra.

Russ, you do that too.

Cheers,

lyndon

Hey, thanks Lyndon!

I have been on that site before and have read some of their stuff.

But, they, just like Van Flandern's site, do not want to hear anything about Black Holes.

I am in a very weird position!!!

I have found, what I am now sure, is the key to the Universe...

That is...mainstream has been trying to figure out how/when SMBH's form in a galaxies life for well over 30 + years now.

I am the first person on the Planet to come up with the proposition that SMBH's are 'Created/Born' in "Empty Space" and is NOT due to the collapse of "Baryonic Matter". "GRB's >2 seconds yo 500 seconds"..."Hence that is also the key to rewriting QM and unifying the Macro with the Micro"

They have a whole bunch of 'possible scenarios' whereby gas clouds collapse OR Huge Stars collapse, OR small black holes merge, OR they try to put them in the 'so called' early primodial universe, and since they invented WIMPS and CDM Halos (which do NOT exist), try to combine them with those ETC ETC...

So, they can keep trying these for a bazillion years and NEVER succeed, because they are NOT 'gas clouds'....there was NO BIG BANG

Well, starting from my scenario, I have definitely been able to falsify the Big Bang Naked Singularity, and then knowing that the Universe is a "MultiVerse" with 'something' coming Straight Through SMBH's have been able to understand that space and time are NOT flipped inside a black hole and there is NO - sign to repel anything at the so called singularity...and that in fact, if there is a singularity there at all, it means the Maths are showing that it doesn't even exist.

And then the more and more I learned about SR, I finally figured out that the singularity definitions of 0 time from A to B to infinity/0 distance from infinity are absolutely meaningless!

SO, Eric Lerner is right about Crothers being right...Schwarzschild Black Holes/Event Horizons do NOT exist at all, Including the FLRW EFE "Inside Solution" of the Naked expanding Schwarzschild singularity.

BUT, that does NOT eliminate the Kerr Rotating SMBH's.

Now, once you switch to the rotating black holes, the spherical event horizon is no longer valid, and I have now determined that the ones mainstream is portraying are totally wrong as well...

Because when you model the event horizon of these....like the E-R bridge...

Then you have a major problem,,,,On the other side of the galaxy, where the "Other Jet" would be coming from (Even though those Jets are NOT coming out of the black hole, they are coming from the accretion disc, that took 10's of billions of years to form over the top of the event horizon), there is Another Event Horizon.

NOW, all of this means that those SMBH's are "Real"....BUT, BUT , BUT

It means that ALL of the Maths that mainstream is using to validate those SMBH's is wrong wrong wrong...

And what is coming "Straight Through" those SMBH's into our Universe, to give us our "Space" is the "Aether"...the Neutrinos, which are the ZPE fiield...

and those Neutrinos are actually the CMBR traveeling at "c" in every/all directions non-collisionally.

That ZPE Field is the Electric Universe, and means that the Rotating SMBH creates a HUGE Magnetic Field which holds the gas/stars in their orbits and therefore means that stars hold their planets in their orbits via the same mechanism.

SO, now Newton and Einstein are BOTH wrong, as well as Maxwell, Schroedinger, and everyone who has ever tried to figure out the Universe.

And the entire problem has always been that NO ONE has tried to put everything in 3D...

Well, the only option with all of this is to understand that everything needs to be redone, and that until someone can come up with a 3d version, using what I am showing....that we have no choice but to stick with Newton, and eliminate Relativity all together and concentrate on figuring out how Tesla/and the name of the other major guy who claimed that the magnetic field was holding the planets in their orbits escapes me right now.

ETA: Alfven is the name I was trying to remember right before I went to bed ;>))

Mainstream thinks they understand black holes, when they don't at all, and...

They always talk about people who try to make the universe into what they 'think it should be' and caution them that you can't do that...

BUT, that is exactly what they have done with all their 'supposed' Laws of Physics of a "Closed System", when in reality it MUST be an "Open System" for there has to be a 'Cause and Effect" Mechanism for how the energy our Universe uses 'Gets Here"...which is exactly what I am showing!!!

How the Energy Gets here....through the SMBH's in the Other Universe....

AND...how that Energy is used to "Start New Galaxies"

That's it in a nutshell ;>))

I have been on that site before and have read some of their stuff.

But, they, just like Van Flandern's site, do not want to hear anything about Black Holes.

I am in a very weird position!!!

I have found, what I am now sure, is the key to the Universe...

That is...mainstream has been trying to figure out how/when SMBH's form in a galaxies life for well over 30 + years now.

I am the first person on the Planet to come up with the proposition that SMBH's are 'Created/Born' in "Empty Space" and is NOT due to the collapse of "Baryonic Matter". "GRB's >2 seconds yo 500 seconds"..."Hence that is also the key to rewriting QM and unifying the Macro with the Micro"

They have a whole bunch of 'possible scenarios' whereby gas clouds collapse OR Huge Stars collapse, OR small black holes merge, OR they try to put them in the 'so called' early primodial universe, and since they invented WIMPS and CDM Halos (which do NOT exist), try to combine them with those ETC ETC...

So, they can keep trying these for a bazillion years and NEVER succeed, because they are NOT 'gas clouds'....there was NO BIG BANG

Well, starting from my scenario, I have definitely been able to falsify the Big Bang Naked Singularity, and then knowing that the Universe is a "MultiVerse" with 'something' coming Straight Through SMBH's have been able to understand that space and time are NOT flipped inside a black hole and there is NO - sign to repel anything at the so called singularity...and that in fact, if there is a singularity there at all, it means the Maths are showing that it doesn't even exist.

And then the more and more I learned about SR, I finally figured out that the singularity definitions of 0 time from A to B to infinity/0 distance from infinity are absolutely meaningless!

SO, Eric Lerner is right about Crothers being right...Schwarzschild Black Holes/Event Horizons do NOT exist at all, Including the FLRW EFE "Inside Solution" of the Naked expanding Schwarzschild singularity.

BUT, that does NOT eliminate the Kerr Rotating SMBH's.

Now, once you switch to the rotating black holes, the spherical event horizon is no longer valid, and I have now determined that the ones mainstream is portraying are totally wrong as well...

Because when you model the event horizon of these....like the E-R bridge...

Then you have a major problem,,,,On the other side of the galaxy, where the "Other Jet" would be coming from (Even though those Jets are NOT coming out of the black hole, they are coming from the accretion disc, that took 10's of billions of years to form over the top of the event horizon), there is Another Event Horizon.

NOW, all of this means that those SMBH's are "Real"....BUT, BUT , BUT

It means that ALL of the Maths that mainstream is using to validate those SMBH's is wrong wrong wrong...

And what is coming "Straight Through" those SMBH's into our Universe, to give us our "Space" is the "Aether"...the Neutrinos, which are the ZPE fiield...

and those Neutrinos are actually the CMBR traveeling at "c" in every/all directions non-collisionally.

That ZPE Field is the Electric Universe, and means that the Rotating SMBH creates a HUGE Magnetic Field which holds the gas/stars in their orbits and therefore means that stars hold their planets in their orbits via the same mechanism.

SO, now Newton and Einstein are BOTH wrong, as well as Maxwell, Schroedinger, and everyone who has ever tried to figure out the Universe.

And the entire problem has always been that NO ONE has tried to put everything in 3D...

Well, the only option with all of this is to understand that everything needs to be redone, and that until someone can come up with a 3d version, using what I am showing....that we have no choice but to stick with Newton, and eliminate Relativity all together and concentrate on figuring out how Tesla/and the name of the other major guy who claimed that the magnetic field was holding the planets in their orbits escapes me right now.

ETA: Alfven is the name I was trying to remember right before I went to bed ;>))

Mainstream thinks they understand black holes, when they don't at all, and...

They always talk about people who try to make the universe into what they 'think it should be' and caution them that you can't do that...

BUT, that is exactly what they have done with all their 'supposed' Laws of Physics of a "Closed System", when in reality it MUST be an "Open System" for there has to be a 'Cause and Effect" Mechanism for how the energy our Universe uses 'Gets Here"...which is exactly what I am showing!!!

How the Energy Gets here....through the SMBH's in the Other Universe....

AND...how that Energy is used to "Start New Galaxies"

That's it in a nutshell ;>))

The concept that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate anything with mass to lightspeed is totally bogus and without any meaning at all!

It is simply 'scientifically' Unknowable ;<))

That whole concept was developed from the erroneous concept that I showed here...

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the 'supposed' finite "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

**SO, you are NOT approaching light speed at all, you are approaching going Infinitely ****fast** to Infinity, and all this time, for the last 100 years, this has NOT even been realized!

So what that really means is...meaningless, because it is simply saying...

That it takes Infinte Energy to GO Infinitely fast!!!

It is definitely the problem that a "Constant" can have ONLY one definition...

The right one being of course that light speed is Constant and "Finite" at 186, 282.397 mps!!!

All the others are Singularity definitions!~!~!~

Anyone who belives that a spaceship can travel 4 BILLION light years in 1 second, 12 BILLION light years in 3 seconds, 40 BILLION light years in 10 seconds (to the edge of the visible universe that supposedly took 13.7 billion years to expand to that, with the supposed horizon(s) traveling faster than light the whole time) is...

wrong, crazy, deluded, 'not even wrong', smokin' something really powerful, ETC ;>-))

It is simply 'scientifically' Unknowable ;<))

That whole concept was developed from the erroneous concept that I showed here...

If you're traveling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the 'supposed' finite "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

So what that really means is...meaningless, because it is simply saying...

That it takes Infinte Energy to GO Infinitely fast!!!

It is definitely the problem that a "Constant" can have ONLY one definition...

The right one being of course that light speed is Constant and "Finite" at 186, 282.397 mps!!!

All the others are Singularity definitions!~!~!~

Anyone who belives that a spaceship can travel 4 BILLION light years in 1 second, 12 BILLION light years in 3 seconds, 40 BILLION light years in 10 seconds (to the edge of the visible universe that supposedly took 13.7 billion years to expand to that, with the supposed horizon(s) traveling faster than light the whole time) is...

wrong, crazy, deluded, 'not even wrong', smokin' something really powerful, ETC ;>-))

Okay...here is what you guys and Mainstream (anyone who believes in "Relativity") are missing/misunderstanding...

Everything I am showing is from "First Principles"...that means that you CANNOT revert to 'supposed' "Proven experiments" that are being called "Observations" when they are Really "Interpretations" to refute what I am showing!!!

Which is what you are Mentally doing!!!

SO, let's take it from the "Singularity" definitions of

1. Photons traveling from point A to Point B from 0 to Infinity "Instantly"

2. Photons traveling from point A to Point B from 0 to Infinity in 0 time

3. The "Space"/Distance from Infinity to 0 being "contracted Instantly" to 0

NONE of those definitions apply to any photons in our Universe!!!

The Photons we send to the Moon in the Lunar Laser experiments are NEVER "Contracted to 0" in the direction of motion and NEVER get from the Laser to the Moon "Instantly" OR in 0 time....Period!!!

If you think that they do then it is...

wrong, crazy, deluded, 'not even wrong', smokin' something really powerful, ETC ;>-))

Photons from Super Nova 1987A were NEVER "Contracted to 0" in the direction of motion and NEVER got from the LMC (Large Magelanic Cloud) ~168,000 lys away, "Instantly" OR in 0 time....Period!!!

If you think that they do then it is...

wrong, crazy, deluded, 'not even wrong', smokin' something really powerful, ETC ;>-))

Everything I am showing is from "First Principles"...that means that you CANNOT revert to 'supposed' "Proven experiments" that are being called "Observations" when they are Really "Interpretations" to refute what I am showing!!!

Which is what you are Mentally doing!!!

SO, let's take it from the "Singularity" definitions of

1. Photons traveling from point A to Point B from 0 to Infinity "Instantly"

2. Photons traveling from point A to Point B from 0 to Infinity in 0 time

3. The "Space"/Distance from Infinity to 0 being "contracted Instantly" to 0

NONE of those definitions apply to any photons in our Universe!!!

The Photons we send to the Moon in the Lunar Laser experiments are NEVER "Contracted to 0" in the direction of motion and NEVER get from the Laser to the Moon "Instantly" OR in 0 time....Period!!!

If you think that they do then it is...

wrong, crazy, deluded, 'not even wrong', smokin' something really powerful, ETC ;>-))

Photons from Super Nova 1987A were NEVER "Contracted to 0" in the direction of motion and NEVER got from the LMC (Large Magelanic Cloud) ~168,000 lys away, "Instantly" OR in 0 time....Period!!!

If you think that they do then it is...

wrong, crazy, deluded, 'not even wrong', smokin' something really powerful, ETC ;>-))

Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill