harleyborgais wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Black holes are the last stage of life of massive stars. Stars that have a mass that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, they go supernova, and then they become black holes.

Yes, thank you. I do need to use the work of Subramanyan Chandrasekhar as a reference when mentioning how black holes form when supernovas have just the right conditions. This limit is one of those conditions. The formation of a black hole would be disrupted according to my theory if it is too near another significant gravity source.

It is not when supernovas have the right conditions. The formation of black holes depends on mass. As for the gravity source, I don't think so. There are double "stars" of which one is a neutron star and the other is a black hole. Neutron stars are very strong gravitationally. Unless of course you are talking about another black hole, which would probably prevent the star from going supernova, as it sucks material from that star. read on double stars where one is a black hole. Or even read on globular clusters where there are also black holes in those...

harleyborgais wrote:
If as you say: "A black hole is made entirely of matter", then how do the gravity and size calculations of black holes compare to those of the densest visible masses (I believe that would be the Neutron Stars). I think there is a peculiarity that there is more gravity from black holes than from ordinary matter by gravity divided by volume.

Gravity depends on mass and on density. However, mass is the major factor affecting gravity, and how strong a gravitational field will be, then density. Density in a black hole is unlimited, the centre of a black hole is a singularity. I don't understand what are you trying to say here; the more mass, the stronger gravity is, so it will attract more and more mass.

harleyborgais wrote:
Also, black holes cause jets of gamma rays which is intense high energy light escaping. Likely it is from the normal matter being destroyed before it reaches the dark mass. According to "How We Exist" at freeornottobe.org dark matter only forms during those specific supernovas that form black holes, so only black holes add to the mass of black holes. Normal matter is spat out. This is what observations show us.

It is not the black holes that emit radiation. The jets of gamma rays are emitted from the material that is spiraling down a black hole.

The rest if it about dark matter is total bullshit. Most of dark matter was probably formed when the Universe began.

harleyborgais wrote:
The dark Energy explains the universe expansion AND the flat galaxy rotation plots because it is the immense magnetic lines from the ultra-dense Neutron Crystal that is Dark Matter and Black Holes. The magnetic poles of galaxies are geometrically similar to Electrons, so they have the same properties of Magnetic Dipole, perpendicular to Electro-Motive Force, both Perpendicular to direction of motion of Charge. Galaxies and Electrons can push and pull on each other, but the radiation dominates at distance accelerating the expansion.

Total BS here.

I just read the time cube site, and holy crap. I don't even want to quote it here or post his name. But still I invite its creator or ANYONE IN THE WORLD to challenge me, without prejudice, but especially the mainstream "Experts".

This is an equal opportunity challenge. Once I finally get the references in "How We Exist" I will send it to those experts and invite them to comment here also.

Darkchilde wrote:It is not when supernovas have the right conditions. The formation of black holes depends on mass. As for the gravity source, I don't think so. There are double "stars" of which one is a neutron star and the other is a black hole. Neutron stars are very strong gravitationally. Unless of course you are talking about another black hole, which would probably prevent the star from going supernova, as it sucks material from that star. read on double stars where one is a black hole. Or even read on globular clusters where there are also black holes in those... Density in a black hole is unlimited, the centre of a black hole is a singularity. I don't understand what are you trying to say here; the more mass, the stronger gravity is, so it will attract more and more mass.

Singularities and Strings are imaginary creations resulting from imperfect math. A standard number base like our 10-base cannot calculate the relation or area between a curve and line, because at every step in the calculation there are indivisible remainders. This is why ratios are used instead like 1/3 instead of 1.333333.... Pretty much all important calculations have this problem, and the more steps, the more errors multiply, and the less reliable the result.

Have we yet found images in space of masses soon after supernovas which are near and far from other similar masses, and both below and above the Chandrasekhar Limit to answer this question?
We should post or link the references in this forum.

A neutron star may not be enough to disrupt the reaction which forms black holes.

So how can normal matter of a certain mass turn into unlimited density? That is not rational. "How We Exist" explains how Neutrons link to form the densest and most magnetic crystalline form matter can take, the Dark Matter of a Black Hole. The magnetic field from that is composed of lines too large to be measured well from Earth alone.

If the center of our galaxy had "Unlimited Density" we would not be here.

Darkchilde wrote:It is not the black holes that emit radiation. The jets of gamma rays are emitted from the material that is spiraling down a black hole.

Sure, but how can we be sure none of that energy is coming from the mass that we cannot see, which is obscured by that energy jet?
"How We Exist" explains how Dark Matter forms into Black Holes, and why it causes the Gamma Ray Burst's before becoming a Black Hole. Have we observed a mass going Black yet? (I don't think so, we don't even have much on novas)

Darkchilde wrote:Most of dark matter was probably formed when the Universe began.

In "How We Exist" at freeornottobe.org I explain how matter formed in the beginning, and even to this day, adding to the accelerating expansion and/or growth of Galaxies. No probably, just a step-by-step explanation in order.

So Darkchilde: What do you think Caused the Universe to begin?

harleyborgais wrote:Have you Scar made one single intelligent challenge yet?

As soon as you present anything remotely intelligent that is not just pseudoscientific bullshit (in other words, you stringing together sciencey sounding words without an actual clue what you are babbling on about), I may consider it. Until then, no.

"Total BS here." Is little-brain speak for "This is too difficult for me to contemplate".

!	MODNOTE The report regarding this post has been dealt with and closed. Durro

harleyborgais wrote:Have you Scar made one single intelligent challenge yet?

Scar wrote:As soon as you present anything remotely intelligent that is not just pseudoscientific bullshit (in other words, you stringing together sciencey sounding words without an actual clue what you are babbling on about), [I may consider it. Until then, no.

Using foul language, name calling, and offensive language makes you seem less intelligent, BTW.

You may consider it you say. We don't care, do or do not, just stop wasting forum space with your worthless comments.

harleyborgais wrote:"Total BS here." Is little-brain speak for "This is too difficult for me to contemplate".

Nope, it means that what you present is meaningless, unscientific bullshit, words from science taken out of context and meaning strung together in a completely bollocks way, just to produce something that sounds meaningful, but actually isn't. Nothing more, nothing less. It is so nonsensical, it's not even worth commenting upon. Indeed, since you're just continually making all sorts of claims that are not in line with mainstream science, yet fail to ever support them with evidence, we are completely justified in dismissing them out of hand.

harleyborgais wrote:

harleyborgais wrote:Have you Scar made one single intelligent challenge yet?

Scar wrote:As soon as you present anything remotely intelligent that is not just pseudoscientific bullshit (in other words, you stringing together sciencey sounding words without an actual clue what you are babbling on about), [I may consider it. Until then, no.

Using foul language, name calling, and offensive language makes you seem less intelligent, BTW.

You may consider it you say. We don't care, do or do not, just stop wasting forum space with your worthless comments.

Wait, where is the foul language and the name calling and foul language in that post? I can't see any.

But hey, complaining about someone's language and manners is always easier than to react to what he actually says, huh?

It just makes you look silly when you've preceded that with this:

harleyborgais wrote:"Total BS here." Is little-brain speak for "This is too difficult for me to contemplate".

lucek wrote:http://www.mindabilities.com/default.asp?pid=148
Some quotes to set the tone.

Thought (or the mind) is beyond the scope of this explanation of the forces of nature, but it is at least one additional dimension.

Harley, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on consciousness and the human brain? Is this an area you've looked much into?

I said it makes you look less intelligent, and was aware the same applies to me, but I wanted to say that anyways.

I'm going to comment on a few statements of fact that you present here.

harleyborgais wrote:In an AC circuit, a square of four diodes (one-way valves), converts alternating currents, to direct currents.

No. It doesn't. Not even close. Here's a schematic of a bridge rectifier made of four diodes:

Notice the envelope of the output waveform? Pulses of current. It's called ripple voltage. Not direct current. Not a big trick to smooth that waveform out with some series inductance or parallel capacitance, though.

harleyborgais wrote:...Also, the Diode is not analogous to the ratchet and pawl, but to the Valve. A valve alone allows only a one way flow. The ratchet and pawl wastes energy in the friction which is calculable using trigonometry. The valve allows one way with a minimum resistance, and the valve is closed by the energy of momentum of anything going the other way.

An over unity device must (as you do understand), create a differential and cause a flow, to transform energy from one form to another, producing work. This certainly requires more than one simple valve or ratchet and pawl.

I repeat, you must create a system of balanced forces within and with the environment, to obtain an over unity gain.

You are simply and absolutely mistaken. A diode is exactly analagous to a ratchet and pawl. It presents a very high resistance to current in one direction (reverse bias), and a much lower resistance to current flow in the other direction (forward bias).

But make no mistake, a forward based diode has resistance. Always. You, in a later post say:

harleyborgais wrote:There are negative resistance diode materials which were developed and tested by at least two totally unconnected people.

Deborah Chung, and Gabriel Kron.

You are once more demonstrating your lack of understanding. Observe the following:


That is the negative resistance curve of a tunnel diode. Very plainly visible is the part of the curve where, as voltage across the diode increases, the current through the diode decreases. That part of the curve is indeed useful in electronic circuitry. What you fail to realize though, is that at all points along that portion of the operating curve, there exists a positive value of resistance! SImply use the re-arrangement of Ohm's law of resistance being equal to voltage divided by the current. There is no escaping this.

How do I know these things? It's my job. I actually am an electronics engineer. I've been doing this stuff my whole adult life. But, don't take my word for it. Breadboard yourself a rectifier and have a look at the output waveform with an oscilloscope. Measure the voltage drop across a forward biased diode.

Interesting you would ask that now, as I just asked BrainMan if he could suggest what we consider to be the simplest known conscious organism. That would be a good starting point, and not my opinion, but some other persons.

The Human Brain is the most complex aspect of our reality, and the last one I planned to really tackle, but I know that work has been done, and I need only put together the appropriate references. I have been working on this in order by origin.

The origin of consciousness is another good topic, BrainMan posted a response to that one. I will have to find it tomorrow if someone else doesn't post it first.

Will comment on resistor and diode materials and functional differences as well.

harleyborgais wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:It is not when supernovas have the right conditions. The formation of black holes depends on mass. As for the gravity source, I don't think so. There are double "stars" of which one is a neutron star and the other is a black hole. Neutron stars are very strong gravitationally. Unless of course you are talking about another black hole, which would probably prevent the star from going supernova, as it sucks material from that star. read on double stars where one is a black hole. Or even read on globular clusters where there are also black holes in those... Density in a black hole is unlimited, the centre of a black hole is a singularity. I don't understand what are you trying to say here; the more mass, the stronger gravity is, so it will attract more and more mass.

Singularities and Strings are imaginary creations resulting from imperfect math. A standard number base like our 10-base cannot calculate the relation or area between a curve and line, because at every step in the calculation there are indivisible remainders. This is why ratios are used instead like 1/3 instead of 1.333333.... Pretty much all important calculations have this problem, and the more steps, the more errors multiply, and the less reliable the result.

Let's start with black holes: they were predicted by Einstein's relativity theory. One of the solutions to the field equations, yields Black Holes. If you think that this is imperfect math, then show it. Show where Schwarzschild made an error in solving the field equations and predicting black holes! Also show that we are interpreting the evidence for black holes wrongly, and that it is something else.

As for string theory, yes, it is mostly a mathematical hypothesis. It is based on maths, but so is most of physics. However, string theory or the improved M-theory, do explain the physical phenomena quite well, and also incorporate gravity! So does Loop Quantum Gravity, etc. Those hypothesis are trying to unify gravity with the rest of the forces. If you think the math done by people like Hawking, Thorne and more physicists/cosmologists as wrong, then show us.

harleyborgais wrote:
Have we yet found images in space of masses soon after supernovas which are near and far from other similar masses, and both below and above the Chandrasekhar Limit to answer this question?
We should post or link the references in this forum.

http://scholar.google.gr/scholar?q=Chandrasekhar+limit&hl=el&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7

And I made a mistake in the Chandrasekhar limit, which if you did know ANYTHING about astrophysics you would have picked up! The Chandrasekhar limit of 1.44 solar masses is the mass that a non-rotating body of electron-degenerate matter will have a radius of 0! For a black hole to form, you need at least 3 solar masses.

harleyborgais wrote:
A neutron star may not be enough to disrupt the reaction which forms black holes.

True it might not have enough gravity to disrupt it.

harleyborgais wrote:
So how can normal matter of a certain mass turn into unlimited density? That is not rational. "How We Exist" explains how Neutrons link to form the densest and most magnetic crystalline form matter can take, the Dark Matter of a Black Hole. The magnetic field from that is composed of lines too large to be measured well from Earth alone.

Yes, that is a problem in physics that we have not solved. And if you did know anything about physics, you would actually know that the singularity at the centre of a black hole is where modern physics breaks up at present. That is why we have infinite density there! Or maybe because the singularity has a radius that is less than a Planck length...

harleyborgais wrote:
If the center of our galaxy had "Unlimited Density" we would not be here.

See my answer above...

harleyborgais wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:It is not the black holes that emit radiation. The jets of gamma rays are emitted from the material that is spiraling down a black hole.

Sure, but how can we be sure none of that energy is coming from the mass that we cannot see, which is obscured by that energy jet?
"How We Exist" explains how Dark Matter forms into Black Holes, and why it causes the Gamma Ray Burst's before becoming a Black Hole. Have we observed a mass going Black yet? (I don't think so, we don't even have much on novas)

Okay, you are really ignorant in physics and astrophysics. I am trying to look for sources, as I do not know very much about GRBs, mostly that they are associated with black holes. However, it seems that there are two types of GRBs, short and long bursts. You better start reading the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_bursts
Pay attention to the list of sources in the end.

Aldo read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_astronomy and again pay attention at the sources in the end. And as for black holes, there are those sources where you can learn all you need to know:

Resource Letter BH1: Black Holes
Resource Letter BH2: Black Holes

harleyborgais wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Most of dark matter was probably formed when the Universe began.

In "How We Exist" at freeornottobe.org I explain how matter formed in the beginning, and even to this day, adding to the accelerating expansion and/or growth of Galaxies. No probably, just a step-by-step explanation in order.

So Darkchilde: What do you think Caused the Universe to begin?

I don't know what caused the Big Bang. I do not speculate, I am not a physicist/cosmologist, just a student. I do not speculate without the relevant data, and I do not have all the data I need to speculate or to accept one of the proposed hypothesis.

However, I would like to ask you: do you have any scientific background at all? Because I made a couple of mistakes with the Chandrasekhar limit and the GRBs and you did not pick them up. Which to me means, that you are totally ignorant of physics, astrophysics and cosmology. Because if you had any background with those, you would have corrected me.

The Mysterious Force that governs our lives, according to astrology.
Let's take a first look at electromagnetism. Immediately, we ran into the first problem: the planets are electrically neutral! There is no electricity coming from Mars or from Jupiter. And even if there was, the effect of electricity diminishes with distance. How about magnetic fields? The Sun's magnetic field is huge, and does influence the Solar System. However, not every planet has a magnetic field of the same strength, and again, the influence of magnetic fields diminish with distance.
We have eliminated electromagnetism.

(http://tenebra98.blogspot.com/)

Darkchilde, you wrote this? If this is what you think, you are not prepared for this discussion. Just wait till I get the time for a proper response to your challenge and you will see.

The same goes for you Metatron. I am going to teach you about diode materials and their functional differences when I can.

Sorry about the little brain comment. I will try to be much more polite, especially to moderators.

harleyborgais wrote:

The Mysterious Force that governs our lives, according to astrology.
Let's take a first look at electromagnetism. Immediately, we ran into the first problem: the planets are electrically neutral! There is no electricity coming from Mars or from Jupiter. And even if there was, the effect of electricity diminishes with distance. How about magnetic fields? The Sun's magnetic field is huge, and does influence the Solar System. However, not every planet has a magnetic field of the same strength, and again, the influence of magnetic fields diminish with distance.
We have eliminated electromagnetism.

(http://tenebra98.blogspot.com/)

Darkchilde, you wrote this? If this is what you think, you are not prepared for this discussion. Just wait till I get the time for a proper response to your challenge and you will see.

The same goes for you Metatron. I am going to teach you about diode materials and their functional differences when I can.

Hurry up, I can't wait for the comedy gold.

harleyborgais wrote:I will try to be much more polite, especially to moderators.

I'd be equally polite to everyone, if I were you.

harleyborgais wrote:

The Mysterious Force that governs our lives, according to astrology.
Let's take a first look at electromagnetism. Immediately, we ran into the first problem: the planets are electrically neutral! There is no electricity coming from Mars or from Jupiter. And even if there was, the effect of electricity diminishes with distance. How about magnetic fields? The Sun's magnetic field is huge, and does influence the Solar System. However, not every planet has a magnetic field of the same strength, and again, the influence of magnetic fields diminish with distance.
We have eliminated electromagnetism.

(http://tenebra98.blogspot.com/)

Darkchilde, you wrote this? If this is what you think, you are not prepared for this discussion. Just wait till I get the time for a proper response to your challenge and you will see.

The same goes for you Metatron. I am going to teach you about diode materials and their functional differences when I can.

sure you will