User talk:Rjjasmine

Please refrain from cutting and pasting essays into Talk:Black hole. This is considered vandalism. --Christopher Thomas 17:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackhole is dead science (moved from Talk:Black hole
Well Christopher Thomas, where am I suppose to call attention to corrections of what is dead science? There is no such thing as Black Holes. The whole Black Hole section is built on dead science. [Wilki] In 1915, Einstein developed the theory of gravity called General Relativity. (Einstein NEVER subscribed to Black Holes. He died on April 18, 1955 ) Einstein showed General Relativity does not predict Black Holes. [ [ http://forums.hypography.com/astronomy-news/2476-do-black-holes-exist.html ] [Wilki] Schwarzschild himself thought it was not physical. [Wilki] 'Most' physicists believed that they were a peculiar feature of the highly symmetric solution found by Schwarzschild, and that objects collapsing in nature would not form black holes. [ Hawking recanted] Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose ?-proved-? that black holes are a generic feature in Einstein's theory of gravity, [The Big Bang Never Happened (Eric J. Lerner)], so the a Big Bang can not save the paradigm] [Wilki]The enormous pressures needed for this are thought to have existed in the very early stages of the universe, [ Hawkin recanted] [Wilki] In theory, no object beyond the event horizon of a black hole can ever escape, including light. [Wilki]Have we found them? [Wilki] Location of the X-ray source Cygnus X-1 which is - widely - accepted - to be a 10 solar mass black hole... NO, we have not! [ http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO3PDF/V12N3DUN.pdf ] Also, and this is the surprising point, no candidate paraded so far satisfies the simple criterion first derived by Michell in 1784; for none of the candidates produced does the ratio of mass to radius equal, or exceed, 6.7 × 1026kg/m. - Energy and gravitation from neutron stars can in principle ADEQUATELY explain what we see, [ http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3833 ] Energy and gravitation from neutron stars can in principle adequately explain what we see, and we feel it unnecessary to use this or any other phenomenon to explain unseen, hypothetical add-on entities like Big Bang, singularities, and infinitely curved spacetime. The energy potential of neutron repulsion (for which we have EMPIRICAL evidence) is copious, and the reservoir of such energy in compact objects far exceeds anything else yet discovered, including nuclear fusion. Our calculations show that there is, in theory at least, sufficient potential to drive the most energetic and spectacular events seen anywhere, including gamma ray bursts. If you need more data to assist in your assessment, consult the references cited in our paper... “The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. ... - Per Einstein: [ http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO3PDF/V12N3DUN.pdf ] Interestingly, it might be noted that Einstein himself devoted a complete paper [16] to arriving at the conclusion that ‘the “Schwarzschild singularities” do not exist in phys (rjjasmine@sbcglobal.net)

---