October 5th, 2012, 10:43 PM
Supermassive black holes are said to create galaxies.
How are SMBH's created? There is a limit to star size. Wouldn't matter equal to many thousands of stars have to collapse together to form a SMBH?
If they are formed in an earlier epoch, how do new galaxies continue to form?
if black holes are caused by stars that collapse. whr do u think supermassive black holes come from?
same source if know: supermassive stars
Dense clusters of stars can be drawn in, as well as sweeping. Another point is that while there is an upper limit on star size, we're not entirely sure what that limit is. Take a gander at R136a1 : R136a1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh yeah... hey, wikipedia...
The wiki page probably does a better job explaining than I would.
Let's do that, instead (I'm feeling lazy, today):
Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not as lazy as the person who did not even do the internet search.Originally Posted by Neverfly
And yet somehow they managed to find this place.Not as lazy as the person who did not even do the internet search.
And go through the registration.And yet somehow they managed to find this place.
They have to know how to spell google.
Why bother? Google doesn't know how to spell "googol."
Wikipedia:
How large a star would be required to form a supermassive black hole? I believe there are no stars observed to be anywhere near that large.The origin of supermassive black holes (SMBH) remains an open field of research.
Say more than one star collapses to from SMBH; In an expanding cosmos, why would all these stars, with their momentum, collapse to one central point? The gravitational reach of a black hole is limited....
Assuming all the matter in a large area collapses into a SMBH, then it will be in a large area devoid of matter.
There will be no matter surrounding it to be drawn into it's gravitational pull., to form the arms of a galaxy...
Last edited by Eleven11; November 20th, 2012 at 03:14 PM.
Wiki:
Isn't the fact that the density of the core of a galxy is the same as the density of water PROOF that it is not a black hole?. First, the average density of a supermassive black hole (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be less than the density of water in the case of some supermassive black holes.[5] This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume.
At that density, ther are elements,charges,spin,angular momentum, all the thing that are supposed to be destroyed by a black hole. If it is more dense in the center then even density varies...
Synchritron radiation is predicted by most galaxt theories, therfore does not prove SMBH theory.They discovered a radio source that emits synchrotron radiation; also it was found to be dense and immobile because of its gravitation. Therefore, the first discovered supermassive black hole exists in the center of the Milky Way.
Synchritron radiation is logical to occur because of the physical conditions at the core. Ions exist in space, ; in motion they create magnetic fields. Magnetic fields combine by magnetic reconnection. Magnetic fields accelerate particles. Black holes are not necessary.
I explain galaxy production by particles accelearated by magnetic fields. Synchrotron radiation supports my galaxy theory especially.
See my galaxy theory:
magneticreconnectiongalaxy.com
Last edited by Eleven11; November 20th, 2012 at 03:34 PM.
Why? That average density is worked out based on the physics of black holes.
I don't suppose you have.
There are several stars orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy. They are gradually spiralling in and will eventually be absorbed by the black hole, making it bigger.If more than one star collapses to from SMBH?
Not relevant as this only happens on cosmological scales (i.e. between galaxy clusters).In an expanding cosmos
On the other hand, the early universe was very different to now and stars may have been bigger and closer. This would have made it easier for black holes to "feed on" stars to grow very large.
As far as I know (not muchWe do not see SMBH's forming in our time, so how do new galaxies form?) the relation between SMBHs and galaxies is not clear.
There are several stars orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy. They are gradually spiralling in and will eventually be absorbed by the black hole, making it bigger.
Elliptical galaxies are likely newly forming spiral galaxies[pictured below]. They form in-between, and later than, galaxy clusters. The dark matter and existing matter pool into the collective gravitational center of the group. Elliptical galaxies form in this dense area between the surrounding galaxies far enough from their magnetic fields to allow magnetic reconnection.
Some sporadic star formation can occur as the elliptical galaxy grows in size.
In space, there is less than one molecule per square centimeter. The random motion of these particles do not allow for collapse, as inertia is a stronger force than gravity. It is the nature of gas to expand, to fill the container. Electromagnetism, a far stronger force than gravity or inertia, is required to bring particles together.
As the forming elliptical grows, magnetic reconnection continues. Magnetic fields are becoming less in number, and larger, randomly arranged within the halo. The energy is converted from potential energy; material moving towards the center of the halo.
Electromagnetic forces accelerates existing particles through the centers, along the lines of force. The particles compact, and move in the same speed and direction.
Relative to one another, these particles are motionless. Their inertia is now collective. Gravity can now collapse particles until a critical size is reached, allowing for star production.
After millions of years, the magnetic connection is complete and the entire halo functions as one large magnet. The stars formed sporadically are now aged and red, and randomly orbit the center of the halo. These aging red stars are soon overshadowed by the massive production of purely blue (new) stars[14].
As the elliptical galaxy becomes visible, dust will not have formed in abundance, and arm formation will not yet have occurred, giving ellipticals a different appearance than bar or spiral galaxies.
NASA REFERENCE:
14 Elliptical galaxies are known for their old, red stars. But is this old elliptical up to new tricks? In recent years, the centers of elliptical galaxies have been found to emit unexpectedly high amounts of blue and ultraviolet light. Most blue light from spiral galaxies originates from massive young hot stars..
APOD: November 3, 1999 - M32: Blue Stars in an Elliptical Galaxy
Hubble deep space of 15billion+ don't show surmassive stars. New galaxies are continuing to form in this epoch...On the other hand, the early universe was very different to now and stars may have been bigger and closer.
Many computer models have been attempted to show SMBH and galaxy production.None have had any success. Tweaking to the maximum they could get one ore two SMBH's to form from the big bang. However, they could only increase their mass by 1% ever few hundred million years.
Inertia is more powerful than gravity. Matter covering vast areas of space have never beeen observed to collapse into a tiny area.
Firstly, you seem to be overlooking the word average. What that means is that the total mass of the BH has been related to the total volume enclosed by the event horizon, giving an average density. Physically, the mass isn't distributed in the entire volume, but wholly concentrated in the center of the black hole ( the singularity ), giving it an extremely high effective density.
Secondly, in the case of black holes the term "density" is really meaningless. The only important property here is the total mass, which, to keep things simple, determines the strength of its gravitational field.
Any black hole has exactly three degrees of freedom : mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. These are properties of the BH as a whole. Also, it turns out that the surface area of the BH's event horizon is a measure of entropy, so the attributes ( "information" ) of infalling matter is not destroyed, but becomes encoded on the event horizon, garbled beyond recognition. But it is still there.At that density, ther are elements,charges,spin,angular momentum, all the thing that are supposed to be destroyed by a black hole.
It is a simple matter to show that beyond a certain critical total mass there is no force in nature which is strong enough to stop a gravitational collapse happening. Even Newtonian mechanics already predict such a phenomenon.Black holes are not necessary.
November 25th, 2012, 11:38 PM
Black holes exist, but are not what causes galaxy formation. Galactic arms are very different from accretion discs. We see accretion discs around black holes. They are uniformly circular, like a ring. They don't form arms or stars.Gravitational collapse requires great density. In the current epoch of the universe these high densities are only found in stars, but in the early universe shortly after the big bang densities were much greater, possibly allowing for the creation of black holes. The high density alone is not enough to allow the formation of black holes since a uniform mass distribution will not allow the mass to bunch up.
If Hawking's theory of black hole radiation is correct, then black holes are expected to shrink and evaporate over time because they lose mass by the emission of photons and other particles.
The only important property here is the total mass, which, to keep things simple, determines the strength of its gravitational field.Most of the arms are not affected by the gravity. The matter necessary to form a galaxy is collected from an area several times it's size. In space there is less than one particle per cubic centimeter.The popular notion of a black hole "sucking in everything" in its surroundings is therefore only correct near a black hole's horizon; far away, the external gravitational field is identical to that of any other body of the same mass.
It is the nature of gas to expand to fill the container, not scientific to say vast areas of space collapse into black holes in an "expanding" cosmos.
Yes, once a black hole is formed, it can grow, if constantly fed. There is no observations that show or proven science that requires that black holes grow to become supermassive.
No problem. The formation of SMBH's "in an earlier epoch"[unobserved] is not necessary in the formation of galaxies.
I have demonstrated, with proven, applied science, and observations, including photographic proof, a logical step by step process of galaxy formation. It adheres to observational data, provided, and is the best fit in explaining all galaxy formations; clusters, ellipticals, bars, and spirals.
If black holes grow into supermassive black holes, then we should be able to observe intermediate sized black holes in the process of growing.
We ONLY see the smallest black holes. Larger ones should be easier to see.
Intermediate sized black holes would grow slowly, and should be observable for billions of years.
We do not observe black holes to grow any more than devouring it's neighbor star. They then shrink and disappear.
We do not observe intermediate sized black holes, which would have to exist if small black holes grow into SMBH's.
I think scientists are leaning towards SMBH's were formed shortly after the BB, by a different process than through the collapse of very massive stars. If you put enough mass together it does seem reasonable to assume it might just collapse into a SMBH. Such an event would cause a very active BH and I believe they call those quasars.
The very activity that causes quasars also cause the surrounding gas and dust to be pushed away by the pressure caused by the energy release. This process causes the initial star formation due to the compression of the gases being pushed away form the BH.
They have to have a model that allows for a SMBH at the center of every galaxy, which means without SMBH's we wouldn't have any galaxies because the SMBH are the main reason galaxies formed. After that, galaxy interaction such as mergers plays the major reason for BH's getting larger.
Some of the most massive SMBH's (over a billion solar masses) were all formed by mergers and are all massive elliptical galaxies with stars orbiting in every which way. I've heard ideas that over enough time these giant ellipticals will eventually flatten out into a typical spiral galaxy, but I'm not very convinced of this.
As far as seeing Black Holes, consider this. The supermassive BH at the galactic core is thought to be 4 million solar masses. The radius of the event horizon, which is the size of the BH is 44 million km. This is smaller that the orbit of Mercury at it's closest approach. And it's 26 thousand LYs away. And BHs don't radiate.
What we can see is the radiation given off by the heated accreation disk around active BHs. We can also see how stellar orbits are effected by the BH. But we will never see the itty-bitty BH itself.
Hawking radiation is generally accepted. Personally, I see the spires of matter travelling out of the poles of black holes and realize that some other process is at work besides "blackbody radiation". Black holes do not slow rate of shrinkiage as they become larger, as the accepted model says.And BHs don't radiate.
Yes. As black holes grow, it is because they are pulling in matter, causing a visible accretion disc. To grow is to be visible by the mass pulled in.....What we can see is the radiation given off by the heated accreation disk around active BHs. We can also see how stellar orbits are effected by the BH. But we will never see the itty-bitty BH itself.
To be invisible is to not grow........
As a whole. I said that the individual particles will not lose any information within an area less dense than water, which is required by DEFINITION of a black hole.Any black hole has exactly three degrees of freedom : mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. These are properties of the BH as a whole.
We observe small black holes with accretion discs. We observe much larger galaxies. If the first grows into the second, we should see some intermediate sized black holes growing into galaxies, which we do not.
But this is insignificant for large (even stellar mass) black holes.
Yes, accretion.Personally, I see the spires of matter travelling out of the poles of black holes and realize that some other process is at work besides "blackbody radiation".
Your evidence for that is ... ?Black holes do not slow rate of shrinkiage as they become larger, as the accepted model says.
The matter inside a black hole is not less dense than water (as has already been explained). It is almost as if you are cherry picking information to fit your ideas. Which would not be very scientific.I said that the individual particles will not lose any information within an area less dense than water, which is required by DEFINITION of a black hole.
YOUR ANTIMATTER TWIN
Your antimatter twin
He's on the other side
He wants to ask you why
His existence you've denied
He wants to be your friend
Better loved than hated
Just don't shake his hand
You'll be annihalated
Oh by the way he says
We are the matter people
You are the antimatter
That is the way we see you
M. Lindsey 2011
Accretion occurs around the equator of the black holes. OBSEVED BY NASA are spires of SUPERLUMINAL matter and dark matter shooting out of the polar regions of black holes.
This originates from inside the black hole, therefore the black hole becomes smaller.
[Do observations from NASA count as "evidence"?]
BTW superluminal means that thes speeds have been measured at up to 6X the speed of light. Remember Einstein was asked if matter could combine speeds to go faster than light. He said no. The man on the train would be slowed by time itself.
Wiki/NASA
Supermassive black holes have properties which distinguish them from lower-mass classifications. First, the average density of a supermassive black hole (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzchild Radius) can be less than the density of water in the case of some supermassive black holes.
They do not originate inside the black hole. Why do you think they do?
Yes but your misunderstandings don't.[Do observations from NASA count as "evidence"?]
The jets do not travel faster than light.BTW superluminal means that thes speeds have been measured at up to 6X the speed of light.
That (meaningless) "average density" has nothing to do with the density of the matter in the black hole.
Superluminal Motion in the M87 Jet
Sequence of Hubble images showing apparent motion at six times the speed of light in the galaxy M87. TOP PANEL: Hubble image showing jet streaming out from the galaxy's nucleus [bright round region at far left]. The jet is about 5000 light years long, and the box indicates where the superluminal motions were seen. BOTTOM PANEL: Sequence of Hubble images showing motion at six times the speed of light. The slanting lines track the moving features, and the speeds are given in units of the velocity of light ``c." The images were made between 1994 and 1998 with the Faint Object Camera on the Hubble Space Telescope. PHOTO CREDIT: John Biretta, Space Telescope Science Institute.
GIF (100kB GIF) Sequence of Hubble images showing apparent motion at six times the speed of light......
Okay, where does the matter shooting out of a black hole come from, if not the black hole it comes from?They do not originate inside the black hole. Why do you think they do?
You can find the explanation of this illusion here: Superluminal motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the accretion disk.
The disc rotates at the equators. The spires come from the poles.
How do thes observations square with standard galaxy theory, of which there are five....
Wher does the antimatter come from? it is half the core. Why doesn't it explode?The nature of the Galaxy's bar which extends across the Galactic center is also actively debated.....Certain authors advocate that the Galaxy features two distinct bars, one nestled within the other. The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity.
Recent observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant cloud of Antimatter surrounding the galactic center. The observations show that the cloud is asymmetric....mostly on one side of the galactic center. While the mechanism is not fully understood, it is likely to involve the production of electron\positron [matter-antimatter] pairs...
Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h][/SIZE][/h][/SIZE][/h]
It is predicted by my theory, not a mystery as it is to you.
Even if particles from accretion discs go to a pole instead of falling into black hole, it is logical that they fall towards a pole of opposite [attracting] charge. Not move towards the opposing [repelling] pole and propel into space...
This is how the polar jets originate. You should try looking up explanations instead of making up things.
Polar jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you know the difference between proposed and proven? Even my explanation is proposed before yours..............While it is still mostly a mystery to physicists how polar jets are formed and powered, the two most often proposed origins of this power are the central object (such as a black hole), and the accretion disc.
Even if particles from accretion discs go to a pole instead of falling into black hole, it is logical that they fall towards a pole of opposite [attracting] charge. Not move towards the other [repelling] pole and propel into space.
Observations of the Aurora Borealis show this on Earth.
Do more rersearch and less accusing me of not doing mine and you won't make so many mistakes.
These are not the poles of a magnet. There is no attractive or repelling pole. Have you ever actually studied physics?Even if particles from accretion discs go to a pole instead of falling into black hole, it is logical that they fall towards a pole of opposite [attracting] charge. Not move towards the other [repelling] pole and propel into space.
After much research and debate I am satisfied that there is no science to support super massive black hole theories. I have searched high and low but have found no one who has any science or logic to support the formation of SMBH's. There is no observational data supporting them.
I have explained the evolution of galaxies using observations and proven science.
magneticreconnectiongalaxy.com
Huh boy...
You've done no research, which is why others were correcting you and offering you research references- which you've clearly ignored.
0 ec75.jpg
This is the center of our galaxy. It is not a black hole destroying matter. It is a fountain producing matter in one direction, antimatter in the other. Verified by NASA.
If you read the references you would see that I quoted from them.offering you research references- which you've clearly ignored.
You ignore this reference. It describes our galaxic core, but not as a SMBH....:
...Associated with no previously known object, it seems to imply that a fountain of antimatter positrons streams from the GC [galactic center].
The nature of the Galaxy's bar which extends across the Galactic center is also actively debated.....Certain authors advocate that the Galaxy features two distinct bars, one nestled within the other. The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity.
Recent observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant cloud of Antimatter surrounding the galactic center. The observations show that the cloud is asymmetric....mostly on one side of the galactic center. While the mechanism is not fully understood, it is likely to involve the production of electron\positron [matter-antimatter] pairs...
Antimatter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[
Last edited by Eleven11; November 29th, 2012 at 01:11 AM.
So then, what exactly is your definition of a black hole ?
Do you understand the term "apparent motion" as it is used in physics ? It seems not.OBSEVED BY NASA are spires of SUPERLUMINAL matter and dark matter shooting out of the polar regions of black holes.
The polar jets do not originate from "inside" the black hole, whatever you understand this to mean. It is a simple matter to show that once the event horizon is crossed, all future trajectories of a particle lead inwards.This originates from inside the black hole, therefore the black hole becomes smaller.
The accretion disk, as Strange has quite rightly pointed out. And no, the accretion disk is not a purely 2-dimensional phenomenon, at least not in the vicinity of the event horizon.Okay, where does the matter shooting out of a black hole come from, if not the black hole it comes from?
These observations concern black holes. They have nothing to do with galaxy formation.How do thes observations square with standard galaxy theory, of which there are five....
Sorry to tell you this, but you don't appear to be particularly knowledgeable on this whole subject. I don't think you are in any way, shape or form qualified to even form on opinion as to the merits of various proposed models and theories concerning this, let alone make a judgement.Do more rersearch and less accusing me of not doing mine and you won't make so many mistakes.
Please explain to us in detail what you understand "magnetic reconnection" to mean. I really don't think you have any clue as to the physics behind this phenomenon from MHD.I have explained the evolution of galaxies using observations and proven science.
magneticreconnectiongalaxy.com
Do you believe in CP violation?
Where does antimatter come from?
Why does a giant cloud of antimatter occupy half of our galactic core?
Why does it not explode?
There is more beneath the sun than your philosophy explains....
That is contradictory. you say that matter trajectories lean inwards then you say the same matter ejects outward from the poles...It is a simple matter to show that once the event horizon is crossed, all future trajectories of a particle lead inwards.
Okay, where does the matter shooting out of a black hole come from, if not the black hole it comes from?
The accretion disk, as Strange has quite rightly pointed out.
See the link. It has a video showing the motion at superluminal speeds!Photographic proof of actual motion; not apparent, or virtual, or any other non-commital term used by big bangers.Do you understand the term "apparent motion" as it is used in physics ? It seems not.
I don't define black holes. Wiki says:So then, what exactly is your definition of a black hole ?
Because a black hole has only a few internal parameters, most of the information about the matter that went into forming the black hole is lost. It does not matter if it is formed from television sets or chairs, in the end the black hole only remembers the total mass, charge, and angular momentum.
If the average density is less than water, the information of individual particles can not be destroyed.
The first lines of my theory explain MR. You really don't read as well as you really don't think.Please explain to us in detail what you understand "magnetic reconnection" to mean. I really don't think you have any clue as to the physics behind this phenomenon from MHD.
Bar magnets when cut in half become two smaller less powerful magnets. Conversely, when bar magnets connect they form one larger more powerful magnet. The ionization of space is well observed. Motion of ions in space creates electromagnetic fields, much like bar magnets. The influence of planets and stars prevent these fields from growing very large. Beyond galaxies, these magnetic fields can align and grow, by magnetic reconnection[1], and become extremely large[
1 Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasma in which the magnetic topology is rearranged....magnetic field lines from different magnetic domains (defined by the field line connectivity)are spliced to one another, changing their patterns of connectivity with respect to the sources...and can concentrate mechanical or magnetic energy...
2...and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.
Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't imagine where you have done your research.
arXiv.org Search
supermassive black hole - Google Scholar
There is no observational data supporting them..I can't imagine where you have done your research
I am not going to read twenty links to look for some information that you can't desribe to me.
If you understand the subject, YOU tell me what the facts are. That is why I am here.
I suppose you want people just to wiki everything and then not do their own thinking or bother you forum people with ideas. This is exactly why you are here. If you don't like it, you should do something else.
I was hoping you guys had some better arguments for SMBH's. You do not, you just offer the same proposed theories that anyone can research.
Proposed explanations are not proven explanations.
Is this how you do research?!
No. Do research. As you claimed that you do.
Nonsense. If you do research, you're doing your own thinking. When you ask others to tell you, that seems to require less thought on your part.
No, it isn't.
Research is something you do during the time you're discussing your ideas and before discussing your ideas. It's not something you skip entirely, then claim you've done it, then tell others to do your work for you.
Pot, meet kettle.
How absolutely backwards can you be? You didn't research anything ,Research is something you do during the time you're discussing your ideas and before discussing your ideas. It's not something you skip entirely, then claim you've done it, then tell others to do your work for you.
You just typed words in the search and posted the resulting links.
You don't know what information in any of these links has any relavence to anything being discussed. You have nothing specific to say.
I have obviosly done a great deal more research than all of you put together. I have mentioned, provided references to many thing that you were unaware of.
I have exhausted research on the topic, that is why I came here. For ADDITIONAL feedback. If an intellegent person were here, they might have something that I haven't already read in my research.
You whine that i was supposed to read wiki and accept which proposed explanations that you favor. Otherwise I'll suffer the judgement of your self-proclaimed superiority, accompanied with your dismissal of the many observations that you knew nothing about.
Think about it. I have mentioned many things that you were ignorant of, but I've read and i know about everything that you've said...
Who has done less research? Set/subset theory...
Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium).... induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.
A stream of water falling near a static charge will attract to it whether it is positive or negativley charged.
Ions will line up with EM fields and attract, not repel to celestial bodies including black holes. The poles are not positive or negative, as a charge, as I made it sound.
Having mass, and spin[angular momentum] , and charge, black holes do have magnetic poles.
Last edited by Eleven11; November 29th, 2012 at 03:33 AM.
whining removed:
What is the nature of this conducting fluid/interplanetary medium? What observational evidence do you have to support it?
Your whining is premature- I've been debunking Electric Universe Theory claims for many years. Just because I don't feel like typing a bunch of words at the moment doesn't mean I'm backwards in telling you that you need to do your own research and support your own claims (Which you have not done, in spite of your insistence that you have.)
I was simply pointing out that, contrary to your assertion, there are tens of thousands of scientific papers discussing supermassive black holes. If you claim there is "no observational data" then you need to go through each of those papers and specifically refute the data in every single one of them.
Just to point out, You let the cat out of the bag. You presented the OP under General Discussion as if asking a science question.
You now claim that you've formulated your own Hypothesis long before the O.P. was written as to the structural cosmology of the Universe and this thread was merely a way of bypassing the pseudoscience section and presenting your ideas under false pretenses.
As all the references you have provided have been to Wikipedia and popular science articles, it doesn't seem you have done any serious research. As you either did not read failed to understand parts of it (e.g. missing the word "apparent" in the description of superluminal jets) I am not impressed by your research skills.
I am no expert on the black holes and their relationship to galaxy formation but your mish-mash of misunderstandings and invention is not convincing.
For those interested I have a theory about actual black holes [not the theoretical SMBH's].
The temperature of black holes is within a thousanth of a degree from absolute zero.
The Nobel prize of 2008 was " there is no mass without motion".
Temperature is the motion of particles. If the temperature of a perticle reached absolute zero [Shielded from blackbody radiation, and by natural variation in temperature through interaction], would it not cease to be Baryonic?
The matter would break down into the elementary dark matter, which would be magnetically ejected, at near light speeds, from the poles. If nesting occurs, multiples of the speed of light can be reached.
Some of this dark matter again forms matter within the spires, by colliding at high speeds with existing matter, just as photons do.
Good. Maybe you can show us the math, the quantitative predictions your theory makes and how well they match observations.
I have a weird sense of deja vu. I remember someone making similar misrepresentations about this Nobel Prize in the past. Have you been banned from the forum in the past?
Hello?you either did not read failed to understand parts of it (e.g. missing the word "apparent" in the description of superluminal je
Actual video of actual motion. I didn't remove the word "apparent" from the NASA quotes.. It wasn't there, it doesn't apply.
Matter is filmed going at 6X c in the same frame. All the fancy maneuvering in the world doesn't change that into apparent or virtual.
Your argument is with NASA.
I'm not impressed by your debating skills, logic, knowlege of the material, or attitude.
Science is fastinating and fun, a discovery. You are a bitter ignorant person imbedded in 80 year old bad theory. You are incapable of entertaining any concept, therfore can only accept conclusions that are made for you.
Like I said: FOR THOSE INTERESTED.Good. Maybe you can show us the math, the quantitative predictions your theory makes and how well they match observations.
It was presented as conjecture, not to win a nobel prize. I don't have to jump through your hoops. If you are not interested in the topic then why do you come here? To insult people and tell them that they aren't smart like you?
Think about what I said. Apply your understanding of science. Say something relevent to the topic.
NO! Just argue and throw up roadblocks. Bad attitude, ego ahead of science.
Have you ever had your own idea about anything in life, or do you just believe the most popular explanation [logic by poll]? The answer is obvious....
You are a follower, will never discover anything. You are on the sidelines in the game of science.
Last edited by Eleven11; November 29th, 2012 at 04:24 AM.
From your earlier post:
It is APPARENT motion. Nothing is travelling faster than light.
Now I now know you are Mr Peabody, I will leave the discussion as I assume you will soon start throwing around insults and obscenities because no one just accepts everything you say as The Truth. Good luck.
I would strongly urge you not to try and twist my words around - that is called intellectual dishonesty. What I said was exactly this ( quote ) : "The polar jets do not originate from "inside" the black hole, whatever you understand this to mean. It is a simple matter to show that once the event horizon is crossed, all future trajectories of a particle lead inwards."
I made it very clear that the matter jets do not originate from inside the event horizon. Note especially the bit "once the event horizon is crossed".
See the link. It has a video showing the motion at superluminal speeds!
It is showing apparent motion, as has been pointed out to you several times now, and which is clearly labeled as such in the descriptive text.
Because a black hole has only a few internal parameters, most of the information about the matter that went into forming the black hole is lost. It does not matter if it is formed from television sets or chairs, in the end the black hole only remembers the total mass, charge, and angular momentum.
That is correct.
If the average density is less than water, the information of individual particles can not be destroyed.
This is a meaningless statement.
The first lines of my theory explain MR.
You mean this : "Beyond galaxies, these magnetic fields can align and grow, by magnetic reconnection[1], and become extremely large[".
I call this an unsupported claim, not an explanation of magnetic reconnection.
Last edited by Markus Hanke; November 29th, 2012 at 12:18 PM.
Perhaps it is time this thread was moved. I'll be kind and say it should go to pseudoscience (before going to the trash).
Oh, the hell with it, move it straight to the trash.
Quote from the website that you referenced : "Sequence of Hubble images showing apparent motion at six times the speed of light in the galaxy M87."
Yet you maintain that "it wasn't there, it doesn't apply." Once again, I call this intellectual dishonesty.
My applied understanding of all the data available is that there is a black hole in the centre of our galaxy with an approximate mass of 8.2*10^36 kg, contained within a spherical volume with radius of 6.25 light minutes. There is in fact no form of matter which could resist a gravitational collapse of this amount of mass contained in this small a spherical area, so a black hole is, according to current scientific understanding, the only viable option for this object.Think about what I said. Apply your understanding of science. Say something relevent to the topic.
As for magnetic reconnection, my understanding is based on this :
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranme..._schindler.pdf
I don't see how randomly distributed ions in a cloud will reorganise via magnetic reconnection to form a galaxy. I don't even see how magnetic reconnection would happen under such circumstances. Your "website" is a single page of text, interwoven with a few diagrams and images of galaxies, and a couple of Wikipedia references. There is no math found anywhere. What is that supposed to show us ? And when I see such complete and utter nonsense as "A gluon shell binds the protons and electrons within the nucleus.
" ( quote your website ), then I really wonder why you would waste cold hard cash to keep your domain name registered. You have some cheek telling us "Bad attitude, ego ahead of science."
Indeed.Oh, the hell with it, move it straight to the trash.
I supplied the formula for gravity. My explanation for gravity I just found out was the same as Newton's as presented in Bernoulli's book.There is no math found anywhere.
Independendently Isaac Newton and I came up with the same explanation for gravity.
I came here to try and prove SMBH's. I thiought you guys might have some good arguements.
I don't care to prove my theory, I offered it as "the best fit for observations and proven science", not proven. I get confidence in my theory by disproving other theories which have no logic or science. But I only can claim they have no science if i research completely and communicate with others that have different points of view, giving them a chance to make a good case.
That is the opposite of accepting my ideas as fact without consideration and research.
Apparent motion describing videos of superluminal matter are defined as apparent because you believe that time slows down. This is not proven.
The slowing of spacetime to prevent faster than light travel is supposed to affect the observer. We are the observer, but we see superluminal speeds.
According to relativity, the size of an object, observed perpendicularly, travelling at the speed of light shrinks to zero . Observations of Messier Jets show No shrinking at 6X c.
Last edited by Eleven11; November 29th, 2012 at 02:00 PM. Reason: spelling
When your ideas contradict well known and proven physics they deserve the consideration they received.That is the opposite of accepting my ideas as fact without consideration and research
In which case, you are wrong. After all, we now know Newton's theory is only approximately correct.
You don't need to "prove" it. Theories are never proved. If it is the "the best fit for observations" then why can't you show us your predictions and how they match observations? Isn't that what "the best fit for observations" means?I don't care to prove my theory, I offered it as "the best fit for observations and proven science", not proven.
Disproving another theory (even if you had) does nothing to reinforce your theory. The only thing that can confirm your theory is quantitative predictions which match reality. How are we doing on that front?I get confidence in my theory by disproving other theories
And you haven't disproved anything, you've just made it clear that you don't understand the theoriesDisproving another theory (even if you had) does nothing to reinforce your theory
Wormholes are your proven science?..depends on the hypothesis that unusually distorted regions of spacetime might permit matter to reach distant locations in less time than light could in normal or undistorted spacetime. Although according to current theories matter is still required to travel subluminally with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region, apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity.
Examples of FTL proposals are the Alcubierre drive, and the traversable wormhole, although the physical plausibility of some of these solutions is uncertain.
Strawmen are your favourite rhetorical tool?
Disprovable statements are what makes my theory viable. I reference all statements, use applied proven science instead of conjecture.You don't need to "prove" it. Theories are never proved. If it is the "the best fit for observations" then why can't you show us your predictions and how they match observations? Isn't that what "the best fit for observations" means?
The multitude of disprovable statements explaining states of matter, electricity, confinement, quark containment, etc.The only thing that can confirm your theory is quantitative predictions which match reality. How are we doing on that front?
ARE the predictions of my theory, matching the observations of every aspect of science that surrounds us.
What were you reading?
My statements are real, easilty tested, and easily disproved if wrong. If you know science, disprove me...Don't play credibility ganes and politics.
Excuse me. Theories can be disproven. Have you ever heard of deductive reasoning?Disproving another theory (even if you had) does nothing to reinforce your theory.
If you disprove all but one explanation, the one remaining is the correct one.
Please don't preach about who disproves what, this isn't about me, it's about you're statement against deductive reasononing.
I only partly solved gravity? I must be stupid.Independendently Isaac Newton and I came up with the same explanation for gravity.
In which case, you are wrong. After all, we now know Newton's theory is only approximately correct.
I'm glad you understand gravity. You should put your theory of gravity out.
What a bunch of weasle worded, intellectually dishonest, crank crap.
This is the only thing you've ever posted that I agree with.I must be stupid.
Gravity= ( E2-E1)/2 * D
E2 = Energy of particle torque motion)
E1 = Energy of media (referred to as cold dark matter or warm dark matter)
D = Density of media (dark matter)
What is your formula?
Okay, you can only quote my entire thread and urinate on it as a whole . You are incapable of addressing single issues for their merit.
You are not debating, just urinating.
Head|^ Ass = 1111
Where Head and Ass occupy the same reference frame
and |^ is an upward motion.
My bladder isn't big enough to contain it all. To pretend that anything you've written is in anyway near correct is simply beyond my capability for suspension of disbelief.Okay, you can only quote my entire thread and urinate on it as a whole
I don't know. That is why I am asking.
Are they? Can you give some examples of predictions (and how you derive them) and show how well they match observation?
(For some reason you seem to think this question is insulting, I'm not sure why.)
So are you saying you want people to go to Wiki or whatever to do research, and leave you science forums alone?
That is odd. I would think that you would try to sell yourself as providing another avenue for research or debate.
If people just come here to agree with each other, you should just twitter or facebook instead.
No, I welcome your question. Thank you...
[SIZE=4pt][SIZE=2pt]GLUON-QUARK CONFINEMENT The dark matter particles are attracted to quarks. They compact and form a gluon shell, surrounding and binding all nuclei within, forming protons and neutrons [pics 1-2]. All forming quarks attract and accumulate dark matter, as gluon. Gluon is caused by the quarks, like a rainbow is caused by light and rain. That is why you never see quarks or gluon separately.
BAG MODEL OF QUARK CONTAINMENT According to Standard Theory, gluon is a single elementary particle holding quarks by the force of attraction. Overcoming forces of attraction requires LESS energy by the square of the distance [pic 3]. Contrarily, observations show it requires MORE energy to stretch quarks further apart. With gluon as a shell, in agreement with the bag model, it requires MORE energy to stretch quarks further apart [pic 4], until the critical point where the bag breaks and pair production of two new particles occurs.
In larger nuclei, one common gluon shell surrounds all nucleons [pic 6].
MASS CHANGE In an alpha particle, two protons and neutrons share one common gluon shell. This is more efficient than the two separate protons and neutrons each in their own shells, and explains why Alpha particles have less overall mass [pics 5-6].
NEUTRON DECAY/EXCHANGE Separate protons and neutrons do not exchange. Gluon containment inhibits movement of electrons (negative pions) between. When an electron is expelled from a single neutron, it must penetrate the shell. This creates an electromagnetic disturbance, or light [pic 8]. The negative pion decays into an electron and an anti neutrino [pic 9]. Within larger nuclei, electrons (negative pions) move about freely in a common gluon shell, temporarily turning protons into neutrons as observed [pics 6-7]. Because the shell is not pierced, there is no electromagnetic disturbance from exchange.
FUNDAMENTAL FORCES A gluon shell binds the protons and electrons within the nucleus. What we call the strong force and weak force are measured by the energy required to overcome the gluon binding. These fundamental forces and their carrier particles are not necessary.
MATTER FORMATION Quarks are formed by pair production, from an excess of gluon. Gluon has magnetic moments where it is observed to be a negative copy of a quark. As a copy, gluon forms new quarks similar to the way the DNA molecule reproduces. As the new quarks are forming, they are attracting a mirror image of dark matter creating new gluon.
This is the connection of dark matter to quarks (and protons):
Dark Matter > Gluon > Quarks
Leptons, such as electrons, are created in one step by pair production:
Dark Matter > Leptons
Anti neutrino's are electromagnetically created from dark matter by Electrons when they are within the nucleus of an atom.
ENERGY/CONSERVATION All Baryonic matter is formed in pair production from elementary particles. Energy is only a property of matter, not a substance that matter is formed from. While energy can be used in the creation of matter, it can also heat matter with no increase in mass.
RADIOACTIVITY/STABILITY In larger nuclei, the common gluon shell stretches very thin. Moving particles within can penetrate the shell easier, causing fission [pic 10]. As with Baryonic matter, where larger bubbles break into smaller more efficient bubbles, the stable size for atoms is limited.
TIME DILATION Atoms fired through a crystal or accelerated at near the speed of light accumulates dark matter on the leading edge, increasing overall mass. A thicker media shell better contains nucleons within, increasing stability of particles, such as muons, and increasing half-lives of radioactive elements.
ELECTRON SHELLS Dark matter surrounds and separates each electron shell. There is an electromagnetic disturbance, or light, when electrons move between shells piercing the media.
STATES OF MATTER Larger formations of dark matter surround the outermost electron shell of atoms and molecules giving states of matter. I will refer to this formation of dark matter media as the "bubble".
In solids, each atom or molecule is surrounded by a bubble with the bubbles stuck together [pic 11].
In liquids, the bubbles combine, move to the surface. This is observed as surface tension, and is what causes liquids to form droplets [pics 12-14].
In gases, atoms and molecules have their own bubbles, and are separate from the other particles [pic 11]. Sometimes particles change directly from a solid to a gas or gas to a solid. This occurs when the bubble energies of the gas and solid states are almost equal [pic 11]. The change in energy of dry ice evaporating is less than the energy required to pass through the liquid state, which involves moving the bubbles collectively to the surface and back again.
In plasma, the media dissipate between the particles, facilitating an ionic field [Pic 13]. ELECTRICITY It is the nature of electricity to flow about the surface of solid matter [pics 14-15]. Before electricity can flow through wires, an excited electronic state must be formed. Requiring energy, a bubble forms above the surface, to facilitate the flow of like-charged electrons beneath. Before lightning strikes, it forms spires, or tubes of dark matter.
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Last edited by Eleven11; November 29th, 2012 at 04:21 PM.
Oh my God. I didn't. There is THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. free of charge on the net for your entertaining pleasure...
Gosh.
Seriously, this is a product of intense research [30 years] and debate on the 'net[15 years]. I owe some credit to those on the net who corrected my mistakes along the way.
I am still looking for more, that is why i am here.
So, how about sharing some of the quantitative predictions of the and how well they stack up against observation?
No, I just think you should try to obtain at least a minimum level of information on a subject before you try to discuss it. As it is, you appear to approach each subject totally ignorant of any thnking on it. Except for some yogi.
And you copied all that from where?
Hello, you are arguing against my theory and you haven''t even read it? All the while accusing me of doing no research.And you copied all that from where?
I have to be the smartest person that ever lived to figure all this out myself without any research!
Predictions of observations already providedARK MATTER,GLUON-QUARK CONFINEMENT, ANTIMATTER, GALAXY FORMATION, BAG MODEL OF QUARK CONTAINMENT,MASS CHANGE, NEUTRON DECAY/EXCHANGE, FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, MATTER FORMATION, ENERGY/CONSERVATION, RADIOACTIVITY/STABILITY, TIME DILATION, ELECTRON SHELLS, STATES OF MATTER, ELECTRICITY, LIGHT, GRAVITY.
Lets add one more. According to standard theory how would you predict that this problem should be solved?:
When you are done applying your science to this problem, I'll show you how my theory provides a better understanding, and predicts a solution, which is suppoted by observations.Cavitation is the formation and then immediate implosion of cavities in a liquid – i.e. small liquid-free zones ("bubbles") – that are the consequence of forces acting upon the liquid.[1] It usually occurs when a liquid is subjected to rapid changes of pressure that cause the formation of cavities where the pressure is relatively low.<br><br>Cavitation is a significant cause of wear in some engineering contexts. When entering high pressure areas, cavitation bubbles that implode on a metal surface cause cyclic stress. This results in surface fatigue of the metal causing a type of wear also called "cavitation". The most common examples of this kind of wear are pump impellers and bends when a sudden change in the direction of liquid occurs. Cavitation is usually divided into two classes of behaviour: inertial (or transient) cavitation and non-inertial cavitation.<br><br>Inertial cavitation is the process where a void or bubble in a liquid rapidly collapses, producing a shock wave. Inertial cavitation occurs in nature in the strikes of mantis shrimps and pistol shrimps, as well as in the vascular tissues of plants. In man-made objects, it can occur in control valves, pumps, propellers and impellers.<br>
Except for entertainment value, arguing with a crank is a waste of time.
Cranks always have 'theories'. Cranks like to speak of 'your science' as opposed to their science.
We see lots and lots of cranks here. You're just one more, and not particularly entertaining.
So keep on cranking. I'm sure someone will play with you.
Here is how to derive it in several different ways :
Derivation of General Relativity
Here is a very simple example how to obtain a basic solution to the tensor equation, and how to apply that solution to the deflection of light outside a body :
Solving the Einstein Field Equations
And here's the experimental and observational evidence which shows that it gives the correct predictions :
Modern Tests of Relativity
Perhaps you would like to give us a little demonstration of your equation - what, according to your model, would be the precession of a gyroscope inside a satellite orbiting earth pole-to-pole with a orbital period of 90 minutes ? Please supply all steps of your calculation, not just a result. Thank you.Gravity= ( E2-E1)/2 * D
Also, you might explain to us why you think there are protons and electrons in an atomic nucleus, and why they are held together by a shell of gluons. With experimental evidence of course.
Simply by avoiding the conditions which induce cavitation in the first place. In other words, design the flow pattern in such a way that the pressure distributions along the walls and junctions are uniform.According to standard theory how would you predict that this problem should be solved?
All that has been done. It is called the "bag model". Read it and see the science and observational data which supports it.Also, you might explain to us why you think there are protons and electrons in an atomic nucleus, and why they are held together by a shell of gluons. With experimental evidence of course.
The embellishment I made is in that the gluon comes from dark matter........
I would like to address relativity when I have the time.
I was asked to use my theory to make a prediction...
I read about cavitation. It occurred to me that, as per my theory, cavitation is caused by surface tension. The dark matter "bubbles" that I claim make states of matter... I wondered if anyone ever tried to reduce cavitation by reducing the surface tension of water.
This could not be predicted by standard theory. Attributing surface tension to increased pressure between molecules, surface tension would not be predicted to occur within low pressure cavitations.
Collapse of low pressure areas could not account for the violent energy released in the "shock waves".
By my theory, the surface tension would occur in the cavitation, as ST is caused by dark matter.
This would cause a tremendous concentration of energy as the cavitation collapses upon this dark matter. The energy would be reabsorbed violently as observed.
The solution is to reduce surface tension. Surfactants do this.
Yes! that is the correct solution. Scientists discovered this by experimentation:
Had they used my theory, they could have solved the problem theoretically. It took me two minutes to solve the problem.The threshold for transient cavitation in degassed water has been measured in a stationary wave system as a function of surface tension. A surfactant was used to vary the surface tension of water from approximately 70 to 30 dyn/cm2. The cavitation threshold was found to vary inversely with the surface tension in disagreement with the theoretical predictions of Apfel [J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 48, 1179–1186 (1970)]. Glass capillary tubes were used to construct macroscopic models of microscopic crevices thought to nucleate cavitation. The crevices were coated with polystyrene in order to obtain a nonwettable surface. Measurements made of the receding contact angle of an air‐water interface moving in the model crevice showed a critical dependence of the contact angle upon surface tension. Motion pictures will be shown of the receding contact angle as a function of surface tension and how this receding interface may nucleate cavitation. If an empirical relationship is made between the contact angle and the surface tension, and this empirical dependence used in Apfel's theory, then good agreement is obtained between theory and experiment. [Work supported by the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Academy Research Council.]
The ability to predict makes good theory.
As surface tension is proven to occur in cavitations, in low pressure areas, the standard explanation of surface tension is not supported by observations.
Time for this thread to hit the trash.By my theory, the surface tension would occur in the cavitation, as ST is caused by dark matter.
What does precession of gyroscopes have to do with the formula for gravity?Perhaps you would like to give us a little demonstration of your equation - what, according to your model, would be the precession of a gyroscope inside a satellite orbiting earth pole-to-pole with a orbital period of 90 minutes ?
If there are observations that disprove my formula, clue us all in...
Whan chords would you play in the key of c playing Major? Minor? Diatonic? Diminished?
Whan notes would you use for melodies over a Am/C/D/F progression?
What rythmic patterns and time signatures and tempos are typical of specific music genres?
How would you compose a counter point with two instruments moving from a Dm to an F?
Bury your head in the sand while you are at it.Time for this thread to hit the trash.
You are intolerant, close minded. You are added nothing to this debate. Your attitude is garbage.
If you had seen Jesus walk on water you would have said "where's the math?"
You can close this thread. You are not giving me any real challenge, just insults and playing dumb. I give you predictions, demonstrations, and you just pretend like you don't hear them I give observations, you can't explain them and you simply ignore them. I give you questions you can't answer, so you ignore them.
You keep asking for things already provided, as tho saying that they were not provided.
Debate by ignoring all evidence presented, and not answering any questions. That would not fly in a court of law, or win any real debate.
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
GEORGE ORWELL
This has nothing to do with anything.
Put this thread in the trash and close it.
So, Jesus. Apply your little walking on water theory to predict the charge of an electron to ten decimal places.
Every quack that walks on water thinks that they are smarter than AlexG.
You claim to have predicted the existence of a lot of things that we already know about. Nothing wrong with that, in principle. However, you do need to do more than just say that these things exist.
Can you, for example, predict any quantitative properties of dark matter or the strength of fundamental forces?
Can your theory predict the proportion of dark matter expected?
Can your theory tell us more about the nature of the particles that make up dark matter and how they can be detected? And, again, that would need to be quantitative: what interactions would they take part in, what energies would we detect?
And, with regard to your cavitation example, can you derive a quantitative relationship between surface tension and the amount of cavitation?
What part of this thread is about gyroscopes? I was showing how far off topic YOU are....This has nothing to do with anything.
I thought it was a theory of everything.
More seriously, if you can't see the relation between the precession of a gyroscope and a theory of gravity, well ...
Let's take a simpler example than a gyroscope.
Can you show how these parameters are calculated or measured so that this equation can be used to derive the force of gravity on the surface of the Earth?
We have all the same particles.Can your theory tell us more about the nature of the particles that make up dark matter and how they can be detected? And, again, that would need to be quantitative: what interactions would they take part in, what energies would we detect?
Interactions, etc are best described in my explanations of earlier concepts. Mass change, confinement, etc. In exchange, the movement of the pion in a common gluon shell is observationally supported, and draws a clear distinction to the standard model.
as to fundamental forces:
The energy required to remove a proton from a nucleus has been measured. It is however falsely theorized to be held by a separate particle with it's owm fundamental force.
If the proton doesn't want to be in a nucleus with like-charged protons, why would another particle form and hold it in place? Having less mass and energy, what holds this particle in place?
The bag model would suggest confinement by Gluon, which is what requires energy to overcome.
Logically it is easier to expel a smaller particle through a gluon shell. The weak force is the energy required to pull a negative pion from the nucleus.
As per standard theory, charge is equal and the binding of protons and pions should require the same energy.
I think you missed the word "quantitative".
That is a bit tricky, I cant do it.Can you show how these parameters are calculated or measured so that this equation can be used to derive the force of gravity on the surface of the Earth?
It is the relationships that are vital. Density directly proportional to gravity, etc...
Density is for all practical purposed a constant [though moving towards the andromeda galaxy into the collective gravitational center of our local group, density will very slowly INCREASE]
How to measure cold dark matter or warm dark matter? Hmmmm..
The energy of quarks have been measured. The variations are because of the ammount of Gluon in the shell.
If my [and Newton's] concept of gravity is incomplete. I would add that "shielding" would also occur if Gravity is cause by Reduction of pressure through increase in dynamic pressure[motion]
Thanks. That's a very honest answer.
There is no experimental evidence which supports the presence of electrons in atomic nucleii.
What does the surface tension of water have to do with dark matter ??The dark matter "bubbles" that I claim make states of matter... I wondered if anyone ever tried to reduce cavitation by reducing the surface tension of water.
Gyroscopic precession is a gravitational phenomenon predicted by mainstream science, and supported by empirical measurements. I simply want to see how your "formula for gravitation" handles this.What does precession of gyroscopes have to do with the formula for gravity?
I don't much about music, but I know that it has nothing to do with gravity, which is the subject brought up by yourself by posting your formula.Whan chords would you play in the key of c playing Major? Minor? Diatonic? Diminished?
Whan notes would you use for melodies over a Am/C/D/F progression?
What rythmic patterns and time signatures and tempos are typical of specific music genres?
How would you compose a counter point with two instruments moving from a Dm to an F?
I do not believe in any such thing as "miracles". And yes, as a matter of fact I would very seriously question such an occurrence in a scientific way.If you had seen Jesus walk on water you would have said "where's the math?"
No, the issue is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that all of this is already explained by mainstream science. Instead you choose to live in your own dream world - that is fine, it is your good right, just do not expect us to follow you.I give you predictions, demonstrations, and you just pretend like you don't hear them I give observations, you can't explain them and you simply ignore them.
At least here you are being honest.That is a bit tricky, I cant do it.
The following news article was just posted this morning. (Very interesting)
Black Hole Blast Biggest Ever Recorded
Explosion is at least five times more powerful than previously observed events.
Black Hole Blast Biggest Ever Recorded
| « How exactly does the placebo effect work? | Multiverse theory » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
