sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Teaching the white hole theory in galactic nucleus

Subject: Re: Teaching the white hole theory in galactic nucleus
From: Art Deco
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:43:44 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.astronomy, alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks
<gb6724@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>The idea is the following: some sort of a gravitational disposition
>generates
>swirling conditions where matter avoids entering a central 'eye', a
>white-hole-like object, thus refuting the Einsteinian concept that
>on a sheet a ball sinks so deep that nothing can exit it, not even
>light.
>Matter swirls around this eye no differently on large scales than the
>spiraling eye of the hurrican storm. Einstein's theory calculates that
>due to the amount of mass in the nucleus of spiraling galaxies,
>matter would collapse in a gravitational well so packed that
>spacetime would collapse into a blackhole, from which nothing can
>exit, not even light. So how come I am refuting this theory? What
>possible explanation could unleash the black hole? What sort of
>gravitational disposition could be accountable for demonstrating
>different results than calculated? How could it be that there is
>nothing
>in a place where a black hole is expected, nothing, not even the
>slightest curvature of spacetime, and a proposition of a view right
>through the galactic nucleus and not the expected black spot.
>
>So I am writing that the spiral galactic nucleus is a 'doughnut hole',
>where if a star enters from above or below, it would wonder around
>until splashing into the wall of the doughnut hole, and I quickly jump
>in without explaining the underlying physics to suggest that a jet
>is formed from such internal impacts. The central eye may be a
>white hole for the Solar mass swirling around it, and as a white hole
>it refuses matter swirling the eye to enter, and mysterious conditions
>happen when matter moving inside collides with the wall.
>
>As a white hole it would mean that perhaps no light is seen within
>the eye, but crashing with such a wall from withing may reach the
>gravitational threshold upon impact, and who knows what happens,
>all we know is that active galaxies, especially ancient ones from
>billions of years ago had a much higher activity in the central
>galactic region, producing strong and very bright jets, possibly
>from Suns dropping in from above and below this possible white hole,
>right into the central region of the eye. What exactly would happen
>based on this theory when there is an impact with a white hole wall
>from within is a question if matter is quickly consumed or rejected,
>but what astronomists primarily see in jets is that they are made of
>electrons, thus if this theory is correct the Suns are consumed from
>such conditions and energy outbursts produce electrons spiraling
>out from this 'white hole', or otherwise refered to as jet-producing
>quasars.
>
>So where is the proof? And how did I arrive to the conclusion that
>if a gravitational disposition exists generating an eye in the central
>nucleus, then small blackholes could not hold their structural
>integrity gravitationally as blackholes?
>
>Tomorrow I may follow up with a proof for this theory.

I won't be holding my breath.

-- 
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
  -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>