I need more information on this.

http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/2008/10/black-holes-are-plancks-black-body.html

There is baryonic matter exiting the equator of this object that is suppose to suck up all matter and energy. This matter is being ejected in flares. These flares occur at different temperatures, thus differing wavelengths. This is not Hawkins matter or whatever. Its baryonic and in the Near Infrared range.


Max Planck's Institute
This link also shows material being ejected by a black hole over a 116 minute period.

Black holes are Planck’s Black Body Radiators
Planck’s Black Body Spectral Objects are all radiators. This includes the Black Hole.

A black hole is a spectral emitter just like any star, just the temperature is too high to emit photons, except through the asymptote at the poles. Photons ejected from the poles of the black hole are highly excited Gamma Rays.

Black holes rotate at high radial velocities. This one ~17 minutes. When a black hole reduces it’s radial velocity and it's temperature dips below 5000K, it burps a baryonic flare. When the black hole ejects the baryonic material, the black hole increases radial velocity and temp. Stars ejected from the black hole will orbit in a manner similar to Mercury’s orbit. Ejected baryonic matter cannot be reabsorbed by the black hole.

The video shows stars orbiting the Black Hole. Not being suck up or being spread out. They speed up and slow down, but this is due to orbital velocity changes during the orbit.

Here is the physical evidence of star motion around a black hole.

A black hole ejects magnetism from every part of the sphere except the poles. This magnetism is so intense that it bends the dark matter to form the space for galaxies. With this notion, we can go from the sub-atomic level all the way to the Black hole with these equations. There are 4 equations; Frequency, Wave Length, Inducted Current, and Voltage. Frequency and Wave Length are listed below.

The Thunderbolts site has an article on this same phenomena. Whenever gigantic "magnetic fields" are imagined in astronomy, you can bet there are gigantic electrical currents too. Which causes which? Chicken or the egg. A close look will reveal the plasma conductors causing the disturbance. Plasmas are not neutral, they are charged.

Beware of black holes. They only exist in the disconnected math of gravity only minds.

Here we are seeing baryonic matter ejecting. I cannot see anything that suggests plasma discharge except what I write in the paragraph below. I think a plasma discharge of this magnitude would point towards one of the nearby stars. Something to discharge to.

Here we have material ejecting at a temp ~5000K. It is baryonic in nature (near-infrared).

When I speak of magnetism, this object is emiting so much magnetism that it creates the bubble for the spiral galaxy. It is consistant in its emmission of magnetism.

From Max Planck's Institute
"During subsequent observations in 2003 and 2004, we could observe more flares from Sgr A* in the H, K and L-bands (1.7, 2.2 and 3.8 microns) and also quiescent emission from a source at this location.'

This quiescent emission could be a plasma discharge, but it does not account for the other discharges. The other discharges lasted ~30 minutes, which would be lenghtly for a plasma discharge. I think its the amount of time required to cool the 'solar flare' and become alpha particles.

I do not think all the discharges here can easily be described as plasma. Although some can.

If you have noticed I have not put up the magnetism equations, for this very reason. I think they lack the ability to handle plasma dischrges. Whereas the listed equations are based on temp and can handle increases in temp (flares).

a

I am pretty sure that you don't have gigantic magnetic fields coming and going without gigantic electrical currents. The gravity concept has too may problems. consult the EU sites for a simpler explanation

Curt,

These equations and models don't require gravity. As a matter of fact, they work well without gravity. I know a model will not work if it has gravity or symmetry at its core.

These pictures of the flare ejecting from the black hole is crazy data. But it is there.

I understand the plasma discharge notion, but I think this is less of an influences. Of the four flares, only one shows signs of plasma. The other three are baryonic in nature. Temp and wavelength.

19th century scientist were awesome.

a

You know, those pictures weren't actually stated as material ejected from inside of the hole, right?

Accretion discs would gain huge angular velocities near a hole, and the magnetic field lines working on matter in a disc are immensely powerful.

The effect you're seeing is like putting your thumb over the end of a water hose, there is only a narrow angle of escape for the water, and too much force to simply escape in a casual manner.

In the case of a black hole, infalling matter interacts with the soup of radiation, the field lines, other infalling matter, and the wrenching around of spacetime by the hole. When objects approach with enough velocity, in the correct trajectories, they get dragged in, and deflected along the magnetic field lines.

This drags them up away from the equator of the hole, imparts tremendous velocities in most cases. If the combination of trajectory, mass, and initial velocity is right, the matter gets a slingshot past the hole in a jet aimed and held together by the magnetic field. Producing huge, unbelievable jets of matter across light years.

Yes, It is heavily suggested that the material came from the black hole. They have several pics of material ejecting from the black hole. These flares occured in the near infrared.

The problem is this. the geometry is not the same in dense objects as it is for singularities. Dense objects can still have a spherical shape. I think singularities fail to describe density geometry. Singularities require math that does not make sense, and now that we are seeing material ejecting from the objects, we can reject the singularity. This is a prime disproof of gravity.

I need to take a couple of days to recover. I hope i make some sense in this.

a

I don't see singularities as anything but a mathematical abstraction.

Since we agree that there is no singularity, how do we describe the rotating dense object that ejects baryonic material in the near-infrared?

a

The object could be pulsating, as in expanding and contracting, such as a vibration, rather than rotating.

Yes that is a possibility, but we don't see that reflected in the orbits of those close stars. They would show signs of abberation in their orbits. Yes I agree there is some EU discharge from the dense black body object, but not as much as attributed by EU. I think EU plays a smaller roll here. Like EU plays a big roll in erosion, but the main contributer is the more dense water.

I think the major variables here are the radial velocity of the object and the temp. Like the ice skater spinning; arms out slower, lower temp; arms in faster, higher temp. I predict that radial velocity and density will have more to do with the shape of the galaxy. That we can plot the shapes of galaxies based on their black hole's radial velocity and temp.

Also if two black holes interact they can distort the surounding galaxies. yet never actually accrete. There are many examples of two galaxies passing through one another and emerging on the other side, dammaged but still spiral in nature. There are far fewer accretive galaxies than would be expected under gravity.

We dump the strange singularity for a squashed sphere. If the material is He or H it should be so pressurized that it becomes magnetic.

It isn't the black hole ejecting material.

The event horizon is all we can observe of a black hole in our universe, once something passes the event horizon, there is no way back into our universe.

The accretion disc of material near the black hole can become so energetic and stressed that it can eject matter and radiation with tremendous amounts of energy.

Gravity needs to be removed from the equation here to account for these ejections. When we agree that there is no graviton and the black hole is really a black body spectral radiator. Only then can we really explain how this material exists, how the stars do not get absorbed, and get rid of the singularity.

These black holes are emitting massive amounts of magnetism. In my model it is enough to bend a bubble in the dark matter to allow for part of the galaxy of baryonic matter. Every once in a while it ejects baryonic matter in the form of flares. These flares accrete into stars quickly. As the stars become more dense they travel further away from the spectral radiator(black hole)

It is almost inverse of the gravity model.

I have yet to find any issue that cannot be explained under this model. Gravity is what is causing so much mysticism in physics. It does not exist.

Attraction vibrations are explained here.
http://www.svpvril.com/bjerknes.html#TOP%20Bjerknes

but for the most part everything is explained in Planck's spectral equations. and a bunch of other stuff. The 19th century scientist got it right. they just did not have the data to put it all together. 20th Century marketing ruined it for all.

a

If gravity didn't make so much sense to me now, I may see your point differently, but your description isn't simple enough. There is no singularity, even with gravity.

The singularity only arises when you attempt to model something which is no longer directly connected to this universe. Mathematical artifact, not reality.

Please clear up gravity for me. I don't see the graviton.
How does the interaction called gravity work?
What known particles/waves are responsible for it action?
What is the theory of gravity?

Why are those stars orbiting the black hole instead of being accreated, pulled apart?

Please use known particles/energies. Knots albiet interesting are purely conjecture.

Dark matter is not conjecture, Pioneer 10 and 11 hit something hard. and I can show that Dark Matter uses known particles to interact with magnetism.

I need help in understanding this.

a

One of its features is that it is "undetectable." Dark matter was invented to make the Big Bang theory overcome the uneven CMBR and the problems with getting galaxies to form in the amount of "time" available since the "Big Bang." It has never been seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard. The evidence "proving" its existence has less obtuse explanations.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=2m1r5m3b&pf=YES

The new "Meme" is the electric universe.

Yes, we have detected dark matter both directly and indirectly.

The bullet cluster is an example of 2 galaxies passing through each other(hubble).


galactic cluster CL0024+17(hubble) shows the media being vibrated like a stone thrown into a pond.

Pioneer 10 & 11 crashed into something and are heading back to the solar system.

The reason Dark Matter is not detectable from earth is that Dark Matter is Magnetically repugnant. Dark matter I presume uses gluons to connect the dark matter chunks together. I write about all this on my blog

http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

Gravitons are what spacetime is made of.

Gravity is the result of distorting the length and orientation of gravitons, I proposed that the distortion results from matter being folded sections of gravitons.

The vacuum is not an empty stage where the other forces work.

The vacuum is the fabric upon which the forces we perceive are merely topological adjustments, interacting with other such adjustments appropriately.


Dark matter would interact with electromagnetism if it wasn't such a complete and stable knot, with all of it's positive distorting/twisting of space balanced by it's negative distortions/twists.

Max,

There is no evidence of a graviton. I cannot find any experiment showing some attractor with density. Under the standard particle model, the things that show up when blown up, there is not an attractor.

Then there is the Helium problem. Why does a Helium balloon rise? This is not suppose to happen under -f=gm1m2/r^2. The mass of m1 (earth) attracts m2 the helium balloon. This should show that there is no solution to this balloon problem.

Then if a star has gravitational field of G1 1 week before it goes supernova. It will have a very different G 1 week after the supernova. This occurs because this relation is due to density. Its mass is being scattered over a larger volume (density).

There are more logic problems. Lets start with these.

a

A graviton is just a term I use, it isn't a particle in the sense that you may be thinking, I don't think point particles descriptions are valid.

The vacuum expectation value, cosmological constant, dark energy, the nature of motion through spacetime for objects with mass. All of these suggest to me that the vacuum is not a lack of energy/mass/particles, rather it is as much of a real thing as anything else in the universe.

It isn't that they're attracting other particles with some exchange of force carriers.

Particles are attracted to each other because they are all woven out of the same fabric, folding up portions of the fabric stretches it, and displaces all the rest of the fabric to some extent.

So you are using terms that have standard meanings, but you are expecting me to use a different definition that I am unaware of. Just a little difficult.

Look I am willing to say your Knots are a low level interaction, but they need to resolve to current definitions. for example, The knots and non-knots are the pieces of the quark. But for them to reslove to non-logical solutions, does not help promote your idea.

"Particles are attracted to each other because they are all woven out of the same fabric, folding up portions of the fabric stretches it, and displaces all the rest of the fabric to some extent."

For them to resolve to a graviton that does not have a standard definition make it difficult to want to resolve any of it.

I want to tell you that you are on the correct path in looking for sub-sub-atomic interactions, but they need to resolve to known sub-atomic interactions.

I take a big leap in describing how information transfer from one atom to another. But I use all the known parts and interactions. I think I am the first to describe how process works. People have pointed out errors in my thinking and I have changed my thinking to resolve the error. This is called remodeling. But in the end the model still holds.

What fell apart was gravity. Now I need to destroy gravity. There cannot be a black hole. There can only be attraction when vibrations occur in unison, Keely. This is not the primary interaction between objects.

There are two primary transmitters of information, photon-waves and magnetism. Both of which are waves. Each carry 3 bits of information and a counter. The photon carries temp, wavelength, frequency and the counter. The W+/- and Z boson carries charge, current, voltage and the counter.

This is the Standard Particle Model. When you blow up atoms this is what you get pictures of. The pictures don't describe the interactions. We need to take the pics and describe the interactions.



Aaron

Your blue "particles" are forces. What is the difference between a force, and an amount of energy? Is there a difference between electrical energy, (the kind delivered over wires and out of batteries) and radiated energy?

Yes the Bosons are all forces. Photon,W+/-,Z; Notice no need for a Higgs. The interesting thing is that the W+/- & Z have mass, big mass. They need to push things around,,, Dark matter.

It was easy to figure out what they all do when I listened to Dr Feymann, and Dr Mangano at CERN. That is when I knew Einstein/newton/hawkis were blowing smoke. If you take their model to the extremes, you get alternate universes, singularities,...I cant list them all. Plus there is no information in their model. e=mc^2 or f=ma. too simple. and spaceships crash.

It took Reiter to describe that those energies were waves instead of moving particles. By unerstanding them as waves, we get more information per wave. Then we have to deal with that information. Time. How does time bend to allow more information to be read now.

Then it took Keely laws of attraction/repulsion to put the final death nail in Gravity.

This was fun, but now I just want to build spacecraft to gather data to prove the theories.

a

I don't believe the standard model is a valid description of reality, it is as close to the truth as describing a rainbow as red/orange/yellow/green/blue/purple.

It looks fine on the surface, but there is no truth underneath, just description.


Attributing things to vibrations interacting and attracting doesn't provide an explanation which I find satisfactory, at least.


Ignoring gravity is very unsatisfactory to me.

Because you never looked into the subject. This tendency of your leads to ignorance.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

'Nuff said!