Hello, Veeky Forums, no dark matter guy here again

dark matter girl

Pseudoscience gibberish. The event horizon is a solid surface. Nothing enters a black hole or goes under the horizon, and thats about as much you can be validated for. Anything that falls towards an event horizon breaks down to elementary subatomic particles upon collision into either the ultradense homogeneous structure of the black hole where any angle of approach and resulting impact point would be the same singularity that would act identically even on any point within the volume of the black hole, or the surface layer "crust" of the object where an equal explosive force from within meets the immense attractive force from outside where any point on the surface but not within the internal volume would be the same singularity. So far as I can tell there would be no substantial difference between the two hypothetical makeups as in either case a non black object only collides with the surface. A black object colliding with another under the homogenous ultradense structure concept would produce no specific energy output, but under the contained explosion concept could potentially release some of their energy when their specific contact point rifts open a tunnel where they both explode into and merge with each other, yet any non black body would not rift the surface tension and would be questionable to support the explosive counterweight singularity shell that could otherwise grow in mass while the explosive core does not, lest the specific mechanism of black collapse is already at a limit where no further collapse of the core could occur regardless of extra weight on the surface, if not inversely working to increase collapsing pressure which would increase internal energy to explosively grow and meet the extra stress of the surface crust to maintain the same thickness regardless of diameter.

Only real difference is one of them basically has infinite energy retainmemt which piques harvesting potential for more scifi endeavors.

>0 views

>The event horizon is a solid surface. Nothing enters a black hole or goes under the horizon, and thats about as much you can be validated for.

I wouldn't call the event horizon solid, I'd call it light-like or a null geodesic surface. Either way the rest of what you said serves as a premise for the rest of the theory, which I'll make a video about soon.

state your degrees

MS cellular and molecular biology.

how is your theory related to dark matter?

youtube.com/watch?v=oIFjkYhNXkE

This video is not that good, but it covers how I believe black holes are related to the dark matter phenomenon.

Any reason you have yet to publish your theory in a reputable scientific journal?

This is the epitome of word salad.

Nah. "Null geodesics" is word salad. You're just a 56% mongrel who can't coherently connect more than 4 consecutuve words.

Prove black holes actually exist in our observable reality.

Take your meds.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

>0 views

Images of lights, artistic impressions and graphs are not scientific evidence, it's fluff.

The irony being you probably actually do take meds. I haven't been sick in 7 years. Meanwhile you're festering in your own death waiting for the inevitable.

Keep trying 56%.

...

You're mentally sick right now, fucking retard.

I'm not mentally sick. You having subhuman reading comprehension doesn't mean I'm using word salad. You are literally trying to project your own inadequacy onto me.

Feel free to die sooner than later

No, it's just word salad. Go see a psychiatrist and see what they think.

...

If you're asking for a photograph of a black hole, there isn't one. The only thing these postulate is that stars are rapidly orbiting something that cannot be seen, against the black of night, defined as a black body. Unlike a star which can be seen, these black bodies do not emit light, yet have a significant amount of mass to not be disturbed by the orbiting stars. Theres inferred evidence of something existing there but it is black and indiscernable in size or shape. The iconic artistic representations of black holes are truly artistic in defining a giant black circular hole silhouette against a brighter background when this aspect is actually unknown. From a far enough distance it may be completely impossible to determine any size or shape even with the highest accuracy telescopes also scanning in different wavelengths, as light from behind the black body may fall to the black body, and light in front of the black body may be light from around it. See pic related as an example if black bodies have determinable size.

On the other hand, they may just be microscopic regardless of mass, where even being within the closer distance as depicted may still not present an actually visible object with no hope of detecting the event horizon until you've collided with it.

How do you explain the bullet cluster?

How do you know it's not massless?

That diagram really only works as drawn to illustrate the result, but there would really be many more light sources of stars all around even further behind the black hole, where taken all into account would probably make it impossible to determine a silhouette at any range greater than the event horizon and therefore no silhouette.

I drew up this comic to illustrate the idea.There will always be warped light paths around the black hole that would only display what is around or behind it. Even if the black hole would have a determinable diameter, the angle of approach where a normal body of that diameter would obstruct the light path to an observer's eye would not be apparent for the black hole as light greater than the angle of obstruction would be funneled into the focal point, but at just above the event horizon it can be assumed that light paths which are being extremely bent very close to the surface would hit the observer, reflect off the observer, go all the way around the black hole and thus be reflected back to the observer. In the event that a black hole has determinable diameter, this reflected image may appear stretched filling much of the Point of View to wrap around the surface diameter. If a black hole has no determinable diameter however, the reflection might seem planar if not inversely oriented in terms of perspective, where you might be able to see light reflecting off the top of your head or bottom of your shoes as if your own image had been stretched out and unwrapped in a similar manner as a UV mapped character texture for a videogame 3D model, if not similar to the "warping" effect in many artistic representations minus the black silhouette. In both cases you probably die by hitting the event horizon and you'll just see a flash of white light from all possible paths of light meeting your focal point, or a really goofy funhouse mirror warped reflection of yourself as light bouncing off the left side of you reflects to your right.

would be difficult to explain why stars orbit black holes without saying the black body has a mass and gravity attributed to it?

Everything suggests a lack of mass. Gravity is unproven pseudo-science, helium completely contradicts it.

>Force doesn't exist, because when I push down on my phone while it's sitting on the table, the phone doesn't move.

I'm not sure bouyancy defies gravity outright as that has more to do with pressure where pressure can be determinable with the theory of gravity. Helium balloons dont float cause they're massless, they float because the pressure inside the balloon is less than the pressure of the surrounding air outside of the balloon, and the pressure gradient between low-pressure high atmosphere and high-pressure low atmosphere therefore encourages the balloon to have upwards bouyancy with wanting to be in equilibrium with the low-pressure higher in the sky, "seemingly" defying gravity to accomplish this.

Placing a helium balloon inside a vaccuum sealed container where the air has been sucked out and simultaneously replaced with helium should see the helium balloon no longer abled to float towards the ceiling of the container as it would be in equilibrium with the surrounding medium. Maybe the entire container itself would then have a lighter weight than before the test when the container was filled with air, which doesn't really solve the question of pressure defying gravity nevermind how fine and accurate the natural laws of comparing pressure may be that the surrounding air pressure or helium would know in which direction equilibrium is.

But basically your idea boils down to "why does anything float" which makes less sense comparing something like a basketball and a bathtub. Basketballs dont float in air but they float in water, as water is more dense and generates more pressure than air.

>(Gravitational Power)=(c^5)/(Newtonian Constant of Gravitation)
>(Gravitational Force)=(c^4)/(Newtonian Constant of Gravitation)
>(Gravitational Power)=(Gravitational Force)(c^1)

Jackie O

Why are you still doing this sandnigger.

Does a basketball floating in water defy gravity? And if so, why does the basketball no longer defy gravity when pulled out of the water? Or why does a rock neither float in air or water?

So you would then agree that things go up because they're lighter than air, and things do down when they're heavier than air - no gravity required.

A basketball will float on water because it's less dense than the water. A basketball doesn't float in the air because it's denser than the air.

What defines weight? How is something heavy while something else is lite?

Density.

And mass has no relation to density..?

>LIGO appears to be presenting evidence supporting my theory
Not LIGO, some guys at Waterloo looking at the data said it might be possible, other people looked at the ways they analyzed the data and found it faulty, that article is fucking click bait. Also disagreeing with GR doesn't support your theory. Dude in the video doesn't seem like a bad guy, but he's off base with the falling particle example, he's missing the point of the difference between an outside observer and following observer, which is why things are different in the two situations. He should've read the paper. There is also a "version" of the idea he tried talking about that's been out there for a while called the black hole firewall that's very well worked out and been discussed. I put version in quotes since the idea of firewalls has been mathematically worked out in many papers as opposed to just some videos based on a possibly cursory understanding of GR. Also the thing about Lagrange points is not a trillion dollar project. ELISA is already on it's way to being made and it's not even a billion dollar project. If this dude really wants to study GR that's great! But maybe he should actually try applying for a masters in GR or something.

I think theres a game or a space sim or something that depicts black holes this way without the silhouette but with the warping.

youtu.be/USoXfHbY4zM

Mass is just another word for density.

...

May the Frequency be with You!
"Star Wars" Frequency=[(Gd)^1/2]
"Star Wars" Force=[(Gd)^1/2]Momentum
"Star Wars" Power=[(Gd)^1/2]Energy
"Star Wars" Energy=[(Gd)^1/2]Hbar
"Star Wars" Current=[(Gd)^1/2]Charge

May the Power be with You!
"Star Wars" Power=c^5/G
"Star Wars" Force=c^4/G

Happy New Year!
~r2e2

G big G
d density
G*d is Gd

Nothing you've posted here or on your blog has any real world value. You are trying really hard to be the next pajeet rajmadingus in terms of offering no sensible interpretation. Take your gay self to and post your nonsense there.

Is this the bedroom of your grandma?

So you admit gravity does exist. Great.

How does density cause movement?

Hahahaha (GD)^1/2's Everywhere

Dark enerGy

the square root of (gravity times density) that is awesome

G = Gravity
D = Density

GD, the Root of all Eville :-)