smooth

The reason that atmospheres don't 'callapse' inwards and why stars do not do so is completely different, there is MASSIVE amounts of radiation pressure in stars, that you just don't get in planets. Of course, I was merely trying to put an image in your head. You appear to be discussing gravitational screening which requires negative gravity. Which don't exist. Orbits stop things falling into black holes. In the same way we don't fall into the sun. As you have said to me previously, I don’t know why I am even bothering replying to you, especially considering you do not comprehend anything I am stating. To state my prediction in an even more simplified statement, If there is a universal structure whereby matter is arranged much like we observe with Saturn and its rings (ie a central sphere surrounded by a two dimensional plane), and if that plane is then surrounded by another sphere/boundary (ie as the Oort Cloud indicates our solar system is, or Gravitational Lensing suggests galaxies are), then is Dark Matter not a measure of this structure? Which is neglected when measuring individual stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc. And if you still do not comprehend a structure, please do not even bother replying to me, because as far as I am concerned I have given you an explanation to something your view cannot explain.

...And so as my theory goes, you would only observe accretion disks around BHs (black holes) that formed after the creation of the galaxy etc that it exists within. As the star(s) had collapsed within an already formed structure, the surrounding bodies would not exist within the structure of that star (more likely that the bodies exist within the structure of the central black hole of that particular galaxy), and hence the gravitational attraction between the bodies is free from the ’balancing effect’ of the structure I refer to (in this context it is probably best viewed as a balancing of the inertia of a body with the gravitational influence of another). To explain this further I would like to refer to the stars spherically orbiting the central BH of a galaxy. For this scenario I am going to view them as like the atmosphere of the BH, the only real difference between the earths own atmosphere, been the increase in mass of both the BH compared to the earth, and the stars compared to the particles of air. Despite the gravitational attraction of the earth, the atmosphere does not collapse inward, primarily because of the structure of the earths crust, which is comparable to how the structure of the nucleus prevents a star from collapsing. Now if I were to take a measurement of pressure within the earths orbit, that reading would be dependent upon all the particles of air in the entire atmosphere. If I now also apply this to the stars spherically orbiting the BH, rather than record a pressure as it were, I would record a kind of combined gravitational exertion. And so returning to the case of accretion disks, if there were a number of stars spherically orbiting a BH, and they existed within a structure that created a combined gravitational exertion, I predict that it is this exertion that ’seals’ off the BH preventing it from been able to draw in any of the bodies, which if they were in orbit by themselves would be drawn in through lack of inertia. I’ve got a feeling the explanation of this particular part of my theory hasn’t gone too well, and hence I would appreciate maybe a little feedback to help.

"But that leads to a question — are we sure that gravitons wouldn't be emitted at the event horizon?" Indeed, and would someone be wrong in assuming that the event horizon signifies the edge of the black hole? Or is it just the central point of a greater structure in which all the stars and planets fit into (that structure)? For instance, we do not observe any bodies spherically orbiting our sun, (within the inner solar system) rather the bodies orbit upon the plane. And one would be rightly entitled to think that if any bodies did occupy a spherical orbit, that orbit would need to be close to the sun (ie the spherical orbit of a satellite orbiting Jupiter, say, would be closer to Jupiter than its rings which are further out and orbit upon the plane). However we do know of the Oort cloud, which seems to be a mass of objects orbiting our solar system in a spherical formation, indicating that there is a boundary around our solar system that acts as a body in itself, emitting its own gravitational force. And if this is correct it solves the Dark Matter dilemma, dark matter been comparable in this situation to, someone identifying a proton but been unaware that it exists within a nucleus, and then discovering a quantity of unidentifiable mass around that proton, which turns out to be none other than the strong nuclear force. I have other evidence to back up this claim, which I will share with you in good time. Sorry, that should be - possibly solving not only the Dark Matter dillema, but the Horizon problem, as well as maybe Dark Energy also.

Time for celebration! Yippee! I’ve got it! Well sort of, I’ve got an understanding of it in my language, but before I share it with you may I please ask you to show some patience if you already know where it will fall down in the future, if that is indeed the case… as I am allowed some time to enjoy the view from this particular peak! Firstly, for this exercise I am viewing the light that is in perpetual standstill just inside the event horizon of the black hole, as irrelevant on the grounds that energy is always been added to it, and hence that light is spiralling inward even if that process takes an incredibly long time. For simplicities sake I am also going to ignore light that may encircle the black hole, possibly many times, before been freed there from. To understand I am going to create a boundary, which funnily enough happens to also be the event horizon of a black hole. However what is new about how I view this boundary in order to comprehend a ‘geometrical’ picture of how light can be bent by space-time while still having the ability to escape to an outside observer is this… I am going to give the boundary a kind of solidness, comparable to say a smooth and evenly distributed crust upon the earth, remember that inside this crust all light must at least orbit the black hole once before breaking free from the curvature. If there was an atmosphere upon this boundary, and the angular momentum/spinning of the crust brushed against this atmosphere, causing friction that led to it been warped (admittedly only in one direction), I solve my spiralling inward problem. The difference here is that before my spiralling inward was like a taught string of gravity (similar to that seen in the spiral arm galaxies), by creating this atmosphere scenario there is still space-time curvature, but now there is no tension in the ‘gravity string’ for it is not attached as it were, and hence I get curvature while still allowing the light to escape. ________________________________________________________________ Klaynos I hope you might now start to realise why I said what I did previously, for I doubt you envisaged that I was trying to understand it in this manner, for as you can see, I do not currently comprehend it in the formal manner. And will you not allow me some time to see where this thought process leads? For you never know what might crop up before I abandon it if I need to. No hard feelings? Thanks for the links swansont, I have wrote the above before reading/studying them, so it might need altering, as I am sure it will in the future anyway.

Allow me to illuminate you to some of the confusion you place upon me. As you have tried to instil in me- Light travels in a straight line, it does not bend, rather the space-time it enters into bends. However to explain my query as to how light can enter into a downward spiral (of space-time) and still escape without been able to increase in speed, you have offered me the explanation that it (light) can change its velocity. However this statement contradicts your earlier statement (ie light travels in a straight line), as this implies that its velocity never changes (rather the velocity of space-time changes), hence my statement - light is unable to accelerate - which you dismissed. With this in mind - How can space-time change its velocity, allowing light that has been bent inward by it, to escape? Thank you all for your efforts

As far as I am concerned you have not given me an adequate explanation of how light is able to enter into a segment of bent space-time, and without accelerating (as a body obeying Kepler's law of planetery motion would have to do to prevent itself from spiralling inward) leave that inward spiral and find its way to earth. I have continued to give as clearer reason as I can, as to why I cannot percieve this happening, and I am getting very thrustrated now.

With the greatest of respect I would like to ask Klaynos to stop replying to my posts in this thread, for I am unable to work with his/your methods of explanation. OK, 5614 I have understood most of what you have said, but I do not believe you have grasped what I am trying to explain - if I may proceed with your explanation of light falling down into the dent… The first scenario depicted within the link you included (with the orange and white lines), shows light not falling into a dent (as would be expected in the rubber sheet scenario), rather light been initially ‘pushed away’ and then falling into a dent upon the other side of the ’massive object’. So why do you continue to confuse by giving an analysis of the rubber sheet analogy?

5614, I am lost as to why you have provided such a detailed account of the warping of space-time around a star/body (which I already understand), only then to say: this is more due to the fact that the photon must follow a "straight" (shortest distance between two points) path, and not because it falls into where space-time (the sheet) is bent. As far as I can attain, we are both of the understanding that electromagnetic radiation is unable to increase in speed, therefore for it to enter into a segment of warped space-time, that warping must be already greater than the straight-line inertia of the radiation (meaning that the electromagnetic radiation is unable to escape there from as it is unable to increase in speed, as a body of mass would when moving closer to the central point of warping in relation to Kepler‘s law of planetary motion). To put this into a clearer context, the warping of space-time is ‘felt’ further out from the body if an object has less speed than light, which in itself will only be effected if the body is big enough, and if it passes close enough by. So the warping of space-time is relative to the inertia & speed of the phenomenon entering into that warped space-time - the greater the speed, the closer a body needs to be to be warped, but even if light is not warped the space-time it enters into may be warped for a body with less speed. And hence your point of light not entering into where space-time is bent, rather the photon must follow a straight path/shortest distance scenario, which is in itself is flawed (or my understanding of it is). It has been observed (has it not), that when the sun is blocking the direct line to a star, the light of the star (in question) has been observed, however because it should not be observable the star appears to be in a different place in the heavens than if it had been observed without the (lets call it) suns interference? My closest current perception of the straight line phenomenon you speak of, is comparable to what happens with the solar wind when it is deflected by the earths electromagnetic field, it parts and then ‘re-joins’ after passing by the earth. In this scenario the light is deflected away from the earth before been brought back together. I am unable to comprehend how light that is destined to be ’absorbed’ by the sun, which for arguments sake is in a direct line between the earth and the source, can reach the earth unless by the afore mentioned scenario. On the other hand I refer to light that is not destined to reach earth, but enters into warped space-time and so does reach earth, and shows the source in a different place in the heavens, a scenario your straight line hypothesis is unable to explain, as my understanding of it would dictate that the source would show up in the same place.

How does the bent space-time around a star that the light in question enters into, unbend itself allowing light that has been bent by it to escape to an observer on earth? Replying to comments made by people not even involved in this thread... If you look at the - What makes mass? thread, I think you'll find that I was 'passive' until I realised that ‘your’ minds are so closed that, when I tried to discuss how there are laws governing human behaviour that are as free from crookedness as laws such as - Kepler’s law of planetary motion, ‘you’ dismissed this as irrelevant to the thread. Is that just your own cultural opinion? And am I not entitled to put my own case across with regards to the fact that I believe - the same laws that govern the physical universe also govern the ’mind’? And if I am unable to discuss this in a forum entitled pseudoscience and speculation, where am I able to discuss this?

I hope this answers your question. No, not in the slightest. In fact it is so inadequate I do not even feel the need to defend my point. As you are so far up your own jacksy, nor do I wish to waste my time straitening your opinions. I’m off elsewhere to find people with open minds.

OK, I'll give this one more day before I take it to another forum...

I am good because I believe I will be rewarded for been so. I question your ability to be a good person... A person invites his vicar around for a meal, the vicar takes a bottle of wine with him as is accustom for people in the society in which I live, and as the vicar is entitled to do within his religion. However the person has recently stopped drinking alcohol as they had became addicted thereto, an addiction that lost them their job, their family… their life. At this point the person could be tempted to have a drink, they could be put under pressure to have a drink out of kindness toward the vicar, they might be deluded into thinking that God doesn’t mind them drinking even if it leads to alcoholism, etc, etc, etc. In this context the vicar might have intended good, however the result was far from good. Drinking alcohol to another another society, might be seen to be as bad as killing daughters in India, or eating pork in Israel. A comparrison between you and me is, You try to open your message to as many as possible by allowing people to do whatever they please, whereas I try to open my message to as many as possible by accepting the downfalls in my own society in order that I can speak of the downfalls in theirs.

But we've evoled a society which controls and limits our actions and thought processes it makes up feel good to make others feel good, therefore helping others is increasing our experience of this one life, so no need to be judged. Don't know what world your living in! Lets see, I saw a scientific report that said if alcohol were introduced into society now, it would be labelled a class A drug (British system), more harmful than LSD, MDMA, Cannabis, etc... Having said that discussion of what I said can be done in a scientific manor, discussion of a judge or whatever cannot be and therefore imo should not be discussed on a science forum. Maybe you better get a moderator to tell me off then! Its your perogitave to take your judgement from the society in which you live, but you still accept a judgement.

I'm somewhat more complex and intelligent than... However you continue to make these statements without presenting a structure of thought that remidies... "anything other than my trying to manipulate you in order that I might experience as much of the world as I can, and at your cost" I have offered what is as far as I am concerned a brief but precise explanation, if you can present a structure of thought that - when I have studied it - is better than what I have presented, I will gladly embrace it... And you can utterly destroy the fable that is religion.

If I may just follow on with the natural progression of my first post, before I answer you iNow. Even if mankind realised all the laws governing the physical universe, his reach has been limited, hence he would be unable to manipulate and change those laws on a large scale. Indeed, if he were to create a new universe with differing laws, he would be required to be outside of that universe, and the self-created universe itself would be inside this universe. iNow You seem to be hinting by saying - would ever expect anything – that there are no laws governing mankind’s behaviour. Allow me to offer you a brief example where mankind indeed has to answer for his actions… Take two people - The first believes that when he dies he will be judged for his actions by an authority that sees through all crookedness, and hence will reward and punish him according to the finest and truest of principles. The second believes this world is all there is, and hence his actions are governed by his desire to experience as much of this world as he can before he passes away. Crookedness in this context, is merely a consequence of the fact that - every other person wants to experience as much as the world as they can also - but not everyone can have that opportunity, hence manipulation occurs in order to ensure it is you who gets to experience the world. OK, if I did a good deed for you - hoping for nothing other than a reward (in the after-life) from that which Judges with the finest of clarities - because you do not believe in what I do, nor have you ever done (in order that you might understand me), you would be unable to view my actions as anything other than my trying to manipulate you in order that I might experience as much of the world as I can, and at your cost! So in other words, in this scenario the price (or punishment) you have paid is to mistrust everyone, even when that mistrust is not due (I am all too aware how lonely this place is). The reward I have been given is that my trust is not in you, and hence I am able to help you (and feel good for doing so), even though you may mistrust me, for I know that I will never be lonely. I choose to trust, how you live your life is your prerogative. I truly wish you all the best Antony