UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > Jun > Jun 16

Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast

From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:49:44 +0100
Archived: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:08:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast

>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:04:34 -0400
>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast

>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:37:59 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast

>>Also completely discounted are 'worm-holes' and their so-called
>>parental 'black holes'. I'm on record - see:
>>but there's earlier posts)


>Here is a recent article reporting 26 black holes discovered in
>the Andromeda galaxy.


>As you said, the evidence is indirect.

>"The researchers studied the peculiarities in the X-ray light
>given off by the objects to determine whether they were more
>likely to be black holes or dense objects called neutron stars.
>They discriminated black holes belonging to Andromeda from
>brighter, more distant supermassive black holes at the center of
>other galaxies by studying the patterns of variation in their

Hello William,

The usual claim of black-hole apologists - that "they're very
difficult to spot by direct means, therefore we must infer their
presence" is just rubbish. I.e if even one black hole existed in
the observable universe its presence would be obvious - as a big
circular 'target' of bent and re-focussed light, with a tiny
dark centre (event horizon), surrounded by an unnaturally wide
ring of darkness (no background starlight around it - that
would've all been bent inwards by the "infinite" gravity of the
'black hole', to form that target of light).

For anyone's peace-of-mind would recommend, whenever reading
'black hole', just substitute neutron star or massy body (or
galactic core - which might well have either).

There's several reasons to say there's no such thing as a 'black
hole': defined as an infinitely dense mass surrounded by an
'event horizon' (for light).

To see some of those reasons, put forward by sensible
physicists, try googling "Black Holes Don't Exist".

The original 'theory' was actually just speculative chat by a
fairly accomplished mathematician physicist (not a 'real'
physicist - Feynman quote), and was only talking about about the
stages of density of star-like bodies, like "neutron stars" and
possibly beyond. A real physicist would have been thinking in
terms of physical limiting factors, like accretion and spin, way
before the fanciful idea of a 'singularity' occurred to anybody.

But mathematicians don't think much about reality. In fact
decades later, when Hawking grabbed the idea as a 'sexy/scary'
money-spinner he _still_ didn't initially realize that any
putative 'black hole' would have to have gained huge spin - a
prohibitive amount of spin, way past the point where
'conservation of angular momentum' allows the breakdown of the
axis line, forcing plasma and radiation 'jets' of enormous
energy to emerge from the poles, so re-distributing the matter
of _any_ super-dense body well before a magic (and impossible)
'singularity' could happen. [His early mathematical 'design' was
of a stationary, non-spinning object - if you can believe that!]

If you think about it, a putative 'black hole' (an infinitely
dense mass surrounded by an 'event horizon') breaks the 'laws of
physics', notably the conservation laws, as does the Big Bang
(another sexy/scary gimmick designed to keep tax-payers funding
rolling in).


Ray D

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.