sci.physics.particle

On Mar 2, 2:15=A0am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:42=A0pm, "Artful" wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Autymn D. C." wrote in messagenews:b11c2d05-e1=
c4-47d7-899e-e6476439f8a6@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Feb 28, 12:59 am, "LeoV...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > >> Evidence for black hole nucleus splitting and pairing inside several
> > >> nebula.
>
> > >> The peculiar supernova remnants (M1 the Crab nebula and N63a,
> > >> containing the form of a the dead Fox) are a support for the NEW Blac=
k
> > >> Hole hypothesis that newly formed black hole S-Nova nuclei are able t=
o
> > >> explode and split to smaller nuclei.
> > >> This happens only if the Higgs oscillatory pressure on the BH-nucleus=

> > >> is changing and is no more in equilibrium with the black hole nuclear=

> > >> internal particle pressure. =A0The resulting "curved PILLARS" seem to=

> > >> form pairs and show a "fork figure"-see the white arrows- by gas tail=

> > >> propulsion (as is assumed for "NEW" black holes).
> > >> See:http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
> > >> As a consequence this phenomenon of black hole splitting and pairing
> > >> seems to be the main origin of complexity also inside other nebula
> > >> ( like Carina and Eagle etc.)
> > >> Secondly this phenomenon could be the main origin of complexity insid=
e
> > >> the universe even at different scales from the evaporating nuclear
> > >> black hole Big Bang down to nebulae. Author: Leo Vuyk.
>
> > >> Leo Vuyk.
>
> > > No, Leo, there are no black holes. =A0Anywhere.
>
> > > Chandrasekar was wrong.
> > > Schwarzschild was wrong.
> > > Kerr was wrong.
> > > Hawking was wrong.
> > > CERN/LHC/ILC were wrong.
>
> > And your evidence that these great physicists were wrong, and rather tha=
t
> > you (who is a physicist) alone are right Is ... ???
>
> in my links. =A0Can you not read?
>
> The Schwarzschild radius is a /classic/ solution, whereas the black
> hole is a relativistic object. =A0It was already rejected thas element
> 137 be a el=E8ctric black hole, as its predictrix was a classic
> (Newtonian) ratio--some silly deal with the fine structure constant.
>
> -Aut

Wow, there's a bunch of great papers here against the black hole
solutions:

http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/022108_guest_sjcroth=
ers.htm

"Big Bang Busted!
(The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics)

02/21/08

There has been a deliberate suppression of important scientific papers
by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black
hole, beginning with the original paper by Karl Schwarzschild of 1916,
evidently for vainglory, money and self-aggrandisement. I bring you
free access to those papers, and others of relevance, in the hope that
this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search
for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever.
Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact,
both theories preclude it, contrary to what the orthodox relativists
claim.

The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl
Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's
1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get
Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The so-called
"Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption
of a.."

"It is also claimed by the very same "experts" that General Relativity
predicts that the Universe is expanding. This is patently false. The
mathematically rigorous proof that these "solutions" are nonsense is
given below.

Also listed below are my own research papers in which I derive, on the
standard manifold with boundary, the general solution to Einstein's
field equations for the static, vacuum field of the point-mass in all
its configurations, confirming Schwarzschild's solution, Droste's
solution, and Brillouin's solution as particular cases, and that black
holes are not consistent with General Relativity, as so well noted by
Schwarzschild, Brillouin, and Droste, contrary to common contemporary
expert opinion. The point-mass is itself a fictitious object and is to
be rightly considered as the centre of mass of an extended body."