Neutron star construction - neutronium - is explained
via the the Pauli exclusion principle:  the star
collapses, and each particle falls to the lowest
available energy state.    The metaphor is a solid
brick wall; each particle forms a brick.  Maximum
density is achieved.

But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
Is Pauli exclusion a basic law of nature, or not?  Is
gravity an exception?  

A related question: has anyone analyzed the dynamics
of black hole formation, from initial collapse until
horizon?  This would be extremely violent, with
presumably unique signature.  Something for
astronomers to look for, perhaps?

--
Rich

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 10:06:07 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Neutron star construction - neutronium - is explained
> via the the Pauli exclusion principle: the star
> collapses, and each particle falls to the lowest
> available energy state. The metaphor is a solid
> brick wall; each particle forms a brick. Maximum
> density is achieved.
>
> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
> Is Pauli exclusion a basic law of nature, or not? Is
> gravity an exception?
>
> A related question: has anyone analyzed the dynamics
> of black hole formation, from initial collapse until
> horizon? This would be extremely violent, with
> presumably unique signature. Something for
> astronomers to look for, perhaps?
>
> --
> Rich

How can science calculate degeneracy pressure?
How would we ever know by an necessary observation
of that manifesting?
No. Science needs to know there is no
neutronium collapse order of those
fermions manifest as Bosons in order.
How can you demonstrate the reality
of that?

On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> Neutron star construction - neutronium - is explained
> via the the Pauli exclusion principle:  the star
> collapses, and each particle falls to the lowest
> available energy state.    The metaphor is a solid
> brick wall; each particle forms a brick.  Maximum
> density is achieved.
>
> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?

Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction, you can write
your own science fiction story with neutronium in it and give it
whatever properties you want for your science fiction story. Real
physicists don't used that made-up science fiction term.

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Neutron star construction - neutronium - is explained
> > via the the Pauli exclusion principle: the star
> > collapses, and each particle falls to the lowest
> > available energy state. The metaphor is a solid
> > brick wall; each particle forms a brick. Maximum
> > density is achieved.
> >
> > But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
> > i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
> Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction

No. It is just the original name of the neutron star composition you moron.
Neutronium is made of a collection of neutrons that don't degenerate.
Show that calculation is correct? How would you know by evidence that quantity?
No. You can't find that... there is no exception to the Pauli exclusion principle.
You cannot collapse a neutron star fermion into a Boson singularity.
Neutronium made of neutrons replaces a BH in aether.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/19/2021 4:18 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> Neutron star construction - neutronium - is explained
>>> via the the Pauli exclusion principle: the star
>>> collapses, and each particle falls to the lowest
>>> available energy state. The metaphor is a solid
>>> brick wall; each particle forms a brick. Maximum
>>> density is achieved.
>>>
>>> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
>>> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
>> Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction
>
> No. It is just the original name of the neutron star composition you moron.

You mean science fiction's made-up name for a (relatively) ordinary
substance made up of neutrons as atoms/molecules. Scientists don't use
that made-up word, and just because you want to won't change that.

> Neutronium is made of a collection of neutrons that don't degenerate.

What does that mean? I don't know gibberish.

> Show that calculation is correct?

What calculation, Roy Masters?

> How would you know by evidence that quantity?

Again, English, please. I took a couple of languages in high school, but
Gibberish wasn't one of them.

> No. You can't find that... there is no exception to the Pauli exclusion principle.

Unless there's a way for there to be a way to "avoid" the Pauli
Exclusion Principle, just like what happened for white dwarf stars
becoming neutron stars in spite of the PEP.

> Neutronium made of neutrons replaces a BH in aether.

Which Star Trek episode was that? I missed that one!

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 3:34:34 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/19/2021 4:18 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> >>> Neutron star construction - neutronium - is explained
> >>> via the the Pauli exclusion principle: the star
> >>> collapses, and each particle falls to the lowest
> >>> available energy state. The metaphor is a solid
> >>> brick wall; each particle forms a brick. Maximum
> >>> density is achieved.
> >>>
> >>> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
> >>> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
> >> Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction
> >
> > No. It is just the original name of the neutron star composition you moron.
> You mean science fiction's made-up name for a

Why would Carl Sagan use the neutronium composition of a neutron star...?
He represented that everywhere in public for its scientific reality...
Are you afraid of a name of a collection of neutrons you moron?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/20/2021 2:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 3:34:34 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/19/2021 4:18 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:

>>>>> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
>>>>> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?

>>>> Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction
>>>
>>> No.

Yes.

>>> It is just the original name of the neutron star composition you moron.

You mean science fiction "invented" "neutronium" before astronomers came
up with the idea of neutron stars made of degenerate neutrons? I don't
know, one way or the other about that.

>> You mean science fiction's made-up name for a (relatively) ordinary substance made up of neutrons as atoms/molecules.
>
> Why would Carl Sagan use the neutronium composition of a neutron star...?

Why would anyone care what Carl Sagan didn't say? Did you make that up
at the same time you made up Einstein's last words? (his nurse, the
only one with him didn't know German)

> He represented that everywhere in public for its scientific reality...

You made up even more crap! It must be nice to live in your fantasy world.

> Are you afraid of a name of a collection of neutrons you moron?

I will continue to use what astronomers and scientists use. Degenerate
neutron matter, neutron star stuff, whatever.

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/20/2021 2:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 3:34:34 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/19/2021 4:18 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>
> >>>>> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
> >>>>> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
>
> >>>> Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction
> >>>
> >>> No.
> Yes.

No. Neutronium is the original name of a neutron star particle composition.
> >>> It is just the original name of the neutron star composition you moron.
> You mean science fiction "invented" "neutronium" before astronomers came

Why was Carl Sagan using it to describe a neutron star?
He said if you drop neutronium it would punch a hole in the Earth
because of its incredible mass density..

> up with the idea of neutron stars made of degenerate neutrons? I don't
> know, one way or the other about that.
> >> You mean science fiction's made-up name for a (relatively) ordinary substance made up of neutrons as atoms/molecules.
> >
> > Why would Carl Sagan use the neutronium composition of a neutron star...?
> Why would anyone care what Carl Sagan didn't say? Did you make that up
> at the same time you made up Einstein's last words? (his nurse, the
> only one with him didn't know German)
> > He represented that everywhere in public for its scientific reality...
> You made up even more crap! It must be nice to live in your fantasy world.

You are going to have to correct him in science then...
Collections of neutrons are real according to Sagan's neutronium.

> > Are you afraid of a name of a collection of neutrons you moron?
> I will continue to use what astronomers and scientists use. Degenerate
> neutron matter, neutron star stuff, whatever.

How do you know you are not making it up?
Carl Sagan's representation of what is real
will not be going away.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/21/2021 2:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/20/2021 2:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 3:34:34 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/2021 4:18 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
>>>>>>> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
>>
>>>>>> Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>> Yes.
>
> No. Neutronium is the original name of a neutron star particle composition.

Says who? Says you? Just like you made up Einstein's last words?
>
>>>>> It is just the original name of the neutron star composition you moron.
>> You mean science fiction "invented" "neutronium" before astronomers came
>
> Why was Carl Sagan using it to describe a neutron star?

Because he didn't.

> He said if you drop neutronium it would punch a hole in the Earth
> because of its incredible mass density..

Because he didn't use that word.
>
>> up with the idea of neutron stars made of degenerate neutrons? I don't
>> know, one way or the other about that.
>>>> You mean science fiction's made-up name for a (relatively) ordinary substance made up of neutrons as atoms/molecules.
>>>
>>> Why would Carl Sagan use the neutronium composition of a neutron star...?
>> Why would anyone care what Carl Sagan didn't say? Did you make that up
>> at the same time you made up Einstein's last words? (his nurse, the
>> only one with him didn't know German)
>>> He represented that everywhere in public for its scientific reality...
>> You made up even more crap! It must be nice to live in your fantasy world.
>
> You are going to have to correct him in science then...
> Collections of neutrons are real according to Sagan's neutronium.

Go ahead, show me a link showing where I am wrong.

>>> Are you afraid of a name of a collection of neutrons you moron?
>> I will continue to use what astronomers and scientists use. Degenerate
>> neutron matter, neutron star stuff, whatever.
>
> How do you know you are not making it up?

Because you made it up first.

> Carl Sagan's representation of what is real
> will not be going away.

Link or it never happened.

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 11:26:13 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> No. Neutronium is the original name of a neutron star particle composition.

So, let's see your evidence for this really stupid claim, Mitch. I think you are making this up as you go along. "Neutronium" is a science-fiction term, that is all. It does not actually exist in the scientific literature.

Show me to be wrong, Mitch, if you can...

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 7:45:30 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 11:26:13 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > No. Neutronium is the original name of a neutron star particle composition.
>
> So, let's see your evidence for this really stupid claim, Mitch. I think you are making
> this up as you go along. "Neutronium" is a science-fiction term, that is all. It does not
> actually exist in the scientific literature.
>
> Show me to be wrong, Mitch, if you can...

Rather, it's not OFTEN used in scientific literature, although it IS in popular science:

"Neutronium is used in popular physics literature to refer to the material present in the
cores of neutron stars (stars which are too massive to be supported by electron
degeneracy pressure and which collapse into a denser phase of matter). This term is
very rarely used in scientific literature, for three reasons: there are multiple definitions
for the term "neutronium"; there is considerable uncertainty over the composition of the
material in the cores of neutron stars (it could be neutron-degenerate matter, strange
matter, quark matter, or a variant or combination of the above)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

Interestingly, I didn't know this:

"The word was coined by scientist Andreas von Antropoff in 1926 (before the discovery
of the neutron) for the hypothetical 'element of atomic number zero'"

On 6/19/21 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> [...]

Black hole formation is completely independent of the Pauli exclusion
principle. Remember that in GR the "source" of gravity is all types of
energy, not just mass. Pressure is a form of energy. Once a star reaches
a certain critical density, collapse to a black hole is inevitable,
because there is positive feedback -- a reduction in size causes an
increase in density, which generates an increase in pressure, which
generates further collapse. No possible force can resist this positive
feedback, as any increase in force increases the collapse. That critical
density is roughly the density of a ~2 solar mass neutron star.

Tom Roberts

On 6/25/2021 12:13 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/19/21 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Black hole formation is completely independent of the Pauli exclusion
> principle. Remember that in GR the "source" of gravity is all types of
> energy, not just mass. Pressure is a form of energy. Once a star reaches
> a certain critical density, collapse to a black hole is inevitable,
> because there is positive feedback -- a reduction in size causes an
> increase in density, which generates an increase in pressure, which
> generates further collapse. No possible force can resist this positive
> feedback, as any increase in force increases the collapse. That critical
> density is roughly the density of a ~2 solar mass neutron star.
>
Do you have any speculation regarding the apparent violation of Pauli's
exclusion principle once collapse starts? My guess is something like
what happens in a white dwarf-->neutron star transition takes place, and
a higher energy state is formed which "eliminates" the "problem"
invoking PEP. Like in white dwarfs, the PEP applied to electrons
prevents further collapse, until the electrons are "eliminated", forming
neutrons from them and protons. I take it this is what's behind the
idea of quark stars or strange matter stars.

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 12:56:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/21/2021 2:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/20/2021 2:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 3:34:34 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 6/19/2021 4:18 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/19/2021 1:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> But in larger stars, collapse continues to black hole.
> >>>>>>> i.e. denser than neutronium. Is this not a contradiction?
> >>
> >>>>>> Since neutronium is the mythical stuff of science fiction
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >> Yes.
> >
> > No. Neutronium is the original name of a neutron star particle composition.
> Says who? Says you? Just like you made up Einstein's last words?
> >
> >>>>> It is just the original name of the neutron star composition you moron.
> >> You mean science fiction "invented" "neutronium" before astronomers came
> >
> > Why was Carl Sagan using it to describe a neutron star?
> Because he didn't.
> > He said if you drop neutronium it would punch a hole in the Earth
> > because of its incredible mass density..
> Because he didn't use that word.
> >
> >> up with the idea of neutron stars made of degenerate neutrons? I don't
> >> know, one way or the other about that.
> >>>> You mean science fiction's made-up name for a (relatively) ordinary substance made up of neutrons as atoms/molecules.
> >>>
> >>> Why would Carl Sagan use the neutronium composition of a neutron star...?
> >> Why would anyone care what Carl Sagan didn't say? Did you make that up
> >> at the same time you made up Einstein's last words? (his nurse, the
> >> only one with him didn't know German)
> >>> He represented that everywhere in public for its scientific reality...
> >> You made up even more crap! It must be nice to live in your fantasy world.
> >
> > You are going to have to correct him in science then...
> > Collections of neutrons are real according to Sagan's neutronium.
> Go ahead, show me a link showing where I am wrong.
> >>> Are you afraid of a name of a collection of neutrons you moron?
> >> I will continue to use what astronomers and scientists use. Degenerate
> >> neutron matter, neutron star stuff, whatever.
> >
> > How do you know you are not making it up?
> Because you made it up first.
> > Carl Sagan's representation of what is real
> > will not be going away.
> Link or it never happened.

I don't use links. It is your bias you moron.
The truth won't be going away.
Einstein had a God.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 11:26:13 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > No. Neutronium is the original name of a neutron star particle composition.
> So, let's see your evidence for this really stupid claim, Mitch. I think you are making this up as you go along. "Neutronium" is a science-fiction term, that is all. It does not actually exist in the scientific literature.
>
> Show me to be wrong, Mitch, if you can...

Show where neutronium isn't a collection of neutrons for a star form you moron...
Can you get rid of that star?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/25/2021 7:48 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 12:56:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/21/2021 2:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Carl Sagan's representation of what is real
>>> will not be going away.

>> Link or it never happened.
>
> I don't use links. It is your bias you moron.

No links, so it never happened.

End of discussion.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 6/25/2021 7:48 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 12:56:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2021 2:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Carl Sagan's representation of what is real will not be going away.
>>> Link or it never happened.
>> I don't use links. It is your bias you moron.
>
> No links, so it never happened. End of discussion.

yeah, sure, that's how your brain works, links proves it happened. Your
sorry ass will be so vaccinated with direct links, no DNS required.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 6/25/2021 12:13 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/19/21 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> [...]
>> Black hole formation is completely independent of the Pauli exclusion
>> principle. Remember that in GR the "source" of gravity is all types of
>> energy, not just mass. Pressure is a form of energy. Once a star
>> reaches a certain critical density, collapse to a black hole is
>> inevitable, because there is positive feedback -- a reduction in size
>> causes an increase in density, which generates an increase in pressure,
>> which generates further collapse. No possible force can resist this
>> positive feedback, as any increase in force increases the collapse.
>> That critical density is roughly the density of a ~2 solar mass neutron
>> star.
>>
> Do you have any speculation regarding the apparent violation of Pauli's
> exclusion principle once collapse starts? My guess is something like
> what happens in a white dwarf-->neutron star transition takes place, and
> a higher energy state is formed which "eliminates" the "problem"
> invoking PEP. Like in white dwarfs, the PEP applied to electrons
> prevents further collapse, until the electrons are "eliminated", forming
> neutrons from them and protons. I take it this is what's behind the
> idea of quark stars or strange matter stars.

You guys tend to think you can exterminate matter but not gravity. You
cannot exterminate electrons, bit compact them. Take the gravity away
from a neutron star or anything, and the electrons come back there in an
instant unaffected.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 6:45:30 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> So, let's see your evidence for this really stupid claim, Mitch. I
>> think you are making this up as you go along. "Neutronium" is a
>> science-fiction term, that is all. It does not actually exist in the
>> scientific literature. Show me to be wrong, Mitch, if you can...
>
> Show where neutronium isn't a collection of neutrons for a star form you
> moron... Can you get rid of that star?

certainly not, but potentially getting rid of its gravity, by cancelling,
in near future. That's how UFOs from other planets works. Which is
something that feels better than warm socks from the dryer on a winter
day.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > Carl Sagan's representation of what is real will not be going away.
>> Link or it never happened.
>
> I don't use links. It is your bias you moron.
> The truth won't be going away. Einstein had a God.

This has nothing to do with the bio-weapon injections, illegally called
"vaccines".

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Abram Husband wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > Carl Sagan's representation of what is real will not be going away.
> >> Link or it never happened.
> >
> > I don't use links. It is your bias you moron.
> > The truth won't be going away. Einstein had a God.
> This has nothing to do with the bio-weapon injections, illegally called
> "vaccines".

What are you posting for? do you plan on dying of covid you moron?
People lied about Einstein's God. He had a God...

Mitchell Raemsch

[JFTR: I have not bothered to read the posting you are replying to, whose
author is in my killfile.]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/19/21 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Black hole formation is completely independent of the Pauli exclusion
> principle.

As regards *stellar* black holes, it is not.

> Remember that in GR the "source" of gravity is all types of
> energy, not just mass. Pressure is a form of energy. Once a star reaches
> a certain critical density,

That is only possible because the degeneracy pressure does not
counterbalance the "gravitational pressure" (for lack of a better term)
anymore.

> collapse to a black hole is inevitable, because there is positive feedback
> -- a reduction in size causes an increase in density, which generates an
> increase in pressure, which generates further collapse.

It is *then*, yes.

> No possible force can resist this positive feedback,

The (neutron, perhaps quark) degeneracy pressure can, but only to a degree.
It is when it is *not enough* that the further gravitational collapse of the
core/remnant is inevitable. The underlying mechanisms are actually not yet
fully understood.

> as any increase in force increases the collapse. That critical density is
> roughly the density of a ~2 solar mass neutron star.

Yes, the TOV limit for a cold non-rotating neutron star has been updated to
the most recent a best estimate of ≈ 2.14 solar masses:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman%E2%80%93Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Volkoff_limit>

PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/19/21 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Black hole formation is completely independent of the Pauli exclusion
>> principle.
>
> As regards *stellar* black holes, it is not.

why bothering then?? This is beyond huge, beyond Hitler, beyond
everything you think you know in relativity.

BREAKING: 5G ACTIVATES COVID-19 DELTA STRAIN AND VACCINE GRAPHENE NANO-
TUBES https://www.bitchute.com/video/cXxsU2L78cIi/

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 8:36:00 AM UTC-7, Fred Gattus wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 6/19/21 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> Black hole formation is completely independent of the Pauli exclusion
> >> principle.
> >
> > As regards *stellar* black holes, it is not.
> why bothering then?? This is beyond huge, beyond Hitler, beyond
> everything you think you know in relativity.
>
> BREAKING: 5G ACTIVATES COVID-19 DELTA STRAIN AND VACCINE GRAPHENE NANO-
> TUBES https://www.bitchute.com/video/cXxsU2L78cIi/

What does energy do at a BH?
Cosmic ray energy arrives from everywhere...
should those cosmic energies not cancel evaporation?

Mitchell Raemsch