On 8/24/2021 4:10 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:54:50 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> On 8/24/2021 9:28 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
>>>>> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
>>>>> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
>>>>> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
>>>>> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
>>>>> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
>>>>> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
>>>>> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
>>>>
>>>> Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
>>>> in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".
>>>
>>> For us distant observers, I don't think it matters whether the mass is inside the EH or
>>> plastered on a sphere just outside. The external field will be the same.
>>
>> True. I wonder if we had such an "almost black hole" with frozen mass
>> and added even more mass if the view of the previous mass changes.
>
> The mass and, therefore, the external field would increase.

Somehow I left out the part where the new added mass on top of the
frozen old mass would somehow move it beyond the event horizon. More
like moving the event horizon outward due to increased mass, not
"forcing" the previous mass in. My head hurts.
>
>>>> Does that mean you sobered up from your continuous vodka binge long
>>>> enough that you finally understand gravitational time dilation and how
>>>> it would be infinite for a black hole? So you finally understand t' !=
>>>> t? Cool.
>>>
>>> I doubt that very much :-)
>>
>> I do as well. :-)
>>>
>>>> Now we watch to see how long (short) this period of sanity lasts before
>>>> the vodka makes a reappearance.
>>>
>>> If we could put him in orbit around a BH at r = 1.5*r_Sch, at the microsecond of
>>> sanity, he will be sane forever, as far as we're concerned.
>>
>> :-)
>
> If he were in the 1.5*r_S orbit, the extra added mass would cause him to spiral in
> and be spread over the surface in a nanometer-thick sheet. A fitted sheet and a
> fitting end.
>
> Or would he? I don't know. My head is hurting again.
>

What I'm trying to convey is...

Earth's "wobble" is caused by the gravitational waves from the nearest
Black Hole.

The Moon's wobble is caused by the gravitational waves from the
nearest Black Hole.

A Black hole is caused by the collapse of a star and the force creates
a whirlpool on the fabric of space, that
send vibrations through out the universe, making the earth do the
wobble.

Like dropping a stone in a pond.

The Black Hole is causing a ripple through out the whole entire
universe.

In other words,

Those waves... reach the earth
and change the direction of the
magnetic pole, change the direction of earth's climate, etc.

NASA tells everyone that climate change is caused by humans, when in
fact, climate change is
caused by the ripple effect of black holes in the universe.

That is why NASA posted this blurry picture of a Black Hole:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2

they don't want you to see the ripples spreading out in space, and
eventually wobbling the
earth and the moon.

This is what the ripples look like that they don't want you to see:

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1

I don't understand why 'these Fauci type scientists' have to lie to
people all the time...

An Asteroid did not kill all the dinosaurs...that is just a lie.

What happen to the dinosaurs is simply they ran out of dinosaur girls.

They simply went extinct. (no living girl dinosaurs)

How many dinosaurs are there in the 12 dinosaurs museums in the world?

The same amount of dinosaurs that existed in the past...not that many.

How many of them are girls?

(and a lot of those dinosaurs in the museum are fakes, with a lot of
missing parts, so they just build their own parts and attached it.)

(You see a whole dinosaur in a museum, fake!)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 12:23:26 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Is a black hole
>> inside space, or
>> is space inside
>> a black hole?
>>
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
>
>Let me clarify what a black hole is..
>
>Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
>
>
>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>
>
>and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
>enhanced sharper for you:
>
>
>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
>
>Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
>
>look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
>
>it is made up of...waves.
>
>Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
>
>Those waves...can reach the earth
>and maybe change the direction of the
>magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
>
>A black hole is simply...simply...
>
>a whirlpool is space.
>
>
>
>(nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)
>
>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>
>
>but the waves are there!
>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
>
>of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
>whirlpool fabric of space.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 8/26/2021 2:41 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> What I'm trying to convey is...
>
> Earth's "wobble" is caused by the gravitational waves from the nearest
> Black Hole.

[...]

Funny how that particular bit of gravity sneaks in and overwhelms the
gravity affecting the earth from all other sources.

In case you missed it, that was sarcasm.

As I already pointed out to yous in this thread...

>> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>>
>> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
>> enhanced sharper for you:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1

Now, keep in mind
that the Earth
is just a
grain of sand
in the path
of the black's hole
gravitational waves
which travel in waves
at the speed of light.

The gravitational waves
are causing the earth
to lose course of it's
magnetic poles and
causing...Climate Change,
or to change the climate.

Those little dots
you see moving
around the surface of the earth
you call "people" are not causing
climate change...

It is the waves
from the black hole
that makes it's surroundings
....wavy.

And the earth is just blobbing along.

You can use a devise called
"interferometers" to detect
these waves.

But, the scientific community
cannot do anything about
these waves from black holes, so
they blame it on people's cars.

There is a lot of money in the
'climate change industry business'.

It's a cash cow.

They are going to milk it
as long as they can...

until they find another cow (con).

That is why NASA shows you a blurry photo:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2

they are hiding the waves:

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1

The fact is, they are there.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 13:58:37 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >
>> > Is a black hole
>> > inside space, or
>> > is space inside
>> > a black hole?
>> >
>> > --
>> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>> > the unchallengeable.
>>
>> Let me clarify what a black hole is..
>>
>> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>>
>> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
>> enhanced sharper for you:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>>
>> Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
>>
>> look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
>>
>> it is made up of...waves.
>>
>> Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
>>
>> Those waves...can reach the earth
>> and maybe change the direction of the
>> magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
>>
>> A black hole is simply...simply...
>>
>> a whirlpool in space.
>>
>> (nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>>
>> but the waves are there!
>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>>
>> of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
>> whirlpool fabric of space.
>
>In other words, a whirlpool in space is no different than a whirlpool in the ocean.
>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool#/media/File:Whirlpool.jpg
>
>Scientific definitions for whirlpool
>whirlpool
>[ wûrl'pool' ]
>A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks everything near it toward its center.
>
>
>
>Either a space whirlpool or ocean water whirlpool...the principles are the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:45:13 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> As I already pointed out to yous in this thread...
> >> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> >>
> >> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> >> enhanced sharper for you:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> Now, keep in mind
> that the Earth
> is just a
> grain of sand
> in the path
> of the black's hole
> gravitational waves
> which travel in waves
> at the speed of light.
>
> The gravitational waves
> are causing the earth
> to lose course of it's
> magnetic poles and
> causing...Climate Change,
> or to change the climate.
>
> Those little dots
> you see moving
> around the surface of the earth
> you call "people" are not causing
> climate change...
>
> It is the waves
> from the black hole
> that makes it's surroundings
> ...wavy.
>
> And the earth is just blobbing along.
>
>
> You can use a devise called
> "interferometers" to detect
> these waves.
>
> But, the scientific community
> cannot do anything about
> these waves from black holes, so
> they blame it on people's cars.
>
> There is a lot of money in the
> 'climate change industry business'.
>
> It's a cash cow.
>
> They are going to milk it
> as long as they can...
>
> until they find another cow (con).
>
> That is why NASA shows you a blurry photo:
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>
>
> they are hiding the waves:
>
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
>
>
> The fact is, they are there.
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 13:58:37 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is a black hole
> >> > inside space, or
> >> > is space inside
> >> > a black hole?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> >> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> >> > the unchallengeable.
> >>
> >> Let me clarify what a black hole is..
> >>
> >> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> >>
> >> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> >> enhanced sharper for you:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> >>
> >> Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
> >>
> >> look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
> >>
> >> it is made up of...waves.
> >>
> >> Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
> >>
> >> Those waves...can reach the earth
> >> and maybe change the direction of the
> >> magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
> >>
> >> A black hole is simply...simply...
> >>
> >> a whirlpool in space.
> >>
> >> (nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> >>
> >> but the waves are there!
> >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> >>
> >> of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
> >> whirlpool fabric of space.
> >
> >In other words, a whirlpool in space is no different than a whirlpool in the ocean.
> >
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool#/media/File:Whirlpool.jpg
> >
> >Scientific definitions for whirlpool
> >whirlpool
> >[ wūrl'pool' ]
> >A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks everything near it toward its center.
> >
> >
> >
> >Either a space whirlpool or ocean water whirlpool...the principles are the same.

You continue to provide evidence that you are mostly clueless about the stuff you pontificate about...

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:45:13 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > As I already pointed out to yous in this thread...
> > >> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
> > >>
> > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> > >>
> > >> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> > >> enhanced sharper for you:
> > >>
> > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> > Now, keep in mind
> > that the Earth
> > is just a
> > grain of sand
> > in the path
> > of the black's hole
> > gravitational waves
> > which travel in waves
> > at the speed of light.
> >
> > The gravitational waves
> > are causing the earth
> > to lose course of it's
> > magnetic poles and
> > causing...Climate Change,
> > or to change the climate.
> >
> > Those little dots
> > you see moving
> > around the surface of the earth
> > you call "people" are not causing
> > climate change...
> >
> > It is the waves
> > from the black hole
> > that makes it's surroundings
> > ...wavy.
> >
> > And the earth is just blobbing along.
> >
> >
> > You can use a devise called
> > "interferometers" to detect
> > these waves.
> >
> > But, the scientific community
> > cannot do anything about
> > these waves from black holes, so
> > they blame it on people's cars.
> >
> > There is a lot of money in the
> > 'climate change industry business'.
> >
> > It's a cash cow.
> >
> > They are going to milk it
> > as long as they can...
> >
> > until they find another cow (con).
> >
> > That is why NASA shows you a blurry photo:
> > https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> >
> >
> > they are hiding the waves:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> >
> >
> >
> > The fact is, they are there.
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 13:58:37 -0700, The Starmaker
> > <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The Starmaker wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Is a black hole
> > >> > inside space, or
> > >> > is space inside
> > >> > a black hole?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > >> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > >> > the unchallengeable.
> > >>
> > >> Let me clarify what a black hole is..
> > >>
> > >> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
> > >>
> > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> > >>
> > >> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> > >> enhanced sharper for you:
> > >>
> > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> > >>
> > >> Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
> > >>
> > >> look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
> > >>
> > >> it is made up of...waves.
> > >>
> > >> Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
> > >>
> > >> Those waves...can reach the earth
> > >> and maybe change the direction of the
> > >> magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
> > >>
> > >> A black hole is simply...simply...
> > >>
> > >> a whirlpool in space.
> > >>
> > >> (nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)
> > >>
> > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> > >>
> > >> but the waves are there!
> > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> > >>
> > >> of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
> > >> whirlpool fabric of space.
> > >
> > >In other words, a whirlpool in space is no different than a whirlpool in the ocean.
> > >
> > >
> > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool#/media/File:Whirlpool.jpg
> > >
> > >Scientific definitions for whirlpool
> > >whirlpool
> > >[ wūrl'pool' ]
> > >A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks everything near it toward its center.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Either a space whirlpool or ocean water whirlpool...the principles are the same.
>
> You continue to provide evidence that you are mostly clueless about the stuff you pontificate about...

And of course you have all the knowledge and understanding....

teach me.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

We have only seen neutronium.
They are red shift orbital look a likes.
Why would 25 images of something
we cannot see work?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:12:21 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:45:13 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > As I already pointed out to yous in this thread...
> > > >> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> > > >>
> > > >> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> > > >> enhanced sharper for you:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> > > Now, keep in mind
> > > that the Earth
> > > is just a
> > > grain of sand
> > > in the path
> > > of the black's hole
> > > gravitational waves
> > > which travel in waves
> > > at the speed of light.
> > >
> > > The gravitational waves
> > > are causing the earth
> > > to lose course of it's
> > > magnetic poles and
> > > causing...Climate Change,
> > > or to change the climate.
> > >
> > > Those little dots
> > > you see moving
> > > around the surface of the earth
> > > you call "people" are not causing
> > > climate change...
> > >
> > > It is the waves
> > > from the black hole
> > > that makes it's surroundings
> > > ...wavy.
> > >
> > > And the earth is just blobbing along.
> > >
> > >
> > > You can use a devise called
> > > "interferometers" to detect
> > > these waves.
> > >
> > > But, the scientific community
> > > cannot do anything about
> > > these waves from black holes, so
> > > they blame it on people's cars.
> > >
> > > There is a lot of money in the
> > > 'climate change industry business'.
> > >
> > > It's a cash cow.
> > >
> > > They are going to milk it
> > > as long as they can...
> > >
> > > until they find another cow (con).
> > >
> > > That is why NASA shows you a blurry photo:
> > > https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> > >
> > >
> > > they are hiding the waves:
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact is, they are there.
> > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 13:58:37 -0700, The Starmaker
> > > <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Is a black hole
> > > >> > inside space, or
> > > >> > is space inside
> > > >> > a black hole?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > >> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > >> > the unchallengeable.
> > > >>
> > > >> Let me clarify what a black hole is..
> > > >>
> > > >> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> > > >>
> > > >> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> > > >> enhanced sharper for you:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> > > >>
> > > >> Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
> > > >>
> > > >> look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
> > > >>
> > > >> it is made up of...waves.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
> > > >>
> > > >> Those waves...can reach the earth
> > > >> and maybe change the direction of the
> > > >> magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> A black hole is simply...simply...
> > > >>
> > > >> a whirlpool in space.
> > > >>
> > > >> (nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)
> > > >>
> > > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
> > > >>
> > > >> but the waves are there!
> > > >> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
> > > >>
> > > >> of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
> > > >> whirlpool fabric of space.
> > > >
> > > >In other words, a whirlpool in space is no different than a whirlpool in the ocean.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool#/media/File:Whirlpool.jpg
> > > >
> > > >Scientific definitions for whirlpool
> > > >whirlpool
> > > >[ wūrl'pool' ]
> > > >A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks everything near it toward its center.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Either a space whirlpool or ocean water whirlpool...the principles are the same.
> >
> > You continue to provide evidence that you are mostly clueless about the stuff you pontificate about...
> And of course you have all the knowledge and understanding....
>
>
> teach me.

I do not believe that you are teachable...

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:54:56 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> We have only seen neutronium.

No one has ever seen neutronium, Mitch, since it is a material that was made-up for science-fiction books and movies...

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 6:25:38 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:54:56 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > We have only seen neutronium.
> No one has ever seen neutronium, Mitch, since it is a material that was made-up for science-fiction books and movies...

When it formed as a pulsar we have you moron...
BHs are what do not exist.
Neutronium is end state matter that obeys
the exlcusion principle.

Mitchell Raemsch

Just as the black holes
gravitational waves
are causing the earth
to lose course of it's
magnetic poles and
are the REAL cause of Climate Change,
or to change the climate...

but, it is also the reason why
BEES are disappearing...since bees use
the magnetic fields to...navigate.

Since the north magnetic pole is shifting, so are the bees shifting.

But of course like always the STUPID scientist of the world are saying
Climate Change is making the bees disappear..stupid, stupid, stupid.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 10:45:23 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>As I already pointed out to yous in this thread...
>
>>> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>>>
>>> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
>>> enhanced sharper for you:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
>
>Now, keep in mind
>that the Earth
>is just a
>grain of sand
>in the path
>of the black's hole
>gravitational waves
>which travel in waves
>at the speed of light.
>
>The gravitational waves
>are causing the earth
>to lose course of it's
>magnetic poles and
>causing...Climate Change,
>or to change the climate.
>
>Those little dots
>you see moving
>around the surface of the earth
>you call "people" are not causing
>climate change...
>
>It is the waves
>from the black hole
>that makes it's surroundings
>...wavy.
>
>And the earth is just blobbing along.
>
>
>You can use a devise called
>"interferometers" to detect
>these waves.
>
>But, the scientific community
>cannot do anything about
>these waves from black holes, so
>they blame it on people's cars.
>
>There is a lot of money in the
>'climate change industry business'.
>
>It's a cash cow.
>
>They are going to milk it
>as long as they can...
>
>until they find another cow (con).
>
>That is why NASA shows you a blurry photo:
>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>
>
>they are hiding the waves:
>
>https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
>
>
>The fact is, they are there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 13:58:37 -0700, The Starmaker
><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Is a black hole
>>> > inside space, or
>>> > is space inside
>>> > a black hole?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>>> > the unchallengeable.
>>>
>>> Let me clarify what a black hole is..
>>>
>>> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>>>
>>> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
>>> enhanced sharper for you:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>>>
>>> Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
>>>
>>> look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
>>>
>>> it is made up of...waves.
>>>
>>> Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
>>>
>>> Those waves...can reach the earth
>>> and maybe change the direction of the
>>> magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
>>>
>>> A black hole is simply...simply...
>>>
>>> a whirlpool in space.
>>>
>>> (nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>>>
>>> but the waves are there!
>>> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>>>
>>> of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
>>> whirlpool fabric of space.
>>
>>In other words, a whirlpool in space is no different than a whirlpool in the ocean.
>>
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool#/media/File:Whirlpool.jpg
>>
>>Scientific definitions for whirlpool
>>whirlpool
>>[ wûrl'pool' ]
>>A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks everything near it toward its center.
>>
>>
>>
>>Either a space whirlpool or ocean water whirlpool...the principles are the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>>> the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:33:10 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
> > >
> > > Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
> >
> > Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
> > Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
> > when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
> > confusing.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
>
> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?

Infinite amount of time as far as visual observation (i.e., causal link) is concerned.
Although the star would radiate FAPP nothing after a finite amount of time due
to quantisation of energy and our detection devices limitations.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:33:10 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
> > > >
> > > > Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
> > >
> > > Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
> > > Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
> > > when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
> > > confusing.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> > energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> > that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> > instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> > that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> > angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> > axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
> >
> > It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> > clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
>
> Infinite amount of time as far as visual observation (i.e., causal link) is concerned.
> Although the star would radiate FAPP nothing after a finite amount of time due
> to quantisation of energy and our detection devices limitations.
>
> --
> Jan

incomprehensible verbiage

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:33:10 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
>>>> Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
>>>> when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
>>>> confusing.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jan
>>> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
>>> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
>>> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
>>> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
>>> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
>>> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
>>> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
>>>
>>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
>>> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
>>
>> Infinite amount of time as far as visual observation (i.e., causal link) is concerned.
>> Although the star would radiate FAPP nothing after a finite amount of time due
>> to quantisation of energy and our detection devices limitations.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> incomprehensible verbiage
>
>

To whom?

And have you bothered to try to read enough physics that it might be less
incomprehensible? And if not, then whose choice was that?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:33:10 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
> >>>> Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
> >>>> when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
> >>>> confusing.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jan
> >>> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> >>> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> >>> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> >>> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> >>> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> >>> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> >>> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
> >>>
> >>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> >>> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
> >>
> >> Infinite amount of time as far as visual observation (i.e., causal link) is concerned.
> >> Although the star would radiate FAPP nothing after a finite amount of time due
> >> to quantisation of energy and our detection devices limitations.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jan
> >
> > incomprehensible verbiage
> >
> >
>
> To whom?
>
> And have you bothered to try to read enough physics that it might be less
> incomprehensible? And if not, then whose choice was that?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Jan uses a word..."Although", which contrast the statement in itself.

It makes Jan...sound 'unsure' of him or herself.

Although....

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

JanPB wrote:

>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a
>> distant observer's clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
>
> Infinite amount of time as far as visual observation (i.e., causal link)
> is concerned. Although the star would radiate FAPP nothing after a
> finite amount of time due to quantisation of energy and our detection
> devices limitations.

you can't possibly visually observe anything to infinity. That sentence
makes no sense.