Illuusio on ether and blueshift

[illuusio]

Wait, how does the photon "gain" energy by moving to a lower energy potential? And still, what is a singularity made out of and then if there's no increase in uncertainty how can heat leak out from a black hole? How do photons even get compressed?

 

Check this out -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift#Gravitational_blueshift

 

Singularity (in black holes) is just very, very, very dense "ether". Photons are compressed (created) near nucleus because of electron's movement.

[EquisDeXD]

Check this out -> http://en.wikipedia....ional_blueshift

Well it makes perfectly legitimate sense than from the reference of the singularity that there would be a blue shift as light approaches it, but I mean from an observer not at the singularity yet.

 

Singularity (in black holes) is just very, very, very dense "ether". Photons are compressed (created) near nucleus because of electron's movement.

But there's still the question "how" they are compressed, what do they actually make when they are all compressed? And there's still something about black hole thermodynamics that doesn't match up, because blackholes have entropy, but the entropy is caused by the uncertainty in thermal energy within the black hole, so that would have to mean that the photons have to have an uncertainty greater than the event horizon even if they are supposedly at the singularity, but how do you have such a great uncertainty without a very long wavelength?

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Klaynos]

Check this out -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift#Gravitational_blueshift

 

Singularity (in black holes) is just very, very, very dense "ether". Photons are compressed (created) near nucleus because of electron's movement.

 

!

Moderator Note

This doesn't look like mainstream science nor the discussion of the speculation at hand, therefore it's thread hijacking, please do not do it.

 

Please no one continue this train of discussion in this thread.

[illuusio]

Well it makes perfectly legitimate sense than from the reference of the singularity that there would be a blue shift as light approaches it, but I mean from an observer not at the singularity yet.

 

 

But there's still the question "how" they are compressed, what do they actually make when they are all compressed? And there's still something about black hole thermodynamics that doesn't match up, because blackholes have entropy, but the entropy is caused by the uncertainty in thermal energy within the black hole, so that would have to mean that the photons have to have an uncertainty greater than the event horizon even if they are supposedly at the singularity, but how do you have such a great uncertainty without a very long wavelength?

 

Mmm... can't answer that because of the sensorship

 

 

 

[EquisDeXD]

!

Moderator Note

This doesn't look like mainstream science nor the discussion of the speculation at hand, therefore it's thread hijacking, please do not do it.

 

Please no one continue this train of discussion in this thread.

 

Mainstream science is just the scientific news that's most readily available and shoved out, why are you defending it? And how is a blue shift hijacking? The blue shift is a confirmed phenomena, and logically matter or energy would have to approach the singularity after passing the event horizon due to the curvature of space, it also does have to deal with the topic at hand because if everything is converted into photons after a certain point, then the OPs theories couldn't happen, photons definitely can't implode and black holes would have no gluon field strength at all and would also mean objects don't actually survive compression beyond the point of degeneracy in a black hole.

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Klaynos]

Mainstream science is just the scientific news that's most readily available and shoved out, why are you defending it? And how is a blue shift hijacking? The blue shift is a confirmed phenomena, and logically matter or energy would have to approach the singularity after passing the event horizon due to the curvature of space, it also does have to deal with the topic at hand because if everything is converted into photons after a certain point, then the OPs theories couldn't happen, photons definitely can't implode and black holes would have no gluon field strength at all and would also mean objects don't actually survive compression beyond the point of degeneracy in a black hole.

 

!

Moderator Note

New topic.

 

Ether/Aether is not mainstream science.

 

I think from your reply that you should read about how the scientific process works to understand how something become mainstream.

[swansont]

Mmm... can't answer that because of the sensorship

!

Moderator Note

You know, the rules are arguably simpler than relativity, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to understand them. And then follow them.

 

Here's a rhetorical question: are you trying to get suspended?

[EquisDeXD]

!

Moderator Note

You know, the rules are arguably simpler than relativity, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to understand them. And then follow them.

 

Here's a rhetorical question: are you trying to get suspended?

 

Wait, I don't get this, what's the problem? Eventually his answers would prove that the gluon theory is currently impossible, why did there need to be another thread?

 

!

Moderator Note

New topic.

 

Ether/Aether is not mainstream science.

 

I think from your reply that you should read about how the scientific process works to understand how something become mainstream.

Aether? The concept of Aether was dismissed quite a while ago, I doubt Illuusio thinks its real, who mentioned aether?

Oh wait I got mainstream confused with a different concept, but misunderstandings can still become a "mainstream" belief, like the notion that a radioactive substance will make things radioactive is mainstream which is why it comes up in things dealing with radiation like news and movies, even though that's wrong, or the notion that you add speeds of opposing objects to get the relative speed is mainstream in the public eye, even though that concept completely fails when the sum would be greater than light.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[illuusio]

!

Moderator Note

You know, the rules are arguably simpler than relativity, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to understand them. And then follow them.

 

Here's a rhetorical question: are you trying to get suspended?

 

Well, at least not intentionally. I might be sometimes a bit provocative and annoying but this forum needs that. Every innovative group needs mixture of personalities. So give me some air to breath

 

Some words on black holes...

 

If we talk about photons now. When photon approaches a black hole it experiences blueshift if watched from black hole. Next phase is particle pair production (verified with high power lasers). End result of pair production is annihilation of created particles (particle - antiparticle). That residue of annihilation is what black holes are made of. You can call that residue for example ether or just residue which ever you prefer.

 

That annihilation after pair production can be observed because it happens before event horizon. When black hole captures for example star there will be quite big gamma radiation production.

Edited October 15, 2012 by illuusio

[swansont]

Well, at least not intentionally. I might be sometimes a bit provocative and annoying but this forum needs that. Every innovative group needs mixture of personalities. So give me some air to breath

!

Moderator Note

You get as much air as anyone else. If you can't follow the rules, your balloon gets popped. It's not that hard to figure out.

[illuusio]

!

Moderator Note

You get as much air as anyone else. If you can't follow the rules, your balloon gets popped. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

Right... is there a rule saying that if some topic is ended because of lack of evidence that topic should never ever raise again? Well, in that case speculations area should be ended immediately because of lack of topics

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Right... is there a rule saying that if some topic is ended because of lack of evidence that topic should never ever raise again? Well, in that case speculations area should be ended immediately because of lack of topics

What would be the point of closing a thread if the originator could just start one up again?

[illuusio]

What would be the point of closing a thread if the originator could just start one up again?

 

It depends on circumstances. In this case there is no point on restricting conversation on my theory. It's now much more comprehensive and powerful than two months ago.

 

Please explain why it's not possible for a new thread about my theory? Exact reasons if possible.

Edited October 15, 2012 by illuusio

[swansont]

It depends on circumstances. In this case there is no point on restricting conversation on my theory. It's now much more comprehensive and powerful than two month ago.

 

Please explain why it's not possible for a new thread about my theory? Exact reasons if possible.

Because the last time you promised us that it was much more comprehensive and powerful than before, it turns out you were full of baloney.

[illuusio]

Because the last time you promised us that it was much more comprehensive and powerful than before, it turns out you were full of baloney.

 

That's your opinion. It certainly was more comprehensive and powerful. So your excuse is your subjective opinion on me and my claims?

 

I think my theory is in phase violent opposing

Edited October 15, 2012 by illuusio

[swansont]

That's your opinion. It certainly was more comprehensive and powerful. So your excuse is your subjective opinion on me and my claims?

 

I think my theory is in phase violent opposing

My opinion alone was not in play. This was a consensus among several staff members. Nobody could get a result that agreed with the predictions you were making, and you waffled on other objections. You were given the opportunity of a thread that was almost 250 posts.

 

You might also recall that I wasn't the one who closed the thread.

[illuusio]

My opinion alone was not in play. This was a consensus among several staff members. Nobody could get a result that agreed with the predictions you were making, and you waffled on other objections. You were given the opportunity of a thread that was almost 250 posts.

 

You might also recall that I wasn't the one who closed the thread.

 

Well, on that case those several staff members should take a look at the current version and give me permission to create new topic on it. Have you read the latest version?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

No. You get no more chances. You have been given 100% more chances than anyone else in your situation would otherwise be given. And since this is (yet another) thread on a topic you already have threads on (and still somehow managed to derail), I'm closing this.