It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Can a Black Hole Get Full?" A Black Hole That Has Stopped Swallowing Stars

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: booyakasha
According to the Primer fields black holes do not exist. I believe if this theory is correct, that a massive jet stream of light or matter or both, will blow out the top and bottom of the magnetic poles. I suggest watching the series, it is very interesting to say the least.



Primer Fields is nonsense.

It suggests that the only real underlying force is ElectroMagnetism.

It also suggests that because something looks like something else, they have the same properties.

To believe that because one thing looks like another that they are the same in essence is magical thinking, not science.


then how does any opposing theory rectify the hexigonal patterning found on metallic primer domes and at planetary poles?




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: booyakasha
According to the Primer fields black holes do not exist. I believe if this theory is correct, that a massive jet stream of light or matter or both, will blow out the top and bottom of the magnetic poles. I suggest watching the series, it is very interesting to say the least.



Primer Fields is nonsense.

It suggests that the only real underlying force is ElectroMagnetism.

It also suggests that because something looks like something else, they have the same properties.

To believe that because one thing looks like another that they are the same in essence is magical thinking, not science.


then how does any opposing theory rectify the hexigonal patterning found on metallic primer domes and at planetary poles?


To get a plasma, one must produce high voltages. To obtain high voltages, one usually uses an AC supply so it is easy to step up through transformers and diode multiplier ladders. This means that the voltage powering the plasma is pulsed and therefore will set up a resonant pattern around the electrode.

The pattern is caused by plasma sputtering and oxidation of the metallic vapor.

I'm fairly sure James Clark Maxwell produced most of the equations you'll need to adequately describe what is going on.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

thats half the equation asked yes... and the planets hexagonal pattern still requires rectification as does electromagnetic DC current btw.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

So what you guys talking about?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: chr0naut

thats half the equation asked yes... and the planets hexagonal pattern still requires rectification as does electromagnetic DC current btw.


Where is there a DC current? The plasma is driven by a Tesla type resonant coil. It's all AC.

HV DC is hard to do and very expensive.

Like charges repel. So, In a plasma, there are certain geometries set up due to electromagnetic repulsion, temperature induced eddies in the gas and spatial distribution/distance of electrodes.

Generally an ionized gas is both self repulsive and a better conductor than the same gas at the same pressure and temperature but un-ionized. So the plasma pushes the gas apart but then the resistance of the gas increases and the plasma reduces and then the charge seeks a less resistive path, which is through the highest-ionized gas, which then repeats the cycle. The ionized gas is also raised in temperature by the ionizing current and this causes turbulent thermal gas flow based upon the characteristics of the gas. All these factors play a part in shaping the plasma. Slight tweaking of the shape of the plasma can be done by changing values of the applied electrics and by electrode distance, gas type and temperature.

The hexagonal shape produced by the "Primer fields" one piece of test equipment is a result of the configuration of that particular test set-up. It is not indicative of all of nature. A different power supply, a different gas mixture or a different electrode shape would have produced a different pattern.

Consider that the type and temperature of gas defines movement such as dispersion, turbulence and Brownian Motion (covered by the Gas Kinetic theory) and the current applied (current relates to magnetic field density). The short form of this is that you can change the shape of a plasma by altering the gas temperature, the electrode/gap shape (and distances) and no doubt a multitude of criteria.

The probability density distribution of a plasma can be calculated using the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution - Wikipedia however this assumes an idealized DC supply. As noted, the HVC in this low cost plasma experiment is far more likely to be AC, which makes calculation more complex as inductive and capacitative effects have a time factor in their charge and discharge cycles (an effect required in a resonant coil of Tesla type).

The exact same plasma distribution calculations can be applied to explain the planetary patterns on Earth as a result solar ionization of the upper atmosphere and how it relates to the Earth's magnetic field. Since Appleton confirmed the existence of the Ionosphere in the 1940's, and even going back to Gauss (1830's), we have built understandings which, nearly completely, describe the ionospheric topology.

edit on 25/2/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kantjil
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

So what you guys talking about?


I was trying to explain why the experiments from the "Primer Fields" video are not actually useful as an overall descriptor of natural forces in other situations and especially at other scales.

The conclusions drawn are based upon mis-interpretation of the results.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Um, all electricity is direct... unless you fluctuate it into an alternate thanks to Edison the science was fudged. You are aware space is filled with plasma right? This is why everyone rushes to fallen whatever and says dont touch it ever, and has banned meteorite collection in many places.

The fudged math you mention is based on a BAR magnet as the magnetic field... please do not tell me there are believers of theory? Facts is what we are dealing with when science is afoot... all else is theory including the primer fields. But hey, youre nor anyone is not supposed to know that yet because top secret info has a shelf life garunteed to screw everyone for 50+ years in every which way but free.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
This thread has wandered off in a strange direction. Let's get back to the black holes, please.

~~~

No, a black hole can never get full; the more it eats the more massive (and hungrier) it grows.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Gravity waves... recently detected... space exploration. Wholly relevent but anyway, I need not say more anyway... but one last thing? Wait and see



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
This thread has wandered off in a strange direction. Let's get back to the black holes, please.

~~~

No, a black hole can never get full; the more it eats the more massive (and hungrier) it grows.


Thanks, Wildespace. Things were really getting off course. I guess people really love to discuss Black Holes.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
This thread has wandered off in a strange direction. Let's get back to the black holes, please.
~~~
No, a black hole can never get full; the more it eats the more massive (and hungrier) it grows.


So, then could the entire galaxy be one massive Black hole or even the known Universe...? How do we know that we aren't already inside of one?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: wildespace
This thread has wandered off in a strange direction. Let's get back to the black holes, please.
~~~
No, a black hole can never get full; the more it eats the more massive (and hungrier) it grows.


So, then could the entire galaxy be one massive Black hole or even the known Universe...? How do we know that we aren't already inside of one?

A galaxy is a collection of billions of stars and intergalactic materal, like gas and dust. A supermassive black hole at the galaxy's centre is an optional thing.

The whole universe being inside a black hole is in the realm of theoretical physics and hypotheses, and a lot can be imagined in our minds or on paper. But the physical reality that we can measure is what we have to go by, and I'm not aware of any real measurements that suggest that our universe is inside a black hole.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join