Not really a flat earth question but just disputing scientist speculations some of which got me booted off The Science Forum twice in two days
1. Black holes; A few questions – a) It is theorised that as a body or object approaches the Event Horizon, the body will experience “Spaghettification” i.e. the body part nearest the event horizon or Singularity will be stretched away from the body parts further from the event horizon and the body will elongate until pulled apart. Therefore by association, the closer part will have to accelerate to a velocity higher than the further parts. Would the same not therefore have to apply to light (photons, particles etc.) that they say is likewise attracted by gravity. “Even light cannot escape the gravity of a dark hole” why would one electromagnetic force like radiation be able to escape –Hawking’s Evaporation and not another such as visible light) Ergo the part of the light wave/beam
closer to the singularity would accelerate by inference to a speed faster than the particles behind and therefore exceed the speed of light?
?
b)”Black hole evaporation “according to theory is done where “Hawkins radiation” spits out material depleting the mass until it ceases to be. However, they previously state that nothing can escape the Black Hole unless it was able to exceed the speed of light EMW’s e.g. radiation such as gamma or X-rays etc. are considered part of the light spectrum, another contradiction.
c)With the “Twin Theory” an identical twin travelling across space at speeds close to that of light would on return to Earth appear younger than his sibling. This as a result that as the Event Horizon or speed of light is approached, “Time slows down” (Also I believe supposedly experienced by atomic clocks travelling through space)
So as Distance = Speed multiplied by Time, and the distance remains a constant if one were to halve (for e.g.) the time the speed would have to double.
Eg 1000kms = 100kph x 10hours
Or 1000kms = 200kph x 5hours
It follows that the same proven formula should hold true for light as well, so even if time slows fractionally the speed of light should increase proportionately – to faster than the speed of light!
d) They say also that Black Holes create enormous amounts of energy – “Black Body radiation” from matter accelerating as it nears the Event Horizon, heating to Billions of degrees. To the best of my knowledge, objects travelling through the vacuum of space (no friction) generate no heat/energy at all regardless of speed, until they collide with another object or for instance an atmosphere such as on space vehicle re-entry or meteorite burn. Do Black Holes have an atmosphere?
as material from stellar winds is not of great mass and should as per theory stretch apart as they near the Event Horizon they should not collide and as the Black Hole gains mass and energy from compaction, would the particles not lose a proportionate amount of energy (Newton’s third law of equal and opposite reactions) as they are torn apart?
As Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment proved all objects regardless of mass would fall at the same speed (In a vacuum) so the probability of collision between objects of unlike mass would be less too.
e)According to Scientists, all the known elements are created when hydrogen is compressed and heated in large stars. Surely it would follow that the high density and gravitational pull of a “Black hole” would exert massive forces on it’s core perhaps creating elements way beyond those discovered or theorised upon on Earth. These elements if they follow the trend of the known Periodic Table will be radioactive and possibly be responsible for the “Hawkins Radiation” detected on radio telescopes as emanating from the Black Hole. Perhaps Black Holes are not even holes or bodies radiating visible light or preventing light from escaping but merely bodies/dead stars of high mass/density and radio activity. A much less complicated theory that would put many scientists out of work if true – no mystery no need for further investigation no JOB.
f)The really simple explanation, would be that they are not Black Holes or anything weird at all. If one looks at pictures (Possibly only computer graphics or artists illustrations) of “Black Holes” and other galactic pictures shown as from Observatories and Space Telescopes and indeed of our own Milky Way Galaxy (How could they even guess what it looks like as no space probe has yet ventured from our Mickey Mouse Solar system?) it is shown that they are spiral in shape very much like a whirlwind or whirlpool and that as they whirl, objects/matter migrate to and collect at the center (Vortex Ball) which in a whirlpool, observed from somewhere above the funnel down which the objects disappear would, dependent on the point of observation hide the bottom of the vortex.. Nature is full of instances where air or water on the move create these vortices, should space also not follow natural tendencies and laws
Whirlpools or whirlwinds are observed on Earth reacting between two different mediums, water/air or air/earth where the vortex is seen only in one medium. What if, however, the event occurred in the middle of space, vortices occurring on either side of the event as shown in the jets of Black Holes from a side view in NASA images seem highly likely.
No weird science, black or dark connotations QED
closer to the singularity would accelerate by inference to a speed faster than the particles behind and therefore exceed the speed of light?