The Continuous Theory of Black Holes and White Holes

I can explain more... but you've shoved it here in this degrading place when you know fine well the science is indicating something very interesting, yet this is why you do it... You do it because you are the so-called ''king of the castle'' and that has seriously gone to your head.

Sorry Ben. But when i ask you a question, i do expect a reply, especially when i out sooooo much work into what i did.

So i'll ask again, ''Does this help?''
 
I will add a small part to all of this.

The blackbody temperature of spacetime is 3K, which is isotropic, virtual photons, which are the same as the ZPE Field. The renormalization of this theory can answer why we have such as enormomous amount of energy left over, even if we freezed it to zero-temperatures, which is 273-K...

In other words, Ben was wrong in saying ''I MUST BE WRONG,'' because of ''THIS AND THAT,'' because in the end of the day, i have shown he is. In other words, we can apply the ZPE-Field to the Dirac Sea, and dissolve the problem of this so-called ''biggest mistake'' of science, re-itterated by Ben from Krauss' terrible example of the superfluous energy.
 
Reiku---if it would have helped, I wouldn't have needed to ask another question.
 
The blackbody temperature of spacetime is 3K, which is isotropic, virtual photons, which are the same as the ZPE Field.
Click to expand...

On what do you base this? Can you prove this assertion? I've nerver heard anyone claim that the vacuum energy is the same as the cosmic microwave background...
 
Reiku said:
I can explain more... but you've shoved it here in this degrading place when you know fine well the science is indicating something very interesting, yet this is why you do it... You do it because you are the so-called ''king of the castle'' and that has seriously gone to your head.

Sorry Ben. But when i ask you a question, i do expect a reply, especially when i out sooooo much work into what i did.

So i'll ask again, ''Does this help?''
Click to expand...

Honest question:
Have you submitted your work to a journal? Posted it on arXiv? Why have you chosen Sciforums to publicise it?
 
BenTheMan said:
On what do you base this? Can you prove this assertion? I've nerver heard anyone claim that the vacuum energy is the same as the cosmic microwave background...
Click to expand...

Yes... Conact Dr. Wolf on his web page and ask him... or...

put your hand into your pocket and buy his book, ''Spiritual Universe.''

Edit: Any more questions...?
 
Very well.

Right now, your studies are (or should that be your professors?), have been explaining to you that string theory is indicating a discrepency in the superfluous energy of h~122 of magnitudes. What they haven't explained, is that the Dirac Sea HASN'T TOTALLY been rejected... in fact, quite a number of physicists still hold to this theory, such as Dr Hawking, Dr. Wolf and even Tipler... even Cramer.
 
''What they haven't explained, is that the Dirac Sea HASN'T TOTALLY been rejected''

And if they have, it just shows you how muddled up srtring theory is right now.
 
This is why:

Greens Function is shown by the following:

G(r^-> -r^->') = (-4πG) | ((r^-> -r^->')

which describes a nearly static field. If this is true, and my following theories are correct, then the universe is static, since the ''black hole in a white hole, ect. ect.'' would keep everything stable.

The Continious Theory of the late Dr. Hoyle shows that the rotational systems are seen in very much the same light. In other words/calculea, we can rotate this due to the Lorentz Equations: So was Dr Hoyle wrong? Was Dr Einstein Wrong? Absolutely not, because the equation>

G(r^-> -r^->') = (-4πG) | ((r^-> -r^->')

Is given as:

One well known one, and already covered a ‘’kizzilion’’ times, is E=Mc^2.

-∆ Is the derivative, also known as the ‘’covariant derivative’’ is the same as the Einstein Tensor,

-∆=G^uv- T_ab

And this can all be derived from Newtonian Notions:

G_ab=kT_ab

This equation is very important, where the G_ab Einstein Tensor Factor, and the Stress Energy Tensor is given as and T_ab and k is a constant.

Now, even this can be made into Dr Greens even more complexicated structural math of:

-∆^r->(Gr^-> - r^->)- (-4πGd)^3Gr^-> - r^->)

In short, the universe could be seen in either retrocausal relativistic pathologies, and we should now be able to see how an atom is a universe, as much as the universe could be an entire atom!!!!! Or, in my theory, a white hole in a black hole, and a black hole in a white hole...

I will have more to say....
 
BenTheMan said:
Reiku---I gave you three objectives here, all three of which you have failed to meet.
Click to expand...

Just because i failed, doesn't mean my work should be exhiled. I will report this if you continue... Please don't make me.:bugeye::confused::rolleyes:

Oh and... if the LaTex is your prob, then that's your own... afterall, as auperluminal said, at least i am giving theories. What are you doing?
 
Now... the Boundary Proposal has a big problem.

First, it shouldn't predict actual black holes at all, unless there is something inside them that counteracts the Information Paradox.
The boundary itself is a singularity, or at least, it has all the characteristics. Consider the following equation:

r_s=2GM/c^2

is the Scwartzchild Radius, then the Kerr Metric is worked out as:

ρ^2 = r^2 + α^2cos^2_θ
Λ^2 = r^2 − r_s^r + α^2

Where θ is the colatitude (angle from North) in radians, φ is the longitude in radians, τ is the proper time, r is the radial coordinate and t is a time interval.

And this entire equation can be made into a short set of abbriviations, where J is the angular momentum, and M is mass...

In general relativity, the Kerr metric (or Kerr vacuum) describes the geometry of spacetime around a rotating massive body. According to this metric, such rotating bodies should exhibit frame dragging, an unusual prediction of general relativity that has been verified to 1% accuracy by Gravity Probe B. But anyway, this frame-dragging is predicting that Wanchung was actually right all along, and that such Frame-Dragging coupled with Gravitoelectro-Spinity… his formula’s suggest this new force warps the spacetime over a lengthly time process.

What you failed to see in Zeph's work, was that black holes can drag the Aether along with it.

Why?

Well, they are like ''dried glue'' into the fabric of spacetime. This is why i am positive if we created a black holes at the LHC, it would end up proving the Aether, using them to probe hidden dimensions, and even validate string theory itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top