Victor Espinoza's: Thread of Intrigue

Status
Not open for further replies.
They are answers to my questions.

No, they aren't... I'll spell it out for you to avoid any confusion:

Here is what you said:

15.- I discovered that the Earth and the Moon revolve due to a black hole.

Very affectionately,
Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez
February 13, 2014

Now, provide SOME evidence that the Earth and Moon revolve (though you did not specify - revolve as in rotate around their own axis, revolve around each other (moon around planet?), or revolve around the sun?) BECAUSE of black holes.

Seriously, I'll take any kind of sustainable evidence at this point.
 
No, they aren't... I'll spell it out for you to avoid any confusion:

Here is what you said:



Now, provide SOME evidence that the Earth and Moon revolve (though you did not specify - revolve as in rotate around their own axis, revolve around each other (moon around planet?), or revolve around the sun?) BECAUSE of black holes.

Seriously, I'll take any kind of sustainable evidence at this point.

It is logical, as when was said that the world was round.
 
One more chance... provide EVIDENCE. Saying, "it is logical" is not evidence. Quit dodging the question and either provide some sort of evidence or retract the statement.
 
One more chance... provide EVIDENCE. Saying, "it is logical" is not evidence. Quit dodging the question and either provide some sort of evidence or retract the statement.

16.- I discovered evidence that the planet has a black hole: the rotation of the planet, the clouds and the moon are the same direction.

Very affectionately,
Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez
February 13, 2014
 
Victor, are you going to provide evidence of your 15th claim or not?
 
ssmy-discoveries-2.jpg


14.- I discovered that a distance without ether is a black hole.

15.- I discovered that the Earth and the Moon revolve due to a black hole.

16.- I discovered evidence that the planet has a black hole: the rotation of the planet, the clouds and the moon are the same direction.

17.- I discovered that a planet, the Sun, an atom is a solid black hole that only attracts matter and reduces its field with the cold.

18.- I discovered that a solid veeg hole, It was created because it separates the ether.

19.- I invented a name to solid black holes, they will be called solid "Veeg Hole".


Very affectionately,
Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez
February 13, 2014
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Strike three Victor... at this point, I will simply accept your concession that you CANNOT provide evidence of your claim.
 
Strike three Victor... at this point, I will simply accept your concession that you CANNOT provide evidence of your claim.

The rotation of the planet, the clouds and the moon are the same direction.
 
And that proves.. what, exactly? The reason for the direction of rotation and revolution is pretty well agreed upon... since I can't be arsed to explain it to you, I'll copy-pasta it instead:

While there are still details to be hammered out, we have a reasonably good understanding for how the Solar System formed. A cloud of material began to collapse under its own gravity. Because the gas and dust particles in this cloud could bump into one another, they could exchange energy and angular momentum (important fact #1). Also, the cloud, even though it may have been close to spherical, likely contained some net angular momentum on the whole (important fact #2) - it is just unlikely that all the particles' motions would exactly cancel.

These two important facts, when taken together, mean the material is likely to settle into a disk. Particles whose angular momentum deviates from the average (by going in the wrong direction, by moving out of the preferred plane, by moving too fast in the right direction, etc.) will tend to be brought in line with everything else by these collisions. Gravity alone could accomplish this via dynamical friction, but collisions speed up the process so it occurs in reasonable time. Because important facts #1 and #2 are ubiquitous in so many astrophysical settings, many systems naturally form disks, for example galaxies.

The Sun, planets, moons, asteroids, and everything else then all formed from this disk, where everything was rotating with the same sense. As a result, most objects in the Solar System move in a plane, in the same direction. Furthermore, their spins are aligned the same way.

There are exceptions to this rule, but they are not common. They are interesting because they show the object in question does not have quite the same history as typical objects in the Solar System. Notable examples include:

Venus: While this planet moves around the Sun in the "correct" way, it spins "backward" (technical term: "retrograde"), albeit very slowly. We don't have any 100% agreed-upon theory, but this likely has to do with the gravitational tugs Venus has experienced from other bodies (most notably Earth) over billions of years.
Uranus: This planet is tilted, so its spin axis is way out of alignment with the orbital and spin axes you expect to find. In fact, it is "tipped over" by a bit more than 90∘, meaning technically it is spinning retrograde (if you had to choose only between "prograde" and "retrograde" to describe it). Again, the jury is still out on how this happened. Perhaps it was struck by a smaller planet in the earlier, more chaotic days of the Solar System. Alternatively, it may have been torqued by interactions with Neptune or other planets, a hypothesis that works well if the Nice model of the Solar System turns out to be correct, as this model predicts Uranus and Neptune swapped positions at some point.
Triton: One of the largest moons in the Solar System, Triton orbits Neptune in a retrograde fashion. As a result, the leading theory is that it did not form in situ with Neptune, but rather formed elsewhere and was captured by Neptunes's gravity. Even an object moving around the Sun in the "right" direction can end up orbiting a planet in the "wrong" direction, simply depending on which side of the planet it approaches from.

For further reading:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/solarspin.htm

http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120103093022

So... yeah, not evidence of a black hole at all. Try again.
 
You are using a theory of black holes incomplete to justify itself. At the moment Black holes are in dispute, and even photons can escape due to some changes.

Assumed to escape, if you consider the double slit experiment, you could imply that a photon doesn't escape, it's just the effect that would otherwise travel through the other slit isn't effected by the black hole causing what seems to be an escape.

As for Blackholes themselves, they were termed that because of the notion that there is something of such a great gravitational amount that spacetime would distort "pulling" light into it (making their be an absence of light, "Black hole".) While our planet does produce a unified gravitational pull from it's overall body and that can effect the passage of a photon (Lensing), it's no where near the level that would be suggested for a standard model blackhole (neither is the sun), so Victor's reasoning is flawed at least in relationship to the standard model.
 
Victor there are so many things you miss because of not trying to at least look at what physics is explained to school kids.

For instance there is an effect that exists between planetary bodies that creates a gravitational well, they are known as Lagrangian Points. They aren't blackholes, they don't necessarily have any mass at their centre, in fact they are a distortion of the gravitational fields where multiple gravitational bodies play a role. They actually provide more clues about what gravity is, Gravity is caused by distorted spacetime not the other way around like most people assume.
 
If there was black hole inside the Earth, we wouldn't be here. The Earth would collapse to a point. The same goes for the Sun.

The fact that Victor is posting that there is a black hole inside the Earth shows us two things:

1. It proves that what Victor claims is false.
2. It shows us that Victor doesn't understand what a black hole is.
 
If there was black hole inside the Earth, we wouldn't be here. The Earth would collapse to a point. The same goes for the Sun.

The fact that Victor is posting that there is a black hole inside the Earth shows us two things:

1. It proves that what Victor claims is false.
2. It shows us that Victor doesn't understand what a black hole is.

C'mon, people. By now *everyone* knows that Victor does not know the difference between a Black Hole and a white elephant! :) The silly little guy knows NOTHING about science in any form or fashion - he's just running on his imagination, nothing more.

What I don't understand here is why people keep trying to explain scientific things to him. It's like trying to teach a 4-month-old child why it gets dark at night.
 
What I'm trying to say is that a black hole can be microscopic.

For example: where is the pressure of a party balloon, when you get it into liquid nitrogen.

This has had me thinking a lot, and the answer I found is:

The microscopic black hole that is inside the balloon of party.
 
What I'm trying to say is that a black hole can be microscopic.

A microscopic black hole will still suck stuff in, the same as any other black hole. If you put one inside the Earth, it will soon grow to the size of a marble, at which point it will have swallowed the entire Earth.

For example: where is the pressure of a party balloon, when you get it into liquid nitrogen.

The gas in the balloon decreases in volume due to the temperature decrease, so the balloon seems to deflate when you put it in liquid nitrogen. Take it out and warm it up and it will expand back to its former size.

This has had me thinking a lot, and the answer I found is:

The microscopic black hole that is inside the balloon of party.

If there was a black hole inside a party balloon, first it would suck in all the air in the balloon. Then then it would suck in the rubber. Then it would suck in the child holding it and the rest of the room. Then the house. Then the rest of the neighbourhood. And on on and so forth until it's goodbye Earth.
 
The gas in the balloon decreases in volume due to the temperature decrease, so the balloon seems to deflate when you put it in liquid nitrogen. Take it out and warm it up and it will expand back to its former size.

Imagine that a gas atom is a balloon.

I to increase the size of the balloon, inflate with air.

And to reduce the size of the balloon, deflate removing the air.

How the cold deflate the compositión of the field of a gas Atom, if it is a balloon?

To where going the composition of the globe, imagining that the gas atom is a balloon..
 
A microscopic black hole will still suck stuff in, the same as any other black hole. If you put one inside the Earth, it will soon grow to the size of a marble, at which point it will have swallowed the entire Earth.

That was Walter Wagner's theory in the LHC thread.

The amount of empty space in an atom is huge.
In an atom of Hydrogen, if the proton was the size of a basketball, the electron would be 20 miles away.
A tiny black hole, far smaller than a proton, could pass through the earth and never hit a nucleus once.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top