So recently an object was launched out of a black hole at high

Black Holes big enough to see are lightyears away, if they saw an object come out(and they will hurl stars out at relativistic speeds too btw) it happened thousands of years ago

>>18288035
that was last year and it was an x-ray flare

>>18288035
Where's the source? Oh wait, I get it. Must be your ass.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-31-14-33-15.png (104KB, 480x854px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 480x854px

>>18288047
It can only be found on the deepest darkest part of the web
ie googling "object that came out of a black hole"

File: 4b6ee33309a61e53740b7c935482d35f.jpg (80KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 540x540px

Black holes aren't really points where nothing can escape the gravitational well. That's a naive explanation, based on bad math. Black holes are just regions where the curvature of space/time is inverted; it's inside-out. The very same force that prevents light from escaping in one direction, simultaneously propels it outward in the opposite direction, and that's true from all angles.

The naive explanation of a Black hole as a bottom less pit happens when a person assumes a universal reference frame, which every one who considers themselves "scientific" in this age should know is pure crap. The mass of a singularity is not objective. I don't care how much stuff you put in there, there still exists some reference frames in which the blackhole's gravitational field is not sufficient to redirect a point source's wave crest. And understanding this, it's revealed that what its gravitational field is doing is redirection, not applying force.

It's not *sucking* the light in. That's naive. It's curving space/time. It's curving space/time so much that left becomes right, except in those reference frames where is isn't.

File: animation1.gif (4MB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 600x600px

>>18288062
Always have to giggle when hearing/reading the Phrase"...not even Light..." in Context with Black Holes..^^

>>18288051
so recent

>>18288062
So, I hate to ask and I'm probably being naive, but do you have the equations showing this?

>>18288062
>black holes curve time

That actually makes them scarier.

>>18288062
>It's not *sucking* the light in. That's naive. It's curving space/time. It's curving space/time so much that left becomes right, except in those reference frames where is isn't.


through the looking glass, and what alice found there.

>>18289019
Eh. Nobody does. Nobody has the equations of gravity, at least among contemporary scientists. In particular, you might notice that as the distance between two objects arbitrarily closes, the gravitational interaction between them jumps to infinity. That's kind of swept under the proverbial carpet.

I'll meet you half way. If you tell me what equations you think represent gravitation, I'll reformat those equations in the system of a topological transformation, and show you that at every event in which the gravitational interaction is dense enough to redirect light from a point (along all angles) towards the gravitational source, there exists an equal and opposite point, that redirects light in the opposite directions.

So, for instance, the exit vector of a black hole that goes to the left, would be on the right side of that black hole, since that's the side that redirects matter to the left, towards the point source of gravitation. Make sense?

>>18288044

must have eaten something big

>>18289278
Atoms don't touch. There is a convenient limit in that equation. It isn't some Zenos paradox.

>>18288042
This isn't true. It's fact that there's black holes really close to us that they can't see because maybe it's in front of the sun or behind something.

>>18289314
>Big enough to see
Try reading my post again

>>18289321
That's not what you meant

>>18288062
Do you even know what a curvature or so-called curvature in space time Is? If you can pull me out a concrete answer I know your bullshiting or ahead of the rest of the world. You have to understand time of not a dimension/fabric if space, there is no spacetime just void/space. With humans current modle on spacetime and gravity a blackhole can litterally become an infinate gravitational force. Time is a measure of oscillation and entropic change within those oscillations, gravity effectively slows down time as it adds resistance to these oscillations. Now veiw gravity as an accumulation of static displacement(give me your bullshit about static electricity not being gravity and I will prove it is. Only two forces that will attract like, opposite and negative, wait a few years I'm actually working on a thesis) as a star explodes it expands its body and as such begins to take on the matter of bodies around it, giving it yet a greater static displacement, now if it didn't collect enough matter/charge its energy will disperse and its state will steady, no black hole, but say it in its explosion it engulphed a solar system full of gas giants, now the matter/displacement it engulphed is enough to keep driving the explosion taking in enough matter until the centre of the supernova has increased its density and velocity to the point the matter driving the explosion is drawn back to the centre.
This is all based off of Tesla's theory. But for some reason its classified so I'm missing all his math and his conclusion

File: 1439049227072.jpg (40KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 420x420px

>>18289387
this anon does not fool around

File: anime_dance.gif (483KB, 243x270px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 243x270px

>>18289387
Well. Okay. I think of gravitation as density of space. If you pass a light wave over a material that would absorb it, what's really going on is that the positions of those atoms of the material are half a wavelength denser in space. So any light that passes through that region emerges half a wavelength out of phase, which is the same as saying it was rotated 180 degrees, i.e. absorption. Because the nice thing about waves is that offsetting them is fundamentally equivalent to rotating them. This follows from Huygen's Principle, which states that the absorption of a wave is equivalent to the addition of its inverse. So, the generalized version of that is that any amount of refraction of a wave is actually just the result of passing through a region of space of such densities to offset the wave to a phase equal to that which it would experience if it were refracted.

This is a less insane description of gravitation that neatly sidesteps the singularity caused by the inverse square law. It also has the advantage of defining gravitation as a Fourier Transform of frequencies, whereas previously it was defined in terms of total intensity.

Side note: Has anyone ever considered taking the Fourier Transform of a series of quantum events, and then using that wave function to predict the next set of quantum events? Because if gravity is the density of space, then one could theoretically map the FREQUENCIES of gravitational waves between a wave source and its detectors, even if the overall intensity stays about the same. Simply knowing the phases of the frequencies would asymptotically approach a predictive model of the next quantum event before it happened, though it would always ultimately be fuzzy data. Just throwin' that out there--knowing a thing before it happens is kind of like seeing light faster than the speed at which that light gets there.

File: anime_dance_ts.gif (4MB, 839x464px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 839x464px

>>18289645
ANYWHO... with the frequency model of gravitation, you can also do this interesting thing--suppose any absorption of light is in fact a interference of light of that exact same frequency, but rotated out of phase. So rather than gravitation being a density of space equal to half some wavelength, it's actually a region of space in which the probability of two light waves propagating in the same direction but half a wavelength apart occurs relatively often.

Because if you have two light waves of the same frequency propagating in the same direction, but half a wavelength apart, they of course perfectly annihilate. Any given atom's EM configuration is representative of which frequencies of light waves it tends to overlap this way. When an incoming light wave crosses over an atom, with a frequency equal to one of its spectral lines, one of the two destructively annihilating waves that was already there annihilates the incoming wave, and takes the place of the emitted light wave, a wavelength later. (Or some odd multiple of half a wavelength.)

Gravity then would be light which happens to be destructively annihilating. That's why it propagates at the speed of light. It doesn't really curve space/time, so much as it renders invisible through destructive interference everything farther away from the gravitational source, while simultaneously illuminating that which is closer.

And a black hole is just whatever object is so hot, has a black body radiation of such a broad spectrum, that it destructively annihilates any frequency of light you care to shine on it. But even so, it's not gone. It's just that the light wave it was paired with eventually propagates out the other side, (2n+1) * half a wavelength later.

I oversimplified a bit, you need to use compound probability states, but that's the model of physics I use. It sure as hell ain't the Standard Model, you have that point correct.

File: anime_dance_tt.gif (2MB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x279px

>>18289649
Basically, everything is light. It's always been propagating everywhere. "Empty" Space is light waves stacked up ontop of each other so that they cancel each other out. The only thing that changes is the probability of detecting one out of two interfering light waves, causing one to vanish and the other to reappear. And ultimately there must exist some universal, self referential path system which determines the probabilities of which lightwaves are detected this way, and that path system is You.

There's some neat things that go on with uncertainty principle, like how you can go faster than light, if you calculate exactly the places that have no probability of detecting you there, from your previous position. It doesn't count as a violation of locality, if through quantum interference you can never prove that you weren't always there all along! There's some other neat goodies like making matter from pure energy, or vice-versa. You can make one matter into energy, back into a different kind of matter all in one go with nothing more than just properly timed mirrors. "Fake it 'till ya' make it!"

I've just been waiting until humanity is ready for this knowledge. Is it time yet, or shall I wait some more? Has anyone NOT had enough limitation yet?

>>18288035
>So recently
that was like a year ago, and technically it was past ancient time.

That's actually a picture of the andromeda galaxy, not the milky way. You can go outside and you can actually see all three galaxies in the image with a telescope.

>>18289649

>frequency model of gravitation.

this is really interesting, I'm no /x/bro (i'm just here for Halloween), but i am a mathematician and i have been thinking recently about how space actually curves. through some flimflammery found out that if you treat space like it's a wave, and every x intercept of the wave as a descrete point in that space, you can create a space that has properties of both continuous and descrete sets. this is important because this implies that if you bend space at all you also must be changing it's frequency, and vice versa.

If i flesh it out more i might be able to prove that mass doesn't actually directly bend space-time, rather, it changes it's frequency, and the frequency change bends it.

your "frequency theory of gravitation" might have some mathematical basis.

They detected something being ejected from the accretion disk around the black hole, not the black hole itself. This will help them determine things like the black hole's mass. It didn't actually cross the event horizon (the edge of the black hole) - this is currently understood to be impossible.

File: egc.gif (60KB, 765x1043px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 765x1043px

>>18289671
>>18289747
It seems like we could have much to talk about, anons. I have been researching these topics for quite some time now. When you search deep enough you find bits and pieces of information regarding ideas that would be immediately scoffed at by your average 'learned' doctor of science, not because there is a fundamental inconsistency in the logical coherence of the theory, rather it's because so many have been deluded to the point where their sense of logic is a far cry of what true objective reasoning is. Of course, not everyone is like this as shown by the those here and there that fight against dogmas and vested interest for the sake of pursuing the unaltered, unadulterated truth. We are not the first to postulate these ideas nor will we be the last. There are many extraordinary topics that have been researched in the 'undercurrent' of the scientific establishment for many decades now. It's like an information warfare going on between different powers in the world for this kind of knowledge. The United States in particular is notorious for wanting to keep a strict "with us or against us" policy when it comes to touching upon areas of research that intersects with their interests (i.e. things that give them more 'power' or 'control'). Putting that gloomy stuff aside, I wanted to say that you guys should keep doing what you are doing. The groundwork has already been laid out, it's just a matter of putting everything together (which is most certainly not trivial). I would be honored to have corroborators, since this has been a primarily solitary journey, which is an experience I think you two might be able to relate to. Send me a mail at [email protected] if you are interested. Thank you for your time.

File: anime_dance_st.gif (1009KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 500x281px

>>18289747
Try treating the energy ( frequency * amplitude *amplitude ) under the waveform as equal to the number of spatial points between A and B, and see where that gets ya'.

>>18289916
Well that sounds like fun!

File: IMG_1137.png (201KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1280x960px

>>18289916

Mathbro here

Dumping a quick pictographic summary

File: IMG_1138.png (134KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1280x960px

>>18290087

File: IMG_1139.png (262KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1280x960px

>>18290093

File: IMG_1140.png (161KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1280x960px

>>18290102

File: IMG_1141.png (239KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1280x960px

>>18290111
Trips

File: IMG_1142.png (132KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1280x960px

>>18290116

File: quasars_fuck_those_things.jpg (117KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 894x894px

>>18288035
Black holes spit off shit all the time. Usually it's huge x-ray bursts as energy glances off the accretion disk.

If enough of this happens to create a cycle, you end up with a Quasar, which tends to put several times more energy out than the galaxy the black hole is sitting in, filling it with deadly radiation, and making physics go "wonky".

File: Time_Dilation.png (31KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1280x720px

>>18290087
>>18290093
>>18290102
>>18290111
>>18290116
>>18290126

Think about the twin paradox, and how it's resolved when the twin who takes the longer journey ages less quickly. Think about what would happen if instead of a two-way trip, the red twin just vibrated in place frequently, compared to the blue twin, who vibrated less frequently. Red twin experiences 1 second in the same amount of time that blue twin experiences 2 seconds.

If they both vibrated in place, and saw the same beam of light bounce off a mirror, red twin would say "that amount of distance is one light second," and they'd be right. Blue twin would say "that amount of distance is two light seconds," and they'd be right. Blue twin would see a universe that's larger than red twin. Either that, or blue twin would be smaller than red twin. Same thing, really.

Since blue twin is smaller, the energy inside cycles at a faster rate. If it cycled two times inside blue twin, and took the exact same path in red twin, then red twin would say it only cycled once. Gravitational fields induce time dilation. The closer you are, the less time you experience. Being close to the surface makes a person larger, and since they're larger they experience less time, because it takes longer for energy taking the same path to complete its cycle. This mirrors what would happen if the probability of vibrating quickly was higher near the surface, which is true.

As ambient heat from the planet vibrates nearby bodies, and then continues outward, there's more frequency of vibration closer to the surface, which causes those bodies to dilate in time according to the twin paradox, which causes them to appear larger, because the increased motion causes them to occupy more places. Farther away from the surface, the nodal points are less tightly packed, so the bodies experience less motion, therefor exist in fewer places, but more frequently.

Thus, space/time is denser near gravitational sources.

>>18290126
>>18290126
>>18290126
Whoa anon. I remember back near early June that I started to develop my own mathematical way of interpretation, I was about to graduate HS and was home and wasting time on the net. I disliked the school assignments because they felt so boring, repetitive, and in my mind, meaningless and a waste of grey matter. The internet went out in my house during maintenance I assume and I decided to sit down with a pen and paper and write some basis for this new mathematics which I named Tractus Tempus. Tractus is the simple version. It derived from calculus ( pre? ). Basically I had tons of passions on the side, and mathematics was one of them. I had a calculus book on hand from the library and delved into it. To get to the point, your picture of the cube with many lines is incredibly accurate to the one I doodled on a post it note after a very long time of playing potential solutions in my head. Turned out I'm called an INTJ and that explained my life by the fucking book. Hence why I excelled at personal things yet was meh in school. Never knew I had ADD. Welp, for the entirety of the internet cut off I couldn't procrastinate with meaningless youtube videos of PBS spacetime or even to check if my theories were true.

I have the post it note to this day in the notebook dedicated to the framework of Tractus and the picture has the cube with MANY MANY lines like a grid but with a 3D space framework. I had simulated a huge sun in the middle of these threads and Earth orbiting in a vertical fixed position. I focused hard for 3 hours believe it or not and just casually drew this on an orange BCIT post it note. I haven't worked on it since but derived methods that exclude the traditional way of measuring distance, including that of light, and focusing rather on a point to point constant motion of data sets. Space is ever infinite and two points are only what we consider two points due to the frame of reference in one point and the distance.

>>18288062
>>18288988

So you're all saying that your better than scientist,astrophysicist in defining black hole?
wow now define what bull and shit please

File: 1469847807619.gif (301KB, 350x464px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 350x464px

>>18290527
If you say so.

Thanks for the compliment.

>>18288035
ok 2 things. 1 this was originally just more tin foil that astronomers came up with like planetX to distract people from economic problems

and 2 when it was put forward some one actually found something. they werent suppose to find anything and it already entered this solar system. there is no word on various details of the "object" but it was to large and moving to fast to make any sense. it should have flown by earth already but hasnt

>>18289314
You don't see a black hole, you look for the signs of a black hole. The gravity, the lack thereof light particles, the singularity.

>>18288062
if a black hole simply redirects as you say, then how come when scientists observe black holes eating stars, that matter isnt just flung out the other side, and I know there are instances where matter is shot out at near light speed after a star is devoured but that is matter that hasnt reached the event horizon and was actually swung around the singularity, so if a black hole just redirects, where does the matter that passes the event horizon go?

>>18290946

Not that anon. But correct me if I'm wrong. I'd assume all matter just curves infinitely inside the black hole.

>take fishing rod on space walk
>Sit near the black hole and throw
>Wait until something bites

It's not that hard

File: IMG_1159.jpg (214KB, 941x1255px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 941x1255px

>>18290358

Are you me, dude? I remember back when I was a senior in high school they put me in precancerous instead of regular calc and I just desired to learn it myself by going from the starting point of polynomial and trying to figure it out myself. Pic related is the first page of a small paper I wrote on what I found called "elements of a changing slope: what you can tell from dissecting a curved line." After I got this I decided to just read the calc book.

I also remember back in the seventh grade I started learning about computers and I ended up building a computer processor in a digital logic sim with its own opcode and everything.

Anyway bro you're pretty much my doppelgänger. Send an email over to [email protected] and I'll give you my skype.

ITT: a bunch of faggots just saw a vsauce video and now think they are geniuses for barely understanding babby's first relativity

File: disgust.jpg (37KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 636x358px

>>18288051
>using stock internet browser

File: 1472292734714.jpg (159KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1920x1080px

>>18291154

>>18289645
>>18289649
>>18289671
>>18289961
>>18290554

Stop posting weeb shit you fucking piece of garbage

File: memeformats.jpg (38KB, 747x549px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 747x549px

>>18291262

Black holes are just a theory, they probably dont even exist

Black holes are exactly that. Holes. A rip in the fabric/dimension or whatever you want to call it. think of them just like the drain in a bathtub. From the water in the bathtub's perspective, that drain is a swirling torrent sucking up everything around it from which no water can escape. Sound familiar?

>>18291274
Triggered

>>18291251
>being a mobilefaggot
>at all

>>18291304
those are very misleading analogies.

File: 1473211996740.gif (3MB, 290x232px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 290x232px

>>18290946
Matter is a wave. So at the moment it enters a decaying orbit, it diffuses in any number of paths. The point I'm asserting is that the radiation vector of energy from a black hole is opposite of what it would be if it were not a black hole. So take a sphere, map every point on the surface of that sphere, and topologically invert it, while keeping the vectors of radiation the same, or vice-versa.

If the black hole has magnitude in rotation, then its gravitational field is going to assume the shape of an oblate spheroid, just like any planet, and its radiation is going to show a bias along the axis of its rotation, just like any planet. Which is what observational data shows.

You're asking the wrong questions. The way you challenge the assertion "Black holes are topologically inverted space" is by taking a metric of radiation from an object as it crosses over the threshold of being a black hole versus not being a black hole. And then to see if the radiation that was going up, previously, is now going down, and vice-versa.

File: 1469942537987.jpg (31KB, 337x404px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 337x404px

>>18291274
Interesting suggestion. Here's my counter argument.

>>18291304
Isnt a drain, rip, or hole much more feasible than something with infinite mass and infinite gravity that was created from finite mass?

File: eqn_escvel.gif (3KB, 350x163px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 350x163px

>>18291379
The theory of black holes isn't one that supposes infinite gravity. It is the theory that supposes that the escape velocity of a gravitational source is a variable proportional to the squareroot of its mass, divided by its distance to the object attempting escape velocity.

With even a high school education, you can see that this is a naive equation. It does not have a negative value, only a positive. Also, there is a zero division when the distance between two objects is arbitrarily close.

This means that, according to the escape velocity equation, everything is a black hole. Hm.

This is what I mean when I say "Naive", by the way:

http://wcipeg.com/wiki/Naive_algorithm

I'm not shit talking those who use the naive version of the escape velocity algorithm. I am pointing out that it is clearly not the equation that represents all of the possible of the solutions. And when dealing with the threshold of an event horizon, this actually makes a difference.

File: daily_gifdump_982_21.gif (640KB, 610x517px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 610x517px

>>18290527
Nope, dats not was i was saying..Me was moar like: Shit isn`t dat simple as we all got told, but Dumbfags still stick to their 80`s explanations despise that those are outdated/wrong. The ...not even Light... Phrase repeated every frikkin time someone talks about Black Holes, Singularitys etc and sounds like "the Morons Mantra" to me. In fact i would consider my knowledge about Space/Time/Shit pathetic. Still I`ll should be able to realize when someone trys to explain Stuff without Knowledge...

File: 1467287554928.jpg (25KB, 279x346px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 279x346px

>>18291274
>weeb shit
hi newfriend

File: bs.jpg (107KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1280x720px

>>18288035
Black holes are science-fiction. No such thing exists in real life.

>>18288035
No sir, I am definitely NOT in the Andromeda galaxy.

>>18291988
Enlighten us then genius, what's at the centre of our galaxy? It's you vs the scientists & evidence that they've gathered over decades (i.e. show your work).

http://sitarchive.com/?p=3800

1996 SIT remote viewing of an object launched from hale-bopp larger than earth

was headed for us and then disappeared, like the object in the op. supposed to be a self-aware machine plugged in to Mind which exists physically and other-dimensionally and is a thoughtform

http://sitarchive.com/?p=4530
2004 SIT, another remote viewer mentions a super intelligent self-aware machine in a different context

the object near hale-Bopp seemed to be giving off its own light, almost like a sun

remote viewers are accurate as hell, but shit at predicting dates.

feel free to draw your own conclusions

ITT: Lots of bad science to explain bad ideas to people who either know better or are too stupid to know better. And if they saw something come out of a black hole, that means it's nowhere near us unless it came from the center of our galaxy. Which is 30,000 light years away. Even if this object were traveling at the speed of light, it would never reach us before we'd moved off to other worlds and possibly other systems.

>>18291262
kek