Everything in the Universe is made from one type of thread.
All workings of the Universe are result from said thread.
NO SPATIAL EXPANSION - NO DARK ENERGY - NO SINGULARITIES
The quantum unit itself would be just the grey threads (or strings) in the picture (no color and a lot thinner of course).
It would fit perfectly inside of a dodecahedron
Actual thread (or string) length is about one Ångström and it is fine enough where 10 threads (20 radii) could curl-up into the size of a neutron.
Supermassive Black Hole? Not!
A star can collapse and become a black hole (no singularity though).
But nothing supermassive is happening at the center of any galaxy.
Nothing gets sucked in, swallowed up, nor devoured. So, the black hole cannot grow.
Look... visual evidence, nothing being swallowed.
Stars Orbiting Milky Way Super Massive Black Hole
"Most galaxies have a black hole at the center, and astronomers have found the mass is consistently about 1/1000th the mass of the host galaxy." -- KK
Got that? The size of a central black hole is always directly proportional to amount of stars (and other mass) in a given galaxy.
Some type of "mechanism" must be creating the same proportionality of number of star to size of black hole.
The void nichts is a completely plausible reason for that. The amount of stars and mass in a galaxy automatically add the correct amount of tension tug to the center of the galaxy and that gives the correct proportionality of thread tension strength (mistakenly thought of as black hole size).
The curve ball adding curve to the center does the exact same thing.
i.e. the more stars there are - the greater the amount of curve.
And the amount of "curve" is the way to determine the size of the supposed black hole.
The number of stars (and mass) creates the supposed "size" of the central black hole.
If black holes were swallowing up everything: the ratio would NOT be correct - there would be a supermassive black hole and hardly any stars - the others were devoured.
The ratio would be inversely proportional - that is the opposite of visual evidence.
A black hole cannot create stars, so a black hole also cannot create the correct amount of stars.
If a star is orbiting in a galaxy and the star collapses - it will become black hole - and it will maintain same path it had before collapse.
It is NOT going to automatically find another black hole to merge with.
More visual evidence: Most stars are NOT merging with others - that means collapsed stars (black holes) also do NOT.
Also - for a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy to merge - a whole freaking galaxy would have to merge with another galaxy.
There is visual evidence available of everything that has ever happened in the night sky - galactic mergers are NOT happening at an high rate.
BLACK HOLE - VOID NICHTS SPHERE - NULL SPACE
This video show stars orbiting around something non visible, what appears to be nothing, so it must be a black hole?
You know what else they could be orbiting?
There is No need for a Black Hole.
NOTE: I am not saying there are no Black Holes, this is just an example of how observational evidence is worthless and might be completely wrong.
Any two objects like planets are connected by a thread network with tension.
(or if you are still living in the past you can say there is a curve or warp)
There must be some kind of connection from one to the other (warp or space is curved)
So, if you add more objects and they are swirling around a common center.
That means there would be a tension stretch coming from every direction concentrated right in the center of the swirl.
So, if there is a star near the common center with the massive concentrated omni-directional tension (call it warp or curve if you like) which way do you think the pull would be? Toward the massive amount of tension or away from it?
There are supposedly 100 billion stars in the galaxy. So that means there are 100 billion things pulling on a common center. There actually doesn't have to be anything there.
Galaxies might have what is referred to as a black hole but they can also hold themselves together.
The galactic tension pull is actually planar not omni-directional so it is even more concentrated then what you were just thinking.
THE CURVE BALL
This is a representation of a star surrounded by curved spacetime...
1 3 5 ● 5 3 1
The amount of curve is represented by numbers.
Closer to the star equals more curve, a higher number, for instance 5.
As you move away from the star the amount of curve will of course diminish: 5, 3, 1, 0
If there are 2 stars in a binary system orbiting each other:
1 3 5 ● 5 3 1
1 3 5 ● 5 3 1
Their curves will overlap - the curve will of course add together: 1 + 1 = 2
1 3 5 ● 5 3 2 3 5 ● 5 3 1
Now we can add more stars...
1 3 5 ● 5 3 4 3 5 ● 5 3 1
With a 4 star system: there are more stars adding their curve into the center of rotation.
There is actually nothing there - it is just like a ball of pure curve.
With 4 stars the curve ball number would be 4.
As more and more stars are added it will create an ever deepening gravity well.
With one billion stars in a galaxy the curve ball number would be one billion.
1 3 5 ● 5 3 (one billion) 3 5 ● 5 3 1
It is well known there is a direct correlation between the number of stars in a galaxy and the size of the black hole in the center.
There is NO need for a black hole. The same ratio will happen with a "curve ball" but it explains it with an actual reason.
Note: A "curve ball" in the center of a galaxy will create a deep gravity well and have a massive amount of gravity.
The massive gravity will be misinterpreted as something with mass, but there is nothing there.
That means there can be gravity without mass.
Black holes are of course possible, but the huge amount of gravity in the center of a galaxy could also be caused by nothing - just a ball of pure curve.
THE VOID NICHTS
NOTE: all of the characteristics noted above for the curveball work exactly the same for the void nichts.
Just replace curve with thread tension.
i.e. If there are 2 stars in a binary system orbiting each other:
1 3 5 ● 5 3 1
1 3 5 ● 5 3 1
Their thread tension pull (gravitational strength) will overlap.
The thread tension will of course add together: 1 + 1 = 2
1 3 5 ● 5 3 2 3 5 ● 5 3 1
Now we can add more stars, etc.
Note: everything explained in this paper uses gravity as the mechanism.
It does NOT matter what "gravity" actually is.
You can think gravity is curved spacetime or gravity might be thread network tension or something else entirely.
The idea works for all types of gravity except of course gravitons. Gravitons are a ridiculous idea.
If there is a star orbiting on the outskirts of a galaxy - do you really think it is shooting gravitons all the way to the black hole at the center of the galaxy then the black hole is sending gravitons all the way back?
You cannot carry a pulling force on individual unconnected particles traveling through empty space. How can anyone believe that? The sad thing is: all forces supposedly work like that.
Gravitons are one of the things that makes physics scary because anyone that can believe nonsense like that has something wrong with their brain.
The Fabric of Space
The fabric of space is a gravitationally-centered thread tension network
(never been ruled out)
Gravity is regular thread tension.
Tension = velocity squared x mass / Length
Vibrations traverse network at c
Plug in c, rearrange:
TL = mc^2
Source of energy, gravity, all forces, light, you name it.
Thread length L and mass m are unchangeable constants.
Variable thread tension T will also vary the speed of light c.
Speed of time (as we know it) is also variable.
Speed of light is relative to thread network tension surrounding determining mass (planet, star, system, galaxy, etc.)
Tension = Force = Gravity
Higher gravity = higher tension
And if there were enough tension on the common center to create a tear in the "fabric of space" it would create a void nichts or a null-space-sphere (actually an oblate spheroid).
The edges of the void nichts sphere would have the build-up of the torn / ripped thread network - just like a rip in a fishnet stocking - that is now enclosing literally nothing
That instantly disperses the tension from a single point to the surface of a hollow sphere.
So, if space ever does actually rip... it has a way to seal itself right back off (stop the tear) and eliminate the chance of it happening again in that spot.
● A tear in a 2-D fishnet stocking creates a 2-D circle.
● A tear in a 3-D thread network creates the 3-D void nichts sphere.
Can light travel through it on the inside?
No! Light is only a vibration traveling through the thread network.
Inside the void nichts there are no threads.
Can you travel into the void nichts sphere?
Yes, but inside there is no light nor heat transmission, no gravity and no thread network - and that is what is transmitting all the vibrations (energies) so, you can't lose any heat, it has no where to go, it can't vibrate away anymore.
Will you collapse because of the loss of thread network tension?
Maybe, maybe not... if you have a highly stretched tennis net and cut a piece out of it... the piece is not going to collapse into nothingness.
Any light hitting it (from 100 billions stars etc.) would be forced / coerced into traveling around what can be called the event horizon of the void nichts - just like an electrons thread-mesh-type-cage (that's the only place it can travel) there of course would be a build up and the only place to release is at the poles as jets
(no extreme tension there).
To sum it up: "Nothing" has all the properties they say a Black Hole does. And sometimes "nothing" can be a real cool hand!
Stuff cannot compress to infinity or infinite density.
Matter is particles (actually threads). Whatever gravity is... it is also connected particles.
So you have particles connected to other particles by way of particles.
If matter is the red particles and gravity is the yellow lines (that would be supposed gravitons, also particles)...
you can increase the strength (pull) of the yellow lines (the ~~ threads) to a massive amount and it will pull the reds together (the protons or ●● dots ), but it is not going to collapse the reds into a point. It will just hold everything together unbelievably tight.
...and notice there would be nothing surrounding the group as a whole that could tighten, compress and collapse the group.
NOTE: this was only an easy to understand example but that is how it is working.
The strength of gravity doesn't actually change too much, it's the amount of connections that would vary the intensity in (for instance what they call) a black hole.
Also, Atoms are mostly empty space. If you took the Earth and converted / crushed it into a neutron star (just neutrons and protons) it would be about the size of a football field. Are the neutrons solid? I don't know - but they say an Earth's worth of Black Hole density (that would be crushed even smaller) would be the size of a golf-ball. I would have to call that literally solid. I don't believe you can crush matter down to a point, there would have to be a limit. And golf ball sounds about correct for an earth's worth of Black Hole material. It would be solid at that size and no more compression possible. Understand? You cannot crush something that is literally solid.
Also, gravity is the weakest of the forces, correct?
The strong force is much stronger but it is not collapsing the protons and neutrons in a nucleus. It just holds them together tightly. Got it?
If the strong force cannot collapse matter, how is gravity going to?
Think about it for 20 years if you have to.
VACUUM OF SPACE
Space is not a vacuum, it is normal, we are under pressure.
also... I'm sure the vacuum energy of (actually non) empty space is not a vacuum, it is tension on the thread network of threads. I would bet my life on it.
It also explains (what they call) Dark Energy... everything is being pulled on (not pushed) equally from every direction.
If there are two end points (any type of matter, planets or anything) that creates a stronger connection and they pull together - that's gravity.
Spatial Expansion? Ummm... No!
UPDATE: This Spatial Expansion section below has become outdated. Everything is still valid and worth a read but you will also need QBT...
Please use the new and improved Quantum Boom Theory
for all of your cosmological needs, thanks.
Imagine an orange or grapefruit floating in space and then the space around it expands.
What happens to the grapefruit? Nothing, it does not move.
The supposed expansion has to be happening on all sides
<---> ● <--->
Can space-time / the-fabric-of-space / a-particle-network / the-inflaton-field / dark-energy / etc. or anything else push or pull matter?
It would have to be pushing or pulling on all sides.
---> ● <---
<--- ● --->
---- ● ----
Push on both sides of an orange really hard...
---> ● <---
Which way did it move? Whoooops, it didn't move.
Above is an example with one object and space supposedly expanding.
Notice with one object it is very easy to see nothing is going to move.
But when you add more than one object into the scenario you might get fooled into thinking objects will move...
Here is how it looks with more than one orange (object), look at it as a whole and then look at individual objects.
<--> ● <--> ● <--> ● <--> ● <--> ● <-->
Add pressure or increase thread network strength... the thread network will just get thicker.
<==> ● <==> ● <==> ● <==> ● <==> ● <==>
No movement, no change in distance between matter
Net effect? Nothing.
Imagine a bunch of oranges on a table in a room and then you pressurize the room...
Will the oranges move apart from each other? Of course not.
If expanding space is causing a flowing in one direction...
then space would just flow around any object. The object will not move. And even if flowing space could move objects... the objects would not expand away from each other. They would just move away from the point of flow origin. That would mean there is spot in space that creates flow. And it would also mean there would be a spherical outward-from-center flow, with less and less flow further out in the sphere (more area to cover with same initial amount of flow). That just doesn't work.
If space is expanding uniformly...
the expansion would be on all sides of any object and nothing would move.
Anyway you look at it nothing happens. The spatial expansion (more particles introduced into the system) cannot be happening in one spot and it cannot be happening everywhere at the same time. Neither will do the expansion.
And you have to remember... we are talking about a particle network.
It doesn't matter what the individual particles actually are. You would need a continuously attached group in order to do something. You can pull on a thread attached to a kite and reel it in. But there is no way to could push a kite away with an attached group of threads (or any type particles). Pushing away with a particle network only works with same pole magnets and very short distance.
Pulling (gravity) works because you can have tension on the thread network between matter.
It's simple... the thread network has an overall tension on it coming from infinity (that could be considered dark energy) and any objects in the thread network of course will have a higher tension between them (there are more thread network connections) - once again, that's gravity.
p.s. Nothing can expand like they say.
Think about every possible scenario - gas, liquid, foam, particles, fields, etc.
There is nothing that can expand things apart from each other (like they say).
It just does not work. The nonsense needs to stop.
They do NOT think space is actually expanding.
Everything is in the exact same place it always has been - space is only stretching.
That means more and more space is being magically created everywhere (except locally - because you could test that and disprove the whole expansion thing).
Stretching sounds like it is happening in a certain direction. Is that correct? No, the stretching has NO direction. Space is stretching and expanding without anything happening.
So, neither type of expansion will work. You cannot have two oranges expand away from each other in a normal fashion. And you cannot have the "space" in between the oranges stretch without anything actually happening
Add a Comment