Three evidences disprove existence of black hole

Does black hole exist? Three strong evidences do not support existence of black hole. First, the result of the Large Hadron Collider, ($ 3 billion LHC), the largest, most powerful particle accelerator, in the proton to proton collision, at temperature of 7TEV , 10TEV upon proton-proton collision (creating such temperature closest at Big Bang), and at 99.99% speed of light collision, what the LHC found was a “quark-gluon plasma”, the same “quark-gluon plasma” content of neutron star. The second evidence is the visible ejected super-speed jets of several galaxies, which are in form of plasma, proving that the content of black hole is quark-gluon plasma. Third, most galaxies are rotating at average speed of 3 million miles per/hour. Rotating at such speed would create energy, heat, light, exactly what is seen in ALL galaxies: light, again like neutron star. Neutron star, the collapsed star, a spoon thereof weighs a billion tons up, super-spins hundred to thousand of times per second, such super-spin of neutron star has uncannily similar spin of black hole. IS THERE INSTEAD SUPER GIANT NEUTRON STAR AT THE CENTER OF GALAXIES? Another question, is mini Big Bang created in that collision, that quark-gluon plasma?

Concept of black hole was taken FROM Dr. Einstein statement referring “to certain region in space with strong gravitational field that even light cannot escape” at the early 19th century but Dr. Einstein was not exactly referring to any suspended body, object, re-MASS, in space but to his conceived CERTAIN REGION in space very much related to wormhole. Until his death in 1955, Dr. Einstein denied the existence of black hole.

Jsaldea12
5.21.12
Posted by Capiz Scientists and Invertors Society at 4:42 PM

Most of Mr. b’s points were answered in my prior comment of Dec. 14. My first paragraph already answered his talking point about Hawking radiation. My quote from Prof. Miller showed that the outer crust of an NS consists of iron “and lighter elements.”

It was already long-known that the inner crust is in a superfluid state. Moreover, neutrinos escape through the crust, and G&M admitted that a black hole would “rapidly penetrate the crust and…enter the core.”

The strong force binding quarks into nucleons and nucleons into pairs on the neutron star is what would prevent a relativistic uncharged mBH from catching any snacks on the fly as it zips through the superfluid fog.

No, they have not to do that. It is simply obvious for scientists with the necessary knowledge. But why are you not asking them yourself? It is not that difficult to find the email adresses. Perhaps you are afraid of the answer?

The crust is not normal packed iron by the way but already an extreme dense form of iron.

So far your have not given a substantial argument why the ultradense packing of neutrons interacting via gravity and strong nuclear forces should not be able to stop a particle susceptible to these forces. Houston is rather naive if he rules this out in this easy way.

He has probably still no imagination of the extreme state of matter in these objects. He simply thinks of normal gases, normal matter. he should also explain why a ulrafast proton should be stopped by hitting another proton but not by hitting ultradense matter in the crust of a neutron star. If ultraslow particles can be created by hitting only ONE other particle in a evacuated environment then this is even more likely to happen in an environment filled with ultradense packed iron and nucleons strongly interacting via strong and gravitational forces.

Neutrinos are on the one hand nearly without mass (and much less mass than these hypothetical black holes) and second we were talking about the strong force concerning the discussionj about nuclear forces. Houston again demonstrates that he is a wordpicker without any deeper understanding. he also clearly has a fanatical anti swcientific agenda.

Sorry for delay. I am not a physicist, therefore I can not handle all your arguments but I here is my response to your comment 6, 2011 9:34 am.
You say that the gothic R has been disproved. Can you give me the link to it?
Exponential growth and gravitation: I think it is probably not true that Prof. Rössler agrees that the gravitational force of such a particle is very weak and generally not strong enough for growing, because it not only depends on the mass of the mini black hole but also on the distance down to the horizon. But the distance from outside, down to the horizon is very long (delayed) and observed from outside time stops there. Generally told, gravity at the horizon of mini-black holes is just strong enough, to trap anything and light. But you could surround the mini-black hole with your hand, without feeling an effect. I think gravitation is ‘optical‘, therefore gravitation should be even stronger just at the horizon of micro black holes than at the horizon of larger black holes. But the time delay (that is ‘observed‘ from outside) is infinite at the horizon of any black hole. I think the gravitation at the horizon of very large and old black holes is weak enough to swallow stars without rupture or an observable emission of light.
I do not know how to calculate the exact accretion model for uncharged micro black holes but it is obvious that more massive black holes do accrete matter much faster than lighter black holes.
Hawking radiation (observed from our standpoint, from outside the black hole): How to radiate frequencies if time stops at the horizon, if frequencies have to be seen as a funktion of time? The next question would be how an effect of electric charge could be measured outside the micro black hole over such a long distance and time delay. I like Prof. Rösslers idea of uncharged micro black holes because time delayed charge is perhaps like ‘sparks without flow of electricity‘.
Micro black holes and superfluid neutron stars: Perhaps micro black holes could only become trapped by gravity if they would fall in more slowly than the escape velocity, which have to be calculated. If they would be slow enough they would circulate in, and if the ‘neutron star’ would be otherwise completely slipplery, they would perhaps not grow and exist for ever. If they would be faster than the escape velocity, they would escape at the same speed at which they were incident. I do not know, whether the electromagnetic superfluidity model does exclude “Prof. Rösslers superfluidity model”. I just ‘know‘ that in a neutron star, the electrons are pushed into the protons, producing neutrons. Perhaps Prof. Rössler could explain the reasons for his superfluidity model. It should be stressed that there is no absolute proof of neutron stars and that other (not provable) systems could exist, because nobody was there. Therefore it is important to consider other possibilities like “strange stars” or whatever.
According to Prof. Plaga energy conversions in the narrow range are imaginable too. If going into the unknown with particle collisions, it would be important to consider energy conversions in every range and in respect to all possible and hypothetic exotic particles, to avoid any risk.
Not all astronomic observations are solved. Physicists say today that the universe consists of about (only) 4.7% of ordinary matter, the great rest being dark matter and dark energy. Why only 4.7%? I think a very important reason is that ordinary matter is not the most stable of all. So should the physicists not be a bit more careful with new physics experiments that could infuence the structure of matter ?
We are talking about micro black holes again but I like to repeat that there are differences between cosmic ray collisions and collisions at the LHC.
Do you agree that one would need a cosmic ray proton with an energy of 100,000 TeV to have a collision energy of 14 TeV if it is striking a stationary air proton? Cosmic rays of 100‘000TeV (= 10^17eV) or greater are very (very, very) rare and we do not have a proof that they are protons, because just secondary air showers have been measured and not a single primary cosmic ray particle with 100‘000TeV or greater have been observed yet. The formula for the energy calculation is on page 28 of the GM paper.
If we do not know all possible exotic particles and their properties (lifetime, forces, interactions with matter, etc.), then we cannot know, whether the LHC is dangerous or not. This is no absolute proof of an existing danger but a reason of the importance of an independent safety review and a proof that CERN has no absolute safety proof. Again: Is it not remarkable that CERN tells the untrue safety argument of cosmic rays instead of a quantitative calculation of the risk and instead of an absolute safety proof?

Best regards to all.

Sincerely yours

Niccoló

ps.: I think Mr. Houston has given very interesting arguments. For example in the first paragraph concerning Hawking radiation and the Schwinger mechanism or concerning the crust of neutron stars in his last paragraph. Perhaps we also do not have a proof whether mini black holes do contain quarks or not. Have you found the response to the Giddings/Mangano paper in the important paper that LSR has sent (see link)? For example starting on page 259? If yes what do you think about it?
http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/docs/LHCrisk.pdf

Of course, I knew that Hansel’s parenthetical paragraph was meant in jest, but it still rang true — except that in describing the scientists “stupidity/stupid” should have been replaced by “cunning”.

If the superfluidity of a neutron star, which could make it less resistant than a gas (Wikipedia), is irrelevant to the safety argument that the resistance of its density would stop a mini black hole, shouldn’t CERN’s analysts say so in their paper and tell us why? Obviously, they had enough difficulty with the trillion gauss magnetic fields of these stars to bother with superfluidity, for which they may have had no counter-argument.

A neutral mBH travelling at near light speed may be unable to consume or interact significantly. Accretion may be more feasible at much slower speeds, such as could result from the nearly head-on collisions in the LHC. Neutrinos are also affected by gravity (and by the weak nuclear force), yet can escape the superdense core of the neutron star.

Hansel wrote, “The crust of the NS is already consisting of ultradense, extreme packed matter.” But according to a professor of astronomy, “At the top of the crust, the nuclei are mostly iron 56 and lighter elements, but deeper down the pressure is high enough that the equilibrium atomic weights rise…” (M. Coleman Miller, Univ. Maryland). CERN’s analysts found that “the black hole should rapidly penetrate the crust and enter…the core” (G&M, p. 25).

So of course it was an evil intention to leave the superfluidity out in the paper. It is absolutely impossible that it is simply irrelevant. Rössler has state it is relevant (without any explanation) and therefore G&M are evil scientists.

It is in no way reasonable to consider particles consisting of quarks (and therefore affected by the strong force) and a neutrino which is nearly not interacting at all (it is not only the mass, there is for example interaction via the strong force) as behaving equally in an environment of dense packed nucleons. This is the strawman argument of the year.

Again Houston also forgot that there is not only the core. The crust of the NS is already consisting of ultradense, extreme packed matter.

Now you have found a new buzzword, the “locked cooper pairs”. Besides your normal non-understanding of terms, the quarks in normal matter are also locked in nucleons, bound by the strong force together. If a black hole is nearly non-interacting like a neutrino, ordinary earth-matter is even more protected against accretion than anything else.

I compared the neutrino and the neutral mini black hole because both are neutral particles, which would not be affected by electromagnetism. The neutrino’s mass is presumably less, but this does not change the required escape velocity. If the neutrinos are not stopped by density, nuclear forces and gravity in escaping from the superfluid core of the neutron star into space (as confirmed by NASA), then it’s reasonable to assume that the mBH could also do so.

TRMG had argued that rapid accretion would slow the mBH. But at near light speed, the 20 km diameter could be crossed in about 1/10,000 of a second, too fast for any significant accretion — if such were even possible on a neutron star (where the nucleons are tightly locked into Cooper pairs). In fact, CERN’s analysts calculated that the time scale to significant accretion for an mBH there would range up to “a few weeks” (G&M report, p. 25). By then the mBH would be long gone and far away.