It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: FlyingFox
So, White Hole = anti-gravity?
I'm convinced.
originally posted by: supermilkman
The statement "white holes" intrigued me . I do follow the theory a "white hole" would be the direct opposite of s "black hole". And there may be a connection between the 2 via a wormhole . Can you elaborate if there is some "evidence" pointing to this being a true statement ?
Yes, a white hole is exactly as you described, basically an inverse to a black hole.
Here's a few excerpts from the book, "The Secrets of Infinity."
The existence of black holes begs a question: where does all the stuff that it devours go? This question is the basis of the theory about the existence of white holes. Black holes are based on the theory of Einstein's relativity, a symmetrical theory that therefore implies that there should be an 'exit,' or something like the 'other side' of the famous wormhole.
Unlike black holes, for which there is a well studied physical process called gravitional collapse (which gives rise to black holes when stars more massive than the sun run out of nuclear 'fuel'), there is no clear analogous process that would explain the generation of white holes.
If white holes exist, they would represent a finite area of space-time with a density which would give them the ability to warp space but, unlike the black hole, they would expel matter and energy instead of absorbing it. In fact, no object can remain within the region for an infinite time, that is why a white hole is defined as the time reverse of a black hole.
Another widespread theory is that white holes would be very unstable, would last a very short time and, actually, after their generation, they could collapse and become black holes, which would limit us when studying them.
So the creation of white holes and black holes is singularity approaching an event horizon by exterior forces. The book is just a simple description and mostly theory. The possibilities it entails is multi-faceted and more technical
originally posted by: jedi_hamster
a reply to: supermilkman
technical details or it didn't happen.
either you can provide us an exact explanation of how you're doing your demonstrations, or it's all BS.
after all, you want it to get public, right? because if you would be after cash, you would just call google or any other big corporation and you would get paid billions already, without wasting your time on ATS.
without wasting our time.
originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
Well I genuinely think what he says to be true. Adleast he is trying to do something about it/promote awareness.
Very difficult subject to promote in shopping malls though, possibly preaching to the wrong choir.
And that book using the word facts when theorising is pretty poor. Should say in theory instead.
But good luck, regardless of how futile I feel your efforts are.
originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: supermilkman
So can you give us an idea of how you are demonsstrating these pheomena? Is it done with devices or equipment you can reference? Any technical details you can share without compromising? ?
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
originally posted by: jedi_hamster
a reply to: supermilkman
technical details or it didn't happen.
either you can provide us an exact explanation of how you're doing your demonstrations, or it's all BS.
after all, you want it to get public, right? because if you would be after cash, you would just call google or any other big corporation and you would get paid billions already, without wasting your time on ATS.
without wasting our time.
That and then you'd have to die under very suspicious circumstances first, of course...
I'm sorry to break it for you supermilkman,
but your time was up the moment you decided to tell our benevolent crooks, that you'll destroy their markets with fancy white holes. Not that I don't like the concept, but all I see is a lost window of opportunity to post anything new at all. Sounds a bit kinky though.
Try light holes maybe? White holes... really? C'Mon! Others might say you waste their time, I say you just made my day. Now I'll have the epic opportunity to think about porn when somebody talks about black holes, awesome!
If white holes exist, then it is towards the end (in time) of the universe, which has only been around for 13.4 billion years and so it is likely that none of the matter that has fallen in since the big bang will have reached the singularity of any black hole yet.
Also, what is the mass, polarization and spin of these dark matter particles. Are they purely non-Baryonic? What is their distribution and does it actually relate the the FSL of galaxies or is that spurious?
Oh, and how does one "bend" a particle?
What is "light matter"?
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: supermilkman
I take away two main themes from your opening post:
1) It is possible to use many words, in order to say very little.
2) If you have been running experiments which cause the formulation of black holes, or anything remotely like them, then you must have been drawing down the electrical output of a small nation to do it. Handling that much raw power, and being able to direct it in even the least focused of ways requires expensive equipment, even at entry level. Therefore, either you have not experiemented at all yet, and are blowing smoke, or you have performed experiments using apparatus without the necessary stability and safety measures built into them, to render the experiment safe to perform.
In all, I am concerned, confused, and deeply sceptical of all of this.