Nereid Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrek1
To All I do not believe in 'black holes' which I consider
to be a concentration of neutron star positively charged congregates to the
surrounding negative charged gases as shown in the center of galaxies.

Nereid quote
Can you show us your math on this please?

Cyrek reply
I do not consider math to be more important that experimental evidence
or visualizations of phenomenon. Math can be erroneous when certain unseen
components are left out.
Example:…Newtonian math as used by science says that the HA will collapse.
Yet this does not happen.
I explained why this does not happen with ‘visualization’ of the HA.

I also do not accept the ‘String Theory’ and the ‘Inflation Theory’ because they will
never be proven. Yet they are widely accepted.

Nereid quote
I'm interested in two different perspectives:
1) what do you consider the massive, condensed object to be, that astronomers refer
to as 'black hole', wrt to good observations (e.g. in certain X-ray binaries, SagA*, the
nuclei of M31 and NGC 4258)?

reply
Since I do not believe that matter will collapse to an infinite nothing, I sought other
Solutions.
The residual remains of stars are the neutron stars which are the densest forms of
matter known. Since I consider these stars to be unstable and decay, that could be
the source of radiations attributed to the ‘black holes’. I also consider the GRB’ers
as the sources of neutron star decay.
In the above galaxies and others, I previously explained that neutron star congregates
in the central regions are positively charged in relation to the ‘circling’ gases to create
the high velocities that create the assumption that enormous mass is present.

Nereid
2) what prevents the collapse of a neutron star, to a BH, once the gravitational
pressure exceeds the neutron degeneracy pressure?

reply
I looked up the definition of degeneracy and could not even try to understand it’s
meaning.
I explained above that matter cannot collapse into an infinite nothing space.
This would give the BB credibility. Ha ha. .

Nereid
If you are rejecting at least part of GR, please say so.

Reply
Yes. Since I consider space to be ‘flat’, That would automatically refute GR which
also eliminates the need for a cosmological constant.

Nereid
Collapse is inevitable, at least locally, for all bodies in mutual orbits (per GR, as
verified by Hulse and Taylor <http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/press.html>)
Collapse is also inevitable once the gravitational pressure exceeds certain thresholds
to various solid states (upon cooling), to electron degenerate states, to neutron
degenerate states, ... so all H atoms 'in open space' will, sooner or later, no longer be
'in open space'.

Reply
True. I explained above to Sidmel that these clouds do condense to stars with a
‘coulomb force’ boost to gravity.
Better yet, these clouds condense to form galaxies with billions of stars and ‘star
systems’.

.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek