Comet Wild-2: first sign of repelling Black Hole

North wrote:
Leo Vuyk

the problem that i see is this,blackholes are a two dimensional dynamical analysis of a three dimensional dynamic.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. could you explain?

My NEW black holes are three dimensional so without time.

<i>Originally posted by Leo Vuyk</i>
<br />North wrote:
Leo Vuyk

the problem that i see is this,blackholes are a two dimensional dynamical analysis of a three dimensional dynamic.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. could you explain?

My NEW black holes are three dimensional so without time.
______________________________________________________________________

ans: blackholes assume the matrix is flat and i look at the matrix in which the universe is in as three dimensional, the universe is completely submerged in this matrix(hydrodynamics).

_____________________________________________________________________

rousejohnny

why "SHOULD" these vortices exist?
_____________________________________________________________________
They should exist because of the currents in spacetime or in MM the elysium. I am not saying that the reason for the comet observation is tiny black holes, I am saying that vorticies make up the Universe from quantum to Macro. These vorticies combine positive and negatively charge energy to create gravity =&gt; mass. The major question to answer here would be what strength would be required per unit volume to create a "black hole" in which matter would be broken down and the "hole" would not be filled. In order for the hydrogen to escape without creating even more complexed elements there would have to be an "eye" like that in a hurricane that would allow "leaking". We know from meteorology that eye developement is directly related to strength. How can such a strong "blackhole" exist in unison with such a small object as a comet? So much to learn.
_____________________________________________________________________

rousejohnny

the problem i find with these vortices(or blackholes)is that they are only two dimesional, your dynamics of a spining mass in a three dimensional matrix are incomplete(as i mentioned to Leo Vuyk,hydrodynamics).

North wrote:

ans: blackholes assume the matrix is flat and i look at the matrix in which the universe is in as three dimensional, the universe is completely submerged in this matrix(hydrodynamics).

If you mean by flat matrix, a real 3D Chiral space frame lattice, representing the real trajectories of oscilating real rigid/slightly-flexibel/transformable vacuum articles, as I descibe in my model, then I agree.

&gt;&gt;The next Film made by the Stardust spacecraft camera shows evidence for a Hollow Cap structure of the Comet Wild-2. (see: antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040119.html )

This image hardly provides enough information to substantiate the headlines under which it was released let alone evidence for obtuse constructs like 'micro black holes'. For instance,

"Some of the photos from Stardust reveal gaseous jets." (see www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13448 )

NASA's Ron Baalke informed me last week that "The remaining Stardust images of Comet Wild 2 will be added to the website in approximately 3-6 months allowing our scientists time to analysis the images and publish papers on their results." This may be optimistic given NASA's prior history of publishing images, but at any rate we will need to wait for these before there is anything substantive to discuss.

<i>Originally posted by Leo Vuyk</i>
<br />North wrote:

ans: blackholes assume the matrix is flat and i look at the matrix in which the universe is in as three dimensional, the universe is completely submerged in this matrix(hydrodynamics).
_____________________________________________________________________
If you mean by flat matrix, a real 3D Chiral space frame lattice, representing the real trajectories of oscilating real rigid/slightly-flexibel/transformable vacuum articles, as I descibe in my model, then I agree.
_____________________________________________________________________

ans: then i don't think we do, by flat i mean,for example the old picture of a steel ball on a rubber sheet.or the water down the sink analogy.