- Thank you received: 0
New evidence that Micro black holes are everywhere
15 years 8 months ago #15807
by Leo Vuyk
SPLITTING AND PAIRING (FERMION REPELLING) BLACK HOLES ARE A BASIC ELEMENT TO COME TO A NEW PARADIGM OF NATURE. SO THERE IS A FIRM REASON TO SEARCH FOR MORE EXAMPLES IN SPACE AND EVEN ON EARTH (BALL LIGHTNING).. CONCLUSION; BLACK HOLES DON'T EAT MATTER, THEY PRODUCE H2 GAS, BUT EAT DENSE HIGGS-SPACE AND PHOTONS
Reply from was created by Leo Vuyk
SPLITTING AND PAIRING (FERMION REPELLING) BLACK HOLES ARE A BASIC ELEMENT TO COME TO A NEW PARADIGM OF NATURE. SO THERE IS A FIRM REASON TO SEARCH FOR MORE EXAMPLES IN SPACE AND EVEN ON EARTH (BALL LIGHTNING).. CONCLUSION; BLACK HOLES DON'T EAT MATTER, THEY PRODUCE H2 GAS, BUT EAT DENSE HIGGS-SPACE AND PHOTONS
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 8 months ago #23506
by Leo Vuyk
Replied by Leo Vuyk on topic Reply from
Based on observation of the ball lightning photo of mr. van Overhagen, the Langmuir video of fireball producing Sprites and the Sungrazer Comets, we may conclude that there are at least three ways of micro black hole production possible, leading to the existence of ball lightning, small Comets and large Comets.
1: Three-wave interference of ordinary lightning into ball lightning (see Overhagen photo)
2. Three wave interference of Sprite lightning into bigger ball lightning or small Comets ( see the Langmuir video)
3. Three wave interference of Stellar Electro magnetic eruptions into small and large Comets.
The fact that we observe very few ball lightning around strong lightning activity, is reason to assume that not only magnetic or electric energy but also x-ray interference energy is at stake.
Leo Vuyk.
1: Three-wave interference of ordinary lightning into ball lightning (see Overhagen photo)
2. Three wave interference of Sprite lightning into bigger ball lightning or small Comets ( see the Langmuir video)
3. Three wave interference of Stellar Electro magnetic eruptions into small and large Comets.
The fact that we observe very few ball lightning around strong lightning activity, is reason to assume that not only magnetic or electric energy but also x-ray interference energy is at stake.
Leo Vuyk.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 8 months ago #23668
by Leo Vuyk
Replied by Leo Vuyk on topic Reply from
Predictionboy wrote:
My question is, from your perspective what in these videos and/or the phenomenology of sprites, elves, or ball lightning in general is insufficiently explained in terms of electrical phenomena?
Answer:
Sprites and Elves are also in my view pure electric phenomena. I focussed on Sprites because of the slow motion film results of the Langmuir video, presenting an interesting fireball production process with an interference structure, also seen on the photo of mr van Overhagen at the Netherlands
Conversely, what in these videos and/or the phenomenology of sprites, elves, or ball lightning are better explained in terms of black holes, rather than electricity, or other possible explanations?
Answer:
Based on my observations it is good to have in mind that I postulate a NEW black hole based on a NEW Higgs particle with a Fermion repulsive horizon ETC. So if ball lightning is a black hole, than also ball lightning should present a Fermion and peculiar gravity effect.
Are you saying that electrical discharges actually create black holes?
Answer:
NO I suggest that also x-or gamma ray interference is needed.
Looking over your entries in this thread and on your blog, I found this quote interesting:
The fact that we observe very few ball lightning EVEN around strong lightning activity, is reason to assume that not only magnetic or electric energy but also x-ray interference energy is at stake.
Answer:
Sorry I have added now the word EVEN, to get more to the point.
Does this reduce the necessity of invoking exotic factors such as x-ray interference (and hence, black holes) to explain these, since this invocation of x-ray interference was at least partially based on the perceived rarity of these events? Is there another line of foundation for the invocation of x-ray interference for these events, other than their relative rarity as compared to more common types of lightning? Because as already alluded, their relative rarity could potentially be explained in a number of other ways that do not invoke exotic causative factors, such as:
1. The difficulty of observing some of these phenomena from the ground, as they often occur high above massive thundercloud systems.
2. The nature of the charge separation physics that lead to these forms of lightning may simply be less common than the charge separation events that lead to more common types of lightning.
Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I understand your theories as well as I can.
Answer:
It is well known that in laboratory magnetron experiments, the use of Carbon and Silica does help to produce fireballs with SOME resemblance of ball lightning. No x-rays are present there.
In my view these experiments do not produce long living ball lightning because no x-gamma ray is used.
So here is a great challenge for experimenters who are able to bring x-or gamma-rays and strong EM waves together inside one lab ball lightning interference experiment.
Leo Vuyk.
My question is, from your perspective what in these videos and/or the phenomenology of sprites, elves, or ball lightning in general is insufficiently explained in terms of electrical phenomena?
Answer:
Sprites and Elves are also in my view pure electric phenomena. I focussed on Sprites because of the slow motion film results of the Langmuir video, presenting an interesting fireball production process with an interference structure, also seen on the photo of mr van Overhagen at the Netherlands
Conversely, what in these videos and/or the phenomenology of sprites, elves, or ball lightning are better explained in terms of black holes, rather than electricity, or other possible explanations?
Answer:
Based on my observations it is good to have in mind that I postulate a NEW black hole based on a NEW Higgs particle with a Fermion repulsive horizon ETC. So if ball lightning is a black hole, than also ball lightning should present a Fermion and peculiar gravity effect.
Are you saying that electrical discharges actually create black holes?
Answer:
NO I suggest that also x-or gamma ray interference is needed.
Looking over your entries in this thread and on your blog, I found this quote interesting:
The fact that we observe very few ball lightning EVEN around strong lightning activity, is reason to assume that not only magnetic or electric energy but also x-ray interference energy is at stake.
Answer:
Sorry I have added now the word EVEN, to get more to the point.
Does this reduce the necessity of invoking exotic factors such as x-ray interference (and hence, black holes) to explain these, since this invocation of x-ray interference was at least partially based on the perceived rarity of these events? Is there another line of foundation for the invocation of x-ray interference for these events, other than their relative rarity as compared to more common types of lightning? Because as already alluded, their relative rarity could potentially be explained in a number of other ways that do not invoke exotic causative factors, such as:
1. The difficulty of observing some of these phenomena from the ground, as they often occur high above massive thundercloud systems.
2. The nature of the charge separation physics that lead to these forms of lightning may simply be less common than the charge separation events that lead to more common types of lightning.
Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I understand your theories as well as I can.
Answer:
It is well known that in laboratory magnetron experiments, the use of Carbon and Silica does help to produce fireballs with SOME resemblance of ball lightning. No x-rays are present there.
In my view these experiments do not produce long living ball lightning because no x-gamma ray is used.
So here is a great challenge for experimenters who are able to bring x-or gamma-rays and strong EM waves together inside one lab ball lightning interference experiment.
Leo Vuyk.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 8 months ago #23456
by Leo Vuyk
Replied by Leo Vuyk on topic Reply from
The idea of the origin of natural and artificial ball lightning or small Comets, is that ONLY the postulated three-wave interference mechanism including at least one x-gamma ray component is needed to form a real particle KNOT inside the oscillating new Higgs vacuum lattice.
This KNOT ( or micro black hole) seems to be able to produce a macro CASIMER effect and violate the second law of thermodynamics by the Fermion repelling horizon.
See:
migratingblackholes.blogspot.com/2009/02...rence-as-origin.html
I have no knowledge of measured x-gamma-ray production around artificial or natural ball lightning.
I only have knowledge of the fact that Comets sometimes emit x-rays and even have signs of anti matter annihilation.
These effects are in line with my new (micro) black hole theory.
The production of x-rays inside lightning strokes is well known and first observed by J.R.Dwyer, see:
my.fit.edu/~jdwyer/papers.htm
For x-ray production related to discharges, see x rays from 80 cm long sparks in air:
www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/AGU/Rahman_et_al_2008.pdf
Multiple X-ray bursts from long discharges in air, C.V. Nguyen, A.P.J. van Deursen, U. Ebert, J. Phys. Appl. Phys. 41, 234012 (2008) [7 pages, 7 figures],
homepages.cwi.nl/~ebert/NguyenJPD08.pdf
See also: bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
Leo Vuyk.
This KNOT ( or micro black hole) seems to be able to produce a macro CASIMER effect and violate the second law of thermodynamics by the Fermion repelling horizon.
See:
migratingblackholes.blogspot.com/2009/02...rence-as-origin.html
I have no knowledge of measured x-gamma-ray production around artificial or natural ball lightning.
I only have knowledge of the fact that Comets sometimes emit x-rays and even have signs of anti matter annihilation.
These effects are in line with my new (micro) black hole theory.
The production of x-rays inside lightning strokes is well known and first observed by J.R.Dwyer, see:
my.fit.edu/~jdwyer/papers.htm
For x-ray production related to discharges, see x rays from 80 cm long sparks in air:
www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/AGU/Rahman_et_al_2008.pdf
Multiple X-ray bursts from long discharges in air, C.V. Nguyen, A.P.J. van Deursen, U. Ebert, J. Phys. Appl. Phys. 41, 234012 (2008) [7 pages, 7 figures],
homepages.cwi.nl/~ebert/NguyenJPD08.pdf
See also: bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
Leo Vuyk.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
15 years 8 months ago #20415
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Hello Leo,
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but ...
If you would take the time to explicitly compare (either favorably or unfavorably) the ideas you like to talk about with the ideas that we like to talk about (Meta Model, pushing gravity, etc.) you might actually get some of us to respond. There are some potentially very interesting conversations lurking in the wings ...
IMO you, <u>and the others</u> that post here without making such comparisons, are engaging in a form of freeloading. We tolerate it because we are interested in the exploration of new ideas in the world of astronomy and things related to astronomy.
But it takes a conscious effort on our part to tolerate this behavior and in doing so we develop a tendency to view your ideas with more skepticism than we would otherwise. And we have a tendecy to read your posts with less attention. This may or may not be justified, but it is human nature. From your perspectives I'm sure it is better than being banned from the message board. From our perspectives there is not that much difference. It irritates us. It makes us think less of your ideas.
To some extent the other freeloaders seem to feel this way, too. Even when they respond to another poster, it is often to try to talk about their own ideas rather than the poster's ideas. (I smile when I see this happen, and contemplate the concept of karma) The right way to tell others about your ideas, if you aren't going to 'pay your dues' here, is to start your own Websites. Oh wait - many of you did, but you can't get anyone to go there. Hmmm.
We appreciate your delima, and <b>we do some things to help you</b>. We just wish you would appreciate our delima, and <b>do some things to help us</b>.
Food for thought,
LB
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but ...
If you would take the time to explicitly compare (either favorably or unfavorably) the ideas you like to talk about with the ideas that we like to talk about (Meta Model, pushing gravity, etc.) you might actually get some of us to respond. There are some potentially very interesting conversations lurking in the wings ...
IMO you, <u>and the others</u> that post here without making such comparisons, are engaging in a form of freeloading. We tolerate it because we are interested in the exploration of new ideas in the world of astronomy and things related to astronomy.
But it takes a conscious effort on our part to tolerate this behavior and in doing so we develop a tendency to view your ideas with more skepticism than we would otherwise. And we have a tendecy to read your posts with less attention. This may or may not be justified, but it is human nature. From your perspectives I'm sure it is better than being banned from the message board. From our perspectives there is not that much difference. It irritates us. It makes us think less of your ideas.
To some extent the other freeloaders seem to feel this way, too. Even when they respond to another poster, it is often to try to talk about their own ideas rather than the poster's ideas. (I smile when I see this happen, and contemplate the concept of karma) The right way to tell others about your ideas, if you aren't going to 'pay your dues' here, is to start your own Websites. Oh wait - many of you did, but you can't get anyone to go there. Hmmm.
We appreciate your delima, and <b>we do some things to help you</b>. We just wish you would appreciate our delima, and <b>do some things to help us</b>.
Food for thought,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 8 months ago #23509
by Leo Vuyk
Replied by Leo Vuyk on topic Reply from
Thank you Larry,
I will help you.
I will help you.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.338 seconds