sci.physics.particle

On Mar 1, 8:42=A0pm, "Artful" wrote:
> "Autymn D. C." wrote in messagenews:b11c2d05-e1c4=
-47d7-899e-e6476439f8a6@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:59 am, "LeoV...@gmail.com" wrote:
> >> Evidence for black hole nucleus splitting and pairing inside several
> >> nebula.
>
> >> The peculiar supernova remnants (M1 the Crab nebula and N63a,
> >> containing the form of a the dead Fox) are a support for the NEW Black
> >> Hole hypothesis that newly formed black hole S-Nova nuclei are able to
> >> explode and split to smaller nuclei.
> >> This happens only if the Higgs oscillatory pressure on the BH-nucleus
> >> is changing and is no more in equilibrium with the black hole nuclear
> >> internal particle pressure. =A0The resulting "curved PILLARS" seem to
> >> form pairs and show a "fork figure"-see the white arrows- by gas tail
> >> propulsion (as is assumed for "NEW" black holes).
> >> See:http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
> >> As a consequence this phenomenon of black hole splitting and pairing
> >> seems to be the main origin of complexity also inside other nebula
> >> ( like Carina and Eagle etc.)
> >> Secondly this phenomenon could be the main origin of complexity inside
> >> the universe even at different scales from the evaporating nuclear
> >> black hole Big Bang down to nebulae. Author: Leo Vuyk.
>
> >> Leo Vuyk.
>
> > No, Leo, there are no black holes. =A0Anywhere.
>
> > Chandrasekar was wrong.
> > Schwarzschild was wrong.
> > Kerr was wrong.
> > Hawking was wrong.
> > CERN/LHC/ILC were wrong.
>
> And your evidence that these great physicists were wrong, and rather that
> you (who is a physicist) alone are right Is ... ???

in my links. Can you not read?

The Schwarzschild radius is a /classic/ solution, whereas the black
hole is a relativistic object. It was already rejected thas element
137 be a el=E8ctric black hole, as its predictrix was a classic
(Newtonian) ratio--some silly deal with the fine structure constant.

-Aut