Observing the sky, some astronomers seem to believe that they have really
found Black Holes. The properties of space curvature seem to have proved this
assumption. But what difference of property would you observe, if you see 85% or
95% of the curvature of a theoretical Black Hole? Do you know the correct
curvature of that celestial body? I think, you don't! My theory shows, that
these objects causing extreme curvature come next to the state of a theoretical
black-hole-state. But they are not stationary Black Holes. Rather, they are
non-stationary pre-states of them like I think of the Pulsar state being neutron
stars. If their condensation is such strong that their density would reach
nearly the density of a Black Hole, so the properties of both were similar.
Therefore, mathematically my theory predicts only non-stationary Black Holes -
so called protocosms. There aren't ideal Black Holes because the real radius of
these objects just diverges against the theoretical gravitational radius while
the external process of their formation - so the result of my theory!
Important: Black Holes of my theory solutions are divergently
locked black-white holes! So they are never really black! This way, they are
never completely closed. Therefore they open themselves after a short time
getting explosions of white holes. These are forming out the structures of
All the rest is:
Nonsense about Black Holes because they really are Darkgray Holes!
So many years after publishing my theory, physicists of main stream physics
tell you about the black holes hypotheses without real knowledge:
"A black hole is an object so massive and compact that gravity prevents
even light from escaping." nature, vol 407, 14 September 2000, news and
views, page 146, Nicholas White: Imaging black holes
Please, imagine, if electromagnetic force even like gravitational force would
be caused by exchange quanta of a wave function, what has the gravity to do when
it is so dense on and inside its black hole?
Does it just prevent light from escaping? Or does it prevent itself from
We had to answer both questions with yes. But when we did it, no scientist
could explain what for an object a black hole could be. It wouldn't be able to
be identified. No light, no gravity, nothing would come out. It would not exist
at all (therefore I say: black holes of present opinions do not really exist!).
My theory doesn't give such a black hole imagined above by present
scientists. I myself see a solution of oscillating black holes. When the
complete mass is closed under the inside coordinate system of my black hole, the
only property or quantity at the outside is the measurement of its oscillation
frequency. The more of it, the heavier is this non-stationary black hole
(please, remark: this body is a sphere, its oscillation is a spatial body
vibration into all directions with the same action and the same intensity like
we know it well of gravity and electric charge). Such a large black hole cannot
vibrate so fast in the same time while a smaller one does it (vibration speed is
always light speed). So the bigger black hole is lighter than the smaller. This
kind of non-stationary black holes I named: protocosms when they are
unstable particles, and when they are stable, then they are our well-known particles
like protons and electrons (they are real microcosms). Have you ever seen
into a proton? Isn't it black enough? But if you give some energy into it, a
little while later, it will eject this surplus energy from its inside at the
outside, newly quantized, either as radiation or as particle pairs. After this
the balance of the stable "black hole", of our particle, is
equalized. When you destabilize stable particles successively you will reach the
pre-protocosm state. When you produce a quantity of such unstable particles that
they are compressed all together, they will make of their intensity that
original state I called the protocosm. A gigantic unstable particle filled with
real unstable particles, antiparticles and energy. This state is not closed
forever. After a quarter period it has its reversion of its collapse - its
anticollapse. It explodes!
These explosions are the small bangs instead of the "big bang"!
GRBs come from them!
My protocosms are objects all over the world, all inside of the centers of
celestial bodies, so inside of galaxy cores and also inside of star cores. But
they are not stationary. The little time they are collapsing, they get closed
and loose their inside gravity for a short time. After this they come to an
anticollapse. While this process of opening the inside gravity comes to the
outside again and it is acting there for a another short time (this is the
outside living time!). Additionally this protocosm ejects quantized masses, so
subprotocosms. These bodies are running into the spheres of the core, and there
they are installing new objects, so new and young stars for example. This is the
sex of cores: some mass and energy come into the core with vibrations; then the
core closes; inside of it an evolution is running for birth of a new feature of
life; then it opens and ejects the new life into the environment. A birth of
pre-states of life after a process of pre-sex analogously to ours. After all the
central protocosm eats matter from the environment and gets some special matter
with vibrations and so it is closing with a collapse for the next short time ...
and so on.
There nothing is static forever. Everything is in motion! Even the old Greeks
knew this. Nevertheless, present scientists search for that Black Hole. Only
because of Hawking they think at the possibility that such a stationary thing
could get non-stationary exploding sometimes and after an eternity of its
existence. But all these constructions are nonsense based on the errors
of quantum mechanics!