Is our sun rotating around an unknown black hole?

[WhiteLove]

I'm going very deeply with my math calculations at the moment... :p

One very interesting discovery these calculations show is that our sun is rotating around a mass point of 1.2 * 10^5 Solar mass - in that case an intermediate-mass black hole.

I've tried to find the closest known match and the closest I've found is the super massive black hole of about 4.3 * 10^6 Solar mass at the center of the Milky Way.
(Source: Sagittarius A* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*))

I was presuming that our sun is rotating around that black hole, but it turns out that black hole has been calculated to be 36 times more massive.

Therefore I've made the following conclusions:

A) My calculations are off
B) The known black hole calculations of the black hole found at the center of the Milky Way are off, should be 1.2 * 10^5 Solar mass and not 4.3 * 10^6 Solar mass
C) I've discovered an unknown black hole that our sun is rotating around that we have not yet discovered

If you can find a galactic body of around 1.2 * 10^5 Solar mass, please let me know, because I'm very curious to understand exactly what body in space our sun is rotating around. :p

And BTW. There are theories out there that our sun would have a binary star it is rotating around, a common theory has been Sirius. But my calculations show those kinds of stars are way less massive in size, e.g. Sirius is "only" 2.02 Solar mass. So in case it is a star our sun is rotating around, it is one that is hilariously more massive than the ones we know about...

UPDATE:

I've now found a closer match - Messier 15 (5.6 * 10^5 Solar mass). It is 5 times more massive than my calculations predict though, but it is located in the Milky Way... Very interesting discovery... I need to check its location relative to the sun and our galaxy's center point...
(Source: Messier 15 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_15))

[Baby Steps]

Why do we need a super massive body to be rotating around?

[WhiteLove]

Why do we need a super massive body to be rotating around?

Because we know the sun's gravity force would be way way less than 5.5 * 10^32 N then... So we already know it is super massive, I guess it depends on your definition of super massive... But yes, a body 453 times more massive than R136a1 (265 Solar mass) which is the most massive star discovered (as far as I know, am not updated on that), that's super massive...

-1K1ap0zZSk

H0eMMm6lZMI

[Selkie]

Why do we need a super massive body to be rotating around?

Because we know the sun's gravity force would be way way less than 5.5 * 10^32 N if that was the case.

It is not my intention to start an argument, but the Electric Universe people dispute the existence of black holes altogether. They describe the physics as "problematic".

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/?s=black+holes

[WhiteLove]

Why do we need a super massive body to be rotating around?

Because we know the sun's gravity force would be way way less than 5.5 * 10^32 N if that was the case.

It is not my intention to start an argument, but the Electric Universe people dispute the existence of black holes altogether. They describe the physics as "problematic".

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/?s=black+holes

Very interesting, I need to check that, thanks!!

[Baby Steps]

no arguments, I am NO expert

But I think super massive black holes are a fiction!

They are an example, of many in science, of the insertion of something to fill a gap in understanding. The Electric universe type of model shows how a Galaxy can be ordered without giant lumps of super matter.

How did their order arise? How about they were built from within? Is that any more far fetched than the Big Bang?

[Selkie]

no arguments, I am NO expert

But I think super massive black holes are a fiction!

They are an example, of many in science, of the insertion of something to fill a gap in understanding. The Electric universe type of model shows how a Galaxy can be ordered without giant lumps of super matter.
"Giant lumps of super matter"; that's funny!

p.s. I think the EU paradigm is very exciting, but I can't do the math :blushing:

[Carmody]

Think of atoms as balancing points of dimensional energies in resonant vortex spin motion.

Like two (or more) vibrating streams passing one another, oscillating and then oscillating together, their influence/effect on this passage creating a spin point they both gather against and upon -- one in, one out.

This manifests itself in macro structure behavior, and we have vortex rotation in electrical terms , mechanical terms, gaseous effects, and do on (tornado, water down the drain, electrical complex impedance, and so on).

We exist as a reflection point of the sum of those vibration points, like living on the surface of a summed common resonance mode of them all. (the various sum total of the vibrational/geometry modes of the table of elements) from this we get the thing we call atomic geometry, angularity, etc. Time, space, gravity, mass, all of it, is the manifestation of a common complimentary resonance mode as a space called 'reality in 3d timespace'. One resonance mode of many. A 'dimension', if you will. (not 'the' dimension, but 'a' dimension, one of many--- a resonance mode/node)

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site139/2013/0117/20130117_065348_ball%20pit_400.jpg

(each of the balls, or atoms.....is a dual vortex, in vibration. One 2d vector in..one 2d vector out. The out vector, is seen from this viewpoint, is seen from this sum total resonance mode, the viewpoint we call 'the universe of 3d timespace'. the out vector, with complex resonance and complex vectoral spin components.. what we measure, for the most part. All due to our measurement and existence mode or node -- in reflection, or coupled pairing. Thus: 'I am god, you are god, this is god')

In such a scenario, a black hole is more of a..... dimensional portal. Gravitation may be finalized in that zone, at least with respect to how Newtonian/Einsteinian mathematics and the like can imagine it, but it is not an end point.

There are other 'nearby' resonance modes and nodes, we call them other dimensions, other realities, astral planes, levels, and so on.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I was told there is an ember of a star about three light months from our solar system. I don't know its mass but it is supposed to support a type 1 civilization. The reason we cannot see it is they have constructed the beginnings of a Dyson's sphere around it.

Just hearsay, though. But it is the basis for a book I am writing.

[WhiteLove]

I was told there is an ember of a star about three light months from our solar system. I don't know its mass but it is supposed to support a type 1 civilization. The reason we cannot see it is they have constructed the beginnings of a Dyson's sphere around it.

Just hearsay, though. But it is the basis for a book I am writing.

Incredibly interesting!

[regnak]

Every Sun rotates a Black hole it is known

When our Sun dies a new Sun will be born from this Black hole source Walter Russell

http://highwic.tumblr.com/image/78795439354
black hole location they know they sent a probe decades ago

[WhiteLove]

Every Sun rotates a Black hole it is known

When our Sun dies a new Sun will be born from this Black hole source Walter Russell

http://highwic.tumblr.com/image/78795439354
black hole location they know they sent a probe decades ago

Do you happen to know the name and or mass of that particular black hole?

I just validated my calculations as a random test (predicted the earth's Schwarzschild radius using my equations) and it came in with a 0 % margin of error, so at this point I'm quite sure my equations are correct, but I'm a bit uncertain about whether our sun's gravity force is 100% accurate in the data according to the standard measurements, because when I predicted the sun's Schwarzschild radius, my calculations gave a different value. Of course I should have got the same accuracy as I got when I calculated it on the earth.

I'm not sure where that funky stuff comes from... This could be the reason why my equations are not yielding the black hole in the galactic center as our sun's gravitational parent in my calculations. I'm going to check whether my calculations are off by a factor of 36 on the prediction of the sun's Schwarzschild radius...

The bottom line is, I'm starting to suspect that some basic data about the sun has been compromised, maybe the data is wrong on Wikipedia...

For this reason, I'm going to build a mathematical equation framework to isolate where that diff morphs in and why. I'm realising I have been trusting the standard measurements too much...

[DeDukshyn]

Why do we need a super massive body to be rotating around?

Because we know the sun's gravity force would be way way less than 5.5 * 10^32 N if that was the case.

It is not my intention to start an argument, but the Electric Universe people dispute the existence of black holes altogether. They describe the physics as "problematic".

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/?s=black+holes

My take is that just because the physics that support the structure of a "black hole" is problematic, doesn't mean they don't exist. They have been detected with various instruments. It means that we don't understand black holes or the way they work, as we thought we did. The electric universe theory indicates that the reason for a galaxy to spin and have it's shape is not due to a giant black hole at the center of the galaxy, which in itself is a new theory (for example, when I was in school there was no black hole at the center of the galaxy theory), compared to the theory of black holes themselves.

[Selkie]

Every Sun rotates a Black hole it is known

When our Sun dies a new Sun will be born from this Black hole source Walter Russell

http://highwic.tumblr.com/image/78795439354
black hole location they know they sent a probe decades ago

Do you happen to know the name and or mass of that particular black hole?

I just validated my calculations as a random test (predicted the earth's Schwarzschild radius using my equations) and it came in with a 0 % margin of error, so at this point I'm quite sure my equations are correct, but I'm a bit uncertain about whether our sun's gravity force is 100% accurate in the data according to the standard measurements, because when I predicted the sun's Schwarzschild radius, my calculations gave a different value. Of course I should have got the same accuracy as I got when I calculated it on the earth.

I'm not sure where that funky stuff comes from... This could be the reason why my equations are not yielding the black hole in the galactic center as our sun's gravitational parent in my calculations. I'm going to check whether my calculations are off by a factor of 36 on the prediction of the sun's Schwarzschild radius...

The bottom line is, I'm starting to suspect that some basic data about the sun has been compromised, maybe the data is wrong on Wikipedia...

For this reason, I'm going to build a mathematical equation framework to isolate where that diff morphs in and why. I'm realising I have been trusting the standard measurements too much...

Maybe they keep some of the data secret? That would throw your reckoning off, wouldn't it? And of course, Wikipedia could be simply be wrong, certainly.

[regnak]

mass of the black whole is the same as sun and all twenty odd planets combined

well you know of all the planets in a northern rotation

do you know that they are planets rotating in southern direction around the sun and they are massive
huge nibriu is one of there but they are many elliptical orbit

[WhiteLove]

I have now revised my calculations, but I need to validate them at least 10 times more before I'm sure on my calculations, because they indicate that whoever has calculated the sun's mass, it is off by a factor of almost 29. And if that is the case, then I can predict our sun's companion to likely be a star or black hole at the mass of ~107 Solar mass. And what I am going to try to do is to follow the chain of mass gravity points and see if it will land at the super massive black hole in the center of the galaxy. When so, I have likely made the right calculations.

Some star candidates below:

Cygnus OB2-12
110 Solar mass

WR 25
110 Solar mass

Arches-F1
101–119 Solar mass

Arches-F6
101–119 Solar mass

BAT99-33 (R99)
103 Solar mass

Peony Star
100 Solar mass

Cygnus OB2 #516
100 Solar mass

R136a in LMC
About 10 other stars between 80 and 200 Solar mass

Does anyone know which one of these stars (above) is the closest to our sun? Any candidate that stands out, that the sun could rotate 1 cycle around in 109 earth years?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/PIA18003-NASA-WISE-StarsNearSun-20140425-2.png

This (http://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html) could explain why the sun mass prediction is off. Aha, so what they did was to get rid of the old ways of predicting the distance between the sun and the earth and instead put up spacecraft/satellite/radar gear and stuff to make some own calculations/observations - cover up the data - and send it back to earth to make everyone 100 years behind. I see...

I'm going to bust this one. :thumbsup:

[regnak]

Mass is not a constant it is constantly changing with each solar flare the sun loses mass and the planets gain it

Planets are also losing mass at the equator called rings these form moons

Walter Russell is the source his stuff is great

[ghostrider]

the ETs say at the center of every galaxy there is a black hole ... the bigger the galaxy the bigger the black hole ...

[Sunny-side-up]

Mass is not a constant it is constantly changing with each solar flare the sun loses mass and the planets gain it

Planets are also losing mass at the equator called rings these form moons

Walter Russell is the source his stuff is great

Hi jonsnow :)
I know matter/mass collects at distance at the equators of planets and so forms rings!
but how do planets lose mass at the equator? is the mass leaving the planet and so overcoming gravity?

[regnak]

okay outside of every planet gives of rings these rings form moons . Moons destroy planets as planets destroy the Sun by a process yin yang lol

look up Walter Russell he explains all the mystery's of the Universe it is simple and so very cool most of his stuff was written long time ago I am
big fan especially of gravity stuff 10/10

Density pressure and temperature equal Gravity :silent:

[Ernie Nemeth]

Saturn supposedly birthed the planet Tiamat that later became the asteroid belt. And Venus was also captured from some other orbit not that long ago, according to Velikovsky.

I suspect that stars can also birth planets in a fashion not understood by contemporary science.

And to follow that train of logic I would say there might be an argument to propose that black holes birth stars.

Not sure how the electric universe theory would explain it but it at least seems plausible that black holes come in many different sizes depending on location and surrounding density of matter.

I don't think there is much chance that solar systems are created the way we were taught - a coalescing clump of gas might explain star and planet formation but it stretches credibility to think that same process creates moons, or planets that orbit counter to the parent star's rotation.