| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#FloraTerra
| Photography / Animals, Plants & Nature / Flowers, Trees & Plants | ©2012-2013 ~Dark-Raptor |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
it's a different kind of shot of this flower; i like it!
You can also try to find flying flies in the picture.
I agree with ya about the "looks like ya could fall in". These flowers remind me of an open sewer... and they smell like one too.
LOL! Though we may not like it, the stink has a purpose; These flowers are pollinated by flies, not bees.
The Celestial object you mentioned is an illusion based on a flawed assumption & erroneous theoretical mathematical models over the physics of reality. It's never mentioned by the established mainstream, but the observed Galactic formations can be achieved without the need for black holes, dark energy, dark matter, neutron stars or any of the other mythical creations.
I still maintain that Black holes are unrealistic mathematical proposals and should NEVER be used as the model for real celestial objects. The errors are simple; undemonstrable theoretical assumptions are accepted as real. In this case, it's thinking that only gravity could possibly be responsible for the observations.
At least we started in agreement.
However, in regard to "black holes" as real objects, I completely disgree. You say "almost every law of physics supports the existence of such objects". Really? Which Law of Physics or labratory experiment supports the proposal of gravitational compression of solid matter at all?...
Let alone that it can be done to supposedly "infinite" densities.??
Every single proposed "solution":
the Hilbert or Schwartzchild "classic" black hole,
the Reissner-Nordstrom "charged" BH,
the Kerr "rotating" BH,
and the Kerr-Newman "charged & rotating" BH...
ALL of them deal with a theoretical single infinite point mass in a single "space-time".
Any proposal based on them precludes the mathematical possibility for anything other than a single "black hole" per universe.
Therefore the idea of multiple Infinite Point Mass Objects being responsible for so many various observations is false.
I regularly hear various media sources telling of black holes that are "X millions of solar masses and only the size of planet Y". Such descriptions violate the conditions of a BH. There are no laws of physics which support or demonstratable example of a "point mass", a theoretical construct which occupies a single dimension of 0 space. By logical extension, there is NO mechanism for increasing the size of such a "point" to ANY 3D proportions at all, let alone planetary dimensions.