Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: instructor solution manual for Differential Equations and Linear Algebra 3e by Stephen W Goode
Next: The best we can get for a standard model
From: xxein on 26 Apr 2010 18:27 On Apr 25, 7:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 9:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_y> wrote: > > > > > > > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:f1be16fe-5021-4477-a4c4-ac5e877d3e52(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 23, 10:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 7:27 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > PD said > > > > > > Escape velocity is not the speed at which things fall into a black > > > > > hole. Likewise, the escape velocity at the Earth's surface is not the > > > > > speed at which things will fall to the Earth's surface, either. > > > > >xxein: Right. Escape velocity is not the speed at which things fall > > > > into a black hole. But it is the velocity required to escape from > > > > it. Just like Earth. > > > > Yes, indeed, but that was not the contention, nor is the above > > > statement anything that is in conflict with SR. > > > > > But for your entertainment, a motionless point particle a zilliom > > > > miles from a stationary Earth can only fall to the Earth's surface at > > > > escape velocity (if nothing else but Earth's gravity is influencing > > > > it). > > > > Yes, that's true too, but again there is nothing there that would > > > violate SR. Keep in mind that this is the *classical* result from > > > Newtonian gravity, and is not quite the result that would be obtained > > > if calculated relativistically. > > >xxein: So? Who cares about the relativistic (a subjective measure)? > > Wouldn't you rather understand the objective facts first before > > developing a relatistic view? > > > SR is nothing but relativistic (as well as it works). I don't mean > > that servicing the relativistic notion is not an important pov if that > > is all you want to work with. But it doesn't explain the anomolies we > > find that are not so close to our immediate and daily perview. > > > If you want to play that you understand the universe, then understand > > it as it is. Not some local Oz-like notion. > > > Where is Pioneer, dark matter or dark energy contained in such a local > > notion of the physics. It is not. Our relativistic notion is limited > > in it's scope of applicabilities. > > > An acedemic sheepskin only means you learned what somebody told you. > > Where's the rest of the physic? I don't even know yet but it > > certainly leads to more than SR-GR. I have found that out. Can't > > you? > > > Let's get honest. We will never figure it all out. We can understand > > why we can never figure it all out. So who is trying to fool who with > > so-called proofs for any theory. > > > Get off the chessboard and step in front of a bus to understand a > > reality (so to speak). > > > Why does everybody think some pet theory rules how the universe > > operates? > > > ========================================= > > Actually I agree with what you are saying when you aren't ranting > > about yins and yangs. > > The main difference between your philosophy and mine is you don't > > play chess at all or even understand its rules (so to speak). > > Whether we are avoiding buses or riding in them, we like to play chess. > > > Let's get honest. Leave sci.physics.relativity, you don't belong here, this > > is where the artefactual chess game is taking place and fools are trying to > > skin sheep and goats for vellum; that requires squeezing the goat's zits. > > > Let's get honest. Not everybody thinks some pet theory rules how the > > universe operates, some of us are trying to understand reality. > > Why does everybody think it's an artefactual/superficially imposed > > yin-yang of sorts? Get off the yin yang and step in front of a bus to > > understand reality (so to speak).- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > We are not seeing black holes. Instead we are seeing the largest > possible red shifts due to limited gravity strength. Maximum gravity > does not create a black hole. Light will always overcome gravity. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: That is exactly why we cannot directly see a black hole. Light is not limited in speed to a relativistic c.
From: BURT on 26 Apr 2010 18:29 On Apr 26, 3:24 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 24, 12:35 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_y> > wrote: > > > > > > > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:f1be16fe-5021-4477-a4c4-ac5e877d3e52(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 23, 10:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 7:27 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > PD said > > > > > > Escape velocity is not the speed at which things fall into a black > > > > > hole. Likewise, the escape velocity at the Earth's surface is not the > > > > > speed at which things will fall to the Earth's surface, either. > > > > >xxein: Right. Escape velocity is not the speed at which things fall > > > > into a black hole. But it is the velocity required to escape from > > > > it. Just like Earth. > > > > Yes, indeed, but that was not the contention, nor is the above > > > statement anything that is in conflict with SR. > > > > > But for your entertainment, a motionless point particle a zilliom > > > > miles from a stationary Earth can only fall to the Earth's surface at > > > > escape velocity (if nothing else but Earth's gravity is influencing > > > > it). > > > > Yes, that's true too, but again there is nothing there that would > > > violate SR. Keep in mind that this is the *classical* result from > > > Newtonian gravity, and is not quite the result that would be obtained > > > if calculated relativistically. > > > xxein: So? Who cares about the relativistic (a subjective measure)? > > Wouldn't you rather understand the objective facts first before > > developing a relatistic view? > > > SR is nothing but relativistic (as well as it works). I don't mean > > that servicing the relativistic notion is not an important pov if that > > is all you want to work with. But it doesn't explain the anomolies we > > find that are not so close to our immediate and daily perview. > > > If you want to play that you understand the universe, then understand > > it as it is. Not some local Oz-like notion. > > > Where is Pioneer, dark matter or dark energy contained in such a local > > notion of the physics. It is not. Our relativistic notion is limited > > in it's scope of applicabilities. > > > An acedemic sheepskin only means you learned what somebody told you. > > Where's the rest of the physic? I don't even know yet but it > > certainly leads to more than SR-GR. I have found that out. Can't > > you? > > > Let's get honest. We will never figure it all out. We can understand > > why we can never figure it all out. So who is trying to fool who with > > so-called proofs for any theory. > > > Get off the chessboard and step in front of a bus to understand a > > reality (so to speak). > > > Why does everybody think some pet theory rules how the universe > > operates? > > > ========================================= > > Actually I agree with what you are saying when you aren't ranting > > about yins and yangs. > > The main difference between your philosophy and mine is you don't > > play chess at all or even understand its rules (so to speak). > > Whether we are avoiding buses or riding in them, we like to play chess. > > > Let's get honest. Leave sci.physics.relativity, you don't belong here, this > > is where the artefactual chess game is taking place and fools are trying to > > skin sheep and goats for vellum; that requires squeezing the goat's zits. > > > Let's get honest. Not everybody thinks some pet theory rules how the > > universe operates, some of us are trying to understand reality. > > Why does everybody think it's an artefactual/superficially imposed > > yin-yang of sorts? Get off the yin yang and step in front of a bus to > > understand reality (so to speak).- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: You finally get my point?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Escape speed applies only to matter. Light always overcomes gravity. It is not possible to put a light wave into orbit or to bring it to an absolute rest. Mitch Raemsch
From: xxein on 26 Apr 2010 18:52 On Apr 21, 5:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 21, 1:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:48 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 21, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 6:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 1:36 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 8:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 6:45 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:56 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 8:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He refused to believe in them. Many faults in theory can be shown that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even Einstein couldn't see. Stephen Hawking demonstrated one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately he didn't follow through; at least in the past he has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not. What we are not seeing is black holes. We are seeing a red shift > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is short of a black hole. That the strength of gravity or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acceleration has a limit is the conclusion of the new theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Whole gravity > > > > > > > > > > > > > >xxein: Wrong! Simply wrong. You couldn't even pass as a physics > > > > > > > > > > > > > charlatan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR violates SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please show me where I am wrong. Was Hawking wrong when he said that > > > > > > > > > > > > GR predicted its own downfall because of singularity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > If time ends at an event horizon so does proper time. Falling in a > > > > > > > > > > > > black hole violates the Special theories motion limit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > >xxein: You can't find other solutions, can you? Of course not. You > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think! > > > > > > > > > > > > No published theory is correct. All you can do is bash them. I do > > > > > > > > > > > the same. I can bash yours (if I knew what it was).. You haven't even > > > > > > > > > > > explained it beyond blurbs. Where is the/your mechanic described in > > > > > > > > > > > any fashion? Do you like a Higgs boson? I don't.. Is it a necessary > > > > > > > > > > > component and a conclusitory factor? No. It is just a human > > > > > > > > > > > invention put in there to fill the gaps of a faulty understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your blurbs fall a million times short of any undestanding of the > > > > > > > > > > > physic - let alone any physics to consider.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > Black holes violate the motion laws at their surface and inside. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Black holes haven't been behaving. > > > > > > > > > Nothing was supposed to come out. > > > > > > > > > That's not true, John. That statement has never been the case. > > > > > > > > What is true is that anything that falls inside the *event horizon* > > > > > > > > doesn't come out. But there is lots and lots of action that happens > > > > > > > > outside the event horizon, including a bunch of stuff that emits > > > > > > > > radiation outward. This includes jets of particles, Hawking radiation, > > > > > > > > X-rays emitted from falling matter. > > > > > > > > > I don't know where you ever got the impression that black holes do not > > > > > > > > emit anything, but it's plain that you thought that was the case and > > > > > > > > that information that is new to you is contrary to that. Rather than > > > > > > > > believing that the notion of black holes are contradictory, perhaps it > > > > > > > > was just your initial understanding of black holes that was wrong, > > > > > > > > oversimplified, misinformed. > > > > > > > > > > Then these humongous jets are seen > > > > > > > > > everywhere coming away from them > > > > > > > > > containing significant amounts of high > > > > > > > > > energy particles. > > > > > > > > > They were supposed to eat and eat, but > > > > > > > > > now it looks like they get full and stop (???). > > > > > > > > > Some people report quasars spewing out of > > > > > > > > > them "like bowling balls". > > > > > > > > > > Fun. > > > > > > > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is not sound. They violate the motion laws. > > > > > > > What motion laws do you think are violated. > > > > > > [Be sure you know that it's a law first, rather than just something > > > > > > you think should be true.] > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > GR says matter falls at the speed of light. > > > > > No, it does not. Nowhere does it say that. Things crossing the event > > > > horizon can do so at quite low speeds. > > > > > Perhaps you have misread something. > > > > > > Kip Thorne made the excuse > > > > > that all was ok as long as falling did not exceed the speed of light. > > > > > > That is an excuse because even if falling only reaches the speed of > > > > > light it is in violation to SR. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > You're not as competent as Kip Thorn. He declared what GR says. And > > > that is objects fall at the speed of light at the event horizon. > > > Cite reference where he says that. It's not a correct statement. > > > > This > > > is the GR theory's prediction. Kip Thorne made his excuse in a > > > popular book he wrote about black holes. Black holes are a disproven > > > theory. We are not seeing them. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I don't need to verify the theory through Kip Thorne. GR theory > predicts falling at light speed. This is a fact. If you can find his > book look at page 99-100. There you will find his excuse. Black hole > theory violates Special Relativity. I believe the book was called > Black Holes and Time Warps. > > Mitch Raemsch; If time ends you are falling at the speed of light- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: You said: "If time ends you are falling at the speed of light." Time does not end. Think of the situation. Who is the observer? What do you still observe? Every relativist likes c as a limit. Let me give you a big hint. If you were very close to and approaching a BH due to it's gravity and/or your supplemental speed (outside of 2M) and you were watching something that fell into 2M, you would still see it for a while until IT'S speed got to c away from you. This is not a loophole. It is a conclusion that anyone should draw from SR-GR. What is 2M a limit for? Ans: A far away observer. Now! Under what circumstances, exactly, does time end?
From: Androcles on 26 Apr 2010 19:14 "xxein" <xxein(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:cfe4e1f3-6b57-4741-be6b-1a07f567612d(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Apr 24, 12:35 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_y> wrote: > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:f1be16fe-5021-4477-a4c4-ac5e877d3e52(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 23, 10:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 7:27 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > PD said > > > > > Escape velocity is not the speed at which things fall into a black > > > > hole. Likewise, the escape velocity at the Earth's surface is not > > > > the > > > > speed at which things will fall to the Earth's surface, either. > > > >xxein: Right. Escape velocity is not the speed at which things fall > > > into a black hole. But it is the velocity required to escape from > > > it. Just like Earth. > > > Yes, indeed, but that was not the contention, nor is the above > > statement anything that is in conflict with SR. > > > > But for your entertainment, a motionless point particle a zilliom > > > miles from a stationary Earth can only fall to the Earth's surface at > > > escape velocity (if nothing else but Earth's gravity is influencing > > > it). > > > Yes, that's true too, but again there is nothing there that would > > violate SR. Keep in mind that this is the *classical* result from > > Newtonian gravity, and is not quite the result that would be obtained > > if calculated relativistically. > > xxein: So? Who cares about the relativistic (a subjective measure)? > Wouldn't you rather understand the objective facts first before > developing a relatistic view? > > SR is nothing but relativistic (as well as it works). I don't mean > that servicing the relativistic notion is not an important pov if that > is all you want to work with. But it doesn't explain the anomolies we > find that are not so close to our immediate and daily perview. > > If you want to play that you understand the universe, then understand > it as it is. Not some local Oz-like notion. > > Where is Pioneer, dark matter or dark energy contained in such a local > notion of the physics. It is not. Our relativistic notion is limited > in it's scope of applicabilities. > > An acedemic sheepskin only means you learned what somebody told you. > Where's the rest of the physic? I don't even know yet but it > certainly leads to more than SR-GR. I have found that out. Can't > you? > > Let's get honest. We will never figure it all out. We can understand > why we can never figure it all out. So who is trying to fool who with > so-called proofs for any theory. > > Get off the chessboard and step in front of a bus to understand a > reality (so to speak). > > Why does everybody think some pet theory rules how the universe > operates? > > ========================================= > Actually I agree with what you are saying when you aren't ranting > about yins and yangs. > The main difference between your philosophy and mine is you don't > play chess at all or even understand its rules (so to speak). > Whether we are avoiding buses or riding in them, we like to play chess. > > Let's get honest. Leave sci.physics.relativity, you don't belong here, > this > is where the artefactual chess game is taking place and fools are trying > to > skin sheep and goats for vellum; that requires squeezing the goat's zits. > > Let's get honest. Not everybody thinks some pet theory rules how the > universe operates, some of us are trying to understand reality. > Why does everybody think it's an artefactual/superficially imposed > yin-yang of sorts? Get off the yin yang and step in front of a bus to > understand reality (so to speak).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: You finally get my point? ============================================= Of course I "get" your point, I always did. But nobody plays your game of artefactual yin yang of sorts, they know some of the rules of chess, so to speak, so they try to play chess instead, so the speak. Even I can't play artefactual yin yang of sorts, especially when it is superficially imposed, although I know it is a game you would like to play, so to speak. You need to find a newsgroup where you can play some sort of superficially imposed artefactual yin yangs instead of relativity and physics, because you don't know the rules of either one and will lose every time; and the bus is coming. Let's get honest. You will never figure any of it out.
From: BURT on 26 Apr 2010 19:16
On Apr 26, 3:52 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 21, 3:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 1:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:48 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 6:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 1:36 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 8:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 6:45 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:56 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 8:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He refused to believe in them. Many faults in theory can be shown that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even Einstein couldn't see. Stephen Hawking demonstrated one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately he didn't follow through; at least in the past he has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not. What we are not seeing is black holes.. We are seeing a red shift > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is short of a black hole. That the strength of gravity or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acceleration has a limit is the conclusion of the new theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Whole gravity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >xxein: Wrong! Simply wrong. You couldn't even pass as a physics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charlatan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR violates SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please show me where I am wrong. Was Hawking wrong when he said that > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR predicted its own downfall because of singularity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If time ends at an event horizon so does proper time. Falling in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > black hole violates the Special theories motion limit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > >xxein: You can't find other solutions, can you? Of course not. You > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think! > > > > > > > > > > > > > No published theory is correct. All you can do is bash them. I do > > > > > > > > > > > > the same. I can bash yours (if I knew what it was). You haven't even > > > > > > > > > > > > explained it beyond blurbs. Where is the/your mechanic described in > > > > > > > > > > > > any fashion? Do you like a Higgs boson? I don't. Is it a necessary > > > > > > > > > > > > component and a conclusitory factor? No. It is just a human > > > > > > > > > > > > invention put in there to fill the gaps of a faulty understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your blurbs fall a million times short of any undestanding of the > > > > > > > > > > > > physic - let alone any physics to consider.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > Black holes violate the motion laws at their surface and inside. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > Black holes haven't been behaving. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing was supposed to come out. > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, John. That statement has never been the case. > > > > > > > > > What is true is that anything that falls inside the *event horizon* > > > > > > > > > doesn't come out. But there is lots and lots of action that happens > > > > > > > > > outside the event horizon, including a bunch of stuff that emits > > > > > > > > > radiation outward. This includes jets of particles, Hawking radiation, > > > > > > > > > X-rays emitted from falling matter. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know where you ever got the impression that black holes do not > > > > > > > > > emit anything, but it's plain that you thought that was the case and > > > > > > > > > that information that is new to you is contrary to that. Rather than > > > > > > > > > believing that the notion of black holes are contradictory, perhaps it > > > > > > > > > was just your initial understanding of black holes that was wrong, > > > > > > > > > oversimplified, misinformed. > > > > > > > > > > > Then these humongous jets are seen > > > > > > > > > > everywhere coming away from them > > > > > > > > > > containing significant amounts of high > > > > > > > > > > energy particles. > > > > > > > > > > They were supposed to eat and eat, but > > > > > > > > > > now it looks like they get full and stop (???). > > > > > > > > > > Some people report quasars spewing out of > > > > > > > > > > them "like bowling balls". > > > > > > > > > > > Fun. > > > > > > > > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is not sound. They violate the motion laws. > > > > > > > > What motion laws do you think are violated. > > > > > > > [Be sure you know that it's a law first, rather than just something > > > > > > > you think should be true.] > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > GR says matter falls at the speed of light. > > > > > > No, it does not. Nowhere does it say that. Things crossing the event > > > > > horizon can do so at quite low speeds. > > > > > > Perhaps you have misread something. > > > > > > > Kip Thorne made the excuse > > > > > > that all was ok as long as falling did not exceed the speed of light. > > > > > > > That is an excuse because even if falling only reaches the speed of > > > > > > light it is in violation to SR. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > You're not as competent as Kip Thorn. He declared what GR says. And > > > > that is objects fall at the speed of light at the event horizon. > > > > Cite reference where he says that. It's not a correct statement. > > > > > This > > > > is the GR theory's prediction. Kip Thorne made his excuse in a > > > > popular book he wrote about black holes. Black holes are a disproven > > > > theory. We are not seeing them. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I don't need to verify the theory through Kip Thorne. GR theory > > predicts falling at light speed. This is a fact. If you can find his > > book look at page 99-100. There you will find his excuse. Black hole > > theory violates Special Relativity. I believe the book was called > > Black Holes and Time Warps. > > > Mitch Raemsch; If time ends you are falling at the speed of light- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: You said: "If time ends you are falling at the speed of > light." Time does not end. Think of the situation. You do not know your GR for black holes. Time ends and red shift goes infinite at the event horizon. Mitch Raemsch > > Every relativist likes c as a limit. Let me give you a big hint. If > you were very close to and approaching a BH due to it's gravity and/or > your supplemental speed (outside of 2M) and you were watching > something that fell into 2M, you would still see it for a while until > IT'S speed got to c away from you. > > This is not a loophole. It is a conclusion that anyone should draw > from SR-GR. What is 2M a limit for? Ans: A far away observer. > > Now! Under what circumstances, exactly, does time end?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |