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: BURT on 21 Apr 2010 17:30 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
From: xxein on 21 Apr 2010 22:35 On Apr 21, 5:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 4:19 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. > > I'm guessing you're referring to "Black Holes and Time Warps". What > page number? > > > > > > > > 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 - xxein: I really hate to back Burt up but (2*G*m/r)^.5 is the escape velocity for the horizon of a black hole. m expressed in light terms becomes M and then (2*M*c^2/r)^.5 becomes the escape velocity from within a black hole. 2M is the event horizon in case you have forgotten or can't handle the math transposition. But that is not the central point. How fast is light traveling from the surface of our sun? Is it not retarded by gravity due to this escape velocity similar to like in a black hole? Does it gain in objective speed as it gets further away? Now think. Does light have a constant velocity? The Shapiro effect is not just the frequency altered. It is the speed of light altered by gravity. This can be calculated in the same fashion as any physics can. So we can calculate. But what do we calculate and put meaning to? So far, we have put meaning to a subjective observation called physics. We didn't even try to put an objective meaning to it - called the physic. This is why we have so many theories. We can't conclude because subjective measurement leaves so many loose ends. Look for the objective nature of the universe (and beyond). Am I asking more than we should think of? When are we going to start to do this?
From: mpc755 on 21 Apr 2010 22:44 On Apr 21, 10:35 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 4:19 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. > > > I'm guessing you're referring to "Black Holes and Time Warps". What > > page number? > > > > > 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 - > > xxein: I really hate to back Burt up but (2*G*m/r)^.5 is the escape > velocity for the horizon of a black hole. m expressed in light terms > becomes M and then (2*M*c^2/r)^.5 becomes the escape velocity from > within a black hole. 2M is the event horizon in case you have > forgotten or can't handle the math transposition. > > But that is not the central point. How fast is light traveling from > the surface of our sun? Is it not retarded by gravity due to this > escape velocity similar to like in a black hole? Does it gain in > objective speed as it gets further away? > > Now think. Does light have a constant velocity? The Shapiro effect > is not just the frequency altered. It is the speed of light altered > by gravity. This can be calculated in the same fashion as any physics > can. > > So we can calculate. But what do we calculate and put meaning to? So > far, we have put meaning to a subjective observation called physics. > We didn't even try to put an objective meaning to it - called the > physic. > > This is why we have so many theories. We can't conclude because > subjective measurement leaves so many loose ends. > > Look for the objective nature of the universe (and beyond). Am I > asking more than we should think of? > > When are we going to start to do this? When we realize Aether Displacement is the most correct theory to date.
From: BURT on 21 Apr 2010 22:45 On Apr 21, 7:35 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 4:19 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. > > > I'm guessing you're referring to "Black Holes and Time Warps". What > > page number? > > > > > 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 - > > xxein: I really hate to back Burt up but (2*G*m/r)^.5 is the escape > velocity for the horizon of a black hole. m expressed in light terms > becomes M and then (2*M*c^2/r)^.5 becomes the escape velocity from > within a black hole. 2M is the event horizon in case you have > forgotten or can't handle the math transposition. > > But that is not the central point. How fast is light traveling from > the surface of our sun? Is it not retarded by gravity due to this > escape velocity similar to like in a black hole? Does it gain in > objective speed as it gets further away? > > Now think. Does light have a constant velocity? The Shapiro effect > is not just the frequency altered. It is the speed of light altered > by gravity. This can be calculated in the same fashion as any physics > can. > > So we can calculate. But what do we calculate and put meaning to? So > far, we have put meaning to a subjective observation called physics. > We didn't even try to put an objective meaning to it - called the > physic. > > This is why we have so many theories. We can't conclude because > subjective measurement leaves so many loose ends. > > Look for the objective nature of the universe (and beyond). Am I > asking more than we should think of? > > When are we going to start to do this?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no escape speed for light because light doesn't slow down. It only applies to matter with the exception of the nuetrino. Mitch Raemsch
From: xxein on 23 Apr 2010 21:10
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? |