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 23 Apr 2010 21:20 On Apr 23, 6:10 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Maximum gravity means maximum fall rate. GR predicts reaching light speed at the extreme of black holes. If gravity is even stronger inside there will be falling faster than light into the singularity. There is no more excuse. We are not seeing black holes. Mitch Raemsch
From: Androcles on 24 Apr 2010 00:35 "xxein" <xxein(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).
From: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 16:44 On Apr 22, 5:27 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. > > 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). Gravity gives and takes motion equally whether in orbit or in a parabolic geometry fly by. The swing shot effect is an illusion. It is premotion constant going in and out of gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 25 Apr 2010 19:51 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
From: xxein on 26 Apr 2010 18:24
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? |