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 20 Apr 2010 20:45 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
From: xxein on 20 Apr 2010 20:56 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.
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 21:04 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
From: xxein on 20 Apr 2010 21:45 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.
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 22:10
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 |