Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
in [Physics]
|
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 -
From: xxein on 27 Apr 2010 20:04 On Apr 26, 7:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: And where are you in this gravitational situation? Are you co- moving in gravity and slightly behind (outside of 2M)? Do you think that the plysical laws will abruptly break apart there?
From: BURT on 27 Apr 2010 21:04 On Apr 27, 5:04 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 26, 7:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: And where are you in this gravitational situation? Are you co- > moving in gravity and slightly behind (outside of 2M)? Do you think > that the plysical laws will abruptly break apart there?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Black hole horizon have light speed fall where there is infinite red and blue shift to light waves depending on if they are falling in or not. The motion laws for matter are broke at the horizon. And Stephen Hawking pointed out black hole failure of GR by the siungularities in the math. Mitch Raemsch
From: xxein on 29 Apr 2010 20:45 > > Black hole horizon have light speed fall where there is infinite red > and blue shift to light waves depending on if they are falling in or > not. The motion laws for matter are broke at the horizon. And Stephen > Hawking pointed out black hole failure of GR by the siungularities in > the math. > > Mitch Raemsch- 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > >xxein: And where are you in this gravitational situation? Are you co- > > moving in gravity and slightly behind (outside of 2M)? Do you think > > that the plysical laws will abruptly break apart there?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Black hole horizon have light speed fall where there is infinite red > and blue shift to light waves depending on if they are falling in or > not. The motion laws for matter are broke at the horizon. And Stephen > Hawking pointed out black hole failure of GR by the siungularities in > the math. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: Stephen Hawking is not all 'that' smart. Neither was Einstein. Each has a pov that has yet to be proven in their further extensions. Almost all people just accept all this math formulation as if it were the real description of the physic itself. Why are quantum and string theories so different from them? Each is just a different way of expressing an operational belief through a different expression of an invented symbolic math. But math is only an invented tool. It does not exist in nature as it's guiding principle. A singularity cannot exist as a nothing. It has to have physical propeties or else it wouldn't exist at all to have a gravity that still continues. Confused yet? Go to your church and preach. But I certainly won't be there.
From: BURT on 29 Apr 2010 21:26
On Apr 29, 5:45 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Black hole horizon have light speed fall where there is infinite red > > and blue shift to light waves depending on if they are falling in or > > not. The motion laws for matter are broke at the horizon. And Stephen > > Hawking pointed out black hole failure of GR by the siungularities in > > the math. > > > Mitch Raemsch- 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > >xxein: And where are you in this gravitational situation? Are you co- > > > moving in gravity and slightly behind (outside of 2M)? Do you think > > > that the plysical laws will abruptly break apart there?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Black hole horizon have light speed fall where there is infinite red > > and blue shift to light waves depending on if they are falling in or > > not. The motion laws for matter are broke at the horizon. And Stephen > > Hawking pointed out black hole failure of GR by the siungularities in > > the math. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: Stephen Hawking is not all 'that' smart. Neither was > Einstein. Each has a pov that has yet to be proven in their further > extensions. Almost all people just accept all this math formulation > as if it were the real description of the physic itself. Why are > quantum and string theories so different from them? > > Each is just a different way of expressing an operational belief > through a different expression of an invented symbolic math. But math > is only an invented tool. It does not exist in nature as it's guiding > principle. > > A singularity cannot exist as a nothing. It has to have physical > propeties or else it wouldn't exist at all to have a gravity that > still continues. > > Confused yet? > > Go to your church and preach. But I certainly won't be there.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gravity theory in the case of the extreme of black holes violates the STR laws of motion. In other words GR violates SR when GR is at its extreme. Mitch Raemsch |