Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 16:15 On Apr 23, 1:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 2:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 7:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 21, 9:35 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Where time ends in gravity things are falling at the speed of light.. > > > > This is a fact of the theory of gravity at the extreme. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > I looked on pages 99-100 of Thorne's book, and there is nothing there > > > that says things fall at the speed of light into black holes. Try > > > again. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Maybe it is not that book. But you do not need Kip Thorne. If you look > > hard enough you will find the fact that at the event horizon time > > stops and you are at the speed of light. These two go hand in hand. > > I'm sorry, Mitch, but this is just wrong. If you think you remember > this, then you probably need to go back and check your facts, rather > than just trust your dim memory. Your dim and poor memory is making > you think there is an internal problem that just isn't there. > > > Mitch Raemsch Do you have trouble with the motion law that says time will stop if you reach the speed of light? This is validated by black hole event horizons. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 23 Apr 2010 17:03 On Apr 23, 3:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 1:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 3:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Do you have trouble with the motion law that says time will stop if > > > you reach the speed of light? This is validated by black hole event > > > horizons. > > > There is no motion law that says that time will stop if you reach the > > speed of light, because nothing that ever went less than the speed of > > light can reach the speed of light, and therefore time never stops for > > those objects. > > > This is another case where you think you've read something, but you > > can't quite put your finger on it to check to see if it's right. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Well then. Can you disprove the fact that Special Relativity spells > out the motion law I am refering to? I know now that you are not as > smart as you look. > Mitch, let me see if I have this right. You feel free to pull a dim recollection of something you think you saw somewhere, and you will insist that it is so until someone proves to you otherwise? This seems like an easy way to keep people busy, with you making half-assed conjectures and demanding rigorous and documented responses in return. How about if I meet you halfway? In order to convince you that what I say is right, I will not expect you to believe anything I say, but instead I will have to refer to a place where it is printed in black and white. In return, you will have to actually go find the book or reference where I point to, and you will actually have to read what is written there. And if what I say is backed up in the documentation I say is there, then you will correct your dim recollection and withdraw your half-assed conjecture. Does this seem fair? PD
From: bert on 22 Apr 2010 17:26 On Apr 22, 4:41 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > On Apr 21, 9:35=A0pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Apr 21, 5:25=A0pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Apr 21, 4:19=A0pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Apr 21, 3:57=A0pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > GR says matter falls at the speed of light. > PD: > >> > > > > No, it does not. Nowhere does it say that. Things crossing the ev= > > ent > >> > > > > horizon can do so at quite low speeds. > > [...]>> > > >> >> > 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. > > [...] > > >> xxein: =A0I really hate to back Burt up but (2*G*m/r)^.5 is the escape > >> velocity for the horizon of a black hole. =A0m expressed in light terms > >> becomes M and then (2*M*c^2/r)^.5 becomes the escape velocity from > >> within a black hole. =A02M is the event horizon in case you have > >> forgotten or can't handle the math transposition. > > PD: > > > > > 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. > > I think the last statement needs a bit of amplification. > > --John Park Einstein proclaimed that all objects in the universe are always traveling through spacetime at one fixed speed "that of light" I see where he was coming from. Do you all? TreBert
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 17:07 On Apr 23, 2:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 3:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 3:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Do you have trouble with the motion law that says time will stop if > > > > you reach the speed of light? This is validated by black hole event > > > > horizons. > > > > There is no motion law that says that time will stop if you reach the > > > speed of light, because nothing that ever went less than the speed of > > > light can reach the speed of light, and therefore time never stops for > > > those objects. > > > > This is another case where you think you've read something, but you > > > can't quite put your finger on it to check to see if it's right. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Well then. Can you disprove the fact that Special Relativity spells > > out the motion law I am refering to? I know now that you are not as > > smart as you look. > > Mitch, let me see if I have this right. You feel free to pull a dim > recollection of something you think you saw somewhere, and you will > insist that it is so until someone proves to you otherwise? This seems > like an easy way to keep people busy, with you making half-assed > conjectures and demanding rigorous and documented responses in return. > > How about if I meet you halfway? In order to convince you that what I > say is right, I will not expect you to believe anything I say, but > instead I will have to refer to a place where it is printed in black > and white. In return, you will have to actually go find the book or > reference where I point to, and you will actually have to read what is > written there. And if what I say is backed up in the documentation I > say is there, then you will correct your dim recollection and withdraw > your half-assed conjecture. > > Does this seem fair? > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That infinite red shift at an event horizon proves the fact that GR predicts light speed fall there. What about the even greater gravity inside? There is no way around it. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 23 Apr 2010 10:18
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. |