Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 21 Apr 2010 09:43 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
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 18:13 On Apr 23, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 4:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 4:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > No sir. That is gravitational redshift, > > > > > Is not fall gravitational? > > > > Yes, but infinite redshift due to gravitation does not mean infinite > > > redshift due to reaching c. The two are different. The first can > > > happen without the second happening. > > > > Need a recommendation on something to read? > > > > > t speed-associated red- > > > > > > shift. Two completely different phenomena. > > > How are they different? A black hole is always maximum gravity. You > > cannot get rid of light speed falling for it. This is the disproof of > > the extreme of gravity. > > Sorry, Mitch, but half-assed conclusions based on dim recollections > and stringing together wisps of information don't make disproofs of > anything. > > Try reading. You could try Thorne's book, since you tried citing it > earlier. Do you have it? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > You are making stuff up out of thin air, grabbing thin wisps and > > > > > trying to put them together. How about actually reading something? > > > > > > > What about the even greater gravity > > > > > > inside? > > > > > > > There is no way around it. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Please read more books. You have missed the final conclusion. Gravity for a black hole produces maximum fall. But it is violating the motion laws. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 23 Apr 2010 18:16 On Apr 23, 5:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > No sir. That is gravitational redshift, > > > > > > Is not fall gravitational? > > > > > Yes, but infinite redshift due to gravitation does not mean infinite > > > > redshift due to reaching c. The two are different. The first can > > > > happen without the second happening. > > > > > Need a recommendation on something to read? > > > > > > t speed-associated red- > > > > > > > shift. Two completely different phenomena. > > > > How are they different? A black hole is always maximum gravity. You > > > cannot get rid of light speed falling for it. This is the disproof of > > > the extreme of gravity. > > > Sorry, Mitch, but half-assed conclusions based on dim recollections > > and stringing together wisps of information don't make disproofs of > > anything. > > > Try reading. You could try Thorne's book, since you tried citing it > > earlier. Do you have it? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > You are making stuff up out of thin air, grabbing thin wisps and > > > > > > trying to put them together. How about actually reading something? > > > > > > > > What about the even greater gravity > > > > > > > inside? > > > > > > > > There is no way around it. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Please read more books. You have missed the final conclusion. Cite the book that comes to this conclusion, Mitch. Really, you think that just putting two flimsy statements together the way you do generates some new insight that has somehow been missed by everybody but you? > Gravity > for a black hole produces maximum fall. But it is violating the motion > laws. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 18:25 On Apr 23, 3:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 5:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 4:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > No sir. That is gravitational redshift, > > > > > > > Is not fall gravitational? > > > > > > Yes, but infinite redshift due to gravitation does not mean infinite > > > > > redshift due to reaching c. The two are different. The first can > > > > > happen without the second happening. > > > > > > Need a recommendation on something to read? > > > > > > > t speed-associated red- > > > > > > > > shift. Two completely different phenomena. > > > > > How are they different? A black hole is always maximum gravity. You > > > > cannot get rid of light speed falling for it. This is the disproof of > > > > the extreme of gravity. > > > > Sorry, Mitch, but half-assed conclusions based on dim recollections > > > and stringing together wisps of information don't make disproofs of > > > anything. > > > > Try reading. You could try Thorne's book, since you tried citing it > > > earlier. Do you have it? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > You are making stuff up out of thin air, grabbing thin wisps and > > > > > > > trying to put them together. How about actually reading something? > > > > > > > > > What about the even greater gravity > > > > > > > > inside? > > > > > > > > > There is no way around it. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Please read more books. You have missed the final conclusion. > > Cite the book that comes to this conclusion, Mitch. > > Really, you think that just putting two flimsy statements together the > way you do generates some new insight that has somehow been missed by > everybody but you? > > > > > Gravity > > for a black hole produces maximum fall. But it is violating the motion > > laws. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have no books. I saw what Thorne said by accident when I opened the book at a library to see what nonsense it was about. He made the final excuse for black hole theory; that matter could fall at the speed of light but no faster. But it will be proven that we are not seeing black holes. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 21 Apr 2010 16:06
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. Mitch Raemsch |