Black holes violate laws
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Finding particles and their quantum wave of vibration
Next: Trajectory branching in Liouville space as the source ofirreversibility
From: Edward Green on 31 May 2010 20:10 On May 31, 3:06 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/31/2010 1:41 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 7:00 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 5/30/2010 11:32 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> On May 30, 9:21 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> On 5/30/2010 10:09 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>>>> On May 30, 8:05 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/30/2010 8:57 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>>>>>> First the event horizon accelerates matter at light speed. This is GR > >>>>>>> violating the motion laws set forth by SR. > > >>>>>>> Second. The energy laws for light are also broken at the event > >>>>>>> horizon. The blueshift of incomming light will violate energy laws by > >>>>>>> going infinite. And the redshift for outgoing light makes its energy > >>>>>>> infinitely small. > > >>>>>>> Black holes don't exist. And what we are seeing is a maximum red shift > >>>>>>> by what is short of a black hole. > > >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > >>>>>> Idiot. > > >>>>> Perhaps you can correct me for pointing out the laws violated? > > >>>> Not a single thing you wrote was correct, > > >>> Nothing you know is correct. Absolutely everything in physics is to be > >>> corrected in the future. > > >>> Black holes don't even exist. > > >>>> beginning with the fact > >>>> that the event horizon is a location with no properties to create > >>>> acceleration. > > >>> OH really? Please prove then that there is no gravity at an event > >>> horizon to accelerate energy. > > >>> You can't do it. > > >> It might be helpful if you got the definitions down first, and > >> then actually understood simple things like "cause and effect." > > >> "an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime" as defined in > >> wikipedia. > > >> "Although the event horizon is part of a black hole, it is not a > >> tangible object." > > >> <http://design.lbl.gov/education/blackholes/index.html> > > >> Next, learn the proper definition of gravity and acceleration. I > >> can't take the time to provide you with the basic education you > >> need about the words used in science. But it doesn't matter anyway, > >> see below. > > >>>> Before you get to blue shift, tell me about the difference > >>>> in the internal and external dimensions of a theoretical > >>>> black hole.- Hide quoted text - > >>> Blueshift comes first. This is another law broken at the event > >>> horizon. You see black hole theory predicts its own downfall just like > >>> Stephen Hawking said. > > >> On the one hand you say, "Nothing you know is correct. Absolutely > >> everything in physics is to be corrected in the future." (above) and > >> on the other hand you cite Hawking as a god who is correct in > >> everything. > > >> On a good day you're inconsistent, leaving everything you write > >> plain ordinary bullshit.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I don't believe Hawking about everything else. But as a looser at the > > top he was right to point out black hole failure even though he didn't > > follow up. But that just goes to show who he really is. He is aetheist > > science whose MO is intimidation and he can't do anything science > > right all of the way. > > There you go again. Now you admit you've been citing someone you > disagree with as a reliable source. Pure inconsistency, but you're > probably so crazy you can't understand even that. He simply quoted Hawking in saying something he agreed with. That doesn't mean he has to agree with Hawking on everything. That's ordinary conversational convention.
From: Edward Green on 31 May 2010 20:15 On May 31, 3:08 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/31/2010 1:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 7:00 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 5/30/2010 11:32 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> On May 30, 9:21 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> On 5/30/2010 10:09 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>>>> On May 30, 8:05 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/30/2010 8:57 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>>>>>> First the event horizon accelerates matter at light speed. This is GR > >>>>>>> violating the motion laws set forth by SR. > > >>>>>>> Second. The energy laws for light are also broken at the event > >>>>>>> horizon. The blueshift of incomming light will violate energy laws by > >>>>>>> going infinite. And the redshift for outgoing light makes its energy > >>>>>>> infinitely small. > > >>>>>>> Black holes don't exist. And what we are seeing is a maximum red shift > >>>>>>> by what is short of a black hole. > > >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > >>>>>> Idiot. > > >>>>> Perhaps you can correct me for pointing out the laws violated? > > >>>> Not a single thing you wrote was correct, > > >>> Nothing you know is correct. Absolutely everything in physics is to be > >>> corrected in the future. > > >>> Black holes don't even exist. > > >>>> beginning with the fact > >>>> that the event horizon is a location with no properties to create > >>>> acceleration. > > >>> OH really? Please prove then that there is no gravity at an event > >>> horizon to accelerate energy. > > >>> You can't do it. > > >> It might be helpful if you got the definitions down first, and > >> then actually understood simple things like "cause and effect." > > >> "an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime" as defined in > >> wikipedia. > > > Stephen Hawking recently cited me saying that not only is there no > > global boundary in the no boundary proposal but there is no local > > gravity boundary to light either. There are no boundaries both in > > local space and global space. > > Hawking never cited you. And you keep citing someone you say you > disagree with. Put on your tin foil hat and slobber like a good > crazy guy. You evidently have deep feelings of inferiority which you attempt to assuage by picking on soft targets on Usenet.
From: purple on 31 May 2010 20:45 On 5/31/2010 6:49 PM, BURT wrote: > On May 31, 4:41 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 5/31/2010 2:19 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> Gravity does not overcome light. >> >> Idiot! >> >> <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html> > > How can light be effected by gravity if it doesn't slow down like > matter? > > No. It is obvious it always gets out of gravity because it can't be > dragged backwards and is always going ahead at C. C is not an ordinary constant.
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 21:53 On May 31, 5:45 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/31/2010 6:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > On May 31, 4:41 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 5/31/2010 2:19 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> Gravity does not overcome light. > > >> Idiot! > > >> <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html> > > > How can light be effected by gravity if it doesn't slow down like > > matter? > > > No. It is obvious it always gets out of gravity because it can't be > > dragged backwards and is always going ahead at C. > > C is not an ordinary constant. But it is anyway and you are a nut to infer otherwise. Mitch Raemsch
From: purple on 31 May 2010 23:30
On 5/31/2010 8:53 PM, BURT wrote: > On May 31, 5:45 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 5/31/2010 6:49 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> On May 31, 4:41 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2010 2:19 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>>>> Gravity does not overcome light. >> >>>> Idiot! >> >>>> <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html> >> >>> How can light be effected by gravity if it doesn't slow down like >>> matter? >> >>> No. It is obvious it always gets out of gravity because it can't be >>> dragged backwards and is always going ahead at C. >> >> C is not an ordinary constant. > > But it is anyway and you are a nut to infer otherwise. > > Mitch Raemsch Edward Green made you braver than usual? Bwahahahaha! |