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: purple on 2 Jun 2010 07:35 On 6/2/2010 12:51 AM, BURT wrote: > On Jun 1, 9:40 pm, Don Stockbauer<donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 1, 11:10 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 1, 8:51 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 6/1/2010 10:39 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 1, 8:08 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/1/2010 6:26 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>>>>>> You mean bert not me. >> >>>>>> You're both similarly nuts. >> >>>>> I think you have a need to get back at me. >> >>>> That presumes that what you think matters to me. It >>>> doesn't. >> >>>>> Black holes violate laws. >> >>>> So do you. >> >>> Stop following me around unless you have something to say to me. >> >>> We are not seeing black holes but the extreme of red shift in a >>> limited strength gravity. >> >> Well, Mitch, people around you don't see you either - they see the >> photons emitted by your atoms.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Does a photon have a light of its own? > We have never seen a photon. Only the photoelectric effect which > doesn't require a particle. The light wave alone can explain it. > > Albert Einstein questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. He said in > the end he could not reconcile the particle with the light wave. > > Einstein was right to question the particle of light. > Mitch Raemsch You're still crazy. "The first paper described his particle theory of light, which became one of the foundations of modern physics." "In 1905, the wave nature of light was an established, incontrovertible fact." "According to the assumption to be contemplated here, when a light ray is spreading from a point, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever-increasing spaces, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta that are localized in points in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538324
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 14:41 On Jun 2, 4:35 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 6/2/2010 12:51 AM, BURT wrote: > > >>>>> I think you have a need to get back at me. > > >>>> That presumes that what you think matters to me. It > >>>> doesn't. > > >>>>> Black holes violate laws. > > >>>> So do you. > > >>> Stop following me around unless you have something to say to me. > > >>> We are not seeing black holes but the extreme of red shift in a > >>> limited strength gravity. > > >> Well, Mitch, people around you don't see you either - they see the > >> photons emitted by your atoms.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Does a photon have a light of its own? > > We have never seen a photon. Only the photoelectric effect which > > doesn't require a particle. The light wave alone can explain it. > > > Albert Einstein questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. He said in > > the end he could not reconcile the particle with the light wave. > > > Einstein was right to question the particle of light. > > Mitch Raemsch > > You're still crazy. > > "The first paper described his particle theory of light, which > became one of the foundations of modern physics." > > "In 1905, the wave nature of light was an established, > incontrovertible fact." > > "According to the assumption to be contemplated here, when a > light ray is spreading from a point, the energy is not > distributed continuously over ever-increasing spaces, but > consists of a finite number of energy quanta that are localized > in points in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed > or generated only as a whole." > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538324- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Still in the end he questioned it. And he was right to do so. This is not crazy. It is just a fact. The wave needs no particle and I can prove it beyond a doubt with a simple observation. I will show you. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 14:48 On Jun 2, 4:23 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 6/1/2010 11:10 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 8:51 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 6/1/2010 10:39 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> On Jun 1, 8:08 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> On 6/1/2010 6:26 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>>>> You mean bert not me. > > >>>> You're both similarly nuts. > > >>> I think you have a need to get back at me. > > >> That presumes that what you think matters to me. It > >> doesn't. > > >>> Black holes violate laws. > > >> So do you. > > > Stop following me around unless you have something to say to me. > > I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're crazy. And to > think anyone would "follow you around" helps exemplify it. > > > We are not seeing black holes but the extreme of red shift in a > > limited strength gravity. > > You have yet to define "limited strength gravity." You have yet to > define "black hole." In fact, you have yet to define anything > at all. You only blather in generalities and then tell us > what a genius you are.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes I am a genius. There are only a few. I have been recognised by John Nash as a genius personally. The definition of limited strength gravity is limited acceleration. Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 2 Jun 2010 14:59 On Jun 2, 1:48 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 4:23 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/1/2010 11:10 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > On Jun 1, 8:51 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > >> On 6/1/2010 10:39 PM, BURT wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 1, 8:08 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 6/1/2010 6:26 PM, BURT wrote: > > > >>>>> You mean bert not me. > > > >>>> You're both similarly nuts. > > > >>> I think you have a need to get back at me. > > > >> That presumes that what you think matters to me. It > > >> doesn't. > > > >>> Black holes violate laws. > > > >> So do you. > > > > Stop following me around unless you have something to say to me. > > > I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're crazy. And to > > think anyone would "follow you around" helps exemplify it. > > > > We are not seeing black holes but the extreme of red shift in a > > > limited strength gravity. > > > You have yet to define "limited strength gravity." You have yet to > > define "black hole." In fact, you have yet to define anything > > at all. You only blather in generalities and then tell us > > what a genius you are.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yes I am a genius. There are only a few. I have been recognised by > John Nash as a genius personally. But John Nash was nutso himself.
From: Don Stockbauer on 2 Jun 2010 15:04
On Jun 2, 12:51 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 9:40 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 11:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 1, 8:51 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > On 6/1/2010 10:39 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 1, 8:08 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > >> On 6/1/2010 6:26 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > >>> You mean bert not me. > > > > > >> You're both similarly nuts. > > > > > > I think you have a need to get back at me. > > > > > That presumes that what you think matters to me. It > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > Black holes violate laws. > > > > > So do you. > > > > Stop following me around unless you have something to say to me. > > > > We are not seeing black holes but the extreme of red shift in a > > > limited strength gravity. > > > Well, Mitch, people around you don't see you either - they see the > > photons emitted by your atoms.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Does a photon have a light of its own? > We have never seen a photon. Only the photoelectric effect which > doesn't require a particle. The light wave alone can explain it. OK, then go with "people around you don't see you either - they see the photons or waves or both, whichever one is considering given the particle/wave dual nature of light emitted by your atoms". |