Black holes violate laws
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 397.7: Austria and Hungary Relate Fibonacci Sequence to Probable Causation/Influence (PI) form via 3 term Arithmetic Progressions
Next: Salt on Venus
From: purple on 1 Jun 2010 23:51 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.
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 00:10 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. Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 2 Jun 2010 00:40 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.
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 01:51 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
From: purple on 2 Jun 2010 07:23
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. |