GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes
in [Physics]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Nov 2009 00:01 On Nov 8, 7:59 pm, jdawe <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Black holes are created when there is more energy\matter 'In Motion' > than there is energy\matter 'At Rest'. According to one of the infinite numbers of solutions to the field equations known as the Schwarzschild metric, a black hole can only exit in any observer's infinite future. For years, self-styled physicists have been taunting how an object falling into a black hole would do so its finite lifetime. Yet, there is no such mathematics to support so. GR is a mathematical model describing the observed as a third person. GR is not a mathematical model describing a first person account. Newton was able to write down the law of gravity through observation of a falling apple under gravitational influence. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar failed miserably to describe gravity by picturing himself as that falling apple. The field equations describe the observed. GR described the observed not the experienced. > In our solar system: > > There is more energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the sun ) than there is energy > \matter 'In Motion' ( the planets ). <shrug> > So negative gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the planets will be > inverted into matter before the star gets inverted into energy. Energy is an observed phenomenon. It is observer dependent, and it is relative. <shrug> > In a galaxy: > > There is more energy\matter 'In Motion' ( the planetary systems ) than > there is energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the galactic centre ). <shrug> > So positive gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the galactic centre > will be inverted into energy before the planetary systems get inverted > into matter. It does not compute. <shrug> > Because the positive gravity of all the planetary systems 'In Motion' > on the galactic centre is so great any energy\matter in the galactic > centre gets inverted almost instantly into energy. Giving the false > image of a 'black hole'. It is impossible to see a black hole. Its existence can only be inferred through observations. Interpretations to the observations depend heavily on the mathematical model employed. If it is fvcked up in the first place such as GR, the interpretations can be thoroughly deceiving. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Nov 2009 00:06 On Nov 8, 8:56 pm, eric gisse < wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Hmmm... Mr. Crother has discovered another solution that is also > > static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat other than > > Schwarzschild's original metric and the Schwarzschild metric. It does > > not make Mr. Crother's solution more correct than either > > Schwarzschild's original solution or the Schwarzschild metric, and > > vice versa. <shrug> > > > You can always find a solution to the field equations to describe your > > observations whatever, whenever, and wherever they were, are, and will > > be. Some nitwits would call the field equations the best human > > discovery since sliced cheese. True scholars of physics would call > > that super abstract concept visually and vividly illustrated by the > > following pictorial representation. <shrug> > > >http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg > > That's a long way of explaining that you do not understand covariance. Hmmm... That is a very convinving way of introducing yourself as a college dropout. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Nov 2009 16:08 I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is contemplating to join the college drop. That is just fine with me. If you dont know jack-$hit, Id rather you to shut up instead of ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have never been challenged with rational arguments so far. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394b7228?hl=en If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
From: PD on 9 Nov 2009 17:48 On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is > contemplating to join the college drop. Hmmmm?? > That is just fine with me. > If you dont know jack-$hit, Id rather you to shut up instead of > ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug> Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up. > > The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have > never been challenged with rational arguments so far. You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings challenged by rational arguments so far, either. I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong, then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who has let his prescription expire. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341... > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394... > > If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK? You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog. Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy. PD
From: Inertial on 9 Nov 2009 18:12
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5666a609-3dac-42f4-81bd-bf67e70e1947(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is >> contemplating to join the college drop. > > Hmmmm?? > >> That is just fine with me. >> If you don�t know jack-$hit, I�d rather you to shut up instead of >> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug> > > Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up. > >> >> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have >> never been challenged with rational arguments so far. > > You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being > perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings > challenged by rational arguments so far, either. > > I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up > to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong, > then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who > has let his prescription expire. > >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341... >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394... >> >> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK? > > You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on > an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control > who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what > kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog. > Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy. I don't know if he would. Loopy is as loopy posts. |