The pointing out of black hole failure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: BP is no stranger to major accidents
Next: Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics
From: BURT on 10 May 2010 22:53 On May 10, 3:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 4:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 10, 2:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 4:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 4:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 5/6/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:39 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 5/6/2010 2:54 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > >> He's never done otherwise. We can readily see how far he's gotten > > > > > >> in physics and in life.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > The only way to win is not to play the game. > > > > > > "Not playing the game" precludes winning. > > > > > You're the looser. I don't play the game. > > > > > > > Black hole theory is wrong. > > > > > > At the limits, every model begins to go wrong. > > > > > My point is I know how to correct it. That is what is important. > > > > No you don't. All you've done is whine that it is wrong. You don't > > > have a better theory. When you do, go ahead and publish it. By the > > > way, your name hasn't shown up yet on the Nobel site.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Please prove that it doesn't need a correction. > > I didn't say it didn't need a correction. You said you had a > correction. Please provide it. > > > > > You want to hold on to > > the past and I am the opposite. I am a pioneer. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Acceleration has a limit. Gravity is an acceleration. This is the srength of gravity with a limit. There are no black holes. Mitch Raemsch; I have disproven black holes; we are not seeing them
From: purple on 10 May 2010 23:22 On 5/10/2010 9:53 PM, BURT wrote: > Mitch Raemsch; I have disproven black holes; we are not seeing them You have achieved nothing.
From: PD on 11 May 2010 08:58 On May 10, 9:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 10, 3:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 4:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 2:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 4:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 4:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/6/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:39 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> On 5/6/2010 2:54 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > >> He's never done otherwise. We can readily see how far he's gotten > > > > > > >> in physics and in life.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > The only way to win is not to play the game. > > > > > > > "Not playing the game" precludes winning. > > > > > > You're the looser. I don't play the game. > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is wrong. > > > > > > > At the limits, every model begins to go wrong. > > > > > > My point is I know how to correct it. That is what is important. > > > > > No you don't. All you've done is whine that it is wrong. You don't > > > > have a better theory. When you do, go ahead and publish it. By the > > > > way, your name hasn't shown up yet on the Nobel site.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Please prove that it doesn't need a correction. > > > I didn't say it didn't need a correction. You said you had a > > correction. Please provide it. Where is this correction you said you had? > > > > You want to hold on to > > > the past and I am the opposite. I am a pioneer. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Acceleration has a limit. Gravity is an acceleration. This is the > srength of gravity with a limit. There are no black holes. > > Mitch Raemsch; I have disproven black holes; we are not seeing them
From: BURT on 11 May 2010 16:58 On May 10, 8:22 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/10/2010 9:53 PM, BURT wrote: > > > Mitch Raemsch; I have disproven black holes; we are not seeing them > > You have achieved nothing. Stephen Hawking has. And he pointed out the failure at the singulatity. And so have I. Mitch Raemsch
From: purple on 11 May 2010 16:59
On 5/11/2010 3:58 PM, BURT wrote: > On May 10, 8:22 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 5/10/2010 9:53 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> Mitch Raemsch; I have disproven black holes; we are not seeing them >> >> You have achieved nothing. > > Stephen Hawking has. And he pointed out the failure at the > singulatity. And so have I. Hawking has his reasons. You have none. |