There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: john on 19 Feb 2010 10:54 On Feb 19, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:01 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > > > > > But at least when we were at square one, > > > > we knew there *was* matter. > > > > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > We are continuing to investigate > > matter. Matter waves indicate that there > > is no such thing as 'particles'. > > Actually, it does no such thing, as matter clearly indicates > properties of particles as well. It's only the foolish mind that says, > "Well, it's got to be one or the other, and so if it's waves, then it > can't be particles." > > > One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'. > > We are trying to explain > > that as another property of matter. > > > Proposing a whole new matter as a way > > of explaining 'this' matter is a case > > of one step forward, ten steps back. > > I don't know why you think so. You've got this horrible anxiety about > "new stuff" throwing us all back into the dark ages. Are you SO > uncomfortable with new? Only STUPID new. > > > > > *That's* what is stupid. > > > If PD were so open-minded, he would > > give more credence to push gravity, which has been > > brought forward by more than one 'stupid person', > > aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries. > > Of course. Now, John, it would serve you well to ask the question what > ever happened to those theories, especially since they were put > forward by reputable scientists? In fact, it's worth asking why some > theories put forward by reputable scientists are ever put to rest? Is > there a good reason? And the answer to this is yes, of course there's > a good reason. Theories, no matter who proposes them, are put to > experimental tests, because they make certain predictions about what > will be observed under certain circumstances. Then if the predictions > turn out to be wrong, compared to measurement, this is how science > knows that a theory is no good, no matter how reputable the scientists > was that put it forward. Also notice that a theory can be completely > logically consistent and mistake-free, and still be wrong, in that it > just does not make the right predictions about what will be observed > in nature. > > Once you have this little tidbit about the scientific method under > your belt, perhaps you could do a little Google searching to find out > what predictions "push gravity" theories made that turned out to be > *irretrievably* wrong. Please keep in mind what I told you earlier, > that the theory is still viable while you have some doubt about the > inputs, even if there is disagreement between the outputs and the > measurement. But once you've got the inputs locked down and the theory > STILL doesn't work, then the theory is no good. With this in mind, you > can look up the *considerable* work that was done to test "push > gravity" models. > > PD Time to do some more tests. Invest the same money on this as is invested on finding the 'God particle'- the Higgs. What is the shape of a quark? Does it have a pointy end? What is the shape of a Higgs? Does *it* have a pointy end? What 'material' are they made from? What 'material' is a gluon made from? Why do you give credence to these ideas? Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles) travelling at near c have been observed being spewed out the jets of all black holes that have jets in HUGE amounts, do you still think Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? As more and more observations refute our ideas about black holes being caused by suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid a theory is when it leads to so many singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities? Suck gravity makes no sense, PD. It leads to NONSENSE- which you are defending, for some reason. john
From: PD on 19 Feb 2010 11:05 On Feb 19, 9:54 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 19, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:01 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > > > > > > But at least when we were at square one, > > > > > we knew there *was* matter. > > > > > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > We are continuing to investigate > > > matter. Matter waves indicate that there > > > is no such thing as 'particles'. > > > Actually, it does no such thing, as matter clearly indicates > > properties of particles as well. It's only the foolish mind that says, > > "Well, it's got to be one or the other, and so if it's waves, then it > > can't be particles." > > > > One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'. > > > We are trying to explain > > > that as another property of matter. > > > > Proposing a whole new matter as a way > > > of explaining 'this' matter is a case > > > of one step forward, ten steps back. > > > I don't know why you think so. You've got this horrible anxiety about > > "new stuff" throwing us all back into the dark ages. Are you SO > > uncomfortable with new? > > Only STUPID new. Stupid in science is determined by whether it makes successful predictions. Period. You have some other metric for "stupid", such as perhaps "lacking colors or shape," which is based on your presuppositions about what kinds of properties are indispensable. But presuppositions have never been a good measure for "stupid" in science. > > > > *That's* what is stupid. > > > > If PD were so open-minded, he would > > > give more credence to push gravity, which has been > > > brought forward by more than one 'stupid person', > > > aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries. > > > Of course. Now, John, it would serve you well to ask the question what > > ever happened to those theories, especially since they were put > > forward by reputable scientists? In fact, it's worth asking why some > > theories put forward by reputable scientists are ever put to rest? Is > > there a good reason? And the answer to this is yes, of course there's > > a good reason. Theories, no matter who proposes them, are put to > > experimental tests, because they make certain predictions about what > > will be observed under certain circumstances. Then if the predictions > > turn out to be wrong, compared to measurement, this is how science > > knows that a theory is no good, no matter how reputable the scientists > > was that put it forward. Also notice that a theory can be completely > > logically consistent and mistake-free, and still be wrong, in that it > > just does not make the right predictions about what will be observed > > in nature. > > > Once you have this little tidbit about the scientific method under > > your belt, perhaps you could do a little Google searching to find out > > what predictions "push gravity" theories made that turned out to be > > *irretrievably* wrong. Please keep in mind what I told you earlier, > > that the theory is still viable while you have some doubt about the > > inputs, even if there is disagreement between the outputs and the > > measurement. But once you've got the inputs locked down and the theory > > STILL doesn't work, then the theory is no good. With this in mind, you > > can look up the *considerable* work that was done to test "push > > gravity" models. > > > PD > > Time to do some more tests. > > Invest the same money on this as is > invested on finding the 'God particle'- > the Higgs. > > What is the shape of a quark? > Does it have a pointy end? > > What is the shape of a Higgs? > Does *it* have a pointy end? > > What 'material' are they made from? > What 'material' is a gluon made from? > Why do you give credence to these ideas? You've asked questions, not presented a model with testable predictions of *measurable* properties. When you have a model that makes such predictions, and which is consistent with data we already have, and which are distinct from the predictions made by the prevailing theory, then your model would indeed be something to invest experiments to test. > > Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles) > travelling at near c > have been observed being spewed out the > jets of all black holes that have jets in > HUGE amounts, do you still think > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? I wish that made grammatical sense. Could you please rephrase that question? > > As more and more observations refute our > ideas about black holes being caused by > suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid > a theory is when it leads to so many > singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities? What paradoxes? What impossibilities? Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for it? > > Suck gravity makes no sense, PD. What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self- contradictory. What problems or impossibilities? > It leads to NONSENSE- which you are defending, > for some reason. > > john
From: john on 19 Feb 2010 11:22 On Feb 19, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 9:54 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 19, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 10:01 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > > > > > > > But at least when we were at square one, > > > > > > we knew there *was* matter. > > > > > > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > > We are continuing to investigate > > > > matter. Matter waves indicate that there > > > > is no such thing as 'particles'. > > > > Actually, it does no such thing, as matter clearly indicates > > > properties of particles as well. It's only the foolish mind that says, > > > "Well, it's got to be one or the other, and so if it's waves, then it > > > can't be particles." > > > > > One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'. > > > > We are trying to explain > > > > that as another property of matter. > > > > > Proposing a whole new matter as a way > > > > of explaining 'this' matter is a case > > > > of one step forward, ten steps back. > > > > I don't know why you think so. You've got this horrible anxiety about > > > "new stuff" throwing us all back into the dark ages. Are you SO > > > uncomfortable with new? > > > Only STUPID new. > > Stupid in science is determined by whether it makes successful > predictions. Period. > You have some other metric for "stupid", such as perhaps "lacking > colors or shape," which is based on your presuppositions about what > kinds of properties are indispensable. But presuppositions have never > been a good measure for "stupid" in science. > > > > > > > > > *That's* what is stupid. > > > > > If PD were so open-minded, he would > > > > give more credence to push gravity, which has been > > > > brought forward by more than one 'stupid person', > > > > aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries. > > > > Of course. Now, John, it would serve you well to ask the question what > > > ever happened to those theories, especially since they were put > > > forward by reputable scientists? In fact, it's worth asking why some > > > theories put forward by reputable scientists are ever put to rest? Is > > > there a good reason? And the answer to this is yes, of course there's > > > a good reason. Theories, no matter who proposes them, are put to > > > experimental tests, because they make certain predictions about what > > > will be observed under certain circumstances. Then if the predictions > > > turn out to be wrong, compared to measurement, this is how science > > > knows that a theory is no good, no matter how reputable the scientists > > > was that put it forward. Also notice that a theory can be completely > > > logically consistent and mistake-free, and still be wrong, in that it > > > just does not make the right predictions about what will be observed > > > in nature. > > > > Once you have this little tidbit about the scientific method under > > > your belt, perhaps you could do a little Google searching to find out > > > what predictions "push gravity" theories made that turned out to be > > > *irretrievably* wrong. Please keep in mind what I told you earlier, > > > that the theory is still viable while you have some doubt about the > > > inputs, even if there is disagreement between the outputs and the > > > measurement. But once you've got the inputs locked down and the theory > > > STILL doesn't work, then the theory is no good. With this in mind, you > > > can look up the *considerable* work that was done to test "push > > > gravity" models. > > > > PD > > > Time to do some more tests. > > > Invest the same money on this as is > > invested on finding the 'God particle'- > > the Higgs. > > > What is the shape of a quark? > > Does it have a pointy end? > > > What is the shape of a Higgs? > > Does *it* have a pointy end? > > > What 'material' are they made from? > > What 'material' is a gluon made from? > > Why do you give credence to these ideas? > > You've asked questions, not presented a model with testable > predictions of *measurable* properties. When you have a model that > makes such predictions, and which is consistent with data we already > have, and which are distinct from the predictions made by the > prevailing theory, then your model would indeed be something to invest > experiments to test. > > > > > Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles) > > travelling at near c > > have been observed being spewed out the > > jets of all black holes that have jets in > > HUGE amounts, do you still think > > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > > I wish that made grammatical sense. Could you please rephrase that > question? > Now that HEPs (high energy particles) travelling at near c have been observed being spewed out the jets of all black holes (that have jets) in HUGE amounts, do you still think Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > Better? Do you only answer questions that have good grammar? It's pretty clear, PD- jets, matter coming out, Hawking said only x-rays could come out- come on, where do you stand? > > > As more and more observations refute our > > ideas about black holes being caused by > > suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid > > a theory is when it leads to so many > > singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities? > > What paradoxes? What impossibilities? > Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places > where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would > you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for > it? You could try thinking. > > > > > Suck gravity makes no sense, PD. > > What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self- > contradictory. What problems or impossibilities? You are irretrievably blinkered. Hypnotized, maybe? Or probably just so invested in the status quo that to go outside your little box would invalidate your whole education. > > > It leads to NONSENSE- which you are defending, > > for some reason. > > > john
From: PD on 19 Feb 2010 13:03 On Feb 19, 10:22 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Feb 19, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 9:54 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:01 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > > > > > > > > But at least when we were at square one, > > > > > > > we knew there *was* matter. > > > > > > > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. > > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > > > We are continuing to investigate > > > > > matter. Matter waves indicate that there > > > > > is no such thing as 'particles'. > > > > > Actually, it does no such thing, as matter clearly indicates > > > > properties of particles as well. It's only the foolish mind that says, > > > > "Well, it's got to be one or the other, and so if it's waves, then it > > > > can't be particles." > > > > > > One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'. > > > > > We are trying to explain > > > > > that as another property of matter. > > > > > > Proposing a whole new matter as a way > > > > > of explaining 'this' matter is a case > > > > > of one step forward, ten steps back. > > > > > I don't know why you think so. You've got this horrible anxiety about > > > > "new stuff" throwing us all back into the dark ages. Are you SO > > > > uncomfortable with new? > > > > Only STUPID new. > > > Stupid in science is determined by whether it makes successful > > predictions. Period. > > You have some other metric for "stupid", such as perhaps "lacking > > colors or shape," which is based on your presuppositions about what > > kinds of properties are indispensable. But presuppositions have never > > been a good measure for "stupid" in science. > > > > > > *That's* what is stupid. > > > > > > If PD were so open-minded, he would > > > > > give more credence to push gravity, which has been > > > > > brought forward by more than one 'stupid person', > > > > > aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries. > > > > > Of course. Now, John, it would serve you well to ask the question what > > > > ever happened to those theories, especially since they were put > > > > forward by reputable scientists? In fact, it's worth asking why some > > > > theories put forward by reputable scientists are ever put to rest? Is > > > > there a good reason? And the answer to this is yes, of course there's > > > > a good reason. Theories, no matter who proposes them, are put to > > > > experimental tests, because they make certain predictions about what > > > > will be observed under certain circumstances. Then if the predictions > > > > turn out to be wrong, compared to measurement, this is how science > > > > knows that a theory is no good, no matter how reputable the scientists > > > > was that put it forward. Also notice that a theory can be completely > > > > logically consistent and mistake-free, and still be wrong, in that it > > > > just does not make the right predictions about what will be observed > > > > in nature. > > > > > Once you have this little tidbit about the scientific method under > > > > your belt, perhaps you could do a little Google searching to find out > > > > what predictions "push gravity" theories made that turned out to be > > > > *irretrievably* wrong. Please keep in mind what I told you earlier, > > > > that the theory is still viable while you have some doubt about the > > > > inputs, even if there is disagreement between the outputs and the > > > > measurement. But once you've got the inputs locked down and the theory > > > > STILL doesn't work, then the theory is no good. With this in mind, you > > > > can look up the *considerable* work that was done to test "push > > > > gravity" models. > > > > > PD > > > > Time to do some more tests. > > > > Invest the same money on this as is > > > invested on finding the 'God particle'- > > > the Higgs. > > > > What is the shape of a quark? > > > Does it have a pointy end? > > > > What is the shape of a Higgs? > > > Does *it* have a pointy end? > > > > What 'material' are they made from? > > > What 'material' is a gluon made from? > > > Why do you give credence to these ideas? > > > You've asked questions, not presented a model with testable > > predictions of *measurable* properties. When you have a model that > > makes such predictions, and which is consistent with data we already > > have, and which are distinct from the predictions made by the > > prevailing theory, then your model would indeed be something to invest > > experiments to test. > > > > Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles) > > > travelling at near c > > > have been observed being spewed out the > > > jets of all black holes that have jets in > > > HUGE amounts, do you still think > > > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > > > I wish that made grammatical sense. Could you please rephrase that > > question? > > Now that HEPs (high energy particles) > travelling at near c > have been observed being spewed out the > jets of all black holes (that have jets) in > HUGE amounts, do you still think > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > > Better? Do you only answer questions that > have good grammar? It's pretty clear, PD- jets, matter coming out, > Hawking said only x-rays could come out- come on, where > do you stand? Where did you get the idea that Hawking said only X-rays could come out? He said no such thing. The jets have nothing to do with Hawking radiation. Here, let me help you. In the vicinity of a black hole there are at least THREE sources of emission: 1. X-rays emitted from the acceleration of in-falling matter in the accretion disk 2. Jets of particles pulled from the accretion disk of in-falling matter and collimated along the axis of the rotation of the gravitating body by the enormous magnetic field of that rotating, charged body. 3. Hawking radiation caused by vacuum polarization near the event horizon. Perhaps you were confusing these to all be the same thing. > > > > As more and more observations refute our > > > ideas about black holes being caused by > > > suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid > > > a theory is when it leads to so many > > > singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities? > > > What paradoxes? What impossibilities? > > Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places > > where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would > > you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for > > it? > > You could try thinking. Sorry, but intuition is a crappy barometer for what's possible and what's impossible. Remember when bunches of people thought heavier- than-air vehicles couldn't fly? > > > > Suck gravity makes no sense, PD. > > > What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self- > > contradictory. What problems or impossibilities? > > You are irretrievably blinkered. Hypnotized, maybe? > Or probably just so invested in > the status quo that to go outside > your little box would invalidate your whole education. You didn't answer the question. What problems? What contradictions? Perhaps you don't KNOW of any impossibilities or contradictions, but you've maybe heard that some people say there are, and you're so irretrievably blinkered you just take it as gospel truth without investigating it yourself. > > > > > > It leads to NONSENSE- which you are defending, > > > for some reason. > > > > john > >
From: john on 19 Feb 2010 13:41
On Feb 19, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 10:22 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 19, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 9:54 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 19, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:01 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:49 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:32 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > (stupid top, middle, and bottom posting mixture snipped) > > > > > > > > > But at least when we were at square one, > > > > > > > > we knew there *was* matter. > > > > > > > > We were wrong. Matter diffracts like waves. Get over it. > > > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > > > > We are continuing to investigate > > > > > > matter. Matter waves indicate that there > > > > > > is no such thing as 'particles'. > > > > > > Actually, it does no such thing, as matter clearly indicates > > > > > properties of particles as well. It's only the foolish mind that says, > > > > > "Well, it's got to be one or the other, and so if it's waves, then it > > > > > can't be particles." > > > > > > > One of the things matter does is 'gravitate'. > > > > > > We are trying to explain > > > > > > that as another property of matter. > > > > > > > Proposing a whole new matter as a way > > > > > > of explaining 'this' matter is a case > > > > > > of one step forward, ten steps back. > > > > > > I don't know why you think so. You've got this horrible anxiety about > > > > > "new stuff" throwing us all back into the dark ages. Are you SO > > > > > uncomfortable with new? > > > > > Only STUPID new. > > > > Stupid in science is determined by whether it makes successful > > > predictions. Period. > > > You have some other metric for "stupid", such as perhaps "lacking > > > colors or shape," which is based on your presuppositions about what > > > kinds of properties are indispensable. But presuppositions have never > > > been a good measure for "stupid" in science. > > > > > > > *That's* what is stupid. > > > > > > > If PD were so open-minded, he would > > > > > > give more credence to push gravity, which has been > > > > > > brought forward by more than one 'stupid person', > > > > > > aka reknowned scientists of earlier centuries. > > > > > > Of course. Now, John, it would serve you well to ask the question what > > > > > ever happened to those theories, especially since they were put > > > > > forward by reputable scientists? In fact, it's worth asking why some > > > > > theories put forward by reputable scientists are ever put to rest? Is > > > > > there a good reason? And the answer to this is yes, of course there's > > > > > a good reason. Theories, no matter who proposes them, are put to > > > > > experimental tests, because they make certain predictions about what > > > > > will be observed under certain circumstances. Then if the predictions > > > > > turn out to be wrong, compared to measurement, this is how science > > > > > knows that a theory is no good, no matter how reputable the scientists > > > > > was that put it forward. Also notice that a theory can be completely > > > > > logically consistent and mistake-free, and still be wrong, in that it > > > > > just does not make the right predictions about what will be observed > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > Once you have this little tidbit about the scientific method under > > > > > your belt, perhaps you could do a little Google searching to find out > > > > > what predictions "push gravity" theories made that turned out to be > > > > > *irretrievably* wrong. Please keep in mind what I told you earlier, > > > > > that the theory is still viable while you have some doubt about the > > > > > inputs, even if there is disagreement between the outputs and the > > > > > measurement. But once you've got the inputs locked down and the theory > > > > > STILL doesn't work, then the theory is no good. With this in mind, you > > > > > can look up the *considerable* work that was done to test "push > > > > > gravity" models. > > > > > > PD > > > > > Time to do some more tests. > > > > > Invest the same money on this as is > > > > invested on finding the 'God particle'- > > > > the Higgs. > > > > > What is the shape of a quark? > > > > Does it have a pointy end? > > > > > What is the shape of a Higgs? > > > > Does *it* have a pointy end? > > > > > What 'material' are they made from? > > > > What 'material' is a gluon made from? > > > > Why do you give credence to these ideas? > > > > You've asked questions, not presented a model with testable > > > predictions of *measurable* properties. When you have a model that > > > makes such predictions, and which is consistent with data we already > > > have, and which are distinct from the predictions made by the > > > prevailing theory, then your model would indeed be something to invest > > > experiments to test. > > > > > Now that HEPs (hiugh energy particles) > > > > travelling at near c > > > > have been observed being spewed out the > > > > jets of all black holes that have jets in > > > > HUGE amounts, do you still think > > > > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > > > > I wish that made grammatical sense. Could you please rephrase that > > > question? > > > Now that HEPs (high energy particles) > > travelling at near c > > have been observed being spewed out the > > jets of all black holes (that have jets) in > > HUGE amounts, do you still think > > Stephen Hawking's ideas are so smart? > > > Better? Do you only answer questions that > > have good grammar? It's pretty clear, PD- jets, matter coming out, > > Hawking said only x-rays could come out- come on, where > > do you stand? > > Where did you get the idea that Hawking said only X-rays could come > out? He said no such thing. > The jets have nothing to do with Hawking radiation. > Here, let me help you. In the vicinity of a black hole there are at > least THREE sources of emission: > 1. X-rays emitted from the acceleration of in-falling matter in the > accretion disk > 2. Jets of particles pulled from the accretion disk of in-falling > matter and collimated along the axis of the rotation of the > gravitating body by the enormous magnetic field of that rotating, > charged body. > 3. Hawking radiation caused by vacuum polarization near the event > horizon. > > Perhaps you were confusing these to all be the same thing. > > > > > > > As more and more observations refute our > > > > ideas about black holes being caused by > > > > suck gravity, why won't you realize how stupid > > > > a theory is when it leads to so many > > > > singularity/paradox/conundrum/impossibilities? > > > > What paradoxes? What impossibilities? > > > Nothing is impossible, by the way, until you prove that the places > > > where those are predicted to happen don't in fact happen. How would > > > you possibly decide what is possible and impossible before looking for > > > it? > > > You could try thinking. > > Sorry, but intuition is a crappy barometer for what's possible and > what's impossible. Remember when bunches of people thought heavier- > than-air vehicles couldn't fly? > > > > > > > Suck gravity makes no sense, PD. > > > > What do you mean, no sense? It's certainly not nonsensical or self- > > > contradictory. What problems or impossibilities? > > > You are irretrievably blinkered. Hypnotized, maybe? > > Or probably just so invested in > > the status quo that to go outside > > your little box would invalidate your whole education. > > You didn't answer the question. What problems? What contradictions? > Perhaps you don't KNOW of any impossibilities or contradictions, but > you've maybe heard that some people say there are, and you're so > irretrievably blinkered you just take it as gospel truth without > investigating it yourself. > > > > > > > It leads to NONSENSE- which you are defending, > > > > for some reason. > > > > > john yikes |