N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear mazafaka:

"mazafaka" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear BernardZ:

"BernardZ" wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5cdce61a2a69bf9896f1@news...
In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol
T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that
light is not effected by gravity.

An escape velocity c means that light cannot escape.

is your brain uncupled when you write somthin like this?

are you fartin insaine?

are you sayin "velocity c" !?

this is tha forbiden fruit, dont you know?

escape velocity velocity
It is the speed you'd have to go in order to escape from a
gravity field, and consequently, the speed you'd have to go to
orbit it (with the vector part of velocity turned 90 deg), or the
speed you'd end up at if you entered it.

Under Newtonian physics in the early days light was seen as a particle
- the corpuscular theory, in which case what you are saying is correct.
However almost immediately experiments on optical interference led to
the acceptance of the wave theory of light. Since light waves were
thought to be unaffected by gravitation interest, black holes cannot
exist in Newtonian physics and so discussions on black holes stopped.

Its only after Albert Einstein came along with his theory on light and
SR that black holes became theoretically possible again.



David A. Smith