"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
String theory works in only one thing by describing all particles as
having extension. A better theory of particle structure lies in wait
based on there extension.

If the Big Bang was a singular point of mass it could have no extension
and its gravity would be infinite.

Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces.

We (especially you) have no idea of the interactions that would take place
at exactly t=0.

Perhaps matter cam into existence with space inbetween it. This way the
gravity wouldn't be infinite and expansion could take off. Just as
matter needs space in which to extend it also needs space inbetween.

"Spaceman" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
A place with no space or time moves?
Doesn't make sense.

Again,
The problem is thinking that time is only a local thing
and/or it is a thing at all.
A clock may or may not stop functioning beyond an event
horizon, but of course you can time the amount of time it stopped
by simply not being in there.

Ask the blackhole experts how long the time stops for.
Then tell then if it stopped for that long, didn't it still count
as time stopped time.


Science uses absolute timing.

Says who?

Without using absolute timing, you are no longer working with
science itself at all. You are merely playing around with malfunctioning
clocks instead.

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"Spaceman" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
A place with no space or time moves?
Doesn't make sense.

Again,
The problem is thinking that time is only a local thing
and/or it is a thing at all.
A clock may or may not stop functioning beyond an event
horizon, but of course you can time the amount of time it stopped
by simply not being in there.

Ask the blackhole experts how long the time stops for.
Then tell then if it stopped for that long, didn't it still count
as time stopped time.


Science uses absolute timing.

Says who?

Says people who want to actually time things correctly
(scientists that have a clue in other words)

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
There are two types of singularity: a zero dimensional point or a point
of nonzero size described by an infinitesimal. One has dimension the
other doesn't. In one gravity goes infinite in the other it is limited.

Black holes don't exist in the form Einstein's theory of gravity says
they do. Time ends in two places in the theory: singularity and suface.

Spacetime is a twisted reality that is brainwashed into the type
of public that can not think on it's own.

A Blackhole is simply a gathering of so much mass that the
density of the blackhole itself will not allow any vibrations
(atomic or otherwise) that can reflect nor create light.

In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

A Blackhole is simply a gathering of so much mass that the
density of the blackhole itself will not allow any vibrations
(atomic or otherwise) that can reflect nor create light.

Now this is funny! The very concept of the black hole came from
Einstein's general theory of relativity. The evidence for their
existence is mainly x-ray spectra. And you explain how Einstein can be
wrong and black holes still be black.

--
"The probability of anything happening is in inverse ratio to its
desirability." -- Gumperson's Law

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

A Blackhole is simply a gathering of so much mass that the
density of the blackhole itself will not allow any vibrations
(atomic or otherwise) that can reflect nor create light.

Now this is funny! The very concept of the black hole came from
Einstein's general theory of relativity. The evidence for their
existence is mainly x-ray spectra. And you explain how Einstein can be
wrong and black holes still be black.

What is funny is that you think the x-rays are coming from or
reflecting off the "black part" at all.
LOL

In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

A Blackhole is simply a gathering of so much mass that the
density of the blackhole itself will not allow any vibrations
(atomic or otherwise) that can reflect nor create light.

Now this is funny! The very concept of the black hole came from
Einstein's general theory of relativity. The evidence for their
existence is mainly x-ray spectra. And you explain how Einstein can be
wrong and black holes still be black.

What is funny is that you think the x-rays are coming from or
reflecting off the "black part" at all.
LOL

That would be funny if that was the claim. But what makes you think
there's anything black out there whose blackness needs to be explained?
You're convinced that general relativity is wrong, but you seem equally
convinced that this prediction of it must be true and therefore needs a
non-GR explanation.

--
"Out of the way, you swine, a physicist is coming!"

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

A Blackhole is simply a gathering of so much mass that the
density of the blackhole itself will not allow any vibrations
(atomic or otherwise) that can reflect nor create light.

Now this is funny! The very concept of the black hole came from
Einstein's general theory of relativity. The evidence for their
existence is mainly x-ray spectra. And you explain how Einstein can be
wrong and black holes still be black.

What is funny is that you think the x-rays are coming from or
reflecting off the "black part" at all.
LOL

That would be funny if that was the claim. But what makes you think
there's anything black out there whose blackness needs to be explained?
You're convinced that general relativity is wrong, but you seem equally
convinced that this prediction of it must be true and therefore needs a
non-GR explanation.

Predictions are for fortune tellers.
The prediction has nothing to do with the fact they exist.
My explanation of the blackhole fits the observable facts
about them so far so I could care less about the prediction of
them being there at all by relativity.
What is truly funny is that you think Einstein has anything
to do with my thoughts of the blackholes.

Spaceman wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

A Blackhole is simply a gathering of so much mass that the
density of the blackhole itself will not allow any vibrations
(atomic or otherwise) that can reflect nor create light.

Now this is funny! The very concept of the black hole came from
Einstein's general theory of relativity. The evidence for their
existence is mainly x-ray spectra. And you explain how Einstein can be
wrong and black holes still be black.

What is funny is that you think the x-rays are coming from or
reflecting off the "black part" at all.
LOL

That would be funny if that was the claim. But what makes you think
there's anything black out there whose blackness needs to be explained?
You're convinced that general relativity is wrong, but you seem equally
convinced that this prediction of it must be true and therefore needs a
non-GR explanation.

Predictions are for fortune tellers.

How space**** is comfortable with living in the 21st century I will
never understand.

The prediction has nothing to do with the fact they exist.

Pure coincidence!

My explanation of the blackhole fits the observable facts
about them so far so I could care less about the prediction of
them being there at all by relativity.

Your explanation is something a child would think of, with the exact
same utility.

What is truly funny is that you think Einstein has anything
to do with my thoughts of the blackholes.

Does anyone really care about your thoughts other than to mock?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

Spaceman wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

A Blackhole is simply a gathering of so much mass that the
density of the blackhole itself will not allow any vibrations
(atomic or otherwise) that can reflect nor create light.

Now this is funny! The very concept of the black hole came from
Einstein's general theory of relativity. The evidence for their
existence is mainly x-ray spectra. And you explain how Einstein can
be
wrong and black holes still be black.

What is funny is that you think the x-rays are coming from or
reflecting off the "black part" at all.
LOL

That would be funny if that was the claim. But what makes you think
there's anything black out there whose blackness needs to be explained?
You're convinced that general relativity is wrong, but you seem equally
convinced that this prediction of it must be true and therefore needs a
non-GR explanation.

Predictions are for fortune tellers.

How space**** is comfortable with living in the 21st century I will
never understand.

How can Mr Gisse be so uncomfortable with the nickname
spaceman that he has to use a childish name calling tactic is amazing.


My explanation of the blackhole fits the observable facts
about them so far so I could care less about the prediction of
them being there at all by relativity.

Your explanation is something a child would think of, with the exact
same utility.

My explanation works, childlike or not.
Not my fault you can not grasp stuff that children could.


What is truly funny is that you think Einstein has anything
to do with my thoughts of the blackholes.

Does anyone really care about your thoughts other than to mock?

More people than you think Mr Gisse.
Do you think calling me space**** helps your side of any argument
at all?