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.
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.

Einstein never believed in black holes. He tried to prevent the
complete collapse of a star in his physics but never succeeded.

Slowing time in gravity also slows light. So light approaching a black
hole would slow down and stop at the edge( where time ends) without
going in.

This simple thought experiment ala Einstein proves black hole physics
is a failure.

In article ,
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.
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.

Which observed facts, and who observed them? How do you know they are
facts, and how do you know they were observed?


--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton

"Nick" 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.
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.

Einstein never believed in black holes. He tried to prevent the
complete collapse of a star in his physics but never succeeded.

Slowing time in gravity also slows light. So light approaching a black
hole would slow down and stop at the edge( where time ends) without
going in.

Time does not slow for anything.
Action and reaction can do such but it still does such
at a rate of time.
How long does the clock stop for is a silly question
that can only be answered by another clock that is working.
and if any clock is working. time is still occuring for everything.


This simple thought experiment ala Einstein proves black hole physics
is a failure.

Black hole physics in the singularity point of view is a gigantic
joke since blackholes are gigantic. not tiny.

Spaceman wrote:
"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.

No, your explanation doesn't work.

It doesn't have predictive power, and it isn't particularally
insightful.



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?

Nope, but you are a space****. You spread your space**** all over
USENET, while contributing nothing to the discussion.

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

Spaceman wrote:
"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.

No, your explanation doesn't work.

It doesn't have predictive power, and it isn't particularally
insightful.

LOL
It works fine and it also predicts the reason "why" the light
won't ... light.
Again, it is not my fault your brain can not comprehend
anything simple that is true any longer.


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?

Nope, but you are a space****. You spread your space**** all over
USENET, while contributing nothing to the discussion.

Space**** smells less than the bull**** you throw around.

Spaceman wrote:
"Nick" 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.
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.

Einstein never believed in black holes. He tried to prevent the
complete collapse of a star in his physics but never succeeded.

Slowing time in gravity also slows light. So light approaching a black
hole would slow down and stop at the edge( where time ends) without
going in.

Time does not slow for anything.

Have you read your atomic clock lately?

Action and reaction can do such but it still does such
at a rate of time.
How long does the clock stop for is a silly question
that can only be answered by another clock that is working.

Time doesn't stop. It can only slow down.

and if any clock is working. time is still occuring for everything.

You can travel into the future of other things if your clock is running
slower than theirs.
This simple thought experiment ala Einstein proves black hole physics
is a failure.

Black hole physics in the singularity point of view is a gigantic
joke since blackholes are gigantic. not tiny.

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...

Spaceman wrote:
"Nick" 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.
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.

Einstein never believed in black holes. He tried to prevent the
complete collapse of a star in his physics but never succeeded.

Slowing time in gravity also slows light. So light approaching a black
hole would slow down and stop at the edge( where time ends) without
going in.

Time does not slow for anything.

Have you read your atomic clock lately?

Have you ever learned the function of a clock
and how they work?


Action and reaction can do such but it still does such
at a rate of time.
How long does the clock stop for is a silly question
that can only be answered by another clock that is working.

Time doesn't stop. It can only slow down.

Time does not slow down only a clocks action and reaction
can do such.


You can travel into the future of other things if your clock is running
slower than theirs.

No you can't.
It is not "the future" It would be the present no matter what
your clocks stated about it.

Hi Nick, Neither ideal black holes nor ideal vacuums can exist in nature.
It takes energy to maintain a vacuum,
so a perfect vacuum would consume all the energy in the cosmos, and then some.

Likewise, infinite density equates to infinite acceleration,
and, therefore, infinite Unruh radiation,
....emitting more energy than currently exists in the cosmos, and then some.

In short, no place is perfectly cold or infinitely hot.

If it's entropy that you're pondering...

Nothing is intrinsically random,
just unknown, given current-best observations/theories.

For example:

The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori;
but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown.

GR tells us that time is intrinsically _Spatial_,
it's only unknowns that make it seem directional.

Keep in mind that entropy is a measure of dissipation,
an _Ideal_ vacuum has infinite entropy,
while an _Ideal_ black hole has no entropy.

The redshift tells us how fast a standard candle is moving away from us,
and the intensity tells us how far away it is... in _Both_ time and space.

Combine those two, using 10 meter wide telescopes
and a 340-million pixel MegaCam to find lots of them,
preferably 12+ billion years old, and you'll find that,
within a 10 percent error, GR's lambda is _Constant_.

And that's just SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22,
....the accuracy is going to get much, much higher.

WMAP's March 17th data pins down the value of GR's cosmological _Constant_
to +- 5 percent and shows that polerizations come only from dissipations,
not, absurdly, from the massive gravity waves of an entire cosmos
instantly popping into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction.

The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy, can be imagined
as a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and flange.

Because the cosmos has no center of gravity,
it's 4D shape, Space_Time, -- not just Space --, is flat,
like a straight 2D line.

Disappointing his many sci-fi fans, Hawking boldly said:

In relativity,
there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates,
just as there is no difference between two space coordinates.
...
In summary, the title of this essay was a question:

Is_Everything_Determined ?

The answer is yes, it is.
But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined.
...
Thus the total path integral is unitary
and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes.

The way the information gets out seems to be that
a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon.

Einstein wrote:

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past.
...
People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

In article ,
Spaceman wrote:

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


No, your explanation doesn't work.

It doesn't have predictive power, and it isn't particularally
insightful.

LOL
It works fine and it also predicts the reason "why" the light
won't ... light.
Again, it is not my fault your brain can not comprehend
anything simple that is true any longer.

Explains what? Why black holes are black doesn't need an explanation
until you first accept that such a thing as black holes exist, and that
they are black. And astronomers don't have a catalog of dense little
black dots in the skies.

There are some x-ray signatures that match predictions of x-rays emitted
by matter falling into black holes. But that those holes are black is
entirely general relativity. Which is why I think Einstein has something
to do with your thoughts on black holes-- they wouldn't have come from
anywhere else! Which is why I thought it was funny that you gave an
explanation for the blackness of black holes-- you're trying to give an
explanation for a prediction of Einstein's theory, not for an observation.


--
"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the
strong." -- Leo Roskin

Big Bang ought to obey the laws of physics. And if it does it can never have
happened. Then, is there some important law that has not been found? Maybe
so, but I have no idea of it.

I think that Big Bang describes a birth of a galaxy, not a birth of
everything. If our universe have a day of birth, there can be no reason, why
it did not happen "earlier".

Henry Haapalainen