On May 3, 8:15*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 3, 4:18 pm, JanPB wrote:

If by "black hole" you mean points excluded from space and time in a
finite region then most physicists would probably agree with you.
Everyone knows GR is an incomplete theory (so is QM). You must keep in
mind that when people like Kip Thorne (note the "e" at the end) talk
about black holes, they mean certain property of certain theory, not
necessarily what's "out there". Learn to recognise terminological
shortcuts before you post critiques.

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. *You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** *MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. *Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. *Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. *In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.

They are all the same solution, idiot.

Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. *But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

On May 3, 10:01 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.

They are all the same solution, idiot.

Oh, excuse me. I am still getting BS responses from a multi-year
super senior at the University of Alaska. Well, my post still
stands. CHECKMATE

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.
Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

On May 3, 9:50*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 3, 10:01 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. *Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. *Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. *In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.

They are all the same solution, idiot.

Oh, excuse me. *I am still getting BS responses from a multi-year
super senior at the University of Alaska. *Well, my post still
stands. *CHECKMATE

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. *You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** *MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. *Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. *Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. *In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.
Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. *But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

What you were told before and still do not understand:

* The Schwarzschild and Hilbert solutions are the same solution. There
is a coordinate mapping between the two.

* Black holes are still there. Changing coordinates doesn't make the
trapped surface go away.

* You are stupid.

On May 4, 1:49 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 3, 9:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:



On May 3, 10:01 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.

They are all the same solution, idiot.

Oh, excuse me. I am still getting BS responses from a multi-year
super senior at the University of Alaska. Well, my post still
stands. CHECKMATE

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.
Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

What you were told before and still do not understand:

* The Schwarzschild and Hilbert solutions are the same solution. There
is a coordinate mapping between the two.

* Black holes are still there. Changing coordinates doesn't make the
trapped surface go away.

* You are stupid.


The ultra-stupid idea that gravity is somehow
produced by matter and continues to be
produced even if you squish the
matter incredibly small- this with no other
interactions present- well, turtles all the way
down is a better answer.

*you* are an unthinking bot.
no stupidity possible as no thought being thought
:-)
There are *no* black holes as conceived to
be produced by our gravity debacle.


John

wrote in message
...
Kip Thorn dismissed the fact that objects would fall faster than
light inside a black hole. He claimed they only reach light speed.
But if they reach light speed at the event horizon how are they not
going to be propelled faster by the even greater gravity inside?

Because as a mass approaches C time dilation comes into effect.

In other words, the time it takes to go from 99% C to 100% C
is infinite.

wrote:

On May 3, 4:09 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
wrote:

Kip Thorn dismissed the fact that objects would fall faster than
light inside a black hole. He claimed they only reach light speed.
But if they reach light speed at the event horizon how are they not
going to be propelled faster by the even greater gravity inside?

[snip crap]

Hey ****ing stooopid: Tell us how long it takes - as viewed by an
external observer - for an external photon impinging normal to a
Schwarzschild black hole's event horizon to pass through it into the
interior. Tell us whether the photon red-shifts or blue-shifts as it
proceeds into the deep event horizon.

You don't know. You cannot imagine how to look it up. You are
****ing stooopid. BTW, ****ing stooopid, name for us the other three
kinds of black holes.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare


Going inward the blueshift goes infinite.

Poppy Cock.

****ing imbecile. Going in the the red shift goes infinite. Look it
up.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On May 4, 11:06*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
john wrote:
There are *no* black holes as conceived to
be produced by our gravity debacle.

John

* *Observation of Sag A, dark binary companions, etc. are
* *consistent with the concept of balck holes and rule out
* *alternative explanations.

* *Just because YOU don't like the concept of back holes, John,
* *doesn't mean they don't occur in nature... if fact, the
* *more we look, the more it appears that black holes are
* *a significant player in the history and evolution of the
* *universe, galactic clusters and galaxies.

* -Sam Wormley
* * *http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html

Black holes aren't the only explanation for the observation of Sag A
and dark companions Sam.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On May 3, 9:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 3, 4:18 pm, JanPB wrote:

If by "black hole" you mean points excluded from space and time in a
finite region then most physicists would probably agree with you.
Everyone knows GR is an incomplete theory (so is QM). You must keep in
mind that when people like Kip Thorne (note the "e" at the end) talk
about black holes, they mean certain property of certain theory, not
necessarily what's "out there". Learn to recognise terminological
shortcuts before you post critiques.

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

What you wrote above has no relation to the discussion. Do you read
before posting a followup?

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.
Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

Not worth asnwering to in detail (again) - it was dealt with in the
past. For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some poeple around here - Koobee among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and scientific nonsense.

His knowledge of history of the subject (another hobby of his) is
equally abysmal.

--
Jan Bielawski

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"JanPB" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 9:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 3, 4:18 pm, JanPB wrote:

If by "black hole" you mean points excluded from space and time in a
finite region then most physicists would probably agree with you.
Everyone knows GR is an incomplete theory (so is QM). You must keep in
mind that when people like Kip Thorne (note the "e" at the end) talk
about black holes, they mean certain property of certain theory, not
necessarily what's "out there". Learn to recognise terminological
shortcuts before you post critiques.

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

What you wrote above has no relation to the discussion. Do you read
before posting a followup?

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.
Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

Not worth asnwering to in detail (again) - it was dealt with in the
past. For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some poeple around here - Koobee among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and scientific nonsense.

His knowledge of history of the subject (another hobby of his) is
equally abysmal.

--

What you write is abysmal.
Not worth answering either since it is merely bitching, you ugly prat.
Get back to helping other Poles change light bulbs, it's all you are good
for.

On May 4, 2:31*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
This message is brought to you by Androcles
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 3, 9:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On May 3, 4:18 pm, JanPB wrote:

If by "black hole" you mean points excluded from space and time in a
finite region then most physicists would probably agree with you.
Everyone knows GR is an incomplete theory (so is QM). You must keep in
mind that when people like Kip Thorne (note the "e" at the end) talk
about black holes, they mean certain property of certain theory, not
necessarily what's "out there". Learn to recognise terminological
shortcuts before you post critiques.

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. *You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** *MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

What you wrote above has no relation to the discussion. Do you read
before posting a followup?

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. *Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. *Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. *In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.
Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. *But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

Not worth asnwering to in detail (again) - it was dealt with in the
past. For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some poeple around here - Koobee among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and scientific nonsense.

His knowledge of history of the subject (another hobby of his) is
equally abysmal.

--

What you write is abysmal.
Not worth answering either since it is merely bitching, you ugly prat.
Get back to helping other Poles change light bulbs, it's all you are good
for.

The Energy shift to light goes infinite; Infinite in blue shift and
infinite in red shift. This is called the Einstein shift. These are
the nonsense prediction of black holes.

Mitch Raemsch