On May 5, 9:21*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 4, 11:50 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 4, 8:10 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
When the field equations are written in their specific form waiting
for the solutions to be solved, the set of coordinate system is
already decided.

Nope - not true. [...]

Would you please stop whining for a change. *Here is the rest of my
post that you should peruse and understand.

When the field equations are written in their specific form waiting
for the solutions to be solved, the set of coordinate system is
already decided. *You can never change the coordinate system to any of
the solutions to the field equations.

Nope - it still isn't true no matter how many times you stamp your
feet and pitch a bitchfit. Learn what tensor equations are and what
they mean before dictating to me anything about general relativity.

Write out G_uv = kT_uv in a particular coordinate system. The apply a
coordinate transformation - you'll notice something.

[snip remaining, unread]

On May 5, 6:40*pm, wrote:
On May 5, 3:26*pm, "Androcles" wrote:



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

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 4, 3:31 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.

| I just don't feel like

Nor do I. **** off, you ignorant assistant light bulb changer, leave the
world and let others discuss physics.
For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some cretins around here - Jan PB among them - can write stuff that
*_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and not even scientific
*nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kip Thorn made the excuse that objects do not fall faster than light
in order to maintain Black Hole theory. He said that they only reach
the speed of light. Einstein says no. They cannot even reach the speed
of light

Black hole theory is disproven. The General Theory violates the
Special Theory or Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch

No, you just don't understand what's exactly being said (by Thorne and
others) and substitute the actual content with your own. Then you
derive a contradiction from this. Well - DUH! By this method you can
disprove anything.

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 6:40 pm, wrote:
On May 5, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:



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

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 4, 3:31 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.

| I just don't feel like

Nor do I. **** off, you ignorant assistant light bulb changer, leave the
world and let others discuss physics.
For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some cretins around here - Jan PB among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and not even scientific
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kip Thorn made the excuse that objects do not fall faster than light
in order to maintain Black Hole theory. He said that they only reach
the speed of light. Einstein says no. They cannot even reach the speed
of light

Black hole theory is disproven. The General Theory violates the
Special Theory or Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch

| No,

How many Poles does it take to change a light bulb when they only say "No"?

JanPB wrote:
On May 5, 6:40 pm, wrote:

On May 5, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:




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

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 4, 3:31 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.

| I just don't feel like

Nor do I. **** off, you ignorant assistant light bulb changer, leave the
world and let others discuss physics.
For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some cretins around here - Jan PB among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and not even scientific
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kip Thorn made the excuse that objects do not fall faster than light
in order to maintain Black Hole theory. He said that they only reach
the speed of light. Einstein says no. They cannot even reach the speed
of light

Black hole theory is disproven. The General Theory violates the
Special Theory or Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch


No, you just don't understand what's exactly being said (by Thorne and
others) and substitute the actual content with your own. Then you
derive a contradiction from this. Well - DUH! By this method you can
disprove anything.

He does it constantly.

On May 6, 11:51*am, foolsrushout wrote:
JanPB wrote:
On May 5, 6:40 pm, wrote:

On May 5, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

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

"JanPB" wrote in message

....
On May 4, 3:31 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.

| I just don't feel like

Nor do I. **** off, you ignorant assistant light bulb changer, leave the
world and let others discuss physics.
For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some cretins around here - Jan PB among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and not even scientific
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kip Thorn made the excuse that objects do not fall faster than light
in order to maintain Black Hole theory. He said that they only reach
the speed of light. Einstein says no. They cannot even reach the speed
of light

Black hole theory is disproven. The General Theory violates the
Special Theory or Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch

No, you just don't understand what's exactly being said (by Thorne and
others) and substitute the actual content with your own. Then you
derive a contradiction from this. Well - DUH! By this method you can
disprove anything.

He does it constantly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is clear that GR volates SR if objects fall at light speed at the
end of time of Schwarzschild metric.

On May 6, 1:06 pm, wrote:
On May 6, 11:51 am, foolsrushout wrote:



JanPB wrote:
On May 5, 6:40 pm, wrote:

On May 5, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

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

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 4, 3:31 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.

On May 6, 7:34*pm, JanPB wrote:
On May 6, 1:06 pm, wrote:





On May 6, 11:51 am, foolsrushout wrote:

JanPB wrote:
On May 5, 6:40 pm, wrote:

On May 5, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

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

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 4, 3:31 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.

| I just don't feel like

Nor do I. **** off, you ignorant assistant light bulb changer, leave the
world and let others discuss physics.
For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some cretins around here - Jan PB among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and not even scientific
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kip Thorn made the excuse that objects do not fall faster than light
in order to maintain Black Hole theory. He said that they only reach
the speed of light. Einstein says no. They cannot even reach the speed
of light

Black hole theory is disproven. The General Theory violates the
Special Theory or Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch

No, you just don't understand what's exactly being said (by Thorne and
others) and substitute the actual content with your own. Then you
derive a contradiction from this. Well - DUH! By this method you can
disprove anything.

He does it constantly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is clear that GR volates SR if objects fall at light speed at the
end of time of Schwarzschild metric.

They don't.

Prove it. That is the excuse I have pointed out. That matter falls at
the speed of light at the event horizon is a fact.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Statements of this sort use precisely defined terms, you
just use vague meanings you find attractive.

--
Jan Bielawski- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 3, 3:18*pm, JanPB wrote:
On May 3, 2:13*pm, wrote:





On May 3, 1:07*pm, foolsrushout 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?

No. Kip Thorn was making an excuse to preserve Black Hole theory.
Let's say he is correct that matter reaches only light speed; still
this is a violation of Special Relativity. Matter cannot reach light
speed according to Albert Einstein. If it did it would disappear from
time.

Matter reaching light speed is what disproves Black Holes at
their event horizons because they violate Special Relativity.

The second excuse that might be made is that matter does not even
reach (or fall to) the light speed limit that Kip Thorn suggested.

But time ends at the event horizon for matter causing the theoretical
redshift and blueshift of light to go infinite which is a nonsense as
prediction. Light's energy would go infinite by blue
shift and zero by redshift at the event horizon. These predictions
are the complete failure of black hole theory.

For time to really end for matter it has to reach light speed. The
fact is
time ending and the matter reaching light speed go hand and hand
which
again violates Einstein's Special Relativity. So please give up your
excuses
Kip thorn and EVERYONE ELSE.

Even Albert Einstein did not believe in black holes. Instead he tried
to make the collapsing star bounce back in theory. That was his
reaction.
Mitch Raemsch; You can't fall faster than light

Tell me what happens inside a black hole.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nothing. They do not exist.


If Stephen Hawking has pointed out the failure of General Relatiivty
in a black hole's singularity. Why does he continue to believe and use
them in his theory? This is rather hypocritical. If he says they are
wrong then he should not use them until he can make the correction.

I am here to make the correction. Falling objects reach light speed
and this is a violation of Special Relativity. A limited gravity
theory is required. And it has no horizons.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On May 6, 10:35*pm, wrote:
On May 6, 7:34*pm, JanPB wrote:



On May 6, 1:06 pm, wrote:

On May 6, 11:51 am, foolsrushout wrote:

JanPB wrote:
On May 5, 6:40 pm, wrote:

On May 5, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

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

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 4, 3:31 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.

| I just don't feel like

Nor do I. **** off, you ignorant assistant light bulb changer, leave the
world and let others discuss physics.
For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some cretins around here - Jan PB among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and not even scientific
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kip Thorn made the excuse that objects do not fall faster than light
in order to maintain Black Hole theory. He said that they only reach
the speed of light. Einstein says no. They cannot even reach the speed
of light

Black hole theory is disproven. The General Theory violates the
Special Theory or Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch

No, you just don't understand what's exactly being said (by Thorne and
others) and substitute the actual content with your own. Then you
derive a contradiction from this. Well - DUH! By this method you can
disprove anything.

He does it constantly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is clear that GR volates SR if objects fall at light speed at the
end of time of Schwarzschild metric.

They don't.

Prove it. That is the excuse I have pointed out. That matter falls at
the speed of light at the event horizon is a fact.

Show me where I am wrong.

I can't do it over an Internet bulletin board. It's as if you asked me
to teach you speak German fluently through this posting. You need to
study the subject before accusing it of anything. It's just elementary
honesty. At this point you cannot even _quote_ someone else's
technical statement accurately (or even his name).

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

This sort of silliness doesn't help you either.

--
Jan Bielawski

On May 13, 10:51*am, JanPB wrote:
On May 6, 10:35*pm, wrote:





On May 6, 7:34*pm, JanPB wrote:

On May 6, 1:06 pm, wrote:

On May 6, 11:51 am, foolsrushout wrote:

JanPB wrote:
On May 5, 6:40 pm, wrote:

On May 5, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

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

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
On May 4, 3:31 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.

| I just don't feel like

Nor do I. **** off, you ignorant assistant light bulb changer, leave the
world and let others discuss physics.
For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some cretins around here - Jan PB among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and not even scientific
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kip Thorn made the excuse that objects do not fall faster than light
in order to maintain Black Hole theory. He said that they only reach
the speed of light. Einstein says no. They cannot even reach the speed
of light

Black hole theory is disproven. The General Theory violates the
Special Theory or Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch

No, you just don't understand what's exactly being said (by Thorne and
others) and substitute the actual content with your own. Then you
derive a contradiction from this. Well - DUH! By this method you can
disprove anything.

He does it constantly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is clear that GR volates SR if objects fall at light speed at the
end of time of Schwarzschild metric.

They don't.

Prove it. That is the excuse I have pointed out. That matter falls at
the speed of light at the event horizon is a fact.

Show me where I am wrong.

I can't do it over an Internet bulletin board. It's as if you asked me
to teach you speak German fluently through this posting. You need to
study the subject before accusing it of anything. It's just elementary
honesty. At this point you cannot even _quote_ someone else's
technical statement accurately (or even his name).

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

This sort of silliness doesn't help you either.

--
Jan Bielawski- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't need your proof. I have my own. Infinite and zero energy.
Infinite blueshift and redshift to light at the horizon.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008