On May 4, 3:02 pm, JanPB wrote:
On May 3, 9:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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?

You wrote “If by ‘black hole’ you mean points excluded from space and
time in a finite region...”, did you not?

So, what is your problem?

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.

You did not even have an adequate answer the last time. It was more
hand-waving. Shrug

For the newcomers: the above claims are false.

They can decide for themselves. Please don’t insult their
intelligence.

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.

Most of what I wrote has been verified by Professor Draper and
Roberts. They merely have wide interpretations. shrug

So, your complaints represent whining of a loser. shrug

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

Again, anyones with any type of intelligence can google for the
subjects involved and decide for themselves. You don’t have to do any
thinking for them.

On May 4, 12:49 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 3, 9:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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.

Then, you have to justify why Schwarzschild’s original solution is a
transform of Hilbert’s solution, and Mr. Corthers has to justify why
Hilbert’s solution is a transform of Schwarzschild’s original
solution. As I have pointed out, both solutions are asymptotically
flat, spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak
gravitation are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. So, what
else decides them apart?

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

It depends on if you decide on Schwarzschild’s original solution being
a transform of Hilbert’s solution or vice versa. What gives you the
right to play God by deciding which solution is a transform of
another?

* You are stupid.

shrug

On May 4, 4:27*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 4, 12:49 am, Eric Gisse wrote:







On May 3, 9:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.

Then, you have to justify why Schwarzschild’s original solution is a
transform of Hilbert’s solution, and Mr. Corthers has to justify why
Hilbert’s solution is a transform of Schwarzschild’s original
solution. *As I have pointed out, both solutions are asymptotically
flat, spherically symmetric, and static. *Both solutions at weak
gravitation are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. *So, what
else decides them apart?

Nothing decides them apart as they are the exact same solution in
different coordinate systems. This has been explained to you so many
times it is unbelievable.

We have asked you to show how they are different solutions by actually
computing something, yet you can't. What does that say?

BTW - Crothers is a fantastic idiot. Is he where you get your
arguments?


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

It depends on if you decide on Schwarzschild’s original solution being
a transform of Hilbert’s solution or vice versa. *What gives you the
right to play God by deciding which solution is a transform of
another?

Where do you get it in your head that one is "playing god" by
preferring a particular coordinate system?


* You are stupid.

shrug

On May 4, 7:20 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 4, 4:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Then, you have to justify why Schwarzschild’s original solution is a
transform of Hilbert’s solution, and Mr. Corthers has to justify why
Hilbert’s solution is a transform of Schwarzschild’s original
solution. As I have pointed out, both solutions are asymptotically
flat, spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak
gravitation are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. So, what
else decides them apart?

Nothing decides them apart as they are the exact same solution in
different coordinate systems. This has been explained to you so many
times it is unbelievable.

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. Yet, you do. You have been
caught in this voodoo mathematics in the act, and you have lost.
shrug

We have asked you to show how they are different solutions by actually
computing something, yet you can't. What does that say?

I have shown you many times including the sentence above. You still
don’t get it. shrug

BTW - Crothers is a fantastic idiot. Is he where you get your
arguments?

No. Mr. Crothers is as guilty as all the physicists who BELIEVE IN
the Schwarzschild metric. The only difference is that he BELIEVES IN
Schwarzschild’s original solution. My point is that they are not
valid to represent the real world because of the foul mathematical
foundation of GR. shrug

It depends on if you decide on Schwarzschild’s original solution being
a transform of Hilbert’s solution or vice versa. What gives you the
right to play God by deciding which solution is a transform of
another?

Where do you get it in your head that one is "playing god" by
preferring a particular coordinate system?

You selectively choose solutions to produce black holes or not to.
Just how difficult can it get to answer your stupid question? That is
why you remain a multi-year super-senior at the very prestigious
University of Alaska where they pay and beg you to go to school.
shrug

On May 4, 8:10*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 4, 7:20 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 4, 4:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Then, you have to justify why Schwarzschild’s original solution is a
transform of Hilbert’s solution, and Mr. Corthers has to justify why
Hilbert’s solution is a transform of Schwarzschild’s original
solution. *As I have pointed out, both solutions are asymptotically
flat, spherically symmetric, and static. *Both solutions at weak
gravitation are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. *So, what
else decides them apart?

Nothing decides them apart as they are the exact same solution in
different coordinate systems. This has been explained to you so many
times it is unbelievable.

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. Won't stop you from repeating it as if it were
though!

[snip remaining irrelevancies]

On May 4, 10:50*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 4, 8:10*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:





On May 4, 7:20 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 4, 4:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Then, you have to justify why Schwarzschild’s original solution is a
transform of Hilbert’s solution, and Mr. Corthers has to justify why
Hilbert’s solution is a transform of Schwarzschild’s original
solution. *As I have pointed out, both solutions are asymptotically
flat, spherically symmetric, and static. *Both solutions at weak
gravitation are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. *So, what
else decides them apart?

Nothing decides them apart as they are the exact same solution in
different coordinate systems. This has been explained to you so many
times it is unbelievable.

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. Won't stop you from repeating it as if it were
though!

[snip remaining irrelevancies]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Event horizons predict infinitely blueshifted light going in and
infinitely redshifted light going out when emitted there. They are
nonsense predictions.

Mitch Raemsch;Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

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 posting detailed technical responses given the
fact it was all done in not too distant past on this NG. Anyone
interested can google for it.

Get back to helping other Poles change light bulbs, it's all you are good
for.

I tried but they all use those awful fluorescent energy saving ones
now.

--
Jan Bielawski

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.

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

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.

Mr. Crothers is as guilty as all the physicists who BELIEVE IN the
Schwarzschild metric. The only difference is that he BELIEVES IN
Schwarzschild’s original solution. My point is that they both are not
valid to represent the real world because of the foul mathematical
foundation of GR. shrug

You selectively choose solutions to produce black holes or not to
without any justifications. That is why you remain a multi-year super-
senior at the very prestigious University of Alaska where they pay and
beg you to go to school. shrug