special realtivity is redundant (speeds 300Mm/sec not
permited, but when occurs the length contraction and nonlocality ...
ahahaha)

then falsified by general realtivity, which in turn is a redundant and
inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes etc)

lets say it as it is

general relativity is about gravity of any magnitudes

whay gr fails at high gravities if is good, hm?

you dont know, huh?

Dear mazafaka:

"mazafaka" wrote in message
oups.com...
special realtivity is redundant (speeds 300Mm/sec not
permited, but when occurs the length contraction and
nonlocality ... ahahaha)

Redundant to what?

then falsified by general realtivity,

Actually no. In the absence of gravity, GR *becomes* SR. Just
as when velocity is much less than c, both SR and GR become
Newton's laws.

which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?

lets say it as it is

general relativity is about gravity of any
magnitudes

whay gr fails at high gravities if is good, hm?

Who says its does? How can we know? It seems to correctly
predict Einstein rings (and Einstein crosses for non-perfect
alignment), which is light "orbiting" black holes, and this *has*
been observed.

you dont know, huh?

I don't know what you are talking about, that is true. Hopefully
you do...

David A. Smith

In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that light is not
effected by gravity.


--
The person who is arguing that money is not important almost always is
the person who does not have it.

Observations of Bernard - No 82

Dear BernardZ:

"BernardZ" wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5cdce61a2a69bf9896f1@news...
In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol
T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that
light is not effected by gravity.

An escape velocity c means that light cannot escape.

Light *isn't* affected by gravity... spacetime *is*.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear BernardZ:

"BernardZ" wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5cdce61a2a69bf9896f1@news...
In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol
T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that
light is not effected by gravity.

An escape velocity c means that light cannot escape.

is your brain uncupled when you write somthin like this?

are you fartin insaine?

are you sayin "velocity c" !?

this is tha forbiden fruit, dont you know?


Light *isn't* affected by gravity... spacetime *is*.

David A. Smith

Dear mazafaka:

"mazafaka" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear BernardZ:

"BernardZ" wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5cdce61a2a69bf9896f1@news...
In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol
T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that
light is not effected by gravity.

An escape velocity c means that light cannot escape.

is your brain uncupled when you write somthin like this?

are you fartin insaine?

are you sayin "velocity c" !?

this is tha forbiden fruit, dont you know?

escape velocity velocity
It is the speed you'd have to go in order to escape from a
gravity field, and consequently, the speed you'd have to go to
orbit it (with the vector part of velocity turned 90 deg), or the
speed you'd end up at if you entered it.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear mazafaka:

"mazafaka" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear BernardZ:

"BernardZ" wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5cdce61a2a69bf9896f1@news...
In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol
T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that
light is not effected by gravity.

An escape velocity c means that light cannot escape.

is your brain uncupled when you write somthin like this?

are you fartin insaine?

are you sayin "velocity c" !?

this is tha forbiden fruit, dont you know?

escape velocity velocity
It is the speed you'd have to go in order to escape from a
gravity field, and consequently, the speed you'd have to go to
orbit it (with the vector part of velocity turned 90 deg), or the
speed you'd end up at if you entered it.

Under Newtonian physics in the early days light was seen as a particle
- the corpuscular theory, in which case what you are saying is correct.
However almost immediately experiments on optical interference led to
the acceptance of the wave theory of light. Since light waves were
thought to be unaffected by gravitation interest, black holes cannot
exist in Newtonian physics and so discussions on black holes stopped.

Its only after Albert Einstein came along with his theory on light and
SR that black holes became theoretically possible again.



David A. Smith

Dear bernardz:

wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear mazafaka:

"mazafaka" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear BernardZ:

"BernardZ" wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5cdce61a2a69bf9896f1@news...
In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc
D:aol
T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black
holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So
maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that
light is not effected by gravity.

An escape velocity c means that light cannot escape.

is your brain uncupled when you write somthin like this?

are you fartin insaine?

are you sayin "velocity c" !?

this is tha forbiden fruit, dont you know?

escape velocity velocity
It is the speed you'd have to go in order to escape from a
gravity field, and consequently, the speed you'd have to go to
orbit it (with the vector part of velocity turned 90 deg), or
the
speed you'd end up at if you entered it.

Under Newtonian physics in the early days light was seen
as a particle
- the corpuscular theory, in which case what you are saying
is correct.

Newton held to the corpuscular theory for light. Did he later
recant and accept the wave-nature of light?

However almost immediately experiments on optical
interference led to the acceptance of the wave theory of
light.
Since light waves were thought to be unaffected by gravitation
interest, black holes cannot exist in Newtonian physics

I disagree with "cannot". "Could not" might be as strong as you
can get.

and so discussions on black holes stopped.

Its only after Albert Einstein came along with his theory on
light and SR that black holes became theoretically possible
again.

Some good thoughts...

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear bernardz:

wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear mazafaka:

"mazafaka" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear BernardZ:

"BernardZ" wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5cdce61a2a69bf9896f1@news...
In article foUHe.236625$Qo.88360@fed1read01, "N:dlzc
D:aol
T:com
\(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox says...
which in turn is a redundant and inconsistent
theory even for what is should predict (see black
holes
etc)

Newton's gravitation also predicts black holes. So
maybe
"inconsistent" is just your opinion?


Probably not. However under Newton physics said that
light is not effected by gravity.

An escape velocity c means that light cannot escape.

is your brain uncupled when you write somthin like this?

are you fartin insaine?

are you sayin "velocity c" !?

this is tha forbiden fruit, dont you know?

escape velocity velocity
It is the speed you'd have to go in order to escape from a
gravity field, and consequently, the speed you'd have to go to
orbit it (with the vector part of velocity turned 90 deg), or
the
speed you'd end up at if you entered it.

Under Newtonian physics in the early days light was seen
as a particle
- the corpuscular theory, in which case what you are saying
is correct.

Newton held to the corpuscular theory for light. Did he later
recant and accept the wave-nature of light?

I don't think that Newton ever discussed or even thought about black
holes. Nor do I know of any Newtonian physicist that kept with the
theory. From memory there were two and both dropped the idea, I suspect
because the corpuscular theory became less popular.


However almost immediately experiments on optical
interference led to the acceptance of the wave theory of
light.
Since light waves were thought to be unaffected by gravitation
interest, black holes cannot exist in Newtonian physics

I disagree with "cannot". "Could not" might be as strong as you
can get.

and so discussions on black holes stopped.

Its only after Albert Einstein came along with his theory on
light and SR that black holes became theoretically possible
again.

Some good thoughts...

Once the wave theory took off for light. You will find no mention of
black holes until Einstein.




David A. Smith