A black hole requires an infinite
Einstein shift to emitted light due
to time ending.

But look at this closely: if there is
an infinite gravitational redshift to
light emitted then the theory predicts
the existence of an infinite light wave
or energyless light. Light emitted at
the event horizon would be infinite in
size and would have no energy. Where is
it going to fit?

If time doesn't end you can't have a
"black hole." You only have a Dark Hole
where light is redshifted finitely.

Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --

Nick wrote:
A black hole requires an infinite
Einstein shift to emitted light due
to time ending.

But look at this closely: if there is
an infinite gravitational redshift to
light emitted then the theory predicts
the existence of an infinite light wave
or energyless light. Light emitted at
the event horizon would be infinite in
size and would have no energy. Where is
it going to fit?

If time doesn't end you can't have a
"black hole." You only have a Dark Hole
where light is redshifted finitely.

...Uh-huh.

-Mark Martin

Nick wrote:
A black hole requires an infinite
Einstein shift to emitted light due
to time ending.

A black hole doesn't have an associated 'end of time' - perhaps you're
referring to the event horizon of a black hole? Energy is emitted from
a black hole (extremely slowly) because of Hawking radiation - if (as
happens because of the energy of the gravitational field) a particle
and its anti-particle happen to spontaneously come into existence near
the event horizon, the particle or anti-particle sometimes has
sufficient energy to escape from the black hole.

But look at this closely: if there is
an infinite gravitational redshift to
light emitted then the theory predicts
the existence of an infinite light wave
or energyless light. Light emitted at
the event horizon would be infinite in
size and would have no energy. Where is
it going to fit?

But there isn't any infinite gravitational redshift that anyone knows
of.


If time doesn't end you can't have a
"black hole." You only have a Dark Hole
where light is redshifted finitely.

Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --

Is Mitch Raemsch an author of fiction?

wrote:
Nick wrote:
A black hole requires an infinite
Einstein shift to emitted light due
to time ending.

A black hole doesn't have an associated 'end of time' -

Yes it does. And I can prove it.

In order for light to be captured it first must be infinitely
redshifted. And the redshift comes from "time" as Einstein said. This
is the theory of black holes. I say the redshift can only be finite.
Therefore there are no black holes.
Period.

perhaps you're
referring to the event horizon of a black hole? Energy is emitted from
a black hole (extremely slowly) because of Hawking radiation - if (as
happens because of the energy of the gravitational field) a particle
and its anti-particle happen to spontaneously come into existence near
the event horizon, the particle or anti-particle sometimes has
sufficient energy to escape from the black hole.

But look at this closely: if there is
an infinite gravitational redshift to
light emitted then the theory predicts
the existence of an infinite light wave
or energyless light. Light emitted at
the event horizon would be infinite in
size and would have no energy. Where is
it going to fit?

But there isn't any infinite gravitational redshift that anyone knows
of.


If time doesn't end you can't have a
"black hole." You only have a Dark Hole
where light is redshifted finitely.

Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --

Is Mitch Raemsch an author of fiction?

Nick wrote:
wrote:
Nick wrote:
A black hole requires an infinite
Einstein shift to emitted light due
to time ending.

A black hole doesn't have an associated 'end of time' -

Yes it does. And I can prove it.

In order for light to be captured it first must be infinitely
redshifted. And the redshift comes from "time" as Einstein said. This
is the theory of black holes. I say the redshift can only be finite.
Therefore there are no black holes.

But if there are no black holes, how can a black hole have an 'end of
time'?

Like I said they don't exist. Neither.

Nick wrote:
Like I said they don't exist. Neither.

But black holes do exist, in our own galaxy for example.

You're saying that black holes have an associated 'end-of-time' and
therefore don't exist (if time had ended we wouldn't be here talking
about it, I suppose), and that what astronomers call 'black holes'
should really be called 'dark holes' which don't have an associated
end-of-time.

Suppose I said "pianos have an associated 'end-of-time', therefore
pianos don't exist, and that what musicians call pianos should really
be called qianos, which don't have an associated end-of-time" - would
you agree with that?

What is so called "back hole"is the existence
of the extreme of gravity. The extreme does
exist in our galaxy. Every galaxy has a Dark
Hole at its center as far as we know.

Time doesn't stop my friend. If it did there
would be nothing left.

Nick wrote:
What is so called "black hole" is the existence
of the extreme of gravity. The extreme does
exist in our galaxy. Every galaxy has a Dark
Hole at its center as far as we know.

Time doesn't stop my friend. If it did there
would be nothing left.

Of course time doesn't stop because of black holes, of that there is no
doubt, but earlier you wrote:

Nick wrote:
wrote:
Nick wrote:
A black hole requires an infinite
Einstein shift to emitted light due
to time ending.

A black hole doesn't have an associated 'end of time' -

Yes it does. And I can prove it.

Are you now saying that the extreme gravity at the centre of the black
hole is equivalent to the 'end of time'?

That time doesn't stop in black holes is
wrong.

As I explained time stopping creates the
infinite redshift at the surface. Without
this redshift you can't have a black hole.
It's the vail.

I know I had to reexplain this to you.
But you are a donut.