Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368359 > unrolled thread

Relativity in big trouble

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Relativity in big trouble Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-28 14:16 +0000
    Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 08:50 -0700
      Re: Relativity in big trouble Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-28 17:25 +0100
        Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:08 -0700
        Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:22 -0400
      Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:21 -0400
        Re: Relativity in big trouble Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:32 +0000
          Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:25 -0400
        Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 19:07 -0700
          Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 22:59 -0400
            Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 20:24 -0700
    Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 22:08 +0100
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Willie Stovall <wstov23@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 21:54 +0000
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 23:22 +0100
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:53 +0000
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:15 -0400
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 17:45 -0700
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:30 -0400
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 22:08 -0700
              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 02:38 -0400
                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:20 +0000
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:34 -0400
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:58 +0000
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:12 -0700
                      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 19:51 -0400
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 19:19 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:07 -0400
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:27 -0700
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-31 03:46 -0400
                                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:54 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:38 -0400
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:36 +0000
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 19:35 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:13 -0400
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:37 +0000
                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0700
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 20:57 -0400
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 20:09 -0700
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:08 -0700
                      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 04:33 -0700
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:18 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 09:23 -0400
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 07:17 -0700
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:42 -0700
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:11 -0700
                                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
                                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 12:12 -0400
                                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 16:17 +0000
                      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:58 -0400
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 00:20 -0700
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 10:38 -0700
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 02:26 +0100
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:16 -0400
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:26 +0100
              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:08 +0000
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:27 -0400
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:35 +0000
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 00:35 -0700
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 18:37 +0100
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0100
              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 20:53 +0100
                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 13:04 +0100
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:32 -0700
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-31 01:34 +0000
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 17:46 +0000
    Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:09 -0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#368537 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > >
> > >What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations 
> > >show that the mass of the unseen object that all of 
> > >these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns! 
> > 
> >        I would like to see a technical paper on
> > the matter before thinking about it.
> > 
> 
> http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf

This "unseen object" and "obvious black hole" is the 
strongest source of radio waves in the whole galaxy, 
isn't it, moron?
What a "singularity".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368544 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:33:36 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > >
> > > >What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations 
> > > >show that the mass of the unseen object that all of 
> > > >these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns! 
> > > 
> > >        I would like to see a technical paper on
> > > the matter before thinking about it.
> > > 
> > 
> > http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> 
> This "unseen object" and "obvious black hole" is the 
> strongest source of radio waves in the whole galaxy, 
> isn't it, moron?
> What a "singularity".

Fact, coming from gravitational observations of over a hundred stars orbiting it, is that it is an object which appears to have a mass equivalent to 4,300,000 Suns, concentrated into a very small volume, of 6.25 light-hours, without stars.

The most massive star known is R136a1, a Wolf-Rayet star located at the center of R136, the central condensation of stars of the large NGC 2070 open cluster in the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud. It has the highest mass of any known star, at 265 Suns.

There are no other known ways of having such a large mass within such a small volume, but a super massive black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368551 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 13:18:31 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:


> There are no other known ways of having such a large mass within such a small volume, but a super massive black hole.

And what about unknown ways?  Too bad it's shining.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368555 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:45:19 -0700 (PDT), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

>W dniu piatek, 30 pazdziernika 2015 13:18:31 UTC+1 uzytkownik paparios napisal:
>
>
>> There are no other known ways of having such a large mass within such a small volume, but a super massive black hole.
>
>And what about unknown ways?  Too bad it's shining.

        He posted a region of about 6 light-hours,
which I did not see when I skimmed over the
Nature paper, all I saw was 26000 light years,
so, I have to print the paper so I can focus
on the technical aspects related by the
original investigators.


        But I think it is possible to have numerous
dense stars in a region of 6 light-hours, because
I don't think gravity is an attraction, it is only a
velocity of all matter away from all centers
of mass, with surface acceleration only being
an artifact.

      This Newtonian nonsense of attraction is
what is causing the original investigators to
be confused, and if I remember right, you
seem to prefer gravity as an attraction.


       Everybody is thinking wrong about
the acceleration of gravity, obviously a
small dense star has a greater surface
acceleration than a normal star, and a
normal star has a greater surface gravity
than a red giant.

       Acceleration is not motion, it is
"the rate of change of the rate of motion".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368559 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 14:23:32 UTC+1 użytkownik kefischer napisał:

>         But I think it is possible to have numerous
> dense stars in a region of 6 light-hours, because

Yes, it is possible. But, as for now, the result
of observation is - an unique,  massive, SHINING 
something. 
Doesn't sound as an obvious black hole for me.
Not at all. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368560 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:45:19 -0700 (PDT), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> >W dniu piatek, 30 pazdziernika 2015 13:18:31 UTC+1 uzytkownik paparios napisal:
> >
> >
> >> There are no other known ways of having such a large mass within such a small volume, but a super massive black hole.
> >
> >And what about unknown ways?  Too bad it's shining.
> 
>         He posted a region of about 6 light-hours,
> which I did not see when I skimmed over the
> Nature paper, all I saw was 26000 light years,
> so, I have to print the paper so I can focus
> on the technical aspects related by the
> original investigators.
> 
> 

>         But I think it is possible to have numerous
> dense stars in a region of 6 light-hours, because
> I don't think gravity is an attraction, it is only a
> velocity of all matter away from all centers
> of mass, with surface acceleration only being
> an artifact.
> 

Well, you are quite wrong. 6 light-hours is about the distance from Sun to Neptune, and measurements do not show any star, less a group of stars orbiting within such a volume. On the contrary, two of the measured stars (S2 and S14) would be severely affected by a 4,300,000 stars of the Sun size, orbiting within a volume of radious 6 light-hour.

Try to imagine over 16,000 stars of the largest mass (265 times the mass of the Sun) orbiting between our Sun and Neptune, to see how absurd is your assertion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368565 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:

> 
>         But I think it is possible to have numerous
> dense stars in a region of 6 light-hours, because
> I don't think gravity is an attraction, it is only a
> velocity of all matter away from all centers
> of mass, with surface acceleration only being
> an artifact.
> 
>       This Newtonian nonsense of attraction is
> what is causing the original investigators to
> be confused, and if I remember right, you
> seem to prefer gravity as an attraction.
> 
> 
>        Everybody is thinking wrong about
> the acceleration of gravity, obviously a
> small dense star has a greater surface
> acceleration than a normal star, and a
> normal star has a greater surface gravity
> than a red giant.
> 
>        Acceleration is not motion, it is
> "the rate of change of the rate of motion".

Actually, the volume within which over 4 million suns mass is located is quite small (with a radio of less than the orbit of the Earth).

See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7379/abs/nature10652.html

and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/84.short

and http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244003/meta;jsessionid=93E735E68FFB547F24326A4BB7D985BA.ip-10-40-2-121

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368567 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

paparios wrote:

>>        Everybody is thinking wrong about
>> the acceleration of gravity, obviously a small dense star has a greater
>> surface acceleration than a normal star, and a normal star has a
>> greater surface gravity than a red giant.

Word salad and mayonnaise. 

>>        Acceleration is not motion, 

No?

>> it is "the rate of change of the rate of motion".

Finally. I would rather say, the non-zero difference in motion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368573 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:11:01 -0700 (PDT), paparios <paparios@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
>
>> 
>>         But I think it is possible to have numerous
>> dense stars in a region of 6 light-hours, because
>> I don't think gravity is an attraction, it is only a
>> velocity of all matter away from all centers
>> of mass, with surface acceleration only being
>> an artifact.
>> 
>>       This Newtonian nonsense of attraction is
>> what is causing the original investigators to
>> be confused, and if I remember right, you
>> seem to prefer gravity as an attraction.
>> 
>> 
>>        Everybody is thinking wrong about
>> the acceleration of gravity, obviously a
>> small dense star has a greater surface
>> acceleration than a normal star, and a
>> normal star has a greater surface gravity
>> than a red giant.
>> 
>>        Acceleration is not motion, it is
>> "the rate of change of the rate of motion".
>
>Actually, the volume within which over 4 million suns mass is located is quite small (with a radio of less than the orbit of the Earth).
>
>See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7379/abs/nature10652.html
>
>and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/84.short
>
>and http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244003/meta;jsessionid=93E735E68FFB547F24326A4BB7D985BA.ip-10-40-2-121

       I found this on the Nature site;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7379/extref/nature10652-s1.pdf


       I have to print this stuff, the white backgrounds 
are too hard on my glaucoma light sensitive eyes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368574 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

kefischer wrote:

>        I have to print this stuff, the white backgrounds
> are too hard on my glaucoma light sensitive eyes.

So now you are going to print it on black background. Man, you are 
something. Which explain your incompetencies in Divergent Matter and more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368553 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:08:18 -0700 (PDT), paparios <paparios@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> >
>> >What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations 
>> >show that the mass of the unseen object that all of 
>> >these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns! 
>> 
>>        I would like to see a technical paper on
>> the matter before thinking about it.
>> 
>
>http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf

        Thanks, Paul did not post that url at first,
but did in the last message that I have not
replied to.

        Earlier he mentioned something about the
"black hole" being in a region the size of the 
Solar System, and I see nothing like that in
the above paper.

        The paper also offers several different
situations to explain the great concentration
of mass, including numerous dense stars
in the  "small" region of a few thousand
light year radius, and suggests that is not
possible because being that close together
and not able to orbit would cause them to
merge.
       But small spherical clusters do not
merge, and they all cannot orbit.

      And because I don't think gravity is
an attractive process, but an expansion
of matter, I think stars of any mass _CAN_
exist in a small region without merging,
Jean's equipartition of stars is a partial
explanation, but expanding matter also
adds the feature of outward velocity
caused to constantly increase in the
underlying starting units, and that is
what maintains the distance between
stars that do not orbit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368566 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

kefischer wrote:

>         Earlier he mentioned something about the
> "black hole" being in a region the size of the Solar System, and I see
> nothing like that in the above paper.

Not even a technically correct sentence. 

Okay, I hear you are a big mechanic, here is the gedanken. No obd codes 
registered, drives perfect to 80 mph, but no turbo sets in. I suspect egr. 
What can you say in your defence?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368529 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

W dniu czwartek, 29 października 2015 23:40:40 UTC+1 użytkownik pnal...@gmail.com napisał:
          How is that very extraordinary?
> 
> What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations show that the mass of the unseen object that all of these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns! There is no object known that can have such a mass except for a black hole, 

There is also no known black hole, poor fanatic moron.
And this "unseen" object you're talking about, is well
known to be a strongest source of a radio waves in our 
galaxy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368578 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:21:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:

> And this "unseen" object you're talking about, is well
> known to be a strongest source of a radio waves in our 
> galaxy.

Sure it is, just like all other black holes are strong sources of radio emission...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368428 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all

kefischer wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:08:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model> pp.
>>[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens>
>>[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center>
>>[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity> pp.
>>[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity> pp.
> 
>           But no references that the author signed
> or gave his name.

Learn to read and follow the references in the articles.

>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the
> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.

Then you are lucky because AISB black holes have been experimentally 
confirmed, thereby “Divergent Matter” falsified, and you can invest that 
free time into more promising endeavours.
 

PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368437 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 02:26:35 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:08:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>>[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model> pp.
>>>[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens>
>>>[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center>
>>>[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity> pp.
>>>[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity> pp.
>> 
>>           But no references that the author signed
>> or gave his name.
>
>Learn to read and follow the references in the articles.

       I know what is in them.


>>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the
>> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
>> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.
>
>Then you are lucky because AISB black holes have been experimentally 
>confirmed, 

        Nonsense.


>thereby “Divergent Matter” falsified, and you can invest that 
>free time into more promising endeavours.
>
>PointedEars

        It is a model, and I was hoping you would
take a different tack than Gary and discuss the
particulars associated with the process of
black hole creation and the physics involved
that claims gravity "slows" light.

       Gravity pretty well obviously  bends light,
but there is nothing to suggest that gravity
"attracts" light.

        In the DM model, the surface is moving
upward at a substantial velocity that has to
be pretty much a function of radius because
otherwise objects would not maintain the
relative size that is evident.

        So, smaller objects have much less
outward velocity, and much higher surface
gravity if they are super dense.

       In the model, a neutron star has a lower
outward surface velocity than the Sun, but
a very high surface acceleration.
       And anybody that attempts to "refute"
the model without addressing this point
is derelict of rational argument.


         The idea that an acceleration (proper
acceleration can exist without a resulting
residual velocity is not good science.
        Statements made simply to "protect"
current thought are just political, and not
"science".

        There is one thing for certain, almost
always, present thought is either wrong,
or is "not all there is" to it.

       

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368463 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all

kefischer wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the
>>> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
>>> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.
>>
>> Then you are lucky because AISB black holes have been experimentally
>> confirmed,
> 
>         Nonsense.

Evidence is evidence, no matter whether you want to see it.

If you do not accept that approach, you are not working scientifically.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368488 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>> Then you are lucky because AISB black holes have been experimentally
>>> confirmed,
>> 
>>         Nonsense.
> 
> Evidence is evidence, no matter whether you want to see it.
> If you do not accept that approach, you are not working scientifically.

Hey Pointy, just stop, stop saying "scientifically" and everything related 
to science, math and physics. You might be sharp in cooking, hairdressing 
and alike. Anything but science, pointy. You have no prerequisites, the 
requirements. Remember? And now, fuck off!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368492 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:25:06 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>>>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the
>>>> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
>>>> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.
>>>
>>> Then you are lucky because AISB black holes have been experimentally
>>> confirmed,
>> 
>>         Nonsense.
>
>Evidence is evidence, no matter whether you want it to see.
>
>If you do not accept that approach, you are not working scientifically.
>
>
>PointedEars

        There is no direct evidence of black holes,
or dark matter, or dark energy.

        I have been keeping close interest in all
new developments for 75 years, reading the
newspaper every day, subscribing to Sky
and Telescope and science magazines,
and going to the library often before the
internet was available.

      And that is why I am able to focus on
the better concepts for the process of
gravitation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368671 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

kefischer wrote:

>         The Divergent Matter model is based on the
> most solid facts of any model, it is more a physical theory than GR,
> which is "field theory".

Utter nonsense, and no, GR is NOT a "field theory". You need to know what 
*divergence* stands for, before jumping headlessly to the ample theory of 
*Divergent Matter*.

>        Field theory is an "estimate" approximation,

Idiot. Fields ARE about continuum. As different from discrete (you a 
cretin know nothing about). Discretization IS approximation. Continuum is 
NOT. Continuum is about EXACT SOLUTIONS. Learn the fucking stuff before 
opening your stupid mouth.

> used in many disciplines to obtain a good estimate when exact data
> cannot be obtained, it works for gravity in General Relativity, giving
> very accurate results, but it does not explain how gravity works.

Utter nonsense, ample.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web