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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362874 > unrolled thread

Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-02 20:23 -0700
    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 20:39 -0700
      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-02 23:19 -0700
    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 00:23 -0700
      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-04 03:57 -0700
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 09:48 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-05 15:03 +0200
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:21 -0700
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 12:19 +0200
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 21:29 +0200
                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:25 -0700
                      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 22:55 +0200
                        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 15:03 -0700
                          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-09 20:18 +0200
                            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 11:50 -0700
                              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-09 22:35 +0200
                                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 14:59 -0700
                                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-10 12:09 +0200
                                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 03:42 -0700
                                      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-11 08:53 +0200
                                        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 13:04 -0700
                                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 17:03 -0700
                                      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-15 07:07 +0200
                                        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:34 -0700
                                          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-15 03:25 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:59 -0700
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 00:12 -0700
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-15 03:58 -0700
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 13:43 -0700
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 00:55 -0700
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-19 15:04 +0000
                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 22:38 -0700
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 13:15 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 14:23 -0700
    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 11:26 -0700
      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-04 22:00 +0000
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 16:02 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 11:01 +0000
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 15:30 +0200
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 13:38 +0000
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 15:42 +0200
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 13:54 +0000
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 13:52 +0000
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 02:08 +0200
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 10:51 +0000
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 11:03 +0000
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 11:20 -0400
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 15:40 +0000
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 13:14 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#362874 — Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane

reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > >
> > >
> > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,
> > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> >
> >
> > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?
> >
> > Double-A
> 
> AA I think Pemrose has a lot to say,and helps Hawking all he can.Hawking's name to fame is his books sell great.He uses no math. His life made a good movie,and had great acting. >Hawking said and I agree "Black holes can come in any size." TreBert


Stephen Hawking has the same predictable pattern...
he just want to convince the world to travel to other worlds.


When Hawking says go to a black hole and ""you might end up" in another universe" is just
a trick to convince you that black holes are gateways to other universe.

You don't actually believe he believes a word of it himself, do you?

It's a con.


I say, we push Stephen Hawking into a Black Hole and watch him scream.

https://youtu.be/U_WEvWcVoFw?t=82

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#362879

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:23:30 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > 
> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,

The non-rotating ones. The rotating ones are less obvious, depending on their mass
and angular momentum the tidal stresses can be very small. For some reason the
rotating black holes are almost never mentioned in pop-sci presentations despite
practically all stars having nonzero angular momentum.

> > > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?

No, this is the standard GR. Pop-sci presentations focus exclusively on the
non-rotating (Schwarzschild) case because it's way simpler than the rotating
(Kerr) case. In the Kerr case the tidal forces do not increase without a bound,
they have a maximum which depends on the mass and the angular momentum.
If they are both large enough, the forces felt by infalling objects will be so small
as to be imperceptible.

> When Hawking says go to a black hole and ""you might end up" in another universe" is just
> a trick to convince you that black holes are gateways to other universe.

This is just standard GR.

> You don't actually believe he believes a word of it himself, do you?

Again, this is all standard GR, around the late 1960s.

> It's a con.

No, just pick a decent GR textbook that discusses the maximal extension
of the Kerr geometry, say Hawking & Ellis, "The large scale structure of space-time",
Cambridge U Press, 1973. Also many others, like Ohanian & Ruffini, "Gravitation
and Spacetime", W.W.Norton & Co., 1976 and 1994. (I think there is new edition.)
And of course MTW.
Etc.

This is all an old hat.

--
Jan

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

#362890

W dniu czwartek, 3 września 2015 05:39:22 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> The non-rotating ones. The rotating ones are less obvious, depending on their mass
> and angular momentum the tidal stresses can be very small. For some reason the
> rotating black holes are almost never mentioned in pop-sci presentations despite
> practically all stars having nonzero angular momentum.
> 

And will you maybe explain, why your moronic mumble
about black holes should be treaten more seriously,
than moronic mumble of that fellow from wikipedy 
you're denying?

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

#363038

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,
> > > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?
> > >
> > > Double-A
> >
> > AA I think Pemrose has a lot to say,and helps Hawking all he can.Hawking's name to fame is his books sell great.He uses no math. His life made a good movie,and had great acting. >Hawking said and I agree "Black holes can come in any size." TreBert
> 
> Stephen Hawking has the same predictable pattern...
> he just want to convince the world to travel to other worlds.
> 
> When Hawking says go to a black hole and ""you might end up" in another universe" is just
> a trick to convince you that black holes are gateways to other universe.
> 
> You don't actually believe he believes a word of it himself, do you?
> 
> It's a con.
> 
> I say, we push Stephen Hawking into a Black Hole and watch him scream.
> 
> https://youtu.be/U_WEvWcVoFw?t=82



Who is going to be the first astronut to go into a black hole? How about a Black astronut? Neil-- deGrasse Tyson


Black astronuts lives don't matter, is that right?

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

#363041

W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 09:23:06 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,
> > > > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?
> > > >
> > > > Double-A
> > >
> > > AA I think Pemrose has a lot to say,and helps Hawking all he can.Hawking's name to fame is his books sell great.He uses no math. His life made a good movie,and had great acting. >Hawking said and I agree "Black holes can come in any size." TreBert
> > 
> > Stephen Hawking has the same predictable pattern...
> > he just want to convince the world to travel to other worlds.
> > 
> > When Hawking says go to a black hole and ""you might end up" in another universe" is just
> > a trick to convince you that black holes are gateways to other universe.
> > 
> > You don't actually believe he believes a word of it himself, do you?
> > 
> > It's a con.
> > 
> > I say, we push Stephen Hawking into a Black Hole and watch him scream.
> > 
> > https://youtu.be/U_WEvWcVoFw?t=82
> 
> 
> 
> Who is going to be the first astronut to go into a black hole? How about a Black astronut? Neil-- deGrasse Tyson
> 
> 
> Black astronuts lives don't matter, is that right?

If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully,
You will know, that, from the point of view
of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
process of a black hole creation takes 
an infinite time.
In other words, the Shit says directly,
that for us black holes don't exist and will
never exist. They exist only from a point of
view of an observer falling into it. I.e.
from a point of view of nobody.

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

#363059

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:57:57 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 09:23:06 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > 
> > > reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,
> > > > > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?
> > > > >
> > > > > Double-A
> > > >
> > > > AA I think Pemrose has a lot to say,and helps Hawking all he can.Hawking's name to fame is his books sell great.He uses no math. His life made a good movie,and had great acting. >Hawking said and I agree "Black holes can come in any size." TreBert
> > > 
> > > Stephen Hawking has the same predictable pattern...
> > > he just want to convince the world to travel to other worlds.
> > > 
> > > When Hawking says go to a black hole and ""you might end up" in another universe" is just
> > > a trick to convince you that black holes are gateways to other universe.
> > > 
> > > You don't actually believe he believes a word of it himself, do you?
> > > 
> > > It's a con.
> > > 
> > > I say, we push Stephen Hawking into a Black Hole and watch him scream.
> > > 
> > > https://youtu.be/U_WEvWcVoFw?t=82
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Who is going to be the first astronut to go into a black hole? How about a Black astronut? Neil-- deGrasse Tyson
> > 
> > 
> > Black astronuts lives don't matter, is that right?
> 
> If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully,
> You will know, that, from the point of view
> of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> process of a black hole creation takes 
> an infinite time.

No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what you say applies:

1. Visual observation (due to the light signal delay the star looks frozen - but this is just
a mirage),

2. If the external observer happens to use a certain labelling system called (these days)
"the Schwarzschild coordinates". But this is just a man-made choice. The same observer could have chosen the Eddington-Finkelstein convention or the Gullstrand-Painleve one and his conclusion would be different.

> In other words, the Shit says directly,
> that for us black holes don't exist and will
> never exist.

Don't call names things you don't understand. It's dumb.

--
Jan

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

#363128

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:323d5235-ba0c-4238-a5dc-be979d09a97b@googlegroups.com...

> If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully,
> You will know, that, from the point of view
> of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> process of a black hole creation takes
> an infinite time.

|No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what you say 
applies:

Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
fellows of wikipedy you're denying.


|2. If the external observer happens to use a certain labelling system 
called (these days)
|"the Schwarzschild coordinates". But this is just a man-made choice. The 
same observer could have chosen the Eddington-Finkelstein convention or the 
Gullstrand-Painleve one and his conclusion would be different.

Oh, could he? Really? So why you're mumbling it's
incorrect when I did?



> In other words, the Shit says directly,
> that for us black holes don't exist and will
> never exist.

|Don't call names things you don't understand. It's dumb.

I don't. I only call things I understand.

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

#363165

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 6:03:17 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:323d5235-ba0c-4238-a5dc-be979d09a97b@googlegroups.com...
> 
> > If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully,
> > You will know, that, from the point of view
> > of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> > process of a black hole creation takes
> > an infinite time.
> 
> |No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what you say 
> applies:
> 
> Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
> treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
> fellows of wikipedy you're denying.

I know nothing about any "wikipedy", I'm just telling you what happens within GR.

> |2. If the external observer happens to use a certain labelling system 
> called (these days)
> |"the Schwarzschild coordinates". But this is just a man-made choice. The 
> same observer could have chosen the Eddington-Finkelstein convention or the 
> Gullstrand-Painleve one and his conclusion would be different.
> 
> Oh, could he? Really? So why you're mumbling it's
> incorrect when I did?

Because I thought you said the opposite: that the falling object will not cross
the horizon.

> > In other words, the Shit says directly,
> > that for us black holes don't exist and will
> > never exist.
> 
> |Don't call names things you don't understand. It's dumb.
> 
> I don't. I only call things I understand.

No. We already know you cannot answer technical questions in GR.

--
Jan

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

#363457

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:f15e62aa-41a6-439f-b640-81d7dcaf4ad7@googlegroups.com...

> |No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what you 
> say
> applies:
>
> Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
> treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
> fellows of wikipedy you're denying.

|I know nothing about any "wikipedy", I'm just telling you what happens 
within GR.

So, can you explain, why I should treat your mumble more
seriously, than mumble of your fellows of wikipedy you're
denying?

Yet another question you will never notice. As expected from
a relativistic moron.




> |2. If the external observer happens to use a certain labelling system
> called (these days)
> |"the Schwarzschild coordinates". But this is just a man-made choice. The
> same observer could have chosen the Eddington-Finkelstein convention or 
> the
> Gullstrand-Painleve one and his conclusion would be different.
>
> Oh, could he? Really? So why you're mumbling it's
> incorrect when I did?

|Because I thought you said the opposite: that the falling object will not 
cross
|the horizon.

Opposite to what? Decide: can I choose convention saying like that,
ar can't I?


> |Don't call names things you don't understand. It's dumb.
>
> I don't. I only call things I understand.

|No. We already know you cannot answer technical questions in GR.

That I understand your shit doesn't mean I know all details.

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

#363471

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:19:55 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:f15e62aa-41a6-439f-b640-81d7dcaf4ad7@googlegroups.com...
> 
> > |No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what you 
> > say
> > applies:
> >
> > Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
> > treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
> > fellows of wikipedy you're denying.
> 
> |I know nothing about any "wikipedy", I'm just telling you what happens 
> within GR.
> 
> So, can you explain, why I should treat your mumble more
> seriously, than mumble of your fellows of wikipedy you're
> denying?
> 
> Yet another question you will never notice. As expected from
> a relativistic moron.

Are you asking if you should treat Wikipedia more seriously? I don't know because
I don't read it much. I simply mentioned what GR said.

> > |2. If the external observer happens to use a certain labelling system
> > called (these days)
> > |"the Schwarzschild coordinates". But this is just a man-made choice. The
> > same observer could have chosen the Eddington-Finkelstein convention or 
> > the
> > Gullstrand-Painleve one and his conclusion would be different.
> >
> > Oh, could he? Really? So why you're mumbling it's
> > incorrect when I did?
> 
> |Because I thought you said the opposite: that the falling object will not 
> cross
> |the horizon.
> 
> Opposite to what?

Reread the above sentence.

> Decide: can I choose convention saying like that,
> ar can't I?

You can choose a convention. I thought you insisted that this convention implied
the object actually never crossed the horizon. If you did not insist on that, let's
just leave it at that.

--
Jan

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

#363495

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:969affac-ab46-4e25-99a4-01379aaefd2c@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:19:55 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:f15e62aa-41a6-439f-b640-81d7dcaf4ad7@googlegroups.com...
>
> > |No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what you
> > say
> > applies:
> >
> > Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
> > treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
> > fellows of wikipedy you're denying.
>
> |I know nothing about any "wikipedy", I'm just telling you what happens
> within GR.
>
> So, can you explain, why I should treat your mumble more
> seriously, than mumble of your fellows of wikipedy you're
> denying?
>
> Yet another question you will never notice. As expected from
> a relativistic moron.

|Are you asking if you should treat Wikipedia more seriously?

No, moron. Can't you read? I'm asking, why I should treat your
mumble more seriously, than mumble of other GR specialists,
that say oppositely to you.

> Decide: can I choose convention saying like that,
> ar can't I?

|You can choose a convention.

But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?

|I thought you insisted that this convention implied the object
|actually never crossed the horizon.

Because it does.

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

#363506

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:969affac-ab46-4e25-99a4-01379aaefd2c@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:19:55 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:f15e62aa-41a6-439f-b640-81d7dcaf4ad7@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > |No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what you
> > > say
> > > applies:
> > >
> > > Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
> > > treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
> > > fellows of wikipedy you're denying.
> >
> > |I know nothing about any "wikipedy", I'm just telling you what happens
> > within GR.
> >
> > So, can you explain, why I should treat your mumble more
> > seriously, than mumble of your fellows of wikipedy you're
> > denying?
> >
> > Yet another question you will never notice. As expected from
> > a relativistic moron.
> 
> |Are you asking if you should treat Wikipedia more seriously?
> 
> No, moron. Can't you read? I'm asking, why I should treat your
> mumble more seriously, than mumble of other GR specialists,
> that say oppositely to you.

Well, obviously nobody can answer this question for you. You either
know (or learn) the subject or you have to rely on an opinion. Whether
that opinion is expert enough to warrant your belief simply cannot
be determined with 100% accuracy. 

> > Decide: can I choose convention saying like that,
> > ar can't I?
> 
> |You can choose a convention.
> 
> But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?

No, I said only that these coordinates were man-made conventions that
owe many of their properties to human convenience, not any physical
property.

> |I thought you insisted that this convention implied the object
> |actually never crossed the horizon.
> 
> Because it does.

How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply such thing?
Again I must ask: if you post a note on your front door saying "Zurich",
does it mean you live in Zurich?

(I'm leaving aside that a post or two ago you said that it was not
you but Wikipedia who made that claim. But never mind, I'm used to
your shenanigans.)

--
Jan

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

#363513

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:c529c4f9-1a65-4f6c-ba78-945f8bcd4ef9@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:969affac-ab46-4e25-99a4-01379aaefd2c@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:19:55 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:f15e62aa-41a6-439f-b640-81d7dcaf4ad7@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > |No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what 
> > > you
> > > say
> > > applies:
> > >
> > > Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
> > > treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
> > > fellows of wikipedy you're denying.
> >
> > |I know nothing about any "wikipedy", I'm just telling you what happens
> > within GR.
> >
> > So, can you explain, why I should treat your mumble more
> > seriously, than mumble of your fellows of wikipedy you're
> > denying?
> >
> > Yet another question you will never notice. As expected from
> > a relativistic moron.
>
> |Are you asking if you should treat Wikipedia more seriously?
>
> No, moron. Can't you read? I'm asking, why I should treat your
> mumble more seriously, than mumble of other GR specialists,
> that say oppositely to you.

|Well, obviously nobody can answer this question for you. You either
|know (or learn) the subject or you have to rely on an opinion.

But why should I take your opinion instead opinion of your
fellow idiot from wiki, which is opposite to your?


> > Decide: can I choose convention saying like that,
> > ar can't I?
>
> |You can choose a convention.
>
> But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?

|No, I said only that these coordinates were man-made conventions that

A lie, quoting:
No, this is incorrect.
End of quoting.

|owe many of their properties to human convenience, not any physical
|property.

As we already agree, the same can be told about any statement
of any theory.


> Because it does.

|How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply such thing?

Simply.
And how can your Ingenious Shit imply time is relative?

|Again I must ask: if you post a note on your front door saying "Zurich",
|does it mean you live in Zurich?

When calling my home "Zurich" is a convention, I do.

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

#363517

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 1:56:03 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:c529c4f9-1a65-4f6c-ba78-945f8bcd4ef9@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:969affac-ab46-4e25-99a4-01379aaefd2c@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:19:55 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:f15e62aa-41a6-439f-b640-81d7dcaf4ad7@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > |No, this is incorrect. There are only two aspects under which what 
> > > > you
> > > > say
> > > > applies:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is correct. Unless you can explain,  why I should
> > > > treat your mumble more seriously, than mumble of your
> > > > fellows of wikipedy you're denying.
> > >
> > > |I know nothing about any "wikipedy", I'm just telling you what happens
> > > within GR.
> > >
> > > So, can you explain, why I should treat your mumble more
> > > seriously, than mumble of your fellows of wikipedy you're
> > > denying?
> > >
> > > Yet another question you will never notice. As expected from
> > > a relativistic moron.
> >
> > |Are you asking if you should treat Wikipedia more seriously?
> >
> > No, moron. Can't you read? I'm asking, why I should treat your
> > mumble more seriously, than mumble of other GR specialists,
> > that say oppositely to you.
> 
> |Well, obviously nobody can answer this question for you. You either
> |know (or learn) the subject or you have to rely on an opinion.
> 
> But why should I take your opinion instead opinion of your
> fellow idiot from wiki, which is opposite to your?

I've just told you: there can be no answer to that in principle.

> > > Decide: can I choose convention saying like that,
> > > ar can't I?
> >
> > |You can choose a convention.
> >
> > But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?
> 
> |No, I said only that these coordinates were man-made conventions that
> 
> A lie, quoting:
> No, this is incorrect.
> End of quoting.

That's too generic to be of any value. I use the word "the" a lot too.
And the claim the object doesn't cross the horizon is incorrect, yes.

> |owe many of their properties to human convenience, not any physical
> |property.
> 
> As we already agree, the same can be told about any statement
> of any theory.

No, the key issue here is that you use the _raw data_ (namely, literal
coordinate values) as indicative of a physical property.

For example: let's say you have a curve in the xy-plane defined by
gamma(t) = (2t,3t) for t between 0 and 1. It would be wrong to conclude
from it that the _length_ of the curve was equal to the difference of its
raw coordinate values:

    "length" = 1 - 0 = 1

To compute the length one has to use the metric and integrate:

    length = integral_0^1 sqrt(2^2+3^2) dt = sqrt(13)

> > Because it does.
> 
> |How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply such thing?
> 
> Simply.
> And how can your Ingenious Shit imply time is relative?

That's not answering my question. I repeat: how can a man-made
bookkeeping convention decide whether something happened or not?
And why did you select that particular bookkeeping convention anyway?
Why not Eddington-Finkelstein?

> |Again I must ask: if you post a note on your front door saying "Zurich",
> |does it mean you live in Zurich?
> 
> When calling my home "Zurich" is a convention, I do.

No, assume it's not a convention (I thought it was obvious from the context
that we were not playing word games). Question is: does posting a note on
your door saying "Zurich" transport you and your home, physically, to Zurich?

--
Jan

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

#363585

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:8bf96ec6-2be5-4811-a764-856a5c4f24b3@googlegroups.com...


> > No, moron. Can't you read? I'm asking, why I should treat your
> > mumble more seriously, than mumble of other GR specialists,
> > that say oppositely to you.
>
> |Well, obviously nobody can answer this question for you. You either
> |know (or learn) the subject or you have to rely on an opinion.
>
> But why should I take your opinion instead opinion of your
> fellow idiot from wiki, which is opposite to your?

|I've just told you: there can be no answer to that in principle.

Of course.

> |No, I said only that these coordinates were man-made conventions that
>
> A lie, quoting:
> No, this is incorrect.
> End of quoting.

|That's too generic to be of any value. I use the word "the" a lot too.
|And the claim the object doesn't cross the horizon is incorrect, yes.

Reasuming: you never said it is incorrect, burt yes, it is incorrect.
As expected from a relativistic moron.

> |owe many of their properties to human convenience, not any physical
> |property.
>
> As we already agree, the same can be told about any statement
> of any theory.

|No, the key issue here is that you use the _raw data_ (namely, literal
|coordinate values) as indicative of a physical property.

What is your alternative, then?

>
> |How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply such thing?
>
> Simply.
> And how can your Ingenious Shit imply time is relative?

|That's not answering my question.

And that's not answering mine.

| I repeat: how can a man-made
|bookkeeping convention decide whether something happened or not?

I repeat: simply. Conventions have some surprising
properties you don't understand.
And your alternative? When and how - exactly - a distant
observer  (like us both) can decide "it happened, object just
crossed the  horizon"?


|And why did you select that particular bookkeeping convention anyway?
|Why not Eddington-Finkelstein?

Because it's more idiotic. Thus, more comfortable to me and
my goals.

> |Again I must ask: if you post a note on your front door saying "Zurich",
> |does it mean you live in Zurich?
>
> When calling my home "Zurich" is a convention, I do.

|No, assume it's not a convention (I thought it was obvious from the context
|that we were not playing word games). Question is: does posting a note on
|your door saying "Zurich" transport you and your home, physically, to 
Zurich?

No. 

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

#363589

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:8bf96ec6-2be5-4811-a764-856a5c4f24b3@googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> > > No, moron. Can't you read? I'm asking, why I should treat your
> > > mumble more seriously, than mumble of other GR specialists,
> > > that say oppositely to you.
> >
> > |Well, obviously nobody can answer this question for you. You either
> > |know (or learn) the subject or you have to rely on an opinion.
> >
> > But why should I take your opinion instead opinion of your
> > fellow idiot from wiki, which is opposite to your?
> 
> |I've just told you: there can be no answer to that in principle.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> > |No, I said only that these coordinates were man-made conventions that
> >
> > A lie, quoting:
> > No, this is incorrect.
> > End of quoting.
> 
> |That's too generic to be of any value. I use the word "the" a lot too.
> |And the claim the object doesn't cross the horizon is incorrect, yes.
> 
> Reasuming: you never said it is incorrect, burt yes, it is incorrect.

Now you are simply lying. I said that this was incorrect from day one,
way back in 2013. This was in fact one of the very first exchanges
we had.

> As expected from a relativistic moron.

You seem to suffer from an OCD so I'll let it pass. Koobee has the same
problem but, strangely, not the other Polish (nameless) guy. His nonsense
is ever fresh :-)

> > |owe many of their properties to human convenience, not any physical
> > |property.
> >
> > As we already agree, the same can be told about any statement
> > of any theory.
> 
> |No, the key issue here is that you use the _raw data_ (namely, literal
> |coordinate values) as indicative of a physical property.
> 
> What is your alternative, then?

Certain physical quantities are designated as representing physical
phenomena. Use those. (Whether such designation is ultimately correct
is of course not provable, that's how science works.) Coordinate values
are not so designated (obviously they cannot be as they are man-made).

> > |How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply such thing?
> >
> > Simply.
> > And how can your Ingenious Shit imply time is relative?
> 
> |That's not answering my question.
> 
> And that's not answering mine.

You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply whether
an event labelled by them took place or not? If I look at the
Mercator map of the Earth, does it mean the poles don't exist?

> | I repeat: how can a man-made
> |bookkeeping convention decide whether something happened or not?
> 
> I repeat: simply. Conventions have some surprising
> properties you don't understand.

This is just talk, still no answer.

> And your alternative? When and how - exactly - a distant
> observer  (like us both) can decide "it happened, object just
> crossed the  horizon"?

He cannot, the phenomena involved make certain tests impossible to perform.
The only thing he can do is:

1. either assume GR is a good enough model and conclude the object
will cross the horizon in its finite proper time,

2. or reject GR and conclude whatever his alternative theory tells him.
For example, he could even say that "horizons don't exist". (Problem is no
alternative theory worth looking at exists today.)

> |And why did you select that particular bookkeeping convention anyway?
> |Why not Eddington-Finkelstein?
> 
> Because it's more idiotic. Thus, more comfortable to me and
> my goals.

What's so "idiotic" about selecting coordinates in order to simplify
solving some system of PDEs? Ever took a math class?

> > |Again I must ask: if you post a note on your front door saying "Zurich",
> > |does it mean you live in Zurich?
> >
> > When calling my home "Zurich" is a convention, I do.
> 
> |No, assume it's not a convention (I thought it was obvious from the context
> |that we were not playing word games). Question is: does posting a note on
> |your door saying "Zurich" transport you and your home, physically, to 
> Zurich?
> 
> No.

Well, same thing with coordinates. You can only make invariant conclusions
from them, you cannot use their literal values as indicative of anything
because you are allowed to assign _any_ values to them (as long as they are 
smooth, etc.)

--
Jan

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

#363595

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:1b2abc2b-a6e2-4cbc-8f4e-bd8c018d8cee@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > |No, I said only that these coordinates were man-made conventions that
> >
> > A lie, quoting:
> > No, this is incorrect.
> > End of quoting.
>
> |That's too generic to be of any value. I use the word "the" a lot too.
> |And the claim the object doesn't cross the horizon is incorrect, yes.
>
> Reasuming: you never said it is incorrect, burt yes, it is incorrect.

|Now you are simply lying. I said that this was incorrect from day one,

Of course you did. But it was not the only thing you said.
Quoting:
> But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?
No, I said only that these coordinates were
End of quoting.
Exectly as I said.


> |No, the key issue here is that you use the _raw data_ (namely, literal
> |coordinate values) as indicative of a physical property.
>
> What is your alternative, then?

|Certain physical quantities are designated as representing physical
|phenomena. Use those.

"Physical phenomena". Poor idiot. Not so long ago I asked
you, how you measure your interval shit. And you couldn't.
It's not any "physical phenomena" It's just moronic imagination
of a bunch of brainwashed morons.

|are not so designated (obviously they cannot be as they are man-made).

Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
Makes difference, doesn't it?


> > |How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply such thing?
> >
> > Simply.
> > And how can your Ingenious Shit imply time is relative?
>
> |That's not answering my question.
>
> And that's not answering mine.

|You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?

You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?

|How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply whether
|an event labelled by them took place or not?

Well, in opposition to you, I do answer.
Simply.

> And your alternative? When and how - exactly - a distant
> observer  (like us both) can decide "it happened, object just
> crossed the  horizon"?

|He cannot

So, what is your problem to understand? He cannot
detefrmine directly, whether it happened or not,
so, convention is free to make it for him.
Even such a moron should understand it easily.

And, BTW, as you can't determine, whether the
event "object crossed the horizon" happened or not,
why are you so sure it happened?

|1. either assume GR is a good enough model and conclude the object
|will cross the horizon in its finite proper time,

Who cares?
As you said yourself, from my point of view it means
"object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
more.
Right?



> |And why did you select that particular bookkeeping convention anyway?
> |Why not Eddington-Finkelstein?
>
> Because it's more idiotic. Thus, more comfortable to me and
> my goals.

|What's so "idiotic" about selecting coordinates in order to simplify
|solving some system of PDEs? Ever took a math class?

You mean - to simplify solving, that "object either
crossed the horizon or not"? Well, I can do such things
without selecting any coordinates, would you believe?

> No.

|Well, same thing with coordinates.

No, poor idiot. Not same.
Do you remember, how is "verb" in Polish? It
surely isn't "zurychownik".

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

#363597

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:35:13 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:1b2abc2b-a6e2-4cbc-8f4e-bd8c018d8cee@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > |No, I said only that these coordinates were man-made conventions that
> > >
> > > A lie, quoting:
> > > No, this is incorrect.
> > > End of quoting.
> >
> > |That's too generic to be of any value. I use the word "the" a lot too.
> > |And the claim the object doesn't cross the horizon is incorrect, yes.
> >
> > Reasuming: you never said it is incorrect, burt yes, it is incorrect.
> 
> |Now you are simply lying. I said that this was incorrect from day one,
> 
> Of course you did. But it was not the only thing you said.
> Quoting:
> > But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?
> No, I said only that these coordinates were
> End of quoting.
> Exectly as I said.

You make exactly zero sense. I said from the beginning that these
coordinates were man-made hence one could not conclude anything physical
from considering just their values, see e.g. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topicsearchin/sci.physics.relativity/authorname$3Amaciej$20AND$20after$3A2013$2F12$2F18$20AND$20before$3A2014$2F06$2F01/sci.physics.relativity/yIaNMFxzzvE 
(open my "12/19/13" post).

> > |No, the key issue here is that you use the _raw data_ (namely, literal
> > |coordinate values) as indicative of a physical property.
> >
> > What is your alternative, then?
> 
> |Certain physical quantities are designated as representing physical
> |phenomena. Use those.
> 
> "Physical phenomena". Poor idiot. Not so long ago I asked
> you, how you measure your interval shit. And you couldn't.
> It's not any "physical phenomena" It's just moronic imagination
> of a bunch of brainwashed morons.

Don't change the subject. It is simply an obvious statement: raw values
of man-made coordinates cannot be used to infer the occurrence of any
physical phenomenon.

> |are not so designated (obviously they cannot be as they are man-made).
> 
> Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
> shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
> Makes difference, doesn't it?

You must be under some drug influence. Don't post when your mind is
so clouded. You just wrote few hours ago that attaching a sign saying
"Zurich" to your front door would not mean your house was physically
situated in Zurich. And now you are starting to argue that nonsense all
over from Adam and Eve again. Am I saying something terribly difficult
here? Here it goes again: raw coordinate values cannot imply anything
about phenomena occurrence simply because these values are man-made.

This is so obvious that it warrants no discussion: to claim otherwise
would mean that things happen because we invoke a magic spell. Is this
the world you live in?

> > > |How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply such thing?
> > >
> > > Simply.
> > > And how can your Ingenious Shit imply time is relative?
> >
> > |That's not answering my question.
> >
> > And that's not answering mine.
> 
> |You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
> 
> You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?

So you have no answer.

> |How does a man-made bookkeeping convention able to imply whether
> |an event labelled by them took place or not?
> 
> Well, in opposition to you, I do answer.
> Simply.

Where is this answer then? How can a magic spell cause anything to
happen?

> > And your alternative? When and how - exactly - a distant
> > observer  (like us both) can decide "it happened, object just
> > crossed the  horizon"?
> 
> |He cannot
> 
> So, what is your problem to understand? He cannot
> detefrmine directly, whether it happened or not,

FINALLY you admit it. It took only 2 1/2 years. Exactly right and in
particular he cannot conclude that the object did NOT cross the horizon.
He only has observations and GR.

> so, convention is free to make it for him.
> Even such a moron should understand it easily.

NOW you are saying this. But before you were saying the falling object would
not cross the horizon because its radial coordinate was such-and-such. If you
assume GR, this is an incorrect claim. And if you deny GR, then there is 
nothing to discuss (everyone is free to use a pet theory).

> And, BTW, as you can't determine, whether the
> event "object crossed the horizon" happened or not,
> why are you so sure it happened?

What I said was that in GR the falling object's proper time would record
a finite time before crossing the horizon. (The external observer has no
way of verifying this directly while remaining external.)

> |1. either assume GR is a good enough model and conclude the object
> |will cross the horizon in its finite proper time,
> 
> Who cares?

If you assume GR, you must care. This is the crux of the matter. So if you
ask "who cares?" this means you don't assume GR, you just have some hand 
waving. I'm not terribly interested in it, sorry.

OTOH if your objection is philosophical, state it clearly so that everyone
knows you are not discussing GR per se. Of course if you do that and have
any intellectual honesty, then you'll have to drop all the foul language
directed at physicists as your objection is no longer scientific. I'd also 
suggest a philosophy newsgroup would be a better forum for you then.

> As you said yourself, from my point of view it means
> "object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
> more.
> Right?

Point is that it takes little more to throw away GR than posts saying
"all physicists are idiots", "I know all about models", "relativistic
morons", and the like.

You are free to deny GR, just don't expect anyone to pay any attention
other than for entertainment.

> > |And why did you select that particular bookkeeping convention anyway?
> > |Why not Eddington-Finkelstein?
> >
> > Because it's more idiotic. Thus, more comfortable to me and
> > my goals.
> 
> |What's so "idiotic" about selecting coordinates in order to simplify
> |solving some system of PDEs? Ever took a math class?
> 
> You mean - to simplify solving, that "object either
> crossed the horizon or not"?

No, to solve the Einstein equation.

> Well, I can do such things
> without selecting any coordinates, would you believe?
> 
> > No.
> 
> |Well, same thing with coordinates.
> 
> No, poor idiot. Not same.

Why? In both cases you have a situation where a physical consequence is
claimed based on a man-made label.

--
Jan

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

#363638

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:e6e3adf5-0c2c-40fa-ab36-c31e0b6b101c@googlegroups.com...

> |Now you are simply lying. I said that this was incorrect from day one,
>
> Of course you did. But it was not the only thing you said.
> Quoting:
> > But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?
> No, I said only that these coordinates were
> End of quoting.
> Exectly as I said.

|You make exactly zero sense. I said from the beginning that these

Of course you did. But it was never the only thing you said.


|Don't change the subject. It is simply an obvious statement: raw values
|of man-made coordinates cannot be used to infer the occurrence of any
|physical phenomenon.

Obvious for a relativistic moron only.

> Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
> shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
> Makes difference, doesn't it?

|You must be under some drug influence. Don't post when your mind is

Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
Makes difference, doesn't it?


> |You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
>
> You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?

|So you have no answer.

Yes, I do have. You just can't notice it. Samely, as you can't
notice my questions.
As expected from a relativistic moron.

> Well, in opposition to you, I do answer.
> Simply.

|Where is this answer then? How can a magic spell cause anything to
|happen?

We're not talking about magic spells. We're talking about
words. As "happen" is a verb ("czasownik"), time ("czas")
have some influence on it.
Nothing a relativistic moron could understand, however.


> > And your alternative? When and how - exactly - a distant
> > observer  (like us both) can decide "it happened, object just
> > crossed the  horizon"?
>
> |He cannot
>
> So, what is your problem to understand? He cannot
> detefrmine directly, whether it happened or not,

|FINALLY you admit it. It took only 2 1/12 years. Exactly right and in

Imagination, as expected from a relativistic morton.

> so, convention is free to make it for him.
> Even such a moron should understand it easily.

|NOW you are saying this. But before you were saying the falling object 
would
|not cross the horizon because its radial coordinate was such-and-such.

I'm just repeating it after your fellow idiot, that wrote it in
your moronic relativistic wikipedy. I've told you at least
five times.
Five times are not enough for a relativistic moron.


|If you assume GR, this is an incorrect claim.

Explain it to your fellow idiot, that assumed GR and wrote it.

> And, BTW, as you can't determine, whether the
> event "object crossed the horizon" happened or not,
> why are you so sure it happened?

|What I said was that in GR the falling object's proper time would record
|a finite time before crossing the horizon.

You said much, much more.


> |1. either assume GR is a good enough model and conclude the object
> |will cross the horizon in its finite proper time,
>
> Who cares?

|If you assume GR, you must care. This is the crux of the matter.

No. I don't have to care. Well, GR states so, I've heard, what is
so important about it?

> As you said yourself, from my point of view it means
> "object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
> more.
> Right?

|Point is that it takes little more to throw away GR than posts saying

I asked. RIGHT?
No answer, just a moronic mumble. As usual.

>
> You mean - to simplify solving, that "object either
> crossed the horizon or not"?

|No, to solve the Einstein equation.

WHAT FOR? To get information, that for me object either
crossed the horizon or not?

> Well, I can do such things
> without selecting any coordinates, would you believe?
>
> > No.
>
> |Well, same thing with coordinates.
>
> No, poor idiot. Not same.

|Why? In both cases you have a situation where a physical consequence is

Because "time" and "Zurich" are different terms and the
conventions related to them heve different construction,
different scale and different range.
Nothing a relativistic moron would know or could understand.
Or even would be interested in.

claimed based on a man-made label.

--
Jan 

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

#363644

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:09:36 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

It is obvious that neither the nym-shifter troll nor the two angry polish lovers are here to learn (or teach) anything. They just love to troll writing nonsense which, by the way, they do know is total nonsense. The three of them appear to be some sort of lousy low level excel programmers with a huge ego. Best thing to do is just to ignore them, as they are not even good for a laugh. Amazing there are so many trolls willing to waste other's time, instead of studying.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web