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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368763 > unrolled thread

The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense

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

Contents

  The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 01:58 -0400
    Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 04:41 -0800
      Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 15:04 +0000
        Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 10:22 -0500
          Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 07:29 -0800
            Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 12:43 -0500
              Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-01 11:01 -0800
                Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 18:10 -0500
                  Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 15:28 -0800
                  Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-01 19:32 -0800
                    Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 22:57 -0500
                      Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-01 20:33 -0800
                      Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Jeffrey Bianchi <jbian@pannelcamarena.org> - 2015-11-02 19:07 +0000
              Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 13:51 -0800
                Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Jeffrey Bianchi <jbian@pannelcamarena.org> - 2015-11-01 21:58 +0000
                  Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-01 14:14 -0800
                Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 19:05 -0500
                  Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 17:55 -0800
                  Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:44 -0600
              Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:34 -0600
          Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 09:49 -0800
            Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 17:53 +0000
              Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:02 -0800
            Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 18:08 +0000
              Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 20:01 -0800
              Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 06:08 +0100
      Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 01:10 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#368805

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:22:50 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:04:13 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Olmstead
> <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> wrote:
> 
> >Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> >>> The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense
> >> 
> >> Whether or not BHs actually exist, the observations of the stars at the
> >> galactic center demonstrate that an object of 4 million solar masses
> >> exists there and it has a diameter of less than 1.35x10^10 km
> >
> >Thanks, I never know, 13500000000000 metres is HUGE. You won't call such 
> >an object for a "black hole".

Size alone does not determine the model.

> >Interesting aspect I just come up with. This length/diameter gives rise to 
> >other even more exotic objects, a *black hole²* which is a black hole 
> >inside a black hole.
> 
>         The only reason the large mass value 
> is claimed is the high orbital speed of other
> stars.
>         This speed could be just a neutron star
> system that is closer than thought, or some
> other explanation that is not obvious.

Well, "could be", maybe, "or some other explanation". Yes, sure, but you could make this
sort of comment about any theory, so it's not really saying much.

>       General Relativity has been hijacked
> by people who can't see beyond Newton's
> 300 year old thinking that there has to be
> an attraction, and that is nonsense,

That's not even remotely true. GR is studied and we know results of this study, nobody
decided any "has to be", it's just mathematical corollaries. In some contexts gravity
can be thought of as repulsive, e.g. the expansion of the universe.

--
Jan

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

#368807

JanPB wrote:

>> >Thanks, I never know, 13500000000000 metres is HUGE. You won't call
>> >such an object for a "black hole".
> 
> Size alone does not determine the model.

You miss the point entirely. Is not about "the model". This is real, Jan, 
reality, real!

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

#368809

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 9:53:53 AM UTC-8, Wayne Olmstead wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >Thanks, I never know, 13500000000000 metres is HUGE. You won't call
> >> >such an object for a "black hole".
> > 
> > Size alone does not determine the model.
> 
> You miss the point entirely. Is not about "the model". This is real, Jan, 
> reality, real!

Point is what is called "black hole" is an object satisfying certain criteria. Size is only
one of them.

--
Jan

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

#368810

JanPB wrote:

>> >Thanks, I never know, 13500000000000 metres is HUGE. You won't call
>> >such an object for a "black hole".
> 
> Size alone does not determine the model.

Btw, first time I see this thing here, must be new. Seems genuine.

Secret Moon - NASA fake moon and mars hoax PROVEN 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNxxzEIzDVU

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

#368842

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 10:08:15 AM UTC-8, Wayne Olmstead wrote:
> 
> Secret Moon - NASA fake moon and mars hoax PROVEN 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNxxzEIzDVU

Nonsense.

--
Jan

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

#369101

Am 01.11.2015 19:08, schrieb Wayne Olmstead:
> JanPB wrote:
>
>>>> Thanks, I never know, 13500000000000 metres is HUGE. You won't call
>>>> such an object for a "black hole".
>>
>> Size alone does not determine the model.
>
> Btw, first time I see this thing here, must be new. Seems genuine.
>
> Secret Moon - NASA fake moon and mars hoax PROVEN
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNxxzEIzDVU


The video is made quite well.

I had made some 'studies' on the subject myself and came to similar 
conclusions.

These were: the pictures we had seen on tv , had been some sort of fake.

This would not say, that Nasa astronauts had not been to the moon, but 
it shows, that 'reality' in tv is actually created intentionally.


There seem to be kind' of 'schools' where some sort of 'bullshit 
artists' are created, that lie to the public, without loosing track of 
their script.


But in those days, the art of cheating was not that developed, hence we 
can find these little gaps in the story, where things are not made well.

(Or: these inconstancies are meant to be found, but people are requested 
to swallow the nonsense -nevertheless- unless they want to face serious 
sanctions.)

We have similar patterns of 'virtual reality' on several other 
occasions. Most prominent example would be pop music.

E.g. did 'The Beatles' consist of British boys?

This seems to be a stupid question, but how are you sure?

There exist a video, who's author assumes, that Paul McCartney was 
actually female.


How about Elvis?

How certain are you, that Elvis had sung himself?

I would say: singing nicely and making a good show are different 
qualities, that usually do not come in a single person. So: why not hire 
an actor  for the 'front job'?


These assumptions are - of course - just assumptions. And in reality 
Elvis sang, Paul McCartney was male and Nasa had been to the moon.

But the pictures were a stupid fake.


TH

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

#368856

W dniu niedziela, 1 listopada 2015 13:41:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
 
> Whether or not BHs actually exist, the observations of the stars at the
> galactic center demonstrate that an object of 4 million solar masses
> exists there and it has a diameter of less than 1.35x10^10 km.

It's obviously confirming black hole shit. Well,
should be invisible and it's not, but relativistic
moron won't be tricked; it's surely invisible,
and the fact it isn't is easy to explain.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web