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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479894 > unrolled thread

Einstein corrected himself

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

Contents

  Einstein corrected himself mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 11:54 -0800
    Re: Einstein corrected himself Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-16 12:20 +1100
      Re: Einstein corrected himself mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 12:01 -0800
        Re: Einstein corrected himself Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-17 11:18 +1100
          Re: Einstein corrected himself mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 12:35 -0800
          Re: Einstein corrected himself mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 18:23 -0800
            Re: Einstein corrected himself Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-22 17:04 +0000
              Re: Einstein corrected himself mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 10:33 -0800

#479894 — Einstein corrected himself

He thought of gravity waves in 1916 but then chose not to believe in them.
There are good reasons for the genius to change his mind.
For what he won the Nobel Prize for in 1921 he said he could
no longer go along with in 1937. The world of science didn't want to
talk about it.

Einstein said he could not reconcile a particle with light's wave.
… the double Magnetic and Electric sin curve waves...
He concluded light was a spherical wavelet.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#479914

On 16/12/2018 6:54 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> He thought of gravity waves in 1916 but then chose not to believe in them.
> There are good reasons for the genius to change his mind.
> For what he won the Nobel Prize for in 1921 he said he could
> no longer go along with in 1937. The world of science didn't want to
> talk about it.
> 
> Einstein said he could not reconcile a particle with light's wave.
> … the double Magnetic and Electric sin curve waves...
> He concluded light was a spherical wavelet.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

It seems to be a common theme amongst relativity kooks that they focus 
on what historical figures said, or allegedly said, rather than on the 
physics.

Of course, quoting, or making up stuff, is easier than study and 
understanding.

Sylvia

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

#479976

As the first one to solve his equations for maximum gravity
Einstein rejected the black hole... he said no collapsar...


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480006

On 17/12/2018 7:01 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> As the first one to solve his equations for maximum gravity
> Einstein rejected the black hole... he said no collapsar...
> 
Seems he was mistaken. It would be easy to suppose that the 
singularities in the math don't represent a physical reality. In such 
situations, one supposes that the theory would need to be adjusted so as 
to properly represent the extreme cases. The theory appears to be more 
accurate than Einstein presumed, with evidence for the existence of 
black holes being compelling.

Sylvia.

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

#480165

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 4:18:37 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/12/2018 7:01 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > As the first one to solve his equations for maximum gravity
> > Einstein rejected the black hole... he said no collapsar...
> > 
> Seems he was mistaken. It would be easy to suppose that the 
> singularities in the math don't represent a physical reality. In such 
> situations, one supposes that the theory would need to be adjusted so as 
> to properly represent the extreme cases. The theory appears to be more 
> accurate than Einstein presumed, with evidence for the existence of 
> black holes being compelling.
> 
> Sylvia.

We are not seeing black holes. What is real is the next
thing to them gravitationally. Or maximum gravitation
of supermassive Neutronium... the biggest at the galactic
centers. There is evidence for the black hole look a likes
and not actual black holes.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480417

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 4:18:37 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/12/2018 7:01 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > As the first one to solve his equations for maximum gravity
> > Einstein rejected the black hole... he said no collapsar...
> > 
> Seems he was mistaken. It would be easy to suppose that the 
> singularities in the math don't represent a physical reality. In such 
> situations, one supposes that the theory would need to be adjusted so as 
> to properly represent the extreme cases. The theory appears to be more 
> accurate than Einstein presumed, with evidence for the existence of 
> black holes being compelling.
> 
> Sylvia.

There is a scientific correction to collapsars.
There is no exception to the exclusion principle...
Neutron's obey it and don't collapse. Only
Neutronium is formed not any singularity.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480430

mitchrae3323 wrote:

>> to properly represent the extreme cases. The theory appears to be more
>> accurate than Einstein presumed, with evidence for the existence of
>> black holes being compelling. Sylvia.
> 
> There is a scientific correction to collapsars. There is no exception to
> the exclusion principle... Neutron's obey it and don't collapse. Only
> Neutronium is formed not any singularity.

You just keep coming up with descriptions of non-linear, dynamic, 
continuous, parabolic, second order partial differential equation, but I 
see no math symbols, nor initial and boundary conditions. Let alone the 
domain.

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

#480435

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 9:04:49 AM UTC-8, Scott Richman wrote:
> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> 
> >> to properly represent the extreme cases. The theory appears to be more
> >> accurate than Einstein presumed, with evidence for the existence of
> >> black holes being compelling. Sylvia.
> > 
> > There is a scientific correction to collapsars. There is no exception to
> > the exclusion principle... Neutron's obey it and don't collapse. Only
> > Neutronium is formed not any singularity.
> 
> You just keep coming up with descriptions of non-linear, dynamic, 
> continuous, parabolic, second order partial differential equation, but I 
> see no math symbols, nor initial and boundary conditions. Let alone the 
> domain.

You don't have to. Go back to your sheepskins...
You are a math nut.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web