Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617385 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-11 11:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-16 22:11 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 167 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 11:42 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-11 18:48 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 13:04 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 14:20 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 12:19 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 12:26 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-11 21:32 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 13:06 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-11 16:46 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-12 12:07 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-12 09:52 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 13:28 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 13:39 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 14:31 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 14:39 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 14:44 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 16:10 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 16:35 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-11 22:20 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 20:10 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-12 12:31 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 20:21 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 21:24 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 21:41 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-12 15:34 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 22:05 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 22:20 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 20:43 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-16 12:29 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-16 12:45 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 22:34 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-16 13:45 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:55 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-11 17:28 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-13 13:03 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-13 20:52 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 20:57 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-13 21:07 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 21:31 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-14 07:16 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-14 10:30 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 15:33 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-12 12:53 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 04:12 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-12 07:53 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-12 08:07 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 15:04 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 10:57 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 10:27 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-13 10:34 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 03:49 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-13 15:17 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-13 14:53 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 17:21 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:35 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 16:08 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 16:43 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 16:53 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 16:55 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 17:45 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-13 20:47 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 15:51 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-14 16:00 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 23:50 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-15 01:02 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 17:57 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-15 15:34 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 22:20 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-16 10:25 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-12 10:54 +0300
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 06:46 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-12 22:44 +1000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-12 09:05 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 07:23 -0700
Cretin crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 08:44 -0700
Re: Cretin crank Richard Hertz perseveres Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 09:39 -0700
Re: Cretin crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 10:02 -0700
Re: Cretin crank Richard Hertz perseveres Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Cretin crank Richard Hertz perseveres Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-12 17:14 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-12 15:21 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 13:33 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-12 16:21 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Malvin Bastian <ntit@iissiniv.ba> - 2023-08-12 21:25 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 15:01 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-12 17:34 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Americo Babanov <oboe@airmocov.vo> - 2023-08-12 20:39 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-12 17:09 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Justine Virvitsiotti <stvt@ijistiri.ss> - 2023-08-12 21:22 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-12 16:43 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-12 16:49 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-13 16:57 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Leopoldo Amet-Han <aleh@--ao---t.oe> - 2023-08-13 21:43 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-13 17:43 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-13 19:09 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 18:17 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 18:50 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 22:00 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-14 00:20 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 22:31 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-14 11:05 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-14 11:42 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-14 10:34 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 22:02 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-12 09:43 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-14 10:52 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 08:26 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-13 04:19 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 22:43 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 12:16 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-12 14:25 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maria Vanag <aavi@raaiavnr.ga> - 2023-08-12 19:49 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-12 17:28 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 12:48 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-12 15:24 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 13:33 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-12 16:46 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 15:02 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 18:23 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 18:50 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 20:13 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 21:20 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 21:21 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-13 20:48 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 20:55 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 15:03 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 15:09 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 15:10 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-12 17:36 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 13:38 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 13:42 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-12 17:39 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 18:20 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-13 20:33 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 10:20 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 18:17 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 12:56 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 13:02 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-13 20:37 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 12:51 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 10:24 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 11:49 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 20:50 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 12:03 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-13 15:17 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 12:56 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-14 19:01 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:46 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 22:22 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 20:18 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 10:37 -0400
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 18:23 +0200
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:57 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-16 21:16 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-13 18:51 -0500
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 15:02 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:51 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 15:19 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. Reign Derkach <rgae@eirrkrag.re> - 2023-08-16 10:57 +0000
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 15:27 -0700
Re: Cordial Invitation to all Relativists. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 22:11 +0200
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-12 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <854292d1-bb9d-491a-b19c-bf961fd3a08bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617461 |
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > GR models things differently. The gravity outside the horizon exists because > there was a gravitating body there in the past (and it collapsed). > > The standard exact solutions are ideal limit versions of that in the sense that > the pre-existing body has been put in the limit of infinite past. > > So there is no "gravity escaping" in the GR model. > > -- > Jan Absurd nonsense spewed out of institutions of "higher learning."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-12 18:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4272709f-4342-4bd7-a813-07eedbe77dc0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617471 |
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > > GR models things differently. The gravity outside the horizon exists because > > there was a gravitating body there in the past (and it collapsed). > > > > The standard exact solutions are ideal limit versions of that in the sense that > > the pre-existing body has been put in the limit of infinite past. > > > > So there is no "gravity escaping" in the GR model. > > > > -- > > Jan > > Absurd nonsense spewed out of institutions of "higher learning." This is just a tantrum. I gave you a short description of how GR models the situation. It answered your question. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-12 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f21c92eb-8350-4ca6-b4db-bb9311492960n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617461 |
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > GR models things differently. The gravity outside the horizon exists because > there was a gravitating body there in the past (and it collapsed). > > The standard exact solutions are ideal limit versions of that in the sense that > the pre-existing body has been put in the limit of infinite past. > > So there is no "gravity escaping" in the GR model. > > -- > Jan The Ghost of Gravity! Very good. Now do The Ghost of Kiev.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-12 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <745f1cf6-68fd-41f5-ae1a-d11320e831een@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617486 |
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:56:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > > GR models things differently. The gravity outside the horizon exists because > > there was a gravitating body there in the past (and it collapsed). > > > > The standard exact solutions are ideal limit versions of that in the sense that > > the pre-existing body has been put in the limit of infinite past. > > > > So there is no "gravity escaping" in the GR model. > > > > -- > > Jan > The Ghost of Gravity! Very good. > > Now do The Ghost of Kiev. No, no no no. The gravity sticks around because it goes slower than a snail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 20:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41fec7de-063c-4484-b1e9-266285fdc292n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617486 |
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:56:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > > GR models things differently. The gravity outside the horizon exists because > > there was a gravitating body there in the past (and it collapsed). > > > > The standard exact solutions are ideal limit versions of that in the sense that > > the pre-existing body has been put in the limit of infinite past. > > > > So there is no "gravity escaping" in the GR model. > > > > -- > > Jan > The Ghost of Gravity! Very good. > > Now do The Ghost of Kiev. Ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-12 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c45924f2-fc8c-4584-a70d-5e1e25dcfd48n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617385 |
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. PROGRESS REPORT: Recap to this point: LIGO proves gravity moves at c therefore, black holes do not attract anything. Volney has called relativity "science." We are informed that GR can model gravity so it can escape black holes without achieving escape velocity. Alsing again appeals to authority and fails to exercise reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9be12023-068e-4180-bdc7-c79e09720684n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617385 |
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend relativity. QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29de7bd9-b84a-481d-b1ca-d7c0b6a25d97n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617568 |
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 10:24:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend relativity. > > QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. No, it's much simpler than that: you simply have no idea what this theory is about and why it's the way it is. You also don't understand how physics theories work in general. (I bet you assume physicists desperately are trying to prevent everyone from disproving relativity experimentally. It's the Hollywood mentality.) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kjsmv1Fov4pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617568 |
On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to >> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape > velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend > relativity. > > QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time > and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they haven't read? A liar. Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, but so what? -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8bbea1e-9b09-4d26-b879-8fc915448f56n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617575 |
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to > >> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > > CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape > > velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend > > relativity. > > > > QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time > > and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. > What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they > haven't read? A liar. > > Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, > but so what? > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. Relativity is also a lie told by liars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 15:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubba81$1u5b0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617577 |
On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >> >>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to >>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. >>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape >>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend >>> relativity. >>> >>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time >>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. >> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they >> haven't read? A liar. >> >> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, >> but so what? >> -- >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never read it. It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an outright lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <342e5253-d47f-4cc9-b6c4-ce45186036dcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617582 |
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > >> > >>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to > >>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > >>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape > >>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend > >>> relativity. > >>> > >>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time > >>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. > > >> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they > >> haven't read? A liar. > >> > >> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, > >> but so what? > >> -- > >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > > > What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. > Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never > read it. > > It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the > "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an > outright lie. I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I did not pretend to have read the book, while relativity pretends to explain physics without doing so at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 19:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubebp6$2g4gm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617588 |
On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to >>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. >>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape >>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend >>>>> relativity. >>>>> >>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time >>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. >> >>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they >>>> haven't read? A liar. >>>> >>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, >>>> but so what? >>>> -- >>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >> >>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. >> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never >> read it. >> >> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the >> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an >> outright lie. > I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book. > As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review. At least you walked your lie back. > I did not pretend to have read the book, And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53f036d7-bfe2-4660-a7da-39cde6c0bcb3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617722 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > >>>> > >>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to > >>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > >>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape > >>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend > >>>>> relativity. > >>>>> > >>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time > >>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. > >> > >>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they > >>>> haven't read? A liar. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, > >>>> but so what? > >>>> -- > >>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > >> > >>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. > >> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never > >> read it. > >> > >> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the > >> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an > >> outright lie. > > I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. > > Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book. > > > As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. > > I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that > the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite > certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star > review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is > just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review. > > At least you walked your lie back. > > > I did not pretend to have read the book, > > And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood. I didn't walk anything back, and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing any reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 22:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubhbt2$35hk7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617797 |
On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to >>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. >>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape >>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend >>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time >>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. >>>> >>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they >>>>>> haven't read? A liar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, >>>>>> but so what? >>>>>> -- >>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >>>> >>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. >>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never >>>> read it. >>>> >>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the >>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an >>>> outright lie. >>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. >> >> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book. >> >>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. >> >> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that >> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite >> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star >> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is >> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review. >> >> At least you walked your lie back. >> >>> I did not pretend to have read the book, >> >> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood. > I didn't walk anything back, So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5 star review? > and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing any reasoning. Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 20:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3d38275-48ea-4cb2-a5b1-465c3f559994n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617857 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to > >>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > >>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape > >>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend > >>>>>>> relativity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time > >>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. > >>>> > >>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they > >>>>>> haven't read? A liar. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, > >>>>>> but so what? > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > >>>> > >>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. > >>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never > >>>> read it. > >>>> > >>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the > >>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an > >>>> outright lie. > >>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. > >> > >> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book. > >> > >>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. > >> > >> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that > >> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite > >> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star > >> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is > >> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review. > >> > >> At least you walked your lie back. > >> > >>> I did not pretend to have read the book, > >> > >> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood. > > > I didn't walk anything back, > So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5 > star review? > > and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing any reasoning. > Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read. Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 10:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubin02$3aut3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617861 |
On 8/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to >>>>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. >>>>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape >>>>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend >>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time >>>>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they >>>>>>>> haven't read? A liar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, >>>>>>>> but so what? >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >>>>>> >>>>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. >>>>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never >>>>>> read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the >>>>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an >>>>>> outright lie. >>>>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. >>>> >>>> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book. >>>> >>>>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. >>>> >>>> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that >>>> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite >>>> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star >>>> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is >>>> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review. >>>> >>>> At least you walked your lie back. >>>> >>>>> I did not pretend to have read the book, >>>> >>>> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood. >> >>> I didn't walk anything back, >> So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5 >> star review? >>> and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing any reasoning. >> Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read. > Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying. And again you lie, you give a book you never read 5 stars because you magically "knew" it was worth 5 stars. Reviews are for books one has read and now wish to rate. What would you say if I gave it a 1 star review? After all I already know it's complete garbage just from the description plus the fact that you give it 5 stars. What more justification do I need?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 18:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kk4bfmF1uctU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617911 |
On 2023-08-16 14:37:53 +0000, Volney said: > On 8/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>> On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to >>>>>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. >>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape >>>>>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend >>>>>>>>>> relativity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time >>>>>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they >>>>>>>>> haven't read? A liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, >>>>>>>>> but so what? >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. >>>>>>>> I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. >>>>>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never >>>>>>> read it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the >>>>>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an >>>>>>> outright lie. >>>>>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book. >>>>> >>>>>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as >>>>>> usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that >>>>> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite >>>>> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star >>>>> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is >>>>> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review. >>>>> >>>>> At least you walked your lie back. >>>>> >>>>>> I did not pretend to have read the book, >>>>> >>>>> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood. >>> >>>> I didn't walk anything back, >>> So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5 >>> star review? >>>> and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing >>>> any reasoning. >>> Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read. > >> Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said >> I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying. > > And again you lie, you give a book you never read 5 stars because you > magically "knew" it was worth 5 stars. Reviews are for books one has > read and now wish to rate. OK. When you've looked up "authoritative" in a good dictionary you should also educate yourself about what lying is. Incidentally, I intend to keep an eye on your "review", so if you edit it further to make it look less bad I shall see and will tell everyone. I think your best bet now is to keep quiet and hope that the scandal will die down. > > What would you say if I gave it a 1 star review? After all I already > know it's complete garbage just from the description plus the fact that > you give it 5 stars. What more justification do I need? -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b55ec4d-ae63-4200-a05b-6bdc3d3a57f7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617917 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:23:23 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-08-16 14:37:53 +0000, Volney said: > > > On 8/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>> On 8/15/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>> On 8/13/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 11:50:14 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-13 17:24:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> To explain how gravity escapes a black hole when, according to > >>>>>>>>>>> relativity, the speed of gravity is c. > >>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSION: To escape a black hole, everything has to achieve escape > >>>>>>>>>> velocity, including gravity. Once again, relativists fail to defend > >>>>>>>>>> relativity. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> QUESTION: What do you call someone who says they can change the time > >>>>>>>>>> and distance in the speed equation to keep the speed the same? A liar. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What do you call a person who posts a five-star "review" on a book they > >>>>>>>>> haven't read? A liar. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, I know that you edited it afterwards to make it look a bit better, > >>>>>>>>> but so what? > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What you just said is entirely deceitful and totally misrepresents it. > >>>>>>>> I did not misrepresent myself or the book, so you are lying. > >>>>>>> Yes, you did. You lied. You said it was worth 5 stars when you never > >>>>>>> read it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is irrelevant that you walked back your "review" by editing the > >>>>>>> "review", or if you actually read it later, the first "review" was an > >>>>>>> outright lie. > >>>>>> I already knew it was five stars for the reason I gave. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope. It was a false review, a lie, since you never read the book. > >>>>> > >>>>>> As I said in the review, I already knew the author. Your comments, as > >>>>>> usual are stupid, deceitful, and worthless. > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn't read the book, just like you didn't, so I can't be certain that > >>>>> the book was stupid, deceitful, and worthless. I can, however, be quite > >>>>> certain it is, just from the idiotic title. Yet my nonexistent 1 star > >>>>> review (because I already know it's stupid, deceitful, and worthless) is > >>>>> just as (in)valid as your stupid, deceitful, and worthless 5 star review. > >>>>> > >>>>> At least you walked your lie back. > >>>>> > >>>>>> I did not pretend to have read the book, > >>>>> > >>>>> And at least you came clean and admitted your review was a falsehood. > >>> > >>>> I didn't walk anything back, > >>> So you are going back to your lie of giving a book you never read a 5 > >>> star review? > >>>> and I wonder why you keep flagrantly lying about it without providing > >>>> any reasoning. > >>> Who is lying? I never gave a 5 star review to a book I never read. > > > >> Volney, don't put words it peoples mouths because that is lying. I said > >> I hadn't read it and knew it was worth five stars anyway so stop lying. > > > > And again you lie, you give a book you never read 5 stars because you > > magically "knew" it was worth 5 stars. Reviews are for books one has > > read and now wish to rate. > OK. When you've looked up "authoritative" in a good dictionary you > should also educate yourself about what lying is. Incidentally, I > intend to keep an eye on your "review", so if you edit it further to > make it look less bad I shall see and will tell everyone. > > I think your best bet now is to keep quiet and hope that the scandal > will die down. > > > > What would you say if I gave it a 1 star review? After all I already > > know it's complete garbage just from the description plus the fact that > > you give it 5 stars. What more justification do I need? > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots There was never anything at all wrong or dishonest about the review. Anyone who has claimed otherwise is wrong and or lying. Anyone who reads it knows that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 21:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kk5e87F72nqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617928 |
On 8/16/2023 2:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: <...> > There was never anything at all wrong or dishonest > about the review. Anyone who has claimed otherwise is > wrong and or lying. Anyone who reads it knows that. Congratulations, up is now down. black is white, the world is wrong and you are right.Topsy turvy has taken on a whole new meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web