Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #646446 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:01 -0700
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:07 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:26 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:05 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:26 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:53 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-21 15:39 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:59 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 17:16 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:04 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:24 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 19:09 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:39 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:00 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:40 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:49 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:49 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 14:58 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:06 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 00:43 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 18:03 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:32 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:20 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:38 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:38 -0700
Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:32 -0700
Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:54 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:24 -0500
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:10 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:14 -0500
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 15:05 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:10 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:07 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:39 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:47 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:53 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:51 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 15:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 08:25 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 17:58 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 21:05 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 18:00 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 02:34 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:51 -0700
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:15 -0700
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:22 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 11:16 +0000
Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. NobelPrize.ORG @. - 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700
Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 08:32 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-19 17:46 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-19 14:08 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 17:20 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:34 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:36 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 01:33 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 21:04 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:57 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:17 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:19 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:00 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:29 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:58 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 16:39 +0000
Black Holes are math kook babble john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:46 -0700
Re: Retarded precessing spinny things are kook babble moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 20:07 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 15:09 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-20 18:07 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 16:31 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 08:33 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 07:00 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-08-19 12:45 -0400
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-08-21 07:04 -0500
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 18:00 -0500
Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 11:55 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-24 00:03 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 21:26 +0000
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:32 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:48 -0500
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 22:12 +0000
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 23:01 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 10:14 +0100
Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:04 +0000
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-24 15:40 -0700
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:04 +0200
Re: Slowing lased photons to near ZERO meters/second. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:05 +0200
Re: Starting/Stopping light. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:45 +0200
Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 17:55 -0700
Re: Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:23 +0200
Give it your best shot, Thomas Lahn. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:08 -0700
Re: Give it your best shot, ****** ****. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 14:15 +0200
Thomas Lahn would ban URL's. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-26 13:36 -0700
Re: ****** **** would ban URL's. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 01:46 +0200
Re: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-08-28 15:55 -0700
Google Groups spam filter (was: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 18:04 +0200
If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 18:39 -0700
Slow light (was: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:55 +0200
Viewed from earth, everything near an ideal event horizon appears frozen. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:47 -0700
Re: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:52 -0400
Re: kNode hasn't heard of MIME/HTML ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:47 +0200
The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:29 -0700
Re: The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 15:36 +0000
Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-26 11:56 -0700
Re: Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 04:31 +0000
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:28 -0700
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:44 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 14:34 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:22 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 16:14 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:18 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 18:25 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:44 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:05 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 16:09 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:01 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 19:22 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 18:48 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:22 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:27 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 21:54 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:01 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 03:31 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:52 +0200
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 14:34 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-05 11:40 +0000
Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 14:04 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 00:00 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-20 16:01 -0700
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-08-21 12:54 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:44 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 22:15 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 15:26 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 21:06 -0500
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:25 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 10:55 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 14:17 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:27 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 15:37 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:50 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:29 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:03 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 11:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <46726d30-87b8-4da7-a64e-cab840f15664@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646625 |
MM " " question, what do you mean "powering" a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? " There is NO MATTER inside the BH. It is SPINNING 'SPACETIME'. No charges can remain together in the extreme spin, and they are blown out as jets. But what maintains the spin? Radiation. " We've been here before, Michael. Remember? 'ITS A CYCLE, MICHAEL' Galactic centres absorb radiation. Electrons use their energy to continue radiating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 18:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <onckf5$fq4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646628 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >We've been here before, Michael. >Remember? >'ITS A CYCLE, MICHAEL' We've been here before, John. Remember? You are spouting kook babble, John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 18:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <onck87$fq4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646625 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" question, what do you mean "powering" >a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? " >There is NO MATTER inside the BH. Kook Babble, John. A black hole is defined as being an object so massive and dense that its gravity is so powerful that the escape velocity reaches c, so nothing can escape. See the word "massive"? That is from all the mass inside it. >It is SPINNING 'SPACETIME'. More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin". (and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) >No charges can remain together in the extreme spin, and they are blown >out as jets. Kook babble again. >But what maintains the spin? Radiation. Physical objects such as the earth rotate all by themselves without radiation or anything else needed to 'maintain' it. Conservation of angular momentum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 11:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <464602d0-e38f-49d8-a136-eaf979a73ccd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646634 |
MM " More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin". " Or "warp/bend"? (and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) " Show me one- not on paper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 16:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <onf2bv$128$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646637 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin". " >Or "warp/bend"? No, that is its effect on mass-energy within it. Not the same as your kook babble. >(and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) " >Show me one- not on paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric http://spiro.fisica.unipd.it/~antonell/schwarzschild/ http://aesop.phys.utk.edu/ads-cft/L2.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 11:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Black Holes are math kook babble |
| Message-ID | <ecece6ce-2ca4-4e2d-b3f6-f268699f4414@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646742 |
MM "john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin". " >Or "warp/bend"? No, that is its effect on mass-energy within it. Not the same as your kook babble. >(and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) " >Show me one- not on paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric http://spiro.fisica.unipd.it/~antonell/schwarzschild/ http://aesop.phys.utk.edu/ads-cft/L2.pdf "I said 'not on paper'. In other words, they're all math kook babble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 20:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Retarded precessing spinny things are kook babble |
| Message-ID | <onfehb$bie$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646749 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >>(and you never did answer, what about black holes that don't rotate?) " >>Show me one- not on paper >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric >http://spiro.fisica.unipd.it/~antonell/schwarzschild/ >http://aesop.phys.utk.edu/ads-cft/L2.pdf >"I said 'not on paper'. What do you expect me to do, go to my local hardware store and buy a Schwartzchild black hole and send it to you in Canada? Do they have an import duty? >In other words, they're all math kook babble. Meanwhile, all you have is kook babble. And you don't even see it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 15:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <63rjpc911thj843ktuk051c9dsv2146pqr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #646634 |
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:26:15 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: >More kook babble. Spacetime is not a physical object so it cannot "spin". Maybe not, but it can swirl. [grin] -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 14:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <572da876-28a6-4cf1-985d-f6c9c31e915c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646650 |
Goat "Maybe not, but it can swirl. [grin] " Big time! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 18:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <ond4o9$1dvi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646576 |
On 8/19/2017 8:33 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> A BH is a vortex in the aether. > > Kook Babble. There is no aether. Great Future for Aether Engineers !! (Midnight News) > >> A photon is a wave of energy in the aether. > > More kook babble. > >> Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out. > > Wow, you actually got something correct for once!! he was thinking billiard balls (photons) and side pockets (hole) > >> BH increases in energy > > Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all > we detect is the mass. I dont think one can detect mass inside a BH, that pesky (-1)^(1/2) thing does a number on reality. and going through the EH, or 'onto' the EH, one and his instruments get strung out into atoms and stuck into a place where time is not advancing anymore. Wish someone would make a realistic movie following the Math, as they go slowly into/onto a BH. > More accurate to say the BH increases in mass. > (remember, E=mc^2, where E is the energy added by the photon E=hf) > > Regardless, this doesn't answer my question, what do you mean "powering" > a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 16:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <07a30561-6a8a-478f-8b54-4c1adbdbe83a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646665 |
Io " > >> BH increases in energy > > Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all > we detect is the mass. I dont think one can detect mass inside a BH, that pesky (-1)^(1/2) thing does a number on reality. and going through the EH, or 'onto' the EH, one and his instruments get strung out into atoms and stuck into a place where time is not advancing anymore. Wish someone would make a realistic movie following the Math, as they go slowly into/onto a BH. " They saw what happens. It's a whirlpool. The star goes faster and faster around the Center as it gets closer, then the ATOMS SHRED and two jets carry HEPs in opposite directions at .9c. No atoms left- all exploded
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 08:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <oneng6$1o37$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646669 |
On 8/20/2017 6:31 PM, john wrote: > Io > " > >> >>> BH increases in energy >> >> Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all >> we detect is the mass. > > I dont think one can detect mass inside a BH, > that pesky (-1)^(1/2) thing does a number on reality. > > and going through the EH, or 'onto' the EH, one and his instruments get > strung out into atoms and stuck into a place where time is not advancing > anymore. > > Wish someone would make a realistic movie following the Math, as they go > slowly into/onto a BH. > " > They saw what happens. > It's a whirlpool. > The star goes faster and faster around the Center as it gets closer, then the ATOMS SHRED and two jets carry HEPs in opposite directions at .9c. > No atoms left- all exploded > but black holes accumulate angular momentium, so they must spin, especially if two BHs combine. here are 2 more opinions http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842 "The object falling through, from its own perspective, however, notices nothing. There is no local measurement that you can make that will tell you if you are inside of an event horizon. You will eventually fall into the singularity, though, a point where space and time come to an end. Because the gravitational tidal forces that result from falling into a singularity become infinite as the singularity is reached, even particles as small and strongly held together as protons or neutrons will still be ripped apart by the tides as they actually reach the singularity, however."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 07:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <0ae0bd89-5e29-4278-86df-9aed6726ec29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646716 |
Sergio " http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842 "The object falling through, from its own perspective, however, notices nothing. There is no local measurement that you can make that will tell you if you are inside of an event horizon. You will eventually fall into the singularity, though, a point where space and time come to an end. Because the gravitational tidal forces that result from falling into a singularity become infinite as the singularity is reached, even particles as small and strongly held together as protons or neutrons will still be ripped apart by the tides as they actually reach the singularity, however." Nothing will ever fall "straight into" a black hole. Try paddling a canoe "straight into" a whirlpool. Same thing- it will make you go around faster and faster. I don't know what "tides" they imagine, here- THATS word salad- but when the acceleration reaches a certain point, it blows the charges apart on opposite directions. and you get jets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 12:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <on9qbl$7pf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646517 |
NobelPrize.ORG @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Idiot -- Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 07:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <sjilpct24clruqhjdmjrdgnjttkq8f5eq1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #646524 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >NobelPrize.ORG @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> > >Idiot Don't you "love" people who, because of their own stupidity and ignorance, think that they know better than everyone else? -- "Only Linux shitware is so braindead as to use case-sensitivity." - DumFSck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 18:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. |
| Message-ID | <1vmdnfRh_-yB-wbEnZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646480 |
On 8/18/17 9:30 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> Jeff-Relf wrote: >>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists; >> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes lie >> near the center of most galaxies. > > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no. Black Holes violate the > Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate the observational evidence that black holes exist. For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other theoretical prejudices of comparable stature. Moreover, I believe that the violation of the HUP occurs deep inside the horizon, not outside where the observational evidence is. Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, because we expect quantum effects to become significant there, and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM. And you completely ignored the other evidence: > In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with > any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions > between black holes. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. |
| Message-ID | <g4GdnWDV7ZS_PwDEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646790 |
On 8/21/17 6:46 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ): >> the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with >> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by >> collisions between black holes. > > They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite; No. They merged in a ways consistent with black holes in GR, and inconsistent with any known type of material objects. >> > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no. >> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. >> >> That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate >> the observational evidence that black holes exist. > > There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Yes, there is. Your "none" is WRONG. YOU may not be convinced by it, but a majority of the astrophysics community is. >> For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other >> theoretical prejudices of comparable stature. > > Like what ? It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star". No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from the infalling matter hitting the surface of such an object. >> Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, >> because we expect quantum effects to become significant there, >> and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM. > > Exactly, we don't know. There are things we do know, and things we don't know. We DO know that there are objects in the universe which are MUCH better described as black holes than as any other type of object. HERE'S MY KEY POINT: Until some better model is developed, scientists will model them as black holes. You seem to be seeking some sort of "complete and absolutely true knowledge" -- that simply is not possible for humans in the world we inhabit. > more data, from more observers, is needed. Always true, and this is no different from essentially any other field. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 11:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. |
| Message-ID | <0b505f39-f84a-4f2d-be4b-84ca2efe63b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646928 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:48:41 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ): > > > > For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other > > > > theoretical prejudices of comparable stature. > > > > > > Like what ? It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star". > > > > No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from > > the infalling matter hitting the surface of such an object. > > We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need > INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity. > > Quoting " Black Stars, not Holes ", 2009: ＜＜ > > Quantum effects may prevent true black holes from forming > and give rise instead to dense entities called black stars. > [...] > Deeper shells would have higher temperatures, > just like smaller mass black holes do. ＞＞ > https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/AST2002/R9-Barcelo-Black%20stars,%20not%20holes.pdf Heat is created by photons.BHs radiate no photons.Nothing comes back out of BHs event horizon.BHs are absolute zero.BHs can only take up more space.Gravity is a one way force.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 00:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. |
| Message-ID | <onl50i$5eo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646946 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "Heat is created by photons of Bert's Hemorrhoids (BHs) Bert's Hemorrhoids radiate no photons.Nothing comes back out of Bert's Hemorrhoids event horizon. Bert's Head (BH) is absolute zero. Bert's Head (BH) can only take up more space, to post gutter physics and Trebert's Glazierola. "It's on the money, but it's a Pity"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 21:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. |
| Message-ID | <onkrta$mmu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646928 |
Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes: >We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need >INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity. Doesn't matter, it's the size of the event horizon that counts, not the singularity. As long as there is enough mass inside an event horizon there is a black hole, even if there is weird physics unknown to us inside that prevents formation of a singularity. We can never know what happens inside an event horizon. We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars that are orbiting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star) amongst others
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web