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

Groups > sci.physics > #680546 > unrolled thread

Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 17:56 -0700
    Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-09 18:16 -0700
      Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 01:14 -0700
        Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 11:13 +0000
          Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 14:19 -0700
            Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 22:55 +0000
            Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-11 00:05 +0000
              Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 17:32 -0700
        Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 11:22 -0700
          Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-11 01:23 -0700
    Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 12:04 -0700
      Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 12:34 -0700
        Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:36 -0700
          Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-10 17:18 -0700
        Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:59 -0700
          Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 13:04 -0700
    Re: Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-11 01:25 -0700

#680546 — Black hole oddity; proposed to Hawking

A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
But black holes continue to move in space time.
This is a mutual contradiction. The end of space and
time but a continued movement in space and time. How is 
this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
you do better?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#680548

On 4/9/2018 5:56 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
> But black holes continue to move in space time.
> This is a mutual contradiction. The end of space and
> time but a continued movement in space and time. How is
> this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
> you do better?

Need to think. Perhaps the black hole moves, however, it is still 
connected to the singularity locked at a point of infinity? Kind of like 
an umbilical cord, so to speak?

Or, even though a singularity goes to infinity, it can still wander 
around in space.

Don't know.

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

#680574

Singularity is math.
Math is not reality.

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

#680588

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Singularity is math.
> Math is not reality.
> 

How about absolute zero? Allowed to be?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680672

Odd
"john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> Singularity is math. 
> Math is not reality. 
> 

How about absolute zero? Allowed to be? 

-- 
"
One billion years for a galaxy to rotate.
Absolute zero.
Size of proton.
Speed of light.
Surprise! Matter and Space are linked! 

How does YOUR bs model explain that, Odd?
Oh, right. It doesn't. It makes no predictions that have turned out to be correct. Huh!
Oh, well. More Dark Fudge will waste time and create jobs and most importantly will keep the status quo.

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

#680687

John wrote the following scree on his phone, completely screwing up the
formatting:
=====================
Odd 
"john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Singularity is math. 
Math is not reality. 
How about absolute zero? Allowed to be?

-- 
" 
One billion years for a galaxy to rotate. 
Absolute zero. 
Size of proton. 
Speed of light. 
Surprise! Matter and Space are linked! 
How does YOUR bs model explain that, Odd? 
Oh, right. It doesn't. It makes no predictions that have turned out to be
correct. Huh! 
Oh, well. More Dark Fudge will waste time and create jobs and most
importantly will keep the status quo. 
==========================

How does the model explain what? Absolute zero on the temperature scale? 
Do you believe there is such a thing? Do you believe classical laws of
thermodynamics? Yes or no?

As for making no predictions that have turned out to be correct.....what
planet do you live on? Do you honestly believe that if there are ANY open
questions not resolved, this means there have been NO correct predictions?
I mean....REALLY???


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680703

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> Singularity is math. 
>> Math is not reality. 
>> 

>How about absolute zero? Allowed to be? 

>-- 
>"
>One billion years for a galaxy to rotate.
>Absolute zero.
>Size of proton.
>Speed of light.
>Surprise! Matter and Space are linked! 

What are you babbling about now?  What does the outer rotational speed
of certain galaxies have to do with anything? Why didn't you answer Odd's
question about absolute zero? Why did you mention the size of a proton and
the speed of light? Time for a visit from the nurse with the giant needle?

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

#680709

MM
Why why why
You know, if you really did question, you would get answers.
I mean, actually ask YOURSELF why, when you see/hear something you don't understand.
Try it.

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

#680629

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 1:14:14 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Singularity is math.
> Math is not reality.

Mathematical points...
Math exists as the order element of God's universe.

Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity mathematically

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

#680734

On 4/10/2018 11:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 1:14:14 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
>> Singularity is math.
>> Math is not reality.
> 
> Mathematical points...
> Math exists as the order element of God's universe.

If that is true, probably is, then God is a very beautiful entity 
indeed. :^)


> 
> Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity mathematically
> 

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

#680640

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
> But black holes continue to move in space time.
> This is a mutual contradiction. The end of space and
> time but a continued movement in space and time. How is 
> this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
> you do better?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

I would not presume to have a better answer than Hawking.
The only correct answer is as he would say:

       we do not know YET.

Ed

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

#680643

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:04:34 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
> > But black holes continue to move in space time.
> > This is a mutual contradiction. The end of space and
> > time but a continued movement in space and time. How is 
> > this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
> > you do better?
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> I would not presume to have a better answer than Hawking.
> The only correct answer is as he would say:
> 
>        we do not know YET.
> 
> Ed

Wrong. It could be wrong instead of a YET...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#680681

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:34:16 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:04:34 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
> > > But black holes continue to move in space time.
> > > This is a mutual contradiction. The end of space and
> > > time but a continued movement in space and time. How is 
> > > this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
> > > you do better?
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > I would not presume to have a better answer than Hawking.
> > The only correct answer is as he would say:
> > 
> >        we do not know YET.
> > 
> > Ed
> 
> Wrong. It could be wrong instead of a YET...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

BHs take away all space.No room for motion.Thus Time has no elbow room to tick.Bert

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

#680708

___"reber G=EMC^2"<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
"I am a first class low wit bigot.  Sad and so true. Bert"
"No room for motion.Thus no elbow room to tick.Bert", when
"I am all alone in my van and I am very depressed". Bert or
when "I park & bark in the dark. I'm a stupid shit and full of it." Bert." 
>
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does".Bert
>
______  "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
>

>
>
>
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

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

#680771

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:34:16 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:04:34 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
> > > But black holes continue to move in space time.
> > > This is a mutual contradiction. The end of space and
> > > time but a continued movement in space and time. How is 
> > > this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
> > > you do better?
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > I would not presume to have a better answer than Hawking.
> > The only correct answer is as he would say:
> > 
> >        we do not know YET.
> > 
> > Ed
> 
> Wrong. It could be wrong instead of a YET...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

In what manner is "I don't know" a wrong answer.
You are just posting to be contrary.
Ed

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

#680795

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:34:16 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:04:34 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
> > > > But black holes continue to move in space time.
> > > > This is a mutual contradiction. The end of space and
> > > > time but a continued movement in space and time. How is 
> > > > this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
> > > > you do better?
> > > > 
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > 
> > > I would not presume to have a better answer than Hawking.
> > > The only correct answer is as he would say:
> > > 
> > >        we do not know YET.
> > > 
> > > Ed
> > 
> > Wrong. It could be wrong instead of a YET...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> In what manner is "I don't know" a wrong answer.
> You are just posting to be contrary.
> Ed

It could be wrong is not ruled out...
Theoretically it is problematic all
of the way. How do you know there is
a YET?
You are poster to to doubt...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#680735

On 4/9/2018 5:56 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> A singularity of infinite gravity ends space and time.
> But black holes continue to move in space time.
> This is a mutual contradiction. 

Fwiw, there are ways to break mutual exclusion for certain things in 
programming.


> The end of space and
> time but a continued movement in space and time. How is
> this explained...? Hawking had no explanation. Can
> you do better?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web