Science > Physics > How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2007 01:46:30 PM |
| Object: |
How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
.
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
10 Nov 2007 06:51:13 PM |
|
|
<jxrodri@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194723990.583115.168160@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
What do you think the 'force' is?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
10 Nov 2007 04:01:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gravity.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dwib" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
12 Nov 2007 01:00:33 PM |
|
|
On Nov 10, 4:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
jxro...@yahoo.com wrote:
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gr...
The article states:
"If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field
outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties
of the star and its external
gravitational field before it becomes a black hole."
So I wonder if it is ever possible for a black hole to get larger? If
an hunk of rock starts to fall into the event horizon, does it EVER
pluck through the event horizon? If so, then the black holes' gravity
field ought to increase, right?
Dwib
.
|
|
|
| User: "NoEinstein" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
26 Nov 2007 05:00:40 PM |
|
|
On Nov 12, 2:00 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 4:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
jxro...@yahoo.com wrote:
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gr...
The article states:
"If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field
outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties
of the star and its external
gravitational field before it becomes a black hole."
So I wonder if it is ever possible for a black hole to get larger? If
an hunk of rock starts to fall into the event horizon, does it EVER
pluck through the event horizon? If so, then the black holes' gravity
field ought to increase, right?
Dwib
Dear Dwib: Black holes come in one maximum size only. No light, no
gravity. They can evaporate to perhaps tiny size, beginning at the
poles. If two black holes happen to collide, they would not make a
bigger one with more gravity. They would either bounce apart like
Billiard balls, or release incredible energy due to the breaking of
the energy tangle within each. That tangle, like a puzzle that can
only fit together one way, effectively stops all "molecular" or other
motion-- taking the thing from super hot to super cold. Don't ever try
to heat one up; black holes reject all outside energy. Since the
material causing a star's formation is pretty much 'it' as far as its
mass goes, no lone star could attract enough additional matter to turn
into a black hole. It is probable that there is a black hole of the
common ordinary variety in the center of every galaxy. They got there
because of the gravity of the star system, not because of the
'overwhelming' gravity of a would be black hole.
Those predictions of "super massive" black holes being needed to hold
galaxies together, use Newton's errant Law of Universal Gravitation to
estimate the rotating mass of those galaxies. And they ignore the
gravity of the many stars in favor of a single, massive gravity at the
center. Take heart; once a black hole forms, it won't be gobbling up
any more stars. -- NoEinstein --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NoEinstein" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
19 Nov 2007 03:05:19 PM |
|
|
On Nov 10, 5:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
jxro...@yahoo.com wrote:
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gr...
Sam: Gravity DOESN"T escape from a Black Hole. That's why BHs come in
only one size. And why there never was a Big Bang, and won't ever be
a Big Crunch. -- NoEinstein --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
11 Nov 2007 03:40:12 AM |
|
|
On Nov 11, 12:01 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
jxro...@yahoo.com wrote:
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gr...
---------------
the combinations of crooks and Suckers
was alla long history a winning combination !!
in out case
the crook that composed that anwer that wormley quoted
and the sucker crook Wormley
**is a 'winning combination**!!
both of them hadnot the faintest idea
about thegarbage they shitted out !!
they ar enot decent physicists with inlelelctual integrity
and they can turn a mose into a cat
and vice versa!
you just name it !!
waht is that ***** mumbling that the properties of a balck hole
are kept as they were while it wa formed??
a black hole is keeping growing and growing
and itsd gravitational force is growing accordingly
that means for soemone who is not a colplete idiot
or a crook
that gravity is escaping out of it !!
and radiated from a black hole
and what is that idoct of any arraction without
mediating agents !!!
thjose crooks shold not write answers to FAQ s !!
and the quesions is still unanswered!!
that is the way a decnt physicist should present it !!!!!
one of the reasons to say that is
because another reason
*the gravitational force is unanswered as well
even not by any fucken QM !!
Y.Porat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doctor Student" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
12 Nov 2007 01:39:08 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194774012.810242.177480@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 12:01 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
jxro...@yahoo.com wrote:
-- when nothing else, not even light, can?
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gr...
http://www.makeabrokenlink.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
12 Nov 2007 01:41:30 AM |
|
|
On Nov 11, 1:40 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
the combinations of crooks and Suckers
was alla long history a winning combination !!
in out case
the crook that composed that anwer that wormley quoted
and the sucker crook Wormley
**is a 'winning combination**!!
both of them hadnot the faintest idea
about thegarbage they shitted out !!
Yes, Mr. Wormlike represents the finest brew among the Einstein
Dingleberries. <shrug>
they ar enot decent physicists with inlelelctual integrity
and they can turn a mose into a cat
and vice versa!
you just name it !!
waht is that ***** mumbling that the properties of a balck hole
are kept as they were while it wa formed??
The traits of Einstein Dingleberries exhibit all infantile rants when
cornered with logic and legit mathematical methods. Their favorite
excuse is to accuse any scholar of not understanding the very subject
that they have failed to understand. <shrug>
a black hole is keeping growing and growing
and itsd gravitational force is growing accordingly
that means for soemone who is not a colplete idiot
or a crook
that gravity is escaping out of it !!
and radiated from a black hole
and what is that idoct of any arraction without
mediating agents !!!
thjose crooks shold not write answers to FAQ s !!
If light cannot even escape the black hole, gravity should not have
either. Some wise asses would offer more excuses to keep the religion
of GR alive. Of course, these excuses are merely conjectures --- very
absurd ones indeed.
and the quesions is still unanswered!!
that is the way a decnt physicist should present it !!!!!
one of the reasons to say that is
because another reason
*the gravitational force is unanswered as well
even not by any fucken QM !!
If either or both SR and GR is found and/or proven invalid, physicists
would be out of their welfare situation. Imagine what Professors
Roberts and Draper would do if they were finally let go because of
their religious belief in the nonsense of SR and/or GR. From these
idiotic posts, I would have to conclude these gentlemen would have
problems in flipping burgers. However, other preachers of SR and GR
would continue to stare at second rated films and enjoy swimming naked
in public lakes. <shrug>
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
12 Nov 2007 12:52:43 PM |
|
|
Hello, Koobee!
KW> On Nov 11, 1:40 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
waht is that ***** mumbling that the properties of a balck hole
are kept as they were while it wa formed??
KW> The traits of Einstein Dingleberries exhibit all infantile rants
KW> when cornered with logic and legit mathematical methods. Their favorite
KW> excuse is to accuse any scholar of not understanding the very
KW> subject that they have failed to understand. <shrug>
I parrot, therefore, I have good grades mentallity.
Not to question is the parrot. Speak the verbage, rant the rave.
Get the Grade. All about the Grade. The 4.0 is money.
Understand, Not. Speak and Rant, flaunt the babble.
Hold your head high, graduate with the pride..
Heck, you'll never use that flagulation again.
Unless you major'd in it.
-Rev.Willie
How does gravitational force escape from a black hole?
Where F = G (m*m')/(d^2) where F is cuased by the black hole, not
escaping from the black hole.
Which explains ^T = 0-c intergal (m*((hf)'/v)/(d^2) where the time dialation
coefficent is the differential of gravitational force and can really mess up
holiday plans if not accounted for, so forget watching those babes at the
beach in Daytona when you are delivering mail to the Moon via the new
AstroPulse Shuttles. (Don't eat the salisbarry steak, get the turkey meal
instead) Say Hi, to Wendy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
12 Nov 2007 02:12:08 AM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
If light cannot even escape the black hole, gravity should not have
either.
Light is a boson and cannot escape a black hole...
gravitation is curvature of spacetime... nothing to escape
as the curvature is there.
If either or both SR and GR is found and/or proven invalid...
Oh they may be someday... but for now the predictions of
these theories are not contradicted by observations... more
than a hundred years for SR and going strong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Nothing Can Move in Spacetime, ahahaha... |
12 Nov 2007 10:50:46 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:12:08 GMT, Samantha the ***** kisser wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
If light cannot even escape the black hole, gravity should not have
either.
Light is a boson and cannot escape a black hole...
gravitation is curvature of spacetime... nothing to escape
as the curvature is there.
ahahaha... The only problem with your non-explanation, Samantha, is
that spacetime does not exist. Why? Because nothing can move in
spacetime, by definition. That's why. This nasty little truth is the
reason that Sir Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block
universe in which nothing happens". ahahaha...
So much for your explanation of gravity and your crackpot physics,
Samantha. It's time that you stop kissing *****, don't you think? Nah,
you're too much of a coward. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Can Move in Spacetime, ahahaha... |
12 Nov 2007 12:36:24 PM |
|
|
"Totally queer arse humper" <traveler@noasskissers.net>
stated his heartfelt desire and declared his homosexuality
in news:3r4ki3539l40nrg6f1b0v2kec49jpng7tl@4ax.com...
: ahahaha... Bend over, Wabi. I'll show you some coordinates. ahahaha...
: AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
12 Nov 2007 04:13:22 AM |
|
|
On Nov 12, 10:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
If light cannot even escape the black hole, gravity should not have
either.
Light is a boson and cannot escape a black hole...
gravitation is curvature of spacetime... nothing to escape
as the curvature is there.
--------------------
i thought there is ano curvature without mas!!
so how about that gravitation is a property of mass
and not of stupid curved space time ??
sapce is nothing and cannot have any properties beside hosting mass
time is a human invention
todescribe relative motion nothing more
------
If either or both SR and GR is found and/or proven invalid...
Oh they may be someday... but for now the predictions of
these theories are not contradicted by observations... more
than a hundred years for SR and going strong.
--------------
SR us right
GR is nonsense physics and cheating!
th e cheating is actually by **add hock**
fiddling experimental data
into the threory
while you say
,because curvature is there'
you are doing the above cheating !!
if experiemnt whoud not show that light is kept locked there
you would say
it is not locked
BECUASSE CURVATURE **IS NOT THERE *
got it parrot
how it'' works ''
how the combination of crooks and suckers works ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "NoEinstein" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
19 Nov 2007 03:36:29 PM |
|
|
On Nov 12, 5:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:> Koobee Wublee wrote:
If light cannot even escape the black hole, gravity should not have
either.
Light is a boson and cannot escape a black hole...
gravitation is curvature of spacetime... nothing to escape
as the curvature is there.
--------------------
i thought there is ano curvature without mas!!
so how about that gravitation is a property of mass
and not of stupid curved space time ??
sapce is nothing and cannot have any properties beside hosting mass
time is a human invention
todescribe relative motion nothing more
------
If either or both SR and GR is found and/or proven invalid...
Oh they may be someday... but for now the predictions of
these theories are not contradicted by observations... more
than a hundred years for SR and going strong.
--------------
SR us right
GR is nonsense physics and cheating!
th e cheating is actually by **add hock**
fiddling experimental data
into the threory
while you say
,because curvature is there'
you are doing the above cheating !!
if experiemnt whoud not show that light is kept locked there
you would say
it is not locked
BECUASSE CURVATURE **IS NOT THERE *
got it parrot
how it'' works ''
how the combination of crooks and suckers works ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
"... time is a human invention." WRONG, Though Time has arbitrary
units (unless you base it on the dancing of a particular atom), it is
a necessary variable in nature to allow events to happen in sequence.
Without "time" the only "events" would be instantaneous and
simultaneous occurrences. After that lone 'instant', there could be
no other "events". SR is STOOOOPID. Yet the acceptance of SR remains
a prerequisite for getting a "higher" degree in physics. Why? --
NoEinstein --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
19 Nov 2007 05:18:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:36:29 -0800 (PST), NoEinstein
<noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:> Koobee Wublee wrote:
If light cannot even escape the black hole, gravity should not have
either.
Light is a boson and cannot escape a black hole...
gravitation is curvature of spacetime... nothing to escape
as the curvature is there.
--------------------
i thought there is ano curvature without mas!!
so how about that gravitation is a property of mass
and not of stupid curved space time ??
sapce is nothing and cannot have any properties beside hosting mass
time is a human invention
todescribe relative motion nothing more
------
If either or both SR and GR is found and/or proven invalid...
Oh they may be someday... but for now the predictions of
these theories are not contradicted by observations... more
than a hundred years for SR and going strong.
--------------
SR us right
GR is nonsense physics and cheating!
th e cheating is actually by **add hock**
fiddling experimental data
into the threory
while you say
,because curvature is there'
you are doing the above cheating !!
if experiemnt whoud not show that light is kept locked there
you would say
it is not locked
BECUASSE CURVATURE **IS NOT THERE *
got it parrot
how it'' works ''
how the combination of crooks and suckers works ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
"... time is a human invention." WRONG, Though Time has arbitrary
units (unless you base it on the dancing of a particular atom), it is
a necessary variable in nature to allow events to happen in sequence.
Without "time" the only "events" would be instantaneous and
simultaneous occurrences. After that lone 'instant', there could be
no other "events". SR is STOOOOPID. Yet the acceptance of SR remains
a prerequisite for getting a "higher" degree in physics. Why? --
NoEinstein --
Name one observational falsification of SR or be quiet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NoEinstein" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
26 Nov 2007 05:24:11 PM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 6:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:36:29 -0800 (PST), NoEinstein
<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:> Koobee Wublee wrote:
If light cannot even escape the black hole, gravity should not have
either.
Light is a boson and cannot escape a black hole...
gravitation is curvature of spacetime... nothing to escape
as the curvature is there.
--------------------
i thought there is ano curvature without mas!!
so how about that gravitation is a property of mass
and not of stupid curved space time ??
sapce is nothing and cannot have any properties beside hosting mass
time is a human invention
todescribe relative motion nothing more
------
If either or both SR and GR is found and/or proven invalid...
Oh they may be someday... but for now the predictions of
these theories are not contradicted by observations... more
than a hundred years for SR and going strong.
--------------
SR us right
GR is nonsense physics and cheating!
th e cheating is actually by **add hock**
fiddling experimental data
into the threory
while you say
,because curvature is there'
you are doing the above cheating !!
if experiemnt whoud not show that light is kept locked there
you would say
it is not locked
BECUASSE CURVATURE **IS NOT THERE *
got it parrot
how it'' works ''
how the combination of crooks and suckers works ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
"... time is a human invention." WRONG, Though Time has arbitrary
units (unless you base it on the dancing of a particular atom), it is
a necessary variable in nature to allow events to happen in sequence.
Without "time" the only "events" would be instantaneous and
simultaneous occurrences. After that lone 'instant', there could be
no other "events". SR is STOOOOPID. Yet the acceptance of SR remains
a prerequisite for getting a "higher" degree in physics. Why? --
NoEinstein --
Name one observational falsification of SR or be quiet.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ALL OF SR IS A FALSIFICATION!!!!! -- NoEinstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
26 Nov 2007 06:14:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:24:11 -0800 (PST), NoEinstein
<noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
Name one observational falsification of SR or be quiet.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ALL OF SR IS A FALSIFICATION!!!!! -- NoEinstein
Then why does it agree with what is observed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
26 Nov 2007 09:14:50 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:24:11 -0800 (PST), NoEinstein
<noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
Name one observational falsification of SR or be quiet.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ALL OF SR IS A FALSIFICATION!!!!! -- NoEinstein
Then why does it agree with what is observed?
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
Then why does it **perfectly** agree with what is observed to 20 GeV
center-of-mass collisions or merely the Hafele-Keating experiment?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
If SR is incomplete none of the idiots posting to that effect have any
clue about how that can be and not violate common observation. In
fact, they're all fucked to their eyebrows in both directions:
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require any
particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under the full group of
diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is the group of *isometries* of
the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
OTOH, covariance with respect to reflection in space and time is not
required by the Poincaré group of Special Relativity or the Einstein
group of General Relativity. Uncle Al's parity calorimetry experiment
is wide open to success,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Quantum field theories (QFT) with hermitian hamiltonians are invariant
under the Poincaré group containing spatial reflections. Parity is a
spatial reflection and parity is not a QFT symmetry! QFT are
invariant under the identity component of the Poincaré group - the
subgroup consisting of elements that can be continuous path joined to
the Poincaré group identity; only an orthochronous Poincaré group
representation. This subgroup excludes parity and time reversal. All
hermitian hamiltonians will contain a symmetry and an observable with
the properties of parity, even though the Hamiltonian will not be
symmetric under space reflection. QFT with non-hermitian Hamiltonians
can have real and positive energy spectra with PT invariance, but do
not contain parity invariance alone
QFT can also go down without contradiction.
Perturbative string theory requires BRST invariance to create
equivalence between the effects of a massive body and an accelerating
geometry. String theory also goes down, and without ever having made
a prediction.
If the parity calorimetry experiment nulls, so what? If it has
reproducible net output the whole of phsyics - GR, QFT, string theory,
even mechanics - is subtly falsified *without* contradicting any prior
observation at any scale in any venue.
Sweet. Teleparallel gravitation takes over as theory, GR becomes a
heuristic like Newton, QFT needs serious rethinking (non-conservation
of angular momentum for opposite parity mass distributions), and Uncle
Al like as not waves from a Swedish podium at 60,000 *****
physicists.
I do it to annoy.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: How does the gravitational force escape from a Black Hole? |
27 Nov 2007 05:19:31 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474B8BAA.20C6C990@hate.spam.net...
Open sewer with Schwartztord floating (River of *****) snipped.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
The pencil is broken. Don't like empirical observations, Schwartzshit?
Fuckhead.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
"BTW, you *****-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Schwartzshit, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling alley."
http://tinyurl.com/3pwu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Uncle Albert's delusions are pathetic, not annoying. |
26 Nov 2007 10:13:02 PM |
|
|
Speaking of yourself, you boasted:
“ Uncle Albert like as not waves from a Swedish podium
at sixty thousand ***** physicists. I do it to annoy. ”.
Your delusions are pathetic, not annoying.
But I'm deeply depressed and twice as pathetic, so who am I to talk ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Uncle Albert's delusions are pathetic, not annoying. |
29 Nov 2007 12:15:08 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Jeff?Relf
<Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM>
wrote
on 27 Nov 2007 04:13:02 GMT
<Jeff_Relf_2007_Nov_26__8_13_PB@Cotse.NET>:
Speaking of yourself, you boasted:
? Uncle Albert like as not waves from a Swedish podium
at sixty thousand ***** physicists. I do it to annoy. ?.
Your delusions are pathetic, not annoying.
But I'm deeply depressed and twice as pathetic, so who am I to talk ?
Did you have a specific experiment that disproves special
relativity, then?
--
#191,
"Woman? What woman?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: FreeBSD is used more than Linux. |
29 Nov 2007 03:46:07 PM |
|
|
I was talking to a guy who sells webs solutions today, Ghost,
he said his stuff mostly runs on MicroSoft servers;
FreeBSD is used more than Linux.
You asked me:
“ Did you have a specific experiment
that disproves special relativity, then ? ”.
What would that have to do with
Uncle Albert's Nobel prize delusions ?
Al is nuts and so are you, if you buy into his crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: FreeBSD is used more than Linux. |
29 Nov 2007 05:18:16 PM |
|
|
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff?Relf
<Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM>
wrote
on 29 Nov 2007 21:46:07 GMT
<Jeff_Relf_2007_Nov_29__1_46_PH@Cotse.NET>:
[snip]
You asked me:
? Did you have a specific experiment
that disproves special relativity, then ? ?.
What would that have to do with
Uncle Albert's Nobel prize delusions ?
Al is nuts and so are you, if you buy into his crap.
I do not "buy into his crap" (I don't know precisely
to what you are referring). However, a fair number of
experiments, Sagnac [*], Ives-Stilwell, and of course
Michelson-Morley, have substantiated special relativity
very nicely, and disproven both Galilean relativity and
the absolute luminiferous aether hypothesis.
So I was wondering what you had to disprove SR here.
[*] a certain other poster claims Sagnac also disproves
Special Relativity, but there are a number of issues
that preclude his particular credibility, and in any
event Sagnac postulates a rotating coordinate frame,
which has to be analyzed somewhat carefully, as SR does
not generally allow such frames. Fortunately, calculus
can be employed, and SR is vindicated, or at least
the two -- SR and Sagnac -- can peacefully coexist.
--
#191,
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Uncle Albert thinks he'll get a Nobel, I think not. |
29 Nov 2007 07:37:47 PM |
|
|
You ( The Ghost ) asked me:
“ I was wondering what you had to disprove SR here. ”.
What kind of a question is that ?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Uncle Albert thinks he'll get a Nobel, I think not.
Are you confusing me with someone else ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Ghost, what are you talking about ? |
29 Nov 2007 09:53:51 PM |
|
|
By the way, Ghost, are you suggesting Uncle Albert's experiment
is about limiting the domain of Special Relativity ?
The most he could show would be something similar to the Casimir effect,
only chiral. Personally,
I can't see how that might limit the domain of General Relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Ghost, what are you talking about ? |
01 Dec 2007 10:38:40 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Jeff?Relf
<Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM>
wrote
on 30 Nov 2007 03:53:51 GMT
<Jeff_Relf_2007_Nov_29__7_53_Pz@Cotse.NET>:
By the way, Ghost, are you suggesting Uncle Albert's experiment
is about limiting the domain of Special Relativity ?
No, General Relativity, as far as I can tell.
The most he could show would be something similar to the Casimir effect,
only chiral. Personally,
I can't see how that might limit the domain of General Relativity.
I don't either, so you'll have to ask him. ;-)
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Ghost, what are you talking about ? |
30 Nov 2007 01:18:35 PM |
|
|
Jeff All those that post about the Casmir effect begs this question
"How does it work ?' Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: At a true event horizon, not a single law of physics goes unbroken. |
30 Nov 2007 03:31:19 PM |
|
|
You know how the Casimir effect works, Bert;
it's just as you describe, when two ships are close to each other,
tiny, semi-random waves ease them together.
Another way to indirectly observe the sea of virtual particles
would be to accelerate yourself, making the virtual particles part
of a very real “ heat bath ”, à la Unruh/Hawking radiation.
Besides objects falling in, exceeding the speed of light,
gravitational acceleration at a ( wholely-unphysical ) event horizon
would produce infinite Unruh/Hawking radiation.
At a true event horizon, not a single law of physics goes unbroken,
even General Relativity is violated;
that's why everyone loves this notion, especially T.J. .
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: At a true event horizon, not a single law of physics goesunbro... |
01 Dec 2007 07:49:18 AM |
|
|
Jeff Having two metal plates so close but not touching makes for
bigger(stronger waves) on their outside,and tiny weaker waves in the
thin space separating them,and they are pushed together. The force is
very weak,but it does the trick Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Beware the daemons. |
01 Dec 2007 10:50:26 AM |
|
|
Vacuums are expensive, so a perfect vacuum is a perfect absurdity.
The Casimir Effect is all about semi-random shapes,
semi-random densities, distances, electromagnetic fields,
and the sea of virtual particles ( a.k.a. vacuum energy ).
The quantum world is full of ghosts and goblins, it seems.
Beware the daemons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
