Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Physics Forum  »  Black holes disproven Now...
Page 1 of 1    
Author Message
Nick
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:55 pm
Joined: 17 Apr 2005 Posts: 1851
The energy shift to light revealed in Pound Rebka means infinite
energy shift to light for black hole horizons. Incoming light goes
infinitely blue shifted or infinitely energetic. While outgoing light
gets infinitely red shifted to zero energy.

Both these predictions for light's energy at any event horizon are
nonsense and disproves their existence.

Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour
View user's profile Send private message
Spaceman...
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:01 pm
Guest
<snipped crossposting nonsense>

Black holes:
They are real objects in the universe.
They are massive in size, they are so massive that the
gravity produced by them has stopped
all vinrations from occuring hence stopping even the
vibrations needed to reflect most if not all lightwaves.

They do exist, they are just not the relativity nonsense
type stuff.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Spaceman...
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:07 pm
Guest
Spaceman wrote:
Quote:
snipped crossposting nonsense

Black holes:
They are real objects in the universe.
They are massive in size, they are so massive that the
gravity produced by them has stopped
all vinrations from occuring hence stopping even the
vibrations needed to reflect most if not all lightwaves.

vinrations = vibrations..
oops.
:)


Quote:

They do exist, they are just not the relativity nonsense
type stuff.
Smile
Mitch Raemsch...
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:25 pm
Guest
The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking proves that they do not occur in nature. The extreme
of the theory is not valid in nature.

Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch...
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:29 pm
Guest
On Jul 11, 7:56 pm, Sanforized <sanfori... at (no spam) naol.con> wrote:
Quote:
BURT wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Sanforized <sanfori... at (no spam) naol.con> wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

On Jul 11, 11:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:29 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Jul 11, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0585e77a-b98c-42bd-99b2-175d520948fc at (no spam) c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Jul 11, 4:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 11:25 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking

First of all, as far as I know there is nothing absurd about black
holes,

Not according to Stephen Hawking. There are mathematical infinities at
both the singularity and event horizons of a black hole.

An infinity is not an absurdity.

Pete

Yes it is. It is a physical absurdity pete.

This is what I related to you earlier. You have this notion that
everything that is physically real is finite. This is not the case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Prove it.

Show me where I am wrong.

Black holes.

Koch snowflake.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That isn't infinite and even if it is it is only a math not a physics.

The only thing keeping you from creating a Koch
snowflake is the amount of time it would take
to draw it. As a drawing it is a real thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're making an excuse. Neither can calculus do infinite
calculations.

Mitch Raemsch
Sanforized...
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:54 pm
Guest
BURT wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Sanforized <sanfori... at (no spam) naol.con> wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

On Jul 11, 11:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:29 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Jul 11, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0585e77a-b98c-42bd-99b2-175d520948fc at (no spam) c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Jul 11, 4:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 11:25 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking

First of all, as far as I know there is nothing absurd about black
holes,

Not according to Stephen Hawking. There are mathematical infinities at
both the singularity and event horizons of a black hole.

An infinity is not an absurdity.

Pete

Yes it is. It is a physical absurdity pete.

This is what I related to you earlier. You have this notion that
everything that is physically real is finite. This is not the case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Prove it.

Show me where I am wrong.

Black holes.

Koch snowflake.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That isn't infinite.

Which one isn't? IMO both are in one way or another.
Sanforized...
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:56 pm
Guest
BURT wrote:

Quote:
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Sanforized <sanfori... at (no spam) naol.con> wrote:

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

On Jul 11, 11:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:29 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Jul 11, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0585e77a-b98c-42bd-99b2-175d520948fc at (no spam) c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Jul 11, 4:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 11:25 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking

First of all, as far as I know there is nothing absurd about black
holes,

Not according to Stephen Hawking. There are mathematical infinities at
both the singularity and event horizons of a black hole.

An infinity is not an absurdity.

Pete

Yes it is. It is a physical absurdity pete.

This is what I related to you earlier. You have this notion that
everything that is physically real is finite. This is not the case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Prove it.

Show me where I am wrong.

Black holes.

Koch snowflake.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That isn't infinite and even if it is it is only a math not a physics.

The only thing keeping you from creating a Koch
snowflake is the amount of time it would take
to draw it. As a drawing it is a real thing.
Nick
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:58 pm
Joined: 17 Apr 2005 Posts: 1851
On Jul 16, 6:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 10, 5:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 10, 1:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Jul 8, 4:11 am, Bob Cain <arc... at (no spam) arcanemethods.com> wrote:

PD wrote:
There was once a boxer whose strategy was not really to land a blow
but only to remain standing. He trained and trained on taking blows to
the head and to the body without dropping. His rationale was that, as
long as he was standing, he was not defeated. And, as his career
choice produced more and more brain damage, he eventually came to the
conclusion that as long as he was still standing, he had in fact won
the match. It didn't matter that he had no more sensation in his face,
that both eyes were swollen shut, that his nose was broken in several
places and that he was losing blood at an alarming rate, and that he
had never once landed even a glancing punch on his opponent. As long
as he was standing, he viewed himself the victor. The spectators,
however, either couldn't watch the carnage, or they were entranced by
it.

LaMotta vs. Robinson (final match) - February 14, 1951 - Chicago Stadium

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

                                              A. Einstein

Dear Bob:  Einstein liked to ‘play bright’ by writing and memorizing
things to be quoted.  He wasn't very good at describing things,
simply.  But because he implied that what he was saying WAS simple, he
elevated himself, intellectually.  However, Einstein was still just an
85 IQ moron.  — NoEinstein —

With a Bachelors, PhD, and Nobel prize in Physics.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Eric:  The reason Einstein is your idol is because he is a Jew.
Bias can carry a moron only so far.  Einstein's time is up.  —
NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Black holes have been disproven unequivicably.

Try me.
Mitch Raemsch
View user's profile Send private message
 
Page 1 of 1       All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:27 am