 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes... |
|
Page 2 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:24:33 -0500:
[quote]Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not
even when written in relaxed form!
This is just plain not true, regardless of whatever you mean by "relaxed
form". The field equation of GR relates fields, making it a field
equation.
[/quote]
I do not like to debate stuff with ignorants as you, who lack even the most
elementary knowledge of the topics.
At least you could show some interest in your education Tom and search
*standard* concepts as "relaxed form" before posting
http://www.emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2006-3/articlesu14.html
There is many crackpots in those forums who launch on commenting on stuff
they never studied :-D
[quote]
If one insist on naming them "field equations", at least they would not
be confused with the true fields equations of a *field theory of
gravity* as that worked by Feynman and others field theorists.
You use rather silly puns on the word "field". Perhaps your command of
English is insufficient to recognize this.
GR is, and always has been, a field theory. Indeed, it is the theory for
which the term "field theory" was coined, and was the very first field
theory that made its way into mainstream physics. It is, of course, a
CLASSICAL field theory (i.e. non-quantum).
[/quote]
This is a bunch of nonsense and straw mans.
Apart from your ignorance of the physics and the math you want also to
show us your ignorance of the history of physics!
[quote] And it is the only classical field theory with a fundamental role in
modern physics; all others are quantum field theories. This distinction
is the source of much current interest in finding a quantum theory of
gravity.
[/quote]
The 40+ years fiasco on *quantizing general relativity* [#] is related to
confounding concepts and trying to mix general relativity and quantum field
theory in scary ways.
[quote]Unfortunately, both set of equations are confounded
Huh??? They are completely different theories, with completely different
equations. How could one possibly "confound" equations of classical and
quantum theories???
[/quote]
Who said that? Can you even read or are only trolling?
[quote] [Do you really know what the word means? To confound
two concepts or objects means to confuse them with each other, not
recognizing their differences. Verbally the words "red" and "read" can
easily be confounded, but not when they are written.]
the myth of that GR
is a theory of a spin-2 field continues propagating in literature.
That "myth" is of your own making. GR makes no mention whatsoever of
"spin-2 field". Yes, there is a RELATED theory that involves a spin-2
graviton field on a Minkowski background, but that is most definitely
not GR.
[/quote]
You do not know the myth because you are an ignorant of literature. Other
more knowledeable people as Wald know its existence and devote part of his
textbook to explain why the claim that general relativity is a spin-2 field
theory is a myth.
Could you stop from posting in fields  where you are a crackpot or how
the pinecone you have a need to be exposed in public?
[#] As other you confound this subject with the more generic of
quantum gravity. E.g. the quantum theory of field gravity or
the quantum theory of AAAD gravity are already at hand.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:57:18 -0700:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
Seeing your above comment on "Einstein Dingleberries", you start early
being wrong! :-D
First, Black hole models are not restricted to Sch metrics, a known
example are rotating black holes, but there is more. E.g. some black
hole models on superstring theory...
Hmmm... They are merely variants of the same brainchild. <shrgu
[/quote]
Plain wrong.
[quote]Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not
even when written in relaxed form!
You need to study the field equations. <shrgu
[/quote]
One never know enough, but you stop from studying time ago because you
know enough :-D
[quote]If one insist on naming them "field equations", at least they would not
be confused with the true fields equations of a *field theory of
gravity* as that worked by Feynman and others field theorists.
shrug
Unfortunately, both set of equations are confounded and the myth of
that GR is a theory of a spin-2 field continues propagating in
literature.
There is nothing supporting your absurd argument. <shrgu
[/quote]
Sure?
[quote]Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
That is wrong.
[/quote]
Just take a look. Not wait, you cannot see them. You could in last
10 years
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| glird... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 11:40 pm, "hanson" <hahahah> wrote:
[quote]
|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||[/quote]
This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or
contraction,of
---> matter content <---
in normal 3D space , expressed here as reciprocal
---> density <---
1/rho, will asymptotically default to the numerical value of Newton's
G... producing our regular physics phenomena as we know them.
Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate
mathematically that there is
---> no matter content <---
within the confines of a so-called black hole.>
BahbahHandson claims that
"matter content" = "no matter content".
If that wasn't so stoopid it might be laughable...
glird |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
I greatly enjoy the superposition of you arguing with someone who has a PhD
in physics about how the person with a PhD doesn't know what he is talking
about. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey... at (no spam) elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
[quote]Koobee Wublee wrote:
I don't know and don't care either. Why would I care about or hate a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? GR is absurd, and it had nothing to
do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. <shrug
Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable,
then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
[/quote]
Ahahahaha... Does it look like I am obsessed with Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? No, that is why I label
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
You, on the other hand, get all bend out of shape reading Einstein as
a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The question is that why you
worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
[quote]BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more
than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters
such as:
- published science papers
[/quote]
The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono,
moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However,
these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be
published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy
your whining for the time being?
[quote]- professional career
[/quote]
Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career?
[quote]- appreciation of fellow scientists
[/quote]
I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is
that too much to ask? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mL... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee:
[quote]On Oct 31, 9:34 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists
aka Einstein Dingleberries.
So----Einstein ran a berry farm? Do his descendents keep on with the
tradition?
I don't know and don't care either. Why would I care about or hate a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? GR is absurd, and it had nothing to
do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. <shrug
[/quote]
Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable,
then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more
than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters
such as:
- published science papers
- professional career
- appreciation of fellow scientists
/ mel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:24 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3582
|
On Oct 31, 9:40 pm, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
[quote]"BURT" <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*:[3]
"Sagittarius A* has a mass estimated at 4.31 ±0.06 million
solar masses Given that this mass is confined inside a
44 million km diameter sphere, this yields a density ten
times higher than previous estimates. While, strictly speaking,
there are other mass configurations that would explain the
measured mass and size, such an arrangement would collapse
into a single supermassive black hole on a timescale much
shorter than the life of the Milky Way."
hanson wrote:
So, in reality, there may be no mass in a Black Hole at all...
ONLY a mathematical reflection/facsimile thereof. Even the
polar jets and the occasional "feeding frenzy" of a Black Hole
can be explained by Classical Mechanics of the Barycenter
as events and effect of the Left or Right Hand rules for the
former and by collisions of stars or particles for the latter....
It reminds me of D'Alembert and Einstein: "The math says that
"it" is there, but if you actually go there, then there is no such
thing to be found and touched"... except in the agile mind of
Einstein's Dingleberries and mathematicians who do believe
that the real world does reside within their own mind...
ahahahaha....
My guess that Black Holes are just n-body manifestations,
instead of being the exotic specimens that the heuristic paradigm
believes them to be, it is not a terribly original concept.
So, does anyone know who has already worked on this
aspect of the issue?
KW wrote:
You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries.
Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
There are infinite such solutions. Please allow me to present the
history once again based on bits and pieces of information with
forensic evidences lying within the very mathematics involved.
During the middle to latter half of the 19th century, Christoffel
recognized that an object moving in curved space might do so in the
shortest possible local distance but not necessarily the shortest as
observed by an outsider. In doing so, he was able to derive the
geodesic equations based on this concept. However, there are two ways
to group the so-called connection coefficients. Christoffel must have
known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind. These two
groupings of connection coefficients result in the same set of
geodesic equations. However, they are not the same. They are only
the same when the metric is diagonal.
Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist
named Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which
has nothing to do with Riemann. Noticing the geodesic equations can
be written to equation to zero if an operator is able to operate on
the velocity, Ricci the alchemist came up with a mathematical operator
called the covariant derivative out of the Christoffel symbols.
Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
connection coefficients. By taking the double covariant derivatives
of two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he
also faced with several possibilities in grouping the connect
coefficients. Just like Christoffel, he chose only one and discarded
the rest. His chosen one became what is now called the Riemann
curvature tensor.
The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
elements. It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
student Levi-Civita came along and invented the Ricci curvature tensor
by contracting the Riemann curvature tensor into an n-by-n matrix with
only n^2 elements.
The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists’ pot
seemed not to have stopped there. It was Nordstrom who realized the
Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing
Newtonian gravity in vacuum. The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where
each element describes a partial differential equation, are each
element in the metric.
However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
Poisson equation. It was Hilbert who modified Ricci’s mathematics to
come up with the field equations which include the Ricci tensor itself
plus the so-called trace terms to satisfy the Poisson equation.
Believe it or not. The field equations are never tested. All
predictions are based on Nordstrom’s null Ricci tensor (in vacuum)
since the field equations degenerate into the Ricci tensor in vacuum.
There are actually some subtle mathematical faults leading to the
field equations, but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test
have done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
Merely a few months after the publication of the field equations,
Schwarzschild came up with the first solution. After all, he had
several years to play with the null Ricci tensor. So, the feat may
not be as extraordinary as one thinks. Using the linearly rectangular
coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space or spacetime actually
yields a non-diagonal metric. This would result in ungodly complexity
in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor. However, by
transforming to the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
system, it allowed him to work with a diagonal metric which would
drastically simplify the mathematics in the null Ricci tensor.
Further reduction in complexity can be achieved by choosing another
set of coordinate system that yields a determinant of -1. So,
methodically did he transform the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system into another that would result in much simpler Ricci
tensor thus simpler partial differential equations. Schwarzschild’s
original solution in the transformed coordinate system somewhat
resembled the Schwarzschild metric. However, remember that he had to
transform it back into the common spherically symmetric polar
coordinate system, Schwarzschild’s original solution does not manifest
black holes.
Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance. A geometry
should be something independent of any observers, right? This is the
case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry. You have to
specify the metric to do so. Naturally, the metric is going to be
different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
invariant same geometry. It is also impossible to tell what the
geometry without identifying what coordinate system is employed. Any
elementary school children should have no trouble understanding the
relationship among the geometry, the coordinate system, and the
metric. However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists
do not. Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with
the geometry and tossed away the coordinate system. That should be
embarrassingly fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood
what is understood by elementary school children.
A year or two later, it was Hilbert who realized that there are indeed
an infinite solutions to the field equations and presented the
Schwarzschild metric which predicts black holes. Realizing the whole
thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit. Needless to say
that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had absolutely
nothing to do with the nonsense of GR from the very beginning to the
very end. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar should be
a total embarrassment to science.
On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
only form in an observer’s very infinite future. Thus, to us, there
should be no black holes formed yet. So, claiming to have identified
black holes is like claiming to see Elvis alive. <shrug
I am still amazed that the self-styled physicists would collectively
got themselves into such embarrassing mess. Your truly has done
enough work in merely a few years that all the self-styled physicists
combined cannot have done in the past 100 years. The whole thing
about GR is utterly total nonsense. Well, and SR too.- Hide quoted text -
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
There is already disproof for black holes. Pound Rebka predicts black
holes will blueshift incomming light infinitely. The infinite energy
of light prediction for a black hole at its boundary is the disproof.
Falling in the aether is always below light speed. Which means; it
needs to be pointed out; limited gravity/speed theory is the extreme
of gravity and we are not seeing black holes but instead something
else.
hanson wrote:
Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then
produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or
contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed
here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to
the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics
phenomena as we know them.
Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate
mathematically that there is no matter content within a the
confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary-
center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain
is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
KW, hanson will be back- Hide quoted text -
[/quote]
Space does not contract only time slows. Physics does not predict flat
matter. Atoms are not flattened by space contraction. This is wrong
physics.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mL... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hanson:
[quote]hanson wrote:
Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then
produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or
contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed
here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to
the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics
phenomena as we know them.
[/quote]
Funny fantasies, but please continue.
[quote]Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate
mathematically that there is no matter content within a the
confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary-
center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain
is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
[/quote]
Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you
so scared of math that you ask characters like KW
and Raemsch for help?
[quote]KW, hanson will be back with you in a few days about your take.
hanson
[/quote]
Yeah, more entertainments. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3582
|
On Nov 1, 1:45 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey... at (no spam) elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> I don't know and don't care either. Why would I care about or hate a
> nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? GR is absurd, and it had nothing to
> do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Einstein
> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. <shrug
Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable,
then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
Ahahahaha... Does it look like I am obsessed with Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? No, that is why I label
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug
You, on the other hand, get all bend out of shape reading Einstein as
a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The question is that why you
worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug
BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more
than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters
such as:
- published science papers
The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono,
moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However,
these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be
published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy
your whining for the time being?
- professional career
Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career?
- appreciation of fellow scientists
I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is
that too much to ask?
[/quote]
Space is round. Gravity is round spherical geometry emerging from mass
center.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:17 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3582
|
On Nov 1, 1:45 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey... at (no spam) elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> I don't know and don't care either. Why would I care about or hate a
> nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? GR is absurd, and it had nothing to
> do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Einstein
> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. <shrug
Speaking of dingleberryism, isn't it rather remarkable,
then, how obsessed you are with such a "nobody"?
Ahahahaha... Does it look like I am obsessed with Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? No, that is why I label
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug
You, on the other hand, get all bend out of shape reading Einstein as
a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The question is that why you
worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug
BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more
than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters
such as:
- published science papers
The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono,
moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However,
these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be
published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy
your whining for the time being?
- professional career
Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career?
- appreciation of fellow scientists
I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is
that too much to ask?
[/quote]
The first now was at the beginning of time. Forever now.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Juan R." González-Ãlvarez wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:17:16 +0000:
[quote]Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:24:33 -0500:
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not
even when written in relaxed form!
This is just plain not true, regardless of whatever you mean by
"relaxed form". The field equation of GR relates fields, making it a
field equation.
I do not like to debate stuff with ignorants as you, who lack even the
most elementary knowledge of the topics.
At least you could show some interest in your education Tom and search
*standard* concepts as "relaxed form" before posting
http://www.emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2006-3/articlesu14.html
[/quote]
Link is not working today. Tom, I doubt that you can see that "lrr-2006-3"
is a typical code of living reviews journal, knowing your ignorance
of literature :-D
For the benefit of your education Tom, I add another link to the
"relaxed form" of Einstein equations (see eq 62)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2006-3&page=articlesu14.html
But calling them field equations is still wrong. Explaining why is advanced and
requires a good basis of both GR and field theory.
There is an entire section (section 14) in
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
discussing the differences between the Hilbert-Einstein equations in relaxed
form [equation 62 in above link, equation 15 in the CSR:20092 report] and
the equations of field theory of gravity [equation 41 in the CSR:20092 report]
I will leave this part of your education for another day. Now just start above
Tom; familiarizate yourself with the basic stuff FIRST.
(...)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hanson... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ahahahaha.... weird "glird" <glird at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:40 pm, "hanson" <hahahah> wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW
<http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh > -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or
contraction, of
---> matter content <---
in normal 3D space , expressed here as reciprocal
---> density <---
1/rho, will asymptotically default to the numerical value of Newton's
G... producing our regular physics phenomena as we know them.
Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate
mathematically that there is
---> no matter content <---
within the confines of a so-called black hole.
To connect this to the bary center of the particles/bodies
that make up this spatial domain is the next step.
Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
[quote]
glird, the aoler, was not solar when he wrote:[/quote]
BahbahHandson claims that
"matter content" = "no matter content".
If that wasn't so stoopid it might be laughable...
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
.... ahahaha... that only seem to you to be this way, because it
was Full Moon when you contemplated the above. However,
your interest is commendable unlike your missing understanding.
Until Aug 30 2008 you had some rational judgment left in yourself
since back then you, glird, wrote: --- "Relativity has a veneer of
ignorance, stupidity, and autism. The relativists know nothing,
they understand nothing, and they aren't even aware that someone
is trying to help them." -- So, what happened to you?..Has Geriatrics
or your illicit drug abuse taken its toll on you? Sorry to see that... but
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| hanson... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....For "mL" <mL.beyond at (no spam) elsewhere.xxx>
Mel Lep, it was beyond belief when he read and wrote:
[quote]hanson:
hanson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW[/quote]
<http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh> -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
[quote]Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then
produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or
contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed
here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to
the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics
phenomena as we know them.
1st clumsy fishing attempt by Mel Lep, the schlep, who wrote:
Funny fantasies, but please continue.
hanson wrote:
Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate
mathematically that there is no matter content within a the
confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary-
center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain
is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
2nd attempt by schLep, who wrote:
Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you
so scared of math that you ask characters like KW
and Raemsch for help?
hanson wrote:[/quote]
ahahahaha... You committed a Freudian Slip here, schLep!
ahahaha... Do it instead of asking the gauche way, like you
just did. You obviously do not even understand the concept
schLep, so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that
your are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs...
ahahahanson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:50 pm
|
|