Black hole 2 time theory breaks down; end of time at event horizon; then at singularity

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Falling into a black hole... time ends at the event horizon.
The claim though is that time then begins again.
So how did it end?
And what is the new mathematical time rate?
It is not defined. I have heard about lies before...
people want to defend things that make their ego think
they are smart... provide the math... Hawking has been
asked and not yet provided... Proper time is just a belief.
And it is not believable.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:41:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Falling into a black hole... time ends at the event horizon.

No.

> The claim though is that time then begins again.

Hence, not even wrong.

[snip the rest]

--
Jan

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:41:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Are you actually claiming that Hawking has not provided the math for his theories? Are you really that stupid? Have you tried to find Hawking's original works? What have I been telling you about Google? Are you really just a very, very slow learner?

Here, see Hawking's math for yourself, it took me about 20 seconds to find this... and good luck understanding any of it...

https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.cmp/1103899181

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

You're trying to treat their "knowledge" seriously.
A mistake. It's just a moronic mumble of insane
halfbrains, nothing more.
Don't try to conclude anything from it. It means
nothing, it provides no conclusion, it's just
a moronic blahblahblahblahblah covered with wise
faces.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 26 października 2017 04:41:50 UTC+2 użytkownik mitchr...@gmail.com napisał:

And, I must say, it's amazing how many people
prefer to believe this "end of time" bullshit
over simple, classical "some fools went crazy".

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:50:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:41:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Falling into a black hole... time ends at the event horizon.
>
> No.

That is really my point... I am arguing against it.
Let me do the arguing.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 10:10:07 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:41:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Falling into a black hole... time ends at the event horizon.
> > The claim though is that time then begins again.
> > So how did it end?
> > And what is the new mathematical time rate?
> > It is not defined. I have heard about lies before...
> > people want to defend things that make their ego think
> > they are smart... provide the math... Hawking has been
> > asked and not yet provided... Proper time is just a belief.
> > And it is not believable.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Are you actually claiming that Hawking has not provided the math for his theories?

He was not asked about this math till now.
He was asked how the first time math ends and the new math begins
by Murray-Gell Mann. He has not provided it.

> Are you really that stupid? Have you tried to find Hawking's original works?

Stephen Hawking is an Egg Authority and can kiss my butt...

What have I been telling you about Google? Are you really just a very, very slow learner?
>
> Here, see Hawking's math for yourself, it took me about 20 seconds to find this... and good luck understanding any of it...
>
> https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.cmp/1103899181

Keep reading for your knowledge...

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

More than that they become dangerous to win...

[JanPB]

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 12:48:34 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:50:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:41:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Falling into a black hole... time ends at the event horizon.
> >
> > No.
>
> That is really my point... I am arguing against it.
> Let me do the arguing.

Fine. But you wrote, literally: "Falling into a black hole... time ends
at the event horizon. The claim though is that time then begins again."
And you left it at that.

But this is NOT what GR claims.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I am used to the audience that believes that matter falls
to light speed at what they define as an event horizon
and that ends time. Then "proper time" ends again at a singularity.

>
> But this is NOT what GR claims.

It is about who claims what GR says.
Please you don't know what you are talking about
with regards to the status quo argument.
I have been confronted by this GR argument for
so many years. You cannot say it doesn't exist.

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> --
> Jan

[JanPB]

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 4:25:18 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 1:58:46 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 12:48:34 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:50:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:41:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Falling into a black hole... time ends at the event horizon.
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > That is really my point... I am arguing against it.
> > > Let me do the arguing.
> >
> > Fine. But you wrote, literally: "Falling into a black hole... time ends
> > at the event horizon. The claim though is that time then begins again."
> > And you left it at that.
>
> I am used to the audience that believes that matter falls
> to light speed at what they define as an event horizon
> and that ends time. Then "proper time" ends again at a singularity.
>
> >
> > But this is NOT what GR claims.
>
> It is about who claims what GR says.
> Please you don't know what you are talking about
> with regards to the status quo argument.

Look it's very simple. Both 1 and 2 below are true:

1. You wrote: "Falling into a black hole... time ends at the event horizon".

2. GR does NOT say that "time ends at the event horizon".

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

It has been a status quo. Maybe you have your own.
Too many people have claimed it. For instance fall reaches light speed
at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
Einstein could not go along with his theory at this extreme.

He was the first one to see black holes and singularities
coming from collapsing stars as he solved the equations.
I assume he believed that his theory was just a limiting case
as Quantum Mechanics would be. I say it is not to be believed
that we have "complete" theories at this time. That is not reasonable.
Give it hundreds of millions of years.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

No, as of 1920s (I forget the exact year) it has not been a "status quo".
Only careless pop-sci expositions say things like that.

> Too many people have claimed it.

Yes, but this all ended in the 1920s.

> For instance fall reaches light speed
> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.

It's argued HERE, yes.

> Einstein could not go along with his theory at this extreme.
>
> He was the first one to see black holes and singularities
> coming from collapsing stars as he solved the equations.
> I assume he believed that his theory was just a limiting case
> as Quantum Mechanics would be. I say it is not to be believed
> that we have "complete" theories at this time. That is not reasonable.

Sure. This is well-known.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Not yet. Einstein saw his theory is not complete.
Give it more time. It might not be known to you
but not everything is known. Reasonably Its far
too soon.

> > For instance fall reaches light speed
> > at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
>
> It's argued HERE, yes.

If its argued here I will argue back.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

We were talking about time "stopping" at the horizon. That debate
ended in the 1920s. About the "incompleteness" of GR - sure, this
is on everyone's todo list.

> > > For instance fall reaches light speed
> > > at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> >
> > It's argued HERE, yes.
>
> If its argued here I will argue back.

I rest my case :-)

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

GR at its extreme has a problem.
I suppose you wish to disagree.
If so we should agree to disagree.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:55:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> GR at its extreme has a problem.
> I suppose you wish to disagree.
> If so we should agree to disagree.

Well, of course GR has a problem. We still don't know if singularities
are real (although we do observe behaviour of infalling matter consistent
with the absence of a surface).

That's another analogy with the 19th-century electrodynamics, BTW, where
point charge singularities were a problem.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I am looking at the limit to acceleration problem.
The strength of gravity has to have the acceleration
limit.

For propulsion acceleration is limited by weight.
Freefall has a Gamma limited acceleration order.
Acceleration is two sided... one by weight
the other by freefall... both obeying the
acceleration increase speed limit.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 4:16:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:55:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > GR at its extreme has a problem.
> > I suppose you wish to disagree.
> > If so we should agree to disagree.
>
> Well, of course GR has a problem. We still don't know if singularities
> are real (although we do observe behaviour of infalling matter consistent
> with the absence of a surface).

How are we sampling the surface of any black hole?
This is new. How did we get our instruments there?
What probe do we use? What do we use?
Black holes are still theories so what you
are claiming is completely far fetched.
I think you are assuming that theory
has to be true instead to make the
claim you are.

[JanPB]

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 4:57:23 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 4:16:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:55:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > GR at its extreme has a problem.
> > > I suppose you wish to disagree.
> > > If so we should agree to disagree.
> >
> > Well, of course GR has a problem. We still don't know if singularities
> > are real (although we do observe behaviour of infalling matter consistent
> > with the absence of a surface).
>
> How are we sampling the surface of any black hole?
> This is new. How did we get our instruments there?

One can calculate the infalling matter spectrum either assuming a surface or no surface.
The spectra we actually see match those theoretical predictions within error bars. AFAIK
those error bars are rather large so it's not a very high quality result but it's interesting. Of
course it says nothing about the singular set itself, if any.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

To be honest I think you have been more influenced by Hawking's event horizon theories. He has said they don't even exist. But he would be held to them
for his fame.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

Actually, I haven't read any of his books except "The large scale structure of space-time"
(surprisingly well-written).

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

His papers are a big influence. Your position reads like his papers do.
May I ask where your main influence is; people that go along with Hawking?

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

I don't think there is any "influence" besides maybe liking someone's STYLE.
CONTENT is really divorced from any particular person. Besides his book above
I haven't read Hawking much.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Hawking likes his authority influence. The man is the Egg of authority.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Deshawn Issa]

mitchrae3323 wrote:

>> I don't think there is any "influence" besides maybe liking someone's
>> STYLE. CONTENT is really divorced from any particular person. Besides
>> his book above I haven't read Hawking much.
>

> Hawking likes his authority influence. The man is the Egg of authority.

He likely will get a body transplant soon. In any case, the guy in the
wheelchair, is probably not even him, but used as furniture in conferences.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> For instance fall reaches light speed
>> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
>
> It's argued HERE, yes.

Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.

No massive object can ever reach light speed relative to any locally inertial frame.

But mitchr...@gmail.com is surely thinking of using the coordinates of a distant
observer, which for Schwarzschild spacetime are the usual Schw. coordinates. For
an infalling object in Schw. spacetime, dr/dt -> 0 as it approaches the horizon.
This is so even for an infalling light pulse.

This is why black holes have been called "frozen stars" --
A distant observer will never observe anything to cross the
horizon, everything piles up ("freezes") just outside it.

In some sense that is directly opposite to "lightspeed".

Tom Roberts

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> For instance fall reaches light speed
> >> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> >
> > It's argued HERE, yes.
>
> Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.

Kip Thorne a new Nobel Prize winner author
supposed expert wrote in his book "black holes"
that it is alright for matter to fall to the
speed of light but no faster inside BH. What he left
out is that gravity strength is defined as
acceleration and there is more gravity inside.
His argument about black holes failed.
They violate the speed limit.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> For instance fall reaches light speed
> > >> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> > >
> > > It's argued HERE, yes.
> >
> > Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.
>
> Kip Thorne a new Nobel Prize winner author
> supposed expert wrote in his book "black holes"
> that it is alright for matter to fall to the
> speed of light but no faster inside BH. What he left
> out is that gravity strength is defined as
> acceleration and there is more gravity inside.
> His argument about black holes failed.
> They violate the speed limit.

No, they don't. But this really cannot be explained without providing
the full technical description. That's the problem all pop-sci writing
faces: certain things are simply not amenable to good metaphoric
expression. If you really want to understand it, you have to learn it.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Monday, 30 October 2017 19:29:59 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> For instance fall reaches light speed
> > > >> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> > > >
> > > > It's argued HERE, yes.
> > >
> > > Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.
> >
> > Kip Thorne a new Nobel Prize winner author
> > supposed expert wrote in his book "black holes"
> > that it is alright for matter to fall to the
> > speed of light but no faster inside BH. What he left
> > out is that gravity strength is defined as
> > acceleration and there is more gravity inside.
> > His argument about black holes failed.
> > They violate the speed limit.
>
> No, they don't. But this really cannot be explained without providing
> the full technical description.

A technical description including imagined ants.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 11:29:59 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> For instance fall reaches light speed
> > > >> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> > > >
> > > > It's argued HERE, yes.
> > >
> > > Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.
> >
> > Kip Thorne a new Nobel Prize winner author
> > supposed expert wrote in his book "black holes"
> > that it is alright for matter to fall to the
> > speed of light but no faster inside BH. What he left
> > out is that gravity strength is defined as
> > acceleration and there is more gravity inside.
> > His argument about black holes failed.
> > They violate the speed limit.
>
> No, they don't. >

What is then the top speed?
This should settle he issue Jan...
You are denying a fact about the extreme of GR and its problem.

> But this really cannot be explained without providing
> the full technical description. That's the problem all pop-sci writing
> faces: certain things are simply not amenable to good metaphoric
> expression. If you really want to understand it, you have to learn it.

You say Blurred lines prove things...?
You're a technicality...

What is the maximum speed of freefall?

Mitchell Raemsch
> --
> Jan

[JanPB]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 1:15:36 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 11:29:59 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> For instance fall reaches light speed
> > > > >> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's argued HERE, yes.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.
> > >
> > > Kip Thorne a new Nobel Prize winner author
> > > supposed expert wrote in his book "black holes"
> > > that it is alright for matter to fall to the
> > > speed of light but no faster inside BH. What he left
> > > out is that gravity strength is defined as
> > > acceleration and there is more gravity inside.
> > > His argument about black holes failed.
> > > They violate the speed limit.
> >
> > No, they don't. >
>
> What is then the top speed?

Depends on the trajectory of the falling particle. Locally it's
always less than c.

OTOH if an outside observer insists on using the "standard" coordinates,
he'll end up with funny numbers. But that's because raw coordinate labels
have no direct physical meaning, they are a human bookkeeping system.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:18:57 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 1:15:36 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 11:29:59 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >> For instance fall reaches light speed
> > > > > >> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's argued HERE, yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.
> > > >
> > > > Kip Thorne a new Nobel Prize winner author
> > > > supposed expert wrote in his book "black holes"
> > > > that it is alright for matter to fall to the
> > > > speed of light but no faster inside BH. What he left
> > > > out is that gravity strength is defined as
> > > > acceleration and there is more gravity inside.
> > > > His argument about black holes failed.
> > > > They violate the speed limit.
> > >
> > > No, they don't. >

Einstein knew his theory was only a limiting case
at its extreme.
Then what is the top speed inside a BH?
We know something about that that reveals GR failure.
It breaks the speed limit for pushing matter.

> >
> > What is then the top speed?
>
> Depends on the trajectory of the falling particle. Locally it's
> always less than c.

You are avoiding C. When is it C? The Nobel says C inside BH...
and this violates Einstein's universal speed limit.
I believe you argue C is never reached but it is in black
hole; you might say no to the event horizon but that is
the first place for falling to reach light speed.
Then there is more gravity strength acceleration inside...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Wyatt Harriston]

JanPB wrote:

> OTOH if an outside observer insists on using the "standard" coordinates,
> he'll end up with funny numbers. But that's because raw coordinate
> labels have no direct physical meaning, they are a human bookkeeping
> system.

Disagree, those are imposed by the requirements of the surroundings.
Brains cannot possibly just make shit up, there is an entrance. And that
is ALWAYS from outside. Insisting having inputs from inside, that's pure
metaphysics. Not because it has to be wrong.

[JanPB]

OK, at this point I stop. There is little point arguing when reason is deactivated.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

In opposition to The Shit of ingenious Einstein, of
course, which is created by a god and used by demigods.
And, speaking of physical meaning, how do you measure
your moronic interval?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> On Monday, 30 October 2017 23:18:57 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 1:15:36 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 11:29:59 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >> For instance fall reaches light speed
> > > > > > >> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's argued HERE, yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kip Thorne a new Nobel Prize winner author
> > > > > supposed expert wrote in his book "black holes"
> > > > > that it is alright for matter to fall to the
> > > > > speed of light but no faster inside BH. What he left
> > > > > out is that gravity strength is defined as
> > > > > acceleration and there is more gravity inside.
> > > > > His argument about black holes failed.
> > > > > They violate the speed limit.
> > > >
> > > > No, they don't. >
> > >
> > > What is then the top speed?
> >
> > Depends on the trajectory of the falling particle. Locally it's
> > always less than c.

Falling to C at the event horizon would be the end of space and time
by contraction.
This is claim that has been made about black holes whether you doubt it or not.
Then the argument becomes time starts over as "proper time" and
then ends again at the singularity. This is the problem of 2 times ending.
Don't argue over this.

Mitchell Raemsch

Who can believe

[JanPB]

But it's NOT falling at c, it's falling at LESS THAN c. (Locally inertially,
which is all relativity cares about as far as "the speed limit" is concerned.)

> This is claim that has been made about black holes whether you doubt it or not.
> Then the argument becomes time starts over as "proper time" and
> then ends again at the singularity. This is the problem of 2 times ending.
> Don't argue over this.

There is no "problem of 2 times ending". You need to study this some more.

You take a particular metric tensor as "the Schwarzschild geometry" but
geometry in GR is NOT described by any particular tensor but by an
(infinite) CLASS of such tensors related by pullbacks via diffeomorphisms(*).

These pullbacks of tensors can THEMSELVES introduce spurious
phenomena which are NOT physical. Your "time ending at the horizon" is
an example of one such non-geometric singularity.

(*)NB: In most textbooks this is worded as "the metric tensor can be
written in different coordinates". This (the "passive view") is equivalent to
what I wrote (the "active view") but IMHO is much more confusing to the student
because the passive view frequently requires an explicit change of the
underlying manifold, which would be fine if the textbooks bothered to do it,
but they NEVER DO! Very annoying. The active view does not require that.

--
Jan

[Matt Harry]

JanPB wrote:

> But it's NOT falling at c, it's falling at LESS THAN c. (Locally
> inertially, which is all relativity cares about as far as "the speed
> limit" is concerned.)

And this why, Janny, because matter-energy requirement paradox. Where we
have no proofs, only an expectation, in math symbols written by <E> or <EE>
squared. I have a feeling that in THAT region the laws of Physics are
totally different from what we see here in the flat space.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Keep going to your books...

> You take a particular metric tensor as "the Schwarzschild geometry" but
> geometry in GR is NOT described by any particular tensor but by an
> (infinite) CLASS of such tensors related by pullbacks via diffeomorphisms(*).
>
> These pullbacks of tensors can THEMSELVES introduce spurious
> phenomena which are NOT physical. Your "time ending at the horizon" is
> an example of one such non-geometric singularity.
>
> (*)NB: In most textbooks this is worded as "the metric tensor can be
> written in different coordinates". This (the "passive view") is equivalent to
> what I wrote (the "active view") but IMHO is much more confusing to the student
> because the passive view frequently requires an explicit change of the
> underlying manifold, which would be fine if the textbooks bothered to do it,
> but they NEVER DO! Very annoying. The active view does not require that.
>
> --
> Jan

Don't argue over two times...

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

Not even false.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

I don't need to go to any "books" for that. I know this stuff.

> > You take a particular metric tensor as "the Schwarzschild geometry" but
> > geometry in GR is NOT described by any particular tensor but by an
> > (infinite) CLASS of such tensors related by pullbacks via diffeomorphisms(*).
> >
> > These pullbacks of tensors can THEMSELVES introduce spurious
> > phenomena which are NOT physical. Your "time ending at the horizon" is
> > an example of one such non-geometric singularity.
> >
> > (*)NB: In most textbooks this is worded as "the metric tensor can be
> > written in different coordinates". This (the "passive view") is equivalent to
> > what I wrote (the "active view") but IMHO is much more confusing to the student
> > because the passive view frequently requires an explicit change of the
> > underlying manifold, which would be fine if the textbooks bothered to do it,
> > but they NEVER DO! Very annoying. The active view does not require that.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> Don't argue over two times...

There is nothing to argue: you are simply incorrect.

BTW: being incorrect about some detail is not the end of the world.
Get over it, move on. Learn what you lack.

--
Jan

[Matt Harry]

JanPB wrote:

>> > You take a particular metric tensor as "the Schwarzschild geometry"
>> > but geometry in GR is NOT described by any particular tensor but by
>> > an (infinite) CLASS of such tensors related by pullbacks via
>> > diffeomorphisms(*).

I suspect you don't know tensors. Mainly two kind, the math tensor and the
engineering tensor. This again, confusing a tensors field with the tensor
itself. The GR field equation depicts the tensor, not the tensor field,
nor a vector field.

This is to say, depicting the behavioural of the tensor along a trajectory
of choice.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I believe two times is wrong. But you say it doesn't
even exist as a problem when it is. If it was real
you wouldn't even want to see it.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Matt Harry]

mitchrae3323 wrote:

>> > Don't argue over two times...
>>
>> There is nothing to argue: you are simply incorrect.
>
> I believe two times is wrong. But you say it doesn't even exist as a
> problem when it is. If it was real you wouldn't even want to see it.

What you can say is, that time is sort of complex number, with an
imaginary part, of which responsible of so many weird things, including
the quantum domain, hence the Potential for Unification.

[JanPB]

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 4:19:48 PM UTC-7, Matt Harry wrote:

Oh look, the 'tensor' a$$hole is back, with yet another new name...

[Matt Harry]

Of course is not. Let me try again, you seemingly are slow. You have a LHS
(left hand side) and a RHS. You pull your tensor(s) from the LHS and READ
the changes on the RHS (which will be your LCD display).

[JanPB]

You have no idea what the discussion is about.

--
Jan

[Darrell Vandergrift]

You don't know, huh?

[Esteban Tarpley]

JanPB wrote:

>> Of course is not. Let me try again, you seemingly are slow. You have a
>> LHS (left hand side) and a RHS. You pull your tensor(s) from the LHS
>> and READ the changes on the RHS (which will be your LCD display).
>
> You have no idea what the discussion is about.

You are not familiar in Arduino.

[RLH]

I'm am fairly. Enough to get by.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Then why is Kip Thorne misleading everyone by saying it does reach he speed of light at the event horizon?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/13/17 11/13/17 5:59 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 2:31:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

>> [an object falling through a black hole's event horizon] But it's NOT

>> falling at c, it's falling at LESS THAN c. (Locally inertially, which is
>> all relativity cares about as far as "the speed limit" is concerned.)
>
> Then why is Kip Thorne misleading everyone by saying it does reach he speed
> of light at the event horizon?

Hmmmm. The horizon moves with speed c past every locally inertial frame that
falls through it (e.g. comoving with such an infalling object). But this does
NOT mean the object is moving with speed c "relative to the horizon", because
this last phrase has no meaning -- one cannot measure relative to the horizon.

Tom Roberts

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

According to Nobel Kip Thorne the event horizon is where fall reaches the speed of light.

Mitchell Raemsch

[RLH]

I want to know what the pressure is inside the event horizon. That fights gravity everywhere else. Mind you the space inside has a gravity field which goes down to zero in the centre and the 'space' between particles is only a relative statement so what does it look like, relatively speaking, inside a Black Hole?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

RLH

I want to know what the pressure is inside the event horizon. That fights gravity everywhere else. Mind you the space inside has a gravity field which goes down to zero in the centre and the 'space' between particles is only a relative statement so what does it look like, relatively speaking, inside a Black Hole?

Look out your window Fool........

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

RLH

I want to know what the pressure is inside the event horizon. That fights gravity everywhere else. Mind you the space inside has a gravity field which goes down to zero in the centre and the 'space' between particles is only a relative statement so what does it look like, relatively speaking, inside a Black Hole?

Look out your window Fool........

It’s very simple....
Everything is falling at c into a black hole which the surface of is rotating at c

https://photos.app.goo.gl/v7MIRwjOcckr1Jav1

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Fc4ilf5u0LMwiHLk2

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 8:46:37 PM UTC-8, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> RLH
>
> I want to know what the pressure is inside the event horizon. That fights gravity everywhere else. Mind you the space inside has a gravity field which goes down to zero in the centre and the 'space' between particles is only a relative statement so what does it look like, relatively speaking, inside a Black Hole?
>
> Look out your window Fool........
>
> It’s very simple....
> Everything is falling at c into a black hole which the surface of is rotating at c

Then black holes are spheres. Gravity is round...

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/v7MIRwjOcckr1Jav1
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/Fc4ilf5u0LMwiHLk2

[Koobee Wublee]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:02:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

> This is why black holes have been called "frozen stars" --
> A distant observer will never observe anything to cross the
> horizon, everything piles up ("freezes") just outside it.

Yes, what Tom described above reflects what the Schwarzschild metric tells us. Now, this should apply to the motion of the black hole as well although there is no mathematics supporting this nor there is mathematics saying a black hole can move. So, the religion of GR can make up collisions of black holes and other phenomena never addressed by any mathematics. That is not physics but fairy tale. <shrug>

[RLH]

I wasn't asking about outside. I was asking about inside the Black Hole.

[RLH]

So what? What happens inside the Sphere is what I am asking?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

RLH shitted

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 4:46:37 AM UTC, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> RLH
>
> I want to know what the pressure is inside the event horizon. That fights gravity everywhere else. Mind you the space inside has a gravity field which goes down to zero in the centre and the 'space' between particles is only a relative statement so what does it look like, relatively speaking, inside a Black Hole?
>
> Look out your window Fool........
>
> It’s very simple....
> Everything is falling at c into a black hole which the surface of is rotating at c
>

> https://photos.app.goo.gl/v7MIRwjOcckr1Jav1
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/Fc4ilf5u0LMwiHLk2

I wasn't asking about outside. I was asking about inside the Black Hole.

So what?
What happens inside the Sphere is what I am asking?

Are you FUCKING RETARDED?
You are a bigger more profound Imbecile than Ed Lake.
Stop LITTERING HERE CRETIN
GO PLAY IN THE FREEWAY

[JanPB]

Incorrect.

--
Jan

[Esteban Tarpley]

JanPB wrote:

> So, the religion of GR can
>> make up collisions of black holes and other phenomena never addressed
>> by any mathematics. That is not physics but fairy tale. <shrug>
>
> Incorrect.

I see no equations supporting you extraordinary claim.

[JanPB]

That's because I cannot realistically post a GR course here. Also, if
Koobee is truly interested, he can easily search the Internet for
black holes merging. For whatever reason he prefers to make stuff up
and post those fairy tales here.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Black holes don't exist. Stephen Hawking has said it more than
once in history. Light does not obey the escape velocity law
that matter does. Light can always get out of maximum gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:33:46 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Black holes don't exist. Stephen Hawking has said it more than

> once in history...

Not exactly what he said. You really should do some research before typing away about stuff that you don't understand.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/hawking-meant-black-holes

"To be clear, Hawking was not claiming that black holes don’t exist. Astronomers have been observing black holes for decades, said Joseph Polchinski, theoretical physicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

What Hawking did was propose an explanation to one of the most puzzling problems in theoretical physics. How can black holes exist when they seem to break two fundamental laws of physics — Einstein’s laws of relativity and quantum mechanics? We’ll explain..."

Go read and enlighten yourself...

[RLH]

What is always possible is that as matter crosses the event horizon and as it is now at maximum Kelvin relative to the rest of the Universe, then perhaps that then shows up as altering the balance of creation of virtual particles in neighbouring space out to some unknown distance. Thus completing the loop for mass.

There is a possible line/circle from

Infinity/event horizon/0 Kelvin -> sparse hydrogen atoms -> more concentrated matter -> Stars -> Black Holes -> Infinity/event horizon/Max Kelvin?

A wild out there theory sure, but one that fits the facts.

[RLH]

And for the rest....

https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/does-the-harmonic-series-converge-or-diverge-in-the-real-world/

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:11:28 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:33:46 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Black holes don't exist. Stephen Hawking has said it more than
> > once in history...
>
> Not exactly what he said. You really should do some research before typing away about stuff that you don't understand.
>
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/hawking-meant-black-holes
>
> "To be clear, Hawking was not claiming that black holes don’t exist.

One of his papers was entitled There are No Black holes.
Don't misrepresent what Hawking has said...

Astronomers have been observing black holes for decades, >
said Joseph Polchinski, theoretical physicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The fact is there is another maximum gravity object that does
the same thing... the largest neutronium forms would red shift
match. It doesn't need to collapse into a black hole to maximum
redshift. This could be what we are seeing.

>
> What Hawking did was propose an explanation to one of the most puzzling problems in theoretical physics. How can black holes exist when they seem to break two fundamental laws of physics — Einstein’s laws of relativity and quantum mechanics? We’ll explain..."
>
> Go read and enlighten yourself...

I am glad you read. Someone has to be the nerd.

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

It is wise to be nice to nerds, most people work for one. I had 145 people working for me before I retired.

Mitchell, it is time to call a spade a spade. You are the most scientifically ignorant person here in a very long time. You really know absolutely nothing about science, and I doubt that you ever will. You do nothing but make a fool of yourself here, and it is hard to say why. You are fooling no one now, and never have.

Go read a couple of freshman physics text books, you have a *lot* to learn about physics, since you are starting from zero.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> For instance fall reaches light speed
>>> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
>> It's argued HERE, yes.
>
> Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.

That depends on what is considered falling.

> No massive object can ever reach light speed relative to any locally inertial frame.

He did not refer to “massive objects“ explicitly.

> But mitchr...@gmail.com is surely thinking of using the coordinates of a distant
> observer,

Conjecture. The OP makes statements of the form “not even wrong”, so
counter-arguments of the form “he is surely thinking of” are fallacious.

> which for Schwarzschild spacetime are the usual Schw. coordinates. For
> an infalling object in Schw. spacetime, dr/dt -> 0 as it approaches the horizon.
> This is so even for an infalling light pulse.

>
> This is why black holes have been called "frozen stars" --
> A distant observer will never observe anything to cross the
> horizon, everything piles up ("freezes") just outside it.
>

> In some sense that is directly opposite to "lightspeed".

It is possible that the OP referred to this instead:

,-<http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html>
|
| You may well have heard the popular definition of a black hole. A black
| hole is an object whose gravity is so strong that not even light can
| escape. The definition is correct, but it does not give a good picture of
| why light cannot escape.
|
| I prefer a different definition. A black hole is a place where space is
| falling faster than light.
|
| […]

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 7:13:29 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 10/27/17 2:46 PM, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 8:58:57 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> For instance fall reaches light speed
> >>> at the event horizon. Don't argue that this isn't argued.
> >> It's argued HERE, yes.
> >
> > Hmmm. It may be argued, but it's clearly WRONG.
>
> That depends on what is considered falling.
>
> > No massive object can ever reach light speed relative to any locally inertial frame.
>
> He did not refer to “massive objects“ explicitly.
>
> > But mitchr...@gmail.com is surely thinking of using the coordinates of a distant
> > observer,

Not at all. Falling at light speed always happens at the event
horizon.

Mitchell Raemsch

[RLH]

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 9:48:28 PM UTC, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not at all. Falling at light speed always happens at the event
> horizon.

That may be so. But what is the Gravitation field inside that horizon? It must be 0 at the centre. And what balancing Pressure would that be at?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Einstein's original theory was monkeyed with. Einstein had
a maximum strength domain without any inner drop off. There
is equal strength gravity for the Earth from the top of
the atmosphere to its center radius. He had his contractile
curvature maximum gravity strength domain.

Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity

[RLH]

Not an answer.

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> I see no equations supporting you extraordinary claim.
>
> That's because I cannot realistically post a GR course here. Also, if
> Koobee is truly interested, he can easily search the Internet for black
> holes merging. For whatever reason he prefers to make stuff up and post
> those fairy tales here.

bh merging, that's just a math arrangement, nothing real. If you were
really so good at Math Modelling and Scientific Computation, as you let to
be understood, the you should KNOW that thing is IMPOSSIBLE. In order to
even be able to run your simulation, you HAVE TO exclude that thing from
the domani. Shortly, you can fool a cow not to eat, but you will never
increase your milk production.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:21:30 AM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> I see no equations supporting you extraordinary claim.
> >
> > That's because I cannot realistically post a GR course here. Also, if
> > Koobee is truly interested, he can easily search the Internet for black
> > holes merging. For whatever reason he prefers to make stuff up and post
> > those fairy tales here.
>
> bh merging, that's just a math arrangement, nothing real.

Not even wrong. I suggest you pick a different hobby.

--
Jan

[Lara Ashline]

You don't even know you have to exclude the black hole sub-domain from
your math model?? Come on, you are short-cutting the circuitry of the
entire world. What kind of PLC programmer are you.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:21:30 AM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I see no equations supporting you extraordinary claim.
> >> >
> >> > That's because I cannot realistically post a GR course here. Also, if
> >> > Koobee is truly interested, he can easily search the Internet for
> >> > black holes merging. For whatever reason he prefers to make stuff up
> >> > and post those fairy tales here.
> >>
> >> bh merging, that's just a math arrangement, nothing real.
> >
> > Not even wrong. I suggest you pick a different hobby.
>
> You don't even know you have to exclude the black hole sub-domain from
> your math model??

You are making stuff up as you go along, it's junk pseudoscience. There is
no such thing in physics as "the black hole sub-domain", you are just
bluffing and counting on people accepting your word salad as real.

> Come on, you are short-cutting the circuitry of the
> entire world. What kind of PLC programmer are you.

What's with this "programmer" stuff all of a sudden? Good grief.

--
Jan

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> >> bh merging, that's just a math arrangement, nothing real.
>> >
>> > Not even wrong. I suggest you pick a different hobby.
>>
>> You don't even know you have to exclude the black hole sub-domain from
>> your math model??
>
> You are making stuff up as you go along, it's junk pseudoscience. There
> is no such thing in physics as "the black hole sub-domain", you are just
> bluffing and counting on people accepting your word salad as real.

Well. let me elucidate, you should already know, in modelling physics, you
HAVE to use sub-domains, meshes, governing equations and other things.
What's wrong with YOU??

A black hole will halt your virtual machine, and worse, in case of bare
metal, hardware failure. Come on, wake up.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> >> bh merging, that's just a math arrangement, nothing real.
> >> >
> >> > Not even wrong. I suggest you pick a different hobby.
> >>
> >> You don't even know you have to exclude the black hole sub-domain from
> >> your math model??
> >
> > You are making stuff up as you go along, it's junk pseudoscience. There
> > is no such thing in physics as "the black hole sub-domain", you are just
> > bluffing and counting on people accepting your word salad as real.
>
> Well. let me elucidate, you should already know, in modelling physics, you
> HAVE to use sub-domains, meshes, governing equations and other things.
> What's wrong with YOU??

These terms are all your private terminology. Which is fine as long as
you define them so other people know what you are saying. We cannot _guess_
what's inside your head.

> A black hole will halt your virtual machine,

What "virtual machine"?

> and worse, in case of bare
> metal, hardware failure. Come on, wake up.

Hello?

--
Jan

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> >> You don't even know you have to exclude the black hole sub-domain
>> >> from your math model??
>> >
>> > You are making stuff up as you go along, it's junk pseudoscience.
>> > There is no such thing in physics as "the black hole sub-domain", you
>> > are just bluffing and counting on people accepting your word salad as
>> > real.
>>
>> Well. let me elucidate, you should already know, in modelling physics,
>> you HAVE to use sub-domains, meshes, governing equations and other
>> things. What's wrong with YOU??
>
> These terms are all your private terminology. Which is fine as long as
> you define them so other people know what you are saying. We cannot
> _guess_ what's inside your head.

How can it be private, just take a look. You will never pass an exam in
numerical recipes and fea.

[JanPB]

The terminology that you use doesn't exist in the trade. See, not only
I know this stuff, I know it so well that I know what's NOT there. So
you cannot bluff me that way. I can tell right away you are making stuff up.

--
Jan

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> >> Well. let me elucidate, you should already know, in modelling
>> >> physics,
>> >> you HAVE to use sub-domains, meshes, governing equations and other
>> >> things. What's wrong with YOU??
>> >
>> > These terms are all your private terminology. Which is fine as long
>> > as you define them so other people know what you are saying. We
>> > cannot _guess_ what's inside your head.
>>
>> How can it be private, just take a look.
>
> The terminology that you use doesn't exist in the trade. See, not only I
> know this stuff, I know it so well that I know what's NOT there. So you
> cannot bluff me that way. I can tell right away you are making stuff up.

You are a bluffer of the stupid kind by yourself. A zero in finite
elements etc, proving it by snipping the juicy part. You are
calling yourself a physicist not familiar in numerical recipes.
Start reading, you clearly have much to catch up with.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=dGooWsPpJIL76ASOu67gCg&q=fea+subdomain+mesh&oq=fea+subdomain+mesh&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4127.22932.0.23177.23.23.0.0.0.0.279.3728.0j11j8.19.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.14.2797...0j0i67k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i13k1j0i13i10i30k1j0i13i5i30k1.0.8tHxta3SO5E

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> >> Well. let me elucidate, you should already know, in modelling
> >> >> physics,
> >> >> you HAVE to use sub-domains, meshes, governing equations and other
> >> >> things. What's wrong with YOU??
> >> >
> >> > These terms are all your private terminology. Which is fine as long
> >> > as you define them so other people know what you are saying. We
> >> > cannot _guess_ what's inside your head.
> >>
> >> How can it be private, just take a look.
> >
> > The terminology that you use doesn't exist in the trade. See, not only I
> > know this stuff, I know it so well that I know what's NOT there. So you
> > cannot bluff me that way. I can tell right away you are making stuff up.
>
> You are a bluffer of the stupid kind by yourself. A zero in finite
> elements etc,

What on earth are you talking about NOW? Too much Red Bull or something?

> proving it by snipping the juicy part. You are
> calling yourself a physicist

I never called myself physicist. I am a mathematician.

> not familiar in numerical recipes.

I actually used the algorithms there quite a bit in the 1990s. But today
we have excellent C++ template libraries like Eigen3 and Boost, so
Num. Recipes are a bit passe. Also, they come with an obnoxious licencing.

> Start reading, you clearly have much to catch up with.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?ei=dGooWsPpJIL76ASOu67gCg&q=fea+subdomain+mesh&oq=fea+subdomain+mesh&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4127.22932.0.23177.23.23.0.0.0.0.279.3728.0j11j8.19.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.14.2797...0j0i67k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i13k1j0i13i10i30k1j0i13i5i30k1.0.8tHxta3SO5E

Lay off the booze for a bit. Then post. You make ZERO sense here.

--
Jan

[Python]

JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:

...

> Lay off the booze for a bit. Then post. You make ZERO sense here.

Well no surprise. There is not much point to argue with the nym-shifting
troll, these days know as Lara Ashline...

[Koobee Wublee]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 3:41:38 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:

> > You are a bluffer of the stupid kind by yourself. A zero in finite
> > elements etc,
>
> What on earth are you talking about NOW? Too much Red Bull or something?

Jan is too stupid. What do you expect for someone always fantasizing about being the queen of England. <shrug>

> > proving it by snipping the juicy part. You are
> > calling yourself a physicist
>
> I never called myself physicist. I am a mathematician.

LOL. Only in cyberspace, you can claim all you want to be including being the queen of England. <shrug>

> > not familiar in numerical recipes.
>
> I actually used the algorithms there quite a bit in the 1990s.

A good mathematician does not have to justify his credential. Jan has demonstrated that it cannot even handle basic geometry. <shrug>

> Lay off the booze for a bit. Then post. You make ZERO sense here.

An example is that measuring distance with its dick is the same as using a coordinate system to describe a geometry. Jan is no mathematician but a clown with an ego. <shrug>

[Lara Ashline]

JanPB wrote:

>> not familiar in numerical recipes.
>
> I actually used the algorithms there quite a bit in the 1990s. But today
> we have excellent C++ template libraries like Eigen3 and Boost, so Num.
> Recipes are a bit passe. Also, they come with an obnoxious licencing.

Wow 1990s, this explains alot. You are a Numerical Analysis illiterate.

Hence clearly, Modelling and Simulation in Physics, a cca 90% of the
Research in Physics done today. Saying that I was using "private
terminology" makes it clear, you are left behind, my friend.

And Boost etc, you got it wrong one more time. Those are at least a level
bellow what I am talking about. Ie FEM is domain above all that, similar
so many other things related to simulations in Physics. I believe you
should apologise.

[Lara Ashline]

Koobee Wublee wrote:

>> I actually used the algorithms there quite a bit in the 1990s.
>
> A good mathematician does not have to justify his credential. Jan has
> demonstrated that it cannot even handle basic geometry. <shrug>

I disagree, probably strong in Symbolics and Theoretic, but I wonder why
not saying it openly, that he is not mastering modelling in Physics
whatsoever.

[JanPB]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 2:14:00 AM UTC-8, Lara Ashline wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> not familiar in numerical recipes.
> >
> > I actually used the algorithms there quite a bit in the 1990s. But today
> > we have excellent C++ template libraries like Eigen3 and Boost, so Num.
> > Recipes are a bit passe. Also, they come with an obnoxious licencing.
>
> Wow 1990s, this explains alot. You are a Numerical Analysis illiterate.

So is Donald Knuth then (he started even earlier than I). Good luck.

> Hence clearly, Modelling and Simulation in Physics, a cca 90% of the
> Research in Physics done today. Saying that I was using "private
> terminology" makes it clear, you are left behind, my friend.

You've been making up random terminology in order to bluff your readers
and create the impression you know something about this. And I'm simply
telling you how it is: you make stuff up as you go along. I won't comment
on your "Numerical Analysis" knowledge because you never said anything
about it besides generalities. But as far as relativity goes, the stuff
you posted is word salad. That I _can_ tell right away.

> And Boost etc, you got it wrong one more time. Those are at least a level
> bellow what I am talking about. Ie FEM is domain above all that, similar
> so many other things related to simulations in Physics. I believe you
> should apologise.

For what? For telling you that Numerical Recipes are not used as much today
as they used to? If you want to discuss computing, start a thread at the
relevant group.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

Koobee keeps SAYING things but in this business it's what you can DO that
counts, not what you can SAY. I asked him many times to answer very simple
test questions designed to probe his knowledge of differential geometry at
a very basic level. He cannot do those little exercises. So what's the
point of paying any attention to his rants?

It also doesn't help much that he seems to have some emotional problems,
viz. referring to people as "it" or using certain phrases always in the
same form.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Jan if there is no time inside of a black hole how can anything
move to the center?

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

What made you think there is no time there? The metric inside the horizon has timelike
directions just like the metric outside.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 5:21:27 PM UTC-8, RLH wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 1:07:41 AM UTC, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:19:27 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 11/13/17 11/13/17 5:59 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 2:31:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > >> [an object falling through a black hole's event horizon] But it's NOT
> > > >> falling at c, it's falling at LESS THAN c. (Locally inertially, which is
> > > >> all relativity cares about as far as "the speed limit" is concerned.)
> > > >
> > > > Then why is Kip Thorne misleading everyone by saying it does reach he speed
> > > > of light at the event horizon?
> > >
> > > Hmmmm. The horizon moves with speed c past every locally inertial frame that
> > > falls through it (e.g. comoving with such an infalling object). But this does
> > > NOT mean the object is moving with speed c "relative to the horizon", because
> > > this last phrase has no meaning -- one cannot measure relative to the horizon.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> >
> > According to Nobel Kip Thorne the event horizon is where fall reaches the speed of light.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> I want to know what the pressure is inside the event horizon. That fights gravity everywhere else. Mind you the space inside has a gravity field which goes down to zero in the centre and the 'space' between particles is only a relative statement so what does it look like, relatively speaking, inside a Black Hole?

Gravity moves through gravity; so the center of a black hole(space-time's end)
has to move itself through other field. I believe always in a stable orbit.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I pulled up a video by Stephen Hawking where he said that there is no time inside a black hole. He compared it to the Big Bang where there is no time
or any before for God in which to create in.

Mitchell Raemsch God creates gravity...

[JanPB]

> I pulled up a video by Stephen Hawking where he said that there is no time inside a black hole. He compared it to the Big Bang where there is no time
> or any before for God in which to create in.

He was probably talking about the singularity which is not a part of spacetime. So there
are no events there. As far as physics models are concerned, it's "non-existence".

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I am glad you believe black holes don't exist...

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

Personally I think singularities are artifacts of the classical aspect of GR.
But nobody knows for sure. What we do have is objects whose appearance
(as in observations) is consistent with:

1. large mass,
2. dark,
3. having no surface.

But that's still far from stating that "all existence stops" somewhere.

My guess is a good theory of QM+GR will resolve the singularities to some
extent (and that will include the Big Bang which I also consider an
artifact of GR; this view is very unorthodox BTW but I do strongly
suspect the Big Bang will not survive the "final theory").

--
Jan