GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes
Koobee Wublee
> Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > From http://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."
>
> 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?
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.
BURT
> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
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.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
[...]
> You are on better track than any self-styled physicists aka Einstein
> Dingleberries.
I wonder how you define a physicist. Is it someone who sits in a chair and
insults from the comfort of his armchair under the protection of a
pseudonym?
>
> Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
> solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
And Kerr-Newman, and Reisser-Nordstom, and the Hawking singularity theorems,
and every computer simulation of a collapsing dust scenario.
> There are infinite such solutions.
And once again we run smack dab into your inability to understand what an
isomorphism is, or what tensor equations are. Or even the basic concept of
the tensor, for that matter.
> 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.
*smirk*
>
> 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.
And you have written them, and I have shown you that they are equivalent.
And by shown, I mean I used mathematics as opposed to arguments to
nonexistent authority and shrugs.
> Christoffel must have
> known about the other but chose to publish the more symmetric form now
> called the Christoffel symbols of the second kind.
Non-symmetric connections result from nonzero torsion, an assumption
contrary to Riemannian geometry which results in Einstein-Cartan theory. I
have explained this to you before.
> 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.
I've noticed you like to make the assumption of a diagonal metric, given how
many of your stupid little arguments you base that assumption on.
>
> Then, towards the end of the 19th century came this math alchemist
LOL @ "math alchemist"
> named Ricci. Single handily he invented the Riemannian geometry which
> has nothing to do with Riemann.
Which is why its' named after Ricci. Oh wait it isn't.
> 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.
I'm sure this made sense in your addled mind.
> Apparently, he never realized there is another way to group the
> connection coefficients.
Apparently? I wonder how you think you know this stuff.
Did you read the original publications? No, otherwise you would have cited
them once in the last 5 years.
Did you read published correspondence between these people? No, for the same
reason as above.
> By taking the double covariant derivatives
> of two adjacent points in space or spacetime and setting to null, he
Oh it is soooo obvious that you have no real training in the subject given
how you say things like "setting to null" while refusing to adjust your
terminology.
> 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.
Oh, this is familiar. Remember how you asserted the alternate definitions
were different and I showed you that they are, in fact, the same up to a
sign change?
>
> The Riemann tensor is actual an n-by-n-by-n-by-n matrix with n^4
> elements.
Hey look! Someone /still/ doesn't know the difference between a matrix and a
tensor!
> It appeared to be a dead end until (I think it was) his
You think? Why don't you refer to your nonexistent source material so you
can be more certain while you are making shit up?
> 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.
Do you even know what the contraction operation is? Do you?
>
> The nature of the Ricci tensor being cooked out of alchemists? pot
> seemed not to have stopped there.
Oh yes, the farce of 19th century mathematics gained so much inertia that it
steamrolled eeeeeeeverything! Thank god we have a person with no
credibility, no sources, and a disgusting personality to set the record
straight. Or at least straight-ish.
> It was Nordstrom who realized the
> Ricci tensor can somehow mimic the Laplace equation describing
> Newtonian gravity in vacuum.
Wow that's specific. "Somehow" ?
Do you have a reference for this, or are you just making it up? Aw who am I
kidding, of course you are making it up!
> The solutions of the Ricci tensor, where
> each element describes a partial differential equation, are each
> element in the metric.
Which you couldn't solve if your life depended on it.
>
> However, the Ricci tensor cannot satisfy the more general case of the
> Poisson equation.
That's because Poisson's equation is a scalar equation, while a tensor is a
TENSOR you goddamn jackass.
> 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.
Note the emphasis on "so-called". The skepticism is expected given your
inability to comprehend the trace term, what it means, why its' there, or
how to calculate it.
The butchering of history is amusing and completely contrary to published
facts. Are you sole sourcing from Bjerknes on this, or are you freerolling
your drivel?
>
> Believe it or not.
Nobody but you and people with specific agendas do.
> The field equations are never tested. All
I wonder what you would consider a test of the field equations. I also
wonder how you'd even know, given your inability to derive the field
equations, or reduce the field equations to a solution.
> 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
Well when you butcher the derivation repeatedly, its' easy to understand why
you'd think there are faults.
> , but if a diagonal metric is involved such as all test
> have done, these mathematical faults become insignificant.
There's that odd little fixation on diagonal metrics again.
>
> 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.
It is extraordinary enough, considering you can't understand the solution
with a GPS device, sherpa, forged trail, and a compass to guide you.
> Using the linearly rectangular
> coordinate system (Euclidean) in curved space
Euclid is flat, dipshit.
> or spacetime actually
> yields a non-diagonal metric.
Prove it.
I ask even though I know you cannot.
> This would result in ungodly complexity
> in the mathematics of solving the null Ricci tensor.
Yeah because nobody has solved the field equations for non-diagonal metrics.
Oh wait...ROY KERR DID IT, you fucking jackass.
> 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.
Really, you think a requirement that the determinant of the metric equaling
something reduces complexity? Clearly you've never even tried to solve the
field equations before considering the patent stupidity of that statement.
> 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.
I would hope so, given it is 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.
Except it does. The event horizon of a black hole is at the same point in
spacetime no matter the coordinate system. I have shown this to you before,
including showing you the explicit coordinate transformation between these
two "different" solutions.
You are such a stupid jackass that you continue to mewl impotently about a
subject you haven't the faintest hope of understanding. I know you'll snip
this without comment but I know you'll read it.
>
> Now, follow the reasoning of the principle of invariance.
Covariance, jackass.
> A geometry
> should be something independent of any observers, right?
A "geometry" is not covariant, invariant, or any combination thereof because
a "geometry" isn't a mathematical construct.
> This is the
> case because no mortal observer can play God Himself. A segment in
> coordinate displacement does not describe the geometry.
Yeah, it does. You think it doesn't but you can't show otherwise because you
don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> You have to
> specify the metric to do so.
The line element is just the metric projected in a specific coordinate
basis. A concept which you clearly still do not understand, to the amusement
of all involved.
> Naturally, the metric is going to be
> different in each chosen coordinate system to describe the very
> invariant same geometry.
And here you are, so close to the intuitive leap that would make you ask the
right question about tensors. But you never do so.
> 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.
I am greatly amused to see that your level of argument refers to what a kid
in grade school thinks is going on. Is that as deep as you think about the
subject?
> However, the saddest part is that the self-styled physicists
> do not.
A normal person would wonder if the entire community of mathematicians and
physicists know something he doesn't. Especially when the argument requires
150 years of 'misunderstanding' on the part of a field of professionals.
But not kooby! Kooby knows best because he's an engineer or some shit.
> Their so-called Riemannian geometry equates the metric with
> the geometry and tossed away the coordinate system.
Well at least you've learned that physicists and mathematicians understand
the coordinate system chosen is irrelevant. You don't understand but that's
expected.
> That should be
> embarrassingly fvcking stupid of them. All but Hilbert understood
> what is understood by elementary school children.
Yes, and because Hilbert is such a moron he was laughed out of every
university ever when he attempted to formalize Euclidean geometry. It just
happened that he found errors in Euclid's proofs, which stood for two
thousand goddamn years. Such a lucky break.
>
> 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.
How many solutions are there to F = ma? 3?
> Realizing the whole
> thing was total crap, he walked away and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
> the plagiarist, and the liar to claim full credit.
And Einstein is now one of the most celebrated scientists in history, with
only a few disgruntled and jealous sad assholes like you to try to shit on
his parade.
> 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.
Doesn't it just rile you up to know a jew is so celebrated?
>
> On top of that, a black hole predicted by the Schwarzschild metric can
> only form in an observer?s very infinite future.
But effectively forms in a few microseconds. There is such a thing as "close
enough".
> 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>
How unfortunate for you that observation tells us otherwise, hum?
>
> 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.
I'm surprised someone with such a strong ego can stand to have his greatness
attributed to a pseudonym. Will you ever come out from under the pseudonym,
or are you happy enough to insult people from your little internet cave?
BURT
The curved metric is curved direction in a curved coordinate system
Juan R.
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...
Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not even
when written in relaxed form!
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.
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.
Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
glird
[a lot of good stuff snipped}
>
>Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the >liar
Einstein wasn't a nitwit or a liar. he was a class 3 worker in a
Swiss office, waiting to get into college, when he wrote his 190 STR
paper. Although he copied some of Lorentz's equations amd tried to
derive the Lorentz transformations he copied from Poincare's; thus was
a plagiarist in that sense, he was not a liar. indeed, although he
didn't understand the meanings of his own 1805 equations, he DID write
a 3 part paper in 1907 that does explain the underlyign physics and
sets the stage for his eventual arrival
at the ricci-tcci-tavi math of his general theory.
So, mr kubee woopsi, if you want to stay sensible instead of off
your rocker, stop insertign your favorite phrase, "Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar", into what might otherwise be an
excellent argument.
glird
mL
> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
[...]
>> 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?
>
> 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.
Look, knobby wants to decorate a naive speculation
by hanson with his own self-styled fluff and some
fluff plagiarized from Bjerkness, the "scholar".
How unexpected!
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Directions for motion and extension are curved. Gravity is round.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
[...]
> Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not
> even when written in relaxed form!
The metric g_ij form a field ---> the equations for g_ij determine g_ij
(duh?) ---> they are field equations.
Not a tough one.
>
> 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.
Folks who understand the subject would understand the difference between a
field that is/determines (depending how you look at it) space-time and a
field on top of a predefined manifold.
>
> 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.
And yet oddly enough, the literature actually claims something more
specific. The literature claims that if you quantize linearized GR, it takes
the form of a theory with spin 2 particles mediating gravitation. Subtly
different from "GR is a theory of a spin-2 field".
[...]
BURT
Directions are elliptical with swiveling and parabolic in gravity
orbit geometry in aether.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Roberts
> 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.
> 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).
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.
> 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???
[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.
> Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
Yes, Koobee's mistakes are legion, but you added your own.
Tom Roberts
BURT
Gravity is round. It is sphere geometry curve emanating from center of
mass out into the aether.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
That is wrong.
What mistakes? It looks like pristine research and analyses to me.
<shrgu>
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
Why do you keep narrowing or changing the newsgroups? You are indeed
a coward. <shrug>
> > Black holes are predictions from the mathematics of a particular
> > solution (namely the Schwarzschild metric) to the field equations.
>
> And Kerr-Newman, and Reisser-Nordstom, and the Hawking singularity theorems,
> and every computer simulation of a collapsing dust scenario.
Same nonsense with different mathematics. <shrug> All can only exist
in an observer's infinite future. <shrug> Anyone able to employ a
coordinate system would never observe a black hole according to the
mathematics. <shrgu>
> > There are infinite such solutions.
>
> And once again we run smack dab into your inability to understand what an
> isomorphism is, or what tensor equations are. Or even the basic concept of
> the tensor, for that matter.
You have been shown how you as a college dropout cannot even
understand the basic concept in principle of invariance in which the
geometry can only be described by the very combination of the
coordinate system and the metric. The coordinate system or the metric
alone cannot describe the invariant geometry. This logical deduction
falls under elementary schools. <shrug>
The rest of nonsense is snipped not read since you have started with
all fouled up errors. <shrgu>
Don Stockbauer
> On Oct 31, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote:
>
> > 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?
hanson
On Oct 30, 3:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*:[3]
> > > 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."
>
> > 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?
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 -
>
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 with you in a few days about your take.
hanson
Koobee Wublee
> On Oct 31, 10:57 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
> 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>
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not
>> even when written in relaxed form!
>
> The metric g_ij form a field ---> the equations for g_ij determine g_ij
> (duh?) ---> they are field equations.
>
> Not a tough one.
Are not field equation in the same sense that Maxwell equations are. But
since you never studied any of them you cannot say...
>
>> 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.
>
> Folks who understand the subject would understand the difference between
> a field that is/determines (depending how you look at it) space-time and
> a field on top of a predefined manifold.
Using the same name for defining both is of no help. It generates confusions,
just below we can see one of them.
>
>> 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.
>
> And yet oddly enough, the literature actually claims something more
> specific. The literature claims that if you quantize linearized GR, it
> takes the form of a theory with spin 2 particles mediating gravitation.
> Subtly different from "GR is a theory of a spin-2 field".
The above claim is found in literature, you do not know because you are
ignorant of it.
Apart from this you add another confusion. Linearized GR does not takes the
form of a spin-2 field theory as you claim.
The undergrad pinecone confounded about GR? How unsurprinsing! :-D
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez 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
There is many crackpots in those forums who launch on commenting on stuff
they never studied :-D
>
>> 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).
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!
> 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.
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.
>> 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???
Who said that? Can you even read or are only trolling?
> [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.
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 :-D 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.
Juan R.
> On Oct 31, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez 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>
Plain wrong.
>> 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>
One never know enough, but you stop from studying time ago because you
know enough :-D
>> 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>
Sure?
>> Rest of your message contains many mistakes also.
>
> That is wrong.
Just take a look. Not wait, you cannot see them. You could in last
10 years :-D
eric gisse
[...]
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.
mL
> 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>
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
mL
> 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.
Funny fantasies, but please continue.
> 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
Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you
so scared of math that you ask characters like KW
and Raemsch for help?
> KW, hanson will be back with you in a few days about your take.
> hanson
Yeah, more entertainments.
glird
>
<|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or
contraction,of
in normal 3D space , expressed here as reciprocal
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
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
Koobee Wublee
> 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?
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 3:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 11:16 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > > Tom Davidson "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*:[3]
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
>
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
Sam Wormley
I find that amusing also!
BURT
Space is round. Gravity is round spherical geometry emerging from mass
center.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
The first now was at the beginning of time. Forever now.
Mitch Raemsch
hanson
<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.
Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
>
BahbahHandson claims that
"matter content" = "no matter content".
If that wasn't so stoopid it might be laughable...
>
... 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
hanson
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....For "mL" <mL.b...@elsewhere.xxx>
Mel Lep, it was beyond belief when he read and wrote:
> hanson:
>
> > hanson wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW
<http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh> -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G ||||
> > 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.
>
> Funny fantasies, but please continue.
>
> > 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
>
> Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you
> so scared of math that you ask characters like KW
> and Raemsch for help?
>
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
Juan R.
That is one of your problems. You believed that your idiocy would be cured
by obtaining a degree. You believed yui would buy respect. You failed in
your goal and left University this Summer being an *undergrad*.
But even if you had obtained a higher degree, this would not hide the lot
of nonsenses that you have been posting in Internet for years :_-D
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html
Juan R.
> Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:24:33 -0500:
>
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez 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
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.
(...)
Juan R.
It is much more amusing that both you and Eric sniped the part where he
'PhD' [#] affirms that he does not even know what is the "relaxed form" of
Einstein equations! :-D
And, of course, both of you sniped the link to the Living Review journal
containing the equations that neither him nor both of you know :-D
[#] i.e. the same HEP experimentalist who has said *pearls* such as his claim
that c and G are not universal constants in GR but parameters
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0295a373a580782e
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/94c04b345f963eac
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:28:02 -0800:
>
>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez 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.
>
> That is one of your problems. You believed that your idiocy would be cured
> by obtaining a degree. You believed yui would buy respect. You failed in
> your goal and left University this Summer being an *undergrad*.
>
> But even if you had obtained a higher degree, this would not hide the lot
> of nonsenses that you have been posting in Internet for years :_-D
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
>
>
I struggle to understand how this is supposed to make you look good.
eric gisse
> Sam Wormley wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:27:32 +0000:
>
>> eric gisse wrote:
>>> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez 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.
>>
>> I find that amusing also!
>
> It is much more amusing that both you and Eric sniped the part where he
> 'PhD' [#] affirms that he does not even know what is the "relaxed form" of
> Einstein equations! :-D
Which is indicative of what, exactly?
>
> And, of course, both of you sniped the link to the Living Review journal
> containing the equations that neither him nor both of you know :-D
It is perfectly clear you picked the first link off Google, but didn't even
bother to check the contents of the link.
>
> [#] i.e. the same HEP experimentalist who has said *pearls* such as his
> [#claim
> that c and G are not universal constants in GR but parameters
And your rationale for getting bitchy at a perfectly valid claim is...?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0295a373a580782e
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/94c04b345f963eac
>
>
>
mL
Why should I? It's your baby, lazybones!
> 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
A pearl for you, hanson:
Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on.
/ mel
mL
> On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey...@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>
>>
> 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>
Gosh - no need to comment.
> 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>
Me upset by your make ups and screwed opinions there? No.
How about you? Do you realize that those stinky labels
may be too sticky for you to handle (as indicated by your
reactive shruggings).
>> 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?
So, you haven't taken that first step yet. Poor background
for a judge on science matter!
>> - 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?
Got a limited repertoire Mr Koobee.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> 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?
You can't even give a literature reference, much less write a scholarly
article.
hanson
> Why should I? It's your baby, lazybones!
>
What fantasy makes you think it's MY baby?... ahahaha...
You don't know much, Mel, do you. Keep on schLeping
>
> > hanson wrote
:> > schLep, you obviously do not even understand the concept
> > so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that you
> > ahahahanson
>
> A pearl for you, hanson:
> Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on.
>
ahahaha... schLep, you phonily insinuated that you have digested
KAM. Yet the trivial expression |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| strikes
you as fantasy... ahahahaha... Mel, you don't know much, do you.
ahahahahaha... But thanks for the laughs... ahaha ahahahanson
Y.Porat
> Mel schLep "mL" <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote:
>
> > hanson skrev:
------------------
Hi Hanson !
can you give me a hand to find out
who are the anonymous crooks
''Inertial''
and '''Aleph'' ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Limited gravity. Acceleratiuon is limited to below light speed at the
extreme of the strength of gravity. Limted gravity prevents black hole
theory.
Mitch Raemsch
hanson
Yehiel "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a-
------------------
Hi Hanson !
can you give me a hand to find out
who are the anonymous crooks
''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it
is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit
out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
mL
That's right, deny all responsibility.
>>
>> > hanson wrote
> :> > schLep, you obviously do not even understand the concept
>> > so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that you >
>> are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs...
>> > ahahahanson
>>
> 4th pitiful fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote:
>> A pearl for you, hanson:
>> Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> ahahaha... schLep, you phonily insinuated that you have digested KAM.
> Yet the trivial expression |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| strikes you
> as fantasy... ahahahaha... Mel, you don't know much, do you.
> ahahahahaha... But thanks for the laughs... ahaha ahahahanson
Why not d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> f(alpha)G, where alpha is the
fine-structure constant, or some dimensionless quantity
appearing in your (still living?) aether approach?
/ mel
Y.y.Porat
> Yehiel "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a-
> ------------------
> Hi Hanson !
> can you give me a hand to find out
> who are the anonymous crooks
> ''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ??
> TIA
> Y.Porat
>
> ... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it
> is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit
> out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
Thanks Hanson
that is as well what i thought
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Inertial
news:572eefd2-e872-400c...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he keeps
hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers?
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> eric gisse wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:28:02 -0800:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That is one of your problems. You believed that your idiocy would be
>> cured by obtaining a degree. You believed yui would buy respect. You
>> failed in your goal and left University this Summer being an
>> *undergrad*.
>>
>> But even if you had obtained a higher degree, this would not hide the
>> lot of nonsenses that you have been posting in Internet for years :_-D
>>
>> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
> ii.html
>>
>>
>>
> I struggle to understand how this is supposed to make you look good.
Did you forget that you give permission (up to in three occassions)
for the above? What is your problem now?
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
>> Sam Wormley wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:27:32 +0000:
>>
>>> eric gisse wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I find that amusing also!
>>
>> It is much more amusing that both you and Eric sniped the part where he
>> 'PhD' [#] affirms that he does not even know what is the "relaxed form"
>> of Einstein equations! :-D
>
> Which is indicative of what, exactly?
Imagine that!
>> And, of course, both of you sniped the link to the Living Review
>> journal containing the equations that neither him nor both of you know
>> :-D
>
> It is perfectly clear you picked the first link off Google, but didn't
> even bother to check the contents of the link.
It is perfectly clear you did learn something new :-D
>
>> [#] i.e. the same HEP experimentalist who has said *pearls* such as his
>> [#claim
>> that c and G are not universal constants in GR but parameters
>
> And your rationale for getting bitchy at a perfectly valid claim is...?
Are you kidding? "Rationale" to an undergrad pinecone? :_-D
Sam Wormley
Mike is a PhD physicist that doesn't suffer fools gladly.
It is a lot of fun when Mike pops in to visit the newsgroup
now and then!
Sam Wormley
> Inertial wrote:
>>
>> Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he
>> keeps hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers?
>>
>>
>
> Mike is a PhD physicist that doesn't suffer fools gladly.
> It is a lot of fun when Mike pops in to visit the newsgroup
> now and then!
>
Maybe, just maybe, Mike is here now!
BURT
Black holes don't happen in the aether. We are seeing the extreme but
not them at all.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
electrons do circle in the round atomic shells. But not all of the
time. Only durring magnetic alighnment.
Brownian motions of electrons in the shells is what they return to.
Momentum as they collide in the shell.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.y.Porat
> Inertial wrote:
> > "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------------
Hi orchestra conductor miserable parrot:
TELL ME WHO ARE YOUR HEROES
AND I WILL TELL YOU **WHO ARE YOU !!**
btw
you have some greetings from your
Higgs Bosons
Y.P
-----------------------
Y.y.Porat
----------------
and his new name is
Alpha
9though he is not intelligent enough to know
what is the origin of that name he chose for himself
that fucken PHd of yours
never talks physics !! only personal abuse
2
he as well as you
has some greetings from your
Higges Bosons
and you dont deserve more than that !!
Y.P
---------------------------------
Aleph
bc15-19e...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Y.y.Porat sat down and
wrote:
> Hi orchestra conductor miserable parrot:
>
> TELL ME WHO ARE YOUR HEROES
> AND I WILL TELL YOU **WHO ARE YOU !!**
They certainly dont include you.
> btw
> you have some greetings from your
> Higgs Bosons
Wow, was this an attempt at a joke? Bravo.
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored.
Aleph
a1b9-04f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Y.y.Porat sat down and
wrote:
> On Nov 3, 9:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> > Inertial wrote:
>>
>> >> Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he
>> >> keeps hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers?
>>
>> > Mike is a PhD physicist that doesn't suffer fools gladly.
>> > It is a lot of fun when Mike pops in to visit the newsgroup
>> > now and then!
>>
>> Maybe, just maybe, Mike is here now!
>
> ----------------
> and his new name is
> Alpha
You are quite wrong. Even if you are accusing me (Aleph) of being this Mike
Varney person.
Having said that, you are wrong so often I suspect you are no longer capable
of telling.
> 9though he is not intelligent enough to know
> what is the origin of that name he chose for himself
Ah, I fully know the origin of the name *I* chose for myself and the reason
*I* chose it.
The fact it has no meaning to you, and I have no intention of telling you my
reason, is irrelevant.
> that fucken PHd of yours
> never talks physics !! only personal abuse
*yawn*
> 2
> he as well as you
> has some greetings from your
> Higges Bosons
> and you dont deserve more than that !!
Yeah, Happy Easter right back at you.
BURT
> On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey...@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
> > > 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
> 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
>
> > 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
>
> 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?
>
>
> 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?
GR violates SR in the case of black holes. The extreme of theory
reveals the contradiction between the two.
Mitch Raemsch
Nunemica
>
> 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.
Have you read any of Stephen Crothers papers on Einstein, GR, Black
Holes and the Schwarzschild space-time metric
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html
The site is really worth looking at.
BURT
Pound Rebka revealed gravities effect on the energy of light. At the
surface of a black hole light becomes infinitely energetic. This is
taking Pound Rebka with GR to their extremes.
Mitch Raemsch
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
I think you (Aleph) are either Art Deco or T. Wake... maybe both.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Black holes are created when there is more energy\matter 'In Motion'
than there is energy\matter 'At Rest'.
In our solar system:
There is more energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the sun ) than there is energy
\matter 'In Motion' ( the planets ).
So negative gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the planets will be
inverted into matter before the star gets inverted into energy.
In a galaxy:
There is more energy\matter 'In Motion' ( the planetary systems ) than
there is energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the galactic centre ).
So positive gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the galactic centre
will be inverted into energy before the planetary systems get inverted
into matter.
Because the positive gravity of all the planetary systems 'In Motion'
on the galactic centre is so great any energy\matter in the galactic
centre gets inverted almost instantly into energy. Giving the false
image of a 'black hole'.
-Josh.
Tom Roberts
> Have you read any of Stephen Crothers papers on Einstein, GR, Black
> Holes and the Schwarzschild space-time metric
> http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html
Hmmm. I just looked at the opening paragraphs of "24. Fundamental Errors
in the General Theory of Relativity". It first four paragraphs are full
of polemic and contain numerous errors of fact. The author's approach
seems to be to take a few incorrect statements by non-experts and
consider them to be somehow representative of GR.
> The site is really worth looking at.
Not really.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat other than
Schwarzschild's original metric and the Schwarzschild metric. It does
not make Mr. Crother's solution more correct than either
Schwarzschild's original solution or the Schwarzschild metric, and
vice versa. <shrug>
You can always find a solution to the field equations to describe your
observations whatever, whenever, and wherever they were, are, and will
be. Some nitwits would call the field equations the best human
discovery since sliced cheese. True scholars of physics would call
that super abstract concept visually and vividly illustrated by the
following pictorial representation. <shrug>
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3196671424_70f7766063.jpg
eric gisse
As a comedy, yeah. Roy Kerr's response to chucklefuck's insane rants were
the absolute best parts.
As a serious resource? Are you fucking kidding?
eric gisse
[...]
>> The site is really worth looking at.
>
> Not really.
Read the correspondence between him and Roy Kerr.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
eric gisse
That's a long way of explaining that you do not understand covariance.
Koobee Wublee
> Black holes are created when there is more energy\matter 'In Motion'
> than there is energy\matter 'At Rest'.
According to one of the infinite numbers of solutions to the field
equations known as the Schwarzschild metric, a black hole can only
exit in any observer's infinite future.
For years, self-styled physicists have been taunting how an object
falling into a black hole would do so its finite lifetime. Yet, there
is no such mathematics to support so. GR is a mathematical model
describing the observed as a third person. GR is not a mathematical
model describing a first person account.
Newton was able to write down the law of gravity through observation
of a falling apple under gravitational influence. Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar failed miserably to describe
gravity by picturing himself as that falling apple. The field
equations describe the observed. GR described the observed not the
experienced.
> In our solar system:
>
> There is more energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the sun ) than there is energy
> \matter 'In Motion' ( the planets ).
<shrug>
> So negative gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the planets will be
> inverted into matter before the star gets inverted into energy.
Energy is an observed phenomenon. It is observer dependent, and it is
relative. <shrug>
> In a galaxy:
>
> There is more energy\matter 'In Motion' ( the planetary systems ) than
> there is energy\matter 'At Rest' ( the galactic centre ).
<shrug>
> So positive gravity is at its greatest. Therefore the galactic centre
> will be inverted into energy before the planetary systems get inverted
> into matter.
It does not compute. <shrug>
> Because the positive gravity of all the planetary systems 'In Motion'
> on the galactic centre is so great any energy\matter in the galactic
> centre gets inverted almost instantly into energy. Giving the false
> image of a 'black hole'.
It is impossible to see a black hole. Its existence can only be
inferred through observations. Interpretations to the observations
depend heavily on the mathematical model employed. If it is fvcked up
in the first place such as GR, the interpretations can be thoroughly
deceiving. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Hmmm... That is a very convinving way of introducing yourself as a
college dropout. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Nunemica wrote:
> > Have you read any of Stephen Crothers papers on Einstein, GR, Black
> > Holes and the Schwarzschild space-time metric
>
> > http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html
>
> > The site is really worth looking at.
>
> As a comedy, yeah.
That is totally expected. A college dropout equates what he is
absolutely incapable of understanding as comical. <shrug>
> Roy Kerr's response to chucklefuck's insane rants were
> the absolute best parts.
Roy who? Is that the one who has been spoon-feeding fermented
diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to
college dropouts?
> As a serious resource? Are you fucking kidding?
It looks like the college dropout is having another hormone imbalance
throwing a fit. <shrug>
Inertial
news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov8.7.37pm.RH...
>
> I think you (Aleph) are either Art Deco or T. Wake... maybe both.
Why would it make any difference what name he may or may not have used in
the past? Was that really worth posting about?
Aleph
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov8.7.37pm.RH>, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid sat
down and wrote:
>
> I think you (Aleph) are either Art Deco or T. Wake... maybe both.
You are wrong. For a change.
Aleph
Jeff (like most k00ks) thinks that a Sockpuppet accusation instantly proves
every crazy idea they have ever said is correct.
As in most things, Jeff is wrong.
eric gisse
*plonk*
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > That is totally expected. A college dropout equates what he is
> > absolutely incapable of understanding as comical. <shrug>
>
> > It looks like the college dropout is having another hormone imbalance
> > throwing a fit. <shrug>
>
> *plonk*
Well, go to hell.
This is indeed good news. So, I don’t have to worry about the college
dropout’s irrational ranting.
Let’s see if Gisse the college dropout, the troll, and the liar really
keeps his rotten words topped with fermented diarrhea from Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. In the meantime, there is
one fewer such virulent idiots to deal with.
Ahahaha...
PD
Yup. Pretty soon you'll be talking to yourself, which is probably just
fine by you. MPC seems to enjoy that, too. Maybe you two should talk
together.
Koobee Wublee
contemplating to join the college drop. That is just fine with me.
If you don’t know jack-$hit, I’d rather you to shut up instead of
ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have
never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394b7228?hl=en
If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
PD
> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is
> contemplating to join the college drop.
Hmmmm??
> That is just fine with me.
> If you don’t know jack-$hit, I’d rather you to shut up instead of
> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up.
>
> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have
> never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being
perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings
challenged by rational arguments so far, either.
I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up
to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong,
then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who
has let his prescription expire.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394...
>
> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on
an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control
who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what
kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog.
Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy.
PD
Inertial
news:1378473.JdtPaBVBu5@alephmachine...
> On Monday 09 November 2009 08:15, in
> <008153cb$0$26946$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Inertial sat down and wrote:
>
>> <_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> wrote in message
>> news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov8.7.37pm.RH...
>>>
>>> I think you (Aleph) are either Art Deco or T. Wake... maybe both.
>>
>> Why would it make any difference what name he may or may not have used in
>> the past? Was that really worth posting about?
>
> Jeff (like most k00ks) thinks that a Sockpuppet accusation instantly
> proves
> every crazy idea they have ever said is correct.
>
> As in most things, Jeff is wrong.
Its a game our 'friend' Porat plays as well. He's forever making
accusations that I (or you, or someone else) is actually some other poster.
I think its just part of the weird mindset of the kooks that there must be
some sinister conspiracy going on (in Porat's case to do with Goebbels and
professional gangsters who are traitors to their country, along with parrots
and other feathered creatures) that is making everyone else in the world
think they are kooky. Of course, its not a conspiracy .. its that they have
such kooky behavior is PART of WHY we know they are kooky.
Inertial
news:5666a609-3dac-42f4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is
>> contemplating to join the college drop.
>
> Hmmmm??
>
>> That is just fine with me.
>> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
>
> Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up.
>
>>
>> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have
>> never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
>
> You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being
> perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings
> challenged by rational arguments so far, either.
>
> I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up
> to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong,
> then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who
> has let his prescription expire.
>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394...
>>
>> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
>
> You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on
> an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control
> who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what
> kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog.
> Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy.
I don't know if he would. Loopy is as loopy posts.
Y.Porat
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5666a609-3dac-42f4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is
> >> contemplating to join the college drop.
>
> > Hmmmm??
>
> >> That is just fine with me.
> >> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
>
> > Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up.
>
> >> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have
> >> never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
>
> > You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being
> > perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings
> > challenged by rational arguments so far, either.
>
> > I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up
> > to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong,
> > then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who
> > has let his prescription expire.
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394...
>
> >> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
>
> > You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on
> > an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control
> > who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what
> > kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog.
> > Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy.
>
> I don't know if he would. Loopy is as loopy posts.
------------------------
Hi bump parasite Feuerbacher
---------------------------
Inertial
news:e69eeef8-d77f-4463...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 1:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5666a609-3dac-42f4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is
>> >> contemplating to join the college drop.
>>
>> > Hmmmm??
>>
>> >> That is just fine with me.
>> >> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
>>
>> > Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up.
>>
>> >> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have
>> >> never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
>>
>> > You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being
>> > perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings
>> > challenged by rational arguments so far, either.
>>
>> > I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up
>> > to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong,
>> > then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who
>> > has let his prescription expire.
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394...
>>
>> >> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
>>
>> > You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on
>> > an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control
>> > who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what
>> > kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog.
>> > Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy.
>>
>> I don't know if he would. Loopy is as loopy posts.
>
> ------------------------
> Hi bump parasite Feuerbacher
You stalking me now Porat .. and lying again as well. You have zero
credibility as you are a demonstrated liar and cheat.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e69eeef8-d77f-4463...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 1:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5666a609-3dac-42f4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is
> >> >> contemplating to join the college drop.
>
> >> > Hmmmm??
>
> >> >> That is just fine with me.
> >> >> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
>
> >> > Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up.
>
> >> >> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have
> >> >> never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
>
> >> > You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being
> >> > perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings
> >> > challenged by rational arguments so far, either.
>
> >> > I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up
> >> > to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong,
> >> > then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who
> >> > has let his prescription expire.
>
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...
>
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3f25ece8394...
>
> >> >> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
>
> >> > You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on
> >> > an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control
> >> > who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what
> >> > kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog.
> >> > Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy.
>
> >> I don't know if he would. Loopy is as loopy posts.
>
> > ------------------------
> > Hi bump parasite Feuerbacher
>
> You stalking me now Porat .. and lying again as well. You have zero
> credibility as you are a demonstrated liar and cheat.
Hi Feuerbacher!!
who is the lier ?? (:-)
Y.P
-----------------------
Koobee Wublee
> You stalking me now Porat .. and lying again as well.
I thought crybabies are expected from toddlers under 5 years of age.
<shrug> It looks like the dumb-fvck Inertial is a crybaby. <shrug>
> You have zero
> credibility as you are a demonstrated liar and cheat.
Going wishy-washy as if ([v_12] + [v_21] = 0) is a necessary condition
in the principle of relativity, Inertial has demonstrated himself as a
cheat. <shrug>
I predict the hypocrite which called itself inertial will deny his
doing while his doing is already casted in "stone" among all these
posts. Inertial is a zombie which implies brain dead, a drone which
serves the purpose of its master(s), and a zealous and ferocious
consumer of the last drops of fermented diarrhea that Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar chose to leave behind. <shrug>
BURT
Sapce contracting in the metric discussed will go to zero at the
horizon another contrdaction in the theory. There are other proofs of
its failure.
Mitch Raemsch
Aleph
> "Aleph" <Usene...@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
> news:1378473.JdtPaBVBu5@alephmachine...
>> On Monday 09 November 2009 08:15, in
>> <008153cb$0$26946$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Inertial sat down and
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> wrote in message
>>> news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov8.7.37pm.RH...
>>>>
>>>> I think you (Aleph) are either Art Deco or T. Wake... maybe both.
>>>
>>> Why would it make any difference what name he may or may not have used
>>> in
>>> the past? Was that really worth posting about?
>>
>> Jeff (like most k00ks) thinks that a Sockpuppet accusation instantly
>> proves
>> every crazy idea they have ever said is correct.
>>
>> As in most things, Jeff is wrong.
>
> Its a game our 'friend' Porat plays as well.
Sadly, they (k00ks) all do.
> He's forever making
> accusations that I (or you, or someone else) is actually some other
> poster. I think its just part of the weird mindset of the kooks that there
> must be some sinister conspiracy going on (in Porat's case to do with
> Goebbels and professional gangsters who are traitors to their country,
> along with parrots and other feathered creatures) that is making everyone
> else in the world
> think they are kooky.
I think it is the last defense of their tortured brains. They have what ever
weird idea they think is original and perfect - be it about Einstein,
gravity, or god-knows-what in relf's case - and they then try to tell the
world via the social-care system known as USENET.
When they are rightly corrected (hopefully in a comical and entertaining
manner, this is USENET after all) they get defensive. After a bit of abuse
and insult throwing they realize that EVERYONE thinks they are wrong.
Their brains can not accept the idea that they *might* be wrong, so the
alternative is that everyone else is ganging up on them. From this shaky
start, its an easy jump to assume all these people /correcting/ you are
actually the same person - especially as sane people agree about the
science.
> Of course, its not a conspiracy .. its that they
> have such kooky behavior is PART of WHY we know they are kooky.
Indeed, it truly is part of k00ksign 101 :-)