> 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>
> > 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?
GR violates SR in the case of black holes. The extreme of theory reveals the contradiction between the two.
On Oct 30, 6:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> On Oct 30, 6:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
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.
> On Nov 8, 6:23 pm, Nunemica <tinabarbarar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 6:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> 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- Hide quoted text -
> - 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'.
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.
Hmmm... Mr. Crother has discovered another solution that is also 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>
Nunemica wrote: > On Oct 30, 6:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
Koobee Wublee wrote: > Hmmm... Mr. Crother has discovered another solution that is also > 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>
On Nov 8, 7:59 pm, jdawe <mrjd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 wrote: > > Hmmm... Mr. Crother has discovered another solution that is also > > 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>
> 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.
> > 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...
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.
I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is contemplating to join the college drop. That is just fine with me. If you don’t know jack-$hit, I’d rather you to shut up instead of ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is > contemplating to join the college drop.
Hmmmm??
> That is just fine with me. > If you don’t know jack-$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.
> 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.
> 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. >> If you don’t know jack-$hit, I’d rather you to shut up instead of >> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
> Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up.
>> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have >> never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
> You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being > perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings > challenged by rational arguments so far, either.
> I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up > to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong, > then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who > has let his prescription expire.
>> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
> You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on > an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control > who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what > kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog. > Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy.
I don't know if he would. Loopy is as loopy posts.
> > On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is > >> contemplating to join the college drop.
> > Hmmmm??
> >> That is just fine with me. > >> If you don’t know jack-$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.
> >> 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 ---------------------------
>> > 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. >> >> If you don’t know jack-$hit, I’d rather you to shut up instead of >> >> ranting off like idiots which serves no useful purpose. <shrug>
>> > Oh, I'm sure you'd like everyone to shut up.
>> >> The following two great posts by the ever so humble yours truly have >> >> never been challenged with rational arguments so far.
>> > You know, there are a couple of nutjobs who spend their days being >> > perches for pigeons in the park, who've never had their rantings >> > challenged by rational arguments so far, either.
>> > I don't know where you get the notion that if someone doesn't rise up >> > to your foaming and blathering and try to convince you you're wrong, >> > then you can assume you're right. That's the hallmark of a lunatic who >> > has let his prescription expire.
>> >> If you offer no rational arguments, just shut up, OK?
>> > You've gone completely nutters there, Kooky Wobbly. You're posting on >> > an open-access newsgroup and you think you have any right to control >> > who responds to what and in what manner? If you want control over what >> > kind of responses you get, then you should consider posting to a blog. >> > Those are free too, and you'll look a little less loopy.
>> I don't know if he would. Loopy is as loopy posts.
> ------------------------ > Hi bump parasite Feuerbacher
You stalking me now Porat .. and lying again as well. You have zero credibility as you are a demonstrated liar and cheat.
> >> > On Nov 9, 3:08 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I take it that the self-proclaimed professor known as Paul Draper is > >> >> contemplating to join the college drop.
> >> > Hmmmm??
> >> >> That is just fine with me. > >> >> If you don’t know jack-$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.
> >> >> 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 ?? (:-)
|
