Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Excellent List.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on November 5, 2002 13:02:42 UTC

Please see my latest respectful reply to Mike regarding professionals and their math.

I ALREADY HAVE supplied EXACT MATH in my invalidation of the Michelson Morley experiment. It is perfectly legitimate high school simple arithmetic.

How can YOU state "Relativity" and "Superluminal" in the same breath?

How can you POSSIBLY state that Black Holes are not causally connected to the rest of the universe?

They're both what I term "mathbabble", based upon what I term "Virtual Logic". It pops in and out of reality like your mathematically correct "Virtual Particles".

Einstein was a humble man. Here's what he had to say in, Relativity, The Special and the General, (Three Rivers Press): "This present book is intended as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a philosophical point of view, are interested in theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics."

According to your St. Einstein, exact descriptions can be given without recourse to math. You may be working from an expurgated version of Einstein's work.

You people are Inflated buffoons to the educated people on the street. You've slowed down to mere Expansion, but it looks like you're Re-Accelerating. If you're not careful, you'll "Expand to Dissolution" (my sarcastic expression).

What gets me, is that so many of you professionals ridicule SciFi, when you obviously get at least half of your ideas from such conjecture.

I have provided to professionals, such lists as you have to me. And they have studiously ignored every item on them. I have already addressed the important ones on your list, especially the MM Exp, which is the foundation for all the rest.

Here's a very simple one for you: What is responsible for the radial containment of a flashlight beam made of photon particles, in granular air? Note that the attributes of air DO affect the transmission of light. Please supply the math.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins