Black Holes Do Not Exist! Nightbat Net Resolution Explained It First

Double-A wrote:
June R Harton wrote:
"nightbat" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I am misunderstanding anything.

You all get caught up with the speed of light and the time it takes
one to observe an event! That is of no consequence to the overall
situation. My reference to the speed of light is solely that if it is
constant in all frames of reference the influence of THAT fact does
NOT mean "slowing down of time" in moving systems (dependent
on the speed). It means a slowing down of CHANGE in the various
speeding system....varying with the speed.

The continuity is the continuity of the universe in a now continuity.


Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

But to say that time itself slows down sounds more mysterious and sells
more books! But then again, for a person on a moving frame of
reference, it might be impossible for him to determine any difference
between a slowing down of all processes of change, and an actual
slowing down of his time. Of course, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference, then
you would prove your point and falsify SR.

Double-A
[ clipped to alt.astronomy ]

Oh.

you might just have falsified SR, Double-A

maybe you have won a cupie doll ?

What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather ...
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one puts
it. Right ?

RL.

Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
June R Harton wrote:
"nightbat" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I am misunderstanding anything.

You all get caught up with the speed of light and the time it takes
one to observe an event! That is of no consequence to the overall
situation. My reference to the speed of light is solely that if it is
constant in all frames of reference the influence of THAT fact does
NOT mean "slowing down of time" in moving systems (dependent
on the speed). It means a slowing down of CHANGE in the various
speeding system....varying with the speed.

The continuity is the continuity of the universe in a now continuity.


Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

But to say that time itself slows down sounds more mysterious and sells
more books! But then again, for a person on a moving frame of
reference, it might be impossible for him to determine any difference
between a slowing down of all processes of change, and an actual
slowing down of his time. Of course, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference, then
you would prove your point and falsify SR.

Double-A
[ clipped to alt.astronomy ]

Oh.

you might just have falsified SR, Double-A

maybe you have won a cupie doll ?


Hi Loon,

I said, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference,
then you could falsify SR.

She couldn't point one out, by she chooses to look at things a
different way, which I can at least understand.

My suggestion would be to look at something not related to
electromagnetism, such as the behavior of neutrinos in a moving frame.
No guarantees. But if I'm right, you can reserve that cupie doll for
me.


What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather ...
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one puts
it. Right ?

RL.


Some say that the question you ask affects the answer you will get.

Double-A

What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather ...
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one puts
it. Right ?

RL.

Raving,
I belived that's called
ART.

Twittering One wrote:
What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather ...
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one puts
it. Right ?

RL.

Raving,
I belived that's called
ART.

Oh

That seems to explain something ...

I have always viewed; as in *hoped*; as in ' assumed ' ~~~ ART &
SCIENCE were equivalent.

i wonder why ?

RL

Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
June R Harton wrote:
"nightbat" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I am misunderstanding anything.

You all get caught up with the speed of light and the time it takes
one to observe an event! That is of no consequence to the overall
situation. My reference to the speed of light is solely that if it is
constant in all frames of reference the influence of THAT fact does
NOT mean "slowing down of time" in moving systems (dependent
on the speed). It means a slowing down of CHANGE in the various
speeding system....varying with the speed.

The continuity is the continuity of the universe in a now continuity.


Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

But to say that time itself slows down sounds more mysterious and sells
more books! But then again, for a person on a moving frame of
reference, it might be impossible for him to determine any difference
between a slowing down of all processes of change, and an actual
slowing down of his time. Of course, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference, then
you would prove your point and falsify SR.

Double-A
[ clipped to alt.astronomy ]

Oh.

you might just have falsified SR, Double-A

maybe you have won a cupie doll ?


Hi Loon,

I said, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference,
then you could falsify SR.

She couldn't point one out, by she chooses to look at things a
different way, which I can at least understand.

My suggestion would be to look at something not related to
electromagnetism, such as the behavior of neutrinos in a moving frame.
No guarantees. But if I'm right, you can reserve that cupie doll for
me.


What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather ...
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one puts
it. Right ?

RL.


Some say that the question you ask affects the answer you will get.

Double-A

Hi Double-A,

It's reassuring to see that you have a 1st class, 2nd order mind.
Obviously, there is nothing whatsoever which is first rate about it.

Your cupie doll is reserved.



RL

Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
June R Harton wrote:
"nightbat" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I am misunderstanding anything.

You all get caught up with the speed of light and the time it tak=
es
one to observe an event! That is of no consequence to the overall
situation. My reference to the speed of light is solely that if i=
t is
constant in all frames of reference the influence of THAT fact do=
es
NOT mean "slowing down of time" in moving systems (dependent
on the speed). It means a slowing down of CHANGE in the various
speeding system....varying with the speed.

The continuity is the continuity of the universe in a now continu=
ity.


Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

But to say that time itself slows down sounds more mysterious and s=
ells
more books! But then again, for a person on a moving frame of
reference, it might be impossible for him to determine any differen=
ce
between a slowing down of all processes of change, and an actual
slowing down of his time. Of course, if you could point to any pro=
cess
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference, th=
en
you would prove your point and falsify SR.

Double-A
[ clipped to alt.astronomy ]

Oh.

you might just have falsified SR, Double-A

maybe you have won a cupie doll ?


Hi Loon,

I said, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference,
then you could falsify SR.

She couldn't point one out, by she chooses to look at things a
different way, which I can at least understand.

My suggestion would be to look at something not related to
electromagnetism, such as the behavior of neutrinos in a moving frame.
No guarantees. But if I'm right, you can reserve that cupie doll for
me.


What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather ...
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one puts
it. Right ?

RL.


Some say that the question you ask affects the answer you will get.

Double-A

Hi Double-A,

It's reassuring to see that you have a 1st class, 2nd order mind.
Obviously, there is nothing whatsoever which is first rate about it.

Your cupie doll is reserved.



RL

Double-A,
a 2nd order mind is nonlinear and far more efficient than a linear
1st order mind.

In general, it would seem to me that higher numbers for orders, rates,
and classes refer to increasing potency via nonlinear amplification.

A first rate, first class, first order mind is a very linear sort of
thing. It is an insult!

I appologize if you have taken offense to what I have written. It was
not my intent.

---

"Zeroth-order reactions are often seen for thermal chemical
decompositions where the reaction rate is independent of the
concentration of the reactant (changing the concentration has no effect
on the speed of the reaction):

A =E2=86=92 B
Rate =3D k[A]0 =3D k

First-order reactions with respect to all reactands are often seen for
simple bi-molecular reactions where the reaction rate is directly
proportional to the concentration of each reactant (doubling the
concentration of one reactant speeds up the reaction by a factor of
two):

A + B =E2=86=92 C
Rate =3D k[A]1[b]1 =3D k[A][b]

Second-order reaction with respect to B (doubling the concentration of
B speeds up the reaction by a factor of four):

A + 2B =E2=86=92 C
Rate =3D k[A]1[b]2 =3D k[A][b]2 "=20

See http://tinyurl.com/btg57

Raving Loonie wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
June R Harton wrote:
"nightbat" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I am misunderstanding anything.

You all get caught up with the speed of light and the time it t=
akes
one to observe an event! That is of no consequence to the overa=
ll
situation. My reference to the speed of light is solely that if=
it is
constant in all frames of reference the influence of THAT fact =
does
NOT mean "slowing down of time" in moving systems (dependent
on the speed). It means a slowing down of CHANGE in the various
speeding system....varying with the speed.

The continuity is the continuity of the universe in a now conti=
nuity.


Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

But to say that time itself slows down sounds more mysterious and=
sells
more books! But then again, for a person on a moving frame of
reference, it might be impossible for him to determine any differ=
ence
between a slowing down of all processes of change, and an actual
slowing down of his time. Of course, if you could point to any p=
rocess
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference, =
then
you would prove your point and falsify SR.

Double-A
[ clipped to alt.astronomy ]

Oh.

you might just have falsified SR, Double-A

maybe you have won a cupie doll ?


Hi Loon,

I said, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference,
then you could falsify SR.

She couldn't point one out, by she chooses to look at things a
different way, which I can at least understand.

My suggestion would be to look at something not related to
electromagnetism, such as the behavior of neutrinos in a moving frame.
No guarantees. But if I'm right, you can reserve that cupie doll for
me.


What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather .=
..=2E
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one pu=
ts
it. Right ?

RL.


Some say that the question you ask affects the answer you will get.

Double-A

Hi Double-A,

It's reassuring to see that you have a 1st class, 2nd order mind.
Obviously, there is nothing whatsoever which is first rate about it.

Your cupie doll is reserved.



RL

Double-A,
a 2nd order mind is nonlinear and far more efficient than a linear
1st order mind.

In general, it would seem to me that higher numbers for orders, rates,
and classes refer to increasing potency via nonlinear amplification.

A first rate, first class, first order mind is a very linear sort of
thing. It is an insult!

I appologize if you have taken offense to what I have written. It was
not my intent.

---

"Zeroth-order reactions are often seen for thermal chemical
decompositions where the reaction rate is independent of the
concentration of the reactant (changing the concentration has no effect
on the speed of the reaction):

A =E2=86=92 B
Rate =3D k[A]0 =3D k

First-order reactions with respect to all reactands are often seen for
simple bi-molecular reactions where the reaction rate is directly
proportional to the concentration of each reactant (doubling the
concentration of one reactant speeds up the reaction by a factor of
two):

A + B =E2=86=92 C
Rate =3D k[A]1[b]1 =3D k[A][b]

Second-order reaction with respect to B (doubling the concentration of
B speeds up the reaction by a factor of four):

A + 2B =E2=86=92 C
Rate =3D k[A]1[b]2 =3D k[A][b]2 "

See http://tinyurl.com/btg57


It's amazing how I have been some pretty good decisions when there was
no time to think about it. Sometimes I called this "thinking outside
of time". Perhaps it was my "2nd order mind" kicking in.

However, it seems that that mind only fully awakens when some desperate
situation causes it to get the shot of adrenaline it needs. Otherwise
I go through most of my life thinking way too linearly and logically
and inefficiently.

Then there is what I sometimes have sometimes thought of as "thinking
at right angles". Perhaps that is what you are referring to here. It
is an idea that comes into the mind that is not in line with the
logical sequence of thinking. It is something like what people in
science call "the hunch". As inexplicable as it is, the hunch is
recognized as a valuable part of the scientific process. Perhaps it is
when our angel (or devil) whispers in our ear! Or others might say, it
is when we make a connection with the universal mind!

Double-A

Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
June R Harton wrote:
"nightbat" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I am misunderstanding anything.

You all get caught up with the speed of light and the time it=
takes
one to observe an event! That is of no consequence to the ove=
rall
situation. My reference to the speed of light is solely that =
if it is
constant in all frames of reference the influence of THAT fac=
t does
NOT mean "slowing down of time" in moving systems (dependent
on the speed). It means a slowing down of CHANGE in the vario=
us
speeding system....varying with the speed.

The continuity is the continuity of the universe in a now con=
tinuity.


Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

But to say that time itself slows down sounds more mysterious a=
nd sells
more books! But then again, for a person on a moving frame of
reference, it might be impossible for him to determine any diff=
erence
between a slowing down of all processes of change, and an actual
slowing down of his time. Of course, if you could point to any=
process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference=
, then
you would prove your point and falsify SR.

Double-A
[ clipped to alt.astronomy ]

Oh.

you might just have falsified SR, Double-A

maybe you have won a cupie doll ?


Hi Loon,

I said, if you could point to any process
of change that doesn't slow down in a moving frame of reference,
then you could falsify SR.

She couldn't point one out, by she chooses to look at things a
different way, which I can at least understand.

My suggestion would be to look at something not related to
electromagnetism, such as the behavior of neutrinos in a moving fra=
me.
No guarantees. But if I'm right, you can reserve that cupie doll f=
or
me.


What is my game ?
To boldy go where every bona fide physicist fears to tread.
... to travel to the land of the poorly defined, ... or rather=
=2E..
'undefinable problem'.

Does such a creature exist outside the universe of crankdom ?

It's an 'undefinable problem' ... being contingent upon how one =
puts
it. Right ?

RL.


Some say that the question you ask affects the answer you will get.

Double-A

Hi Double-A,

It's reassuring to see that you have a 1st class, 2nd order mind.
Obviously, there is nothing whatsoever which is first rate about it.

Your cupie doll is reserved.



RL

Double-A,
a 2nd order mind is nonlinear and far more efficient than a linear
1st order mind.

In general, it would seem to me that higher numbers for orders, rates,
and classes refer to increasing potency via nonlinear amplification.

A first rate, first class, first order mind is a very linear sort of
thing. It is an insult!

I appologize if you have taken offense to what I have written. It was
not my intent.

---

"Zeroth-order reactions are often seen for thermal chemical
decompositions where the reaction rate is independent of the
concentration of the reactant (changing the concentration has no effect
on the speed of the reaction):

A =E2=86=92 B
Rate =3D k[A]0 =3D k

First-order reactions with respect to all reactands are often seen for
simple bi-molecular reactions where the reaction rate is directly
proportional to the concentration of each reactant (doubling the
concentration of one reactant speeds up the reaction by a factor of
two):

A + B =E2=86=92 C
Rate =3D k[A]1[b]1 =3D k[A][b]

Second-order reaction with respect to B (doubling the concentration of
B speeds up the reaction by a factor of four):

A + 2B =E2=86=92 C
Rate =3D k[A]1[b]2 =3D k[A][b]2 "

See http://tinyurl.com/btg57


It's amazing how I have been some pretty good decisions when there was
no time to think about it. Sometimes I called this "thinking outside
of time". Perhaps it was my "2nd order mind" kicking in.

However, it seems that that mind only fully awakens when some desperate
situation causes it to get the shot of adrenaline it needs. Otherwise
I go through most of my life thinking way too linearly and logically
and inefficiently.

Then there is what I sometimes have sometimes thought of as "thinking
at right angles". Perhaps that is what you are referring to here. It
is an idea that comes into the mind that is not in line with the
logical sequence of thinking. It is something like what people in
science call "the hunch". As inexplicable as it is, the hunch is
recognized as a valuable part of the scientific process. Perhaps it is
when our angel (or devil) whispers in our ear! Or others might say, it
is when we make a connection with the universal mind!

Double-A

When I attempt to respond to you herein, I find myself becoming
tongue-tied. It is quite clear to me why this happens. Someday soon, I
hope to be able to work around such a predicament.

I like the way that you describe your 2nd order thought process, It
would be what Twittering refers to as 'Art'.

If I am a bit unusual, it is perhaps because I consider art & science
to be the same. I cannot find peace as either an artist or a
scientist. I see art as converged objectivity operating in a
distributed, fragmentary environment. ... fractal like yet not
'fractal' as such is precisely defined.

I am tangibly aware of many explicit considerations involving ' that '
to which you are refering. There are many impediments to making it
clearly and easily expressible. The lack of linguistic constructs and
terminology is only part of the impediment. The paradigm in which to
lay out descriptions is also absent.

Most of all, there are certain perceptual impediments which are
exceedingly difficult to overcome.

In the main I have surmounted these hurdles. I am ready to start
building descriptions.

I hope that what I have written doesn't come across as being too
arrogant. I don't intend for it to be so.

Sincerely,

Looney

Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
June R Harton wrote:
"nightbat" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I am misunderstanding anything.


It's amazing how I have been some pretty good decisions when there was
no time to think about it. Sometimes I called this "thinking outside
of time". Perhaps it was my "2nd order mind" kicking in.

However, it seems that that mind only fully awakens when some desperate
situation causes it to get the shot of adrenaline it needs. Otherwise
I go through most of my life thinking way too linearly and logically
and inefficiently.

Then there is what I sometimes have sometimes thought of as "thinking
at right angles". Perhaps that is what you are referring to here. It
is an idea that comes into the mind that is not in line with the
logical sequence of thinking. It is something like what people in
science call "the hunch". As inexplicable as it is, the hunch is
recognized as a valuable part of the scientific process. Perhaps it is
when our angel (or devil) whispers in our ear! Or others might say, it
is when we make a connection with the universal mind!

Double-A

Your strong and confident assertions about black holes and relativity
surprise me. I assume that they are controversial in the world of
physics. Yet you clearly know your stuff and demonstate your
reassurance with regard to your own opinion. ... Coming at the topics
of black holes and relativity from a different direction, I inherently
sense something akin to what you are asserting.

You are saying something surprising and I am curiously re-assured by
it.

That 'cupie doll' is reserved and waiting Double-A.

Soon, I may be able to provide you with a consideration that may help
you further your own efforts.

In short, physicists have got their proverbial ' head 'stuck
astonishingly far up their proverbial individual & collective
posteriors. ... and are confused by the pitch black darkness, therein.

Certain things which are very intensive and extensive are being taken
for granted in all of this.

... very simple stuff. ... so simple that it has become as
neutrally transparent as it can get. Physicists are strutting around
stark raving naked and are oblivious to it. The ultimate in an
'Emperor's new clothes scenario.

Now what only remains is the following ...

Just, exactly ' what ' is everyone taking so deeply and intensely
ingrained " for granted " ?

... and 'presupposing' that a person could perceive such then what
does it mean ?

RL

Raving Loonie wrote:
Double-A wrote:
[snip]

It's amazing how I have been some pretty good decisions when there was
no time to think about it. Sometimes I called this "thinking outside
of time". Perhaps it was my "2nd order mind" kicking in.

However, it seems that that mind only fully awakens when some desperate
situation causes it to get the shot of adrenaline it needs. Otherwise
I go through most of my life thinking way too linearly and logically
and inefficiently.

Then there is what I sometimes have sometimes thought of as "thinking
at right angles". Perhaps that is what you are referring to here. It
is an idea that comes into the mind that is not in line with the
logical sequence of thinking. It is something like what people in
science call "the hunch". As inexplicable as it is, the hunch is
recognized as a valuable part of the scientific process. Perhaps it is
when our angel (or devil) whispers in our ear! Or others might say, it
is when we make a connection with the universal mind!

Double-A

When I attempt to respond to you herein, I find myself becoming
tongue-tied. It is quite clear to me why this happens. Someday soon, I
hope to be able to work around such a predicament.

I like the way that you describe your 2nd order thought process, It
would be what Twittering refers to as 'Art'.

If I am a bit unusual, it is perhaps because I consider art & science
to be the same. I cannot find peace as either an artist or a
scientist. I see art as converged objectivity operating in a
distributed, fragmentary environment. ... fractal like yet not
'fractal' as such is precisely defined.


Hi Loonie,

Art and poetry require inspiration, just as science requires inspired
hunches. I almost mentioned poetry because when trying to write a
poem, either you have inspiration or you don't. If you don't, you can
think about it all day, and still any poem you write will be junk.
Thus all the traditional invocations of the muses, and such.

A long time ago I wrote:

"All the sciences and art
Are song expressions of the heart."


I am tangibly aware of many explicit considerations involving ' that '
to which you are refering. There are many impediments to making it
clearly and easily expressible. The lack of linguistic constructs and
terminology is only part of the impediment. The paradigm in which to
lay out descriptions is also absent.

Most of all, there are certain perceptual impediments which are
exceedingly difficult to overcome.

In the main I have surmounted these hurdles. I am ready to start
building descriptions.

I hope that what I have written doesn't come across as being too
arrogant. I don't intend for it to be so.

Sincerely,

Looney


One must be inspired to learn as well. Understanding comes easily when
one has a love for what one is learning. Otherwise things can be
incomprehensible.

Double-A