GR violates SR and Einstein rejected black holes

On Feb 14, 7:40 pm, BURT wrote:

Light can always escape gravity because it has no escape velocity and
doesn't slow down leaving any strength of gravity; but because matter
does while leaving gravity it always will have an escape velocity.
Propulsion changes all that; by matter accelerating outward over time
it can overcome gravity.

Black holes are manifestations of the Schwarzschild metric (described
below).

** ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – 2 U) – r^2 dO^2

Where

** U = G M / c^2 / r
** dO^2 = cos^2(latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2

The Schwarzschild metric is a solution, to the field equations, that
is static, symmetrically symmetric, asymptotically flat, degenerative
into Newtonian law of gravity under weak curvature in spacetime.
However, it is by any means the only solution that explains the
Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are infinite such
solutions. One example is the following.

** ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) – (1 + 2 U) dr^2 – r^2 dO^2 (1 + 2
U)^2

Using the same exact coordinate system described in these two
equations above, there is also a solution (also of vacuum) that
describes a flat universe and is degenerative into Newtonian law of
gravity in which the Freedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric cannot
lay claims so. Hang on to your hat. There is even a vacuum solution
(also degenerative into Newtonian low of gravity) that predicts the
accelerated expanding universe. shrug

Amazingly, there are no observed boundary conditions that allow one to
declare the validity in one over the others. The latter solution does
not manifest black holes. shrug

A conjecture that is able to allow anything possible in its
predictions should be rightfully discarded right in its infancy of
inception. However, the self-styled physicists in the past 100 years
have been hailing GR as the best thing after sliced cheese or
something. shrug

Oh, the self-styled physicists have managed to hypnotize themselves
into zealously believing that all solutions to the field equations
describe the same geometry. That should also include the Kerr, the
FLRW, the Lemaitre dust model, and the infinite others. What a joke
that has been. shrug

In reality, GR is trash. Realizing the garbage he had created,
Hilbert walked away from the pile of dung and allowed Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit in the
creation of GR. shrug

you believe that GR is sufficient
to believe in black holes?... I mean,
that may be necessary, to believe that.

GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the same time, and that
is total bull****. shrug

so, you know of a black hole in the neighborhood?...
I'd like to get a gravity assist to anywhere.

On 2/15/11 6:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the same time, and that
is total bull****.shrug



Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the
theories.

good point; even if black holes do not exist, or
dark matter, it does not alter the basic things
about relativity ... or galilean rel., either.

On Feb 15, 7:55 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/15/11 6:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the same time, and that
is total bull****.shrug

Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the
theories.

SR and GR predict just about any possible outcomes. Only dumb asses
would call that the best thing after slice cheese. shrug

So, Sam, yours truly’s offer still stands. For only $99,999, yours
truly will design a universe, with the physical laws of your
specifications, that is a valid solution to the field equations. Want
to order one right now?

"Sam Wormley" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the
same time, and that is total bull****.shrug

Sam wrote:
Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation
that contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the theories.

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.. You should worry, Sam, because professional
teacher types, like you Sam, are immediately suspect of being
VERY BAD INSTRUCTORS, who don't know the subject
matter in depth, but are merely Porat's (copy writed) parrots,
when they insist that the proof of their assertions consist of either
1) you don't understand the theories, or
2) read a text book about physics, or
3) learn physic... etc.

Sam, a good teacher faces the issue and explains it so
that any doubter, denier, and common man in the street
says, "WOW.. of course, Sam, Cool. Thanks".
I haven't heard any of that directed at you, Sam.
Give it a try, Sam.. and in advance... Thanks for the
laughs.... ahahaha... ahahahanson

On 15/02/2011 23:05, rasterspace wrote:
you believe that GR is sufficient
to believe in black holes?... I mean,
that may be necessary, to believe that.

It is sufficient but it is not strictly necessary.

Laplace considered the possibility of a dark star so massive than
nothing not even light could escape its gravity using purely classical
physics. Namely using the escape velocity of a massive sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-...ce#Black_holes

The less well known geologist John Michell also pointed out this
possibility in a letter to Cavendish a decade or so earlier. But he was
out of luck since the letter was then lost of a couple of centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mi...avity_on_light

Both were well ahead of their time with this conjecture.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Feb 16, 4:06*am, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote:

* * * * * * Koobee Wublee wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:

GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the
same time, and that is total bull****.shrug

Sam wrote:

Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation
that contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the theories.

hanson wrote:

... ahahahaha.. You should worry, Sam, because professional
teacher types, like you Sam, are immediately suspect of being
VERY BAD INSTRUCTORS, who don't know the subject
matter in depth, but are merely Porat's (copy writed) parrots,
when they insist that the proof of their assertions consist of either
1) you don't understand the theories, or
2) read a text book about physics, or
3) learn physic... etc.

Sam, a good teacher faces the issue and explains it so
that any doubter, denier, and common man in the street
says, "WOW.. of course, Sam, Cool. Thanks".
I haven't heard any of that directed at you, Sam.
Give it a try, Sam.. and in advance... Thanks for the
laughs.... ahahaha... ahahahanson

And anyone can become President if they just try hard enough
and believe. The corrolary, of course, is that if you do not
succeed, it is because you didn't try hard enough or didn't
believe.

It seems to be the case that the myth that there is a teacher
so good that no amount of ignorance can withstand his or
her presence is put to the test in the face of the amount
of ignorance demonstrated here.

Congratulations. Your ignorance surpasses Sam's teaching
skill. Not all of us are so fortunate.