A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
m...

So, exploring deeper in this subject of black holes, it is a common
belief that a black hole would be affected by the curvature of spacetime
created by another black hole.

Hmmm. Curvature is nonlinear, and does not superimpose as you implicitly
assume in making this statement. But yes, a manifold with 2 black holes
will behave quite differently from a manifold with only one.

Yes, this you have been telling me. Even if the system is not linear, the
end result should be two black holes each with its own event horizon. And
since each black hole is physically located insid its event horizon,
theoretically (or mathematically) it does not allow a black hole to affect
gravitational on the other. Mathematically, it blows up at the event
horizon unless you can show me a spacetime equation describing the system
with two black holes where there is no event horizon.

This is a general property of differential equations. In
classical electrodynamics the field at point P is _not_
"generated" by charges over there, the field at point P
is determined by fields a short distance away a short time
ago.

Could you show me mathematically what you mean here?

Gravitational waves don't need to "escape" from either black hole, beause
they are not "generated" inside the black hole(s), they are properties of
the manifold everywhere/everywhen. The Einstein field equation is a
differential equation, and the curvature here and now is determined by the
curvature in a small region surrounding "here" a short time ago.

In the meantime, I have trouble grasping how curvature of spacetime can
radiate gravitational wave. Black holes are brainchilds of a theory that
banishes the Aether. As Aether deniers, you (not you personally but as
plural) introduce the concept of the Aether to explain gravitational wave.
Excluding quantum effect, space is very empty without the Aether. This
empty space capable of generating gravitational waves just does not hold up.

Traveler:
In article , Tom
Roberts wrote:

No. Not even close. A white hole is a time-reversed black hole. It is an
object that ejects matter, and it is impossible for a timelike object to
enter one.

In the space of less than a hundred years, physics has turned into a
chicken feather voodoo religion.

It must be a pretty good chicken feather voodoo religion, since
in that same 100 yeras, that science has been employed to advance
technology more than in all of history before that. I'd suggest
investing in some of those voodoo chickens.

Traveler:

Physics should be about explaining the fundamental mechanisms behind
the phenomena that we observe.

It does, only apparently not so that you can understand any of it.
Your best bet is to stick to less technical subjects. You don't seem
to have enough interest or patience to deal with anything that can't
be stated completely in one sound bite.

nightbat wrote

Traveler wrote:

In article , The Ghost In
The Machine wrote:

Current physics. We are (presumably) discussing
SavainPhysics, a modified form of the standard physics
where such questions can in fact be answered, and indeed
must be in order to satisfy its prime directive.

Knowing the why of things would improve our understanding by many,
many orders of magnitude.

I'll admit current physics is useful -- to a point.
It won't satisfy Louis.

Indeed. But it is mostly surface engineering. But I'll admit that QM
does answer some why questions. Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, by
contrast, are clueless as to the why of things. If we truly understood
why particles move, for example, it would revolutionize science. Right
now, all we have is a superstitious belief that they move for no
reason at all, as if by magic.

Personally, I'm happy with the "the Universe just is; we
should be able to model it if it cooperates" theory. :-)
But it doesn't explain why, either.

The problem with an observer-centric physics is that we can only model
what we can observe. If we had a causal understanding of physical
phenomena, we would be gods and goddesses, the overlords of the Milky
Way and galaxies beyond. Why? Because we would design new technologies
that nobody thought were possible.

Louis Savain

nightbat

Working applied models are always better and the person in which
deduces a unified working Universe model will be placed on the level of
an authority no less. Are they here on these science newsgroups already,
is the gifted one amongst us, who knows, just watch who the Darla net
far advanced Star Folks zero in on and that should or might give you a
clue. Is Uncle Al the one, or perhaps is Louis Savain in the running? Is
it FTL Greysky, Bill Sheppard, Random Dart Bert, Chief Engineer
Double-A, or our poetess Twitty? Maybe Ray, OG, Jonathan Silverlight,
Bilge, Charles Bohne, Painius, Luigi, Ralph, Spaceman, Y.Porat, Sam
Wormley, hanson, c, The Ghost In The Machine, Old Man,
FrediFizzx, Henri Wilson, Maleki, Gregory L. Hansen, Dan Bloomquist,
John Sefton, habshi, Jeff Relf, John Bailo, Archimedus Plutonium, Bjoern
Feuerbacher, Robert Clark, George Dishman, Ken S. Tucker, Kenseto, Jack
Martinelli, Mark Fergerson, Robert Kolker, Edward Green, Dirk Van de
moortel, TomGee, Randy Poe, Odysseus, or ha, ha, new comer buzzing Bee?


ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

Traveler wrote:

In article , The Ghost
In
The Machine wrote:

Current physics. We are (presumably) discussing
SavainPhysics, a modified form of the standard physics
where such questions can in fact be answered, and indeed
must be in order to satisfy its prime directive.

Knowing the why of things would improve our understanding by many,
many orders of magnitude.

I'll admit current physics is useful -- to a point.
It won't satisfy Louis.

Indeed. But it is mostly surface engineering. But I'll admit that
QM
does answer some why questions. Newtonian and Einsteinian physics,
by
contrast, are clueless as to the why of things. If we truly
understood
why particles move, for example, it would revolutionize science.
Right
now, all we have is a superstitious belief that they move for no
reason at all, as if by magic.

Personally, I'm happy with the "the Universe just is; we
should be able to model it if it cooperates" theory. :-)
But it doesn't explain why, either.

The problem with an observer-centric physics is that we can only
model
what we can observe. If we had a causal understanding of physical
phenomena, we would be gods and goddesses, the overlords of the
Milky
Way and galaxies beyond. Why? Because we would design new
technologies
that nobody thought were possible.

Louis Savain

nightbat

Working applied models are always better and the person in
which
deduces a unified working Universe model will be placed on the level
of
an authority no less. Are they here on these science newsgroups
already,
is the gifted one amongst us, who knows, just watch who the Darla net
far advanced Star Folks zero in on and that should or might give you
a
clue. Is Uncle Al the one, or perhaps is Louis Savain in the running?
Is
it FTL Greysky, Bill Sheppard, Random Dart Bert, Chief Engineer
Double-A, or our poetess Twitty? Maybe Ray, OG, Jonathan Silverlight,
Bilge, Charles Bohne, Painius, Luigi, Ralph, Spaceman, Y.Porat, Sam
Wormley, hanson, c, The Ghost In The Machine, Old
Man,
FrediFizzx, Henri Wilson, Maleki, Gregory L. Hansen, Dan Bloomquist,
John Sefton, habshi, Jeff Relf, John Bailo, Archimedus Plutonium,
Bjoern
Feuerbacher, Robert Clark, George Dishman, Ken S. Tucker, Kenseto,
Jack
Martinelli, Mark Fergerson, Robert Kolker, Edward Green, Dirk Van de
moortel, TomGee, Randy Poe, Odysseus, or ha, ha, new comer buzzing
Bee?


ponder on,
the nightbat


Is this a cattle call, nightbat?

Double-A

Hi traveler White h0les would be easy to detect,and that begs the
question Where are they? Our moon is our strongest gravity object it
moves the Earth's water. How come we can't detect its gravity waves.
When we jump up-,and gravity pulls us back to the Earth's surface we
don't detect the Earth's gravity waves.etc. Newton had
gravity"s force as instantaneous. Einstien gave it light speed. I claim
it does not have to move because it is already there. Gravity is
intrinsic to space with or without energy of a universe. White hole's
are said to be the black holes opposite twin Reality is there are no
"white holes" shinning out there,and there is a very good reason why.
Bert

Hi nightbat I have no doubt in my mind Darla would pick me.In a message
you all read she claimed I was a very 'special' specimen,and 'unique'
I like that Bert

In article ,
(Bilge) wrote:

Traveler:

Physics should be about explaining the fundamental mechanisms behind
the phenomena that we observe.

It does, only apparently not so that you can understand any of it.
Your best bet is to stick to less technical subjects. You don't seem
to have enough interest or patience to deal with anything that can't
be stated completely in one sound bite.

I see. Roberts must have ****ed you in the ass last night, eh Bilge?

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

In article ,
(Bilge) wrote:

Traveler:
In article , Tom
Roberts wrote:

No. Not even close. A white hole is a time-reversed black hole. It is an
object that ejects matter, and it is impossible for a timelike object to
enter one.

In the space of less than a hundred years, physics has turned into a
chicken feather voodoo religion.

It must be a pretty good chicken feather voodoo religion, since
in that same 100 yeras, that science has been employed to advance
technology more than in all of history before that.

Most of so-called physics you claim physics invented is just
engineering. There is very little physics that I can see. It's been
four centuries since Newton formulated his equations of motion and
gravity and you insufferable pompous asses in the physics community
still have no clue as to why particles move or why things fall. The
amount of progress you have made on these fundamental issues is less
than zero. Your physics is Star-Trek physics because your favorite
subjects are time travel through wormholes, parallel universes and
similar equally stupid crap.

I'd suggest investing in some of those voodoo chickens.

And I'd suggest you go **** one of your time-traveling voodoo
chickens, you ass-kissing cretin.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

Traveler:
In article ,
(Bilge) wrote:

Traveler:

Physics should be about explaining the fundamental mechanisms behind
the phenomena that we observe.

It does, only apparently not so that you can understand any of it.
Your best bet is to stick to less technical subjects. You don't seem
to have enough interest or patience to deal with anything that can't
be stated completely in one sound bite.

I see. Roberts must have ****ed you in the ass last night, eh Bilge?


You must be playing with your blow-up dolls again.