Light climbing out of an apparent black hole has a finiteredsh...

In article |j,
JeffţRelf wrote:

³ Maybe you just aren't cut out for science ? ²,
says the man who's been unemployed for the last 20+ years.

I've been working steadily for quite a while now.

Maybe you just aren't cut out for science.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.

Jeff is a "hot-shot programmer" who thinks he knows anything about
supernova, woofie! lmfjao!

He obviously doesn't being in the School of Mark Ernest! Both of them
keep spouting such STUPIDITY here.

Saul Levy


On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:22:31 -0800, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article |H,
JeffţRelf wrote:

You asked me:
³ Why do you claim to know ANYTHING about supernova ? ².

Cite please. I never said I knew what caused supernovae, I said:
³ I suspect they're just super-massive, high-speed collisions. ²

Your ³ nickel-56 ² idea is OK, but it aint no hard fact.

So. Why do you claim to know ANYTHING about supernova? What's your basis
for your "suspicion"? Why can't a supernova just happen the ways people
smarter than you say it does?

Do you know anything about this topic, BradBoi? lmfjao!

No you don't. Therefore, why did you post this nonsense?

Saul Levy


On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:12:03 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
wrote:

On Nov 12, 1:47 pm, Jeff?Relf wrote:
You asked me:
? Why do you claim to know ANYTHING about supernova ? ?.

Cite please. I never said I knew what caused supernovae, I said:
? I suspect they're just super-massive, high-speed collisions. ?

Your ? nickel-56 ? idea is OK, but it aint no hard fact.

Stellar stuff does go bump from time to time, although oversized or
dying stars also tend to explode/implode before moving on or passing
away.

~ BG

Could you say that again with fewer words, BradBoi? lmfjao!

We'd reallly like to have even less understanding of your point!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:52 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:22 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article |H,

JeffţRelf wrote:
You asked me:
³ Why do you claim to know ANYTHING about supernova ? ².

Cite please. I never said I knew what caused supernovae, I said:
³ I suspect they're just super-massive, high-speed collisions. ²

Your ³ nickel-56 ² idea is OK, but it aint no hard fact.

So. Why do you claim to know ANYTHING about supernova? What's your basis
for your "suspicion"? Why can't a supernova just happen the ways people
smarter than you say it does?

I don't believe Jeff?Relf ever entirely excluded such.

~ BG

That's obvious, Jeff! lmfjao!

Supernova are fantastic and the Ni56 results the first time I read it
were so BEAUTIFUL!

Saul Levy


On 12 Nov 2008 23:31:26 GMT, Jeff?Relf
wrote:

As you noted,
I haven't “ entirely excluded ” the “ orthodox ” supernovae explanation
? nor do I lay awake at night, thinking about it.

On Nov 12, 12:18 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"Jeff" sed :

The " graviton " notion is a giant step backwards
-- yet Painius is convinced it's avant-garde, beyond Einstein.

I suppose i could be wrong about all that money
that's being spent in the hunt for those rabid li'l
beasty gravitons (gravitational waves), e.g., LIGO
and VIRGO...

Dadburn. Hate to go picayunish again, Paine. But gravity and
'gravitational waves', although intimately related, are distinctly
different critters. "Gravitons", the putative 'transfer particles' of
gravity, are *not* gravitational waves, although the mainstream
largely blurs the distinction and usually does not 'get' the
distinction. This has been cussed and dis-cussed so many times before,
along with the following cross-posting from another forum -

On Apr 29, 1:06 pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:44 am, "Sreb" wrote:

"Will the LIGO Experiment Work?"

What does not seem to be mentioned is the fact that LIGO is only
capable of detecting longitudinal waves.

Umm.. that's incorrect. LIGO (and presumably LISA) are
configured to detect transverse/quadrupole radiation, not
longitudinal. See illustration, pg. 6 -
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~rayfrey/QNet/LIGO-2.pdf

The detector, as illustrated, is designed to detect transverse/
quadrupole waves arriving from above, but would be essentially deaf
to
longitudinal waves arriving from above. This might not rule out its
having *incidental* ability to detect longitudinal waves arriving
laterally.
I fail to understand your reasoning behind the
statement that longitudinal waves cannot be detectable in the 'far
field'. If they were generated by, say, a supernova event or by a
binary BH merger and ring-down, what is going to 'cancel'
longitudinally-polarized waves?

The following discussion was posted recently in the alt.astronomy NG:

An international team of physicists, including University of Oregon
scientists, has concluded that last February's intense burst of gamma
rays possibly coming from the Andromeda Galaxy lacked a gravitational
wave. That absence, they say, rules out an initial interpretation that
the burst came from merging neutron stars or black holes within
Andromeda.

http://theanalystmagazine.com/pr/232328.html

What *would* be interesting is if the null result were due to
erroneous belief about _polarization_ of gravitational waves. It's
assumed that GWs are of largely transverse/quadrupole polarization
(as opposed to purely londitudinal, i.e., compression-rarefaction
polarization, like a sound wave in air). Hence, the LIGO arrays are
designed to detect transverse/quadrupole radiation arriving
vertically (from above the apparatus). See illustration, pg. 6 -
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~rayfrey/QNet/LIGO-2.pdf

But 'what If' GWs are in fact of longitudinally
polarized, lacking
the expected transverse/quadrupole component? What if they are in
fact
*spatial acoustic pressure waves*, which they would be if space is a
compressible/expansible Fluid amenable to pressure/density
gradients?

If such were the case, LIGO might still be able to detect waves
arriving *laterally* (not vertically) to the apparatus.

And if such were the case, it'd be an interesting "reverse-analog"
to the original Michelson-Morleyexperimentwhich was set up to
detect a lateral flow only.

It would also be a boondoggle that'd pale to near-insignifigance the
Hubble Space Telescope primary mirror fiasco (especially if LISA goes
on to full opertional status looking for transverse-quadrupole
waves).

Around here it's mostly SOARING WITH TURKEYS! lmfjao!

With a LARGE lack of knowledge about these subjects all you get is
WORTHLESS ****!

Dream on about Nobel Prizes!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:48:00 -0800 (PST), oldcoot
wrote:

On Nov 11, 10:33*am, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" sed :

Do you not realize that at no other time in human history, we now have
a true and bona fide 'litmus test' for any theory of the _cause_ of
gravity?

Actually, the realization has been slow in coming to me,
to be truthful. *But each time we have discussed this with
mainstreamers over the years, the certified fact is that
they have no prepared arguments either...

1) *for precisely how the presently accepted model, which
includes gravitons, actually causes gravity, or

2) *against the Wolterian sidebar of flowing space as the
cause of gravity.

In all these years nobody has been able to challenge you
on this #2 issue with any kind of a strong argument. *

Their most frequent arguments are usually "Nonsense!" and
"BWAHA.....!", while the most cogent one is the 'Roach Motel' issue of
"where does the stuff go when it's injested through the atomic
nucleus?" Yet paradoxically they abide the BB model freely with no
concern over "where does the stuff 'come from' when it explodes forth
in the BB?"
Wolter's Flowing Space model came as an unsolicited
spinoff or 'sidebar' to his overarching CBB model, arrived at "from
the top down" so to speak. But to a number of people worldwide (like
Shifman, Warren, Lindner, Paxton, Martin, Huenefeld, Stefanko et al),
the `cause of gravity` was their primary, front burner issue. And each
one, working independantly "from the bottom up", deduced a FS model
whose core mechanism is *identical* to Wolter's, that is, a monopolar
"reverse starburst" inflow of the spatial medium into mass with mass
synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain). Their models differ
only superficially, but all recognize the very same core mechanism.
With multiple people independantly seeing essentially the same thing,
it's a no-brainer realization like "Doh. The Earth really is round and
revolves around the sun."

So, yes, the realization is upon me. *There is nothing in the
literature that i can find that can come close to explaining
the questions on the 'litmus test' using any existing model
that's being considered seriously by physicists.

Just think - before the discovery in recent decades of super/
hypernovae and quasars, there was no absolute example that would
challenge prevailing theories. Take any of these theories, equations,
geometry, metrics, "curvature" of 'Something that is yet Nothing',
"gravitons", and demand that it demonstrate the mechanism that
literally POWERS these stupendous gravitational phenomena. What do
these theories, these euphamisms and abstract *descriptions of
effects* offer?

Often it's -

* * * * * * * *"It just is."


More often, after some hand-waving, a mainstream
protagonist just...

* * * * * * * * * * * * D I S A P P E A R S

I have yet to see anyone who can "fill in your blank".
And it's been a lotta years, Bro.

Well, the floor's always open for some intrepid VS'er to step right up
to the plate and "fill in the blank"____________ .

"Saul Levy" wrote in message...
...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:48:00 -0800 (PST), oldcoot
wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:33 am, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" sed :

Do you not realize that at no other time in human history, we now have
a true and bona fide 'litmus test' for any theory of the _cause_ of
gravity?

Actually, the realization has been slow in coming to me,
to be truthful. But each time we have discussed this with
mainstreamers over the years, the certified fact is that
they have no prepared arguments either...

1) for precisely how the presently accepted model, which
includes gravitons, actually causes gravity, or

2) against the Wolterian sidebar of flowing space as the
cause of gravity.

In all these years nobody has been able to challenge you
on this #2 issue with any kind of a strong argument.

Their most frequent arguments are usually "Nonsense!" and
"BWAHA.....!", while the most cogent one is the 'Roach Motel' issue of
"where does the stuff go when it's injested through the atomic
nucleus?" Yet paradoxically they abide the BB model freely with no
concern over "where does the stuff 'come from' when it explodes forth
in the BB?"
Wolter's Flowing Space model came as an unsolicited
spinoff or 'sidebar' to his overarching CBB model, arrived at "from
the top down" so to speak. But to a number of people worldwide (like
Shifman, Warren, Lindner, Paxton, Martin, Huenefeld, Stefanko et al),
the `cause of gravity` was their primary, front burner issue. And each
one, working independantly "from the bottom up", deduced a FS model
whose core mechanism is *identical* to Wolter's, that is, a monopolar
"reverse starburst" inflow of the spatial medium into mass with mass
synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain). Their models differ
only superficially, but all recognize the very same core mechanism.
With multiple people independantly seeing essentially the same thing,
it's a no-brainer realization like "Doh. The Earth really is round and
revolves around the sun."

So, yes, the realization is upon me. There is nothing in the
literature that i can find that can come close to explaining
the questions on the 'litmus test' using any existing model
that's being considered seriously by physicists.

Just think - before the discovery in recent decades of super/
hypernovae and quasars, there was no absolute example that would
challenge prevailing theories. Take any of these theories, equations,
geometry, metrics, "curvature" of 'Something that is yet Nothing',
"gravitons", and demand that it demonstrate the mechanism that
literally POWERS these stupendous gravitational phenomena. What do
these theories, these euphamisms and abstract *descriptions of
effects* offer?

Often it's -

"It just is."

More often, after some hand-waving, a mainstream
protagonist just...

D I S A P P E A R S

I have yet to see anyone who can "fill in your blank".
And it's been a lotta years, Bro.

Well, the floor's always open for some intrepid VS'er to step right up
to the plate and "fill in the blank"____________ .

Around here it's mostly SOARING WITH TURKEYS! lmfjao!

With a LARGE lack of knowledge about these subjects all you get is
WORTHLESS ****!

Dream on about Nobel Prizes!

Saul Levy

To hell with prizes like that, Saul, that's what i say.

For me, the real prize is the brain-storming that can
take place here. You might see that as laughing-your-
****ing-Jewish-ass-off funny, but for me, that's the
prize. And maybe, just maybe, we get to see a little
bit clearer picture of physical reality.

I respect you Saul, for you have proven to me that
you have worked in astronomy, and you sometimes
let your knowledge and experience peek through.
So what does your soaring mind tell you about this
mysterious thing called "gravitation"?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Be ashamed to die until you have won
some victory for humanity."
Horace Mann

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

"Jeff?Relf" wrote...
in message |a...

What does your breath smell like ?

Now? Probably nail polish. That's what it tastes
like, anyway, because i just got a new upper plate,
and the sealer the dentist uses tastes just like nail
polish smells. It's supposed to "wear off" after a
few days, but it's taking longer than i would wish.

I wouldn't kiss me for a few more days if i were you.

g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Be ashamed to die until you have won
some victory for humanity."
Horace Mann

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Nov 12, 12:18 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"Jeff" sed :

The " graviton " notion is a giant step backwards
-- yet Painius is convinced it's avant-garde, beyond Einstein.

I suppose i could be wrong about all that money
that's being spent in the hunt for those rabid li'l
beasty gravitons (gravitational waves), e.g., LIGO
and VIRGO...

Dadburn. Hate to go picayunish again, Paine. But gravity and
'gravitational waves', although intimately related, are distinctly
different critters. "Gravitons", the putative 'transfer particles' of
gravity, are *not* gravitational waves, although the mainstream
largely blurs the distinction and usually does not 'get' the
distinction. This has been cussed and dis-cussed so many times before,
along with the following cross-posting from another forum -


Calm down, you ol' coot! Of course G-waves are very
different from the hypothesized transfer particles. The
point was that LIGO and VIRGO are set up to detect G-
waves, and physicists believe that such detection will
be evidence for the existence of gravitons. That's all i
meant. That and the fact that lots of money is being
spent on these projects to indirectly detect something
that you, me, and Jeff think don't exist. Yes, gravitons
are *VERY* "avant-garde", but the army's marching in
the wrong direction!

I'm sure of it!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Be ashamed to die until you have won
some victory for humanity."
Horace Mann

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net