Sam⋅Wormley, the CMBR is 2.7 K today... TODAY. 

On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of.


Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

On Mar 6, 10:15*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

* * Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
* * unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
* * host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

* * Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of.

* *Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

Just like your lack of science and physics is easily defined, outside
of parrot-101.

On 3/7/13 12:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:15 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of.

Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

Just like your lack of science and physics is easily defined, outside
of parrot-101.


No, Brad, the surface gravity of a BH is

surface gravity = c^4/4GM

On Mar 6, 10:20*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Mar 6, 10:15 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

* * *Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
* * *unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
* * *host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

* * *Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of.

* * Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

Just like your lack of science and physics is easily defined, outside
of parrot-101.

* *No, Brad, the surface gravity of a BH is

* * *surface gravity = c^4/4GM

Then much FTL is possible.

On 3/7/13 12:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:20 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Mar 6, 10:15 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of.

Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

Just like your lack of science and physics is easily defined, outside
of parrot-101.

No, Brad, the surface gravity of a BH is

surface gravity = c^4/4GM

Then much FTL is possible.


No Brad.

On Mar 6, 10:24*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Mar 6, 10:20 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:15 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

* * * Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
* * * unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
* * * host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

* * * Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of.

* * *Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

Just like your lack of science and physics is easily defined, outside
of parrot-101.

* * No, Brad, the surface gravity of a BH is

* * * surface gravity = c^4/4GM

Then much FTL is possible.

* *No Brad.

Math says otherwise.

On 3/7/13 8:24 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Mar 6, 10:20 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:15 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of.

Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

Just like your lack of science and physics is easily defined, outside
of parrot-101.

No, Brad, the surface gravity of a BH is

surface gravity = c^4/4GM

Then much FTL is possible.

No Brad.

Math says otherwise.


Show me, mathematically what it "says otherwise".

On Mar 7, 6:49*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 8:24 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Mar 6, 10:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:20 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:15 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 6, 10:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 12:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

My theory is founded in physics-101.

Are you suggesting the core singularity as having a surface gravity of
c+ within a BH/EH has volume?

* * * *Brad, you have a track record (your posting record) of making
* * * *unsubstantiated claim about the moon, Venus, Sirius and a whole
* * * *host of other thinks that certainly are not physics.

* * * *Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined, Brad.

Good for math that can't seem to prove how we walked on the moon, or
why Venus could not be photographed from the moon, and a host of other
silly matters that you brown-nosed parrots are always so proud of..

* * * Nevertheless, Brad, Surface gravity of a BH is mathematically defined.

Just like your lack of science and physics is easily defined, outside
of parrot-101.

* * *No, Brad, the surface gravity of a BH is

* * * *surface gravity = c^4/4GM

Then much FTL is possible.

* * No Brad.

Math says otherwise.

* *Show me, mathematically what it "says otherwise".

Enough mass and/or density as packed into a sufficient volume will
create a gravity force FTL.

On 3/7/13 9:03 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:49 am, Sam Wormley wrote:


Show me, mathematically what it "says otherwise".

Enough mass and/or density as packed into a sufficient volume will
create a gravity force FTL.


No Brad.

On Mar 7, 7:13*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/7/13 9:03 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 7, 6:49 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

* * Show me, mathematically what it "says otherwise".

Enough mass and/or density as packed into a sufficient volume will
create a gravity force FTL.

* *No Brad.

Your purely conditional math goes nicely with your conditional
physics.