When gravity moves at the speed of light?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It cannot. Therefore, it must move much faster than c.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:35:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

It cannot. Therefore, it must move much faster than c.

Actually, it's an energy thing, and particles that travel
faster than light lose energy the faster they go, so FTL
doesn't make it out either.

Perhaps there are other reasons than that. There is some
dithering about WHERE all the matter is. As matter approaches
a BH, we, far away, see time slowing down for it and time stops
at the event horizon ... so it never makes it inside the BH:
it all piles up there just outside the surface.

The surface isn't stable due to quantum mechanics, it's
changing, moving back and forth, so some of the matter inside
that formed the BH in the first place is sometimes outside
the surface.

Of course, the physicists wave their arms and say spacetime is
curved, as if that explains everything.

Actually, this is an interesting question because just think
about matter falling into, say, the core of a neutron star.
It gets compressed more and more, quantum pressure fighting
against compression until, finally, the event horizon is
outside a sufficiently-compressed core radius. After that,
no more can get in and it piles up in an accretion disk.

Another thought: the ekpyrotic theory says that the Big Bank
was initiated by a quantum interaction with an adjacent
brane, and such interactions would have a gaussian distribution.
Perhaps the peak of the distribution was able to form a BH
instantaneously. How big would that be? And would only ONE
peak be formed? I think not. Maybe most of the galaxies
were formed by multitudes of gaussian distributions and that's
why most galaxies have a supermassive BH at their centers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

When gravity moves at the speed of light?

Gravity
IS
a
black
hole,
so
it
cannot
escape
itself.

The
fabric
of
a
black
hole
is
gravity.

Gravity
waves
flow
out
from
a
black
hole..
not
flow
in.




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Gary: Since nothing can escape a black hole, gravity doesn't either
since gravity is an energy thing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Starmaker: Spoken like a true relativist! It can't flow out since it
doesn't have the velocity, but nice try!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

Starmaker: Spoken like a true relativist! It can't flow out since it
doesn't have the velocity, but nice try!

I didn't say gravity flows out...




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 02:58, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:35:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

It cannot. Therefore, it must move much faster than c.

Actually, it's an energy thing, and particles that travel
faster than light lose energy the faster they go, so FTL
doesn't make it out either.

Perhaps there are other reasons than that.  There is some
dithering about WHERE all the matter is.  As matter approaches
a BH, we, far away, see time slowing down for it and time stops
at the event horizon ... so it never makes it inside the BH:> it all piles up there just outside the surface.

Sure, sure. And suppose the opposite situation:
matter is immobile (wrt an observer) and it's
BH approaching it. What's going to happen,
poor mumbling idiot?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

When gravity moves at the speed of light?

that's a good question actually. our current understanding is
that gravity arises as the result of the curvature of spacetime
and the existence of the event horizon does not magically end the
influence of all that concentrated mass.

so basically it doesnt need to travel faster than light, the
curvature remains. of course there is talk of virtual gravitons
and stuff, i think we are not there yet and our current theories
breakdown at such extremes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

Starmaker: Spoken like a true relativist! It can't flow out since it
doesn't have the velocity, but nice try!

its not about flowing, at the event horizon, the object is
accelerated to c and as a result time stops.

from your perspective, you are looking at all the mass as it was
in the past, but from the masses' perspective, it has already
crossed the horizon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 14:14, gharnagel pisze:

Consider the case when vr = 0 and vt^2/c^2 = rs/2r.  The mass
is in orbit around the BH at r = 1.5rs and time is frozen from
the distant observer's perspective, which is strange: how can
it orbit if it's frozen ...

Simply: fantasy worlds imagined by some idiots
can behave very strangely indeed.
But how about a distant observer moving wrt
the one you specified? Is the mass frozen for
him as well, poor halfbrain?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:12:51 +0000, kazu wrote:

its not about flowing, at the event horizon, the object is
accelerated to c and as a result time stops.

from your perspective, you are looking at all the mass as it was
in the past, but from the masses' perspective, it has already
crossed the horizon.

It's irrelevant to us what the mass sees since we're too smart
to fall into a BH. What we see is

dtau^2/dt^2 = 1 - rs/r - vt^2/c^2 - (vr^2/c^2)/(1 - rs/r)

So if the mass is falling straight in, v-tangential = 0, but
what about v-radial? We assume vr will reach c, but will it?

It appears that dtau/dt will reach zero BEFORE the mass reaches
the Schwarzschild radius because of the last term, so time
freezes from our perspective before the mass reaches rs.
What that point is depends on the mass trajectory initial
conditions.

Consider the case when vr = 0 and vt^2/c^2 = rs/2r. The mass
is in orbit around the BH at r = 1.5rs and time is frozen from
the distant observer's perspective, which is strange: how can
it orbit if it's frozen ...

Anyway, that mass would see the rate of time in all the rest of
the universe speeding up until, at the critical point, the mass
would have seen the end of the universe, which is equivalent for
distant observers to see time stopping for the mass.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:42:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 14:14, gharnagel pisze:

Consider the case when vr = 0 and vt^2/c^2 = rs/2r.  The mass
is in orbit around the BH at r = 1.5rs and time is frozen from
the distant observer's perspective, which is strange: how can
it orbit if it's frozen ...

Simply: fantasy worlds

Nothing is more fantastic than someone who asserts that time
didn't exist before humans invented it :-))

imagined by some idiots

SLANDER! Wozniak is SLANDERING for no valid reason at all!

can behave very strangely indeed.
But how about a distant observer moving wrt
the one you specified? Is the mass frozen for
him as well,

The scenario about which Wozniak has chosen to express his
ignorance is a tangential velocity, not a linear one.

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best
he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and
not make messes in the house." – Robert A. Heinlein

Had he chosen the other scenario with radial velocity it might
have made him look a little less like a total ignoramus.

Just a little.

poor halfbrain?

SLANDER! Wozniak is SLANDERING AGAIN and for no valid reason at all!
Moral turpitude! Oh! I'm feeling faint. Wozniak is such an evil,
evil person and has damaged me irreparably and I can't go on anymore.
Whine, whine whine!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:24, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:42:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 14:14, gharnagel pisze:

Consider the case when vr = 0 and vt^2/c^2 = rs/2r.  The mass
is in orbit around the BH at r = 1.5rs and time is frozen from
the distant observer's perspective, which is strange: how can
it orbit if it's frozen ...

Simply: fantasy worlds

Nothing is more fantastic than someone who asserts that time
didn't exist before humans invented it :-))

And still I've provided more than 40 examples
of times that for sure didn't exist before
humans invented them.

imagined by some idiots

SLANDER!  Wozniak is SLANDERING for no valid reason at all!

Nope, poor trash. It is not false.
My alleged booze - is.
Of course, it's no surprise that
you're too stupid to distinguish
an insult and a slander. Anyway,
speaking to relativistic scum
sadly made me partially descending
to its level.

can behave very strangely indeed.
But how about a distant observer moving wrt
the one you specified? Is the mass frozen for
him as well,

The scenario about which Wozniak has chosen to express his
ignorance is a tangential velocity, not a linear one.

And? Is the mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:30:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:24, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:42:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 14:14, gharnagel pisze:

Consider the case when vr = 0 and vt^2/c^2 = rs/2r.  The mass
is in orbit around the BH at r = 1.5rs and time is frozen from
the distant observer's perspective, which is strange: how can
it orbit if it's frozen ...

Simply: fantasy worlds

Nothing is more fantastic than someone who asserts that time
didn't exist before humans invented it :-))

And still I've provided more than 40 examples
of times that for sure didn't exist before
humans invented them.

And still that's irrelevant

imagined by some idiots

SLANDER!  Wozniak is SLANDERING for no valid reason at all!

Nope, poor trash.

And he slanders again in his response. What a piece of work!

It is not false.

Those who earn Nobel prizes are NOT idiots. The jury would
certainly be deliberating on someone who claimed they were idiots,
however.

Wozniak can't attack the issue so he attacks people. This is
known as

"1. ad hominem — attacking the arguer and not the argument."
-- Carl Sagan

Wozniak is incompetent to deal with the issue.

"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

My alleged booze - is.
Of course, it's no surprise that
you're too stupid to distinguish
an insult and a slander. Anyway,
speaking to relativistic scum
sadly made me partially descending
to its level.

See? Wozniak goes for personal attack, every time. And when
he tries to address the issue, he is left looking really, really
stupid.

can behave very strangely indeed.
But how about a distant observer moving wrt
the one you specified? Is the mass frozen for
him as well,

The scenario about which Wozniak has chosen to express his
ignorance is a tangential velocity, not a linear one.

And? Is the mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

:-)) There he is, looking really, really stupid again. And
slandering again, too! If he doesn't understand the difference
between linear and circular motion, he wouldn't be able to
understand the answer.

“If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […]
the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the
skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”
—David Dunning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Wozniak has incorrectly used the DL effect against those who
refuted his stupid assertions without realizing that it
actually applies to himself :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:41:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 10/31/2024 06:58 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:35:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

Perhaps there are other reasons than that. There is some
dithering about WHERE all the matter is. As matter approaches
a BH, we, far away, see time slowing down for it and time stops
at the event horizon ... so it never makes it inside the BH:
it all piles up there just outside the surface.

The surface isn't stable due to quantum mechanics, it's
changing, moving back and forth, so some of the matter inside
that formed the BH in the first place is sometimes outside
the surface.

Of course, the physicists wave their arms and say spacetime is
curved, as if that explains everything.

Actually, this is an interesting question because just think
about matter falling into, say, the core of a neutron star.
It gets compressed more and more, quantum pressure fighting
against compression until, finally, the event horizon is
outside a sufficiently-compressed core radius. After that,
no more can get in and it piles up in an accretion disk.

Another thought: the ekpyrotic theory says that the Big Bank
was initiated by a quantum interaction with an adjacent
brane, and such interactions would have a gaussian distribution.
Perhaps the peak of the distribution was able to form a BH
instantaneously. How big would that be? And would only ONE
peak be formed? I think not. Maybe most of the galaxies
were formed by multitudes of gaussian distributions and that's
why most galaxies have a supermassive BH at their centers.

Galaxies don't need super-massive black-holes at their
center, though it makes sense if they do, as with regards
to that a galaxy is basically a free-rotating frame and
doesn't have the centrifugal/centripetal as with regards
to why it holds itself together by not falling apart.

I'd have to consider your answer not relevant since BHs with
billions times the solar mass are insufficient to hold together
the galaxy they're in.

It's not much accelerating/decelerating any more, ....

Eka-mercury, eka-lead, ....

Off topic, I would say, since the lifetimes of the longest-lived
isotopes are only a few seconds. Possibly, they would be more
stable with higher neutron count, or maybe not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.11.2024 o 02:06, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:30:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 17:24, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:42:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.11.2024 o 14:14, gharnagel pisze:

Consider the case when vr = 0 and vt^2/c^2 = rs/2r.  The mass
is in orbit around the BH at r = 1.5rs and time is frozen from
the distant observer's perspective, which is strange: how can
it orbit if it's frozen ...

Simply: fantasy worlds

Nothing is more fantastic than someone who asserts that time
didn't exist before humans invented it :-))

And still I've provided more than 40 examples
of times that for sure didn't exist before
humans invented them.

And still that's irrelevant

Sure, 40 examples of grey elephants are irrelevant
when an idiot simply KNOWS elephants are purple.

Those who earn Nobel prizes are NOT idiots.

Often. Usually.

My alleged booze - is.
Of course, it's no surprise that
you're too stupid  to distinguish
an insult and a slander. Anyway,
speaking to relativistic scum
sadly made me partially descending
to its level.

See?  Wozniak goes for personal attack, every time.

Sadly, talking to scumbags like you and
your fellows I have to descend to
your level; but that's only partially,
I'm not descending to slandering.

can behave very strangely indeed.
But how about a distant observer moving wrt
the one you specified? Is the mass frozen for
him as well,

The scenario about which Wozniak has chosen to express his
ignorance is a tangential velocity, not a linear one.

And?  Is the mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

:-))  There he is, looking really, really stupid again.  And
slandering again, too!  If he doesn't understand the difference
between linear and circular motion,

Yes, I do. So, s the mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-10-31 21:56:13 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

When gravity moves at the speed of light?

Gravity does not escape a black hole. There was gravity already
when there was no black hole. The gravity of the matter does not
disappear when that matter becomes a black hole.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 7:22:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 02.11.2024 o 02:06, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:30:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

And still I've provided more than 40 examples
of times that for sure didn't exist before
humans invented them.

And still that's irrelevant

Sure, 40 examples of grey elephants are irrelevant
when an idiot simply KNOWS elephants are purple.

Yep, Wozniak still knows his marijuana.

Those who earn Nobel prizes are NOT idiots.

Often. Usually.

So would Wozniak care to identify a Nobel idiot?

See?  Wozniak goes for personal attack, every time.

Sadly, talking to scumbags like you and
your fellows I have to descend to
your level; but that's only partially,
I'm not descending to slandering.

“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie
you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

Wozniak has nothing to harm. Any "reputation" he may have
once had has been frittered away by his own behavior. He
himself has lied, libeled and written despicably for years.
No one believes anything he says. Complaining about being
"slandered" again and again just proves that he is a wuss
and a hypocrite.

And?  Is the mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

:-))  There he is, looking really, really stupid again.  And
slandering again, too!  If he doesn't understand the difference
between linear and circular motion,

Yes, I do.

So what is the difference? Wozniak is silent. Obviously, he
doesn't know.

So, s the mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

There he is again, still looking really, really stupid.  And
"slandering" again, too!  He just cuts and pastes the same old
foolish assertions, demands, lies and insults without even
fixing the typos.

Well, he probably knows something about circular motion because
he goes around and around and around without getting anywhere.
Perhaps this explains why he always acts like he's dizzy.

The fact is, he himself can't be slandered or libeled because
Wozniak has no` to harm. Any "reputation" he may have once had
has frittered away by his own behavior. He himself has lied,
libeled and written despicable nonsense for years, to the point
where no one believes anything he says.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 02/11/2024 à 11:54, Mikko a écrit :

Gravity does not escape a black hole. There was gravity already
when there was no black hole. The gravity of the matter does not
disappear when that matter becomes a black hole.

Nothing can come out of a black hole.
Not even a photon.
But a graviton, yes.
A graviton is mean.
When it wants to come out, it comes out.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fr.sci.physique

Le 02/11/2024 à 17:25, Python a écrit :

Le 02/11/2024 à 17:11, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/11/2024 à 11:54, Mikko a écrit :

Gravity does not escape a black hole. There was gravity already
when there was no black hole. The gravity of the matter does not
disappear when that matter becomes a black hole.

Nothing can come out of a black hole.
Not even a photon.
But a graviton, yes.
A graviton is mean.
When it wants to come out, it comes out.

Nothing is stronger that Dr Hachel/Lengrand's stupidity and ignorance when they
decide to express their ridiculousness by words, said or written.

Pour l'instant, depuis quarante ans, je me contente d'écrire, c'est à
dire d'une plume.

Le jour où je prendrai un parlophone, tu sais très bien que cela
pourrait faire très mal,
de par la force de mes mots (de véritables claques dans la gueule).

Tu ne voudrais quand même pas que je fasse des vidéos dans un monde de crétins, où chacun fait la sienne,
les filles montrant leur cul (partout sur usenet), les mecs montrant leur petite bite intellectuelle
(partout aussi).

T'es quand même pas assez crétin pour ne pas savoir que demain, j'aurais
six fourgons de gendarmerie devant ma porte?

Je rêve.

T'es quand même pas aussi crétin à ce point là?

Si?

Je te supplie de me le faire savoir : "Oui, moi, Jean-Pierre Messager, je
suis tellement crétin que je ne le sais pas."

Signe en bas du papier.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 02/11/2024 à 17:11, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/11/2024 à 11:54, Mikko a écrit :

Gravity does not escape a black hole. There was gravity already
when there was no black hole. The gravity of the matter does not
disappear when that matter becomes a black hole.

Nothing can come out of a black hole.
Not even a photon.
But a graviton, yes.
A graviton is mean.
When it wants to come out, it comes out.

Nothing is stronger that Dr Hachel/Lengrand's stupidity and ignorance when
they decide to express their ridiculousness by words, said or written.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.11.2024 o 13:31, gharnagel pisze:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 7:22:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 02.11.2024 o 02:06, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:30:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

And still I've provided more than 40 examples
of times that for sure didn't exist before
humans invented them.

And still that's irrelevant

Sure, 40 examples of grey elephants are irrelevant
when an idiot simply KNOWS elephants are purple.

Yep, Wozniak still knows his marijuana.

And Harnagel is still slandering.
Nothing unexpected from a piece
of relativistic shit.

:-))  There he is, looking really, really stupid again.  And
slandering again, too!  If he doesn't understand the difference
between linear and circular motion,

Yes, I do.

So what is the difference?

Linear motion is linear and circular
motion is circular.
So, is your mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.11.2024 o 17:25, Python pisze:

Le 02/11/2024 à 17:11, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 02/11/2024 à 11:54, Mikko a écrit :

Gravity does not escape a black hole. There was gravity already
when there was no black hole. The gravity of the matter does not
disappear when that matter becomes a black hole.

Nothing can come out of a black hole.
Not even a photon.
But a graviton, yes.
A graviton is mean.
When it wants to come out, it comes out.

Nothing is stronger that Dr Hachel/Lengrand's stupidity and ignorance
when they decide to express their ridiculousness by words, said or written.

That's just the effect of taking the inconsistent
mumble of an insane idiot - partially seriously.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:45:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

And Harnagel is still slandering.
Nothing unexpected from a piece
of relativistic shit.

Wozniak so easily "slanders" others:

"That's just the effect of taking the inconsistent
mumble of an insane idiot"

But he is SO offended when he is taken to task. It's called
"hypocrisy" and Wozniak is a big-time hypocrite.

Linear motion is linear and circular
motion is circular.

Those are tautologies, which says nothing at all. This
is typical Wozzie's vacuous mind. He believes that
saying A = A and B = B gives him some right to demand
an answer. It doesn't, he really needs to come up with
B = f(A) or A = g(B), but he isn't competent to be able
to do that.

So, is your mass frozen for such
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

"It is not time yet for you to know what I see. When that
time comes, then you will know." – Akiane Kramarik

Perhaps Wozniak must first stop lying and admit that "time"
is much more than a human invention:-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.11.2024 o 19:27, gharnagel pisze:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:45:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

And Harnagel is still slandering.
Nothing unexpected from a piece
of relativistic shit.

Wozniak so easily "slanders" others:

It was not me lying impudently
about my opponent's alleged booze
and marijuana.

"That's just the effect of taking the inconsistent
mumble of an insane idiot"

What can I do about the mumble of your
insane guru being inconsistent?

But he is SO offended when he is taken to task.  It's called
"hypocrisy" and Wozniak is a big-time hypocrite.

Linear motion is linear and circular
motion is circular.

Those are tautologies, which says nothing at all.

Still those are answer to your question, poor trash.



This

is typical Wozzie's vacuous mind.  He believes that
saying A = A and B = B gives him some right to demand
an answer.

I don't demand any answer, and, actually,
I don't expect it from a relativistic
idiot. His insane Shit has trained him to
spit, insult and slander, not to answer
questions.
So, is your mass frozen for my
observer or not? No answer? Sure.
Slandering is easy, answerring
questions is not, right, poor trash?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-11-02 16:11:21 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 02/11/2024 à 11:54, Mikko a écrit :

Gravity does not escape a black hole. There was gravity already
when there was no black hole. The gravity of the matter does not
disappear when that matter becomes a black hole.

Nothing can come out of a black hole.
Not even a photon.
But a graviton, yes.

As graviton is neither an observed nor a theoretical particle it
is far from clear what it can do. Anyway, virtual particles used
in quantum field theories can travel faster than light and
backwards in time, which is sufficient for escaping a black hole.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 03/11/2024 à 15:01, Mikko a écrit :

As graviton is neither an observed nor a theoretical particle it
is far from clear what it can do. Anyway, virtual particles used
in quantum field theories can travel faster than light and
backwards in time, which is sufficient for escaping a black hole.

Mikko

Ce n'est pas ce que dit le docteur Richard Hachel, dont il est dit : "La grosseur de sa bite entrainait l'épouvante".

Il dit textuellement:
"Va donc exister une vitesse limite infranchissable qui va s'étendre à
toutes les particules et à toutes les lois de la physique".

La question est : "mais qu'est ce qu'il se passe sur les forums de
physique internationaux pour que ce soient les anti-hachéliens qui
sortent leurs masturbations publiques avec éjaculations filmées?"

Les gravitons "méchants" et les photons "gentils".

Et mes couilles, elles sont gentilles ou méchantes? Elles mordent.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 03/11/2024 à 19:12, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

In a theory of fall gravity, the atom is the graviton.

Then there's a notion of the force according to
the "ultramundane supertachyonic" particles,
"gravitinos", that space is white holes everywhere
and that space exists.

The graviton as "super-unification-energy-larger-collider -gigaelectronvolt-gives-mass", is a bit simplified in a
theory merely of gravity itself, that's where the
"large hadron" is yet a sort of super-symmetric particle,
of the atom and self-same graviton, it's own virtual partner,
in case it wasn't clear the high/medium/low milieus of
the super-symmetry in physics.

In a theory of fall-gravity, the graviton is the atom,
its mass is attributed to its substance, and the force
carrier is also what it is, or as with regards to it
being the force mover as it were, with fall-gravity a
sort of Fatio/LeSage quantum-spin-foam shadow-gravity
super-gravity.

Heu... En français, ça veut dire quoi?

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 03/11/2024 à 23:28, Python a écrit :

Rien. Nothing. It means nothing.

Ross is a kind of joke, I guesss.

Probable.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 16:11:21 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

Le 02/11/2024 à 11:54, Mikko a écrit :

Gravity does not escape a black hole. There was gravity already
when there was no black hole. The gravity of the matter does not
disappear when that matter becomes a black hole.

Nothing can come out of a black hole.
Not even a photon.
But a graviton, yes.

As graviton is neither an observed nor a theoretical particle it
is far from clear what it can do. Anyway, virtual particles used
in quantum field theories can travel faster than light and
backwards in time, which is sufficient for escaping a black hole.

yeah but its not sufficient.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)