[guest39538]

My subjective opinion is has valid has much as the next persons subjective thoughts.

No it does not.
The next person may know what they are talking about, but you don't.
You seem to not grasp the difference between reasoned speculation, founded in fact and made up bull.

Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on.  You know very little my friend , but subjectively you are the master,

[Bored chemist]

Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on. 

Nobody (except you) believes that you did that.

[guest39538]

Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on.

Nobody (except you) believes that you did that.

You know the good thing about Physics?   It does not care about subjective beliefs, it only cares about the facts, so even if you don't believe me about time dilation, that doe snot matter because the facts I have provided over and over again, says science are full of chit when talking about time dilation.

[Bored chemist]

You are quite right. Physics cares about objective evidence and rational deduction.
The objective fact is that the GPS system works.
It wouldn't work if we had got time dilation wrong.
So your ideas- fall into one of two categories. Either they give the same answer as GR, or they are wrong.

[guest39538]

You are quite right. Physics cares about objective evidence and rational deduction.
The objective fact is that the GPS system works.
It wouldn't work if we had got time dilation wrong.
So your ideas- fall into one of two categories. Either they give the same answer as GR, or they are wrong.

Or my answer uses the correct semantics that makes ''your'' answers look stupid.

[Bored chemist]

If you think being objectively correct makes me look bad, you are on the wrong website.

[guest39538]

If you think being objectively correct makes me look bad, you are on the wrong website.

I didn't say you Mr C, you are cool in my books, you can only go off what you was taught.   I get it, you understand the semantics a certain way and when other ways are put before you, your brain cannot compute them because you have so much history of thinking one way .


''you'' is science, the machine not the man.

[guest39538]

within this point is an entire universe

Got any evidence for that?

Yes of course. I have a picture of it.

[guest39538]

I had to dig out my special telescope, but here is the photographic image from my mind I have just developed into a hard copy for you.


r3.jpg (17.21 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3049 times)

You can just make it out in the distance, I could not see it without my conceptual telescope.

[guest39538]

Funky version


r31.jpg (27.59 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2996 times)

[Bored chemist]

Made up pictures are not evidence.

[guest39538]

Made up pictures are not evidence.

They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.

Method

1) look between the distant stars

2) take a conceptual picture

3) diagnose that picture

4) develop an objective conclusion  as a hard copy.


Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?

[Kryptid]

There is a lot of things made up about BH's, so interpret  a BH my own way.

Your interpretation is inconsistent with both the mathematical and physical evidence. If black holes didn't have a gravitational pull beyond their horizon, then gravitationally-bound pairs of black holes and normal stars wouldn't exist. Yet we have detected them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni.

They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.

Method

1) look between the distant stars

2) take a conceptual picture

3) diagnose that picture

4) develop an objective conclusion  as a hard copy.

What in the world does that have to do with the idea of an entire universe somehow existing inside of a singularity?

[guest39538]

There is a lot of things made up about BH's, so interpret  a BH my own way.

Your interpretation is inconsistent with both the mathematical and physical evidence. If black holes didn't have a gravitational pull beyond their horizon, then gravitationally-bound pairs of black holes and normal stars wouldn't exist. Yet we have detected them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni.

They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.

Method

1) look between the distant stars

2) take a conceptual picture

3) diagnose that picture

4) develop an objective conclusion  as a hard copy.

What in the world does that have to do with the idea of an entire universe somehow existing inside of a singularity?

There is no singularity in infinite.   My interpretation of an infinite  universe is has valued as your finite interpretation.

Also  it is contradiction to the definition of event horizon,  my interpretation is objectively correct of an event horizon.

[guest39538]

. In layman's terms, it is defined as the shell of "points of no return", i.e., the points at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible,

A shell is a boundary, a whirl pool cannot suck me in if I am beyond its boundary.

[Kryptid]

There is no singularity in infinite.

Infinite... what? You already admitted that black holes contain a "point", which is just a non-technical term for a singularity.

My interpretation of an infinite  universe is has valued as your finite interpretation.

I never stated that the Universe is infinite or finite. No one knows. How large the Universe is has nothing to do with how black holes work.

Also  it is contradiction to the definition of event horizon,  my interpretation is objectively correct of an event horizon.

Tell that to Cygnus X-1 and V404 Cygni. You can't argue away the observational data.

[guest39538]

Infinite... what?

Infinite nothing, where light and dark does not exist and  where time is timeless.   Where nothing is n-dimensional space.


 

[guest39538]

You want to know I know there is an infinite space?


Imagine travelling in a straight line in the direction of outer space, you then encounter a wall , is this wall finite or infinite?


Then of course we being humans get out the shovels and get digging.   

So when we dig through the wall , is there space on the other side of the wall or more wall?

Hence space is objectively infinite.

[Bored chemist]

Made up pictures are not evidence.

They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.

Method

1) look between the distant stars

2) take a conceptual picture

3) diagnose that picture

4) develop an objective conclusion  as a hard copy.


Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?

That's the sort of delusion that makes me suggest it's time to get medical help.

[guest39538]

Made up pictures are not evidence.

They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.

Method

1) look between the distant stars

2) take a conceptual picture

3) diagnose that picture

4) develop an objective conclusion  as a hard copy.


Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?

That's the sort of delusion that makes me suggest it's time to get medical help.

Just because you do not know how to think Mr C, that does not mean I need medical help.