why would it be any different?
They are unified. That is the proof.

Original GR said space would end there instead.
You would have to argue Einstein's own
theory instead... Einstein said no to a BH
by solving his equations for a collapsar.
A collapsar is a star collapsing to a point.
That is a BH... he rejected that...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe its wobbling or it is wabbling?

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> why would it be any different?
> They are unified. That is the proof.
>
> Original GR said space would end there instead.
> You would have to argue Einstein's own
> theory instead... Einstein said no to a BH
> by solving his equations for a collapsar.
> A collapsar is a star collapsing to a point.
> That is a BH... he rejected that...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

space and time cannot end...
by force or speed...
Like Einstein believed BHs
don't exist... just their redshift
look a likes do.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> why would it be any different?

Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
From the point of view of an observer passing through the horizon, time
marches on just fine. It's at the singularity when everything ends.

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 02:54:41 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > why would it be any different?
> Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.

And if the distant observer isn't eager to observe
from his point of view what Wise Gurus told him
to observe - he is a stupid crank!! Isn't he, stupid
Mike?

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > why would it be any different?
> Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.

No. Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...
This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
that understood a BH correctly.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > why would it be any different?
>> Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
>
> No. Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event
> horizon...
> This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward
> Witten that understood a BH correctly.

witten is a wanker, not understanding the blackhole, as part of another
manifold, has to be eliminated from the current understandable.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Jimi Bugg wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > why would it be any different?
> >> Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> >
> > No. Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event
> > horizon...
> > This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward
> > Witten that understood a BH correctly.
> witten is a wanker, not understanding the blackhole, as part of another
> manifold, has to be eliminated from the current understandable.

Why did Hawking represent the same thing?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 10/19/2021 3:42 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> why would it be any different?
>> Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
>
> No.

Yes. For a distant observer, GR time dilation increases with decreasing
distance to the event horizon. At the event horizon, time dilation is
theoretically infinite, so distance observers will see something falling
in as "frozen" just above the event horizon. Which is why you can say
it appears as if time ended at the event horizon, as far as a distant
observer is concerned. The observer falling in sees time advancing and
passes right through the horizon.

You don't understand GR, babbling false contradictions based on your
misunderstandings is worthless. Get to the library or go online and
LEARN GR.

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 16:35:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/19/2021 3:42 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> why would it be any different?
> >> Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> >
> > No.
> Yes. For a distant observer, GR time dilation increases with decreasing

In the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

How would distance end anywhere.
Time cannot be stopped either...
Only slowed down...

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 2:16:22 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How would distance end anywhere.
> Time cannot be stopped either...
> Only slowed down...

Neutronium with its slow time is real.
Those stars have gravity-magnetism and the strong force.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > why would it be any different?
> > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> No. \

Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,
depending on the coordinate choice, the time *coordinate* may
either blow up or not.

> Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...

Regardless, the particle time does not stop at the horizon.

> This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
> that understood a BH correctly.

He must have considered other quantities than just time.

--
Jan

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > why would it be any different?
> > > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> > No. \
>
> Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
> To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,
> depending on the coordinate choice, the time *coordinate* may
> either blow up or not.
> > Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...
> Regardless, the particle time does not stop at the horizon.
> > This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
> > that understood a BH correctly.
> He must have considered other quantities than just time.
>
> --
> Jan

Time slows finite in the real math.
That finite cannot bridge to the infinite
slowing of time is real but ending
it is not.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > why would it be any different?
> > > > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> > > No. \
> >
> > Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
> > To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,
> > depending on the coordinate choice, the time *coordinate* may
> > either blow up or not.
> > > Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...
> > Regardless, the particle time does not stop at the horizon.
> > > This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
> > > that understood a BH correctly.
> > He must have considered other quantities than just time.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Time slows finite in the real math.
> That finite cannot bridge to the infinite
> slowing of time is real but ending
> it is not.

There is no infinite slowing of time at the horizon other than
either a visual perception of a distant observer or by a
coordinate choice (hence unphysical).

--
Jan

On Saturday, 23 October 2021 at 18:49:55 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > why would it be any different?
> > > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> > No. \
>
> Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
> To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,

And thus the whole "black hole" is slowed down to immobility
for him. Well, garbage postulates in - garbage predictions out.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > why would it be any different?
> > > > > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> > > > No. \
> > >
> > > Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
> > > To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,
> > > depending on the coordinate choice, the time *coordinate* may
> > > either blow up or not.
> > > > Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...
> > > Regardless, the particle time does not stop at the horizon.
> > > > This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
> > > > that understood a BH correctly.
> > > He must have considered other quantities than just time.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > Time slows finite in the real math.
> > That finite cannot bridge to the infinite
> > slowing of time is real but ending
> > it is not.
> There is no infinite slowing of time at the horizon other than
> either a visual perception of a distant observer or by a
> coordinate choice (hence unphysical).

So your physics is unphysical jan?
Are you an idiot?

>
> --

You are not believable...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:40:29 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > why would it be any different?
> > > > > > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> > > > > No. \
> > > >
> > > > Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
> > > > To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,
> > > > depending on the coordinate choice, the time *coordinate* may
> > > > either blow up or not.
> > > > > Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...
> > > > Regardless, the particle time does not stop at the horizon.
> > > > > This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
> > > > > that understood a BH correctly.
> > > > He must have considered other quantities than just time.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > > Time slows finite in the real math.
> > > That finite cannot bridge to the infinite
> > > slowing of time is real but ending
> > > it is not.
> > There is no infinite slowing of time at the horizon other than
> > either a visual perception of a distant observer or by a
> > coordinate choice (hence unphysical).
> So your physics is unphysical jan?

No, reread what I wrote. I wrote: "coordinate choice (hence unphysical)".

Coordinate systems are man-made labels, I'm assuming you know that?

> Are you an idiot?

Why the question? Do you think coordinate values have intrinsic physical
meaning?

--
Jan

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 19:00:24 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> Why the question? Do you think coordinate values have intrinsic physical
> meaning?

Sure, poor halfbrain. Didn't your idiot guru teach you what
"time" is?

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:40:29 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > > > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > why would it be any different?
> > > > > > > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> > > > > > No. \
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
> > > > > To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,
> > > > > depending on the coordinate choice, the time *coordinate* may
> > > > > either blow up or not.
> > > > > > Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...
> > > > > Regardless, the particle time does not stop at the horizon.
> > > > > > This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
> > > > > > that understood a BH correctly.
> > > > > He must have considered other quantities than just time.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > > Time slows finite in the real math.
> > > > That finite cannot bridge to the infinite
> > > > slowing of time is real but ending
> > > > it is not.
> > > There is no infinite slowing of time at the horizon other than
> > > either a visual perception of a distant observer or by a
> > > coordinate choice (hence unphysical).
> > So your physics is unphysical jan?
> No, reread what I wrote. I wrote: "coordinate choice (hence unphysical)".
>
> Coordinate systems are man-made labels, I'm assuming you know that?
>
> > Are you an idiot?
>
> Why the question?

You don't like that question jan?
Questions are not bad.
Except to people that want to avoid the truth.
Are you an authority...?

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> --
> Jan

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:40:29 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:42:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 10/18/2021 4:15 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > why would it be any different?
> > > > > > > > Time only appears to end from the viewpoint of a distant observer.
> > > > > > > No. \
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes. The theory (GR) says that time does not end at the horizon.
> > > > > > To a distant observer things slow down *visually* near the horizon and,
> > > > > > depending on the coordinate choice, the time *coordinate* may
> > > > > > either blow up or not.
> > > > > > > Reaching light speed; falling in; ends frames time at the event horizon...
> > > > > > Regardless, the particle time does not stop at the horizon.
> > > > > > > This has already been represented as the truth by people like Edward Witten
> > > > > > > that understood a BH correctly.
> > > > > > He must have considered other quantities than just time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > > Time slows finite in the real math.
> > > > > That finite cannot bridge to the infinite
> > > > > slowing of time is real but ending
> > > > > it is not.
> > > > There is no infinite slowing of time at the horizon other than
> > > > either a visual perception of a distant observer or by a
> > > > coordinate choice (hence unphysical).
> > > So your physics is unphysical jan?
> > No, reread what I wrote. I wrote: "coordinate choice (hence unphysical)".
> >
> > Coordinate systems are man-made labels, I'm assuming you know that?
> >
> > > Are you an idiot?
> >
> > Why the question?
> You don't like that question jan?
> Questions are not bad.
> Except to people that want to avoid the truth.
> Are you an authority...?

All I'm saying is that time does not go to infinity for objects
near (or crossing) the horizon.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

>> You don't like that question jan?
>> Questions are not bad.
>> Except to people that want to avoid the truth.
>> Are you an authority...?
>
> All I'm saying is that time does not go to infinity for objects near (or
> crossing) the horizon.

what he says is that physics is not mathematics. In physics the tensors
are to be real. Therefore the G tensor in relativity is related to the
matter which is diverging, according to my theory.

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, Hanna Marquis wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> You don't like that question jan?
> >> Questions are not bad.
> >> Except to people that want to avoid the truth.
> >> Are you an authority...?
> >
> > All I'm saying is that time does not go to infinity for objects near (or
> > crossing) the horizon.
> what he says is that physics is not mathematics. In physics the tensors
> are to be real. Therefore the G tensor in relativity is related to the
> matter which is diverging, according to my theory.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, Hanna Marquis wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> >
> > >> You don't like that question jan?
> > >> Questions are not bad.
> > >> Except to people that want to avoid the truth.
> > >> Are you an authority...?
> > >
> > > All I'm saying is that time does not go to infinity for objects near (or
> > > crossing) the horizon.
> > what he says is that physics is not mathematics. In physics the tensors
> > are to be real. Therefore the G tensor in relativity is related to the
> > matter which is diverging, according to my theory.
>
> Gobbledygook.
>
> --
> Jan

The answer to that question to this thread is very simple: If time ends at event horizon why doesn't space?

If you understand The Code..

'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'

"beginning" exist before the creation of space/heavens...even before God.

You need to understand the 'order of events' in the code.

In other words, Time existed before the big bang...or the energy from a body.

All the secrets of the universe is answered in The Code: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'

Does it need to me converted to an equation so that yous can understand it in your language????

Okay, I haven't had a chance to have it converted to an equation that yous can understand since simplicity is tooooo complex for yous.

How about T for beginning?

and for "God created the heavens" that would be 'A body releases energy' (a big bang)

that would be E=

"and the earth" that would be Mass...M.

Surely you cannot have a universe without an earth. The universe would not ever exist.

The Earth is in fact the WHY a universe bother to exist.

Nature knows Why.
Nature has all the answers.
Nature...has no questions.

All the answers in the universe are in this code: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'

Question: If time ends at event horizon why doesn't space?

Nature's answer: Misinformation. Time comes before and after space.

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

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, Hanna Marquis wrote:
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > >> You don't like that question jan?
> > > >> Questions are not bad.
> > > >> Except to people that want to avoid the truth.
> > > >> Are you an authority...?
> > > >
> > > > All I'm saying is that time does not go to infinity for objects near (or
> > > > crossing) the horizon.
> > > what he says is that physics is not mathematics. In physics the tensors
> > > are to be real. Therefore the G tensor in relativity is related to the
> > > matter which is diverging, according to my theory.
> >
> > Gobbledygook.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> The answer to that question to this thread is very simple: If time ends at event horizon why doesn't space?
>
> If you understand The Code..
>
> 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
>
> "beginning" exist before the creation of space/heavens...even before God.
>
> You need to understand the 'order of events' in the code.
>
> In other words, Time existed before the big bang...or the energy from a body.
>
> All the secrets of the universe is answered in The Code: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
>
> Does it need to me converted to an equation so that yous can understand it in your language????
>
> Okay, I haven't had a chance to have it converted to an equation that yous can understand since simplicity is tooooo complex for yous.
>
> How about T for beginning?
>
> and for "God created the heavens" that would be 'A body releases energy' (a big bang)
>
> that would be E=
>
> "and the earth" that would be Mass...M.
>
> Surely you cannot have a universe without an earth. The universe would not ever exist.
>
> The Earth is in fact the WHY a universe bother to exist.
>
> Nature knows Why.
> Nature has all the answers.
> Nature...has no questions.
>
> All the answers in the universe are in this code: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
>
> Question: If time ends at event horizon why doesn't space?
>
> Nature's answer: Misinformation. Time comes before and after space.
>

One needs to understand the 'connection' between the earth and the universe.

The earth is the center of the universe...not in terms of it's location, but by it's connection.

Without the earth...the universe could not possibly exist. One is connected with the other.

The connection makes it exist. 1 plus 1 = 2

That also means the age of the universe and the earth's age are both exactly the same age.

You cannot 'measure' the age of the universe.

That means...the age of the universe is not 14 or 15 billion years old..

It's age is ...Now.

The big bang didn't occur billions of years ago..

it occured...Now!

Now never changes.

What time is it Now?

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

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