Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.

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

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

From communism.

Look what it has costed to us, finally: LGTBQP, 347 genders, fiat money, living above real means, hedonism, idiocracy, no religion
and no moral compass anymore, in the West.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:02:26 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> From communism.

No, it came from electrodynamics. Maxwell's electrodynamics had a number of
surprising consequences which led to the need of adding an ever-increasing
number of tuning knobs to keep physics afloat. Such multiplication
of tuning knobs is not logically or physically wrong but it indicates
something is not right with our understanding of the world. When you
need to keep adding new parameters to explain away every new experimental
result, you are not really understanding what's going on, you are just playing
a frantic catch-up game.

This part was resolved in 1905 by Einstein.

> Look what it has costed to us, finally: LGTBQP, 347 genders, fiat money, living above real means, hedonism, idiocracy, no religion
> and no moral compass anymore, in the West.

No, this is something unrelated. I recommend Igor Shafarevich's book
"The Socialist Phenomenon". It's not related to physics. What's happening
today is another instance of this phenomenon which seems to affect
people periodically over the (literally) millennia. It's not just Marx, he was
merely an instance of this recurring phenomenon.

I was somewhat amazed at how easily this rot was able to penetrate
even the US elites.

--
Jan

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.

I would say it is just...projecting unto nature instead of reading from
nature.

It's all in your mind...not out there.

There's no relativity, no gravity...just yous projecting it unto nature.

--
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 <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

It never came, it always was,

Jan

J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> It never came, it always was,
>
> Jan

you're having a Platonic vision...

in the sky with diamonds.

strawberry fields forever.

too much LDS

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

J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> It never came, it always was,
>
> Jan

Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...

but that is just a feeling.

It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.

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

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:49:50 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > It never came, it always was,
> >
> > Jan
> Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
>
> but that is just a feeling.
>
> It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Some people, say the physics made the fourth dimension,
while, others say the fourth dimension, made physics.

When you think of two alternatives and only one existing,
it's convenient to imagine what were each - existing.

The fourth dimension, of the 20'th century, is, for the visual,
for a simple perception between imagery and real.

This is where - where physics' fourth dimension is time
"the most convenient dimension before or after space",
the fourth dimension of after 3-D space, geometry, was
already in perspective art - what happens also to be the image.

So, the perspective and time perspective's fourth dimension,
makes for then that for "Kaluza-Klein", which is five dimensions
of 3 space-like and a time-like, and a, time-like dimension, 5,
is as for "light-like and time-like dimensions", is perspective.

Four dimensions, abstractly, is the critical realization, is that
the spherical is well three dimensions: space dimensions,
and projection and perspective, the time-like reflects almost
entirely the _stasis_ of space and its dimensions, for "each
point in time, in, each point in space, the space of space-time
coordinates", "a continuous manifold ... of varieties", ...,
these days physics was written as after the mathematics of
continuous manifolds, here space-time also content.

Then, that objects are generally equivalent, "continuous
manifolds", is that there is the usual continuous manifold,
the space-time, and, usual continuous manifold usually smoothly
continuous (and collinear), with the usual continuous manifold.

So, this field number formalism, includes terms mutually
nonlinear that under layers are collinear.

This is a simple way to keep still continuous - usual linear
terms, under torsion, field number formalisms, that on
what remains "must be space-time", two objects that share
a frame are an object and dynamic in space-time.

Also that "any two objects share a frame, dynamics".

So, relativity, relativity comes in because what brings "mass-energy,
equivalence", that moving or work the mass and/or energy is the
same thing, what would have to result in "classical inertial energy
terms, linear", what explains by mass-energy equivalence what
is "dynamics" in relativity, while, light or optics is the "state" instead
of "the dynamics" for example of image.

That there exists "the light-like properties in terms of the dimensions
of the field-number formalisms the space-time", is besides something
like the SU^N theory, this unitary theory SU^1 "parallel light like".

So, from space-time, and, mass-energy equivalence, simply "for a
theory", because "light-like travel is effectively mass-less", is for
the general parallel sense the kinetic - explaining "why relativity".

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > It never came, it always was,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
>
> but that is just a feeling.
>
> It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.

But it does give the correct spectra
for light that is billions of years old,

Jan

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 8:30:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:02:26 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> > From communism.
> No, it came from electrodynamics. Maxwell's electrodynamics had a number of
> surprising consequences which led to the need of adding an ever-increasing
> number of tuning knobs to keep physics afloat. Such multiplication
> of tuning knobs is not logically or physically wrong but it indicates
> something is not right with our understanding of the world. When you
> need to keep adding new parameters to explain away every new experimental
> result, you are not really understanding what's going on, you are just playing
> a frantic catch-up game.
>
> This part was resolved in 1905 by Einstein.
> > Look what it has costed to us, finally: LGTBQP, 347 genders, fiat money, living above real means, hedonism, idiocracy, no religion
> > and no moral compass anymore, in the West.
> No, this is something unrelated. I recommend Igor Shafarevich's book
> "The Socialist Phenomenon". It's not related to physics. What's happening
> today is another instance of this phenomenon which seems to affect
> people periodically over the (literally) millennia. It's not just Marx, he was
> merely an instance of this recurring phenomenon.
>
> I was somewhat amazed at how easily this rot was able to penetrate
> even the US elites.
>
> --
> Jan

The Richard Hertz imbecile confuses relativity with relativism, a classical mistake for natural imbeciles.

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:14:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It never came, it always was,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
> >
> > but that is just a feeling.
> >
> > It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.
> But it does give the correct spectra
> for light that is billions of years old,

Get conscious, poor insane crank. If The Shit
gave you correct predictions you wouldn't have
to release "inflation", "dark matter" and other
patches.

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:14:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It never came, it always was,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
> > >
> > > but that is just a feeling.
> > >
> > > It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.
> > But it does give the correct spectra
> > for light that is billions of years old,
> Get conscious, poor insane crank. If The Shit
> gave you correct predictions you wouldn't have
> to release "inflation", "dark matter" and other
> patches.

Oh, those are just what's left over. In the survey the percentage CDM
after Omega which is the accuracy, red-shift inflation is still the
surrounds' state of not the background, these days the MOND theory
with "linear not inverse square in galaxies" is advising what and why
is some of what is not "luminiferous matter" plain old matter.

I.e. "there's not dark matter, this is a field theory" and "inflation
the theory is neatly a background measurement".

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.

Theories are from man and man is part of nature....
Begin to move and there is an opposite appearance of motion
created around you.

Einstein didn't need relativity. He had an alternative in 1905.

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

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:14:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It never came, it always was,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
> > > >
> > > > but that is just a feeling.
> > > >
> > > > It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.
> > > But it does give the correct spectra
> > > for light that is billions of years old,
> > Get conscious, poor insane crank. If The Shit
> > gave you correct predictions you wouldn't have
> > to release "inflation", "dark matter" and other
> > patches.
>
> Oh, those are just what's left over. In the survey the percentage CDM
> after Omega which is the accuracy, red-shift inflation is still the
> surrounds' state of not the background, these days the MOND theory
> with "linear not inverse square in galaxies" is advising what and why
> is some of what is not "luminiferous matter" plain old matter.
>
> I.e. "there's not dark matter, this is a field theory" and "inflation
> the theory is neatly a background measurement".

"inflation" is just add-hoc. Meaningless. meaning without meaning.

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

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:10:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:14:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It never came, it always was,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
> > > > >
> > > > > but that is just a feeling.
> > > > >
> > > > > It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.
> > > > But it does give the correct spectra
> > > > for light that is billions of years old,
> > > Get conscious, poor insane crank. If The Shit
> > > gave you correct predictions you wouldn't have
> > > to release "inflation", "dark matter" and other
> > > patches.
> >
> > Oh, those are just what's left over. In the survey the percentage CDM
> > after Omega which is the accuracy, red-shift inflation is still the
> > surrounds' state of not the background, these days the MOND theory
> > with "linear not inverse square in galaxies" is advising what and why
> > is some of what is not "luminiferous matter" plain old matter.
> >
> > I.e. "there's not dark matter, this is a field theory" and "inflation
> > the theory is neatly a background measurement".
> "inflation" is just add-hoc. Meaningless. meaning without meaning.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

No, according to our map of Lania Kea the giant 13-something billion year old
jet, that science _though_ was from its middle the entire Universe and Big Bang,
the entire inflationary period basically built science and observation, according
to what was the "visible" universe.

So, these days the inflationary theory basically is canceled down to
"now the visible universe is much larger and does at least look more
50/50 redshift/blueshift, and objects in our universe are moving most
all either according to Lania Kea jet or, "randomly"".

It still measures all that down to zero and finds differences, you see, ....

So, the science, is the _same_, the data and the interpretation or the
experiment, it's just that "ah, with Eddington's first being 'precession
of Mercury' and Eddington's second being 'red-shift sky', that then
red-shift sky is left out", it would support having a Big Bang theory and
classical constant fundamental law of the relative distance, or "receding
velocity", that over time have a classical relative measurement,
in red-shift.

It's just that people in their own time have to understand that "some of
the competitive theories to inflationary theory for foundations,
are better suited in what results ground constants".

So, it's as much for a system of coordinates of the sky catalog.

Then, it's interesting that the MOND dynamics are where our
solar dynamics follow relativistic courses to each other,
though it's pretty well measured out that gravity's speed is infinite,
the modifed Newtonian dynamics of the receding galaxies aren't
even "Newtonian" or Galilean for that matter, off of inverse
square to a simple linear inverse - "receding" galaxies or what -
it's in the scale of galactic matter, where our solar frame and
terrestrial frame, are mostly its place in the arm. (Galactic scale.)

It's pretty well measured for the solar system, that,
the gravity does add up, that, gravity is always pointing
to the source not the image of the source behind it,
while these both go around each other in orbit, is
that at rise and set, the source brings over its image
("over the focus").

Here "over the focus" is like "right hand rule", about
the symmetry about the focus as over instead of
around, as it is, the focus. The focus is optically
an entire symmetry. (Focus orientation.)

Relativity is for mass-energy equivalence and a model of delay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 9:07:25 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:10:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:14:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It never came, it always was,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but that is just a feeling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.
> > > > > But it does give the correct spectra
> > > > > for light that is billions of years old,
> > > > Get conscious, poor insane crank. If The Shit
> > > > gave you correct predictions you wouldn't have
> > > > to release "inflation", "dark matter" and other
> > > > patches.
> > >
> > > Oh, those are just what's left over. In the survey the percentage CDM
> > > after Omega which is the accuracy, red-shift inflation is still the
> > > surrounds' state of not the background, these days the MOND theory
> > > with "linear not inverse square in galaxies" is advising what and why
> > > is some of what is not "luminiferous matter" plain old matter.
> > >
> > > I.e. "there's not dark matter, this is a field theory" and "inflation
> > > the theory is neatly a background measurement".
> > "inflation" is just add-hoc. Meaningless. meaning without meaning.
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> No, according to our map of Lania Kea the giant 13-something billion year old
> jet, that science _though_ was from its middle the entire Universe and Big Bang,
> the entire inflationary period basically built science and observation, according
> to what was the "visible" universe.
>
> So, these days the inflationary theory basically is canceled down to
> "now the visible universe is much larger and does at least look more
> 50/50 redshift/blueshift, and objects in our universe are moving most
> all either according to Lania Kea jet or, "randomly"".
>
> It still measures all that down to zero and finds differences, you see, ....
>
> So, the science, is the _same_, the data and the interpretation or the
> experiment, it's just that "ah, with Eddington's first being 'precession
> of Mercury' and Eddington's second being 'red-shift sky', that then
> red-shift sky is left out", it would support having a Big Bang theory and
> classical constant fundamental law of the relative distance, or "receding
> velocity", that over time have a classical relative measurement,
> in red-shift.
>
> It's just that people in their own time have to understand that "some of
> the competitive theories to inflationary theory for foundations,
> are better suited in what results ground constants".
>
> So, it's as much for a system of coordinates of the sky catalog.
>
> Then, it's interesting that the MOND dynamics are where our
> solar dynamics follow relativistic courses to each other,
> though it's pretty well measured out that gravity's speed is infinite,
> the modifed Newtonian dynamics of the receding galaxies aren't
> even "Newtonian" or Galilean for that matter, off of inverse
> square to a simple linear inverse - "receding" galaxies or what -
> it's in the scale of galactic matter, where our solar frame and
> terrestrial frame, are mostly its place in the arm. (Galactic scale.)
>
> It's pretty well measured for the solar system, that,
> the gravity does add up, that, gravity is always pointing
> to the source not the image of the source behind it,
> while these both go around each other in orbit, is
> that at rise and set, the source brings over its image
> ("over the focus").
>
> Here "over the focus" is like "right hand rule", about
> the symmetry about the focus as over instead of
> around, as it is, the focus. The focus is optically
> an entire symmetry. (Focus orientation.)
>
>
> Relativity is for mass-energy equivalence and a model of delay.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

Why don't jets fall into their BH pole?
If jet material was originally accretion disc material
it fell through the event horizon and cannot get
back out. What is the source of jet material if
not an accretion disc?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:50:03 PM UTC+1, The Starmaker wrote:
> Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Relativity comes from this mouthful-

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html

It amounts to a misadventure with timekeeping.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 6:45:51 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 9:07:25 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:10:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:14:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It never came, it always was,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, it does seeem like it always existed...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but that is just a feeling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It always was a just a theory and still is...just a theory.
> > > > > > But it does give the correct spectra
> > > > > > for light that is billions of years old,
> > > > > Get conscious, poor insane crank. If The Shit
> > > > > gave you correct predictions you wouldn't have
> > > > > to release "inflation", "dark matter" and other
> > > > > patches.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, those are just what's left over. In the survey the percentage CDM
> > > > after Omega which is the accuracy, red-shift inflation is still the
> > > > surrounds' state of not the background, these days the MOND theory
> > > > with "linear not inverse square in galaxies" is advising what and why
> > > > is some of what is not "luminiferous matter" plain old matter.
> > > >
> > > > I.e. "there's not dark matter, this is a field theory" and "inflation
> > > > the theory is neatly a background measurement".
> > > "inflation" is just add-hoc. Meaningless. meaning without meaning.
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> > No, according to our map of Lania Kea the giant 13-something billion year old
> > jet, that science _though_ was from its middle the entire Universe and Big Bang,
> > the entire inflationary period basically built science and observation, according
> > to what was the "visible" universe.
> >
> > So, these days the inflationary theory basically is canceled down to
> > "now the visible universe is much larger and does at least look more
> > 50/50 redshift/blueshift, and objects in our universe are moving most
> > all either according to Lania Kea jet or, "randomly"".
> >
> > It still measures all that down to zero and finds differences, you see, ....
> >
> > So, the science, is the _same_, the data and the interpretation or the
> > experiment, it's just that "ah, with Eddington's first being 'precession
> > of Mercury' and Eddington's second being 'red-shift sky', that then
> > red-shift sky is left out", it would support having a Big Bang theory and
> > classical constant fundamental law of the relative distance, or "receding
> > velocity", that over time have a classical relative measurement,
> > in red-shift.
> >
> > It's just that people in their own time have to understand that "some of
> > the competitive theories to inflationary theory for foundations,
> > are better suited in what results ground constants".
> >
> > So, it's as much for a system of coordinates of the sky catalog.
> >
> > Then, it's interesting that the MOND dynamics are where our
> > solar dynamics follow relativistic courses to each other,
> > though it's pretty well measured out that gravity's speed is infinite,
> > the modifed Newtonian dynamics of the receding galaxies aren't
> > even "Newtonian" or Galilean for that matter, off of inverse
> > square to a simple linear inverse - "receding" galaxies or what -
> > it's in the scale of galactic matter, where our solar frame and
> > terrestrial frame, are mostly its place in the arm. (Galactic scale.)
> >
> > It's pretty well measured for the solar system, that,
> > the gravity does add up, that, gravity is always pointing
> > to the source not the image of the source behind it,
> > while these both go around each other in orbit, is
> > that at rise and set, the source brings over its image
> > ("over the focus").
> >
> > Here "over the focus" is like "right hand rule", about
> > the symmetry about the focus as over instead of
> > around, as it is, the focus. The focus is optically
> > an entire symmetry. (Focus orientation.)
> >
> >
> > Relativity is for mass-energy equivalence and a model of delay.
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay
> Why don't jets fall into their BH pole?
> If jet material was originally accretion disc material
> it fell through the event horizon and cannot get
> back out. What is the source of jet material if
> not an accretion disc?
>
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

There's inside the event horizon and outside,
but, a wobble inside could cause the event horizon
to wobble. These though are ordinary black holes
and are perfectly spherical with the event horizon
determined by both infall and spaghettification.
thus only growing.

Then the Schw. for Schwarzschild and Kerr metric,
is basically "this hole is a wall" or "this hole is a spin".

The most usual model of a jet and often black holes,
is the dual neutron star or binary pulsar, that being
about the size of most black holes and jets.

Then in some great circle the jet does reach back to the
accretion disk, but that's in vacuum, about how
that dual neutron stars and binary pulsars are
according to Chandrasekhar et alia are like black holes,
or having jets.

That is, the highly nonlinear like a singularity, is about
that according to "sling-shot", a highly nonlinear system
and another highly nonlinear system can result a linear system.
But, alone it's just perfect, with that being defined according
to Chandrasekhar et alia.

("Schw., Kerr, turtle, ....")

"Is the Kerr metric defined and real? It's at least defined."

On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 1:25:13 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:50:03 PM UTC+1, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> Relativity comes from this mouthful-
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html
>
> It amounts to a misadventure with timekeeping.

"... gradually communicating ...."

środa, 27 kwietnia 2022 o 00:50:03 UTC+2 The Starmaker napisał(a):
> Certaintly not from Nature...nature doesn't do theories.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Relativity is for babes a pseudoscience.

Real science is too hard for them... so, they invented something much simplified.
In fact the relativity is a continuation of an ancient geocentric ideas.

This fantastic relativity ends soon, probably.. but not now yet.