Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?
From: Donald Hamilton (dlham_at_prodigy.net)
Date: 11/28/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: Richard Henry: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Next in thread: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Reply: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Nov 2004 06:08:14 -0800
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<KQcqd.474621$D%.234913@attbi_s51>...
> Donald Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Yes - the hammer and feather fell at the same rate because the protons
> > that make up both of them have the same mass - so they will fall at
> > the same rate.
> > What's so hard about that - its just common sense. Its unbelievable
> > that physicists cannot figure that out!
> >
>
> Even massless particles like photons fall at the same rate. What's so
> hard about that - it's a prediction of General Relativity, confirmed
> by observations.
Does that mean GR nullifies Newton's theory of Gravitation?? Newton's
Gravity seems to have a lot more going for it then GR.
Don H.
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: Richard Henry: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Next in thread: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Reply: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Scientific basis for Black Holes?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
