Black Hole.... Not so Black

I have called your bluff - make good you coward.

I'm not letting those issues drop. You defamed me - prove your case or recant - paddoboy!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll let our peers here be the best judge of who is a coward and who is twisting and trying to get out from under.
That started at post 32 btw

Now back to business and away from irrationality.......
Two issues from this thread......any quantum theoretical application does not invalidate BH's......That was shown in another thread with the sensationalist headlines regarding Hawking......
The latest issue of course concerns itself with the property of non linearity of'gravity/spacetime and the resultant gravity begets gravity.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice try. 'Peer judgement' is neither forthcoming nor appropriate. You defamed me - you prove it. Or recant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the following, was the reply from Sascha you are referring to, I don't see your confusion! .... His response can be split into two parts. The first sets aside those aspects he considered unquestionable. The second basically says as far as theoretical implications are involved, you have to establish your own basis and underlying definitions... Probably because there had been none established in the discussion at that time.

BTW I like Nutmeg, Ginger and chili myself. Chili always in abundance and the other two on occassion. What of it?

Then again in responce to Maldacena's comments there is a clear, to me division, where in his first sentence he agrees with what he understood as your intent.., and then presents alternate theoretical interpretaions that may not be in total agreement.

It really sounds to me that your argument is a denial of theoretical applications and/or interpretations... A sillily position since it also comes across as though you interpret their comments as representing something more than a theoretical interpretation!

The bottom line is we have a great deal of evidence that gravitational fields are associated with the presence of mass, and some theoretical models and interpretations that explore other conditions that may gravitate. Whether you or I agree with any of the later, has no significant bearing on their theoretical validity.

 

Actually you are sounding and acting more like him everyday.... :shrug:

 

.. And Prof. Bojowald's:

 

I like it!

With certainty we can say that, in the presence of mass there exists a gravitational field and that in the abscence of the presence of mass, we may continue to speculate about the presence of a gravitational field.

How gravitational waves interact in the absence of the presence of mass, is just that sort of speculation... And not disallowed by liberal interpretaions of EFEs.

 

Not my take, but will risk the following:
First part seems yes to be reasonably clear in saying that for instance GW's are a given, and as no-one disputes, fields add non-linearly.
Then it gets real tricky as to inferences etc. My 'comfort piece' where he round-about implies his earlier much clearer position is: "Then see whether you can live with further language preferences that would make “curved space-time does curve space-time” or suchlike acceptable to you,"
Which piece is imo suggesting that concept - 'gravity gravitates' - is an absurdity. Just go back to those earlier statements of his I quoted in #70. Unless you think he has done a serious back-flip of sorts, he still maintains there is no legitimate 'walking around from LHS to RHS'. That's the interpretation that gels, though as I say it's terribly cryptic and guarded. Enough of analyzing that passage - let's move on.

What of what? Said what I said plainly enough. But maybe this will help: http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/i_am_going_nuts_really-80490
See also links in 'Related articles' towards bottom. Don't blame me if you finish up an addict!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, your comment on my comments is if anything being 'sillily'?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

'Theoretical interpretation' is best put as - simply understanding what the theory really says and allows. The 'pristine' EFE's are tight. Only non-gravitational SET sources allowed - again - by definition. And even when modified via pseudo-tensor(s), no-one believes for instance 'eternal BH's' or 'geons' actually exist except 'on paper'. What matters is whether the (or rather which butchered modified version(s) of) EFE's actually allow such in principle. All the theorists contacted by tashja bar I think Sascha have though used 'gravitating GW's' as the prime or sole example 'proving' 'gravity gravitates'. That necessarily means use of pseudo-tensors. And each example eerily so similar you could swear the same ghost-writer produced them all (yep, I jest). Stand by everything said in #70, #92, #104. This experience might prompt to move that intended article on disproof of TT GW's up my current priority-list que.

 

Such comment only has you sinking deeper into pooh. Are you man enough to own up now, or do you wish to be hounded by me for however long it takes to wring a confession (actually two) out of you? Clear up both issues of #95, or continue living in shame as a vain coward.

 

I do appreciate tashja that you have put in quite some effort to get a broad sweep of expert opinion. Thanks. And as per my comments to OnlyMe in #112 (referencing back to earlier posts), I respectfully disagree with the great majority's stock counter-argument in terms of (imo non-existent) GW's. Time to let this issue rest I'd say.

 

That much I have been consistently agreeing with.

 

You threats don't scare me sonny...neither does your bullying.....nor your threats to "hound me" I mean how childishly silly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.....This was tactics used by undefined also.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and no confession will ever be forthcoming, nor any apology for inferring you maybe this same "undefined" The similarities are very much alike.


Like I said your peers and mine on this forum, will be the ultimate judge of who or who isn't a coward, a troll and a delusional, ego inflated Idiot.
And yes, as I have already said, your conduct is quite similar to the banned troll that was undefined.

 

You appear to disagree with all the experts to varying degrees of extent.
I find all quite revealing and have no argument with any....But I do not have an inflated ego.

But you also rebuke GR.
So much for anyone taking anything you say seriously.

 

My thanks goes without saying tashja......
You were criticized in another thread for obtaining professional expert opinion, that proved their worth there, just as they have proved their worth here. Vinaka.

 

You inferred I am a sock-puppet! Back it up coward or apologize. Likewise own up to the baseless insinuation re Wiki site I used. Failure to do so condemns you as a slanderer and a coward. Which slander pathetically substitutes for actual objective knowledgeable argument which you demonstrably lack. Why have you not so much as attempted to justify either insinuation? We all know why. YOU CAN'T! Quite hiding behind that useless and not-forthcoming 'peer judgement' bit that will never materialize in your favor. Only a shameless true ar*ehole would act as you have in absolving yourself of responsibility for such ugly actions. The only way to clear your name is an unqualified apology admitting to falsehoods.

 

There was also qualified agreement with all but one. Which I will not self-servingly inflate more than it deserves. Have both properly acknowledged what is the general consensus and gave a clear reason for not accepting it as valid. You can claim no victory only shame for your own consistent intellectual failure to engage me in respect of such factual topical matters e.g. #59 vs #53, and far worse in respect of your immoral cowardly conduct else-wise. The latter matter far more important imo than the former.

You again referring to your #100? Go read again my #101 - coward. Offers still there on the table.

 

Wrong again buddy. It's not my name that needs clearing...It's yours and your paranoia.
My thoughts on both issues stand. And you calling me a coward just reflects on that same paranoia. Have fun!

When will you ever learn?
Your so called offer, is treated with the contempt it warrants.

Your thread I referenced, has been done and dusted and moved from science to the fringe sections.

That says it all.


Again, have fun!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But you are a slanderer and a coward. It would be straightforward to check with admin and have them confirm re me being a sock-puppet of undefined or not. Why won't you do that? Similarly the history list is easily available at that Wiki site. Why won't you admit your insinuation there is also without any basis in fact? Well?

 

No certainly not.....At least certainly not in the eyes of reasonably logical people, who are able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The fact that you rebuke GR, a scientific theory that is as near certain in its applications and domains as any theory could be, says it all.
And that's why your previous thread was moved.


So you see, what you think of me, is nether here nor there....Most trolls, alternative nuts, and conspiracy pushers, are of the same mind as you though....so at least you are in like company.
Have fun!

 

It's forums like this that are in general the domain of amateurs, lay people, and those that have more then a passing Interest in the sciences. Before I continue with my rant, apologies to the few professionals we do have on board. I'm sure you know who you are.
My contention though, is that in the main, opinions such as Q-reeus's [ and my own] are not affecting or adding or subtracting from the accepted mainstream scientific based opinions and theories.
The working scientist, physicist, astronomers, cosmologists, biologists, etc, are at the coal face making discoveries, investigating phenomena, formulising and Interpreting data, and then via the scientific methodology undergoing peer review for those discoveries, and interpretations of data.
I really seriously doubt that they have the time to have more then a passing Interest [if any] in public forums such as this, unlike the time that amateurs such as myself, and Q-reeus do.

In other words, the opinions put as facts on this forum, hold no relevance to the opinions based on data and evidence that govern mainstream sciences in all their disciplines.

Again, apologies to the very few obvious professionals that in the course of their work, can find the time to frequent this place.
You know who you are, I have a good idea who you are, and most of the forum also have a good idea.

The point here is that my point re gravity, non-linearity and gravity "making" more gravity, is not invalid.

The "violent" exception taken to my statement as follows......
"A further pertinent fact is that the nonlinear property of spacetime/gravity, means that gravity also creates gravity, albeit again by a tiny amount"

By my friend Q-reeus, has in my opnion been driven by the banishing of his other thread as mentioned previously.
This exceptional type of reaction process, is one that was highly familiar with "undefined" and I do see some similarity in other areas.
Undefined also as I pointed out was very quick to reference WIKI to support his erroneous cause, as I also pointed out to him, especially with regards to dates and times of his postings and the WIKI updates.

I have no doubt that knowing "undefined" and his style, that Q-reeus will continue with his campaign in attempting to vilify and denigrate myself.
That's there style.