Neutron Star

For the usual anti mainstream science cranks...
GR is simply the geometrical description of gravity that works in all situations [two bodies, three bodies etc etc] far more accurately then the Newtonian model. The geometrical nature of spacetime that warps, curves or twists in the presence of mass, exhibiting what we call gravity, has been shown to be accurate and correct, by many experiments that are ongoing.....eg: LIGO, and the recent GP-B success.
In fact it has been so well supported, and matched predictions so accurately, that it is near certain as scientific theories go.

It's obvious now since Rajesh has driven away a known professional expert, that he will not relent in his continued pseudoscience presentations under the guise of science.
I thank the Professor for his contribution and continued invalidation of this paper. I also thank the Professor for his re-enforcing of what I and most have been telling Rajesh from page one.
This is why I posted all of his threads, to show the insidious creeping nature of his obvious mission here from day one.
Cat fights will always be the outcome with these sorts and their obvious agendas.

I suppose what we do need to be thankful for, is that science forums like this, and as well intentioned as most of its contributors are, will never be the voice of mainstream science and academia in general.
They are isolated voices in the wilderness, some seething in the fact that science has pushed the need for a magical deity into oblivion, others suffering from delusions of grandeur and their vain hope for fame in trying to invalidate something that is not going to be invalidated.

If you are reading this Professor, I certainly do hope you pop back on occasions, when needed to defuse genuine situations as they develop.
Again your help in defusing and invalidating the current nonsense is appreciated.

Also again, I extend my appreciation to tashja and the many professional replies he has been able to worm out of the experts...Much apprciated tashja, and please do not let the current debacle put you off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

double post

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The posts from this individual are like a dog with diarrhea having a shit on your sofa at home, then scampering outside never to be seen again.....no explanations, no replies, just the "plop" and gone!
Which is why I ignore him in general.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't speak for origin on your continued nonsense and total avoidance in admitting your paper is totally invalidated, but I must say that I'm not a fan of GR per se. I'm a fan of all accepted peer reviewed science, with evidence supporting those theories and models.
And why do they become that way? Because in the opinion of most learned experts in that particular field, the particular theory or model in question makes the most logical sense.
GR of course admirably fits that criteria.....as of course does SR, Evolution, the BB, and the theory of BHs as an extension of GR.
Likewise the unsupported claims by the many "would be's if they could be's" and the chaff generally presented will be confined to the dustbin, where your paper has languished from day one.
As I said previously, a waste of paper, time and bandwidth.

I suppose what we do need to be thankful for, is that science forums like this, and as well intentioned as most of its contributors are, will never be the voice of mainstream science and academia in general.
They are isolated voices in the wilderness, some seething in the fact that science has pushed the need for a magical deity into oblivion, others suffering from delusions of grandeur and their vain hope for fame in trying to invalidate something that is not going to be invalidated.

 

Actually you are quite wrong. We have no idea why + charges attract - charges. We know to an incredibly precise level how they are attracted but we do not know why they are attracted.
Maybe you didn't understand Onlyme's post go back and read it and you will see how my reply addresses what he wrote.

 

Thanks for the interesting posts.

 

The way I read your response, I am not sure you understood what I wrote.., or at least what I intended!

 

Of course I am.
Heck, to me there is a difference between the Physical Sciences and the Theoretical Sciences.
Meh, that is probably just me.

 

Yep, spot on.....As per the BB, GR and SR, along with Evolution, all are as certain as one could ever wish, and while we still don't understand the underlying reasons [other than the geometry] why spacetime exhibits gravity in the presence of mass energy [plenty of evidence for that] we also do not exactly know the true nature of the electron and why positive and negative attract, or that like charges repel. Same applies to the reasons for magnetism.

It's just plain physical law and the way things operate.
We could ask also why is the speed of light "c"...It is what it is and that's plain fact.
The awesome nature of science though, has lead us to the stage where we are able to use and even control these effects of nature to our collective benefit.
We all agree with that I'm sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_physical_science
Physical science can be described as all of the following:

• A branch of science – systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3]
  • A branch of natural science – natural science is a major branch of science, that tries to explain and predict nature's phenomena, based on empirical evidence. In natural science, hypotheses must be verified scientifically to be regarded as scientific theory. Validity, accuracy, and social mechanisms ensuring quality control, such as peer review and repeatability of findings, are amongst the criteria and methods used for this purpose. Natural science can be broken into 2 main branches: biology, andphysical science. Each of these branches, and all of their sub-branches, are referred to as natural sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation andexperimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories areinductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.[4][5]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired and free of confirmation bias. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

But again, this is only a diversion to give Rajesh room to manoeuvre and avoid having to admit he has fucked up with this fairy tale paper.

 

...seriously...

 

Yes, quite...Although the issue in question was decided long before he ventured amongst us. Most of us did appreciate his short stay and informative comments.
Perhaps he may pop in on occasions, to straighten out other gross misconceptions of GR and present day cosmology.
I certainly hope so.

 

Again, origin, you have to be correct.

Heck, from what has been Posted, evidently Only Me and myself were nothing more than some kind of 'conspirators' that were only creating "a diversion to give Rajesh room to manoeuvre and avoid having to admit he has ****** up with this fairy tale paper."

 

There are many things we can quantify, but can't explain in terms of a mechanism, like charge attraction.

There is one simple explanation for charge attraction and repulsion. If you look at wave addition, plus and minus changes are out of phase by 180 degree, so the waves will cancel. Same charges generate waves that are in phase, so the waves will add. The same is true of like charge with opposite spin; electrons in orbitals. The waves of opposite spin electron are out of phase and cancel. Like charges, with same spin, are in phase and add.

If you look at the expansion of the universe, energy is red shifting, as space-time expands. This is making the energy value of these photons, get less and less, because on the EMR scale, the energy value of photons decreases as we increase the wavelength from gamma to radio waves. The charge and opposite spin attractions, by lowering total wave energy, is consistent with universal space-time expansion. They both go in the same direction. Charge and spin repulsions by adding energy violate the expansion and will need to lower energy; move away.

Since the EM force is stronger than gravity, dark energy, to use current theory, is able to reach charges that are under the influence of gravity, maintaining atoms and molecules. As gravitational pressure increases, the waves are placed under different constraints, with dark energy/expansion maintaining the basic path of charge interaction.

 

Please supply any support for these paragraphs or explicitly state these are just unsupported notions of yours.

 

OK, if you say so.

 

It is difficult to know what you intended when you say GR is controversial. It is no more controversial than newtons theory of gravity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It was not me that said "so", origin!

I cannot take credit for that...brilliant deduction...
I learned it by reading it in the final sentence/paragraph of Post #449!

 

It seems to me that you read that comment out-of-context! The immediate full context was...

Note, the strike out and correction of "is" to "it" above is an edit, and refers to GR as the it.​

Which was then immediately followed by an additional attempt to clarify...

The modern interpretation in essence asserting that spacetime is the fundamental cause of gravity, is what is controversial.

The fact that GR accurately describes the geometry of how objects interact gravitationally, is not controversial. It has proven an accurate descriptive and predictive model.

Again, that which remains controversial is the modern conceptual interpretation associated that the curvature of spacetime the cause of what happens, rather than just a description of what is happening.

GR does not explain the mechanism through which the energy and momentum of a massive object results in the curvature of spacetime, only that it does.

 

I don't believe that paddoboy intended that comment the way you interpreted it. I could be wrong, but...

 

Well, he quoted origin's Post #445, stating that I was "quite wrong" and that origin was "spot on"...then went on to add...

Meh, heck I still am not sure who has actually "driven away a known professional expert"...