Neutron Star

I read his comments as more general than it seems you have. More as comment on the fact that Rajesh seems to sometimes use sidetracks to avoid the core discussion, rather than as the comment(s) of individual posters, provide an intential diversion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only Me, could be...although it does seem to me that that his "comments" are usually focused on his intended target...

Meh, it seems that I can only be "WRONG" or "INCORRECT"...so...

Later...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's quite obvious who has driven away the Professor...read

In reply to Rajesh's post.......
Prof Bennett,

No, Sir...I am not saying that and I am not equipped as on date to counter that.
And after Rajesh had been given repeated answers and solutions to his fabricated scenarios re BNSs.

No one could really misinterpret that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rajesh has always over at least 7 or 8 threads, used sidetracks when his claims are reputably refuted.

 

OnlyMe, origin: I respect both of you while at times disagreeing with both of you on certain "minor" points. Just as I'm sure you both may disagree with me on certain "minor"points. But I'm fairly sure we all agree that GR within its vast area of applicability, is totally robust. My own view is that it is damn well near certain as scientific theories go, and in all likelyhood will not be invalidated by any working QGT...Just as in my view GR did not invalidate Newtonian mechanics, just gave more precise predictions. We may disagree on the amount of certainty, but I see that as minor, with regards to what has raised this issue on GR....that being a sidetrack by Rajesh in demanding I give him my meaning of GR.

It's obvious that this paper was invalidated in the first few pages, and that the good Professor at the behest of tashja, simply added more weight to that fact in the hope that finally Rajesh would concede his gross error. Obviously we all agree with that also.
The only point left is for Rajesh to concede and like any good crank that he is, I don't believe that will ever be forthcoming.
Why am I saying all this? I dunno!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps just to remind both of you that it is only a sidetrack, and coupled with the other obvious fact I need not remind you both about, are diversionary tactics for Rajesh to avoid conceding and latch onto some other point for him to hang his hat on.
And of course I like you both.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...and yet...
...see Post #285 :

...and Post #385 :

Yes, I can read...

 

Sure, those posts reflect most people's positions on online bickering, including mine.
And I ackowledged the Professor's remarks on that point and agreed with him.
And without going further into why this bickering occurs, it was not the reason why the Professor gave for leaving......
Yep, we all can read.......
Rajesh said:
No, Sir...I am not saying that and I am not equipped as on date to counter that.
""""""""""""""""""""
Professor Link replied:

In that case, to you and the other participants of this forum:

"So long and thanks for all the fish."

Bennett Link
Montana State University

 

In none of Prof. Link's Posts on this Forum, that I read, did he mention "online bickering" - (if I missed it, please provide the Post #).

I did read, in his Post #'s 285 and 385, that he did not care for discussions containing "personal attacks".
He also stated : "Let's stick to logical argument and refutation.".

There is quite a difference between "online bickering" and "personal attacks"...

 

I'm curious. What constitutes a theoretical science?

 

Actually GR tells us. It says gravitational radiation. It says the gravitational radiation is a continuing phenomena that modifies the local spacetime curvature. Gravity. The following link discusses the Binary Pulsars that led to Hulse and Taylor getting the Nobel Prize for indirectly detecting gravitational waves.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

 

Correct, which is why Rajesh's paper was refuted from page one and the Professor re-enforced. Rajesh offerred nothing to counter the fact that his hypothesis, was against all we know about GR.

Not really, pedant aside......One "compliments" the other.
But again, this is a sidetrack as to why the Professor left.
He left for reasons inferred in his last post and that was the illogical anti cosmology crap being spewed by Rajesh, and his failure to recognise the facts concerning BHs.

 

Seriously?

Science conducted on/with abstractions and models - theoretical.

 

...personal attacks "compliment" nothing - especially in Science...

 

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).
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

brucep asked : "What constitutes a theoretical science?"

brucep did NOT ask : What is a scientific theory.

 

Most of us know brucep...Some though like to stress the "theoretical"aspect, not knowing what a scientific theory really is and how they can and do grow in certainty as they continue to make successful predictions...GR along with SR are at the forefront of certainty.
It's the same with the bickering and personal attacks by Rajesh...One compliments the other and I'm sure the Professor meant that ignoring all the silly pedant illogical arguments trying to split hairs and create more sidetracks.

 

Is maths a theoretical science?

 

That's good...Because GR is a scientific theory, as is SR...as is Evolution...as is the BB....as is Abiogenesis....Yet all are near certain, if not certain as in the case of evolution.

And of course we all know and agree that.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
Theoretical physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Visual representation of a Schwarzschild wormhole. Wormholes have never been observed, but they are predicted to exist throughmathematical models and scientific theory.
Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employsmathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations.[a]For example, while developing special relativity, Albert Einsteinwas concerned with the Lorentz transformation which leftMaxwell's equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson–Morley experiment on Earth's drift through aluminiferous ether.[citation needed] On the other hand, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, previously an e

 

But really, we are getting sidetracked again.
All of us know, and all of us realize that Rajesh's paper was invalidated long ago.
All of us are now waiting for Rajesh to concede this fact.

 

Math is an abstract tool that is useful in describing things both of theory and physical reality... It can be used both to describe build buildings, bridges and spaceships.., and many theoretical things that have no physical substance .... It is a tool.