Neutron Star

Except when the reason for that rejection is that the idea is just plain wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The onus is on you to answer the questions, and so far all we have got is pages and pages of "avoidance of the issue"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What a total unmitigated fraud you are!
The question is most certainly about GR, and as you have been officially informed, you are lacking in that area of expertise amongst others.
The onus is on you and you have refused to answer many questions.
Your paper was exposed as pseudoscience in the first page.

Like I said earlier, the whole world is wrong except Rajesh...
You do realise what people are thinking of you yes?

Again, more pretentious crap, while trying to paint yourself as some sort of victim.
Let me make some valid points...
[1]You are unqualified and not formally educated in the cosmological sciences.
[2] You have an obvious agenda [you don't accept BHs, and this [in your mind] shows they do not exist [in your mind]
[3]You have continually refuted all expert opinion on your paper.
[4] You have used this forum as a vehicle, for pushing your nonsense, under the guise of science, from your first thread.
[5] GR is as near certain as it can be, and certainly no unqualified individual, without any formal cosmological education is ever going to invalidate it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You were not required to write so many lines, you could have simply answered the question......How do you apply GR on Sun/Earth/Moon system or easier on Earth / Moon System..............

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are the one claiming to invalidate a "certain" theory like GR. The onus is on you do show evidence.
Like I said previously, GR works for two, three or as many bodies as you like.
The maths just get more difficult.
Now please show us how GR is invalidated?

 

By the way Rajesh...You do know GR gives the same results as Newtonian does within the Newtonian parameters don't you?
Far more accurate though and extends the zones of applicability.
Now we all wait anxiously for you to invalidate GR.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thank you, Prof. Link. It's such an amazing privilege to read your posts. Please stay, we need you!

 

Thank you, Raj. You are very kind. Paddo also deserves credit for contacting Prof. Hamilton, and Q-reeus for pointing me in the right direction when I was searching for a neutron star expert.

 

Reticent though I am to make any further appearance here, glad to see you sort of excited and chirpy tashja. Despite at least one member's continually referring to you as 'he', a StartPage search had me convinced 'she' was correct gender-wise - which seems confirmed by that interesting ('self-portrait'?) sepia-tone animation of #546.
Regrettably, this thread has lasted more than 500 posts longer than necessary. And its continued presence in A E & C subforum for this long just reminds and angers me as to the deeply inconsistent standards and judgements exercised by those charged to be impartial and responsible. Enough said on that.

 

Q-reeus,

I will differ about presence/pluck out of this thread in AEC forum....

The purpose is to learn about the subject, if there is anyone who says that after following this thread he has not learnt anything on the subject, then he is not stating the truth.........Most of the discourse by Prof was a learning, you contributed certain idea, Brucep contributed certain calculations, Paddoboy did lot of copy paste on BH mass etc.......So I fail to understand the eagerness of you and some other people to send this thread to some other place...

Mind you, professional researchers are not going to expose their papers on such forums, then what is left to discuss on this sub forum, either some news bit about what is happening around or some relevant paper by some authority (see how goofy the interpretation was for that Galaxy Distribution paper by some members) or some existing theory......or some questions which invariably will get huge copy paste stuff or condescending stupid remarks.

I will say this was one of the best threads around in this subforum.......of course minus all its negativity and nonsense personal attack posts....which everyone knows how to laugh at and ignore. I take that as cool jovial thing..

 

We have to close this thread somewhere, but you raised an interesting point without understanding the implication....Don't conclude that I am anti GR.....


(i) We are able to resolve Mercury precession through GR but after assuming Mercury mass as negligible......so kind of single body (Sun) solution.

(ii)You may like to study, that for nonlinear equations (GR EFEs are non linear), the addition/superimposition is not a done thing....so solving these EFEs for two compatible mass objects is anybody's game. Thats why I asked you guys try the simplest Earth - Moon System.. none could do. When you say maths get difficult, that means you attempted to google, but in vain..

(iii)You also may like to find out (take your time) how from an existing NS, the BH can really form. You will encounter causality issue...

(iv) You may also like to know and learn that Schwarzchilds solution is for empty space around the mass.....It just does not talk about how to add up presence of multiple masses/energy.....

Good, no need to respond, just try getting these points clear...

 

Opinions and perceptions vary. There are forum members here who should know very well what I was referring to re deeply inconsistent standards etc. What I will not forget or forgive you for was to bring up privately discussed matters in this forum and with negative connotation and intent. Especially given such privately discussed matters were exchanged before this thread started and imho if heeded would have avoided not only its start in the first place, but your doomed tilt at publishing the BNS article. You being you will obviously dispute parts or all of that but I don't really care. Prof. Link was spot-on in saying forums tend to be an endless sinkhole of one's time.

[As for your latest diversion - multi-body solutions in GR, it's afaik still true only one highly artificial genuinely 2-body scenario has an exact analytic solution. GR community will simply retort that so what we use numerical methods these days to solve arbitrarily large N-body systems - numerical GR.]

 

Explain to me how GR predicts a metallic iron core in the earth? There are phase diagrams of iron as a function of pressure and temperature, that show this iron phase is a function of pressure. Newtonian gravity connects this to gravitational pressure. I have never seen this phase, as a function of space-time, since the phase, can be made on the surface of the earth, where space-time is not a factor.

Do you understand GR well enough to understand where it begins and ends?

 

I was surprised at your Pro GR stand, while your stand in the paper in public arena (vixra) is anti GR/kind of obit to GR....I did not refer any private discussion. ...my reference was to vixra only, not even to paper link...

I stopped the argument when you acknowledged that you kind of had a change of heart with respect to GR........

 

My position was made clear early on in this thread. Which was to argue purely from within GR that your notion of BNS was inconsistent with existence of an EH which presupposes GR in the first place (or a variant fapp = GR)! I had never followed your earlier threads closely enough to figure out if you were against GR per se or just the 'singularity' aspect of GR. Whatever. You had no right to bring up in this thread my then expressed privately divulged views. And you have no idea what my current position is and neither is it relevant to your now all-over-the-place but originally just BNS topic.

 

I understand all the implications of what I raise. It appears you are the ignorant one, blinded by delusions of grandeur.

GR is a near certain theory of gravity, despite your misinterpretations and sidetracks.

What you ask?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your paper has been totally refuted. You need to learn from that and stop telling others what they can learn.

You have also been told that more than once. Did someone mention about your intellectual dishonesty?

You should learn that what you say everyone takes with a grain of salt.
Like me, when they want some reputable info or knowledge, they can research that easily .

There's only one thing that needs to be cleared up, and I don't believe you are man enough to do that and concede.

 

The topic was an explanation for why charges attract or repel. All I wrote, was logically consistent with wave observations. It does not need game engine math since this is so basic. The expanding universe, by causing a universal red shift, is lowering the energy value of universal photons. If we add the waves of all versions of charge interactions, including spin, charge waves that cancel will attract, while charge waves that amplify or add potential energy, will repel to lower their energy potential. All movements of charge are consistent with the direction of the universal expansion; lowering energy value.

It seems logical that since whatever is behind the universal expansion, is also consistent with the direction of energy in charge behavior, both may be related. I speculated dark energy, simply because this is in vogue. I was trying to play by the rules, even though this is not the simplest explanation to prove, since we cannot make dark energy in the lab to be able to test short range charge interactions.

Say we start with an extreme energy photon. This photon splits into an electron and positron, giving us plus and minus charge. We start with one wave, going at C, and end up with two waves, going less than C. These two moieties, will attract. This means two inertial waves to try to form a composite wave, annihilate, into a single wave, at C. But first, the inertial waves need to cancel, so the wave can quantum jump to C.

In my theory, I use the speed of light as the ground state of the universe. The reason I choose this, is this reference is common to all relative references. Why would anyone choose a relative reference, instead of a universally standardized reference, unless you need relative ambiguity for something that is fuzzy? In this C reference model, all paths of matter, charge and energy in the universe, net go back to C, but in different ways. Charge does this also.

 

Essentially the same way that Newtonian gravity does!

You are not making very much sense when you say things like "I have never seen this phase, as a function of space-time" and "surface of the earth, where space-time is not a factor".
Phase diagrams show the different phases of a material depending on temperature and pressure. Neither Newtonian gravity nor General Relativity tell you anything about the temperature in a gravitational field and therefore don't help you to understand what phase a material will be. Both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity do tell you the strength of the gravitational field so you will be able to determine the pressure from both.

If I tell you I have water at a pressure of 14.7 psi there is no way you could tell me what phase the water is without also knowing the temperature. It could be a solid, a liquid, a gas or a plasma, depending on the temperature.

 

3 things in reply to this.
1. The symbol for the speed of light in a vacuum is "c" it is not "C".
2. You do not have a theory you have conjecture based on a limited understanding of physics.
3. Post is reported for pseudoscience in the science section.

 

Well of course you do.
Your ego is writing checks that your abilities cannot cash.

 

You don't have a theory knucklehead. You're just a nonsense machine. Making up bullshit and smearing it across this forum doesn't make your bullshit a theory. Everything you say was falsified when it came out of your mouth. You're living proof that this section of the forum isn't moderated. Idiot wind.