Gravitational Time Dilation

I'm not sure what is typical with your approach.
The ether as generally inferred has been scrapped.
Time and space as generally inferred are both real and non absolute.
This evidence for this has been given many times.
You claim that your hypothesis predicts and aligns with exactly what GR does, yet you refuse to accept the scientific methodology that if that was true, then in such cases, the incumbent model [GR] will almost certainly maintain pride of place......particularly since GR has been constantly tested, and is still being tested for its zones of applicability and so far all very successfully with total positive results. GP-B being the most notable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are perhaps thinking in particular of the member (who identifies with a hideous bug-eyed freak avatar) interjecting with inane comments in #295, #296, #298. To gain some appreciation of said members true worth, take an interesting and revealing look beginning here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravity-a-wave.42818/page-2#post-3235551
The following posts there says a lot about the credentials of your shrugs-a-lot shakes-head-a-lot critic. He even managed to get the raving BS wrong - Lazar referred to 'element 115', NOT 'element 118' as the mysterious back-engineered UFO-propulsion anti-gravity element:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar#Claims_regarding_Area_51_.2F_Area_S4
Then ask said member for the details of his (it's?) supposed Top Secret (or was it way-above-top-secret?) job. My guess - honorary MUFON record-keeper!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, there is no way to scrap "the ether as generally inferred" in scientific methodology. The scientific methodology precribes to evaluate theories as they are proposed, without rejecting them simply because they remember somehow old already rejected theories.
What is typical to my approach is that I care about the empirical evidence which exists, but want to find out if it really, as claimed in popular literature, rejects notions like absolute time, absolute space, or the ether. It appears that it does not.
The way how this is shown is that I propose an ether theory which, without doubt, contains all the items which are claimed to be rejected - absolute time, absolute space, and the ether - but is, on the other hand, as close as possible to existing theories.
In particular, my ether theory is a metric theory of gravity, so that any general evidence in favour of metric theories of gravity does not provide arguments against the ether. Moreover, even the Einstein Equivalence Principle holds in my theory. This excludes all tests of the EEP as tests against the ether.
In the case of Y>0 there remains a remarkable difference in the predictions - namely that there will be stable frozen stars with extremal surface time dilation, and that the big bang has to be replaced by a big bounce. For Y<0 even these differences are not present.

All this has already explained you several times. Yet, you continue to claim, without specification of particular experiments, or, if you specify some of them (like GP-B), without an argument that my ether theory makes necessarily a different prediction than GR for this experiment, that my ether theory or the ether in general is somehow refuted by science.

You continue to make the claim, without evidence, that the tests which show no differences between GR and GLET somehow prove some purely metaphysical claims about a "spacetime" existing and about space and time being non-absolute.

Learn a little bit logic. If space and time would have been proven to be non-absolute, it would be impossible to construct a theory with absolute space and time which is empirically viable. Such a theory has been presented, published in a normal peer-reviewed scientific journal, thus, with all requirements the scientific methodology contains.

You also continue to make nonsensical claims that established theories have to remain established as long as they appear on equal foot with new theories. This is a known human weakness - people don't like to change what they have learned early in live, the number of people who switch between the different religions is minimal, even if no empirical evidence favours one religion in comparison with another. It is explicitly not part of the scientific method, because there is no logical, scientific justification for doing this. You still continue to present theories as "proven" and "true" even if they are long known to be false, and survive only as approximations in restricted domains of applicability.

Start to behave like a scientist - work with arguments, justify your claims by arguments, start taking into account the arguments presented by your opponents. This does not require you to accept them - it requires or to accept them, or to present counterarguments. But to ignore them, and to continue to claim the claims which have been refuted or at least questioned by these arguments without even mentioning them is clearly unscientific behaviour.

Your behaviour - ignorance of arguments, repetition of simple dogmas - is democratic behaviour, not scientific behaviour. You can win democratic elections with such techniques, but not scientific disputes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you not recognise the classic "Roswell Grey" style of alien?

You even mention UFOs and Area 51.

 

Apart from some lost grey matter characters like Shruggy Avatar....mostly the people who put new idea and who oppose new idea are moderately intelligent, but with a rider.

Those who put forward new idea, they are intelligent enough to assess that the idea is not plane simple cranky, the idea is worthy of discussion with positive approach on either side. This much intelligence and fairness I have seen in all the new idea givers.

But those who oppose the new ideas, certainly show the flashes of intelligence, but their opposition is limited to few lines...

1. It violates SR / GR.Period.
2. You are not a PhD etc.
3. Your paper is not peer reviewed.
4. You have an agenda, you are a troll, you are a crackpot.

Not even once I have seen these guys coming out and saying, ok come on, although your idea is not up to the mark as yet but still let us explore further.....I am fully convinced that substantial overhauling would be made in certain theories of cosmology......and it is not necessary that only PhDs would do that....in fact they won't be able to do that because they are tuned as per existing ideas..

 

Daecon - are you off your meds or what? Who the hell is the unnamed 'you' being referred to? How about using the quote facility as normal decorum requires. And where did this 'you' character mention UFOs and Area 51?

 

If Schmelzer hadn't posted a few seconds before me, my comment would have been directly after yours.

Even so, it's pretty obvious that I was referring to you just by reading the last few postings.

After further consideration, krash661's avatar may be a Roswelll Grey, or it may be the theorised potential evolution of a dinosaur if they hadn't gone extinct 65 million years ago...

 

Actually his former signature quote likely indicated some reference to future AI as per movie of same name. Whatever. What counts is one's actual beliefs and intellectual and more importantly moral & ethical worth. Anyway hopefully you now appreciate that without religiously adhering to use of quote facility, things can easily get mixed up.

 

And once again I'll remind you as you keep on avoiding it, your paper is totally theoretical and even at best if it matched everything GR does, would still not see it displace GR.
Your behaviour by the way, your insults driven by the fact that you are failing to convert me, is amateurish in the extreme.
Now stop making excuses, stop fabricating any conspiracy and take your model to academia and sell it, if you can.

 

Not true my dear friend. Everything I have disputed with you, everything over many threads, has all been upheld by expert Professionals.
The latest for example..........


mitch@jila,com.edu
This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.

Referring to your paper of course.

 

It seems, you don't get the point. I have repeated the argument, that there is no such element in standard scientific methodology which favours established theories in comparison with new ones. There is such an element of preference for old things in real science, without doubt, but this is a known human weakness, without scientific value.

So, I do not "keep avoiding it", but I keep repeating this simple point to you. You don't show me that my arguments are wrong, you do not reference any scientific methodological literature which justifies a preference for old theories if everything else is on equal foot, and you totally ignore that the two theories are not on equal foot because my ether theory can be easily quantized, while GR quantization is impossible, as far as we can say this after almost 70 years of failure to quantize GR.

This is, by the way, an insulting defamation. It is, additionally, completely unbased. I have no problem at all if somebody simply accepts that he has no justified arguments against the theory but nonetheless prefers the standard spacetime interpretation. I criticize your behaviour not driven by some insult, but because you repeat - even in this post - the same unscientific behaviour.
By the way, your claim that my "insults" are "amateurish in the extreme", is also not justified by any evidence or supporting argumentation, thus, even in your insults you repeat your unscientific behaviour.

 

It seems, you don't get the point. I have repeated the argument, that there is no such element in standard scientific methodology which favours established theories in comparison with new ones. There is such an element of preference for old things in real science, without doubt, but this is a known human weakness, without scientific value.

So, I do not "keep avoiding it", but I keep repeating this simple point to you. You don't show me that my arguments are wrong, you do not reference any scientific methodological literature which justifies a preference for old theories if everything else is on equal foot, and you totally ignore that the two theories are not on equal foot because my ether theory can be easily quantized, while GR quantization is impossible, as far as we can say this after almost 70 years of failure to quantize GR.

This is, by the way, an insulting defamation. It is, additionally, completely unbased. I have no problem at all if somebody simply accepts that he has no justified arguments against the theory but nonetheless prefers the standard spacetime interpretation. I criticize your behaviour not driven by some insult, but because you repeat - even in this post - the same unscientific behaviour.
By the way, your claim that my "insults" are "amateurish in the extreme", is also not justified by any evidence or supporting argumentation, thus, even in your insults you repeat your unscientific behaviour.

 

So you say, and as is evident, much of what you say is in error.

So you're a genius?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't think so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All I have claimed has been referenced and linked to. I don't need to do anymore than that.
The onus is on you to invalidate the incumbent model and have yours put there in its place. That won't and will never be done, simply because it fails.

I only see evidence as to your ignorance of the scientific method.
And like I said, and as is the habit with all trolls, you are quick to pick up on any of my little less then respectful posts, and show much pretentious indignation, yet you ignore your own.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Which makes you look rather foolish.

 

This is not the problem discussed. The problem discussed is if quantization of GR is possible or not, and if quantization of GLET is possible or not.

You need, if you want to be accepted as a reasonable participant in a scientific discussion. In this case you would have to show some reaction if counterarguments are presented. As this reaction should be different from simply repeating the questioned claims, without further evidence, and without even mentioning the counterarguments which have been presented.

The difference is that you make only claims, without supporting them with evidence, without answering counterarguments. And that you continue to use unjustified personal attacks like:

 

It is too bad, potentially interesting discussions of unique and creative POVs, get bogged down into insults that sound like a married couple arguing.

In my experience, the main problem is when you come up with something new and unique, the audience does not have the same amount of background thinking that led to that conclusion. The thinking through and the process of elimination may be the result of weeks or months of thinking. The audience sees a bottom line and does not know how to answer and not sound dumb in terms of the subject at hand. This sort of puts people back to school, having to work to get up to steam. Since they feel they have already graduated, they feel smarter and moire self assured saying what they know; status quo. If that does not work, arguing is easier than studying.

Knowing this about human nature, I find it easier on the audience, to stay simple, and not get too technical. However, a lack of impressive technical flair is sometimes mistaken for nativity. The buzz words are important to many. But in reality it is actually harder to reduce the complex to simplicity, so anyone can follow. Simplicity opens you up to even more critics, since it can reach more levels of skill with different angles of thinking, which is useful for testing the waters. Complex can wall itself, when there are only a couple of critics, or none up to steam, who wish to go back to school.

If you look at gravity or GR relative to the sun, gravity is applying pressure, that is causing work and nuclear fusion in the core. This releases heat and energy, which exerts an outward pressure, that resists gravity so space-time cannot contract the mass to neutron density. GR, as applied to our sun, is actually gravity in the context of other forces and pressures going in the opposite direction. The space-time well is an average, and not just gravity.

 

Having earlier said that I don't agree with what Schmelzer has presented here of his theory, I still have found no reason to put his paper high on my reading list..,

paddoboy, Einstein's introduction of SR and GR were both totally theoretical. Many many papers published about theoretical physics are totally theoretical, and could be nothing else as indicated by the theoretical, in theoretical physics.

An aside, and again without in any way intending to endorse Schmelzer's ideas.., our theoretical understanding of cosmology and and GR, together with the increased observational evidence supporting many predictions made by GR, create a theoretical environment far different than Einstein faced, when introducing SR and even GR. Today unless someone is presenting a theory that completely displaces SR and GR, not a likely situation, it is more realistic to expect alternative theories of gravity will only refine descriptions and explanations, or better handle some problematic issue, rather than completely replace or displace GR. Almost everyone who is anyone will tell you that they expect that one day there will be a new theory of gravitation within which GR will be a component. Ether theories of gravity are constantly being re investigated as we learn more detail about the universe. None that I have reviewed even claim to rigorusley match GR let alone replace it, but they are getting closer... And the idea of an ether, is not dissimilar to how many theoretical physicists think of spacetime, though the word continues to carry a great deal of baggage from its 19th origins.

 

Hm, I don't think this is the way science works.

A new theory has to make sure that the old theory survives as an approximation of the new one. This is a necessity, which was a necessity already for SR and GR, which had to guarantee that previous theories survive as a limit. For SR this was unproblematic in the case of Maxwell theory (which was already Lorentz symmetric) and not very problematic in the case of usual matter (because usual matter at very large velocities was not accessible to experiments anyway) but quite problematic in the case of gravity. Which was the reason to develop GR, which is, from conceptual point of view, a very different theory. So, we can say that GR completely overturned old physics - but nonetheless old physics survived in a limit as approximations.

Similarly, quantum theory was something completely new - but it also had the necessity to have an appropriate classical limit, with classical theory surviving as an approximation.

So, what is required from the more fundamental theory - to have GR surviving as an approximation - does in no way prevent a complete overthrow of the metaphysical ideas and concepts of GR. And this is what my theory shows - at least as a possibility. The GR spacetime metaphysics are completely rejected, but, in the case of Y<0, it is very hard to find observational differences betwenn GR and GLET at all. (For Y>0 we have at least frozen stars and inflation/big bounce instead of big bang, but for Y<0 not even this.)

So, if one looks at the two theories from point of view of empirical science, it is only an irrelevant minor correction. But if one looks at the descriptions and explanations, the picture is completely different. GR spacetime is completely overthrown, and replaced by old ether metaphysics, with absolute space and time.

Yes. The actual mainstream view about quantum gravity - which has changed during the last years - is that GR as a quantum theory works, if handled like an effective field theory. That means, like a theory which becomes invalid below some critical distance. But it should be noted that this treatment of GR as an effective field theory violates also basic principles of GR - it is not a background-free or background-independent theory, but handled as a usual field theory on a predefined fixed background.

This is something new to me. There are a few people who consider some toy ether theories like Jacobson and Mattingly. But these are, first, exceptions from the rule, and, second, do not really look serious, in the sense that they look more like toy theories investigated to consider some mathematical possibilities instead of being proposed as true replacements for GR.

 

for individuals like you, yes. massively typical.

seriously ??? all the low level minded professional mental malfunction-ist say such things.
just to inform you, you do realize how obviously wrong your attempted manipulating comment is, correct ?

 

hilarious, yes yes. the piss-ants come out of the word work with their incorrect wikki data in jealousy.
amusing.
from what i have read from you, you're just as pathetic.
(shrugs)
if you had the capabilities of comprehension, you would have understood post that i have explained my actions now days.
i also stated it's insignificant and irrelevant to anything of one says about me.(shrugs)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i have a question for you that wikki will not show or answer.
element115-Dubna Russsia
what does that mean after 115 ?

so what was this elementary rambling post of yours suppose to mean ?

 

hilarious, are you always this confused with simple things ?