Gravitational Time Dilation

Not at all. I understand perfectly. The reality is that you fail to understand. Perhaps you need to go back to being an electrician.....I'm sure there's plenty of light bulbs that need replacing...You could even progress to LED bulbs instead!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

These Professors and I are trying to help you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Probably he wanted to get rid of something or he just wanted some comedy !!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, I almost forgot Rajesh.....the massless BH that is spoken of, is part of a thought experiment to illustrate gravity/spacetime nonlinearity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok then, please explain in your language what is that massfull BH has but massless BH does not have ?? And after that define massless BH in 10 words (word limit to be strictly adhered to)

 

I don't need to baby sit you Rajesh.....I have been doing it now for many months over many threads of yours, the majority of which have been moved out of science.
Read it all carefully and you'll get the point...that being that gravity/spacetime is nonlinear.
Best of luck.

 

You are incorrigible !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So you bring me back into this side issue tiff between yourself and Rajesh. That astonishingly gruff and brief statement from Rovelli would have to be, by far, the uniquely short and by itself meaningless quote from a "Prof.' tashja ever furnished. There is nothing comparable anywhere else, where the norm is an extended and reasoned response by whoever. Living proof to doubters that there is indeed a Devil, and he looks after his own - that would definitely include you paddoboy!

My answer was given several times but best summed up in this post linking to earlier posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/neutron-star-to-black-hole.143965/page-31#post-3275449
Just follow the links back. Like it or not, believe it or not, there is, as also for other key issues, division among GR experts on 'gravity gravitates'. Fact is, vanishing of Ricci curvature everywhere exterior to a matter-energy-momentum distribution (by definition excluding 'gravitational field' contributions) absolutely precludes 'gravity begetting further gravity'. That's what the EFE's say. But that's been no barrier to 'creative' types who needed different outcomes. Hence 'focused gravitational waves' might 'create a BH', and other such nonsense. Equivalent to claiming an EM wave contains charge density.
The real question should be "When did some weird Hegelian dialectic cult take over GR and turn it into a 'let's get our mesmerized followers to believe that reconciling opposites can make sense'. Was Einstein a cult leader from the start, or did it creep in between then and now?".

 

GR is not at all Hegelian !!

 

Q-reeus,

I should correct you..........I have no tiff with Paddoboy, I am just ascertaining the nadir point of his knowledge....and there is no better way, then to make him talk/type.

 

Of course, a paper presenting a new theory of gravity is theoretical

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Usually such a paper will be even purely theoretical. In my case, this is different, because the paper already mentions several in principle observable differences between GR and GLET.

Of course, a paper containing the definition of another theory does not invalidate GR - this would be at least very strange. Ok, in principle it is possible, that the author of the new theory introduces, in the same paper, a strong new argument against the old theory, to motivate his new theory. But this would be an exception, very hard to expect today, where the "publish or perish" regime motivates many scientists to split their papers into several, to increase their numbers of papers, down to one "publon" - the minimal amount of new information which would be sufficient for a separate paper. Ok, this does not work for outsiders, who, instead, have to be happy if they can publish at all, and try to put as much information into one paper as possible. But this is because of the quite different criteria used in the reality of science for publishing mainstream vs. outsider articles. Whatever, my paper defining GLET does not contain new arguments against GR, thus, cannot invalidate GR and does not claim to do this. Thus, you claim a triviality - nobody thinks differently - as if this would be a refutation of some claim I have made. This is also questionable behaviour.

Regarding the question if it will replace GR, future will show. The advantages in the domain of quantization are simple and obvious. The advantages regarding Hamilton formalism and local energy and momentum conservation laws for the gravitational field are simple and obvious too. The compatibility with realistic or causal interpretations of quantum theory (which require a preferred frame to explain causally the violations of Bell's inequalities) is trivial and obvious too. What are the advantages of GR? That it contains mystical scifi-nonsense like wormholes and causal loops?

 

And your posts paint you as a fool.

Certainly that's what you would like people to believe, but the evidence says different. It's you that is constantly being rebuked by the experts and all reputable links......It's you that proposes the BNS and anti GR stance....It's you that avoids all pertinent points to rant on with your continued insults,,,It's you that lacks the intestinal fortitude to admit when you are wrong.
In the mean time, I'll always be here to keep you at least half way honest.
That, you are just going to have to live with.

PS: You are still avoiding the question Rajesh.
Taking into account that all links I have given, and the two professional opinions that agree with the nonlinearity of gravity/spacetime, can you give us any link, or any other expert opinion, or any reason at all, why those opinions should be discarded in favour of your own.
It's really a simple enough request if you have any credibility left at all.
Oh, and really, I wouldn't go appealing to qreeus, as I'm sure his opinion of you is lower than mine.

 

Observable differences is your stumbling block. GR is near certain in its application and predictive abilities, so you would need evidence of your predictions being superior to GR.
I don't believe your hypothesis can do that, and if it could...guess what? You would not be here.
And that's all that matters.

 

Wow!!! You are so touchy!! Seriously, do you have a problem?
I re-raised the issue to make a point to another....just tough luck that the point was also in relation to the same disagreement with you. Take it easy!

Obviously, the brief and gruff statement was simply to avoid getting involved in the silly free for all you and I were having.
We have already lost one potential expert contributor [Professor Link Bennett] due to the stupid obstinacy of Rajesh. These are learned men, most at the coal face of science, and obviously they certainly do not want to be involved in such antics.
Of course if a similar brief and gruff statement was to agree with your view, I would say you wouldn't be kicking up any stink about it then, correct?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not going back as I don't have time, but from memory, I don't remember any opinion supporting yours on that issue, other than perhaps "Farsight"

 

LOL, but why don't you tell this to string theorists? They receive now already more than 20 years almost all taxpayer's money for fundamental research, but have not produced even a single testable prediction.

Oh, sorry, I have forgotten, they are mainstream, and mainstream scientists are Holy Men. And that's all that matters - to you.

Educated people know that there are problems worth to be considered, which are beyond the reach of experiments today. Problems like the incompatibility between quantum theory and GR. Or the problem how to explain the strange regularities which the standard model contains.

And, why do you think I would not visit various forums? Whatever happens, I would never work in the US or in England, even if they would offer me a prof position in a prestigeous university - for political as well as personal reasons. Ok, to have a good university library nearby is helpful for a scientist, but the net is already a good replacement for a library. And, ok, working at a university has also the advantage that there would be some people to talk with who have some basic education. But, similarly, the net is already a good enough replacement for this. So, I prefer now (and will prefer in future) to stay at a place where it is nice to live - without university, without library, but with nice people around, and to remain independent. I will never write some applications for grants or so - I leave this to poor people who cannot afford independence. No, I'm not rich - but rich enough for living at the places where I prefer to live, as an independent scientist.

So, I would not go to places where the typical mainstream scientist works. And, even after a groundbreaking success, remain an independent scientist, and, if I would like to communicate about scientific questions, I would continue to use the internet.

 

From what I know of string theory, it is said to be mathematically beautiful and comprehensive. The problem obviously is we do not have the technology to observe at the applicable levels.
Why does that get funding and yours does not? Maybe because at least string theory is a quantum gravity theory of sorts, and a goal of physics and cosmology.

Not really. It's just that I see mainstream as acceptable while those on the outside seem to be flush with personal agendas and such.

And that is part of the reason why string and its derivitives are still considered.

 

I have explained this many times. Modern "publish or perish"-science is organized in such a way that people have to follow a few fashionable directions, which can offer journals, conferences, and grants. Which are these fashionable directions is, in fundamental physics, more or less accidental.

The model I propose for the SM is also "a quantum gravity theory of sorts", the goals are quite explicitly the same, the only difference is that I have reached them, string theory not.

And why my ether theory is superior to GR, and my ether model for the SM superior to string theory.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I have explained just as many times that I don't accept conspiracy excuses and the like.

Well then your paper should be eventually accepted or at least rasied for discussions amongst interesting groups. I await anxiously the outcomes.

That's just in your opinion, which is obviously somewhat coloured.

 

That would be selective recall!

It would seem obvious that there are differences of opinion and interpretation on that issue... After all we have no evidence that any gravitational field exists anywhere in the absence of a central mass.

 

Not at all....but be my guest... go back and pull any relative posts/links that support that view.

That's not the particular issue at hand. The issue at hand is that gravity/spacetime is nonlinear.

 

This is a nice discussion on the gravity of gravity.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity
Tashja getting some fun stuff. Especially Professor Rovelli comment. Think about gravity as the local spacetime curvature and everything that contributes to the local spacetime curvature determining the natural path [geodesic path] of the test particle in the examples. As the two different mass move they change their individual contribution to the local spacetime curvature. The test particles make a contribution to their local spacetime curvature. Because the local spacetime curvature is dynamic the orbits of planets get perturbed because the path changes as the contribution from everything that makes up the appropriate tensor changes dynamically.