Dear tg I am happy you choose to come back after a rest. The fact that you did says something about you which I rate as positive. I dont like your chances of winning the battle but at least you have choosen to continue and that shows a certain degree of bravery. Your posts shakes out many answers that I learn from, so I thank you and thank those who present mainstreams position in reply.
I have never lost and will never loose any battle. It is just the matter of time. Keep learning, shaking out what we know (if found wrong) is the greatest virtue we possess.
Except of course your two threads both shifted to the pseudoscience, and your fabricated gravitational lensing misunderstandings, along with not knowing that total collapse is inevitable when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, and not being able to understand the fact that any photon emitted directly radially away from just on the EH this side of it, will appear to hover there forever [depending on FoR], not to mention being unable to understand the fact that gravity inexorably will overcome all other forces in a BH, on its way to or at the Singularity...Wow! That's enough for now, I'll see what else I can dig up under later.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you become famous your words will be quoted in one hundred years time. What do you think is wrong. Before we pull down a building its a good idea to have another to move into. Is there any point in attacking anything unless you can replace it with something better. Good to see you rested and confident.
It seems to me science works using models to describe reality I think the way it works is that a model will be used until a better model is presented that not only does what the old model does and make testable observations predictions which the first model has been seen to do, but the new model in addition needs to do something the first model could not do. GR is accepted as a model that works if you have a problem with it you just have to come up with a better model. It is not even a case of proving it wrong but showing a better model. You mentioned inflation in another thread. Do you not think if someone could come up something better from mainstream they would not be happy to beat Guth and company. Simple answer its the best we have so far to explain the problem inflation solved. Now if you have something better show it, prove it, include an explanation of how it makes better predictions, how it is a better model. Saying you find it illogical and offerring your infalibility as authority with no mention of a better model wont take you anywhere. Anyways I see elsewhere the battle continues.
Yes, he has made a return. They come and they go....notice that expletives deleted has not been around.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The link below will help you a bit. It is not necessary that you should have an alternative in place, if certain observation falsifies the existing one... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
But you do not have any evidence whatsoever to falsify the BB, SR, GR, Evolution, Gravitational lensing, Time Dilation, Length contraction, or any other accepted aspect of 21st century cosmology, and nor are qualified to formulate any alternative hypothetical nonsense. They are just simple facts.
We take a massive spherical object, let us consider only one layer of space, mind you space, not the spacetime....one layer here means on one side at a distance r (> radius of object)for ease of understanding.....now suppose that photons are coming from infinity and getting bent near the object, so you can conseptualise the motion of photons as some kind of laminar fluid flow. So if we plot or trace this photon with respect to its position in the space v s time, we will get a arc type path (word line), which we can visulaize as part of spacetime, repeat this exercise with other photons in the same direction along that layer, you will get a fabric (planar), this will again be a phis we can call art of spacetime having the motion profiles of multiple photons. This also can be visualized....so if we repeat this exercise then all around this object we can visulaize a complete mesh of arcs(nul geodesics), there will be infinite such null meshes, because on each point there would be infinite null geodesics depending on the intial direction of photon. This we can call as null spacetime....I see no physicality (perception aspect) in this, its pure mathematical exercise, and for a moment if I ignore the discrepancy in the deflection value of photon between Newtonian Gravity and GR, then I can safely say that Newtonian Universal Gravity also can be interpreted as spacetime...that means I can derive the concept of spacetime in Newtonian Gravity as well, its easier...It can be extended to any initial condition. In fact I find it more appealing than GR.
Thank you for sharing your ideas. It would seem to me certainly Newtonian Gravity is still very useful but GR offers greater accuracy. It is my understanding that GR is a well tested model such that mainstream embraces its usefulness and that it is the best we have at the moment. I dont understand where that leaves you other than you need to offer a better model that does all GR does and in addition offers something more. A new model needs better features than the model it is to replace. I am curious can you use Newtonian Gravity to produce a more accurate GPS system. Can you offer a model that does a better job would seem like a good place to start. Keep up your passion for this subject but as I have suggested but will state clearly, you need to become absolutly familar with mainstream before you attempt to offer a new model. There is a saying.. A statue has never been erected for a critic.. I interprete such to mean that the world will aplaud the man who produces the idea, the play or the book but has little interest in those who critisize with no body of work of their own. That should not deter one from seeking new ideas but should suggest employement of humility when commenting upon the body of work accumulated by others. I think humility and patience are most desirable qualities that greatly assist us in learning and achievement.
The concept of area while describing the motion caused due to Gravity is bad, the motion can only be described as line or arc segment. The point is not that when an object (with non point dimensions) traverses covers the area due to its shape, the motion can only be defined with a line segment. So spacetime concept with respect to Gravitational Motion is bad and is irrelevant, most of the time all the objects around a massive object are considered as particles while solving GR equations, so there is no question of warping / bending of spacetime. Path of the partcile (or photon) changes in presence of gravitational field, not because some fairy spacetime curvature.
Since you can't even do a Freshman physics problem, I'm afraid I will have to ignore your layman opinions on GR.
