Seeking Evidence of Cosmological Inflation:

This was the main idea of my paper "against" Hamilton, that my "ether river" is simply the better version of the "river model". ;-)

Cited or not, better is better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Was content to avoid this thread but since previous posts in earlier threads knocking down validity of 'river model' have been consistently ignored and error repeated, here's some of those posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3299790/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3302659/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravitational-time-dilation.145889/page-30#post-3303745 and the next 3 that thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3343263/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This site has few sound propagandist for mainstream. Anyone who opposes even the analogies of mainstream becomes alternative nut with agenda. And now I understand why people tolerate such posters, the site is primarily a mainstream push site, people at power need workers. Political leaders tolerate and support the nonsense spread by their workers as long as it supports their party point of view, however absurd that may be.

I am aghast how a man of Schmelzer knowldege is being tortured by this particluar poster.....the contrast is visible but still Schemlezer is a game.

 

I sympathize with certain observations there, but main point of my above post is to emphasize the need to actually learn from the past and not keep repeating erroneous stuff effectively dealt with back then. As for 'torturing', I get the impression some posters actually enjoy the intellectual challenge of refuting others no matter how many times it all gets repeated. Today's theme then is 'cycles'.

 

This site is first and foremost a science forum. Mainstream science is certainly not perfect, but like the scientific methodology and peer review it is the best we have and far far in advance of alternative people, most with no qualifications but plenty of self appraised egos and obviously agendas, that pretend they are out to right whatever wrongs they perceive with mainstream science, particularly in the field of cosmology. That wont happen, sorry about that.
Cosmology certainly will change and change for the better, as further and further observations and experiments dictate, and those changes, wait for it! will be brought about by the mainstream itself, just as it always has.

The thing that amazes me, is the nature of this forum as attractive to those that believe they can change things from a position of rhetoric on a remote science forum such as this, yet I have never really seen any agreement between any of them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Those same alternative hopefuls bang on about how faulty GR is and the intransigence of mainstream/academia, all from the comfort of their chair in front of a computer screen, with nothing else to offer.
Claims, claims, and more claims is all we here. Farsight has claimed he has a TOE and constantly says the speed of light is variable

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Q-reeus has claimed relativity is BS, Dansharwen has claimed, hmmm, I must admit I'm still not sure what he has claimed,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the god claims 21st century cosmology needs rewritten and that GP-B and aLIGO were fraudulent, Schmelzer claims he has an ether hypothesis that extends further than GR. And yet here they all linger.
Perhaps any one of them, or possibly all of them, will be in line for this years Nobel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In actual fact and all humour aside, the above examples actually show why mainstream cosmology and science in general can proceed as per normal with not much to worry about.

On the current issue being discussed re the river/waterfall model, I must thank q-reeus and the links he has given particularly the last one with the four or five expert professional opinions that mostly support exactly what I said then and what I have said in this thread about the river model being an analogy and a good analogy at that. Like many accepted cosmological models, that are also analogies, all work well within certain parameters and all have some limitations, which I have always said.....So again, thanks to q-reeus for re-raising those links re-enforcing my position.

The main debate re the river model in this thread though was with the god, and the scenario of a photon emitted at just this side of the EH of a BH, would be seen to hover there forever, never getting away and never falling in.
That of course does not need the river/waterfall model to validate it, and is simply an extension of what constitutes a GR BH, and its EH.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Schmelzer is certainly a professional, and you should note carefully a professional that has also rubbished a few of your own nonsensical ideas, and I would hazard a guess probably disagrees with a lot more of the nonsense you seem to want to pass off as science at times.
In saying that Schmelzer is also somewhat of a maverick and often highlights the fact that he is independant. He has a paper on an ether he claims is superior to GR, and on that I vehemently disagree with his interpretation and I have told him why. I also vehemently disagree with his argumentative style and pedant as shown in this thread and I have given reasons.
I totally reject your own fabricated indignation and hand wringing on this debate between him and I and see it as "sour grapes" nothing more, nothing less.

 

The God, why, exactly, do you think "the mainstream" IS "the mainstream"?

 

Really? Relativity covers both SR and GR. That's a very broad brush. And your accusation is thus one you will be unable to defend. But just try.

Nice of you to thank me, but try and get it straight. Poisson's closing comment in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravitational-time-dilation.145889/page-31#post-3303749
is the most accurate and relevant and, despite the as you like to phrase it 'squirming' by Hamilton in #599 that thread, totally undermines the notion of 'falling spacetime'.
As does my own observations made in linked posts given in #159 here. And despite cunning attempts at morphing to suit a changing landscape, your initial position was to unequivocally back the Hamilton 'river model' as 'real' i.e. 'spacetime really falls into a BH'. Challenge me on that - and I will be happy to quote relevant posts.

 

Certainly, I will correct myself......It was of course GR and reference to BH's from memory, and again from memory with a provocative title inferring BS, which obviously is the acronym for bullshit, and which was consequently shifted to the alternative section...or was that the pseudoscience section?

Think nothing of it.....I give compliments [and brick bats] when they are due.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What Poisson said in part.....
"Analogies can be useful in simplifying complicated
ideas, but they usually break down when one tries to
carry them too far or take them too seriously. The
waterfall analogy is useful, because it illustrates
how difficult it would be to maintain yourself at
a fixed position outside a black hole".
and Steve Carlip said the following in part.......
"but Hamilton and Lisle demonstrate that
it is a pretty good one. In particular, the coordinates are
tied to infalling observers, a sensible choice in GR, and it's
not such a bad analogy to say that relative to those observers,
space "flows." Hamilton and Lisle work out the details, for
both the Schwarzschild and the more complicated Kerr case".
In essence with all the links the wonderful tashja did dig up for us, all actually looked at the river/waterfall model as a good analogy.

Go ahead, make yourself happy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But please put a number to said relevant post and thread......
In essence as with most of the old professional replies, the river/waterfall model, is a quite useful analogy of most BH types, and the spacetime that makes up a BH as well as in its vicinity and serves its purpose as Prof Poisson says
"how difficult it would be to maintain yourself at
a fixed position outside a black hole". Like all analogies, it has limitations.
As Professor Carlip said in part in post 600 in the old gravitational time dilation thread.................
" It is, of course, an analogy
-- any plain language description of GR is necessarily going
to be an analogy -- but Hamilton and Lisle demonstrate that
it is a pretty good one. In particular, the coordinates are
tied to infalling observers, a sensible choice in GR, and it's
not such a bad analogy to say that relative to those observers,
space "flows." Hamilton and Lisle work out the details, for
both the Schwarzschild and the more complicated Kerr case".

 

Your claim was 'Q-reeus has claimed relativity is BS'. Even when severely qualified to be just referring to GR, I never stated it like that. It's well known I consider GR to be wrong, but your 'BS' tag is over the top. And yes I started a thread "Free-fall to singularity is BS (or - don't just trust 'authorities')" which criticized one particular absurd but popular claim relating to BH's. And it was indeed shifted to Alternative Theories - apart from anything else a manifestly incorrect categorization hence imo an obviously personally motivated action. Such is how things can be at SF.

Sure. I was careless btw in #167 by using the term spacetime rather than space, but as per next post, and some others, you used it anyway, so in that sense I was 'accurate'.:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/terminal-velocity-inside-a-black-hole.150534/#post-3308297
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...y-an-approximation.146684/page-2#post-3299078 ('correct' use of space not spacetime there.)
There are others but those will do. Even if you 'really meant' it was just an analogy, the analogy is a poor one for reasons covered, and just invites the wrong viewpoint.

 

Yes, I standby that, and its no humour despite your propaganda and few members maths. The 21st Century shall be rewritten, time frame not beyond 2025...

GP-B and aLIGO both are bad....it is analysis of convenience, if you have noise level data infront of you, even you can make a distinctly nice looking picture out of it to suit your theory.

Theory talks of curvature of spacetime and ripples in the curvature of spacetime...that is not same as curvature of space or ripples in the curvature of space (whatever that means).

As soon as you talk of curvature of space and ripples in the curvature of the spacetime..you are assigning physical property to space...back to aether or back to field. Schmelzer has a point, but his latching on with GR maths, makes his claim problematic. He should have started with first principle.

 

As long as it math, what is the problem?

By the way, if you are interested in first principles for an ether, see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/derivation.php

 

Thats interesting, but further tanks you. Is the concept of institutional aspect or organizational aspect in any set up is alien to you ?

You know these are big talks, you should excuse yourself, as I told you earlier, a guy who does not even know that angle can be measured in radians, should not be permitted to post anything in science forums. Nuisance value. Subject is complex, and you are showing no sign of learning.

 

I have seen your brief, try getting the maths, with fluid dynamics. There will be commonality or similarity in expressions but you will get an independent GR piggyless theory.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps it would have got an even bigger reaction over at Cosmoquest....
This place is easy peasy!

I never meant it any other way than an analogy and you know that my friend....
And it is an excellent, mathematical compliant, and useful analogy, supported by the professionals we have been lucky enough to hear from, and with many citations.

 

I don't believe I need to comment too much on the above baseless,amateurish fairy tale opinion...Just the reason why a lot of your baseless claims have been shifted to the fringes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure, and all observed and verified by many experiments, and accepted by all reputable cosmologists.
With Schmelzer's claims, need I say a rose by any other name........

 

[Moderator: 45 off-topic posts have been moved to a new thread, “Mainstream GR versus Farsight, mote in their eye or beam in his?”. Please check carefully as to which thread you are replying to. Farsight already has a PM open with moderation on this general topic.]