What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

Again, q-reeus has virtually nothing except intent as evidenced by the thread title, "Simple Geometric Proof that GR GW's are impossible"...and it remains that way at least and until the whole shebang is submitted for appropriate peer review....nothing other than a claim on a science forum where you and I and most others are amateur lay people in this discipline.

I'm attacking no one nor am I stifling any discussion. The problem exists with you under some illusion that this is some sort of academic forum for the enlightment of the scientific world, and for you to push your already known agenda, as much as you deny it.. It ain't! It's a bloody science forum like many others that people like Professor Thorne, Professor Begalman, Professor Hamilton just to name three, have never ever heard of.
Go discuss to your little heart's content. But whatever you discuss, as with your fabricated nonsense re cosmological redshift, changes nothing: That's fact. sorry ol friend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Born with speech impediment, Xelasnave.1947. Dumb - as in Deaf, Dumb and Blind - remember when I said I played a mean Pinball?

BTW, here at OSU and many other Universities it costs nothing to sit in/monitor classes (as long as there is room!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes but I don't let it bother me. I can talk OK now but I am a little shy.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Must take time to comment on that paragraph......
[1] I view nothing misconstrued at least as far as this subject is concerned.
[2] My views align with the mainstream which the vast majority see as the most logical model, and as supported by observational and experimental results. Do you understand? It's really simple, just try.
[3] Appeals to authority are of course the proper way to go on science forums such as this where amateurs like you and I frequent. As long as those appeals to authority are appropriate and expert in that particular area of expertise.eg: Appeal to a Vet re growing tomatoes is invalid: Appeals to Professors of physics, Astronomy, Cosmology about GR and BH's certainly is a valid result for obvious reasons. You understand?, I mean really, its not that hard, just try!
[4]Professor Thorne whom I E-Mailed gave a reply: A reply that justifiably explained why he was unable to research the lengthy post of the OP that I sent, but confirmed what we already knew. That is, that GW's of GR type have been confirmed twice now, and that as a result, also BH's are as good as confirmed...particularly since deniers such as the god are unable to present any scenario that explains the effects we see on spacetime and matter/energy.
And from what I have heard, there still maybe more confirmed sightings.

 

You seem to have misunderstood my previous Post...It was not a question...(no question mark)...
I was stating that I, dmoe, was born with a speech impediment/birth defect, Xelasnave.1947.

 

Yes I thought I must have hinted about it. Well you know how it goes.
I have returned to the bush and will go out of range soon, thanks for your help.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So that justifies what you said in about 6 or so posts? C'mon sonny, pull the other one, it whistles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The real reason was imho, is that the god was given a weeks suspension.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not fooled by those with agendas or cranks or god botherers etc. I take notice intently of reputable people, even those that may not like my style...I read and have read many reputable books.
I am capable of learning and have on three forums I have participated in.
Mainstream is mainstream for a particular reason. It matches observations and experiments best, according to the experts.
Discussions on a science forum, although potentially helpful and always interesting, is also not the arena for invalidating accepted theories for many reasons, not the least being that the participants like you and I are just not qualified.
I read earlier somewhere about you matriculating in uni. You did not elaborate in what discipline. Certainly not astronomy or cosmology or GR: But I'm rather confident if you did matriculate at get your PhD, it was in the electrical arena. close?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...

 

paddoboy:

As I (and earlier, James R) pointed out for your understanding, your opinion is neither here nor there, and basically useless scientifically unless you actually directly address, and present scientific or logical counter arguments to, his OP argument(s) and claims. He can title his OP and thread any way he likes. Anyway, it reads to me as what his OP is all about: arguments to falsify the GR Gravitational Waves claims. So it's a very descriptive title as to content; any "intent" read into it by you is just your own construction and attribution. Besides, the whole OP is about discussing arguments aimed at exactly what the title says the OP is about. No problem unless you have a personal agenda and biased in your reading of it. How many of the science "news" items you repost on here have titles which are similarly "sensationalist"? It is the content and subsequent discussion which sorts out the substance; the title is merely the 'teaser' to prompt discussion.

It's difficult to know which angle you are coming from if you keep making such self-contradictory statements and assertions. On the one, hand you "bomb" threads and discussions with your usual links and appeals to authority and "I support mainstream" uncritical and unargued statements and assertions which effectively sabotage any further chances of a reasonable scientific discussion going ahead; and on the other hand you say you are not attacking anyone in that very same way!

And again with your attributing "agendas" while having the worst of agendas here yourself (as James and I and others have observed and explained to you where and why that is so).

And whatever this site is, it isn't some paddoboy spamming and sabotaging site. It's for discussing properly and fairly posed questions and OPs according to scientific method and fairness principles. Principles which you still seem to be totally unaware of even now after being pointed out calmly and patiently for your benefit.

And whatever discussions here change or do not change, it is not for you to mischaracterize, demand or constrain or sabotage etc as you have been caught doing too often now to be any longer missed by anyone looking on.

Please do not persist in the attitude and attacks which cause most of the avoidable misunderstandings and friction here which the moderators and admin have to waste time cleaning up after your unreasonable, inciting, irrelevant "opinion and links bombing" messes.

Your own self-assessment and conclusions regarding your own behavior hardly come from an "impartial and objective" source, do they, paddoboy?

I, James, and others, have pointed out your faulty and trouble-causing behavior and attacks; and we have appealed to you to tone it down and consider avoiding interrupting and attacking based on opinionated and/or appeals to authority irrelevancies and based on your own misconstruings and mischaracterizations which apparently you are still in denial about even after them having been clearly pointed out for you with examples in support (such as this thread's OP and that other thread's OP). How many and how long will it take to get through your state of denial, paddoboy?

What does it take, paddoboy? I only posted what I did because of the observation of how the sabotage of MY Distinguishing cosmological from SR redshift etc thread by mischaracterizing trolls who did not read or understand properly my OP in that thread.

Whether The God gets banned or not is not my business nor should it be. So again you have used that false attribution of reasons and motives in order to make your straw man and personal attack based on your own opinion rather than the facts. What does it take, paddoboy, for you to see that it is you who has been the problem here?

Why do you insist on invoking "god botherers" when you KNOW I am an ATHEIST? What does it take to stop you employing that irrelevance as a tactic for insinuation and personal attack? Please don't do it again. Thankyou.

As far as I am aware, no one here has presumed to trammel your choice of whom to "notice intently", paddoboy. In any case, the question of whether whom you "notice intently" is correct or not is a matter for settling via fair and proper discussion, not via your personal and uncomprehending opinions or approvals. That is what scientific method dictates. You have been failing to apply those dictates while "bombing" threads and discussions with your now infamous opinionated irrelevancies and appeals to authority without any attempt to actually read and understand and address properly the issue or Op etc which you "bomb" as described many times now.


Paddoboy, it seems you may need some time out to get over the shock of being told the truth about your behavior for some time now; behavior which has occasioned me and James and others trying to get through to you that it is the source of much of the otherwise avoidable hassles which has wasted the time of moderators and admin much too much. Time to stop the hassles, paddoboy. Please try and moderate yourself a bit more in future, so that none of us will have any cause to raise the issue of your behavior ever again. Thankyou.

 

I could easily start rebutting the #1 Troll's particularly outrageous accusations, but doing so would only initiate another round of what is already an unfortunately 'successful' thread derailing campaign. Instead, noting that my recent Report was rejected on a technicality, thus emboldening the #1 Troll to continue rampaging here unchecked, make an appeal to admin. To not go ahead with another mass culling. And to not allow the said thread derailing as excuse to enact thread closure - at least until my put-up-or-shut-up challenge to ostensibly competent critics in #101 has had a sufficient and reasonable chance to be met. And objectively evaluated here. OK?

 

Rebut away q-reeus.....
No one is derailing the thread, you started with a total mind set of causing controversy, 100% certain.
All I'm putting to you is the fact that this forum isn't any professional peer review obviously and you spit the dummy at that fact.
Your claims will be lost in cyber space unknown and uninteresting to any professional in 3 months time: That is fact...Unless of course, and until you get it professionally pee reviewed.
Just because no one has, or no one is able to dispute your "evidenced claim"does not mean it cannot be disputed. I believe anyway that Schmelzer has already done that.
If you are concerned over trashing, I suggest you PM where that derailing is obviously coming from. But you won't

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He can question all he likes. But again, if he were serious, and if he believes he has anything concrete invalidating GR or the already confirmed GR GW's, then he would take it to the scientific community as a whole.
You see, forum's such as this achieve nothing, other than interesting debate between amateurs in the main, and of course as we all know, are open to all.
Problem being that the real scientists and cosmologists, with their heads down and arse up, are far too busy than to participate in such limited and confined fashion as is science forum/s.
ps:
Please don't use my reply as an excuse to start another of your ranting/raving sermons.

 

The point that those professing to overthrow GR are missing, is the fact that the claim that GR is sacrosanct and not to be touched is total crap.
If any young physicist saw any opportunity to invalidate GR and the great man, he would be on to it like a rat up a drain pipe! Think of the fame and the fortune!
And then if we look at the aLIGO experiment, and the associated operatives from around the world, the legitimacy, accuracy and precision of the experiment is obvious, and likewise the numbers of scientists involved.
No DE component needed, no BH's as we know them.....
In other words, if there was the slightest inkling that GR had a problem, it would almost certainly be revealed and revealed by those at the coal face, not those on a science forum.
The same situation of course would be foremost if GW's were not seen.

It's rather easy to substitute limited knowledge of a particular experiment when one is not involved, with anger and apparent conviction when that limited knowledge is confronted with cold hard facts.

 

Obviously, as you are now aware, some while apparently asking questions, the intent to accept any answer is totally absent.

 

The most amusing thing about this thread, as also evident in other anti GR threads, is of course how our anti GR brigade themselves are of so many diverse opinions on how they dream it should be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nothing toxic or malicious at all about the simple request that before you or anyone else can claim that GR is wrong, or that reputable experiments such as aLIGO, are faulty, that you approach such a potentially ground breaking revelation via the scientific methodology and appropriate professional peer review.
Instead, all we get is your usual bluster as in post 180.
You will not change anything on any science forums.

 

What do you expect?

Political movements need unity, to become powerful enough to kill their enemies (or, in the democratic version, to win elections). Scientists do not need any unity. Nor real scientists, nor crank scientists. Unity is established in science in another way - nobody who seriously searches for truth has anything reasonable to object.

Ok, the modern way to organize science has other ways - extremal job insecurity for scientists, so that they have to follow the actual mainstream fads to survive. But this is a big problem, not something to be happy of.

So, in fact you are "amused" about outsiders behaving in a more healthy way than the actual mainstream.

 

Thats paddoboy for all. He has created a class called anti GR brigade, actually it is non existent.

Part timers here are not into any serious science, but it cannot be stated that a poster here will have lesser intelligence than a scientist....what probably would be handicap is lack of data, equipments etc and may be deeper understanding of multi disciplinary approach required for dismantling something which is so well entrenched.

But that should not hinder such people from raising their point of view. A majority would be happy to move along with mainstream, a minority with no direct interest may be vocal supporters and defenders, but a very less minority will raise objection, some may be trivial and some may be worthwhile.


I wonder why your statement that nobody doubts that GR is bad, has gone unnoticed.....Its damning from an insider like you.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who ever said spacetime was a material thing. The holiday certainly did not clear your head any.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Certainly existent on forums such as this.
When we have people,[1] ignorantly claiming GP-B and aLIGO were fraudulent, and [2]although claiming to never be wrong, at the same time were unaware that [3] That when any mass reached its Schwarzchild radius, further collapse was compulsory, [4] Had never heard of the well known and used term spaghettification, [5] Were unaware of the "No Hair theorm, [6] Ignorant of the uselessness of speaking of BH density,[7] Ignorant of the fact that as tidal gravitational effects took hold and became more and more severe, that even the strong nuclear force was overcome, [8]unaware that properties such as spin for example, can logically and reasonably be assigned to within a BH, based on observational evidence exterior to the EH, then that person, without any shadow of doubt, would be the Emperor of any anti GR brigade.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See previous post.