Gravitational Time Dilation

Let me state it again. Light/photons due to their momentum, do create an infinitesemal amount of curvature within the already geodesic path they are following. This is also illustrated in the mechanics of solar sails, and also the non-linear property of gravity and its ability also of making more gravity.

What is even more clear is that you do not want to learn and are only clinging stubbornly to your precious BNS dream and other misconstrued ideas of cosmology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately you behave like an uneducated person - you make personal attacks without any justification.

Unfortunately your text does not show that there is any general energy and momentum conservation law in GR. You give examples of energy conservation laws for test particles moving on a fixed background, where this fixed background has special properties - namely has Killing fields, that means, special vector fields so that movement along these vector fields defines isometries. For such special solutions, one can, of course, define conservation laws corresponding to their isometries. This is far away from a general conservation law for energy and momentum which exist in GR only in a pseudotensor form. Read §20.4 of MTW about this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You mean like this.....

Pot, kettle,black comes to mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He is talking about Noether's theorem and some kind of calculations on pseudotensors to prove the invariant parameters like momentum etc in relativity.............obviously this is also a big sore issue which he does not understand.

 

I understand that you are totally off course as far as BH cosmology is concerned, and that has been supported by many experts, even with regards to the most basic about Schwarzchild radius, and GR invoked compulsory collapse.

 

Please, Sir Paddoboy......even Brucep will tell you that these are complex matters, and surely beyond your reach....Now of course you are not qualified to have a discussion on applicability of Neother's theorem on relativity to prove certain invariances.....You earned your dollar 1 for this post (each post however nonsensical you get dollar 1)

 

I'm educated enough to to know you're ether theory of gravity has been falsified by the observation of the dying pulse train predicted by GR. The facts associated with this argument is that energy, momentum and angular momentum are conserved over the objects geodesic path in GR. That's how it works. Regardless what you say. Just realized you said no general conservation law in your answer but you said no local energy or momentum conservation in what I was responding to. LOL.

 

No, I don't mean like this. Because I have given a justification for this attack. Which you have, of course, omitted in your quote:

You may, of course, think that this is not a justification - once you behave in such a way all the time, without showing any evidence that you recognize that this behaviour violates the rules of scientific discussion. But this is your personal problem.

 

No, I don't mean like this. Because I have given a justification for this attack. Which you have, of course, omitted in your quote:

You may, of course, think that this is not a justification - once you behave in such a way all the time, without showing any evidence that you recognize that this behaviour violates the rules of scientific discussion. But this is your personal problem.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet it continues to be your hypothesis and ideas that are rebuked and your threads moved to alternative section. Quite amusing.

 

There is no justification at all. You are simply defending the undefensible and are unable to let go of your entire theoretical concept. And having that pointed out to you by an ordinary lay person, is like a kick in the guts for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's you that have violated the rules of scientific discussion, plus not even being aware of basic scientific principal re incumbent theories and similar alternative hypothesis....plus also confusing theories with hypothesis also.

And of course rejecting the logical fact that if you had anything of benefit for BH cosmology you would not be here, rather instead you fabricate ridiculous conspiracies against mainstream to support your ego.

 

You are obviously not. Else, you would make reasonable responses to the counterarguments I have made.

So, first, why does the dying pulse train predict anything different from GR for Y<0, where GLET does not predict stable frozen stars? Then, what is wrong with my claim that for small Y>0 the surface of the star can be arbitrary close to the Schwarzschild radius, and, therefore, the part of the radiation of an isotropic explosion on the surface which is able to reach infinity can be as close to zero as one likes, simply by making Y sufficiently small?

You seem to make up your world as you like. Your source has given only energy and angular momentum (not momentum) conservation for two very special solutions - Schwarzschild and Kerr. Which is not questioned, because these solutions have the rotational and translational in time symmetry. So, these are conservation laws for these two special solutions, nothing general for geodesic paths in GR.

 

Bruce, I believe that to some limited extent the email responses below, that tashja obtained and posted, both imply that observations of the dying pulse train as it approaches a BH or Gravstar would be the same and that in principle some difference in how they would be observed for BH, Gravstars or the unlikely BNS, might be differentiated by analysis of differences in the resulting gravitational waves?

The point is that while the dying pulse train was predicted, by GR.., and has been at least initially confirmed, at this time we cannot rule out the possibility that some gravitationally significant object other than a black hole, is involved...... Except Rajesh's BNS is sufficiently inconsistent with reality, to remove it from the list of possibilities.

Links to tashja's two posts with email responses ...

 

not to mention, admits to not understanding what they claim is incorrect, flawed, or wrong. funny. (shrugs).

 

The point is that we all know that scientific theories, like space and time, are malleable and non absolute.
We also know that theories do grow in stature over time, so much so, and to such an extent, that they are often mentioned as "taken for granted"
Newton says if we jump up in the air, we will come back down. I see that as a near certain theory. The BB likewise, is looked on generally favourably by cosmologists and does not look like being overthrown anytime soon.
While the dying pulse train is predicted, by GR, and has been confirmed, at this time, couple that with the other evidence we have for BHs, and we can be comfortably assured that it infers a BH.
Like any scientific theory, it may be moderated, and like any scientific theory, at present it is taken to confirm BHs.
Just as evidence of ergospheres is clearly evidence for a rotating BH metric and mass we commonly refer to as the Kerr metric.

 

Just to clarify: I do not claim, that theories like string theory, GUTs, LQG, supersymmetry or so are incorrect, flawed, or wrong - it is completely sufficient to claim that they are irrelevant for me. I do not have to care about them. They may be mathematically consistent, internally flawless, nice, even beautiful - so what?

Regarding observation, all these theories are, at best, on the same level as my own theory - all they have reached (if they have reached this) is agreement with GR and the SM. From the point of view of the scientific method, there is nothing which makes them somehow objectively better than my theory.

They have, without doubt, immense advantages from economic and sociological point of view - their proponents control the scientific bureaucracy which decides about publications in journals, about participations in conferences, about distributions of grants, and whatever else is important for a successful scientific career.

But this is not a scientific argument (even if it is much more important than scientific arguments in the real life of scientists today). Thus, from a scientific point of view, I'm free to ignore them completely. Thus, I don't even have to understand them to reject them as irrelevant for my own research.

This makes an important difference between these fashionable speculations and theories which have strong observational support like GR and the SMs of particle physics and cosmology. Regarding GR and these SMs, I also do not have to follow them completely, but I have to be able to recover those of their observational predictions which have observational support.

For example, I do not have to be able to obtain solutions of GR with nontrivial topology - we have not observed such solutions - or solutionso of GR with closed causal loops - we have not observed them too. As well, I do not have to recover the spacetime ideology, because it is only ideology. What I have to do is to recover in my theory all those GR predictions which have observational support, from GP-B to dying pulse trains. Which I do.

 

Completely wrong. What distinguishes scientific theories is that they make certain predictions. These certain predictions are what makes them falsifiable by observation. Of course, people who refuse to learn standard scientific methodology and, instead, have their own methodology, which contains things like

which would give old religions a great advantage in comparison with scientific theories, will think differently.

And the bible says that God's ways are unexplainable, which is even more certain ;-).

Instead, Newton has given much more, namely explicit formulas, and this has allowed us to falsify Newtonian theory. Which has happened. To understand that it is false was possible already earlier, because it contained infinities. Newton nonetheless remains a great scientist, and his theory remains useful as an approximation (but an approximation is, from the point of logic, false, simply because it is different from truth. This does not matter, simply because there are usually anyway much more relevant sources of error, but the irrelevance of the error does not make the errorneous result true).

 

and yet it is an argument. i'm arguing that you don't understand what you claim is flawed. i'm arguing you have to understand, which you admitted you don't. that's the argument. at that point, there's no significance to anything only because you don't understand. hence which is why you're continuing to receive the responses you do. if you want a scientific argument, then i suggest learning and understand the science you're attempting to re-establish. i can not have an argument if you can not grasp what you're arguing against. not only that but what are the odds you only have your own theory only because you do not understand what you claim is flawed, which is massively typical.
yes, it's that simple. (shrugs)

as for the rest of your contradicting post, do you ever listen to yourself ?

 

Schmelzer, while to the extent that I understand your theory (I still have not read your paper(s)), I have no issue with most of the comments in your last two posts. I do have an issue with the following comment.

Perhaps when Newton was alive and for some significant time after, while his theory of gravity was essentially unchallenged (at least successfully), your statement might be partially accurate. However, once it was removed to a weak field limit of GR, the same is not an honest criticism. Your critisim of approximations as inherently false, seems a biased and narrow point of view that can do nothing but lead to conflict in discussion. Newtonian mechanics as a weak field limit of GR has already had its limits of application defined and as such is unfairly characterized as falsified. Setting aside the ideological background, one could also say that as a description of gravity, it has been proven within the limitations it is today associated.

In a way what I am saying is that your characterization of Newtonian mechanics and GR, is like saying that when using a common ruler, marking lengths in increments no smaller that cm or 1/8 inch, you are arriving at a false measurement, when everyone using such a ruler understands the limited accuracy. Based on your above statement there can never be a theory which is not false, because we are and will always be limited by the accuracy of our ability to measure and test.....​

The same is true of GR, to the extent that it is supported by observation. Yes, there may and likely will come a time, when the applicability of GR will come to be understood as limited and some future understanding and theory of gravitation will encompass it in a similar way that it encompasses Newtonian mechanics. That in itself does not falsify GR.

It is not a good discussion tactic , in a discussion such as this, to continually characterize either Newtonian mechanics or GR as falsified on the basis that they are just approximations...

 

another contradiction from you ?