Gravitational Time Dilation

You don't understand that I simply don't make claims about the content of string theory and similar stuff (except for, possibly, repeating claims of string theorists about their own theory), thus, I also don't have to understand them?

If I would make claims about the content of these theories, of type "they are flawed" or so, the situation would be different. I don't have to. I can personally simply reject them for myself as irrelevant speculations.

I'm not arguing against string theory and so on. I have a sufficiently good grasp of GR and the SM, but don't argue against them - they are fine as approximations of my theories. I sometimes argue against the spacetime interpretation - but also only insofar as they make unjustified claims that other interpretations are impossible or so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Falsification is certainly an aspect of any genuine scientific theory that must be a possibility, and yet in the next breath you raise the non-scientific issue of God!
It's become patently obvious that you are twisting the scientific method and system, to throw at least some credibility on your highly and totally theoretical paper, that will never have any bearing on accepted science.
Scientific theories, most certainly do grow in stature and certainty, the longer they keep making predictions over the course of time. That in itself, is just plain sensibility and logic.

You confuse the truth and reality concept with real science.
Science creates models and scientific theories which match observations and make correct predictions, and are determined to be correct each within their zones of applicability. No logic tells scientists that just because scientific theories are approximations, means that they are wrong.
Newtonian mechanics got us to the Moon, and also is relevant in most space probes and their goals, which were and are achieved. To say they are wrong, is well, a cop out, owing to an obvious agenda in once again, obtaining some credibility for your own "baby"
Seriously, science cannot as yet explain or predict everything. And whether it ever will is debatable. The Universe is an incredibly complex and awesome structure/entity.
Scientific knowledge relies on models, analogies, and predictable theories. The facts are that any scientific model, theory, or representation is always imperfectly applicable to the real world. That logically does not make them wrong within their zones of applicability.
Truth/reality as you mention, is not the actual goal of science per se.......It is describing our observations accurately and explaining the results of our experiments. If it [science] uncovers the truth/reality in the process, then that is a bonus.
You say you are an "independent scientist"...Independant sure, you have proven this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but I'm not sure of being a scientist....at least not a recognisable qualified one that the average lay person like myself can put any confidence in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow!!! That says a lot about you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It appears you really take this "independent"caper of yours to heart. Your problem is that "independability" still needs to be supported by "impartiality", knowledge, qualifiable degrees and doctorates etc, and actually not having an agenda, other than the advancement of science.
Let me again state categorically, if your hypothesis does everything you claim, you would not be here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see no reasons to accepting some sort of "truth within limitations". Truth is truth. What is not truth, is not truth. Those who look for good approximation look for something different.

That's wrong. Because the theories are not restricted by our abilities to test them. A theory can be true - a successful guess - completely without any connection to measurement.
Anyway, we cannot verify that it is true - verificationism is as dead as possible for a philosophical theory anyway. Therefore, even if true, the theory remains a hypothesis. Psychologically, one can understand this: People want certainty. Science can give the closest thing to certainty - but it will never give certainty. Accepting Popper, you have to give up the search for certainty. You have a chance to find the truth - but never to find certainty about it.
The "truth limited to the boundaries of applicability" is a cheap replacement for certainty. This is for weak people, who feel to uncomfortable to live with the truth that there cannot be any certainty.

It may be not a good discussion tactic, but I don't have to care about this. I'm interested in interesting arguments, not in winning discussions.
If one argues with islamists, it may be not a good discussion tactic to question Islam. Because it may be dangerous for your life. As long as no such external dangers exists, I can afford the risc to defend my position.

 

Thats good one, at least we are talking about ......other than a Black Hole...

 

This is your private philosophy of science, the accepted mainstream position is Poppers fallibilism.

Nonsense, because GLET is by construction a continuous ether theory, thus, similar to the kinectic gas theory and thermodynamics developed by those who believe in the atomic hypothesis, is, from the start, assumed to be only an approximation of a more fundamental, atomic ether. In this sense, my continuous ether theory is wrong. I have no problem admitting this, because the development of approximate theories is also part of science. Because developing approximations, once no true theory is available, is the way toward constructing this theory.

So what? The point is, if you don't even recognize that your theories are wrong, you will never improve them, and are bound to your false theory. As religious people to their religions.

How to make a religion out of science? Very simple, one would have to follow your proposals.

The result would be predictable. New theories have no longer a chance - because the old theories have grown in their status and become such giants that nobody will be able to reach them with new theories. Then, not even the acknowledged fact that they are approximations will be sufficient to show they are false. So, they become dogma.

And, finally, truth has to be declared as irrelevant. It becomes relevant to follow the party line / the Pope.

This makes it clear - you look for a replacement of the Pope - for somebody you can put confidence in. This shows in very different places - up to the interest if somebody has made a PhD or has a position named Professor. You do not want independent scientists, but a new religious caste of Scientists, people the lay person can (and has to) trust. You do not care about the progress of science - with some justification, because fundamental physics is good enough in what it has reached for all technical applications, so, not much harm if any progress in fundamental physics stops. But what is certain is that independent scientists - people independent enough to reject the teachings of all the Gurus of modern fundamental physics as irrelevant unjustified speculation - clearly prevent your hope for a New Scientific Religion.

Whatever - I don't even hope of becoming the Pope for those in the search of a New Scientific Religion.

 

Truth/reality as you mention, is not the actual goal of science per se.......It is describing our observations accurately and explaining the results of our experiments. If it [science] uncovers the truth/reality in the process, then that is a bonus.
And obviously the best to achieve that, are the real scientists at the coal front, with access to LHC, HST, Planck, Spitzser, etc etc.

A scientific theory is as I stated earlier, and if that happens to be the truth/reality, that's icing on the cake.

While that may hold for your total theoretical aspect of science, GR does absolutely fit the picture, has evidence supporting it, [verification] and is correct within its known zones of applicability....facts you seem to want to shy away from.

Rubbish. That's just another cop out on your part, in an effort to get more leverage for your totally theoretical paper and general thoughts on cosmology...

It seems there is not much you do see the need to care about. I wish I had a dollar with every "so what", or "I don't care" comments you have made.

 

Wrong. It is the general scientific methodology way of viewing and accepting scientific theories. In other words its your private philosophy, that just happens to align with Popper that is astray in fact.

I have news for you. You do not have a theory...you have a hypothesis.
Try putting it over at Cosmoquest and see how far you get.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't have theories. I do have some hypothesis of my own, yes. I express the generaly accepted mainstream theory because that appears to align with observations and predictions far better than anything you would ever be able to come up with. Oh, and by the way, my hypothesis all actually fall outside the zones of the BB and GR.
GR and the BB of course, along with the particle model of the building of the Universe all compliment each other beautifully.

Totally wrong again...Again my proposals/hypothesis all fall outside the zone of applicability of the BB and GR.
And I certainly do not have an agenda [other than the advance of science] which you so obviously do.

That's totally inane ignorant bullshit. GR is being tested to its limits even as we speak, by many of the same giants you so insidiously deride.
You on the other hand see fit to debating amateurs on a science forum, claiming you have new insights to 21st century cosmology, with nothing concrete or of substance supporting your stance.

Not applicable to me. I think I have been excommunicated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wow!! What a rant!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In essence Schmelzer, I respect those at the coal front, doing the hard yards.
And I see them as the exact opposite, to the loud mouths, with inflated egos as well as inflated opinions, that have no more than dreams of obtaining the cudos, status, and respect that most of those you chose to deride have.

I do know one astronomer/cosmologist, who is looking for someone to polish his 'scope.

 

No, it is not my problem. Because real scientists do not care about that, they care about the ideas I develop and the arguments I propose.

This would be a problem if I would have to become a priest in your New Scientific Religion. The priests would have to have "qualifiable degrees and doctorates etc", they would have to take a vow of being "impartial" and "with no agenda other than the advancement of science" before the public is allowed to accept them as "Scientists".

And, of course, they would not have to discuss scientific questions with laymen. To discuss scientific questions would be allowed only inside the "Scientific Community". Your Groucho-Marx-like insistence that a True Scientist would not discuss anything with people like you now starts to make sense.

Just to clarify: This posting, as well as the previous one, contains some sarcasm and exaggeration.

 

You've obviously never met a real scientist.

 

In other words, the actual mainstream philosophy of science you reject, because it obviously does not fit into your religious project.

In your religious project, a "Theory" is something which has obtained an acknowledgement by the Higher Scientific Authority (the Pope) that it has become a Theory. To obtain this status, the Theorist has to take a vow that he will never question accepted Scientific Theories (they are True in their Domain of Applicability, which is defined by the Scientific Authority. There also has to be left some time (at least ten years) to become a Theory.

Already been there. I would have to ask for extension of the discussion, but don't plan to do this. If they would be interested in a discussion, they would not have such stupid rules as closing the discussion automatically after 30 days.

Of course, once you are only a layman, without a PhD, you are not allowed to have own theories. To have own theories, one has to be at least a Professor.

Of course, and it is forbidden for laymen to question this. That GR in its spacetime version is simply incompatible with quantum gravity, thus, with modern particle physics, is a secret poor laymen should not have to care about.

Having an Agenda is clearly something develish. Somebody having an Agenda comes from the dark forces of the Antiscientist.

First, GR is tested to the limits of our experimental abilities. The limits of GR are, as far as we can expect, quite different. And, by the way, the "giants I deride", that means, string theorists and so on, have (usually, there will be of course exceptions) never done any experiments. I have never made any claims directed against experimental science. And you are even wrong about my relation to other scientists, who follow other directions like string theory. I do not deride them - many of them are simply poor guys who have no other choice to get a grant than doing string theory, other are simply scientists who believe that their choice is the best one, like I believe my choice is the best one. The chance to fail in fundamental science is 99% if not greater, so, there is nothing ridiculous if a research direction fails, this is something which should be expected. So, I simply think that they are scientists who have made a wrong choice in a question where to make the correct choice is extremely difficult and where one even needs a lot of luck to make it.

Of course, once I do not plan to start a new Religion where the Priests-Scientists have a higher status than deridable laymen, I use also such forums to communicate. And I have a lot - a theory which predicts that the universe is globally approximately flat - a prediction GR is unable to make - and which for Y>0 predicts inflation, which GR also does not predict. Above things are well supported by observation.

 

Yep, you certainly have ideas! and as usual your ideas are not supported by anything of substance and are just hypothesis, nothing more.

You have it all arse about my friend. The above is what you expect all and sundry to do with regards to yourself.
You see in case you don't know, all present incumbent theories also at one time needed to run the gauntlet. Incumbent theories are only modified, chnged or added to, when new observations, are explained by new hypothesis, which than again need to run the gauntlet before they are accepted.
A process called the scientific method.

From observation, so does your hypothesis.

 

No, I object to would be's if they could be's, that spend their time on science forums, arguing about how correct they are, when they have nothing at all, except talk, claims, and inflated egos.

You should drop your fruitless attempt at science, and stick to the sarcasm and trolling, you do it as well as most trolls.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No that's pure logic, as they at cosmoquest are well aware that crank trolls, will never relent on their fruitless, unsupported claims, no matter how much evidence is forthcoming showing they are wrong.
A great scheme, one I'm trying to get to operate here.
But again, you missed the point. If you had anything of substance that was better than the incumbent model, you would not be here.

Not entirely true and I have never claimed that. Of course there is a non zero chance that people like you without a Phd may have something....but far closer to zero than one.

You seem rather confused. Everyone can take an interest in cosmology, and do some reading, but the chances of a lay person, or even an independent "self promoted scientist, coming up with anything of worth is ultra slim.
And of course also we do have otherwise great scientists like Fred Hoyle, that occasionally like you, are also blinded by their own hypothesis, so much so, they are also fixated and unable to admit defeat.
Einstein of course had no problem with that and was humble as well as brilliant.

No matter how you like to put it, or how sarcastic you feel the need to portray it, you certainly do have an agenda. :shrug:
That agenda is your downfall.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are becoming quite a conspiracy adherent aren't you....excuses, accusations, more excuses, but no evidence to support your hypothesis.

Mainstream science does not need your hypothesis and your unsupported claims about what it does and does not predict. Cosmologists already know on larger scales that the Universe is topologically flat.
That as far as I know does not contradict GR.
Whatever you claim your hypothesis predicts is taken with a grain of salt for the reasons already stated.

 

If there's one thing that science absolutely LOVES more than anything else in the entire world, it's to be proven wrong about something.

Whenever science is proven wrong about something, it means we've just learnt a little bit more about reality and how the Universe works.

People who can prove science wrong are the best type of scientist. And they may just earn a Nobel Prize for their trouble.

 

Sorry, but Karl Popper is not a participant of this discussion. He was a philosopher, and the scientific methodology he has proposed is essentially the mainstream scientific methodology. In fact, there are some minor differences (important ones, but beyond the scope of the discussion here), because the scientific mainstream remains infected by positivism, and what is accepted by the mainstream as the philosophy of science would be, more accurately, described as some simplified positivistic variant of Popper's method.

But open empiricism of the type of

is certainly not mainstream.

Just to clarify: If the scientific mainstream would be wrong about scientific methodology, I would have no problem to reject the mainstream methodology. (This, probably, becomes necessary anyway, if the string theorists, in defense of their positions, and the failure of string theory to meet the criteria of accepted scientific methodology, will continue their attempts to modify the scientific method itself, to continue to sell string theory as science.) And, with reasonable people, I would not argue about what is mainstream, but about what is true. But here we have a clear case where an exchange of scientific arguments is hopeless, and only appeal to authority of the mainstream is recognized as an argument at all. And my argumentation simply has the aim to show an internal inconsistency - the appeal to authority is not part of mainstream scientific methodology - thus, as a consequence, the one who wants to replace it by appeal to authority has to reject the accepted authority.. Quite funny, and worth to spend some time for this.

Indeed, a great scheme for the authoritarian. Looks like you give them a chance - one feels yet uncomfortable to openly forbid any scientific doubt of mainstream theories - but in fact they have no chance, their attempts will be automatically stopped as unsuccessful after 30 days, independent on what has really happened.

If you would have anything to say, I would have to be nowhere, except in jail. Because doubting mainstream theories would be forbidden by law.

Correct, you have never claimed that - but this is what follows from the logic of your authoritative approach to science.

So what? That means, one should forbid him to come up with anything? The chances of a scientist to find the next more fundamental theory are similarly ultra slim.

LOL. YMMD.

No, they don't know, they simply measure the curvature as accurate as possible.

So what? The point is that this is an additional prediction of GLET. Well in agreement with observation.

Whatever I claim has to be rejected by True Believers of your Scientific Religion, because it is Anathema against the Holy Mainstream.

 

I remember the early days of science forums. It was new and more experimental. The people who came were more secure in their science. Since they were secure in their knowledge, there was no threat to look and flirt with new ideas.

It was sort of like being happily married, and therefore able to look at the pretty girls. The wife and husband are not afraid, the husband he will stray. Rather both understand this might help get him excited, which is good for both of them. Now the science marriage analogy in the forums is a weak marriage. One is not allowed to look, out of fear of straying. This shows too much liberal influence. Liberals can't maintain stability without therapy. They need constant psychodrama instead of flirting with new science.

To me, if data or ideas appear that contradicts theory, I enjoy pondering. I don't see the need to go into denial and circle the wagons. That approach sounds like a jealous wife (feeling) controlling the mind (husband).

 

do you ever listen to yourself ?

 

And yet its you bypassing the scientific method when you chose, and making claims about what your hypothesis says and what it doesn't say, and that your hypothesis is superior to the incumbent model, but the establishment are too recalcitrant to see that, and so do not give you and your hypothesis the cudos and recognition you both deserve.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So you spend your time fabricating the above conspiracies, while arguing your fairy tales on a science forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Makes for a great story doesn't it....emotional, dramatic and totally billshit!

Appeals to authority are only questionable when one appeals to some authority not qualified or expert in the subject at hand.
My appeals to authority are the accepted authority, and that will continue when and if I deem it as necessary...Particularly to refute total theoretical aspects of cosmology that you claim to over ride the incumbent model, then fabricate conspiracies to add credibility.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Such dramatics!..such emotive reactions!...such fanatical attempts to shore up ones hypothesis and ego!
Dream on fella!

Certainly not. I have my own hypothesis about why the BB banged and where the singularity in a BH leads. I realise though and accept that they are just that hypothesis. Your problem stems from the fact that your delusions of grandeur immediatley kicks in, and you believe you are a reincarnation of Albert Einstein.
Plus of course any one who claims to surpass the "near certain" SR/GR, the BB, Evolution, needs to have extraordinary evidence either invalidating the incumbent model, or extending predicted ability beyond the scope of the incumbent.
You have neither. But keep working at it.

Sounds like someone else I know that has similar problems.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They have a pretty good idea, supported by excellent data. The Universe is flat within very small tolerances.

Again your emotions and dramatics seem to have got the better of you.
All scientific theories are open for falsifications and modifications and improvements.
Hypothesis are not scientific theories.
Scientific theories, do grow in stature over time and the more correct predictions they make and the further observations that support them.
Evolution for example is beyond doubt. The BB, SR, GR are all near the top echelon of certainty.

For the sake of brevity and peace of mind, I have ignored some of your more "way out"accusations, and fabrications.

 

I would venture to say that is all he ever listens to.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think it is time to close this thread. It is just an argument now... It has not been a discussion of any science for some time.