The goal of the optional alpha rules is to allow posters to have a discussion with less rough and tumble than usual. This thread is to maintain the authoritative version of the Alpha rules, and discuss specific objections to them. Suggestions and objections to the rules themselves should be posted to the [thread=61746]Alpha rules - An idea for improving the quality of discussions[/thread] thread. About the Alpha Rules Alpha rules may be engaged when making a new thread, by putting "(Alpha)" before the main thread title. Alpha threads should be interesting, original, and appropriate for Physics and Maths. In addition to the Alpha rules, all ordinary posting rules apply. The Alpha rules have precedence if there is a conflict. The interpretation of the rules is at the discretion of the moderator. Suggestions regarding interpretation may be made, and the moderator will consider those suggestions, but the final say is the moderator's alone. Violations Please use the !report button to notify myself and James if you think a post in an Alpha thread violates Alpha rules. Posts to a labeled Alpha rules thread that violate the rules will be deleted, edited, or moved to this thread at the moderators' discretion. Only trivial posts that clearly violate the rules will be deleted. Edits to posts will be footnoted by the moderator. For major edits, a copy of the unedited post may be PMed to the author. Rulings can be discussed in this thread. Alpha rules also apply to this thread. Violations in this thread will be moved if another suitable thread exists otherwise deleted or edited. Alpha Rules No hijacking. The thread may be sidetracked, but only within reason and as long as the sidetrack is about some point in the main thread. Be Polite. No insults, profanity, threats, abuse, demeaning or fight provoking behavior. Attacking claims and arguments is OK. Attacking people is not. Defend your statements. Direct questions regarding your statements must be clearly addressed in a timely manner (within reason... sometimes too many questions are asked at once). "I don't know" is a valid answer. The relevance of a question must be demonstrated on request. Questions that lead to extensive sidetracks might be considered hijacking in some cases. If faced with multiple independent questions that require significant responses, you need only address one at a time. The others may be deferred until later. Be clear Say what you mean. Try not to be coy, or overly subtle. Most importantly, request for clarification must be answered. Politely. No plagiarism. If you copy anything (words, pictures, even an idea) from anywhere else, you should say so. Try to be rational. This one is more a guideline than a rule. Breaches of this rule might only be addressed by a PM. What I'm aiming at is: Try to avoid logical fallacies When your argument is challenged, seriously consider the possibility that you were wrong, in whole or in part. When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong (it happens to everyone!), acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it. If you've made a mistake, thank people for pointing it out. Have fun! If you're not enjoying yourself, then what's the point?
Existing Alpha threads: [thread=67582]General relativity is self-inconsistent v2[/thread] [thread=67463]Varying Speed of Light (ALPHA)[/thread] [thread=65641]Black Holes and Information Loss[/thread] [thread=63374]General relativity is self-inconsistent[/thread] [thread=62684]Dark Matter - what is it?[/thread] [thread=62320]String Theory Questions[/thread] [thread=61902]General relativity dissatisfies the equivalence principle[/thread] [thread=61871]Numerical chance event & question[/thread]
(ModNote - moved from [thread=65641]Black Holes and Information Loss[/thread] for being off-topic) I have the theory, since we can make tiny black holes, could it be possible we could use one of these and stablize it so it could be a tractor? Light is taken by a black hole, so a black hole, if kept at a steady distance (say using some bars supporting a black hole generator) could it "drag" you through space at a steadily increasing rate past the speed of light?
(ModNote - moved from [thread=65641]Black Holes and Information Loss[/thread]. Reply to previous post.) Well. No. First we can't make tiny black holes. Yet. But that doesn't matter, because even if we could, they would decay by hawking radiation too quickly to do anything with.
(ModNote: Moved from [thread=67582]General relativity is self-inconsistent v2[/thread]. Smells like a hijack.) zanket Are you saying that the theory is inconsistent, or that the phenomena does not exist ? We know that the threory correctly predicts observations. Do you have a theory that can prediect the observations to a better degree ?? In science we use the tools that theory provides to advance our understanding. No theory is sacred. If it don't work for something we chunk it. But as long as it works we use it. So far SR and GR work. So we use them. I suspect that the fundamental concept of variable space-time is wrong. It is not needed. But you have to admit those theories work to predict observations. My own thinking
Okay, before I post my theory in this forum about gravity. Seemingly original plausible calcuable May I?
Pete, zanket did not specify that all parts of the rod are at rest w.r.t. each other. He continually stated the part of the rod above the event horizon was escaping to infinity. He only stated the lower end of the rod was below the event horizon. It is impossible for the lower end of the rod to move upwards toward the event horizon, not even one centimeter. The gravitational force is accelerating the bottom of the rod downward toward the singularity. No 'force' is felt in the freely falling frame because inertial acceleration is accelerating the rod upward, exactly cancelling out the gravitational force in a freely falling frame. That is GR. Here is a cut & paste to back up what I stated, one of many: http://science.jrank.org/pages/5790/Relativity-General.html Yes, my bowling balls and string example do reflect the same forces present as in zanket's gedanken. The top of his rod and my top bowling ball are both in freely falling frames moving upwards from a surface. The bottom of his rod and my bottom bowling ball are both freely falling downward below a surface toward the center of mass of a body. The tidal forces at both his and my surfaces are negigible. Now, Pete, you tell me why my string breaks and his rod will break from the same force. I say it is because inertial forces are acting in opposite directions because the two 'ends' are moving in opposite directions. And I do not care what Wheeler says, curvature of spacetime is not just due to 'tidal forces'. 'Tidal forces' are not what curves the path of a photon when it passes by a gravitating body, the photon is following a straight path through curved spacetime according to GR. Is 'Wheeler Relativity' something like 'MacM Relativity'? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The previous post was copied from [thread=69835]General relativity is self-inconsistent v3[/thread]. Most of the post has been cut from that thread. This part was cut because it is simply repeating existing arguments in the thread. This part was excised as a sidetrack. Please put this into a new thread if you want to discuss it, 2inq.
It's been suggested that the alpha rules are obsolete (and I haven't seen an alpha thread for a long time). I will unstick this thread for now and see how far it drops. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
