All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?

Let's get one thing clear. This is a science forum.....and as such abides by the scientific method and the gathering of observational and experimental evidence and data. Science works by constructing models based on that data.
I will continue to ask for evidence for any alternative model...I will continue to question if said model defies accepted laws of physics and GR. eg: BNS was in total violation of GR and the fact of compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild radius/EH of any mass is reached.
All alternative hypothesis will most certainly need to run the gauntlet, no matter how unpleasant and uneasy that maybe.
If you were to go through proper channels and peer review, the critique I'm sure would be that much stronger and the cudgels even larger.
Just as present incumbent models needed to go through before acceptance, so to does any proposed new hypothesis.
That's the name of the game.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What can be discussed in the science section ? Lets see.

1. if a question is raised about Gravitational Time dilation, where should it go ?
2. if a question is raised about warping of spacetime, where should it go ?
3. if a question is raised about gravitational lensing, where should it go ?
4. if a question is raised about irrational aspect of point singularity, where should it go ?

On the other hand...

5. If a news item is splashed about NASA discovering a new planet, where should it go ?
6. If a Photo of Gravitational Lensing is released by NASA, where should it go ?
7. If a Prof claims that there are no BHs, where should it go ?
8. if a non scientist claims that there is no BH, where should it go ?
9. If a kid wishes to know what is the difference between a BH and a Boson, where should it go ?
10. if a tutorial is to be conducted to help others, like Arfa Brane is doing on matrices, where should it go ? [ I like his efforts, and many a times done by Rpenner too.]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like how you refer to me as a kid.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Did you know that "patronize" means to talk down to someone? Well now you do.

And I did explain WHY I was asking the question in the thread, but obviously you missed that.

Which leads me to another thing - I was asking a question (a concept alien to you, it seems) and not declaring GR to be false or that I was super-enlightened and smart enough to know The Real Truth(tm).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is something where you end up contradicting yourself....

Many a times you have made a statement that

GR predicts its own downfall at Planck's level, that means GR fails at Planck's level or so.

Now let me reframe this

GR fails inside EH.........

[Our extrapolation inside EH is quite meaningless, because as per GR maths the fourth dimension of spacetime that is time becomes spatial and meaningless wrt to outside observer, so I can say GR fails in a conventional manner.] Can you counter this argument ? As far as I am concerned there is chef made spaghetti and edible soup inside EH, because we don't know what happens once inside EH. It is meaningless (or say highly theoretical) to say that it takes t = t1 seconds from r = EH to r = 0, because we really do not know the significance of this t1 outside EH from the relativity perspective.But once we say GR fails inside EH and we come up with something alternative, then surely this t1 can become meaningful.]

The problem is that you do not attempt to understand the point of view of alternative side, your dogma is either mainstream or nothing. You do not realize that mainstream comes from discussions, arguments, and multitude of ideas and efforts only......If we start calling alternative guys as anti science, dishonest, agenda driven, trolls...then world of science will become bull power only.

 

Not at all and you have had that explained many times.
GR predicts compulsory collapse once Schwarzchild radius is reached...that means continued collapse once the EH has been reached.
At the same time GR predicts its own downfall at the classical point singularitiy...in fact GR specifically fails and is non applicable at the quantum/Planck level
That is the standard accepted view no matter how you chose to misinterpret it or dance around it. GR is not a QGT.

Just as I have explained.

Not necessary to reframe anything....

No, GR is not applicable at the quantum/Planck level by definition.
Its predictions apply to the rest of the BH up to the Planck/quantum level.

Along with what I have just explained, a few Professors have already told you that it is reasonable logical to assign properties inside the BH, such as spin for example, based on the properties and observations that exist outside the EH, and of course coupled with what GR tells us.

Your fascination with a well known and well used term for what happens inside the EH is admirable, but nothing to do with chefs etc.
If you were at all familiar with accepted BH cosmology, you would have been also familiar with the "spaghettification"terminology.
And your confusion still reigns, or possibly this is just another way out for you with the logical ability to assign properties inside the EH, along with the fact that one cannot compare the facet of time within the EH, to time outside the EH.
Part of the reason for this is because time comes to a stop at the EH, although we never ever get to see that.
That in no way though inhibits the properties that we can logically assign inside to what is viewed outside.
But again, this has been explained a few times before, and like jcc you are ignoring answers you do not want to hear, and that further deflates the BNS fiasco.

What I claim is accepted mainstream cosmology and it is not me that refuses to understand your view, its the fact that your view defies GR and that has been supported by all Professors.

 

Nothing stated above is Physics or even closer to what Physics is .....just the incoherent result of too much reading here and there..

You are making a funny unsupported statement that GR fails at Planck's level ? Yes, there is some work going on about behavior of GR around weak Gravitational Field and Strong Gravitational Field (like around Neutron Star etc), but none says that GR fails at Planck's level. At Planck's level I can theorize the planck's mass and also Solar Mass, that means a variable field can be associated, does the GR fails on all the account ? This alone proves that what you are speaking is senseless..

 

Keep up with the questions Daecon. It's the genuine nature that the question is asked in that counts, as distinct from the "loaded"questions with hidden agendas. The "quality" that you mention was one I picked up yonks ago and have had to put up with also.

 

Your answer to Q7 and Q8 is quite interesting........You are more interested in who speaks about science rather than the content itself............when Chandra was just 19 he proposed the EDP calculations (Chandra Limit) for which he got the Nobel later on, but he was nicely trolled by established Eddington....)

 

Well, a large proportion of those who question mainstream science on a forum like this ARE cranks or trolls, and all of us get frustrated by it from time to time.

But of course intelligent questioning of science is different from what they do. One can generally tell the difference by (a) whether or not the person has bothered first to understand the theory for which he proposes an alternative and (b) whether or not he makes his challenge in an appropriately calm and non-confrontational way, backed by lucid argument. (For example a person who swaggers in, saying Schroedinger was an idiot, QM is poop, or GR is quite wrong, is not likely to be taken awfully seriously, because it will look as if he has an ego that has outrun his intelligence).

Back to PB, I'm glad to see you have complimented him in the past. However that seems inconsistent with your characterisation of him now as a "complete dunce". Perhaps less exaggerated and emotive language might help avoid the thread descending into chaos.

 

There are always exceptions in any field or endeavour.
I don't believe you fit that category

 

Either go back to 500 posts of his or just keep reading his post for next 25-30 days, you will see that his irritation sometimes takes the heavy toll on the calmest person.....It is clear that people who make blanket statements like QM is poop or GR is hopelessly bad deserve no place, but it is also clear that those who blindly follow the established fluid theories like GR etc can kill the meaningful discussion in limine.

You pursue this link between motion of Photon with Photo Electric Effect with him, you will understand.

 

That is false and just an opinion for you to prop up your ego.

Well since you mentioned it, the paragraph above certainly fits the "senseless " remark.
But I also remember some rather dodgy maths that you used to support your BNS.
Again though, what you say is totally false and just the usual to prop up your ego.
The quantum/Planck level is/will be covered by a future QGT. GR is not a QGT. It does not apply...period.

 

This shows your utter lack of knowledge about how science functions...
No, thats how science works......these are no exceptions.
All establishment, scientific or religious or even political, tend to oppose or suppress the new ideas, if the new idea has significant impact.
How difficult it would have been to those who pushed for Heliocentric from Earth centric Concept ? Scientists were executed even as early as 1940s for their revolutionary ideas which caused great un-comfort for religious/political establishments. How Eddington tried to suppress Chandra to keep his supremacy ? There are everyday examples in every aspect of life, the resistance towards change, the fear of loss of dominance.

 

Let me explain. The photoelectric effect was what primarily saw the need for the particle/photon of light. We agree?
The photon by definition needs to be moving constantly.
In essence though this was really just a pedantic grab at some glory on your part, was it not?

 

No I'd rather pursue the photoelectric effect with you. Did you really mean that this effect has nothing to do with photons moving? If so, how would one account for the transfer of energy in quanta from a light beam to electrons in the metal?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not sure how but anyway. The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct?
And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Every potential aspect of change will still need to run the gauntlet just as the present incumbent theories had.... and you can bet your short and curlies, that any potential change will not be revealed on this or any other science forum.

 

Just please support how GR fails at Planck's level....

 

GR is not a QGT.
Oh, Do you now accept the relationship between the photoelectric effect and a moving photon?
And how is that send paper? Havn't heard too much about it of late.