Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Jul 24, 2014.
The electric universe is crank bait. Derived and peer reviewed by pseudoscientific cranks.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
River you will get this thread moved to another section maybe not a good one if you keep this up.... So what are your electric universe theorys about.. Only kidding.
What about mainstream thinking has got you so captivated ?
Nothing other than logic, sensibility, reasonability and knowing what scams, nonsense, and pseudoscientific crap comes from the alternative crank field that you like dabbling in.
NO; don't buy it pad.
I know. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It makes too much sense for someone looking for a conspiracy in every corner.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So questioning is a conspiracy against the mainstream ? Questioning is the freedom of thought and speech.
That is why the mainstream became the mainstream in the first place.
Questioning?? I've seen quite a few absolute claims and total attempted denigration of anything mainstream from you. It's just an obsession you have and proud to present to the world [well this forum anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!]
Mainstream became mainstream simply because the vast majority saw it as the most sensible, most logical and best supported by evidence. That's science.
Which is why your Plasma/Electric universe was discarded.
The conspiracy is you suggesting everyone must see and conduct all experiments themselves, never trusting what that evil mainstream are telling us.
That will happen with the halls of science by scientists, not from or by any tin horn poster on a science forum, who for some silly reason, sees mainstream as a conspiracy.
Pad; I have done this much longer than you have .
Questioning is important
To look at anothers perspective is important; not just out off hand ; but to see and understand why they do.
To do so; see others perspective is the growth of our intellect.
Questioning is certainly Important: But bullshit, and gullibility is not.
Your problem is that you totally ignore the scientific method, avoiding it at all costs to add some semblance of respectability to your own ingrain beliefs in UFO's of Alien origin, ghosts, goblins, the supernatural and such.
Let me be quite frank...You often rave on about investigating personally and claim you have done this with regards to most of the nonsense that I have just raised.
And yet you fail to reveal what invesitigative credentials you do have: None I strongly suspect. What you may do is read up on books and articles that are commonly viewed as woo in scientific circles.
On the other hand, I have read enough on UFO's, and other issues such as your own baby, the Plasma/Electric universe to not be taken in by this sort of unscientific claptrap.
I have also read the Bermuda triangle book by Schultz, and then read far more reputable accounts that show why that also is a probable myth, fabricated one upon the other, to create a mystery. Sure, once again, there are some unexplained issues as yet, but that also applies elsewhere, the Sea of Japan if I recollect correctly is another similar area.
What is clear though is that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to point to Aliens in any of these scenarios.
Yes, I question...I question quite critically....but I'm not gullible either.
Wow, this thread went downhill quickly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Two things to say before I duck out for good.
paddoboy: Thank you for linking the Zhang paper! It's a good conclusion to what has been quite a learning experience for me. The idea that an event horizon can expand to catch infalling matter in finite time squares with my previous understanding of the point of last communication. I'm now convinced that black holes actually do exist, although my understanding of how they form has been significantly altered.
Everyone who thinks RJBeery is a crank: The Zhang paper clinches my belief that y'all are being way too hostile. In this thread, RJBeery has been accused of not understanding GR, ignoring scientific consensus, and making obviously false claims. But a 2009 paper is filled with citations of other sources making the same sorts of claims, including peer-reviewed publications. I'm now convinced that collapsars are not in line with GR, but the distinction is surprisingly subtle and (if RJBeery's 2011 link is to be believed) still up for debate. And even if it's not accurate, it has clearly contributed to our understanding of black holes, if only be inspiring the aforementioned publications. In other words, it's a prime example of what a good alternative theory should be.
No probs with the link Fednis. As I have told RJ, his whole exercise in this appears purely philosophical. Newtonian predicts Dark Stars, GR predicts BH's simply due to the fact that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, and the observational evidence tells us that that is indeed what happens: that is the Schwarzchild radius is reached and breached. The Collapsar/Frozen star does not hold up under our number one theory of gravity. That says it all imho.
GR does not predict that further collapse is compulsory. GR predicts no further collapse. Because a gravitational field is a place where the speed of light is spatially variable:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And light can't go slower than stopped.
As many people have said whenever Farsight brings this particular cherry-picked quotation up, this is a simplification that Einstein is using in this passage and does not bear on every system of coordinates that one might use to describe a physical system, not does it apply to any local area in every system of coordinates.
Farsight is simply a liar: he knows that there is more to the science that he should learn, but for all his supposed love of Einstein, he refuses to learn what Einstein actuall did scientifically.
Sorry my dear old friend, you are totally wrong.
GR says in no uncertain terms that once any mass reaches its Schwarzchild radius, that further collapse is compulsory.
And we have not heard too much of late on your theory of everything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Farsoght tries to stay away long enough that people will forget that he has not advanced his theory since first publishing it a decade ago.
Look, I know NOTHING about black holes (at least, not in any detail).
So rather than hurling insults (PhysBang) or insisting that the so-called mainstream view is almost by definition correct (paddoboy), can someone explain how black holes are predicted by the Einstein field equations and nothing else (i.e. not by a particular solution to them)?
PS I am pretty strong on differential geometry, so don't be afraid to produce the mathematics
Now that's a rather intellectually dishonest approach, in many respects I suggest. Speaking for myself, no one has ever said mainstream by definition is correct, but it is simply the best we have inline with current observations.
And in relation to insults, perhaps you need to widen your view and include our alternative hypothesis pushers in your net, rather than focusing on someone's correct and accurate critical analysis of a well known liar.
Paddoboy - in your rush to brand me as "dishonest" and RJBeery as "a liar" (both of which would be actionable in a different context) you forgot to address my question. I will repeat it....
Explain to me in what sense the field equations of gravitation permit, or even mandate the existence of spacetime singularities.
It's a simple enough question for you I would imagine. But if you decline to provide an answer again, I will have to assume that you cannot.
Separate names with a comma.