Desperate denial of General Relativity by The God

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by The God, Jun 4, 2016.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    There is a small story.....

    The tiger asks the King Lion why I am punished..The king says I know you are not at fault, but your fault is that you argued with monkey...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Science isn't about stories, fairy tales or mythical omnipotent deities...Science is about describing the universe we inhabit according to the results of our experiments and our observations with appropriate models.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Hi everyone, I have a question.
    In the diagram in post 19 there is an angle showing the "bend" in the light path.
    I understand the "bend" is predicted by both Newtonian gravity and by GR.
    My question is which theory predicts the angle observed.
    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    That's good. The angle gives the clue...
    It is...

    1. Newtonian Absolute Space or
    2. Einstein original calculations based on equivalence principle (pre GR calculations).

    That's what I was telling Paddo, that look you are pushing GR but with Newtonian angle, but he did not get the drift.


    PS: Newtonian and flat spacetime based the angle is 0.85 Aseconds, while GR based it is 1.75 a seconds or so...Eddington experiment (1919) had substantial error bars but still closer to GR value...Even later experiments on radio quasars have given values closer to GR calculated...
     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    So to be clear. The diagram shows an angle found using Newtonian gravity but the correct angle should be twice that using GR. I think the obvservation showed 1.75 arc seconds.
    So here is a quiz.. At what distance would you place a one metre sphere such that it covers 1.75 arc seconds.


    Alex
     
  9. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That image was from the "historical introduction" of this page: http://grupos.unican.es/glendama/introduction_to_gl.htm

    Assuming you mean a sphere of diameter one meter, it will have an angular diameter of 1.75 arc seconds if placed at a distance of x meters provided

    \(x = \frac{1}{2} \cot \left( \frac{1}{2} \times \frac{\pi}{180} \times \frac{1}{3600} \times 1.75 \right) \approx 117865.603569\)

    This is very close to \( \frac{1}{\frac{\pi}{180} \times \frac{1}{3600} \times 1.75} \approx 117865.603570\) and it is likely that either is precise enough for the work here.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    While the illustration does just show a Newtonian deflection,the argument with you is as usual your complete denial of gravitational lensing, being evidenced of curved spacetime, as per your following two inane statements.
    And of course the many links I and others have given to you showing how and why gravitational lensing occurs also support the concept that all are trying to convey to you.
    But what do we get in return from you? Ït's all pop science nonsense [even arXiv papers and actual gravitational lensing photographs, or the just plain crazy claims that GP-B and aLIGO were fraudulent and invalid concepts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In fact the "mind boggling claims you make, and the associated conspiracy nonsense, is about on equal par to what our YEC's nuts claim as evident of a young Earth/solar system, from the science of "New Horizons" here.......
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/astronomy-science-blinkered-this-is-mind-boggling.156610/

    And then you scream "poor victim status"when your threads are moved to pseudoscience.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    It has taken you months to acknowledge that. Good anyway..

    And you are acting dishonestly, I never denied GL, my assertion is that it does not establish curved spacetime...on the other hand it proves flat space.....in fact there is nothing like curved space, it is all BS..it will make sense only if we assign materialistic property to space...till then its all maths.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    How long have you been participating on this forum for? And have offered nothing except evidence of the ignorance of the vast majority of your posts and claims.
    And again as once again your comprehension is in question, while the illustration does just show a Newtonian deflection,the argument with you is as usual your complete denial of gravitational lensing, being evidenced of curved spacetime, as per your following two inane statements.
    Again, then you know what to do

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ...But you can't and you won't, because all you have is codswallop and blabber. And no, I don't act dishonestly at all....Everything I have ever claimed about you has proven to be true, in the eyes of most.
    Of course gravitational lensing does establish curved spacetime, simply because light follows geodesics in that curved spacetime.
    Try again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Thank you rpenner. I was curious if tg could work it out.
    Alex
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Then, search some old threads or seek Paddoboy's help, and see my interaction with Russ-watters, where the very same Rpenner salvaged him by supporting his (Russ') dishonest claim of typo on the same topic...

    And by the way, instead of being curious about what I know or what I don't...focus on what you should know about the subject. I pity those who support the authority without knowing abc of the subject. Unfortunately you fall in that list.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Religious fanaticism and efforts to invalidate 21st century cosmology on forums such as this are just wasted cyber space...It won't happen: when will you learn that?
    And even more unfortunately is the fact that your threads [I've now lost count] generally end up at pseudo or the cesspool.
    The title of the thread says it all...DESPERATE DENIAL!
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    TG you said......
    "I pity those who support the authority without knowing abc of the subject."
    I hope that is not self pity.
    Thank you for your kind post.
    Alex
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I do not support authority without fully understanding what they are talking about. I am not like you that lo it has come from mainstream so it must be correct. Thats you and I pity that.
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Why do you reject authority without first fully understanding what they are talking about? The correct philosophical rejection of authority is to be neutral on a subject until you have fully understood it. Instead you would rather pick a fight with authority before learning anything.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You are convinced that Black holes exist ?
    Are you not aware that for almost all the observations where a BH is mandatedm some alternative explanations can be given ?
    Are you not aware that Worm Holes cannot exist ?
    Are you not aware that neither we can travel to past nor to future ?
    Are you not aware that talking about bending of space is ridiculous ?
    Are you not aware that two BHs cannot merge, as they would violate the definition of BH, asymptotically flat spacetime ?
    Are you not aware that a BH cannot move ?
    Are you not aware that this holographic drama by hawking is a fake stuff ?
    Are you not aware that a BH would violate many other physical laws ?
    Are you not aware that in reality we cannot have flat spacetime if GR is true ? (dont give me approximation talk).
    Are you not aware that we cannot solve Sun / Earth system properly in GR without resorting to approximations ?
    Are you not aware that the guy who proposed GR, did not belive that a BH could exist ?
    ....
    ....
    ....

    Don't you think its funny that GR cannot solve two body problem, and out Sun with its hundreds of planets, satellites, oort clods, comets etc is cris crossing its journey around GC. GR cannot solve this.

    what do you want me to understand ? I am very neutral and very respectful towards scientists, not towards fake and dishonest guys. Sorry rpenner, you have become a mechanised mathematician, you will speak your heart, very soon.
     
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    The case for their being physical objects which closely match the description of the black holes of General Relativity seems good to me.
    Not without violations of parsimony, such as asserting alternate physical theories without independent demonstrations of superiority or asserting existence of new substances categorically different from any in evidence.
    Traversable wormholes may be forbidden. Transient wormholes are likely not forbidden. What motivates you to say "cannot exist" is a position on the truth of physical theory, which is opposite to your skepticism on black holes.
    In one sense we travel to the future every day. In another sense we exist in both past and future. In a third sense we inhabit the now but experience only the past.
    Being the object of ridicule doesn't make you the expert on what is ridiculous.
    Not the definition of a black hole. You are thinking perhaps of a property of the Schwarzschild geometry which holds true for spacetimes with a finite number of blackholes, spinning or not, electrically charged or not.
    A ridiculous statement, indicating you don't understand motion and GR.
    Unclear antecedent.
    Obviously untrue. Physical things cannot violate physical law, but their behavior might give us insight to revise our understanding of physical law.
    Tidal forces and sensitive measurement of time dilation indicate we have curved spacetime in reality. There are places where spacetime is not curved enough to be measured by those tests, but luckily for physics we don't live in such a place.
    Yes. Welcome to reality — messy since creation.
    Well, luckily he is dead now just like his progress in physics was mostly dead after 1935.
    Objecting that there is no analytic solution to the two body problem in GR is not taking issue with physics but mathematics. Physics is satisfied if we can compute approximate quantities to better precision than we can measure them, because physics concerns itself with the precise observable behavior of large classes of related phenomena, not the metaphysics of what space and time and gravity actually are.
    That you are your own worst enemy in the area of understanding the behavior of physical phenomena.
    You can't be "neutral" towards scientists and have a scientific viewpoint. You can't replicate centuries of experiment, but have to credit the scientific community with being self-policing and accurate or you can't begin to approach modern understanding of the behavior of reality.
    I am more than you credit me.

    Also, you didn't answer the question:
    Why do you reject authority without first fully understanding what they are talking about? The correct philosophical rejection of authority is to be neutral on a subject until you have fully understood it. Instead you would rather pick a fight with authority before learning anything.​
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I don't recall saying if it comes from mainstream it must be correct.
    What I have said is that if you wish to argue against mainstream you need to provide a better model and I also said being a critic offers nothing.
    I have no doubt better models will be presented in the future.
    That is how science moves forward and it is a pity you don't seem to understand this aspect.
    Thank you for expressing your concern for me but really there is no need.
    Alex
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    I'm not going through all your claims, as it already has been done: Let me just say that again, the extent you will go to, to try and invalidate 21st century cosmology is verging on fanatical, and supports what I discovered a while back re religious agenda/s.
    ps: My answers would certainly have been somewhat differently worded from rpenner's, but certainly not deviating from what he is trying to educate you about, and why mainstream cosmology is what it is.
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,506
    I have to disagree with this. He is fanatical.
     

Share This Page