Gravitational Time Dilation

Yet it is patently true that the personal attacks you refer to, are from both sides.
You have not refuted anything which I have raised.

Again to repeat myself, there are many purely theoretical papers published everyday, that will always remain theoretical and most will languish and die a natural death.

More absolute contrivance to add some respectability to your hypothesis.
Obviously it needs to be re-enforced again, the curves, warps and twists in spacetime has been measured, time and space have been shown to be non absolute, and the ether as commonly inferred, does not exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personal attacks, repetitions of unsupported and already refuted claims omitted.

"As commonly inferred" .... LOL.

Sorry, but I do not have to care about what is "commonly inferred" by laymen like you as the ether. This "commonly inferred" ether is probably something falsified already by MMX. But who cares?

If you want to argue that the ether does not exist, you have to consider the best available ether theories, and not some "commonly inferred ether". And therefore you have to care about an ether theory which has the Einstein equations of GR in its natural limit and where the EEP holds exactly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fits your "modus operandi" to a "T"

Yeah you know, as an excuse and a crutch for your theoretical hypothesis.

Of course you don't. Most of our alternative cranks also avoid considering or caring for anything that supports the incumbent, and/or invalidates their own hypothesis. Yep, I'm most certainly only a lay person, but I like to think I'm also reasonably a level headed one, who has gained knowledge from reading reputable books such as "Superforce" "Brief History of Time" "Black Holes and Time Warps" "Gravity's Fatal Attraction" "The First Three Minutes" and many more, all by reputable recognised experts in the discipline of cosmology, and whom you could probably learn from yourself.
And of course participating in forums such as this, and having the good sense and knack of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

No, I just need to consider the constancy of the speed of light, and subsequently the non absolute nature of time and space, and how they are interlinked into spacetime, and that everything else arose from that spacetime continuum according to the BB....the current accepted model of universal evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't pay much attention to the experimental side of the physics. That's why you're a crank. The GRavity Probe B experiment measured the local spacetime curvature. The geodetic effect.

 

I also don't have to care what "most of [your] alternative cranks" do. Of course, I should have deleted this, as an obvious personal attack against me, because the aim of this text is obviously to suggest that I behave like your cranks, without any evidence - I have considered all the arguments you have proposed here. Found them invalid, of course, but to "avoid considering or caring" is something different.

Sorry, but you should recognize that such readings give only very superficial knowledge. Certainly not enough to have a confrontative discussion with professional scientists.

It is not impossible to have even confrontative discussions with professionals in a domain where these professionals know much more than you - but this is quite difficult, a sort of art of asking questions to find out possible inconsistencies in the answers. It certainly does not consist in repeating claims which he has already argued are false or misleading. With this technique, you only present yourself as a stupid uneducated dogmatic.

Instead, if you see a contradiction between what you have read and what is presented here, ask about this, and insist on detailed explanation. Asking "stupid" question is the high art of scientific discussions, nobody will object to such questions. And if people are forced to explain the details, the weak places often become visible.

Sorry, but this is not enough.
You also have to follow explanations given by other people. This would help you to understand how Lorentz has found the Lorentz transformations, which are part of SR, without giving up the concept of an ether.
In the opinion of Lorentz, and my own, the velocity of light is not a constant, but only seems constant, because our clocks as well as our rulers are distorted. The formulas for clock time dilation and length contraction are those used in SR. This is a sufficiently simple point which an interested layman can understand.

 

I pay as much attention as necessary. The attention to find out that this experiment is in the domain where GLET makes predictions identical to GR I have given to this experiment. More is not necessary.
Just for your information: GLET is also, like GR, a metric theory of gravity. Thus, the gravitational field is also described by a metric. Thus, all notions which are meaningful for metric theories of gravity in general, in particular "curvature" and geodetic equations, are well-defined and meaningful in my ether theory too.

 

Not close enough to realize it's been falsified by the observation of 'the dying pulse train' predicted by GR. so you obviously didn't know much about the tests of GR associated with the Gravity Probe B experiment. I know you have a metric. I haven't paid close attention to it because it's most revealing prediction is your gravistar. Which has been falsified.

 

:shrug: Obviously you are quick to judge and interpret my so called "personal attacks"on you, but far less reticent to recognise your own attacks on me and mainstream science and its applications in general.

Maybe you should read Mitch Begalman's and Sir Martin Rees, "Gravity's Fatal attraction, or Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps"
And with respect, so far I don't see you as very professional at all, let alone a scientist.

So much for your professionalism....AGAIN

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fred Hoyle was also an obviously top notch scientist, but he was also wrong.
You have yet to confirm, [1] that you are a scientist, and [2] that you are wrong.

I certainly do and have asked many questions, off reputable people who are not burdened with inflated egos and delusions of grandeur.
A forum I once participated in [now defunct] had a young well respected professional GR theorist on board and a professional cosmologist named Geraint Lewis from Sydney university.
This forum also has a few professional experts such as rpenner, Grumpy, AquiousId, and others that do not contribute much now, due to the relatively high volume of crank claims, unsupported nonsense, and anti science rants.

The speed of light is most certainly a constant, so we can add that rather basic error to your list also.
I know enough to understand that accepted fact and the subsequent facts that automatically follow on, like the non absolute nature of space and time.

 

What's this ether made of?

 

Some mistake the spacetime continuum as the ether.

 

Your theory is not GR and you should quit pretending it is to any limit. Your theory predicts no event horizon forms and that the final state of collapse is a gravistar. No such thing exists. Your ether theory of gravity has been falsified by experimental observation. Your argument for the behavior of light being the same for a pulse train falling to the surface of your gravistar as falling into the black hole is complete contrived nonsense. What happens when the pulse train falls to the surface of the neutron star? What happens when it falls to the surface of your gravistar? What happens when it falls past the event horizon of a black hole? The dying pulse train.

 

So you also continue to repeat false claims. I have discussed the dying pulse train and provided arguments why it excludes only certain large values of Y>0, you continue to ignore these arguments and to claim that the whole theory is falsified - even if the gravastar is only a prediction of Y>0, not Y<0, and for sufficiently small values of Y>0 even the gravastar remains indistinguishable from the black hole by dying pulse train observations.

 

As usual, personal attacks and repetitions of unsupported claims omitted.

Thank you, I don't need your recommendations for reading.

 

Sorry, but the limit Xi,Y->0 of the equations of my theory are the Einstein equations, which is a trivial mathematical fact.

This is indeed a prediction of the theory, but only for Y>0.

No. Continuous repetition of false claims do not make them true.

If it falls on a neutron star, one can see an explostion on the surface. If it falls on a gravastar, one would expect a similar explosion happening at the surface. The question is if radiation from this explosion is able to reach outside observers.

This depends on the closeness of the radius of the gravastar to the Schwarzschild radius. The closer the surface is to the Schwarzschild radius, the smaller is the part of the radiation which can reach infinity, because only light close enough to vertical light is able to reach infinity, and the angle around the vertical direction which defines the border between light which reaches infinity and light which will be returned to the surface goes to zero if the radius of the gravastar approaches the Schwarzschild radius.

How many times I have already explained this to you?

 

i found this to be massively hilarious coming from you.

 

and yet you're continuing to say it is true without a PhD and the experience, let alone that actual data.(shrugs)

 

If you think some of my claims are not true, tell me about this and present arguments to show this.

 

the only thing to show is exactly what you claim is not true. it's that simple. but again, yet you're continuing to say this nonsense of yours is true without a PhD and the experience as an actual scientist in the trenches, let alone that actual data.(shrugs)
do you realize how typical this is ?
lim... obviously not. (shrugs) what a joke.
one last comment, how many wikki links have you clicked on for this so called nonsense ?

 

I really believe you do, considering the ignorance your posts have reflected.

 

Is this typical for this forum, that one simply makes claims that others are wrong, without even a specification what is wrong? (To require an argumentation that that particular claim is wrong, ok, this seems to be a requirement much to scientific for some guys here. But not even specifying which claims are wrong is something new.)