Gravitational Time Dilation

I very rarely read wellwisher's posts for those exact same reasons....Actually most remind me of a dog's breakfast.
It's neither science nor philosophy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're counter arguments are contrived bullshit with respect to the dying pulse train falling onto your Gravastar. Since your theory doesn't predict an event horizon forms and that the Gravastar shell is outside any possible lightlike coordinates the entire pulse train should have been observed falling onto the shell. All your preferred ether frame nonsense leads to dumbshit predictions like the local speed of light is a variable. You've made so many nonsense comments with one of the biggest being GLET is an analogue of GR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In principal there is everything wrong with what you say. Discrimination is an abhorent trait of some, and those that condone it are the cause of mankind's problems.
Of course you with your extreme political and scientific nonsense, would purposely and dishonestly misconstrue that with regards to science.
The science sections in this and other forums are for mainstream science as accepted by the vast majority of scientists and their supporters.
To exclude alternative nonsense, pseudoscience and other such crap, is not being discriminatory, as in most cases, it can be shown that it doesn't adhere to the scientific methodology and so is not science anyway.
That's why your thread was shut down at cosmoquest. That's why your paper has been refuted here and been dubbed as just a theoretical concept which has been shown to violate many aspects of GR.
But just as is the case with near all alternative hypothesis pushers, pseudoscience cranks and other anti science nuts, they are so engrossed in their own "baby" and their own superiority and discriminatory concepts as you have shown, that they will totally reject all arguments showing they are in error, and keep on with the blowhard tactics.
You doubt what I have said? Check out the alternative sections including pseudoscience and you will see it is a graveyard of exactly what I have described...full of would be's if they could be's, oodles of delusions of grandeur, and plenty of the victim status claims. Yet there they lay.
Again, if you had anything, or if Rajesh had anything, you would simply not be here.
No scientific discovery, no great revelation in science, no new theory was ever contrived or fabricated from the graveyard of alternative nonsensical claims on any science forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is new nonsense, rather new latch.......so in the slightest hope that you would ever learn...I must clarify....you can seek help of your preacher Brucep as well, who may know this....


GR equations are non linear unlike Newtonian. That means if there are two masses m1 and m2, then the effect cannot be simply derived by putting m as (m1+m2) in the equations, thats why most of even two body solutions are approximate by taking smaller body mass as negligible as compared to the bigger one. So this is not a virtue of GR, rather its a big hindrance in finding out exact solutions.....But surely, this is beyond you and you won't understand. What you will understand is the color coded line of yours above, and create hassle to others based on this line.

 

Well then, tell you what to do.....Get anyone, any link, any Professor to support whatever it is you are claiming.
I have asked you this continuously, and as yet we have nothing but "your say so" and your "interpretation"
And as the record here shows rajesh, your say so, and your interpretation on record is worth SFA, and everything you claim has been shown to be wrong.
Talk/posting is cheap Rajesh ol mate.
But keep trolling! it's what you do best.

 

Non linearity of EFEs is a basic aspect, you don't need any professor involvement for this. Your can seek some one else help for that as advised earlier.

 

Nice cop out Rajesh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again please answer and stop avoiding the question. Why should this forum take your word for anything taking into account your poor record and general trolling on this forum, and since every authoritive expert has told you, you are wrong.....In fact one even advised you learn some GR,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On the issue at hand, let me tell you again, in no uncertain terms. Gravity/spacetime has a property called nonlinearity, or in other words gravity makes gravity. But that's only part of it. The gravity from a BH is a fossil field, and you can deny both for as long as you like, and make any pretentious claims that you like to disguise your ignorance, but both issues stand.

 

I have made a quote from a published paper from Narayan et al. where he makes an explicit statement that the part of isotropic radiation which is able to reach infinity goes down to zero if the source of the radiation goes to the Schwarzschild horizon. This, of course, means that if the radius of the frozen star goes down to the Schwarzschild radius - which happens when the parameter Y>0 goes down to zero - then the part of an explosion on the surface which is visible far away goes similarly down to zero.

Moreover, I have repeatedly explained that for Y<0 there will be no stable frozen star. Thus, the dying pulse train would be completely irrelevant.

Once you have no reasonable counterargument, you name these arguments "contrived bullshit", as if this would be an argument. This is the typical behaviour of uneducated losers.

Moreover, I have never made a claim which closely connects my theory with the research field of analogue gravity. GLET is an alternative theory of gravity, which is compatible with empirical evidence, which is in most cases obvious because the equations have the Einstein equations of GR as a natural limit. To name it an "analogue of GR" would not make much sense - why would we need a theory of gravity which, analogical to GR, has singularities, is in contradiction with quantum theory, and predicts science fiction nonsense like wormholes and closed causal loops - and I have not made such a claim.

I have also never talked about "ether frames", and, of course, my theory predicts that the measured speed of light is constant - it predicts (derives from more fundamental principles) even the Einstein Equivalence Principle.

 

Just a couple of past professional opinions on gravity, non linearuty and gravity making gravity for the sake of knowledge...................

Hi Tashja,

The two posts you quote sound like this is more about personal animosity
than about physics at this point, so I'd be surprised if additional quotes
will settle the issue.

Extrapolating from special relativity, you might indeed expect
gravitational energy to be a source of gravity (just as any other energy).

But in Einstein's equations, the source term on the right-hand side
contains no gravitational energy - which is presumably what Q-reeus is
referring to.

Whatever "gravity of gravity" there is is somehow incorporated into the
other side of Einstein's equations, which contains the terms describing
the curvature of space-time.

There are ways of trying to isolate "gravity of gravity" components in the
Einstein tensor (Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor), but those can't be valid
for all observers (since an observer in free fall will not feel any local
effects of gravity).

The upshot? We should be careful applying pre-gr terms to general
relativity. Personally, I find "gravity gravitates" a useful way of
picturing the non-linearity - as long it doesn't mislead one into thinking
that the "gravitational energy" is just a localizable source term like any other.

All the best,

Markus Pössel (Dr. but not Prof.)


Another in answer to my gravity/spacetime nonlinearity claim.......
Paddoboy is right. Q-reeus is wrong.

Carlo Rovelli

----------------------------------------------------------
carlo rovelli
centre de physique théorique de luminy
aix-marseille university

 

Do you know what you have written ?

As if nonlinearity is a physical/chemical property like viscosity, malleability, ductility, conductivity, resistivity......wow !!

Take a walk !!

 

What the heck! Here's another

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html
A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field.

 

Take it easy Rajesh, afterall you have only given this around 12 months perusal......you can't be expected to know it all!
Just take a deep breath and learn from the info I'm supplying for you.
I'm always here to assist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In most cases - ok. But there are exceptions, in particular people which propose alternatives which have survived peer review and published their alternatives in sufficiently serious mainstream journals.

Explicitly no. My threads have been shut down exactly after 30 days, following the obligatory rule to shut them down after 30 days, independent of the content of the discussion.

I have not submitted here any papers, this is not a journal, but a forum, and so there was also no refutation of may papers. What some particular people think about my papers is another question. But I doubt that even the majority of the forum participants would accept that you speak in their name.

Of course, the probability is low that such things happen - but, anyway, there have not been any great relevations in fundamental physics at all in the time of the internet. The SM is, essentially, from the 70's, Bell's inequality even earlier, Wilson's understanding of the nature of renormalization from 1975. so all what
fundamental physics has reached in the time of the internet are small modifications following experiments (the third generation, neutrino masses), which are clearly not the domain of internet-based alternatives, which have no big experimental devices, and a lot of speculation (string theory and so on).

Small size influence by "cranks" has been there. Gill has mentioned the criticism of several defenders of "local realism" against the violation of Bell's inequality, and noticed that they have made valuable contributions, in particular identified some loopholes in the experiments which have been done at that time. And these loopholes are accepted by the mainstream experimenters today, and they work hard to close them. If they close them - which seems probable - the "local realist cranks" would have, finally, lost - but they nonetheless have already made valuable and accepted contributions.

And, of course, there was a long period of time when I was present only in the internet. Today my papers are published in mainstream journals, and I have also given talks in various workshops.

 

I'm not questioning the reputability of where your papers were published.
I'm simply saying they are a purely theoretical concept among many other similar papers everyday.
They will in no way invalidate or replace GR.

 

I have simply supplied expert professional opinion that once again rebukes your silly claims.

Not just yet....I have more up my sleeve for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Paddoboy,

This is extremely difficult qualitative statement on GR maths by Dr. Markus. Its beyond you, you should not even pretend that you have understood it.

To understand this first you have to appreciate what the non linear equations mean...I give you a clue, say there is a mass m1 (or energy E1) which is causing some curvature c1 at any point P, now there is another mass m2 (or energy E2) which is independently causing some curvature c2 at the same point P. Now if you try to solve GR equations by substituting the total mass (or energy) then you will not get the resultant curvature.......thats what non linearity means, its maths, which sorry to say, is beyond you.

When some one puts the argument in front of Professors who are not aware of full details and full background, then possibility of a support for you is very high, simply because you neither offer anything nor ask anything, you just copy paste without understanding the significance or relevance.

 

Once again you spew the usual.Once again two more Professionals have totally rebuked your fabricated amateurish claims. Once again, you appear to be in desperate times.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Take it easy Rajesh...I'm here to help!

 

A thought experiment, once put to me by a GR theorist on another forum, who commanded much respect from all taking part in that forum, in regards to the non linearity of spacetime/gravity was along the lines of thinking about the spatial regions of a normal Schwarzschild BH. Given that gravitational information can't travel from the singularity outwards, how does the hole maintain its gravitational field? Remember that GR is a strictly local field, we can only discuss the gravity at a point two thirds of Rs from the centre in terms of what can be locally communicated there. In that sense, then, the bulk of the curvature of space-time at that point is due to a mass which can't communicate with it at all! Locally there is no mass in that particular space-time which is responsible for the shape there. In fact, it is the nonlinearity of space-time which is holding the curvature and providing the field at this point. I would argue that space-time and the associated gravity can exist in GR without gravitating masses.

His actual reply on that forum was.....
"GR is a local theory - and this is why I chose to answer the question this way, because we know a lot about the local workings of GR. You can only tell what's going on here and now by looking at space-times which can naturally communicate with here and now. In terms of the theory, any event can only be described meaningfully in terms of other events in its past light cone.

The immediate example which springs to mind is the space-time between the singularity and event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. We know there is space-time there, there is gravitational curvature. But the mass at the hole's singularity is in the future light cone of all events in this space-time, so it can't communicate with them. The gravitational field will only communicate with any infalling masses, but it would still exist if no mass were infalling. This is an undisputable example of a local space-time which exists without any mass. (And a real, plausible one, Greg).

Now Thorne, as one of the world's leading relativists, will understand the difference between local and global applications of the theory, and will see my point. As the question was asked by Blacky, the answer I gave is kinda definitive (ie it is a real example which proves the possibility).

If on the other hand we want to ask whether it is possible to have a global solution with space-time but without mass, this is a different question. I don't really think we should include discussions of the quantum vacuum in the answer because we don't yet understand what that has to do with space-time or gravity. I think GR is still probably the best tool to use to answer that question.

So let's look at cosmological models. The de Sitter model describes an expanding universe of constant curvature which is homogenous and isotropic because the global density is zero - ie all the mass has been removed from the universe. In this model the universal radius grows exponentially and the hubble constant (which helps define the expansion with time) is related to a non-zero cosmological constant (Lambda). Now it might be possible to equate Lambda with a quantum vacuum energy, but this has not yet been performed and so we're guessing to add that factor.

Basically what I've done here is give one local example and global example of space-times which can exist without mass. It seems those who disagree with me are largely talking philosophically. I'd like anyone who disagrees with me to show me where my examples are wrong (I think I'd have to have both examples shown to be wrong to be convinced)".

 

Paddoboy, you have not understood massfull Black Holes, why try massless ?? This is beyond your brief.