Gravity: The why and the how:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Oct 24, 2015.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Paddoboy doing the only thing he can do:
    It would be an interesting exercise to show that all these attacks apply to Paddoboy himself, not in the unsupported form he uses, but supported by his own posting, but I'm lazy today, and prefer to do more interesting things. Namely to give more support for my thesis what will happen with string theory. It was, of course, not unsupported, I have already referred to people who have written books about the failure of string theory, like Woit's book "not even wrong" and Smolin's "Trouble with physics".

    But, instead of referring to critics of string theory, it seems much more reasonable to hear their defenders. This is always a good idea for outsiders, given that these defenders know what they are talking about, are aware that their opponents know this too, thus, know that to make stupid false claims would be counterproductive. is such a defense article by Duff. What does he propose? "the contributions of string and M-theory to pure mathematics and recent applications of string and M-theory techniques to other branches of physics, such as cosmic strings, quark-gluon plasmas, fluid mechanics, high-temperature superconductors and quantum information theory." This is what I do not doubt, and this is, therefore, what I guess remains.

    What else? The claim that the competitors are not better: "The landscape problem would not have gone away. The problem of how to choose one physical universe out of a large number of mathematically possible universes is a problem that any attempt to provide a final theory is going to have confront. Why do we appear to live in just four dimensions? Why is the number of fundamental forces the four of gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear? Why are there just three families of quarks and leptons? These riddles are not unique to string theory and at the moment none of the alternative theories has any answers to them." Of course, the ether alternative, which gives answers to these questions, is ignored - he does not know that it exists.

    Whatever, people tend to continue what has been successful. Once string theory was successful in math, and in some applications of this math in some domains of physics (interesting math has often some unexpected applications in physics), one will continue research in these directions. Research in the particular application "fundamental theory of physics" has not been successful, so it will be abandoned and forgotten. If no miracle happens, which is not probable.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Schmelzer doing what he does best.Wearing his supposed scientific and political independence and the warm inner glow it gives himself, on his sleeve.

    Despite the criticism re string theory and its many derivitives, it still is supported and holds promise by many reputable physicists/mathematicians/cosmologists, far smarter and far more enlightened than you, and none with any real agenda, other than the scientific method, as opposed to your conspiracy laden, excuse ridden rant.
    Do better.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    And Paddoboy continues to do the only thing he can do. Not even worth to quote.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You don't like being criticised for your "way out" political and sometimes agenda driven scientific views?
    I've told you before Schmezer, when you feel the need to insult me, be sure that I will return the insult to you when appropriate.
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    To bad you qualified the nonsense
    His fantasy is once string theory is intellectually abandoned. Then the brilliance of his fantasy will fill the intellectual vacuum. Sounds like a rationalization to me. No rationalizations allowed in science.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    It's rather weird how this subject now on string theory and its derivitives has got you so emotionally disturbed, when in reality all I have said, is no more than, I still believe it could hold some promise.
    So what's the big deal Schmelzer? Why the angst? Particularly since you have even admitted that you do not no its details.
    You don't like it, great, that's your view.
    I still see some promise along with many other reputable physicists far more capable than you. Or is that the remark that has you upset? You don't believe there are others out there more capable than you? Is this why you chose to be so independent? and hold such inoperable and unrealistic political views?

    I'm also not into string theory, but I can recognise that if we were able to observe at those scales, one way or the other, we would have a better idea.
    And what is really painfully obvious is the way you have latched onto this, and spewed forth your opposition to something [string theory] that has only barely been mentioned, says more about your agenda than anything else so far.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Think about #241. It contained a quite minimal answer to your personal attacks, and, then, I shifted to string theory. Your answer was emotional attack again, none of the content about string theory was answered.
    Why do you think there is some angst? String theory is a dead horse. In the past, it would have already disappeared, with some honorable professors continuing this until they die, but the modern way to organize science, with extremely dependent scientists, such things survive much longer. But time will do its job anyway.
    Why do you think so? As if your personal attacks would be of any importance. I know what I have reached - something much better than all the string theorists together, namely a theory which gives what they want, and Duff's claim, in defense, that none of the competitors has reached that too, is simply based on ignorance:
    Discussing string theory is certainly more interesting, for me as for the reader, than cheap polemics with a layman who likes empty personal attacks. If you think there is anything wrong with the "agenda" to argue about more interesting content, ok, your choice.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That's your opinion only, and time will most certainly do its job with regards to your own rather way out views both scientific and political.

    As someone else commented on in one of your political tirades, you are always trying to get out from under, after spouting some nonsense. And again, your own numerous personal attacks will be similarly met.
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    And the crapping continues.

    Did your Boss Brucep not fire you for this in his response (#245). Hope after his firing you will learn some Physics. You won't listen to others.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    As per usual you misunderstand....par for the course for you. He was having a go at Schmezer.
    And still your own avoidance of what I'm asking you continues.
    Please reference anything you say, as in the main what you say has little or no credibility on this forum, illustrated by the likes of brucep and others having you on ignore.
    Do better...hohum.
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Schmelzer thinks that folks will flock to his falsified theory when the present research for quantum gravity ends. Key term is "thinks".
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Except that my theory has been falsified only in your fantasy, because the observation you think falsifies it gives only an irrelevant upper bound for the parameter \(\Upsilon>0\) and gives nothing if this parameter is negative, which is allowed too. This upper bound is even irrelevant, because the fitting of inflation gives another, stronger upper bound.

    And, btw, your guess is also wrong, because what makes me sure is not my theory of gravity, but my ether model which explains all the fermions and gauge fields of the SM, which is and published in Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009).
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Totally agree...
    the god appears to be a different kettle of fish. Only in recent times, it is becoming evident that he appears to be religiously driven.
    And as any of our religiously driven nuts are apt to do, will fabricate total nonsense to attempt to invalidate mainstream science in some way or other.
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    No, dear.

    He was having a go at you. he declared those 10 points of yours as total nonsense....and he also indirectly taught you about your pet words reasonableness, logical-ness and rationality in science.....

    I would'nt bother but then you dance to his tunes, so hope now you will learn.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Your delusions are as usual just that. And most have you on ignore for your nonsense.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Take it easy deary!
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    You mean these 10 points.....

    [1] A BH is thought to exist simply by the overwhelming indirect evidence of matter/energy and space/time within a region, that is unable to be explained by anything else. It is reasonable then to assume BH's do exist.

    [2]GR tells us that when any mass undergoes gravitational collapse to its Schwarzchild radius, that further total gravitational collapse is compulsory.

    [3] This tells us that GR predicts its own downfall or the limits of its parameters at the quantum/Planck level.

    [4] Most cosmologists are certain that there is no physical singularity at the center, and that in time this will be explained via a QGT.

    [5] Although [as detailed in the opening paragraph] we can know nothing with certainty about the inside of a BH beyond its EH, we are able to reasonably assign certain properties to it such as spin and charge.

    [6] Both spin and charge, in time, will all be negated, but are subject to other conditions.

    [7]The BH itself will also in time evaporate via the HR mechanism, if that mechanism is valid according to generally accepted theory.

    [8] Inside the EH of a BH, is simply pure spacetime in a critically curved topology that exceeds "c" and the reason why all paths lead to the Singularity
    [This obviously ignores any infalling matter/energy]

    [9] The critically curved spacetime within the EH, and subsequently the tidal gravitational effects of gravity, will see all other forces being overcome including the strong nuclear force, as tidal gravity move towards infinity.

    [10]The river/waterfall metric model is a mathematically validated model with citations, that simply explains why a BH is what it is for professionals and lay people alike. This is one of its greatest fortes. It also applies to the Kerr metric

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    All are accepted mainstream cosmological theories and logical assumptions, with so far only one "fool"disagreeing with them...the same person who had his BNS paper demolished.

    Bruce has not refuted any of them, in fact he has supported most in past interactions.

    Of course if you can reference anything to invalidate any of those points, than go ahead my dear.
    [Although again, you should know that most of the reputable posters on this forum, including bruce, have you on ignore.
    It must get only out where you are.
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    It is unable to be explained by something else in GR. In other theories of gravity, there may be no BHs.
    GR predicts its own downfall because it predicts singularities. But quantum or Planck level is irrelevant here - because GR is not a quantum theory, thus, what it predicts about the own downfall cannot contain any constants related with Planck's constant.
    That there are no singularities in reality is a triviality. That one can rid of singularities in QGT is a quite naive hope. The experience of QFT, which contains a lot more singularities than the corresponding classical theories, and the non-renormalizability of GR suggests something different. But I have not made any surveys, so the claim that this hope is supported by a majority may be even correct.
    I'm unable to make sense of this.
    No. This is true only if one assumes some basic principles of special-relativistic QFT remain valid even for extremely small distances, much much smaller than Planck length, an assumption which is completely unreliable, because it is clear that for such Planckian distances we need a theory of quantum gravity.

    Some people have proposed some heuristic arguments that the effect remains valid independent of what happens at trans-Planckian energies, but these are only heuristic arguments.
    Nonsense. In GR, nothing exceeds c, and spacetime is nothing which has a speed. At least not in the spacetime interpretation.
    It is not really a model. Something which can be applied only to some very special solutions is nothing one would reasonable name a model. Then, a "river model" suggests some conserved flow, but there is no conserved entity in these particular coordinates.

    The paper provides some nice coordinates, and such coordinates may be useful for one purpose or another. So, the mathematics of the paper are fine, and this critique does not question them.

    Overall, only 3 of your 10 points are more or less unproblematic.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Trying to get out from under again Schmelzer?
    GR is all that matter at this stage, and at this stage we have no other theories of gravity worth their salt. Try again.
    Playing semantics again? Sure GR predicts Singularities, and just as surely it also fails at the quantum/Planck level which are outside its parameters being a classical theory.
    Another cop out? A triviality?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Your political tirades are no better either.
    Let me elaborate. A BH can have three properties, mass, spin and charge....The spin and charge are negated over time, albeit in certain circumstances, a long time.
    More rubbish. If HR is shown to be valid, over time, a BH will evaporate...all BH's will evaporate. That is of course generally accepted by mainstream science.
    In GR nothing WITH MASS exceeds "c". Spacetime is not curtailed by the Universal speed limit. So yes, spacetime is considered mathematically to be falling towards the Singularity at greater than "c"
    Of course it is a model....and mathematically supported and verified. And just as obviously, this is just another Schmelzer example of a cop out due to proven agendas, just as you continually show in the political threads.
    And it puts it head and shoulders above any fabricated ether model, that just repeats what GR tells us and no more despite silly agenda laden claims.
    That's nice.

    Overall actually all 10 points are valid and what is generally accepted by mainstream cosmology.
    In fact the only two that seem to oppose such obvious sensibility are yourself and the god....good luck with that partnership

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    One published a paper on a "Alice in Wonderland" Black Neutron Star fairy tale, the other resurrected a long dead and defunct ether hypothetical that just mimicked to some extent what GR more aptly describes, and no more.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Nothing worth to object, because it is only the usual paddoboy, with attacks but without arguments, but this is funny:
    No, spacetime in GR is not an entity with a speed, thus, it also cannot have a speed which exceeds c. This is elementary knowledge about the spacetime interpretation of GR. Hamilton and Lisle sell this as "provides a delightfully simple conceptual picture". Means, this is a picture, not mathematics.
    No. HR may appear valid in some sense, namely being a blackbody radiation of the Hawking temperature, but decreasing over time, which is what I think is correct. Then, it will have disappeared after a short period of time and not lead to evaporation. And, of course, HR is far away from shown to be valid, even if many think that it is valid. That there is the trans-Planckian problem is well-known and accepted, and the most powerful "argument" that it is nonetheless valid is - an analogon in acoustics, with quite different properties.

Share This Page