Gravity: The why and the how:

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm OK, truly. Like I said talk is cheap. No one here has any reason to take what you say as gospel, particularly since I have offered many reputable references showing you to be in error and of course you will never reveal what credentials you have to give any one any reason to believe you.
    In your own words, you are a clown. Why not if you are telling the truth, forget about clowning around, and give some link, any link supporting your nonsense, and give us your credentials. Unless you are ashamed to reveal you are just an Electrician.
    How many of you does it take to change a light bulb.


    ps: Remember with regards to your adhom accusations, you will always get what you give. Alrighty?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,546
    You have not responded to the content of my post, just silly name callings, why don't you start with the first point as below..

    Paddoboy's insistence that a charged BH will attract opposite charge from the other side of EH.
    Can you explain this in your words without unnecessary copy paste.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,546
    The below is your reply in Post #59

    Q. Paddoboy's insistence that a charged BH will attract opposite charge from the other side of EH.
    Can you explain this in your words without unnecessary copy paste.

    Ans by Paddoboy:

    Most certainly just as I have referenced, although charged BH's would be somewhat of a rareity, the fact remains that they are a valid explanation and possible and would do as I suggest. Unless of course you can link to something showing that as false. You see, the word of the forum troll and crank and a lay person to boot, is just not good enough for most here.You are unable to do that.


    Any class V student would know, that this answer would fetch him zilch, nada, zookh, 0/10 whatever. I will probably debar such student from the class citing complete failure to understand despite best of the efforts.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Obviously you are a class III or IV perhaps.
    And still refuse to give a reputable link to support anything you say.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The one's that don't have you on ignore are not being fooled my boy.
     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    It is time dilation that crushes massive gravitating bodies into spheres, and curves light around them, not the "curvature of space". Look at the video of the galaxy being gravitationally lensed behind the black hole. That is the spherical physical manifestation of gravitational time dilation you are looking at, not a "curvature of space". There is only time and energy in this universe.

    Bound energy that is matter must undergo perfect relativistic rotation in order to be at rest, and also attracts any other bound energy in the same state of rest with respect to unbound energy. Any unbound energy passing close enough to a sufficient concentration of bound energy will bend toward the center of mass of the bound energy, in synchronicity with the internal relativistic rotation of the bound energy.
     
  10. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    The rest of the scientific community disagrees with you and they have done quite a bit more than "look at a video".

    Mass attracts energy (photons)? This is completely new physics, shouldn't this be in the alternative physics section?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Since when is the bending of light by gravity "new" physics? I've just restated the fact in physical terms, without the over dependence on a Euclidean geometry for spacetime physics based on solid matter at rest (whatever that means) in lieu of real relativitstic space, which is comprised only of time, unbound energy moving at c with respect to bound energy at rest, and the perfect relativistic rotation and entanglement which allows energy to become bound.

    This idea was developed right here, and all of you contributed.

    It isn't new. I've simply removed Minkowski and Hilbert from the equations they adulterated in order to force fit relativity to the only geometry they understood. Relativity does not proceed from mathematical ideas about Euclidean space. It never did.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2015
  12. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    That means it is an alternative theory of physics. Relativity says that light is not bent, space time is bent. You know that, why are you pretending that what you are saying is not fundamentally different than what is currently understood in GR?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    See ya in Stockholm.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    origin is correct danshawen.
    And further more the chances of any viable valid alternative being developed on a science forum while being non zero, is far closer to zero than one. eg: Check out the god's ridiculous claims.
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The physical effect is exactly the same. I have used relativity's alternative definition of space as light travel time (which Minkowski and Hilbert both ignored), and followed through. There is no "alternative" physics here. The "alternative" view was entirely theirs. They chose to ignore the single assumption which allows relativity to exist and replace it with an invariant 4D interval of their own so that they could work out what is only a fair approximation to the way gravity actually works, without any real bindings to physical reality. Math is a poor substitute for this, and there is simply no manner in which relativity can be worked out from the mathematical principles they tried to use. If anyone else wished to try a different approach based on what has been put forward here, I'm sure the outcome will be much different, and we will have a much better understanding of the physical universe than we currently enjoy.

    rpenner finished my physics education about Minkowski rotation and also relativistic Doppler shifts without which I could not properly render a suitable critique.

    Litte Bang provided the piece that was missing in terms of time dilation. It is the only measure that really fits relativistic geometry in a 'space' containing only time, bound and unbound energy in a natural way.

    Q-reus helped in numerous ways, in may different threads.

    Arfa Brane is awesome.

    Mathman is very good.

    Beer w/Straw helped me overcome some general social issues

    Quantum Quack pointed in the direction of a different interpretation of entanglement, and also pointed out the only major flaw which remains in the whole idea; no explanation for either charge or relativistic electrodynamics. This is the extension which I'm certain will require the most additional work. All I know for certain about this is that electric charge is at rest, and magnetic fields are what happen when charges move, except they don't move at c as you might expect, or anywhere close to it. This could just be a side effect of the fact that the electron itself has mass. At any rate, the vector field descriptions work very well for this, and probably need much less revision than is the case with General Relativity. QQs best critique of these ideas was that as far as we are concerned, photons do not even exist without electrons. In my model, of course they do. Gamma radiation photons, for example also derive of atomic interaction much more energetic than possible with electrons, not just electron-positron annihilation.

    Paddoboy and brucep were possibly of the greatest help because they kept me on task to re-examine my most basic assumptions, and stopped me from attacking the wrong individuals for all the wrong reasons. They also reinforced the fact that I knew little or nothing about mainstream cosmology, and I have been educated here on this.

    Farsight and krash661 have provided some considerable encouragement and reminders of things forgotten from time to time.

    If I missed anyone else who contributed, this post just hits the high spots.

    Yes indeed, see you all in Stockholm.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2015
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It's intellectual dishonesty at its worse. Disrespecting houses of scholarship just because YOU don't have any. It's funny reading these posts because I have to guess who is the respondant. LOL.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Bob Jones University is a "house of scholarship" after a fashion. They teach physics there also.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Not sure if what you are saying is true or otherwise, but that old adage that sprung from Newton I think, and that went something like this.....
    I see as far as I do, because I stand on the shoulders of giants.

    Pretty important advice I believe and to anyone that feels it does not apply is not going to get very far.
    My limited knowledge springs from many good books I have read:
    Let me list a few: Black Holes and Time warps [Kip Thorne] Gravity's Fatal Attraction[Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman] The First Three Minutes [Steven Weinberg] Superforce [Paul Davis] Hyperspace [Michio Kaku]Brief History of Time [Stephen Hawking]The Elegant Universe[Brian Greene]

    Again I would like to re-enforce what I see as common sense.
    Cosmology/SR/GR are not going to be rewritten on any science forum, [apologies to Farsight and the god] that is not going to happen.
    And of course mainstream science/cosmology, is mainstream for obvious reasons....because according to the majority, it is what makes the most sense and what fits into the scientific methodology the best.
    Not always true as far as the majority goes sure, but over time, if any alternative hypothesis has anything going for it, it will eventually make the grade.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    There have been many doubts raised by the god over the validity of BH's, HR, and cosmology in general. All have been refuted many times with statements from myself based on what I have learnt, and all re-enforced with reputable links.
    One of those was my claim that within the confines of a BH, gravity overcomes all other forces including the strong nuclear force.
    This is supported by Kip Thorne in his book, "Black Holes and Time Warps" 0n page 475/476, Chapter 13 here............
    http://www.plouffe.fr/simon/math/Bl...ps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy - Thorne.pdf

    And one of the many links I gave a while ago to rajesh in his similar argument against my logical claim.....
    http://www.calpoly.edu/~rechols/6edastro102/astro112ch21sol8th.html
    Neutron degeneracy pressure arises when neutrons are so close that their quantum states begin to overlap. Since no two fermions, neutrons in this case, can occupy the same quantum state, a pressure results. The combined pressure from neutron degeneracy pressure and the strong nuclear force prevent further gravitational collapse of a neutron star if the remaining supernova core (neutron star) is less than 2-3 solar masses. In a white dwarf star it is electron degeneracy pressure that is preventing gravity from collapsing the star. In this case the upper mass limit is 1.4 solar masses which is better known than for the case of a neutron star (see 30. below)
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    The red highlighted sentence should give a logical clue as to what then happens when BH status is reached.

    Will we get the usual "It's only pop science remark"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Probably, but than all I'm asking for is a reputable link invalidating my logical claim.......I certainly do not want some personal mathematical appraisal of the situation, by someone whose maths has previously been shown to be less than reliable.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I don't care about any what the majority thinks any more. This was a wild ride I enjoyed very much, and a lot of things that made no sense at all before seem to make perfect sense now. I don't remember this much intensive fun thinking about physics since I was about 17. I had much less physics knowledge to work with back then, and it was much easier to punch all the way through to a solution of sorts this time, thanks mostly to your support and the many lively I discussions I enjoyed here.

    Thanks again. It means a lot.
     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This post follows your 'like' to Paddoboy post, thus giving an inference that you are agreeing to the contents of the Paddoboy's post..Is it so?
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Very vague and ill conceived statement, poor mischief by a dud. My stand is very clear that BH singularity is not possible in reality and I standby that. I never doubted the argument behind formation or Gravitational collapse process.


    This is bad/sloppy Physics....overcoming of this Strong Nuclear force, I have given a detailed explanation just few days back. Paddoboy has no ability to respond on that.

    Ignoring his reference to his earlier screwer, the NDP part is ok, not much to dispute except that there are very less number of energy levels available for Neutrons, but hope he knows about Fermie Energy levels and derivation of this NDP etc. This inclusion of Nuclear force in the same breathe, is outright stupid and foolish to say the least.

    The Physics of Neutron Star, for the relevant point only, is as follows..

    a. The Gravitational Pressure as derived from Gravitational Potential Energy Term is inward (Collapsing type).
    b. The NDP as derived from Quantum Physics involving Fermie Energy levels, Pauli's exclusion principle and Heisenberg uncertainty principle is outward ...providing resistance to Gravitational Pressure.
    c. The nuclear force (all are Neutrons and very few protons in Neutron Star, and hence n-n Strong Nuclear Force is present) is inward (keeping the Neutrons together). The direction of this force is supporting Gravitational collapse in Neutron Star, not opposing. So if Paddoboy has the ability to read the real Physics behind Neutron Star, he would realise that this Strong Nuclear Force in fact reduces the limiting mass of Neutron Star. Simple, in presence of Strong Nuclear Force the Gravitational Pressure required is a bit less because Neutrons are already bonded by this SNF.

    This is Physics, albeit advance, no reference required. This Paddoboy has the history of questioning the standard of time definition (9,192,631,770 Hz), when I posted that he said I plagiarised this number. So his cry for references is basically his ignorance.

    And I can emphatetically say that he is blindly supporting mainstream not because he has understood it, but because of his ignorance...
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Nup, It's 100% fact, and the evidence is spread over many threads and posts of yours.
    Still if you have anything invalidating what I say, be my guest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    No again it is fact, and any detailed explanation or maths you have supplied is questionable at best and out right wrong at worst.
    Still again, if you have any reputable link supporting your nonsense, then nows the time to present it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Words, sentences, fairy tales and pseudoscience as usual.
    Again though all you need do is supply some reputable link that invalidates what one of the worlds authorities [Kip Thorne] on BH's has said.
    I won't hold my breath though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Entirely wrong and a mish mash of nonsense to impress...in that you fail.
    Simply put the tidal gravity effects increase to infinity all the way to the singularity and at some point will and does overcome the strong nuclear force.
    Needless to say if you have anything invalidating my two links then go ahead.
    No one is that interested in what you have plagiarised in the past. As a lay person, you have no support for anything you say. While I supply as many as is warranted. It also appears your obsession with naming me is overtaking what little credibility you do have if any.
    Again support what you say or my claims stand as does my two tutorials that you tried your hardest to get changed. You really need to do better.

    The only ignorance that I see my friend is your own unsupported nonsense against my accepted mainstream cosmology, and that ignorance is added to further in expecting that you are fooling anyone.
     

Share This Page