Relativity of rotational motion confirmed:

All your claims have been refuted, both in my language and in the language of reputable people, many times.
Sorry I aint jumping through your hoop tonight my friend.
Let me again reiterate as obviously it has hit close to home.......
Firstly, certainly there is some truth in that statement, but even more certain is the fact that in the vast majority of cases, what mainstream accepts based on the current knowledge, is most likely to match the data available.......
Secondly, again it is near certain that any alternative model that happens to be raised on forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, purposely avoiding the proper academia and associated peer review, is in all likelyhood nonsense.....
Thirdly, the point above is continually shown to be factual by the fact that other forums in many cases has banned these delusional alternative claimants, and even here where rules are far more lax, most of those same alternative claimants, have threads moved to pseudoscience, and/or cesspool after a short period of what can loosely be described as discussion or debate.
Fourthly, if any alternative claimant had any science of any substance, they would not be wasting there time on this or any other science forums.
Those are undeniable facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I have said, and as you already know, all your points, every last one of them have been refuted and shown to be in error or misinterpreted.....
But once again, being the nice bloke I really am, the following are the thoughts of Professor Gerard ’t Hooft, a Nobel Laureate......
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

"Indeed, it often happens in science that a minority of dissenters try to dispute accepted wisdom. There’s nothing wrong with that; it keeps us sharp, and, very occasionally, accepted wisdom might need modifications. Usually however, the dissenters have it totally wrong, and when the theory in question is Special or General Relativity, this is practically always the case. Fortunately, science needs not defend itself. Wrong papers won’t make it through history, and totally ignoring them suffices. Yet, there are reasons for a sketchy analysis of the mistakes commonly made. They are instructive for students of the subject, and I also want to learn from these mistakes myself, because making errors is only human, and it is important to be able to recognize erroneous thinking from as far away as one can ...

Examples of the themes that we regularly encounter are:- "Einstein’s equations for gravity are incorrect";
- "Einstein’s equivalence principle is incorrect or not correctly understood";
- "Black holes do not exist";
- "Einstein’s equations have no dynamical solutions";
- "Gravitational waves do not exist";
- "The Standard Model is wrong";
- "Cosmic background radiation does not exist";and so on.

When confronted with claims of this sort, my first reaction is to politely explain why they are mistaken, attempting to identify the erroneous ideas on which they must be based. Occasionally, however, I thought that someone was just reporting things he had read elsewhere, and my response was more direct: "Never have I seen so much nonsense in one single package ..." or words of similar nature. This, of course, was a mistake, because these had been the thoughts of that person himself. When other correspondents also continued to defend concoctions that I thought to have extensively exposed as unfounded, I again felt tempted to use more direct language. So now I am a villain.
A curious thing subsequently happened. A handful of people with seriously flawed notions of general relativity apparently joined forces, and are now sending me more and more offensive emails, purportedly exposing my "stupidity" and collecting more "scientific" arguments to back their views.

They find some support from ancient publications by famous physicists; in the first decades of the 20th century, indeed, Karl Schwarzschild, Hermann Weyl, and even Albert Einstein, had misconceptions about the theory, which at that time was brand new, and these pioneers indeed had not yet grasped the full implications. They can be excused for that, but today’s professional scientists know better.

As for my "stupidity", my own knowledge of the theory does not come from blindly accepting wisdom from text books; text books do contain mistakes, so I only accept scientific facts when I fully understand the arguments on which they are based. I feel no need whatsoever to defend standard scientific wisdom; I only defend the findings of which I have irrefutable evidence, and it so happens that most of these are indeed agreed upon by practically all experts in the field.

The mails I have sent to my "scientific opponents" appear to be a waste of time and effort, so now I use this site to carefully explain where their arguments go astray. Rather than trying to bring them to their senses (which would be about as effective as trying to bring Jehovah’s Witnesses to their senses), I rather address students who might otherwise be misled by what they read on the Internet. The people whose "ideas" I will discuss will be denoted by single initials, for understandable reasons
[Note: To be sure, I do not want to expose people by name, excusing them of making basic mistakes, but some of them don't see things that way; in his own blog, Mr. C. reacts on this page by identifying all "friends" he found here. My apologies about that]
From their reactions it became clear that analyzing someone’s mistaken train of thought is far from easy. What exactly are the blind spots? I try to spot these, but I receive furious responses that only suggest that the blind spots must be elsewhere. Where do their incorrect assertions come from? Of course, the mathematical equations at those points are missing, so I start guessing. I had to modify some of the guesses I made earlier on this page; actually, I prefer to explain how the math goes, and why the physical world is described by it.

This is not intended as a scientific article, since after all, the math can be obtained from many existing text books. Sadly, these text books are "dismissed" as being "erroneous". Clearly, therefore, I won’t be completely successful. To the students I insist: most of the text books being criticized by those folks are actually very good, although it always pays to be critical, and whatever you read, check it with your own common sense.

Here come some of the crazy assertions concerning General Relativity, and my responses".
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Much more at the link although I can say with some confidence that you will probably not read it.
So other than that, the best advice I have for you, is to disregard your magical Spaghetti monster, realise you do not have the credentials to either question and/or replace GR and modern day cosmology, and your efforts on this forum are changing nothing......Which sadly amounts to a waste of time. That's sad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

leave the copy paste, just give the pointwise rebuttal....this guy has just written an essay of sort in this copy paste, no rebuttal...

I tried reading from the link you provided, its straining color combination, unreadable...

And mind you, it comes from a guy who is pushing holographic theory......the only place where he can push theory, without any fear of verification, is BH event horizon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your question is poorly defined - how is the E-W orientation achieved and in what setting? Is the gyro somehow free-floating above the earth via some kind of anti-gravity, or equivalently cradled in a gimble, or anchored in some other way to terra firma? Such details matter. But let's assume it's floating somehow and couples to the spinning earth purely via motional gravitational effects. One can apply the formalism of gravito-magnetism in analogy to magnetic coupling of magnetic moments in EM. Except in gyro case gyroscopic torque plays an important part. So, there will be a tendency for initially E-W oriented gyro to align with earth's spin axis, but gyro precessional torque acts normal to gravito-magnetic coupling torque. Net dynamics will depend on exact initial conditions. Try here for some interesting visual learning:

Please QUOTE when and if replying.

 

I should have stayed with the swinging pendulum at the North Pole.

 

Firstly, obviously copy n pastes particularly from reputable sites and professional people, tend to invalidate what you claim, secondly this guy as you put it, is a Nobel Laureate giving an illustration as to effects delusions of grandeur and tall poppy syndrome have on some people and their vain efforts to discredit the great man, thirdly quantum mechanics is a legitimate science that in most cases is entirely hypothetical and unobservable, as he certainly knows:
Like I said, your point rebuttal has been done many many times by many people both here and in reputable E-Mails.......you know that, I know that, and the forum knows that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not quite. In SR it is a postulate that a rest frame for light does not exist. Hence the global coordinate transformations are allowed to be expressed in the form that \(v \ne c\). Believe it or not, in this, and many other "division be zero" scenarios, is called a "singularity"

See the above - it also implies a singularity

The Einstein field equations are mathematical forms, whether you like it or not - specifically they are a set of 10 non-linear simultaneous equations. As such they are are entitled to a solution, of necessity a mathematical one.

No. Should I lose sleep trying to explain away mathematical and physical singularities?

Points in spacetime are events, like the Gettysburg address or the shooting of John F. Kennedy. These are pretty real, wouldn't you say?

By the above, this not correct.

I am uncomfortable with your use of the term "reality", but taken at face value, there are points in space ("places") and there are points in spacetime ("events"). Is one more "real" that the other?

To harmonize dimensions - it just makes life a whole lot simpler, it's no big deal. FYI, you can just as easily (and quite usefully) use \(ict\) where \(i\) is the imaginary unit

Yes, covered above

Yes, as above, an event is a point in spacetime. Look, assuming that gravitational waves travel at 300,000 km/sec, and that the 2 events had a time-like separation of 10 msec, is it the case that the 2 observatories had a space-like separation of 3,000 km? If not, then this gravitational wave disrupted both space and time

 

Try the carriage going through the station (again). In the carriage Alice fires a laser pulse vertically up a distance y, say from points A to B. The events are, pulse emitted from A and Pulse arrives at B . Since the carriage happens to be moving through the station at velocity v the carriage moves while the pulse is 'in the air' in the carriage. Seen from the station the pulse must leave point A and arrive at point B BUT ... while the pulse is travelling the carriage has moved through the station so seen from the station B (where the pulse arrives) isn't vertically above A (where the pulse started). You get my drift so far?

 

As I have said many times, the refutation of the god's claims have been put in many threads by lay people and E-Mail from professionals.
Obviously the depths of desperation he has sunk to is highlighted by his conspiracy claims re GP-B and aLIGO.
It's also quite easy to dismiss [without any evidence to support such dismissal on forums such as this], near all mainstream cosmology and GR which he seemingly proudly does, but oh so obvious is the facts that he cannot offer any solution for the effects that we see, and that has lead to the formation of theories such as BH's.
Of course one of the strongest indications of BH's existence, before the aLIGO confirmations, was forthcoming with the observations of Cygnus X-1 and the "dying pulse train" effect.

 

Yes, thats the definition of singularity, division by zero.....the point was how come a 'division by zero' got cult status in GR, but conveniently bypassed as postulate in SR ?

Right it is a singularity, division by zero..mathematical undefined issue. But in GR it has become business.

Yes of course, they are entitled to a solution. Any mathematical equation is entitled, but a solution which gives you division by zero, is termed as unrealistic and needs to be dropped. I give you a related example, the quare of 'x' age is 2500. Mathematical equation for this comes out to be x^2 = 2500, the solutions are x = 50 and x = -50...You drop x = -50 here, because that is un realistic.

Choice is yours and thats the problem with majority. If someone is pushing something derived out of 1/0 as physical entity with infinities involved, then if you accept that and defend that without loosing sleep/questioning, then you are being either dishonest or dumb.

Very true, its like my being in front of computer at xyz location at so and so time, the event is real, but not the mapping. Spacetime at the best is mathematical mapping.

That makes you ignorant of reality.

They are real, the happenings of events are real, but not the recording. recoriding can only be warped in maths.

That proves that spacetime mapping is nothing but mathematical...you can play with ct or ict.

So that event happened in space not in spacetime..

 

A fairly meaningless response to what was a considered reply, and, given the specific request to quote when responding, basically an insult. Since in your very next post, you did quote. Not nice at all.

 

Perhaps the "cult status" of most concern, is that of cranks that totally oppose all of 2oth/21st century cosmology, BH's and have the crazy audacity to claim GP-B and aLIGO were fraudulent results. One would label such nonsense in the same category of conspiracies as the faked Moon landings and 9/11.
Plus of course anyway, with SR a body approaching "c" will have zero length and infinite mass and time would be non existent.
And of course the over riding points you will never address, because you are unable to address them in any logical sensible manner, are the facts that [1] Preaching your nonsense here , gets you exactly nowhere, [2] If you had anything of substance you would not be here, and [3] your problems with GR, BH's and other areas of cosmology like gravitational lensing and radiation, are entirely fabricated as has been pointed out to you many times.

As you keep telling us, the singularity is a mathematical construct and probably does not exist physically.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The physical singularity does not exist in all likelyhood. BH's are confirmed by many experiments unless of course you are able to describe some other entity that explains the effects we see. Perhaps wormholes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While you keep up your baseless criticism of cosmology without any evidence whatsoever, your rantings are just a fairy story with no basis in reality at all. Just like your magical spaghetti monster of choice.

I see it the other way around: While any individual pushes a totally anti cosmology stance without any concrete evidence, then your description of dumb and dishonest can be applied.

You prove nothing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Firstly with regards to space and spacetime......
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".
Hermann Minkowski
and on the reality of spacetime.......
https://www.quora.com/Is-spacetime-a-real-thing-or-just-a-mere-concept
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

You will have noticed I give you only the links at this time, as all this has been discussed and pointed out to you many many times.

 

So if you admit that there cannot be anything like singularity in real life......
then do you know what you are saying ?

1. That BH cannot have infinities, infinitely curved spacetime.
2. That the mass has to reside somewhere in some form inside EH, but then that would violate GR, because as you very fondly say once inside EH, the collapse to singularity is imminent.
3. Once the mass parks itself inside EH somewhere, that means it will have surface inside ?
4. If the mass goes somewhere else via wormhole, then it cannot gravitationally influence this side, the way it is doing now.

Come on Paddoboy, show some logical reasoning......It looks absurd to say that Physical singularity does not exist but BH exists with imminent collapse to singularity.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The biggest absurdity in this whole discussion is you believing that you are competent enough to rewrite 21st century cosmology from the comfort of your abode on a remote science forum.

 

We do not as yet have any validated QGT and your dishonesty as I suggested again comes to the fore......You speak of the non existence of a physical singularity, which you have also agreed to many times, not any mathematical singularity. You do know the difference?

Most probably not.

You are being dishonest again my friend.....GR predicts compulsory collapse most certainly, and at least up to the quantum/Planck level where GR does not apply.
Since it does not apply at that quantum/Planck level, and as yet we have no other model to describe that region, it's logical to assume that the singularity does not extend to infinite curvature and density, rather a surface of sorts exists there at some level in some unknown state.

Since we both agree that a physical singularity does not exist, a surface of sorts should reside somewhere below the quantum/Planck level.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We have no confirmation of wormholes existing as yet.

See previous post and please for the sake of your own credibility, try and avoid contradictions and ironic statements that reflect on yourself.

 

See, I am not saying that a surface of sort should reside.......It is your baselss statement.

There is a contradiction in your statements...

1. First and foremost for the solution under context, GR math has problem at r = 0, not at any other point. So this quantum / planck level is your figment of imagination or popscience. It has nothing to do with GR, planck level is as good or as bad as any other level for GR...

2. Since you concede that Physical Singularity does not exist, so you are changing your stand, because I recall you have been pushing that spin etc can be assigned to singualrity...

3. If Physical Singualrity does not exist and some surface of sort exists as per you, then it is no longer a BH, we do not need a shroud of EH also in that case. Existence of any object in any form below EH will dump GR instantly.

4. A BH by definition is a critically curved spacetime (with infinite curvature at r = 0), bring some object of any size, and BH goes kaput....


I do not contradict, your above post messing up quantum planck level with GR and residing of mass near that or below that is not supported by mainstream....so please read what you are defending. As far as I am concerned leave aside the singualrity an object cannot fall below its EH, if at all it happens in extremely dynamic condition (very dynamic transient implosion of Super Nova) then also it will be a transient structure.

 

As posted by Paddoboy..

There is nothing commonsensical about..

1. Black Hole singularity., millions of solar mass collapsing into a point.
2. Spacetime bending and warping.
3. Time Travel.
4. Worm Holes and white holes.

all nonsensical....

 

Quantum mechanics defies common sense, but the stuff actually works.

 

You mean like a Black Neutron Star?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We had another who through having a similar agenda and beliefs in a magical spaghetti monster, submitted a paper with a publisher of questionable renown, that was quickly and totally demolished for the pseudoscience it really was.
Then he promised a follow up paper with improvements, which never eventuated, and I suspect was totally rejected by even this questionable publisher as being even more pseudoscientific.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet here you continue with your general evangelistic like preaching against mainstream cosmology, from the comfort of your lounge chair on a remote sliver of cyber space that this science forum is, making absolutely zero impact. on the science world. Sad.

 

In your amateurish lay person's opinion of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's well known how some agendas and preconceived beliefs will cloud and disrupt the thinking ability of otherwise reasonable people.[I am in no way suggesting that you are reasonable btw]
Let me again remind you, the biggest absurdity in this whole discussion is you believing that you are competent enough to rewrite 21st century cosmology from the comfort of your abode on a remote science forum.