What if relativistic symmetry is only an approximation?

stuff up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Q-reeus, Schmelzer and to myself,

This man Paddoboy with absolutely no formal science education (admittedly) is engaging all three of us to the extent of evoking all hidden and suppressed emotions.........In fact unwittingly (rather stupidly) we are arguing with him as if he is the competent advocate of mainstream science. Let us understand, he is not and his only access is loose semi scientific journals or websites written in English. He does not understand maths and Physics behind them, but yes he understands English.

So I have decided not to respond to Paddoboy on technical matters, if he gives some link or copy paste, the response can be limited to that, without getting into any kind of argument with him. I think that would do a lot to my mental peace otherwise very soon i will run away from this forum.


PS1: He has crossed his 10000 mark, fastest in this forum. Not even mods or admins of this forum can claims such prolific participation.

PS2 : Evoked by his response below, I am not saying what I post is right, well it can damn be BS, but I am convinced he is not the one to judge that or find fault with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trying to conjur up some support Rajesh?
Although I'm only a lay person, I'm sure I have made a heap of difference in keeping you and others honest particularly with your anti GR rants and tirades, and with yourself Rajesh your total lack of expertise and knowledge to even talk about BH cosmology.
You are afterall only an Electrician,,,Me? I'm a retired maintenance Fitter and Machinist...Difference being is I'm not elevating myself above the many giants in this field that have totally rebuked all your nonsense and lies.
All that has been supported with reputable links and professional replies.
That will continue to the best of my ability Rajesh.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you actually think, after being specifically admonished not to, repeating nauseating sly insults, typical of a pre-teen brats behavior, in any sense qualifies you as a mature adult male?! It was pointed out elsewhere there is a world of difference between accurate if biting sarcasm (me), and your stooping to juvenile gutter-level tactics.

As Schmelzer already pointed out elsewhere, you and ilk 'argue', as per this example of yours, by way of mindless repetition, without regard to any appropriateness, any relevant context. If this site permitted flashing/glowing of text and 'thunder-clap/drums/trumpets style audio 'enhancements', I've no doubt you would assault us all with copious levels of such. Bad enough to have to endure so much use of bolded large font liberally colored to boot. Your simple-minded philosophy - he who shouts loudest and longest wins the contest. And just for good measure, best to make sure to always have the last word i.e. post.

 

You again refuse to address the specific examples I gave in #41 and once again resort to quoting - in this case a quote that flatly contradicts what you slyly infer. There was no 'each way bet' in that Leyden address, simply carefully guarded wording that made clear 'the ether of GR' is unlike the earlier notions of such. You will be hard pressed to put up a coherent defense of 'no ether in GR' while at the same time adhering to e.g. 'waterfall' notion. But then contradictions sit easily with you.

 

The defense of the status quo, never seems to teach, anyone, anything. It appeals to prestige, and uses insults, but never teaches anything, to clarify the position of the status quo. It sounds more like actors, playing the role of a scientist, saying the buzz words on a TV show, but not able to simplify the analysis in ways than anyone can understand.

GR does not address phase changes of matter, even though gravity causes these to occur. The solid iron in the core off the earth is due to gravity. GR is more narrow than classical gravity because the classic gravity interfaces this phase change with variable called pressure. GR is more about space-time, and does not fully address the interactions of matter that result from gravity applying pressure; phases. The buzz word specialists never address this, because they don't understand GR well enough to know where it starts and ends.

Pressure is not exclusive to gravity, but rather all the forces, energy and even entropy can generate pressure. One can create phase changes using any of these pressure sources. These changes are not connected to space-time. Einstein said the laws of physics, such as phases, are not space-time reference dependent. We generate the same pressure and temperature in any spacetime reference. GR does not go there, since we can make metallic water anywhere in the space-time well, but using another pressure source. GR is a beginning, not an end.

 

I don't think he's right, tashja. See Einstein talking about the speed of light here. Light doesn't get out because it's stopped.

All, see arXiv for papers with aether in the title. A lot of them refer to Einstein-Aether.




Paddoboy, I'm afraid this is wrong:

A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
light cannot escape from a black hole.

Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
through space falling at the speed of light.

A gravitational is a place where space is inhomogeneous, this being modelled as curved spacetime. It isn't a place where space is falling down. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world.

 

Not in the least...and the each way comment was made noting your own beliefs.
And as I said, Einstein's address was near a 100 years ago.
Spacetime as measured and accepted by mainstream cosmology, is far different from the ether Schmelder and yourself propose, and couple that with his and your's mangling of GR, it's obvious all you have is another ego driven alternative hypothesis.

A few things, it certainly was not accurate, secondly it was gutter tactics, and thirdly gutter tactics brought on by a fanatical "sour grapes"approach by yourself, in relation to myself being a party to refuting your anti GR thread, and getting professional advice to confirm that gravity makes gravity, due to its property of non-linearity.

 

This shows:
1.) The poster has no idea what he is writing about. Because my ether theory is a metric theory of gravity, thus, all what can be and is measured in "spacetime" can be in the same way measured in my ether theory too.
2.) He does not recognize that in most parts I completely agree with the standard model of cosmology. And there is no far difference. The only difference is that I propose a different mechanism for inflation.
3.) He uses completely unbased personal defamations.

 

I'm sure this is just another example of your delusions of grandeur. That is obviously supported by your previous claim of having a TOE.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And of course Professor Hamilton is a qualified expert unlike yourself.

 

And as you have been informed about many times, even if that was true [and I don't believe it is] the incumbent model still remains as the preferred model.
In other words, no prizes for second [if one could imagine you were ever in the race]

See previous reply.

I suppose we could go back to the beginning of our verbal exchanges and I bet we would find the first "personal defamations" or insults were from yourself.

Finally, as I have told other "would be's if they could be's", when you have a Phd, and when you are able to conceal the inflated ego problem, and stand on the shoulders of giants, you may then recognise why so many here, [and probably elsewhere] are rebuking your claims.

Now if you want to keep the conversation above the navel, then I'll cooporate and do the same. That does not mean I'm going to agree with you, just that we both keep the conversation above the navel, with no insults or insinuations.

It would do you good Schmelzer, to check out some of the other alternative ideas in that section, and notice all without exception, were just as positive, just as certain, and just as blinded with their own ideas as you are.

There is also another forum I participated in for a little while at cosmoquest.
What happens there is one is allowed to put any alternative idea he or she likes, as long as [1] He or she answers all criticism and questions, and [2] he or she accepts that they will need to run the gauntlet.
They have a month to show good cause why they have anything of substance or value. After one month, if in the opinion of a group of experts, they have not shown that their hypothesis has any substance or value, the thread is locked.
A great scheme. Why not try it and see how you go?

 

It seems a couple of amateurs [like myself] are wildly disputing the "river model"of spacetime near a BH, without realising it is quite a useful analogy.
The analogy has a sound legitimate mathematical basis for all types of BHs and space warps, including wormholes, Reissner Nordstrom, and Kerr.
The following is the Schwarzchild description at....... http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

The picture of spacing falling into a black hole has a sound mathematical basis, first discovered in 1921 by the Nobel prize-winner Alvar Gullstrand2, and independently by the French mathematician and politician Paul Painlevé3, who was Prime Minister of France in 1917 and then again in 1925.
It is not necessary to understand the mathematics, but I do want to emphasize that, because the concept of space falling into a black hole is mathematically correct4, inferences drawn from that concept are correct.

The Gullstrand-Painlevé metric is

ds2=−dt2ff+(dr−vdtff)2+r2(dθ2+sin2θdϕ2)
which is just the Schwarzschild metric expressed in a different coordinate system. The free-fall time tff is the proper time experienced by observers who free-fall radially from zero velocity at infinity. The velocity v in the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric equals the Newtonian escape velocity from a spherical mass M
v=−2GMr−−−−−√
with a minus sign because space is falling inward, to smaller radius.
Physically, the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric describes space falling into the Schwarzschild black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity. Outside the horizon, the infall velocity is less than the speed of light. At the horizon, the velocity equals the speed of light. And inside the horizon, the velocity exceeds the speed of light. Technically, the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric encodes not only a metric, but also a complete orthonormal tetrad, a set of four locally inertial axes at each point of the spacetime. The Gullstrand-Painlevé tetrad free-falls through the coordinates at the Newtonian escape velocity.

It is an interesting historical fact that the mathematics of black holes was understood long before the physics. Einstein himself misunderstood how black holes work. He thought that the Schwarzschild geometry had a singularity at its horizon, and that the regions inside and outside the horizon constituted two separate spacetimes. I think that even today research into general relativity is too often dominated by abstract mathematical thinking at the expense of conceptual understanding.

Also a paper here....................
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf

The river model of black holes
Andrew J. S. Hamilton ∗ and Jason P. Lisle JILA and Dept. Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences, Box 440, U. Colorado, Boulder CO 80309, USA

Abstract:
This paper presents an under-appreciated way to conceptualize stationary black holes, which we call the river model. The river model is mathematically sound, yet simple enough that the basic picture can be understood by non-experts. In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a flat background, while objects move through the river according to the rules of special relativity. In a spherical black hole, the river of space falls into the black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity, hitting the speed of light at the horizon. Inside the horizon, the river flows inward faster than light, carrying everything with it. We show that the river model works also for rotating (Kerr-Newman) black holes, though with a surprising twist. As in the spherical case, the river of space can be regarded as moving through a flat background. However, the river does not spiral inward, as one might have anticipated, but rather falls inward with no azimuthal swirl at all. Instead, the river has at each point not only a velocity but also a rotation, or twist. That is, the river has a Lorentz structure, characterized by six numbers (velocity and rotation), not just three (velocity). As an object moves through the river, it changes its velocity and rotation in response to tidal changes in the velocity and twist of the river along its path. An explicit expression is given for the river field, a six-component bivector field that encodes the velocity and twist of the river at each point, and that encapsulates all the properties of a stationary rotating black hole.

That should defuse the amateurish remarks and errors of judgement in post 41.

 

Why do you think your ether idea is valid?

Because you want it to be? That's just not good enough.

 

Lorentz and Poincare evidently finished something called LET (compare to GET), and Lorentz himself said that absolute space and absolute time actually make no real sense relativistically, BUT NEVERTHELESS SOME OF THE MATH WORKS OUT AS THOUGH IT DID. Moreover, Lorentz "didn't really care" whether or not the aether described in LET actually existed or not.

GET just looks like more of the same ideas as LET.

Everything old (relating to relativity) is new again. Why is that, exactly? I thought this was all worked out a very long time ago. Was there something wrong with it, or is everyone just doing this to make me feel good?

An absolute coordinate origin for time exists everywhere in the eternal present of the quantum field that is at rest relative to the pair creation of virtual particles / energy. This coordinate origin has no actual duration, for it is not a time "interval". It is difficult to do math with it however. It tends to render most physical quantities infinity, particularly if it is mistreated as a time interval. This field is what gives rise to time's arrow. Space is what does not actually exist. Space only seems to exist to us because solids constructed of matter with dimensions can exist that are at rest with respect to the same quantum field that is the origin of time. This is why calculations based on Euclidean space may work, but matter itself is a dynamic energy structure. The mathematics of the Standard Model demonstrates this. When matter moves, empty space between atoms shrink, and the equivalent of a Doppler shift accomplishes the storage of additional kinetic energy within all bound energy structures.

Just as the Babylonians did us a great service including zero in their numbering system, the inclusion of an absolute origin of time of zero duration does things that one cannot accomplish with an equivalent absolute space because that concept is a fallacy to begin with. Particularly Euclidean space.

 

Prof Hamilton was incorrect in saying that BNS violates causality, despite the fact that simple density calculations prove that causality violation condition appears only after NDP is overcome but in case of NS (or BNS) the NDP is not yet overcome.......Prof Hamilton (I do not know whether this question reached to him or not) did not clarify why the causality is not violated when the core travels from r > Rs to r = 0 during the formation of stellar BH. In fact formation of any BH would lead to causality violation somewhere down the line.

I am not paying much attention to this fish - river analogy of Prof Hamilton, that website is for lay people or for kids just to get an idea....

The concept of falling spacetime inside EH is necessary to save on a pathology that if the core is < Rs, then escape velocity will be more than c which contradicts SR..........

 

I like that...you quoting some complex math paper...Hope you grasped that too..

But Paddoboy, that is pathology...............escape velocity coming out to be > c, so lets make the space fall.

See if you are running away from me at a speed v in the North direction (+), then someone can always say that I am running away from you at a speed v in the south direction (-). Sometimes I wonder why all these coordinate system guys names so complex, while actually the concept is pretty simple.

 

Like I said yesterday, your paper was totally demolished, and every point I have pulled you up on, every ridiculous anti standard cosmology rant you have made, has been totally discredited and rebuked.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think more of us are wondering how you can be so egotistical when you are a fraud.

 

So don't beat around the bush - just come out and plainly say Einstein was flat wrong in that Leyden lecture re 'ether of GR'. Well?

I have proposed some ether theory? Quote me anywhere as having proposed some ether of mine - or retract! Your reckless assertions need to be checked - often.

Another brazen admission, safe in the knowledge there is carte blanche approval here to keep such going with no fear of being held to account. As stated before - pathetic.

Nonsense wrt to first part - my reaction is and always has been to your hypocritical and inane antics ab initio. In any case any non-existent 'fanatical sour grapes' on my part would be zero excuse for your characteristic use of gutter tactics. And why keep dragging up a past issue? You were challenged once before to go back to that thread and make good on fatuous assertions, but cowardly declined. Thread is still open - coward. Yes you had a part, but refuse to detail just what part. Either go back to that thread and substantiate your claims (which you cannot), or desist from continually dragging it up - entirely inappropriately.

 

No as usual you deliberately misrepresent others actual position and then proceed to exultantly knock down a straw-man of your own creation. As usual via repetitious quote mongering. What I actually wrote was your claim of 'no ether in GR' (an absolute statement) is logically inconsistent with belief in the river model. Or you think that flowing 'nothing' has real meaning? Same for belief in physically real GW's carrying actual energy-momentum. Or angular momentum being contained in 'dragged spacetime' a la Kerr metric. Disingenuous types like yourself care nothing for actual context.