What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

Here is an interesting paper on more tests for GR inspired GW's and BH's.

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.021101

Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries:

ABSTRACT
The coalescences of stellar-mass black-hole binaries through their inspiral, merger, and ringdown are among the most promising sources for ground-based gravitational-wave (GW) detectors. If a GW signal is observed with sufficient signal-to-noise ratio, the masses and spins of the black holes can be estimated from just the inspiral part of the signal. Using these estimates of the initial parameters of the binary, the mass and spin of the final black hole can be uniquely predicted making use of general-relativistic numerical simulations. In addition, the mass and spin of the final black hole can be independently estimated from the merger-ringdown part of the signal. If the binary black-hole dynamics is correctly described by general relativity (GR), these independent estimates have to be consistent with each other. We present a Bayesian implementation of such a test of general relativity, which allows us to combine the constraints from multiple observations. Using kludge modified GR waveforms, we demonstrate that this test can detect sufficiently large deviations from GR and outline the expected constraints from upcoming GW observations using the second-generation of ground-based GW detectors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy:

This is a science discussion, where your own personal beliefs and prejudices have no relevance. Please understand that once and for all, paddoboy. Thanks.

I just posted on science and on topic of GWs and the underlying assumptions for past and present claims which may be faulty due to what I pointed out about the Hulse-Taylor and other binary observations, the interpretations of which observed orbital period changes incorrectly ignored the much stronger EM forces (especially extreme Magnetic field) interactions and consequent EM radiation as the main cause of orbital decay due to said EM radiation taking energy out of the system much more severely than balanced orbital mechanics can via assumed GWs.

I am posting on science and on topic. You are still "bombing", evading and insulting not only my science discussion engagement of you, but all the members watching who expect more than scientific argument empty posts from you after your strident accusations and bombings etc behavior pretending to know better just because you "support mainstream" etc.

And there you go again, talking irrelevance and insulting by characterizing the person; when you should be addressing the science issue I just posted for your rebuttal in a scientific manner that does not resort to appeals to authority which is the very authority brought under scrutiny for GW, Hulse-Taylor and aLIGO claims.

Please, paddoboy, just address the scientific point made. Ignore and eschew all irrelevant personal and prejudicial tactics which have no place in scientific method and discussions conducted under those principles. Thankyou.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see a bunch of scientific sounding words without making much sense, I see fabricated, unsupported claims, I see much ado about SFA!
What I don't see is accepted science.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry again my friend: You are most certainly not qualified to scrutinise any scientific claims, including the ones mentioned...not by any stretch of the imagination. And secondly, you have rebutted nothing, except to continue on with pretentious nonsense. Thirdly, as I told you before, appeals to authority are always welcome and totally relevant and valid, as long as that authority is expert in the subject matter.
Which means that any old run of the mill sparky, is not compitant or qualified to dismiss, scrutinise, or in anyway deride proper peer reviewed mainstream science.
Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles, that's the way the ball bounces.
You have nothing: If you had anything you would not be here...you know that, I know that, and the forum knows that.
At this stage on proceedings, GR inspired GW's stand as confirmed, as do BH's and GR in general even more certain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The strong nuclear force, that same force that tidal gravitational effects will overcome in line with all other known forces.

 

I understand that....That's why what I push is mostly and generally mainstream and accepted. And I have no prejudices nor do I have an agenda.
That is something you cannot claim.

 

paddoboy:

What exactly do you "see" as being "fabricated", paddoboy?

Do you deny Magnetic fields exist?

Do you deny Netron Stars exist?

Do you deny binary systems of such NSs exist?

Do you deny the known magnetic field interactions between two NSs exist?

Do you deny that the Magnetic energy in the intervening space between the two NSs is at extreme levels?

Do you deny that the binary systemic interaction of the respective extreme Magnetic fields produce EM friction and consequent EM radiation taking away energy from the binary system?

Do you deny even more extreme Magnetars and Black Holes exist?

Do you deny Magnetars and Black Holes can have even more extreme Magnetic fields and interactions in binary systems?

So far, I have only stated known scientific facts and claims re Magnetic field and energy loss due to said binary system interactions via their extreme EM features.

Are you saying all that is not accepted science? How can you? These are in every mainstream astronomical and cosmological text and theory.

Can you please justify your accusation that I have "fabricated" any of that? Thanks, paddoboy.

Please do not refer so familiarly to me as "my friend". Friendships and personal considerations don't enter in an objective science discussion at all. Please refrain from that demeaning of objective science discussion. Thanks.

I asked for YOUR rebuttal of what known science facts and possibilities I pointed out for your consideration in the context of what may be the actual main cause of energy loss from a binary system as described. You have yet to address that properly, let alone rebut the known science arguments I pointed out for your consideration purely on an objective and scientific level, avoiding your further personal angles and evasions.

paddoboy, if you cannot rebut the known science facts re NSs and Magnetic fields etc; or otherwise prove your accusation that I have "fabricated" them, then just admit gracefully to the fact that I have NOT "fabricated" any of it. Thanks.

 

What you have obviously fabricated my friend, is how they all interact and your conclusion, which you are unqualified to arrive at.
The Hulse/Taylor binary system degradation in orbit, matches what would be radiated away as gravitational waves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your pretentious nonsense continues. This is not about you and/or me, sorry to disappoint you my friend.
The onus is on you to show evidence why what you claim supersedes what the professional experts tell us.
And of course the other failure you have fallen to as do most with agendas of one sort or another, is that scientific theories do not deal in proof. Understand?

 

paddoboy:

But is it correct? Do you understand what you are "pushing" so uncritically? Does that "pushing" absolve you of the fair responsibility to back up your own assertions and uncritical beliefs, with scientific arguments of your own, scientifically addressing any serious scientific questions or scrutiny (without appeals to authority being questioned/scrutinized) of your "pushed" assumptions and claims still being scientifically scrutinized in this discussion and elsewhere?

If you don't properly address the known science points I made re Magnetic Fields factor in Hulse-Taylor etc observations, and you persist in "bombing" the discussions with useless appeals to your own opinions and to the questioned authority, then your agenda can only be seen as subjective and personal, not objective or scientific in any way that matters to the scientific method or discussion advancement.


Paddoboy, take time out to review what you have been posting. Best.

 

paddoboy:

You have just been given known fundamental scientific understandings re magnetic phenomena and interaction . You can confirm all of it by reference to any good textbook on the matter of magnetism and its various manifestations, from simple dipolar to complex multipolar systems and configurations.

If you don't understand that basic magnetic field physics, then you have no business casting aspersions on someone who does.

So, do you acknowledge that extreme magnetic fields and associated energy exists in the space between the two NSs in the Hulse-Taylor binary system?

Do you have any idea as to the EM friction processes which must occur according to the physics of magnetic field interactions between them?

That assumption was based on interpretations early on when the Hulse-Taylor observations were made, long ago. That early interpretation didn't allow for the huge Magnetic forces and losses at play which would overwhelm any balanced gravitational orbital dynamics interplay and losses. The GW interpretation was incorrect attribution as to cause of orbital changes; simply because the Magnetic losses to the system would have been more effective and stronger, and radiated energy away as EM. These are known science based interpretation. The earlier interpretation was flawed due to failing to allow for the great Magnetic field interplay and losses in EM energy.

If you cannot understand any of this, then please resist your usual compulsion to characterize based on your personal ignorance of the actual known science involved. Thanks.

Again with your attempted cavalier dismissal and evasions and insults; based on your own ignorance of the science.

Paddoboy, do you have a scientific rebuttal for the known science facts re Magnetic fields around NSs etc which I have enlightened you on today? If so, please present your scientific rebuttals. Else concede the point gracefully. Thanks.

 

More to the point, do you understand fully, that which you so readily and easily dismiss?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What you chose to believe, in the face of your own unreasonable denial of mainstream cosmology, is your own concern.

I know what I post. I do not have an agenda....I do not have an anti science bias...I do not have an over inflated ego to feed.

 

I acknowledge that the Hulse/Taylor binary observation, was the first indirect evidence of gravitational waves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you had any sense, you would too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here, I'll help you out......
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3930.pdf

1974: the discovery of the first binary pulsar:

Abstract:
The 1974 discovery, by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor, of the first binary pulsar PSR B1913+16, opened up new possibilities for the study of relativistic gravity. PSR B1913+16, as well as several other binary pulsars, provided direct observational proofs that gravity propagates at the velocity of light and has a quadrupolar structure. Binary pulsars also provided accurate tests of the strong-field regime of relativistic gravity. General Relativity has passed all the binary pulsar tests with flying colors. The discovery of binary pulsars had also very important consequences for astrophysics: accurate measurement of neutron star masses, improved understanding of the possible evolution scenarios for the coevolution of binary stars, proof of the existence of binary neutron stars emitting gravitational waves for hundreds of millions of years, before coalescing in catastrophic events radiating intense gravitational-wave signals, and probably leading also to important emissions of electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos. This article reviews the history of the discovery of the first binary pulsar, and describes both its immediate impact, and its longer-term effect on theoretical and experimental studies of relativistic gravity.


Concluding remarks :
The 1974 discovery of the first binary pulsar has given us a cornucopia of important scientific benefits. The most spectacular ones concern the first experimental evidence that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is valid beyond the usually tested quasi-stationary, weak-field regime. Indeed, binary pulsar data have probed, for the first time, relativistic gravity in regimes involving (either together or separately) radiative effects and strong-field effects. The citation accompanying the award, in October 1993, of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor read: “for their discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation”. As we have discussed, these new possibilities for studying gravitation have been even more sucessful than what was envisaged in the months following the discovery. Even more importantly, the class of systems discovered by Hulse and Taylor promises to bring new discoveries in the near future, through the physics of the late stages of evolution of compact binaries: gravitational waves, probes of nuclear-matter equation of state, possible connection with gamma-ray bursts,. . . Let us finally mention the hope that radio pulsars in orbit around a black hole will soon be discovered. The black hole companion could be either a ∼ 10 M⊙ black hole, or, possibly, a much more massive black hole. Recently, a magnetar was discovered near the massive (∼ 4 × 106 M⊙) black hole at the center of our Galaxy [97]. Searches are underway for discovering pulsars having better timing stability, and closer to the galactic center. Such a discovery would be a fantastic new milestone for General Relativity.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377

The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment

The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them are reviewed and updated. Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eotvos experiment, tests of local Lorentz invariance and clock experiments. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the post-Newtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion, and frame-dragging. Gravitational-wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, and a growing family of other binary pulsar systems is yielding new tests, especially of strong-field effects. Current and future tests of relativity will center on strong gravity and gravitational waves.

 

paddoboy:

I have only posted objectively supported and accepted science in support of the scientific scrutiny, demanded by the scientific method, of the Hulse-Taylor and aLIGO assumptions and claims to date. My posted science indicates a much stronger and more physically tenable interpretation of the energy loss and orbital changes observed, without having to resort in the first instance to the GW interpretation made early on which ignored the huge energies at play between the NSs via their magnetic fields and radiating away EM energy from the system. So far I have seen no scientificallt tenable rebuttal from you or anyone else. While that situation exists, then it is not me doing the dismissal of others claims, it is the known science arguments I just presented for your objective consideration and (if you can do so equally scientifically) rebuttal.

How many times does it take, paddoboy? The question of "beliefs" don't enter into this (or any other) scientific discussion according to scientific method which explicitly forbids personal beliefs as arguments or basis for claims or rebuttals. Please stop bringing beliefs and personal opinions in lieu of actual scientific arguments in rebuttal. Thanks.

No? So far, I have been the one to stick to science; while you have tried every personal opinionated irrelevant evasion of the science needed to rebut.

Time to put up or concede the point I made re Magnetic field factors being most likely and major cause and process responsible for NS binary orbital decay observed.

Please do one or the other, paddoboy; and stop playing your personal and irrelevant games which have no part to play in objective scientific discussion. Suspend your uncritical beliefs long enough to actually research and consider all that I have just informed you of. Thanks.

 

paddoboy:

There you go, "bombing" again. Your linked article uses the Hulse-Taylor "results" and "interpretations" as a basis for their claims. I have just posted to you some serious facts re Magnetic field interplay and radiation process which explains the orbital decay observed without need to resort to alleged GW.

So 'fitting' their above observations to Relativity theory and hypothesized GWs etc, without explaining that the magnetic interactions would be far more dominant a factor, is just flawed science and flawed interpretations based on flawed assumptions made apriori.

Do you have any idea of the alternative explanation based on known Magnetism physics involved in the Hulse-Taylor binary dynamics, paddoboy? If you don't, and your "sources'" and "authorities" have not taken that into account, then their "fitting to relativity" and GW hypothesis and claims is not the only option scientifically speaking, is it?

How many more useless "bombs" to authority will you make today in order to evade the essential point I made scientifically to you, paddoboy? Please stop the "carpet bombing", paddoboy. Thanks.

 

[1] I totally find the first presumption of yours in red as arrogant and untrue.
[2] If I'm wrong, then submit a paper for professional peer review.
[3] So far in quick succession, I have submitted two papers attesting to the professional findings, as opposed to your own fabricated, agenda based conclusion. Plenty more to go.

I'm not bring beliefs as you say, or personal opinions, and for you to claim that is a porky pie. I've submitted two papers that attest to the first indirect evidence of gravitational waves, as opposed to your own unqualified, fabricated scenario...got it?

Already done twice by professional experts.

 

Not at all. If you believe otherwise, then submit your calcs for professional peer review.

As long as your delusions of grandeur, and your refusal to undergo proper professional peer review dictates.
The papers of course stand....both of them.

 

paddoboy:

Unless or until you can rebut the known science based factors I have pointed out to you, which bring into question the Hulse-Taylor observations interpretation as being GW instead of some other (ie, the Magnetic interplay of extreme NS Magneic fields, for example) more physically explicable cause and process, then what you "find" is neither here nor there according to the scientific method.

What makes you think I am not going to? Just because I choose to air my point in open discussion here at Sciforums does not preclude my later publishing a paper for peer review. Your insistence that peer review must preceed any airing of ideas here is most troubling. It implies that no idea or alternative science based explanation can ever be discussed here unless it has passed peer review elsewhere. Do you realize how silly that sounds, paddoboy? It takes away all reason for anyone to discuss anything here at Sciforums! How does management feel about you demanding prior peer review and so turning away anyone who wishes to discuss ideas and issues in the sciences? Why do you circumscribe so unreasonably the whole purpose of what Sciforums is for, paddoboy? Please think about the obsessive personal and unreasonable agenda which your obsessive demands etc reflects, paddoboy; then reconsider your own behavior accordingly. Thanks.

No. You have "bombed" the discussion with appeals to authority making claims which are being scrutinized via scientific method and the arguments I put accordingly which seriously question the validity of the earlier assumptions on which all these subsequent claims and papers are founded on.

If the earlier assumptions and interpretations were incorrect, as my Magnetic fields explanation implies, then your "bombed" links and papers are just so much falsified and unfounded publish or perish fodder (just as the bicep2 claims etc were found to be). Your "bombing" those papers here is not scientific discussion, but you evading scientifically discussing the points I raised which put into question all your "bombed" appeals to the questioned "authority" that may be in error as described.

Your incessant stream of appeals to authority (which is what is being questioned in discussion via scientific arguments as put); and your insistence that your "support of mainstream" is your only counter argument; puts everything you have said so far into the category of your beliefs and opinions without any scientific counter arguments made against scientific points which falsify your "authority" appeals that you keep "bombing" here which may be in error just as much as the bicep2 claims were eventually found to be in error.

Science arguments, not your uncritical beliefs and "bombings", are what is required by the scientific discussion.

Please post your science arguments in proper rebuttal of my Magnetic Field etc points; or else concede the point gracefully that the earlier and subsequent Hulse-Taylor, and the recent LIGO claims, may also be in error as I have explained. Thanks.

Really? Please point me to where anyone has addressed my points regarding the Extreme Magnetic Fields and their interaction involved in any NS binary dynamics which may be greater than any balanced gravitational effect of orbital dynamics. Thanks.

 

Sorry, what you refute counts for nil until you undergo professional peer review.
This is only a public forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Experience with trolls and cranks on science forums.

You can claim what you like on this forum, magical spaghetti monsters included...but you are also expected to run the gauntlet and face whatever opposition others chose to express, since it is you fabricating nonsense, supposedly invalidating accepted science.
Your continued posting of nonsense is also appearing to be reaching the desperate stage.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.2164.pdf

Relativistic Lighthouses: The Role of the Binary Pulsar in proving the existence of Gravitational

1 Introduction In 1993 Joseph Taylor and Russel Hulse received the Nobel prize for their discovery of the first binary pulsar, PSR 1913+16
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I wonder if they'll take the Nobel away from them when expletive deleted comes up with his invalidation story/fairy tale/myth

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

expletives deleted, on the matter of whether anything else but GW's can explain binary pulsar orbital decay, I have to say the answer has been firmly established as no. See e.g.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ry-systems-orbital-decay-to-gravitational-wav (see '1Answer' by Rob Jeffries)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Strong_field_tests:_Binary_pulsars
There are now just too many confirmations of correspondence with GR GW emission to allow anything but GW emission as explanation.

BUT - the misleading claims that such results confirm GR and only GR need to be seen through as false. G4v being a prime and important counter-example. Even more fundamentally - my #1, and e.g. subsequent #165!
You have done an excellent job of fingering the disruptive and hypocritical tactics of one poster here of recent. But please lay off that exchange which only plays into the troll's hands. And don't spoil it by pressing for an alternate explanation of GW's that simply is ruled out on both theoretical and observational grounds. If the troll tries to take advantage of my comments, I'm reminded of the advice from someone in admin "don't feed the trolls". One wonders then, why such acknowledged trolls are even allowed to be here at all. But let's not get into Deep Politics.