Neutron Star

Paddoboy, you have a problem, you do not stick to point and immediately start talking about agenda etc. I am not making Professor Bennett as arbitrator in our argument. Because you are a fun, not any arguments at all with you henceforth on science. I have agreed to all the correct things which you have said, I cannot agree to anything nonsense by you, and when I try to counter, you start a canary music of agenda, mainstream, troll, reputable links .......all crap cacophony.

You are so insecure that you want the prof to endorse your views on that kiddy stuff which you have put up in that funny BB / BH thread you referred to.

Never ever you provide logical argument in your language to whatever is objected on your points. See your replies to my red color posting, all nonsense by you...no science at all.


Wrong on just about all accounts.
I'm simply letting the Professor know your history and general anti standard accepted cosmology view.
You have not yet admitted you are wrong on any count that I recall, and you have been drastically wrong on many.
Professor Link on the issue of this paper, simply added more advice for you to and a critique of the paper...But just as from page one when your nonsense was totally invalidated, and just as all the errors you have made and that I and others have pointed out and referenced to boot, you fail to concede or admit any error.
Of course if I am wrong, you will be able to show me where you have conceded anything at all.
Not much more needs to be said, other then your record speaks for itself.
And your paper is nothing more than a fabricated scenario, to reinforce your belief that BHs do not exist.
I would also be very careful how you tread here, as it has been shown that when you are backed into a corner, you'll fabricate even more nonsense.
In an earlier thread it was accusing me of fudging an E-Mail from Professor Hamilton, now you sink to even further depths of depravity by calling others cowards.
You have lost in regards to this paper. Accept it like a man, and do better with your next paper.
ps; and I'll be there to critique that one too, to the best of my ability.
 
I'm simply letting the Professor know your history and general anti standard accepted cosmology view.

Prof has very rightly stated that an alternative to existing relativity theory is an active and respectable research area. Yes he has also implied (which is a pre-conditions also) that any such theory must pass the various tests......

Your problem is when any one comes up with an iota of disagreement you jump to agenda, religion, troll, reputable links.....what not........

I give you some fodder for thinking further......

1. GR is primarily a single body solution...you know that wheeler thing that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, space tells matter how to move".

2. Gravity is primarily a two body thing......

3. Then how can you say that GR is the theory of Gravity ?

PS : Do not flood the thread with copy paste...only in your language...
 
Prof has very rightly stated that an alternative to existing relativity theory is an active and respectable research area. Yes he has also implied (which is a pre-conditions also) that any such theory must pass the various tests......
Of course, as in any scientific discipline. GR is tested and taken to ever further degrees of precision LIGO for example to detect gravity waves.
That's science..that's par for the course..that's how it works.
But your "work" goes totally against what we know and our reasonable theoretical applications.
Your problem is when any one comes up with an iota of disagreement you jump to agenda, religion, troll, reputable links.....what not........
And most of the time I am correct...as I am in the BB/BH thread, and as I am with you on the many errors you have made, and which is supported by the evidence in your half a dozen threads or so.
I give you some fodder for thinking further......
You gave me some chaff which I duly recognised and sorted from my wheat.
1. GR is primarily a single body solution...you know that wheeler thing that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, space tells matter how to move".

2. Gravity is primarily a two body thing......

3. Then how can you say that GR is the theory of Gravity ?
Because GR is most certainly a theory and model of gravity. Even you should know that.
PS : Do not flood the thread with copy paste...only in your language...
I'll copy n paste any reputable link I see fit, to refute any nonsensical statement or claim that you chose to make....always will.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/gravity.html

http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html


http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/generalRT

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/generalRT/GeomGravity


There you are Rajesh...Plenty there for you to learn and some homework to boot....Absorb it and emerge a smarter, more capable lay person that can contribute something of value.
best of luck.
 
Last edited:
Paddoboy,

See, you could not answer...you just said....Because GR is most certainly a theory and model of gravity....

You could not answer how ?? Read the question and premises again...
 
Paddoboy,

See, you could not answer...you just said....Because GR is most certainly a theory and model of gravity....

You could not answer how ?? Read the question and premises again...
I know what GR is and how it describes and models gravity and what it predicts....You're the one with a problem with it.
Most that have ridiculed your nonsense in this and other threads also know what GR is.
Plus I've given you links to boot....
and the two body or three body problem does not refute GR anyway.
But this thread is about your paper.
It has totally in all respects been refuted and even referred to by Professor Mitch Begalman as nonsense.
All we need is for you to accept the demise of this paper, that was a waste of your time, a waste of paper, and an even further waste of bandwith and that will be the end.


[I wonder if origin is taking any bets? :)]
 
Last edited:
OK, now this thread is getting just plan weird.

Which is why I listed all the threads he has started.
One example in one of the threads, was a question "why doesn't the galaxy collapse into a BH". :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
OK, now this thread is getting just plan weird.

This is the question about what you and Paddoboy (hardcore fans of GR) know about GR, not about GR !! I want to know whether you are objecting from a seat of some knowledge or just shallow babbling. So start typing, how GR is the theory of Gravity ?
 
This is the question about what you and Paddoboy (hardcore fans of GR) know about GR, not about GR !! I want to know whether you are objecting from a seat of some knowledge or just shallow babbling. So start typing, how GR is the theory of Gravity ?

You've lost Rajesh...Be a man and concede. You'l feel better for it.
 
"why doesn't the galaxy collapse into a BH".

:rolleyes:


And what was your answer ? Mr Expert !! Copy paste your answer in quote / unquote here....and tell the forum that you still stick to that.

I am proud of all those threads, many people (including you) learnt a lot on the subject, you cannot embarrass me, I am your peer just because both of us are here, otherwise I am far ahead of you....Enjoy !!
 
You've lost Rajesh...Be a man and concede. You'l feel better for it.

I am having a nice laugh !!

I always feel better, because I never make mistakes.......yes sometimes, I may have to step back for path corrections, otherwise all is fine with me.......
 
And what was your answer ? Mr Expert !! Copy paste your answer in quote / unquote here....and tell the forum that you still stick to that.

I am proud of all those threads, many people (including you) learnt a lot on the subject, you cannot embarrass me, I am your peer just because both of us are here, otherwise I am far ahead of you....Enjoy !!


Tale it easy old Son...take a disprin, have a good lay down, and start afresh tomorrow on some other aspect that tickles your fancy. :)
Why a Galaxy does not collapse into a BH is rather basic Rajesh. :)
But again, what this thread is about is you finally conceding like a man.
 
I am having a nice laugh !!

I always feel better, because I never make mistakes.......yes sometimes, I may have to step back for path corrections, otherwise all is fine with me.......
:) Yes, yes dear of course. :rolleyes:
It's the rest of the world that is wrong.
 
We generally book mark good things which we need to refer again and again for learning !! Good Paddoboy, for bookmarking my threads..


Certainly we bookmark good things......And I have nothing bookmarked of yours. :)
They are there for the referencing, and I find them great for referencing your rather off beat, weird stance on cosmology, supported by your even more serious delusions of grandeur.
An example of one of the replies to your nonsense in one of them.....
Rajesh

State the purpose of the thread and follow it. If your purpose is to promote an understanding of cosmology, then stop using this as a premise for attacking cosmology. And stop attacking the people who are volunteering you the information gleaned from work you never undertook. Take all of that attitude to the gym and have a good workout. Use the thread to exercise your mind.
He hit the nail right on the head Rajesh!
 
Back
Top