Cygnus X - 1 a BNS ?

[paddoboy]

You are talking in support of my paper, although unknowingly and unwittingly....

Am I? Sweet dreams!

Your stand is that instead of singularity an object of degenerate mass and of the size of Plack's Level may exist, you my call that as BPS (Black Planck's Star)

Again you have missed the bus. Mainstream stance is that the point singulaity is not reached, and that GR predicting total collapse, predicts its own downfall, which we know starts at the quantum/Planck level.
Whatever state of degenerate mass exists at or below that level, as yet we have no idea.
But it should be noted that all the forces holding particles together such as the strong nuclear, are overcome by gravity.

what I said that an object of Neutron Mass and of some size may exist, I called that as BNS (Black Neutron Star).

That has been totally rebuked and demoralised and shown to be Impossible.
In fact having gravity overcome the strong force, means Neutrons cannot exist.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Sure I do.
You and your threads have been totally refuted, moved and/or closed down, due to your misunderstandings.
I understand that GR defines that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, that further collapse is compulsory.
I understand perfectly that this rules out any BNS or similar nonsense.

Each of the above statement is posted by you more than 1000 times over 7-8 threads, even Don Bradman did not score so many runs in 7-8 innings...Relax, repetition does not help. The fact is that you understand not much beyond cosmological terminology, and it is regrettable that you do not want to learn either.

PS : None of my threads have been moved/locked due to my misunderstanding...my understanding is very lucid and unquestionably clear, it was done because you and brucep crapped on them, and also the Mod admittedly could not figure out the context and content herself......

 

[paddoboy]

Each of the above statement is posted by you more than 1000 times over 7-8 threads, even Don Bradman did not score so many runs in 7-8 innings...Relax, repetition does not help. The fact is that you understand not much beyond cosmological terminology, and it is regrettable that you do not want to learn either.

Sure I want to learn. And I have learnt a lot. That does not mean getting bamboozled and dazzled by posters that claim to know more than recognised experts.
If you had any science in your proposals, you would not be here. I've said that a few times also, and like other home truths, I also know it can have a deflating effect on ones ego...especially if that ego is hyper inflated.

PS : None of my threads have been moved/locked due to my misunderstanding...my understanding is very lucid and unquestionably clear, it was done because you and brucep crapped on them, and also the Mod admittedly could not figure out the context and content herself......

What you want to so desperately believe is up to you. Facts though say different.
And of course if you really did have a lucid and "unquestionably"clear understanding of cosmology.........guess what? you would not be here and your paper would not have been demolished, and you may well have been in line for this years Nobel. Ahh well, so much for dreams.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

What you want to so desperately believe is up to you. Facts though say different.
And of course if you really did have a lucid and "unquestionably"clear understanding of cosmology.........guess what? you would not be here and your paper would not have been demolished, and you may well have been in line for this years Nobel. Ahh well, so much for dreams.

I think you do not understand the academic world !! I am not saying I am part of that but they do not work for any Prize, dumbo. The kind of satisfaction they get in their scientific pursuits is so huge, that awards are insignificant. Award is just the icing on the cake, nothing else.......

PS: I like your view, that those who know something about cosmology, would not be here....As per you this platform is only for illiterates and dumbs or at the best semi literates, why do you say so ? Why you want to put all others in your category ? You may loose those two guys who support you and who do not nudge you even for your shear stupidity, watch out.

 

[paddoboy]

I think you do not understand the academic world !! I am not saying I am part of that but they do not work for any Prize, dumbo. The kind of satisfaction they get in their scientific pursuits is so huge, that awards are insignificant. Award is just the icing on the cake, nothing else.......

Dumbo? Insult? Unable to handle the truth?
The main truth in the above is of course, you not being a part of it.
And who said anything about working for the prize? Just another example of your catastrophic misunderstanding of plain English.

PS: I like your view, that those who know something about cosmology, would not be here....As per you this platform is only for illiterates and dumbs or at the best semi literates, why do you say so ? Why you want to put all others in your category ? You may loose those two guys who support you and who do not nudge you even for your shear stupidity, watch out.

Whatever Rajesh, but getting all flustered and hot and bothered isn't helping your cause any.
We have some bright sparks here, [ breed one]and I'm sure if any of them had a valid scientific paper, modifying some element or model of cosmology, they would not be here.
Still [as you know] the very nature of these forums leave them open to any Tom Dick or Harry, and we naturally get ego inflated fools, [ breed two] claiming to have TOEs and able to rewrite accepted modern cosmology.
They are two different breeds and thankfully for the first breed, these forums are still worth attending. The second breed though although good for the occasional laugh, need to be curtailed in the fringes.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Paddoboy,

I see you’re a fan of black holes, so even though you are entering a terrible mess for discussion and deny himself I will answer your questions. I like the fans of particle physics and cosmology even if they are dishonest. Even if someone does not understand what he is reading and cannot see the tremendous number of unsolved basic problems in particle physics and cosmology.

The unsolved basic problems show that incompetence of scientists is tremendous. You try on base of the very messy leading mainstream theories (they are (!) - you should read more what say the great physicists and cosmologists) formulate the absolute truth that neutron black holes (NBH) are not in existence. You write that only idiots can claim that NBH can be in existence and you cannot see that the rude words are on your forehead because we cannot formulate absolute truths on base of very messy theories.

Your conclusions do not really matter, and that is evidenced by your many papers at vixra and in the fringe sections here.

All can see that you are the very weak thinker and dishonest person. Firstly, all know, scientists as well, that nonsensical papers are everywhere. So most important is whether a theory is coherent or not. All know that the leading mainstream theories are incoherent because there appear the indeterminate mathematical forms whereas Nature cannot be arbitrary. You cannot prove that my Scale-Symmetric Theory is incoherent because it does not contain indeterminate forms, gives best results, describes much more phenomena than the mainstream theories and starts from smallest number of parameters. Can you? If not then shut up and you should not formulate the absolute truth. It is such obvious. But such simple argumentation is not for dishonest person.

So once more, in the era of Internet most important is whether a theory is coherent, not where it is published.

Not really, the predicted classical point singularity is outside the parameters of GR. In other words GR predicts its own downfall.

No, GR does not predict its own downfall. GR only shows that the Planck scale is the lower limit for GR. And it is true only if we insert into GR the gravitational constant G. If not, then GR leads to superluminal objects. Physical properties of such objects are described within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (S-ST) i.e. GR leads to S-ST. The succeeding phase transitions of field composed of the superluminal objects predicted by GR (the Higgs field) are the foundations of the S-ST. Can you see the GR-S-ST feedback? Just S-ST is a continuation of the GR that causes that the GR transforms from the incoherent state to coherent state i.e. GR becomes the complete theory.

Moreover, S-ST shows which interpretations within the GR are incorrect. Shows as well that range of the gravitational interactions is not infinite but is 2*10^36 m.

On articles and links I give, that of course will continue and are used to support my claims, and at the same time throw the spotlight on the nonsensical stuff from a couple of others.

All can see that your claims are nonsensical - see my explanations above.

BNS are not possible at all according to GR and compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild radius is reached. Sorry about that. Oh and here's confirmation of what I say since you have decided to venture outside your own personalised thread.
The following is an E-Mail reply based on the BNS nonsense.
from:
Re: Neutron stars/Black holes
Mitch Begelman (mitch@jila.colorado.edu)

This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.
and then we had this reply from Professor Bennett Link:
The question is if a self-gravitating body can have a surface that lies within its Schwarzchild radius. The answer is no, within the context of General Relativity, independent of the composition of the body, how the particles pack together, etc.

In General Relativity, a self-gravitating body in equilibrium has a pressure gradient that satisfies the TOV equation:

dp/dr = - G (rho + p/c^2 )(m[r] + 4 pi r^3 p/c^2)/[ r(r - 2Gm[r]/c^2)]

where p is the pressure at radius r, rho is the density, and m[r] is the mass contained within radius r. p as a function of rho depends on composition, but is unimportant for this argument.

Let the surface of the body be at r=R. Then

m[R] = M,

where M is the mass of the body.

For the body to have a surface, the pressure must fall to zero at r=R, that is, the pressure gradient is negative there. From the TOV equation, we can have a negative pressure gradient only if

2 G m[r]/c^2 < r

Evaluating at the surface

2 G m[R]/c^2 = 2G M/c^2 < R

2 G M/c^2 is the Schwarzchild radius for the body. Hence, the body's radius must exceed its Schwarzchild radius if it is to be in equilibrium. A black neutron star, or any other black *material* object, cannot exist.

Best regards,

Bennett Link
Department of Physics
Montana State University

Ha, ha, ha….
Of course, Bennett Link is right if we neglect some very important phenomena which take place inside the Schwarzschild surface. The Scale-Symmetric Theory shows that radius of the neutron black hole is about 37 km whereas the Schwarzschild radius is two times greater.
You completely do not understand (and many scientists as well) the problem. (!)
I wrote many times that the GR is the incomplete theory so applying this theory we cannot formulate the absolute truths.

I showed that SST is the continuation of GR which eliminates the all nonsensicalities which follow from GR. The GR-SST feedback leads as well to the Quantum Mechanics (QM: see my papers) i.e., due to the GR-SST feedback, we can “unify” the GR with QM i.e. we can “unify” (here the “unify” does not mean that we can unify the GR and QM within the same methods but that SST split irreversibly into GR and QM) GR and QM via SST i.e. there appears the GR-SST-QM feedback. Such feedback causes as well that the incoherent QM becomes the complete theory.

In the modified QM, there appears the superluminal interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (SIQM: see my paper) which leads to the spooky action at a distance as well. But the most important fact is that within the modified QM (due to the GR-SST-QM feedback), we can calculate how strong is the quantum entanglement. And the calculated coupling constant is about 92 powers of ten. It is enough strong to prevent the neutron black holes from collapsing to singularity or some exotic state of matter. Just the GR-SST-QM feedback shows that existence of neutron black holes is possible.

Decades pass and we still are not able to formulate a quantum theory of gravity (QTG). Why? And the answer is very simple. Because unification of GR and QM within the same methods is impossible.(!) The inflation described within the Scale-Symmetric Theory shows that, due to the irreversible phenomena, at the end of inflation there appeared two very different theories (classical one and quantum one) which cannot be unified within the same methods. Just a coherent QTG is not in existence. Just Nature does not need such theory to act correctly.

Recapitulation
To solve the tremendous number of unsolved problems, we need the GR-SST-QM feedback. But we should write these three theories in follows order S(cale-symmetric theory) ---QUA(ntum theory) --- RE(lativistic theory). Just SST splits into QM and GR. The first letters give SQUARE i.e. we can call the ultimate theory the SQUARE theory. The word SQUARE used W. Pauli in 1958 to call the ultimate theory but it was his joke. We can see that his intuition was great.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,
I see you’re a fan of black holes,

No. I'm not a fan of BHs as you put it, I'm a fan of the scientific methodology and peer review system, that helps sort the wheat from the chaff.
On that score GR BHs are the only outcome possible until anyone can come up with a viable alternative.

Even if someone does not understand what he is reading and cannot see the tremendous number of unsolved basic problems in particle physics and cosmology.

I understand enough to realise that you have your own personalised thread in the fringe sections. I further understand that you have your papers published on vixra, and I understand that is where they languish and stay for as long as this forum exists.

The unsolved basic problems show that incompetence of scientists is tremendous. You try on base of the very messy leading mainstream theories (they are (!) -

Science is not perfect, nor is the scientific method and peer review, and most certainly problems still exist, although just as certainly not to the extent you visualise.
And of course in time, these problems are and will be solved by mainstream undergoing the proper peer review via the scientific method.

You write that only idiots can claim that NBH can be in existence and you cannot see that the rude words are on your forehead because we cannot formulate absolute truths on base of very messy theories.

Did I say that? Why not check out your own language first?

All can see that you are the very weak thinker and dishonest person.

Need I say it is you that languishes in the fringes?
My thinking aligns with mainstream in general, because in general what mainstream accepts appears to be the most logical and sensible outcome.
Which sort of leaves you on the outer doesn't it?

If not then shut up and you should not formulate the absolute truth. It is such obvious. But such simple argumentation is not for dishonest person.

Wow!!! Such rude words! such hypocrisy!
Who said anything about absolute truth? Let me educate you in the way of science, particularly cosmology. Science constructs models that best relate to what we observe and aligned with the results of our experiments. Experiments like the LHC and the HST....experiments that lay people like you and I do not have access to.
Sometimes those theories and models are so well supported, and continually pass all tests thrown there way, that they become more certain with time. GR is one of those...BHs are another..Some though like stars operational mechanism and Evolution are certain.

So once more, in the era of Internet most important is whether a theory is coherent, not where it is published.

Sure! But just as important is the fact that the coherent theories are mostly accepted by mainstream after undergoing peer review.

No, GR does not predict its own downfall. GR only shows that the Planck scale is the lower limit for GR.

Of course it does. To twist facts to suit your own alternative scenario is dishonest to say the least.

I showed that SST is the continuation of GR

I take that claim with a grain of salt.
Try undergoing proper peer review via the proper scientific methodology.

All can see that your claims are nonsensical - see my explanations above.

Not at all. My claims align with accepted mainstream cosmology, while your's languish in your own personalised threads.
Let's be straight to the point here. Like the other handfull of alternative people we have here, you are delusional, and you are tolerated here in your own thread simply due to the vast numbers of nonsensical papers you publish at the drop of a hat.

Ha, ha, ha….
Of course, Bennett Link is right if we neglect some very important phenomena which take place inside the Schwarzschild surface. The Scale-Symmetric Theory shows that radius of the neutron black hole is about 37 km whereas the Schwarzschild radius is two times greater.
You completely do not understand (and many scientists as well) the problem.

I understand that Professor Bennett is a respected reputable physicist, and my understanding of you is totally the opposite and as I have already described.

I wrote many times that the GR is the incomplete theory so applying this theory we cannot formulate the absolute truths.

Everyone knows that GR is incomplete but not the way or to the extent that your delusions tell us it is. It predicts its own downfall as I have said at the quantum/Planck level. So go write it some more times, your claims impress no one other than yourself apparently.

I showed that SST is the continuation of GR which eliminates the all nonsensicalities which follow from GR.

So you have said in many papers over many pages in your personalised thread.
But established accepted logical based mainstream science progresses without you.


The rest of your unsupported claims and ranting is just that...Unsupported and ranting.

 

[paddoboy]

No, GR does not predict its own downfall. GR only shows that the Planck scale is the lower limit for GR

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/cygnus-x-1-a-bns.147724/page-7
Thus, General Relativity brings about its own downfall, by predicting singularities. In order to discuss the beginning of the universe, we need a theory which combines General Relativity with quantum mechanics.

https://books.google.com.au/books?i... relativity predicts its own downfall&f=false

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Paddoboy,

You present still the same silly and boring song.
You proved once more that you do not understand what you are reading. You even do not understand the simple explanation from Professor Bennett.

…No. I'm not a fan of BHs as you put it, I'm a fan of the scientific methodology and peer review system, that helps sort the wheat from the chaff.
On that score GR BHs are the only outcome possible until anyone can come up with a viable alternative….

…..I understand that Professor Bennett is a respected reputable physicist, and my understanding of you is totally the opposite and as I have already described.

Everyone knows that GR is incomplete but not the way or to the extent that your delusions tell us it is. It predicts its own downfall as I have said at the quantum/Planck level. So go write it some more times, your claims impress no one other than yourself apparently….

No, you are not “a fan of the scientific methodology and peer review system” because you write the nonsense and your peer review knowledge is very poor. Can we prove it? Of course, we can. Just General Relativity leads to non-gravitating tachyons below the Planck scale.

Within GR we obtain formula for the total energy of particles that inertial mass is equal to their gravitational mass (the Principle-of-Equivalence objects). Assume that the word “imaginary” concerns physical quantities characteristic for objects that have broken contact with the wave function that describes state of the Universe. This means that such objects cannot emit some particles so they should be the internally structureless objects i.e. they are some pieces of space carrying only the inertial mass (they are the non-gravitating objects). Substitute ic instead the speed of light in “vacuum” c, iv instead the kinetic speed v and im instead the gravitational mass M, where i = sqrt(-1) is the imaginary unit. Then the formula for the total energy of a gas composed of the non-gravitating pieces of space is

E = mcc / sqrt(vv/(cc) - 1).

We can see that now the non-gravitating pieces of space must be superluminal (v must be higher than the speed of light, c, in “vacuum”) i.e. they are the non-gravitating tachyons. The gas composed of non-gravitating tachyons I refer to as the modified Higgs field. It is the Higgs field which causes that non-gravitating objects, due to the interaction with the Higgs field, acquire their gravitational mass (the Higgs mechanism).

You can find this formula in Wikipedia. The superluminal Higgs field causes that there does not appear the singularity predicted by the GR with gravitational constant and causes that the neutron black holes are in existence.

We can see that GR leads to the superluminal Higgs field with new symmetries that lead to the succeeding phase transitions described within the Scale-Symmetric Theory and next to the modified Quantum Mechanics. We can say that the GR-SST-QM feedback follows from the GR. (!) There as well is the E. Kasner solution to the GR equations (1921) which leads to tori. The Scale-Symmetric Theory shows that such tori are characteristic for all three theories i.e. for SST, QM and GR. Moreover, theory of one of such tori leads to the Feigenbaum constant (4.6692016…) applied in the Chaos Theory. We can see that the fundamental tori are the tangent point for gravity/cosmology, particle physics and chaos. (!) We do not need a QTG to explain how Nature acts. Moreover, due to the superluminal Higgs field associated with gravity and the luminal Einstein spacetime and superluminal quantum entanglement associated with Standard Model, unification of GR and SM within the same methods is impossible.


As I wrote before, the G, c and reduced Planck constant lead to the Planck scale. On the other hand, the very simple explanation presented by Professor Bennett follows from GR involving the gravitational constant G i.e. Professor Bennett distinctly showed you that he neglects tachyons and QM. But you did not notice it because your peer review knowledge is very poor.

 

[OnlyMe]

PS : None of my threads have been moved/locked due to my misunderstanding...my understanding is very lucid and unquestionably clear, it was done because you and brucep crapped on them, and also the Mod admittedly could not figure out the context and content herself......

Not entirely true Rajesh. See post 9 & 10 of this thread...

Post #9

You are being silly Rajesh!

You cannot continue to push the idea of a BNS without a supporting theory of gravitation. The comments of all outside experts, even those supporting to possibility of gravstars, reject the idea of your BNS.

This is.., or has for a long time now.., been a subject for alternative theories. You have not been providing any science to supports the fantasy of your imagination.

I then reported my own post to draw attention to it and in Post #10

... moved to alternative theories

I was at least partly responsible for the move of this thread to where it now resides.

The Black Neutron Star (BNS) is really a dead horse. While the underlying concept that there may ultimately be some massive stable object responsible for what we know of as a black hole, labeling it a neutron star of any sort is contrary to what we know about neutron stars and black holes.

 

[OnlyMe]

Again you have taken something from a Kiddy stuff website......

This reflects your absolute and abysmally low understanding of Physics....


Paddoboy, Apply your mind (you have mind, but no knowledge)........and find out for yourself the direction of Nuclear force and the direction of Gravitational Pressure in the formation process of BH. Some cobwebs will go away from your grey unused matter.

The website is very much in general form refers Degeneracy Pressure caused by Neutrons as Nuclear Force, because that is what resists the collapse, not the Nuclear Force which is per say attractive between nucleons.

Rajesh.., nothing but personal attacks and derogatory comment in the above. Try and stick to some logical argument.., unless that is you are hoping for the cesspool or just plain locking up the thread.

Really you claim to be a bright lad. You should be able to provide an argument of substance.., no?

 

[OnlyMe]

The Scale-Symmetric Physics shows that a neutron black hole has mass 24.8 times greater than the solar mass and that observed “black holes”, in reality, are the associations of the neutron black holes. There is a phenomenon that causes that the big “black holes” are the crystals composed of neutron black holes with parallel spins.

This sounds a bit more like pseudo science than even an alternative theory, but the way things have been going that could be splitting hairs!

In complete theories singularities cannot appear.

Not even true, a little bit!

While most would agree that singularities as predicted in vacuum solutions to EFE do not represent anything physically real, that does not mean the theory is incomplete. It just means that the vacuum solutions that predict singularities are vacuum solutions not accurate descriptions of reality.

Paddoboy, does not like it too much when I keep,pointing out that these discussions confuse what remains theory with what we know to be... But the above is a good example of why it is important to have a clear understanding of when we are discussing theory and when we are discussing what is know to be true.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

You present still the same silly and boring song.
You proved once more that you do not understand what you are reading. You even do not understand the simple explanation from Professor Bennett.

I understand that Professor Bennett like Professor Begalman, have laid bare that any prospect of a BNS is rubbish.
They are facts, despite how you want to twist it.

No, you are not “a fan of the scientific methodology and peer review system” because you write the nonsense and your peer review knowledge is very poor. Can we prove it? Of course, we can. Just General Relativity leads to non-gravitating tachyons below the Planck scale.

Sure I am as I have proven over many threads. Again we need to play that same old song again, your claim "non gravitating tachyons"is no more that a glimpse of the nonsense that runs rampant in your personalised thread.
You need to do better.

Just as in previous posts, the bulk of the rest of your post is nothing but a pseudoscientific mish mash of hypothetical nonsense and your own view of cosmology that you have been posting in the alternative sections for yonks.
The other well known song of mine is again worth playing...If you believe you have anything of substance, then get it properly peer reviewed, which you can start by publishing with a more reputable alternative.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, does not like it too much when I keep,pointing out that these discussions confuse what remains theory with what we know to be... But the above is a good example of why it is important to have a clear understanding of when we are discussing theory and when we are discussing what is know to be true.

I don't believe that is entirely factual. Firstly "like" does not come into it.
As per the past debate about what we can infer as properties within an EH, it's simply a matter of emphasis as applied by myself and your own less forceful thoughts.
From memory the words of one Professor was along the lines that "we are allowed to reasonably and logically apply our theories inside the EH, based on observed properties exterior to the EH.
BHs themselves are theoretical, but as I have often said, they remain the most likely theoretical outcome until someone can invoke a more likely validated candidate. I don't believe that will happen any time soon.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

This sounds a bit more like pseudo science than even an alternative theory, but the way things have been going that could be splitting hairs!

Just it follows from the Scale-Symmetric Physics. Do you think that it is less probable than singularities? Future will be the answer.

Not even true, a little bit!

While most would agree that singularities as predicted in vacuum solutions to EFE do not represent anything physically real, that does not mean the theory is incomplete. It just means that the vacuum solutions that predict singularities are vacuum solutions not accurate descriptions of reality.

Nature is unique so complete theory describing Nature should not be arbitrary. Infinities and indeterminate mathematical forms appearing in theories cause that they are arbitrary so incoherent so incomplete.

 

[paddoboy]

Just it follows from the Scale-Symmetric Physics. Do you think that it is less probable than singularities? Future will be the answer.

Most agree that the inferred classical point singularity does not probably exist.
We do not have one complete all encompassing theory as yet. We do not yet have a TOE.
But guess what? Even when we do have a TOE, Newtonian mechanics will still be the correct system used in most cases, GR will be used when Newtonian zones of applicability are exceeded.
It will not make either model incorrect.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Most agree that the inferred classical point singularity does not probably exist.
We do not have one complete all encompassing theory as yet. We do not yet have a TOE.
But guess what? Even when we do have a TOE, Newtonian mechanics will still be the correct system used in most cases, GR will be used when Newtonian zones of applicability are exceeded.
It will not make either model incorrect.

"Incomplete theory" does not mean "incorrect theory" but it can be. Generally, the term "incomplete theory" means that it is an approximate theory of Nature and Newtonian mechanics is the approximate theory.

TOE = SQUARE Theory

 

[paddoboy]

"Incomplete theory" does not mean "incorrect theory" but it can be. Generally, the term "incomplete theory" means that it is an approximate theory of Nature and Newtonian mechanics is the approximate theory.

While Newtonian and GR are incomplete theories, they are certainly correct theories.

TOE = SQUARE Theory

Everlasting theory = Pseudoscientific Nonsense

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

While Newtonian and GR are incomplete theories, they are certainly correct theories.

Everlasting theory = Pseudoscientific Nonsense

Can you prove it? If not then you are dishonest person.

Newtonian theory and GR are partially incorrect because they are the incomplete theories so there appear many nonsensical conclusions which the unique Nature cannot realize.

TOE = SQUARE Theory so in this theory the all nonsensicalities do not appear. Can you prove that they appear?

 

[paddoboy]

Can you prove it? If not then you are dishonest person.

In your personalised thread, you claim your hypothesis of "ever lasting theory" and other nonsense like superluminal neutrinos to be factual.
That is what is dishonest. And of course as I have told you before, science and scientists dont actually deal in proof.

Newtonian theory and GR are partially incorrect because they are the incomplete theories so there appear many nonsensical conclusions which the unique Nature cannot realize.

Both are correct within their own know zones of applicability.

TOE = SQUARE Theory so in this theory the all nonsensicalities do not appear. Can you prove that they appear?

You need to do some science. Particularly with your "proof" concept.