Note, again, that Farsight does not allow for anyone to use a system of coordinates in which they are at rest, contrary to every physicist since Galileo.
Note here that Farsight is again committing to one particular system of coordinates, one in which the observer is accelerating rather than at rest. Farsight refuses to let physicists do physics with recording devices that are at rest.
Sadly, that view seems also to be held by q-reeus as well as at least by two others, both confirmed as trolls.
You chronically misrepresent. Too bad.
Your opinion. I disagree.
Of course you do!
The mimic who flatters by imitation. I used 'bluster' in reference to you earlier in another thread, and you evidently find that so pithy, parrot the term here. And such like you often do - a characteristic feature of the 70 year old whose emotional and intellectual level is more akin to a 7 year old unruly spoiled brat. Gleefully aware he is given carte blanche to run amok in this forum.
Such ignorance! You cannot figure I am merely promoting the logic of a competent and qualified expert's arXiv article already out there - whether it gets to be published in a journal or not is irrelevant.
And creatures like yourself, who havn't the intestinal fortitude [guts] to publish what one believes, will always lurk on forums such as this.
Who cares if you disagree about 1+1=2?
Given how many times on this forum and elsewhere you have endured being labelled a crank, i guess it's a kind of cathartic experience to be on the giving end for once, huh?
I'm unclear as to which theory of gravity you're using here.
Again, in the Newtonian description, it does take work to make a photon go up, and the photon loses energy as a result of its increase in gravitational potential energy. Are you using the general relativistic description? Or something else?
This is presumably a mish-mash of your own ideas. It doesn't make much sense. Things like the Compton effect and pair production have nothing to do with falling under gravity, so that's a red herring for a start. It is also clear that you don't have a very good picture of kinetic energy, judging by your claim that matter is made of kinetic energy. Then you introduce more red herrings with the Einstein-de Haas effect and the Poynting vector. I'm sorry, Farsight, but I know what those things are and you can't blind me by throwing around random scientific-sounding terms that are irrelevant to your argument. I don't understand your pretty picture of an electron going around in a square, or how you think that is relevant. At best, you aren't explaining yourself very well; at worst, that's just nonsense.It's easier to start with why you lose energy when you fall. It's because of the wave nature of matter.The photon has an E=hf wave nature, it is kinetic energy. We can reduce the photon kinetic energy in Compton scattering, and in theory we could reduce it all the way, such that all of the photon E=hf wave energy is converted into electron kinetic energy and there's no photon left. Or we make matter out of it in pair production. This matter is made of kinetic energy. Simplify yourself to a single electron, then remember electron spin and the Einstein-de Haas effect and the Poynting vector, and simplify that electron to light going round and round a square path. Gravity makes the horizontals curve downwards, so the electron position changes. It falls down, faster and faster:
Hence gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Or if I throw an electron up into the air, it converts external kinetic energy into internal kinetic energy. Ditto when I throw you up into the air.
Forget photons for a moment. Consider a police car coming towards me at constant speed with siren blaring. Do I hear a higher frequency than when the car is stationary? If I do, why did the frequency increase? Do you think the siren's mass was converted into higher-frequency sound waves, perhaps?
Suppose that you fire a bullet at me and I am somehow able to run really fast away from it, so that it is catching up with me at 1 m/s, while still travelling at hundreds of metres per second relative to the gun that fired it. When that bullet hits me, will it bounce off my clothes harmlessly, or will it penetrate my body and injury me in the same way that it would if I was standing still?
You're the third person in the past two days who has attempted argument by assertion at me. And the third person to fail.
They may fail but they are never wrong, just ask they are all infallabull. Sorry my spelling is terrible.
If you look for this type of cathartic experiences, your choice. I would ask you not to speculate about what I like. The point of my remark was not name-calling, but to tell you that to present this discussion like an exchange of opinions makes no sense. The claim that your Appendix A tells us something about some problem of GR is simply wrong.
So you keep asserting. [Why do you keep referring to it as my Appendix A? Strange.]
So you need lots of equations? Can't grasp a straightforward matter of geometrically obvious symmetry constraints without lots of equations. I see.
No idea how to make sense of that bit. But never mind, I've been well and truly reminded why Sciforums is NOT the place to expect objective, civil discourse on anything not mainstream/PC. As you must know.
Yes who needs equations when you can use a piece of string with a knot it in.
Without going back through Robertson's article, from memory he treats the situations differently. The MECO argument is typically applied to so-called solar-mass range (i.e. ~ 6 to maybe a few hundred Ms) 'BH's'. And was earlier just applied based on GR. For GBHC's, yes there is no chance of MECO stabilization within GR, but that simply does not apply if treating it via Yilmaz metric. Which is radically different for such compact collapsed/collapsing objects. In Yilmaz gravity, MECO mechanism is valid for any mass size, or at least up to typical GBHC's.
General relativity.
Newtonian gravity is an incomplete description here, in that it doesn't cater for the mass deficit. Surely you know about this?
No it isn't. Who told you that? Sean Carroll, the guy who talks about the Evil Twin universe where time runs backwards? Or Kip Thorne, the guy who's forever warbling on about time travel, and trying to peddle it as mainstream physics?
This is popscience horseshit. Where are you getting this stuff from? When you stand on the surface of the Earth, it's somewhat like accelerating through space as per the principle of equivalence. But you are not accelerating. You are standing still.
It's the force of gravity. Einstein described it as such, so that's good enough for me. That falling body is indeed accelerating. But the energy for this acceleration is coming from the mass-energy of the falling body. Hence gravity is not a force in the Newtonian sense. Normally when I accelerate a body I add energy to it. That's what I do when I throw the brick up into the air. But this is not the case when I drop it. Nobody is adding any energy to it as it falls down. The mass-energy of the brick at rest at elevation A is the same as the kinetic plus mass-energy at lower elevation B. Conservation of energy applies. You know about that, don't you? That's why there are no perpetual motion machines.
It's Einstein's E=mc². When a body emits radiation it loses mass. When you drop a body the kinetic energy ends up getting radiating away. So you're left with the mass deficit. I didn't invent that mass deficit. Don't try to say I'm some my-theory guy just because I talk physics you've don't know about.
Oh come on. The photon loses energy because of its increase in energy? That's garbage. And note that Gilbert Lewis coined the word photon in 1926, and that the photon is not some billiard ball that falls back down. It has an E=hf wave nature. And like any wave, its speed depends on the characteristics of the medium. Space is that medium, and a gravitational field is a place where "the speed of light is spatially variable". The ascending photon doesn't slow down. It speeds up.
It isn't a mishmash of my own ideas, and nor is it nonsense. How many times do I have to quote Einstein at you and show you to the hard scientific evidence before you'll pay attention to it?
I've referred to Einstein and other authors. I've referred to hard scientific evidence like the Compton Effect, the Einstein-de Haas effect, and the Poynting vector. That's only "argument by assertion" if you don't know any physics. And that's the bottom line isn't it? You say you're a physicist, but you don't know anything about gravity or electromagnetism or that other stuff I refer to, and you never ever will. You won't be reading the Einstein digital papers any time soon will you?
Could you run through a quick example to show your numbers?
I note that Farsight, rather than learning the mathematical details of physics, likes to insult physicists for their other activities, not the physics that they do.
Note here that Farsight, again, refuses to think about any system of coordinates except one particular system of coordinates. Oddly, Farsight usually refuses to consider systems of coordinates in which objects are stationary, but in this case he believes that the one true system of coordinates holds the surface of the Earth stationary.
Can Farsight find a citation that shows that Einstein described it as such? I suspect that he is confusing the words of commentaries about Einstein or by Einstein about Newtonian gravity with Einstein's own words about GR. Other posters have tried to dishonestly use search results in Einstein archives to claim that Einstein uses these words.
I would be fascinated to see Farsight's proof of this latter claim.
Farsight is clearly some "my-theory" guy because he has his own theory in a self-published book. He also has a history of peddling his book and theory around the internet for about a decade.
I would love to see how Farsight's ideas face hard scientific evidence. Yet in about a decade of people asking, Farsight has yet to show how his ideas relate to a single physics application.
You continue to refer to it. And I have not only asserted something, but given enough evidence.
GR has gravitational waves, and how such solutions look like, approximately, is well-known and easy enough to find. So, if you tell me they do not exist, in words, without taking a look at the explicit solutions, I do not consider this as something serious.
Hm. You don't understand something, and this is sufficient to accuse a whole forum of uncivilized behavior? I could try to explain you, but if you behave in such a way I'm not really interested.
No evidence, just assertion. I will take the derivations based on reasoned arguments, of the likes of Yilmaz, Alley, Robertson, over your nay claims any day.
Your interpretation of content of #1. I disagree.
Sounding more like one or two others here - freely exaggerating/distorting my actual words. I take note of such, but not worth arguing the point.