Gravity Works Like This

OK, so you admit that you are ignorant about relativity theory. This is refreshing.

I agree that your failure to predict the perihelion shift of Mercury will not change that it was the first thing that Einstein did with a good approximation to general relativity and that it was what convinced Einstein that he was on the right track.

While I thank you for having the refreshing honesty to reveal your ignorance, it is funny that you quote-mine here from Einstein while missing Einstein's central point that a fundamental part of judging the correctness of a theory is the theory's ability to derive the proper equation to describe a set of observations. So you seem to miss the point of everything Einstein wrote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If he could do a very simple derivation, I can do it so it must be simple, he could find out on his own. The relativity theory he knows is a figment of his imagination. Which doesn't appear to be very coherent when he tries to model natural phenomena with 'it'. He is good at trolling these threads with bullshit and getting away with it. I think he's a preferred crank. Farsight agreeing with what Einstein said is bullshit nonsense. He agrees with what he thinks Einstein said. What Einstein said, on relativity theory, is derived ultimately from the field equations he wrote done. Good thing we don't have to rely on some cranks misinterpretation of what Einstein said. The scary thing is this fundamental commonsense logic is out of Farsights grasp. Essentially all cranks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I can remind readers, in response to a challenge by brucep re black holes, I've given simple step-by-step explanations. These start with why time travel is science fiction, which then makes it clear why Einstein said the speed of light is not constant. After that it's easy to understand how gravity works, and after that it's a piece of cake to appreciate that
the black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All of which contain basic flaws and none of which provide alternatives to mainstream math.

 

I have only read the odd page or two of some of these 'other threads' of farsight, can anyone tell me, have I missed anything?
Here's farsight explaining things to theoretical physicist Matt Strassler...Elephants. For those who don't know, farsight is a John Duffield.

Read on for replies
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ation-paradox-an-introduction/#comment-174182
Edit..adding the quote

 

Is this your time with, Farsight?

 

Oooh, he's a famous crackpot?! I feel honored to have the opportunity to thrash his ideas!

 

Well, my first time knowing of farsight, but I have known similar people on other sites. I blame the forum sites that allow them to mingle their 'particular' understanding of things in the science categories.

I have enough trouble keeping-up an understanding of mainstream ideas, and I really rely on others here, with what I take to be a better understanding of things, to sort out the more 'passionate beliefs' held by some. How do I know someone here on site has a better understanding? they tally with what I find in books and on reliable science sites.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Russ. You have more patience and perhaps a better understanding of science than me.
Farsight's understandind of stopped time leaves me with a picture of little 'bubbles' of 'frozen' time (black holes) orbiting the galaxy.
Of course, to believe that, you have to forget about other reference frames (infaller) and declare the distant observer's frame as absolute, which goes against the grain of GR and SR. And you would have to take the coordinate singularity at the event horizon as real.
I don't think farsight can see the evolution of GR. Einstein > Schwarzschild > Kruskal–Szekeres and Gullstrand–Painlevé >Kerr and other things.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

----------------
Mass/ energy alter spacetime in their vicinity, how different frames experience that altered spacetime depends on their motion and position relative to it. An infaller gets 'caught' in a black hole because the altered spacetime 'tips' his light cone over, so there's no escape unless he can travel above lightspeed. Why the need for 'stopped' time?

 

What gets me is why bullshit is more interesting than science? Really? Maybe some self worth is attached to being a 'world famous' physics crank? The whole thing is really amazing. Did you read about finding the signature for gravitational waves during inflation? Now that is really interesting and it's interesting to know why and how they built the experimental model to record the history of this 'telltale' natural phenomena.

 

Wow,I must have been wearing blinkers for the past few days...That's the first I've heard of it.
Busy now collecting articles about it.
Just seen thread in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology'.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/physics-cosmic-inflation-031714.html
http://bicepkeck.org/
http://www.space.com/25094-big-bang-inflation-cmb-wilson-interview.html
Thanks brucep

 

There aren't any basic flaws. If there were you could list them. Time travel is science fiction. Einstein did say the speed of light is not constant. And so on.

I'm nether famous nor a crackpot, they aren't my ideas, and you haven't thrashed them.

nimbus: here's my comment on Matt Strassler's blog about BICEP2:

http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/17/bicep2-new-evidence-of-cosmic-inflation/#comment-182187

I said I feel wary, and he said it was wise to be wary. Why don't you start a thread on Hawking radiation, and I'll rip it to shreds.

 

Well, yes, strassler is like most scientist, wary with only one observation, lets see it repeated elsewhere.That's the scienctific method.

Hawking radiation?? I guess your saying that because of your stopped time thingy, is that right?
Farsight, if you need to, can you just tell us why you don't go along with Hawking radiation. What have I got to prove? If you have anything to prove, take it through proper scientific channels...this is a web forum.

Too much red meat.
Thanks for the link and the link in that post to 'sky and telescope' report

late edit. since no one has posted.

My bold.
They are your particular non-mathematical understandings of others ideas. If your never wrong, why are you doomed to roam only forums and blogs and never scientific establishments. Of course your reply to this post...your never wrong and where else have you to go.
Old neverwrong with a stopped clock about his neck, doomed to roam the web forums, blogs, vanity press and junk tv.
I wonder if the mods will strike this post?

 

From NASA , a moon gravity image

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/multimedia/zuber4.html

The red depicts , " mass excesses " , what does this mean ?

Does this mean , mountains ?

 

Farsight

Depends on your definition. We all travel one way in time, toward the future. It is an actual movement through an actual dimension. You just cannot go the other way. And your rate of travel through time is relative to your own frame

And Einstein did not say that measured lightspeed was not constant, that's just pure crack(pot too). Lightspeed invariance is established fact, stop lying. Or post in the woo section. The coordinate speed is not constant because you are measuring between two(or more)frames, but the measured speed of light in all frames is constant. Period.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're lying there, Farsight. You know perfectly well that Einstein never claimed that the local/invariant speed of light is variable and you regularly post the equations that show it. And you know perfectly well that none of us have ever claimed the coordinate speed is constant.

This is another one of your attempts to definition-swap the local and coordinate speeds of light. Someone who actually thinks they are onto a better way would be trying to improve understanding, not purposely trying to create confusion.

And it appears to me that most of your game is similar deceptions. For example, what does the term "time travel" mean?

 

Yeah, basically there is a "sea level" and red would be higher elevation, or "mountains", and the blue would be dried up lakes or oceans, the floors being a crater below "sea level."

Edit: A more dense area of the moon could mean that it isn't a mountain, but that it could be like a volume of more dense material, causing that area to be more dense than its surroundings. For example, say under the desert there was a massive molten rock volume. It would be more dense, causing a red area, even if the density was below sea level, as long as the average was higher the color gets painted red. That's the way I read it anyway.

 

It is too bad they did not publish a visible light image along side of the gravity map.

But the variation in gravity is more likely a result of variations in density.

 

If on earth you imagined a sea level, and you sliced every land mass above sea level completely off, the sea level would have different densities, because the areas that used to be tall mountains were more dense at the sea level than the surrounding sea level density. So if it's a mountain then it's more dense in the area at sea level, more likely than not.

 

No we don't, and no it isn't. Where have you been, Grumpy? Read the OP in time travel is science fiction.

You can't travel backwards in time because you don't even travel forwards in time. And your frame isn't something empirical. You can't point up to the night sky and say "look, there's a reference frame". It's little more than your state of motion. Through space.

He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position. I gave the quotes in the OP of the speed of light is not constant. He said what he said.

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 and note section II:

"Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition".

The atomic transition is the hyperfine transition. It's an electromagnetic thing, that results in microwaves. That's light in the wider sense. You measure the local speed of light to be constant because you use the motion of light to define your second and your metre. Then you use them to measure the local motion of light. And my oh my, you always get the same answer. Duh!

 

I'm not lying.

Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position. He never said light curves because spacetime is curved. The people who say that are lying, not me.

It's no definition-swap. You have two NIST optical clocks in front of you. One is 30cm lower than the other one. And it goes slower. Because the light goes slower. Because the speed of light varies with position.

My "game" is ending deception.

Travelling to another time. As if another time is a place you can actually travel to. Instead of this place, when things have moved around a bit. Like I said, time travel is science fiction. Because you could “travel” to the future by stepping into a glorified freezer. But you aren’t really travelling to the future. You aren’t moving. Instead everything else is.