At no time is Farsight in line with anything GR has to say about the physics of gravity. He's spent no effort becoming familiar with the theory. GR isn't about who wrote it. Or what the author said about it. It's strictly about a set of field equations and everything that's been squeezed from them since they were published.Interesting discussion/exchange between you two......seriously, no pun intended.
Please note I also don't pretend to understand all of what either of you claim/interpret, but of course I still have my usual observations/objections/fault finding criticisms of the gist of what all this is about.
Having crossed swords with both of you at different times, I'm sure you can guess what my observations are.
In my more than two years on this forum, we have had four claims from four posters claiming to have formulated the holy grail of physics, a TOE...one of those was our friend Farsight.
Both of you, and Farsight, all seem to have variations of your interpretations of GR. The three of you, all claim validity of your own interpretation and are of the opinion that what is generally accepted by mainstream is wrong.
The three of you all cannot be correct.
Farsight sees himself as aligning totally with Einstein, while refusing to recognising the fact that GR has progressed somewhat over the last 100 years.
And of course we do have others on this and other forums, which likewise offer even more questionable supposed criticisms directed at SR/GR and present day cosmology. I don't believe their issues are worthy of discussion here.
Schmelzer seems to have had some success with published papers with reputable publishers, and which I have congratulated him for in the past, Q-reeus I'm not sure of.
On that point itself, and which I did argue with Schmelzer on, many papers are purely hypothetically theoretical as opposed to scientifically theoretical as accepted by the definition of a scientific theory. I see a difference there and I hope that difference is clear.
As a lay person interested in cosmology and just as interested in the best derived reality or model of present day cosmology, I am put in a rather difficult position.
I can imo claim that generally speaking, and on average, the majority is far more likely to be correct than individuals like yourselves.
That of course leads me open to criticism that I'm a sheep and follow without understanding properly.
But as a sheep, I also need to make a decision in my own mind and to the best of what I do understand.
I see some criticism from both of you on Charles Misner.
Never read him but I have a book by Thorne called "Black Holes and Time Warps"
I mention this because I see claims that final replies and refutations denote winners and/or losers.
Less said about that claim the better.
I don't hold onto conspiracies that mainstream science is tainted, or indulge in conspiracies to shut out independent thinking, and independent scientists as Schmelzer says he is. At least not on any scale to be really worried about. Nothing is perfect though. And If that were the case and was as widespread as both of you at times seem to insinuate, then we would certainly be in deep shit.
The scientific method and associated peer review is not perfect but again it is the best we have.
My other point as I have mentioned many times, in reality, not too many professional experts indulge in science forums such as this, for what I believe are obvious reasons.
We had a Professor Bennett Link for a little while, until he decided he had had enough. We certainly also have other qualified people, and without pissing into either of your pockets, both you are probably of that ilk.
But not all professional people are correct....
Anyway, I said my piece, and will now leave you two to your devices.
OK then. Just clear the head before replying in future.
I have previously remarked that both parties imo made exaggerated or outright false claims against the other. Still, it's worth noting Mizner never came back for a second try. Surprised you didn't bring up a similar exchange between Fackerell and Yilmaz-Alley, for which the same thing happened - Fackerell never attempted a comeback. Worse there, the quoted article datings are made to look like Fackerell answered finally, and years after the Yilmaz-Alley article. Actually, it was the reverse, though not years apart in actuality.
That article was written at least in the main by the fanatical GR devotee Chris Hillman, who seems to have a sacred duty to put down all rivals to GR. And by any means - as for instance the disingenuous use of only the earlier purely scalar potential 1958 theory, not the tensor potentials 1973 one. That can be explicitly seen in the table of comparisons here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter...tivity#PPN_parameters_for_a_range_of_theories
One suspects also done by CH. Might as well compare 1911 GR to the results in order to 'disprove' 1916 GR.
Further, it's almost laughable that the very parameter alpha_1 quoted as 'disagrees violently with observations', has to do with orbital polarization of elliptical orbits. The crucial test being cited as lunar laser ranging. The man in charge of that project for many years - Carroll O Alley, was driven to Yilmaz gravity for precisely the reason it naturally explained the results of those measurements! Check out in particular slides 36-44 here: http://www.powershow.com/view/1bbc8-ZjhlZ/P1246341516SeoJH_flash_ppt_presentation
What a bad joke that Wiki piece is. You should know ideological commitment, and likelihood of less than scrupulous ideologues being alive and well in GR community, is to be expected just as elsewhere.
Try actually reading through that article by Robertson. There are currently no observations actually conflicting with Yilmaz theory.[/
If light doesn't stop there aren't any black holes. I'm happy that black holes exist. But I'm not happy with Kruskal coordinates. Like I said, I think they include a schoolbody error.
I rely on what Einstein said. He said the speed of light varies with gravitational potential. He didn't just say this in 1911. You can find lots of examples in the Einstein digital papers.
I go by Einstein, and I don't agree that Kruskal coordinates are correct.
The "spacetime tilt" causes your pencil to fall. Not the curvature. I think this paper is worth a read: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044[/
Deleted anything I said.
Last edited: