What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

[paddoboy]

Moderator notice: This thread has been split from the following thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/simple-geometric-proof-grs-gws-are-impossible.157012/
----

So how then to explain the positive results now evidently confirmed by aLIGO?

There are many many explanations and reputable papers in at least three threads on the momentous discovery of GR GW's and consequently confirmation of BH's.
Try reading a few of them.

Your bias is hurting your reading comprehension skills. The argument is not that gravitational waves do not exist, the argument is that they carry energy. Since the best argument for these waves is based on the energy they carry away from observed systems, this argument seems to be one in favor of the existence of gravity waves.

Totally agree.
GR type GW's have now been confirmed twice and both the signatures of orbiting binary BH pairs.
This is well accepted by all around the world.
One must again ask, if you have anything of any concrete nature that will dispel that discovery, than you would be in line for the Nobel.
Get your hypothesis properly peer reviewed and let us know the results.
Conspiracy theories not withstanding.

 

[Q-reeus]

There are many many explanations and reputable papers in at least three threads on the momentous discovery of GR GW's and consequently confirmation of BH's.
Try reading a few of them.

Totally agree.
GR type GW's have now been confirmed twice and both the signatures of orbiting binary BH pairs.
This is well accepted by all around the world.
One must again ask, if you have anything of any concrete nature that will dispel that discovery, than you would be in line for the Nobel.
Get your hypothesis properly peer reviewed and let us know the results.
Conspiracy theories not withstanding.

As usual, you deliberately choose to ignore my previous answers, for some inexplicable reason known only to James R, included in the Cesspool mass excising (p3, #43, #48). I repeat the relevant passage from #43 here:

There need be no conflict between aLIGO detections and my claim GR's GW's are impossible. Recall that which was referenced to at end of #1 - an alternative theory. Maybe not THE correct theory but having a flying chance owing to the predicted vector waves having no logical absurdities precluding them. OK, for those who think the media claims of aLIGO confirming GR in particular, have a good look here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...y-theory-why-does-this-get-rid-of-dark-energy
Scroll down and start there with 'answer 3' and further down. Fact is the current aLIGO detections cannot offer sufficient data to distinguish between GR and G4v predictions. Plus further work needs to be done on chirp predictions for G4v.

 

[paddoboy]

Yes yes. Keep making vague criticisms, never taking the risky step of quoting anything specific and relevant to argument in #1, which might get you into a corner.
Are we finished then?

Pot, kettle black again?
Oh the irony of it all!

G4v is for now at least imo THE default choice. .

Yes, in your opinion, which obviously is not supported strong enough for you to proceed through proper professional peer review system.

If you think writing, "it's obvious," is good enough, then perhaps the rest of us are right to assume that "it's obvious" that you're wrong.

I believe that was obvious from the beginning, as illustrated with the thread title, along with the other questionable anti GR thread, and the fact that despite the claims as inferred in both titles, the proper scientific methodology and professional peer review is still avoided like the plague.

 

[Q-reeus]

Pot, kettle black again?
Oh the irony of it all!

You mean that again you make careless blunders like missing two commas above? Well a lot less worrisome than that careless misquoting Yazata a while back. Which I had to pull you up on.

Yes, in your opinion, which obviously is not supported strong enough for you to proceed through proper professional peer review system.

You lie. I made it plain in what is now #14 here: http://sciforums.com/threads/off-to...f-grs-gws-are-impossible.157039/#post-3391495

I believe that was obvious from the beginning, as illustrated with the thread title, along with the other questionable anti GR thread, and the fact that despite the claims as inferred in both titles, the proper scientific methodology and professional peer review is still avoided like the plague.

See above. What you believe, and impudently assert is so, counts for naught.

 

[paddoboy]

You mean that again you make careless blunders like missing two commas above? Well a lot less worrisome than that careless misquoting Yazata a while back. Which I had to pull you up on.

Yeah sure I do, so? At least I have no agenda and/or bias that sees me posting two current threads, denying that which has been overwhelmingly evident, not withstanding the usual conspiracy nonsense.

You lie. I made it plain in what is now #14 here: http://sciforums.com/threads/off-to...f-grs-gws-are-impossible.157039/#post-3391495

No my friend, that's a cop out.
When you write a paper, have it professionally peer reviewed, than you come back and tell us all, OK?

See above. What you believe, and impudently assert is so, counts for naught.

That's funny? That's what most here are now saying about you.

 

[Q-reeus]

... No my friend, that's a cop out...

No, my not friend, you were caught out as lying. Deliberately misrepresenting just like PhysBang does, only at generally lower level.

 

[paddoboy]

No, my not friend, you were caught out as lying. Deliberately misrepresenting just like PhysBang does, only at generally lower level.

Don't be like that my friend. No I was not lying, nor was I biased in any way.
What you said:
"As for having it published, that will likely happen as a co-authored piece in due time. In the mean time, stop trying to tell me I have no right to present it here first as I see fit"!
Nothing positive or certain in that...in fact it could be more construed as just trying to keep me quiet.
You have a proper methodology to go about things, and coming here on a science forum, posting in the science sections instead of alternative hypotheticals, as you should have and as seen in the titles of your two threads themselves, actually says more about your own honesty, or lack thereof than anything I have done.
Couple that with the usual "conspiracy" type nonsense you seem to bring out whenever cornered, and yes, it was a cop out and not the first.

And of course, you have failed to convince anyone yet on this forum of either of your claims.

 

[Q-reeus]

I blame admin for tolerating, even encouraging, such disruptive professional Trolls, especially paddoboy.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I blame admin for tolerating, even encouraging, such disruptive professional Trolls, especially paddoboy.

Professional implies they are getting paid.
Anyway that is beside the point.
I have re read everything yet again and say you dont seem to have proved anything but as I say thats probably my fault.
What I ask is can you explain simply what ligo observe, simply as so far I dont get it.
You seem to be handling your opposition nicely so it seems you are winning may I ask what field of science you are involved in as your professional career.
Is General Relativity your speciality or are you involved in a different branch of science.
Have you considered when you will put the idea in the op in a paper and considered where you will get it published.
And sorry about giving you a hard time and commenting on your style but I can see what you are up against.
Good luck with your research.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

See above. What you believe, and impudently assert is so, counts for naught.

No, my not friend, you were caught out as lying. Deliberately misrepresenting just like PhysBang does, only at generally lower level.

You also continually lie. A relevant few passages from #1:

Just a few of the statements that support the likelyhood of an agenda of sorts, culminating in a great big anti GR bias which has been expressed before.
And yet all we see is continued arguments, accusations, probable conspiracies, on a remote science forum, against mostly amateur participants.
Yet while addressing his personal concerns as shown in the quotes, he totally ignores the papers that have been referenced and of course there are many many more also.
Will the E-MAIL from Professor Thorne convince him of his errors and continued ignorance of the papers referenced? I don't believe so, and I predict some more charades and conspiracy with regards to Professor Thorne.

In essence the claims in this thread, and the other nonsense thread are fabrications based on misinterpretations and/or stubborness attributed to the obvious anti GR bias he holds and in conflict with what reputable orginizations such as aLIGO and all scientific institutions around the world accept, based on irrefutable evidence.
Another case of a anti mainstream poster, against the world, although in this case, he probably is not alone: the god would undoubtedly be agreeing with him. Which means in effect, "enough said!"

 

[Q-reeus]

Just a few of the statements that support the likelyhood of an agenda of sorts, culminating in a great big anti GR bias which has been expressed before.
And yet all we see is continued arguments, accusations, probable conspiracies, on a remote science forum, against mostly amateur participants.
Yet while addressing his personal concerns as shown in the quotes, he totally ignores the papers that have been referenced and of course there are many many more also.

Wrong as usual, out-of-control-Troll. Bad memory is not an excuse for continued lying given I have brought up twice before, in the original pre-culled thread, now wrongly banished to Cesspool, this posting:
http://sciforums.com/threads/off-to...gws-are-impossible.157039/page-3#post-3391725
with link there: http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...y-theory-why-does-this-get-rid-of-dark-energy
and re-posted relevant portion in p1, #21 here. Unfortunately a cut-and-paste from #43 in Cesspool thread managed to screw up the link in #21 here, as I just discovered. Getting no complaints indicates nobody bothered to look or maybe they just went back to the wrongly banished original posting. Whatever. Point is, poster PurposeNation there provides a rebuff to your rant (one error in my #43 there and #21 here was to instruct to go down to 'answer 3'. Rather should have referenced to poster PurposeNation replies). Cut-and-paste from there:

I have futher correspondence from the group leader of the CalTech LIGO team, Alan Weinstein (thanks, Alan!): "Short answer: discovery neither supports nor refutes G4V. Tests have not yet been done. For now, we have ONLY tested the data from GW150914 vs. predictions of GR (arxiv.org/abs/1602.03841 ). Have NOT compared the data to any other theory. The # of alt. theories is large, and will require a lot of effort to cover them (indeed, it was a lot of effort to compare vs. the extremely well-studied predictions from GR)... – PurposeNation Apr 17 at 3:30

"...predictions from G4v are not yet available; Carver is working hard on it. Expect him to produce waveform predictions from the inspiral phase of the waveform soon. The post-inspiral phase(s) are more difficult to model (indeed, in GR, it requires supercomputer computations representing the work of dozens of researchers over decades). When predictions from G4v are available, we are eager to compare them against the data, in close consultation w/Carver. Hopefully, soon!" – PurposeNation Apr 17 at 3:30

So here's a test of your genuineness. Email Thorne again, pointing him to this posting in full, and ask if there has been any subsequent resolution ruling out G4v, or indeed every other candidate theory bar GR. Now THAT would be really useful and relevant. Up to it, out-of-control-Troll?

 

[paddoboy]

That in red is what is most relevant, as next posting will show.

You now cross a line and outright accuse me of being a chief conspirator! As opposed to just the usual baseless allegations of being a 'conspiracy theorist' for disagreeing with your GR religion. A foolishly out of place smiley won't save you here. Before I report you for recklessly engaging in serious character assassination, will give you a chance to unreservedly apologize. Don't delay - clock is ticking.

Don't be so pretentious! Of course you are using conspiracy nonsense to sidestep that your claim is just not accepted by mainstream..and you do it again with what you highlight in red. Of course its obvious a professional scientist like Professor Thorne would be busy, particularly at this time, and obviously too busy to answer to those that are not a party to these discoveries, but chose to snipe from the sidelines.
And many times you have also claimed that the followers of GR are sheep, and do it again with your reference to GR religion.
You have a good day and keep watching your clock!

 

[paddoboy]

So here's a test of your genuineness. Email Thorne again, pointing him to this posting in full, and ask if there has been any subsequent resolution ruling out G4v, or indeed every other candidate theory bar GR. Now THAT would be really useful and relevant. Up to it, out-of-control-Troll?

Firstly, calm down, seriously! Secondly the whole OP was posted to Professor Thorne.
[ps: And probably two more replies to receive yet.]
Again the over riding issue is that you claim invalidation of GR type GW's on a science forum, with no professional peer review. And of course what you claim is not accepted by mainstream in general, nor anyone yet on this forum.

 

[Q-reeus]

Don't be so pretentious! Of course you are using conspiracy nonsense to sidestep that your claim is just not accepted by mainstream..and you do it again with what you highlight in red. Of course its obvious a professional scientist like Professor Thorne would be busy, particularly at this time, and obviously too busy to answer to those that are not a party to these discoveries, but chose to snipe from the sidelines.
And many times you have also claimed that the followers of GR are sheep, and do it again with your reference to GR religion.
You have a good day and keep watching your clock!

Re highlighted - an unqualified assertion - quote me as having stated that even once, anywhere this forum. I say you are lying as usual and cannot back up the allegation.
So a refusal to apologize for outright character assassination. Yes reported. And btw, you might like to know something relevant. In a 'conversation' aka PM some time back, you were privately acknowledged as being a troll, by someone in admin. Live with that thought.

 

[paddoboy]

The following E-Mail reply from Kip Thorne:

Re: gravitational waves
Kip S Thorne [kip@caltech.edu]
I wish I could read his case and comment, but I am so overwhelmed that I cannot do so. But I will remark that the measured waveform agrees beautifully with the predictions of general relativity for a black hole binary. And this is so not just for the first signal to be discovered, GW150914, but also the second one 16151226.

Best wishes
Kip

==================================================
Kip S. Thorne: kip@tapir.caltech.edu
350-17 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Phone: +1 626 395-4598; Fax: +1 626 796-5675
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The obvious relevant part highlighted in red.[/QUOTE]

 

[paddoboy]

Re highlighted - an unqualified assertion - quote me as having stated that even once, anywhere this forum.

The most recent....Please don't make me rsearch the rest of your posts!

As opposed to just the usual baseless allegations of being a 'conspiracy theorist' for disagreeing with your GR religion.

 

[Q-reeus]

The most recent....Please don't make me rsearch the rest of your posts!

Answering by not answering. The usual from #1 Troll. Trying to get somewhat back on topic, I take it then you have no intention of being responsible by complying with last part of my #68?

 

[paddoboy]

Answering by not answering. The usual from #1 Troll. Trying to get somewhat back on topic, I take it then you have no intention of being responsible by complying with last part of my #68?

I have already E-Mailed Professor Thorne with your whole OP. Did you not see me mention that?
As far as he is concerned GR GW's have been confirmed [along with BH's specifically binary BH pairs] on both occasions. read the E-Mail again, without putting your own prejudice to work on it.
And as I have said, and probably two more to follow.
[not that its really needed]

 

[Q-reeus]

I have already E-Mailed Professor Thorne with your whole OP. Did you not see me mention that?...

Irrelevant to what, ignoring last bit of libelous junk, you posted in #65. Which is intended to give the impression GR's GW's are confirmed as the only possible fit to aLIGO data. My 'whole OP' i.e. just post #1 did not bother to reference to that Physics.Stack.Exchange link reproduced in #68 - which IS directly relevant to your intent in #65.
Thorne has already stated point blank hasn't the time to consider my #1, so your line quoted above is empty and irrelevant. But if you can't be bothered to seek confirmation of what I urged in #68, that's the usual attitude from you and I won't lose any sleep over it. Your choice.

 

[James R]

I have already E-Mailed Professor Thorne with your whole OP. Did you not see me mention that?
As far as he is concerned GR GW's have been confirmed [along with BH's specifically binary BH pairs] on both occasions.

The fact that a "standard" GR model nicely fits the LIGO data doesn't rule out the possibility that the data (a) will also be nicely fitted by another theory, such as the one Q-reeus is discussing, or (b) will be better fitted by an alternative theory.

From messages quoted above, apparently somebody named Carver is trying to work out what his theory would predict, so that it can be tested against the LIGO data. Results aren't in yet, so we have to wait and see whether he comes up with anything.

Realise that no data confirms GR, as against all other possible theories. It is conceivable that at some stage we may find data that is inconsistent with GR, and therefore demands that GR be replaced by something else. So far, there's nothing compelling enough to warrant replacing GR by something else yet. But that doesn't mean people have given up trying to find alternatives.

The best that can be said about the LIGO data, so far, is that it is consistent with GR being correct. We can also say that there's no proven better theory than GR. But that doesn't mean GR is "confirmed" as some kind of ultimately final theory.