What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

Distractions? Irrelevancy?? More just a cop out.
Let me again say in no uncertain terms, you were wrong in claiming that Penrose was a founding Father of the BB, and also wrong in insinuating that he had any say in raising it from hypothesis to theory stage.
His only connection to the BB theory was in conjunction with Hawking and talks of the Singularity and nature of.
But of course you can stopthis right now by showing some reputable history or link claiming Penrose was either one of the founding Fathers, or instrumental in establishing the BB.
Afterall you did mention you have read his history, so nows your chance to verify what you claim.



No one has ever claimed that magnetic forces do not have some effect, but the evidence shows that energy lost via gravitational radiation is the main cause and matches what is seen in orbital decay......
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3930.pdf

Abstract
The 1974 discovery, by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor, of the first binary pulsar PSR B1913+16, opened up new possibilities for the study of relativistic gravity. PSR B1913+16, as well as several other binary pulsars, provided direct observational proofs that gravity propagates at the velocity of light and has a quadrupolar structure. Binary pulsars also provided accurate tests of the strong-field regime of relativistic gravity. General Relativity has passed all the binary pulsar tests with flying colors. The discovery of binary pulsars had also very important consequences for astrophysics: accurate measurement of neutron star masses, improved understanding of the possible evolution scenarios for the coevolution of binary stars, proof of the existence of binary neutron stars emitting gravitational waves for hundreds of millions of years, before coalescing in catastrophic events radiating intense gravitational-wave signals, and probably leading also to important emissions of electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos. This article reviews the history of the discovery of the first binary pulsar, and describes both its immediate impact, and its longer-term effect on theoretical and experimental studies of relativistic gravity.


Concluding remarks
The 1974 discovery of the first binary pulsar has given us a cornucopia of important scientific benefits. The most spectacular ones concern the first experimental evidence that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is valid beyond the usually tested quasi-stationary, weak-field regime. Indeed, binary pulsar data have probed, for the first time, relativistic gravity in regimes involving (either together or separately) radiative effects and strong-field effects. The citation accompanying the award, in October 1993, of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor read: “for their discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation”. As we have discussed, these new possibilities for studying gravitation have been even more sucessful than what was envisaged in the months following the discovery. Even more importantly, the class of systems discovered by Hulse and Taylor promises to bring new discoveries in the near future, through the physics of the late stages of evolution of compact binaries: gravitational waves, probes of nuclear-matter equation of state, possible connection with gamma-ray bursts,. . . Let us finally mention the hope that radio pulsars in orbit around a black hole will soon be discovered. The black hole companion could be either a ∼ 10 M⊙ black hole, or, possibly, a much more massive black hole. Recently, a magnetar was discovered near the massive (∼ 4 × 106 M⊙) black hole at the center of our Galaxy [97]. Searches are underway for discovering pulsars having better timing stability, and closer to the galactic center. Such a discovery would be a fantastic new milestone for General Relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0667.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0667.pdf


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.2164.pdf
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Due to the fact that the evidence shows that gravitational radiation was the prime result of the Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar system, as well as many others, they were awarded the Nobel prize for physics.
Yes, I can understand how you may now like to deride, denigrate at attempt to cheapen the world recognised top award for the sciences, but I really suggest you do some inner soul searching.
You, as a no body [like me] rattling away and preaching your gospel on a public science forum, really and truly, makes absolutely no difference to anything in academia and the professional ranks, just by the way as James has also mentioned.
The question that needs to be asked is how, and/or why so many cranks are under such delusional complexes as to believe they are making any difference to the science world in general.

On that score, I may take James advice and leave you to stew in your own juice with of course your next lengthy evangelistic lesson naturally directed at me.
Unless of course you do have some link to support your nonsensical claim re Penrose and/or the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar Nobel prize winning evidence for gravitational waves.

I see you still prefer to bomb with links and appeals to authority which does not properly address what I pointed out. What a surprise!

Paddoboy, do you realize that any attribution to Gravitational Wave and interpretations of 'fitting' GR mean nothing at all if there are other causes and fittings which do not relate to GR or GW assumptions, interpretations and theory?

Is that too subtle? James R, others, and I, have tried to get that subtlety through your blinkered obsession with links and appeals to authority that does not actually address the points in question properly. Why are you so emotionally attached and in denial of what is obvious to any rational objective scientist and logical thinker here and elsewhere?

Just because an earlier interpretation and attribution was made to GR GW, it doesn't mean it was set in stone. This question of Magnetic forces and losses to the system can explain exactly the same orbital decay rates as their initial GR GW attribution and interpretation 'fitting' can. Which makes the question open to discussion on its merits (not on your layman or other "experts" kneejerking from arrogance and denial; learn the lesson which Penrose spoke of when he stopped kneejerking against valid ideas and questions which he used to call "nonsense" when they weren't).

Please now do the necessary: Provide arguments and references to where the actual extreme E-M forces and interplay in such extreme body binary systems were properly quantified and considered as possible explanations for the energy loss and orbital decays observed.

Thanks. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1993


Russell A. Hulse

Prize share: 1/2



Joseph H. Taylor Jr.

Prize share: 1/2





The Nobel Prize in Physics 1993 was awarded jointly to Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor Jr. "for the discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3930.pdf

The 1974 discovery, by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor, of the first binary pulsar PSR B1913+16, opened up new possibilities for the study of relativistic gravity. PSR B1913+16, as well as several other binary pulsars, provided direct observational proofs that gravity propagates at the velocity of light and has a quadrupolar structure. Binary pulsars also provided accurate tests of the strong-field regime of relativistic gravity. General Relativity has passed all the binary pulsar tests with flying colors

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

I replied that I posted the whole of the OP as done by q-reeus.
If you were genuine you would have replied...."ÖK, that's the correct way to go about it" or words to that effect.

I'm not sure what you want, exactly. I already said I don't mind who you email about whatever you want to email them about. That is entirely your business.

If you want to email Q-reeus's post to professional scientists, that's just fine. The only reply I've seen from is from one guy who said, essentially, that he doesn't have time to look at it, but that cranks are a dime a dozen. As I pointed out previously, that does not address Q-reeus's ideas.

And you wonder why the majority of posters that would normally be interested in subjects such as this are staying well clear?

Your impression that people are staying clear because of something I've done may be incorrect. In fact, your impression that people are staying clear may be incorrect. Or maybe nobody else is that interested. There are many possibilities. One more: maybe people who know they can't address what Q-reeus wrote are staying clear because they recognise that they won't get anywhere by weighing in.

You know the same member posters that often reflect on case of trolls/cranks and god botherers on this forum and the amount of rope they are given?

Previously I asked you what evidence you had of "god bothering". You didn't provide any, apart from vague allusions to things that unnamed people had supposedly posted in the past. Calling people cranks, trolls and god botherers is just name calling that doesn't address the issues raised. (This is getting repetitive, isn't it?)

Why not now reveal to the forum how many "reports" you have from me about the god or anyone else, and then compare that with the reports from "known trolls" about me?

You may care deeply about the relative number of reports, paddoboy, but I doubt anybody else does, very much.

You and a few others here seem more interested in "winning" an ongoing personal battle than discussing science (or whatever).

 

[paddoboy]

You and a few others here seem more interested in "winning" an ongoing personal battle than discussing science (or whatever).

I could call you dishonest as to how you have cleverly side stepped a few issues, but what the heck!
On your above little gem, all I'm interested in, is the true nature of science being shown as a discipline in progress, and not unfairly derided and misquoted, and totally raped by the current gang of trolls, cranks and god botherers we have doing the round.
Although as you seemingly agree, that unsupported claims and nonsense on forums such as this, is inevitable, and that academia and mainstream science is oblivious to that nonsense, I am also concerned that others that might peruse forums such as this are not mislead.

Your impression that people are staying clear because of something I've done may be incorrect. In fact, your impression that people are staying clear may be incorrect. Or maybe nobody else is that interested. There are many possibilities. One more: maybe people who know they can't address what Q-reeus wrote are staying clear because they recognise that they won't get anywhere by weighing in.

If I can be bold enough, perhaps your own infrequent attempts to clean up such nonsense, is not good enough in that you fail to see what is happening overall in the larger picture.
But again, your forum, so you go about it whatever way you like.
But just a few suggestions.
Of late, we have
[1] one claiming in the science section that the "Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar system, can all be explained by magnetic interactions, yet nothing reputable to support that claim, and obviously just another attempt to invalidate gravitational waves.
[2]Claims that DM is not needed and that the anomalies that brought about that, are all now explained.Again without any reputable authoritive link.
[3]Claims that GP-B and aLIGO are fraudulent experiments.
That's three just recently and off the top of my head.
And yet you allow such nonsense to be posted in the science sections, while preferring to "rope me in" because I'm saying things that I believe that most know anyway....things like posters using aliases and double handles, the continued boring preaching and unpretentious nonsense that one particular crank answers all posts, that questions his stance with.

You may care deeply about the relative number of reports, paddoboy, but I doubt anybody else does, very much.

A cop out answer to avoid the truth. And if what you insinuate were true, you would have a lot more reports from me about others. But you don't.

Previously I asked you what evidence you had of "god bothering". You didn't provide any, apart from vague allusions to things that unnamed people had supposedly posted in the past. Calling people cranks, trolls and god botherers is just name calling that doesn't address the issues raised. (This is getting repetitive, isn't it?)

Yes, quite repetitive.
And again, my god botherering claim stands for one outstanding reason.
At least two known posters seem to be fervently opposed to all 21st century cosmology, which instead of posting in the alternatives they flood the science sections with. I really cannot see any other reason to give for such nonsense then to slip in there god of the gaps.
I can understand people dismissing certain isolated areas of 21st century cosmology, but when the stupidity arises where all of it is dismissed, and weird claims made and asserted that the Sun may not just be unitary stellar system, then common sense kicks in, and the inevitable reason/cause is drawn. Particularly when that same pair always refuse to give their credentials and expertise, which of course is their right, but in fact just reinforces what I'm logically claiming.
Like I said James, I know others do agree with me, including mods by the way.

 

[The God]

Yes, quite repetitive.
And again, my god botherering claim stands for one outstanding reason.
At least two known posters seem to be fervently opposed to all 21st century cosmology, which instead of posting in the alternatives they flood the science sections with. I really cannot see any other reason to give for such nonsense then to slip in there god of the gaps.
I can understand people dismissing certain isolated areas of 21st century cosmology, but when the stupidity arises where all of it is dismissed, and weird claims made and asserted that the Sun may not just be unitary stellar system, then common sense kicks in, and the inevitable reason/cause is drawn. Particularly when that same pair always refuse to give their credentials and expertise, which of course is their right, but in fact just reinforces what I'm logically claiming.
Like I said James, I know others do agree with me, including mods by the way.

Paddoboy, you are acting quite dishonestly. I am producing the entire reference to Sun Unitary System, tell me where is the God bothering or weirdness in below ? If you cannot then please give some rest to your nonsense.

...........

1. Is our solar system directly orbiting the GC, or is there any other intermediate Sol/System to which our solar system is orbiting ?

Mainstream Position : The pictorial representation of our Galaxy shows that our solar system is orbiting the GC directly, with a galactic year of around 225 million years, and radial distance from GC being around 25000 light years.

My Stand : The question is inconclusive. Its not that I have a proof that mainstream stand is not true and alternative is true.

Grounds :

1. Our observation is limited to only a few hundred years as against 225 million years.
2. Despite mammoth progreess in the field of astronomy, the vast work still remains to be done.
3. We are still looking for planets in our solar system, and we are still working on oort cloud (nearby structures only a few light hours away), suggesting that no thumping statement can be made about our orbital motion strictly around GC.
4. Only recently, our Milky Way was understood to be larger than what it was originally thought of, so we really are not sure about span of Milky Way in totality.
5. The number of stars / star systems in our galaxy around our Solar system is very very large, we have observed many binary systems (Star - Star) in the galaxy, infact it is assumed that more than 33% stars in our Milky way galaxy are in binary - binary or in multi star formation...So the probability of we being in that system cannot be less than that and thats too huge to negate without conclusive evidence or proof.

So, what I am looking for to change my stand is some kind of confirmation, some kind of work which points to a fair degree of certainty, that our solar system is directly orbiting GC, there is no intermediate orbital point before the bigger journey of combined system around GC.............

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, you are acting quite dishonestly. I am producing the entire reference to Sun Unitary System, tell me where is the God bothering or weirdness in below ? If you cannot then please give some rest to your nonsense.

Sorry, unlike you I avoid any acting of dishonesty.
The fact that our Sun is part of a unitary stellar system is as set in stone as any observation could be.
Just another exercise by you to create some semblance of doubt as fabricated as that doubt maybe, for an excuse to show cosmology as faulty and a possible god of the gaps insertion as god botherers are apt to often do.
Do you still believe the Earth is flat? Or that it is the center of the solar system?

My Stand : The question is inconclusive. Its not that I have a proof that mainstream stand is not true and alternative is true.

Your stand and the subsequent "reasoning" you give, actually totally lacks logical cohesive reasoning, and shows an actual total lack of knowledge as to the disciplines of astronomy and cosmology, and the observational data of both.
The question is certainly conclusive.

 

[paddoboy]

So, what I am looking for to change my stand is some kind of confirmation, some kind of work which points to a fair degree of certainty, that our solar system is directly orbiting GC, there is no intermediate orbital point before the bigger journey of combined system around GC.............

The overwhelming evidence certainly shows that our solar system orbits the galactic center, with other minor gravitationally induced movements within that 230 million year journey.
Of course, as per the arguments put foward by YEC's, proof in science is a misnomer. And you should know that and avoid using the word.
But like those same YEC's you won't, because as I say, it can always be something to hang your god of the gaps excuse on.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

Do you know what the term "Star Binary System" means?

Do you know that our solar system has its nominal galactic orbit trajectory affected by stars and clusters of stars much closer to our sun than the center of the galaxy is to our sun?

Did you know that astronomers observe stars have oscillations above and below and through the galaxy 'disc' feature?

Did you know that stars have been mooted to be revolving around the 'spiral arm' in which they form a part of the stellar populations in that 'arm'?

Did you know that there are globular clusters and 'open clusters' of stars, the latter having stars which may be related in 'binary' associations but separated by vast distances such that initial observers took them to be Unitary except for the cluster influence overall, but in fact may be in binary as well as overall associations in that cluster?

I am aware of all those things, so any exploration of the question about the Unitary Solar System (as opposed to a Binary Solar System) seems reasonable to pursue if one is so inclined to do so on a scientific basis looking for old or new astronomical evidence either way.

paddoboy, do you have any particular counter argument of evidence or information which may help The God settle the question for him? If so, I'm sure he would appreciate it very much if you posted it for his benefit.

PS: The God, best of luck in your pursuit of the answer to your question.

 

[paddoboy]

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.0064.pdf

The Galactic Center Massive Black Hole and Nuclear Star Cluster:

The Galactic Center is an excellent laboratory for studying phenomena and physical processes that may be occurring in many other galactic nuclei. The Center of our Milky Way is by far the closest galactic nucleus, and observations with exquisite resolution and sensitivity cover 18 orders of magnitude in energy of electromagnetic radiation. Theoretical simulations have become increasingly more powerful in explaining these measurements. This review summarizes the recent progress in observational and theoretical work on the central parsec, with a strong emphasis on the current empirical evidence for a central massive black hole and on the processes in the surrounding dense nuclear star cluster. We present the current evidence, from the analysis of the orbits of more than two dozen stars and from the measurements of the size and motion of the central compact radio source, Sgr A*, that this radio source must be a massive black hole of about 4.4 × 106 M, beyond any reasonable doubt. We report what is known about the structure and evolution of the dense nuclear star cluster surrounding this black hole, including the astounding fact that stars have been forming in the vicinity of Sgr A* recently, apparently with a top-heavy stellar mass function. We discuss a dense concentration of fainter stars centered in the immediate vicinity of the massive black hole, three of which have orbital peri-bothroi of less than one light day. This ‘S-star cluster’ appears to consist mainly of young early-type stars, in contrast to the predicted properties of an equilibrium ‘stellar cusp’ around a black hole. This constitutes a remarkable and presently not fully understood ‘paradox of youth’. We also summarize what is known about the emission properties of the accreting gas onto Sgr A* and how this emission is beginning to delineate the physical properties in the hot accretion zone around the event horizon.

. Concluding R
emarks and Outlook The progress in Galactic Center research over the last two decades and continuing until the time of writing this article has been astounding, with many unexpected discoveries and fundamental results. A number of the phenomena studied in the central parsec of our Milky Way are of broad relevance to other galactic nuclei. This success is largely based on the rapid advances in high-resolution observations across a broad range of wavelengths and, in the last decade, to ever more powerful computer simulations of dense star clusters, star formation, and accretion near/onto black holes. Based on precise measurements of stellar orbits and of the central radio source SgrA*, the empirical evidence for the existence of a central massive black hole of about 4 million solar masses is compelling. The dense star cluster near the black hole has surprising properties, most of which were not anticipated. Massive O/WR-stars have been forming there recently, deep in the sphere of influence of the central black hole, at a high rate and probably with high efficiency. Similar ‘starburst events’ near the hole may have occured from time to time throughout the entire ~ 10 Gyr evolution of the Galactic Center. A very compact cluster of B-stars is centered on the massive black hole, with randomly oriented orbits on solar system scales. The lower mass, old stars that are traced by the current observations do not exhibit a concentration toward the central black hole, in contrast to basic theoretical predictions. Spatial distribution and dynamics of the O/WR- and B-stars are complex, indicating a number of processes at work that operate much faster than the classical two-body relaxation time scale. The massive black hole plays a central role in driving these processes. Gas is streaming into the central parsecs at substantial rates, but the accretion into the event horizon at the present time is orders of magnitude lower than simple theoretical estimates had predicted. Theoretical work now suggests that this puzzling faintness of SgrA* (and of other low-luminosity AGNs) is due to a combination of a relatively low accretion rate at the Bondi radius, inefficient angular momentum transport, outflows and low radiation efficiency. There is tantalizing evidence that Sgr A* was much brighter in the recent past. Accretion onto the Galactic Center thus appears to be variable and chaotic, controlled by local processes near the black hole. Is this true for most other galaxies with a central black hole? Where might the journey go in the next decade? Assuming that stellar orbit studies continue over this time scale, steady progress in the number and quality of the orbital determinations of the central star cluster should provide stringent tests of the different scenarios of the formation and evolution of the star disk(s) and the central S-star cluster that we have discussed extensively in this review. Detection and characterization of additional binary stars would be very helpful for the same purpose. Extending deep searches for young, massive stars to the region outside the central parsec would explore evidence for recent star formation outside the central star disk(s), as well as for the presence of a ‘sea’ of moderately massive stars that is proposed in several of the theoretical scenarios. Even more fundamentally, if the two peri-passages of the stars S31 (S08) in 2013 and S2 (S02) in 2018 are covered well by radial velocity measurements, there is a very good chance of a significant detection of the second-order (O(v/c)2 ), post-Newtonian (transverse-Doppler effect and gravitational redshift) terms of Special and General Relativity in these orbits (Fragile & Matthews 2000, Rubilar & Eckart 2001, Zucker et al. 2006, Weinberg et al. 2005, Angelil & Saha). Spectroscopic detection and tracking of faint stars even closer to Sgr A* would be extremely exciting and would open new prospects for future, still higher resolution measurements. As a by-product of these studies the accuracy of the distance determination to Sgr A* can be expected to reach ~ 1 to 2%. Continuing studies of the multi-wavelength properties, SED, polarization state and temporal behavior of Sgr A*’s emission are needed for a robust discrimination between the different emission scenarios discussed in this review, and for a deeper exploration of the nature of the flares. High quality light curves of a sufficient number of flares would settle the question whether or not quasi-periodic temporal substructures are present in these flares. As for many other questions in the Galactic Center, such multiwavelength observations of the emission from Sgr A*, while time consuming and not always successful, will be enormously helpful for a deeper understanding of the important and wide-spread phenomenon of radiatively inefficient accretion flows in other normal galaxy nuclei. If the near-infrared interferometry experiments now under development at the VLT(I) (PRIMA: Deplancke 2008, GRAVITY: Eisenhauer et al. 2008, Gillessen et al. 2010) and Keck (ASTRA: Pott et al. 2008) achieve the planned 10 to 100 μas astrometric accuracy in combination with mas imaging, the dynamics of gas and stars within a few hundred times the event horizon of the central black hole will become accessible for study. Likewise the next generation, extremely large optical/infrared telescopes (such as the European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT), and the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT)) will also be extremely valuable by combining superb sensitivity with 50 to 100 μas astrometric accuracy (Weinberg et al 2005, Davies et al. 2010b). VLBI imaging at ≤ 1 mm, with sub-mas resolution, will be another powerful tool for exploring the gas distribution in the central accretion zone (Fish & Doeleman 2010, Broderick et al. 2009b, Dexter et al. 2009, 2010, Huang et al. 2009). These new observational tools will probably give us the answer whether the Sgr A* flares originate from a jet, from hot spots, or from global fluctuations in the central accretion zone. The VLBI experiments may detect the effects of strong light-bending (the ‘shadow’) by the black hole (Falcke, Melia & Agol 2000). The near-infrared interferometry may be able to trace the motions of hot spots or a jet within 5 to10 RS (Eisenhauer et al. 2008, Hamaus et al. 2009). If there are stars sufficiently close to the central black hole, the Schwarzschild precession term, and perhaps even the Lense-Thirring precession term due to the spin of the hole might be detectable (Kraniotis 2007, Gillessen et al. 2008, Will 2008, Merritt et al. 2010). If we are lucky the Galactic Center black hole may then become a test bed for probing General Relativity in the strong field limit (Falcke et al. 2000, Fish & Doeleman 2009, Hamaus et al. 2009). Success is not guaranteed but the goals are extremely rewarding and make the efforts highly worthwhile.

 

[paddoboy]

PS: The God, best of luck in your pursuit of the answer to your question.

The point obviously is, is he [and probably yourself] ever prepared to accept any answer that does not gel with his [and probably yours] preconceived thoughts.

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

On your above little gem, all I'm interested in, is the true nature of science being shown as a discipline in progress, and not unfairly derided and misquoted, and totally raped by the current gang of trolls, cranks and god botherers we have doing the round.

I think you may be being unnecessarily over-protective of science. Science can cope with new ideas. Weak hypotheses with little to no theoretical or experimental support don't impact on mainstream science. They just form a relatively insignificant part of the background conversation around science.

As I said before, if somebody thinks they've found a flaw in general relativity, it is up to them to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the scientific community. If they can't or won't do that then their idea remains at best just one more untested hypothesis.

If I can be bold enough, perhaps your own infrequent attempts to clean up such nonsense, is not good enough in that you fail to see what is happening overall in the larger picture.

I'm well aware of the overall picture in the Science sections of this forum, and of the various personalities who are most often involved in disputes in those sections.

But again, your forum, so you go about it whatever way you like.

And again, it's not my forum. At least, not in the sense of ownership.

But just a few suggestions.
Of late, we have
[1] one claiming in the science section that the "Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar system, can all be explained by magnetic interactions, yet nothing reputable to support that claim, and obviously just another attempt to invalidate gravitational waves.
[2]Claims that DM is not needed and that the anomalies that brought about that, are all now explained.Again without any reputable authoritive link.
[3]Claims that GP-B and aLIGO are fraudulent experiments.
That's three just recently and off the top of my head.
And yet you allow such nonsense to be posted in the science sections, while preferring to "rope me in" because I'm saying things that I believe that most know anyway....things like posters using aliases and double handles, the continued boring preaching and unpretentious nonsense that one particular crank answers all posts, that questions his stance with.

Items 1 to 3 above would be inappropriate for the Science sections if nothing is given to support the claims, as you say. I urge you to report such threads and they'll most likely be moved.

Regarding sock puppets, we have a clear policy on that. Any confirmed sock puppets will result in the banning of all identities of the given poster. Before this step can be taken, there must be reasonable confirmation of the use of sock puppets, obviously.

And again, my god botherering claim stands for one outstanding reason.
At least two known posters seem to be fervently opposed to all 21st century cosmology, which instead of posting in the alternatives they flood the science sections with. I really cannot see any other reason to give for such nonsense then to slip in there god of the gaps.

I haven't seen any of your main antagonists putting religious arguments for disputing modern cosmology. If they did so in the Science sections, that would be inappropriate and the thread could be moved to a more appropriate forum.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:
I think you may be being unnecessarily over-protective of science. Science can cope with new ideas. Weak hypotheses with little to no theoretical or experimental support don't impact on mainstream science. They just form a relatively insignificant part of the background conversation around science.

Science does not need protection, for the reasons I have stated many times.
Young lurkers and any others that may peruse forums such as this do I believe.

As I said before, if somebody thinks they've found a flaw in general relativity, it is up to them to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the scientific community. If they can't or won't do that then their idea remains at best just one more untested hypothesis.

And don't we already have that same untested hypothetical being brandished and arrogantly pushed with claims of no one having any balls to challenge it.

I'm well aware of the overall picture in the Science sections of this forum, and of the various personalities who are most often involved in disputes in those sections.;

And where do I actually fit in that picture, as opposed to the anti mainstream brigade, that try and belittle accepted scientific theory at every opportunity, without reputable links to support them, but just bare faced lies like "DM is now not officially needed to explain observations, or that the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar pair are not through gravitational waves, but "supposed" magnetic interactions, or the little doozy re GP-B and aLIGO being fraudulent.
James, if I reported the unsupported nonsensical stuff everytime like the ones mentioned, you and the mods would be whinging your arses off at whinging paddoboy and all his reports!

And again, it's not my forum. At least, not in the sense of ownership.

You know what sense I mean.

Items 1 to 3 above would be inappropriate for the Science sections if nothing is given to support the claims, as you say. I urge you to report such threads and they'll most likely be moved.

OK! I'll accept that assurance, and I'll add that I will to the best of my ability, avoid getting into slanging matches and the usual tit for tat that I admit I sometimes go in with.
Just a query, you mentioned 1 and 3 as invalid claims for the science sections...why not 2? How do we explain the anomalous rotations of galaxies, observations like the bullet cluster, and gravitational lensing by unseen matter if we eliminate DM? And if this was the case, why is it not known in mainstream circles?
[perhaps you need to check out the thread I started in DM at.....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/invisible-dark-matter-scientists-have-come-up-empty-handed.157224/
and the claims made by expletive deleted, but never once any link to back up said claims.

Regarding sock puppets, we have a clear policy on that. Any confirmed sock puppets will result in the banning of all identities of the given poster. Before this step can be taken, there must be reasonable confirmation of the use of sock puppets, obviously.

Confirmed? I believe there have been enough slip ups and similar faux pas along with style and their "general" anti cosmology stance to make an excellent case. The one that I brought to your attention a while back re the spelling of per se, as per say, was imo, along with the other similarities, but don't wórry, I can live with the pair at present I believe are pulling the same stunt.

I haven't seen any of your main antagonists putting religious arguments for disputing modern cosmology. If they did so in the Science sections, that would be inappropriate and the thread could be moved to a more appropriate forum.

No, obviously they havn't and are far too cunning for that.
But again while we have many that dispute regions of cosmology and/or GR, we only have two that dispute all of cosmology, as I thought I made clear here......
"At least two known posters seem to be fervently opposed to all 21st century cosmology, which instead of posting in the alternatives they flood the science sections with. I really cannot see any other reason to give for such nonsense then to slip in there god of the gaps.
I can understand people dismissing certain isolated areas of 21st century cosmology, but when the stupidity arises where all of it is dismissed, and weird claims made and asserted that the Sun may not just be unitary stellar system, then common sense kicks in, and the inevitable reason/cause is drawn. Particularly when that same pair always refuse to give their credentials and expertise, which of course is their right, but in fact just reinforces what I'm logically claiming".
But as you say, their stuff is totally unsupported and unevidenced and without basis, so I regret that you may see more reports coming from me, something that doesn't entirely gel with me as a person who has always fought my own battles.
I will assure you those reports will not be nonsensical and/or trivial, but based simply on unsupported, unevidenced word of mouth claims, made in the sciences, without any reputable link.

 

[The God]

A new theory which can explain all what is being explained by existing theory and can also address the problematic issues of the existing theory, and can also predict something new which the old established theory cannot..........SIMPLE.

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

Science does not need protection, for the reasons I have stated many times.
Young lurkers and any others that may peruse forums such as this do I believe.

I have no problem at all with it being pointed out when a particular idea is in conflict with "mainstream" science.

At the borders of science, though, often the best we can say is that there are many different ideas being tossed around and we just don't know which one (if any) is right yet.

And don't we already have that same untested hypothetical being brandished and arrogantly pushed with claims of no one having any balls to challenge it.

In the particular example that led to this thread being split out, at least two different posters have been directly challenging the idea put forward.

James, if I reported the unsupported nonsensical stuff everytime like the ones mentioned, you and the mods would be whinging your arses off at whinging paddoboy and all his reports!

It's fine to report any pseudoscience or nonsense posted in the Science sections when you see it. Moderators don't read every thread in every forum.

Just a query, you mentioned 1 and 3 as invalid claims for the science sections...why not 2?

I included 2. I wrote "1 to 3" not "1 and 3".

Confirmed? I believe there have been enough slip ups and similar faux pas along with style and their "general" anti cosmology stance to make an excellent case. The one that I brought to your attention a while back re the spelling of per se, as per say, was imo, along with the other similarities, but don't wórry, I can live with the pair at present I believe are pulling the same stunt.

I don't recall the "per say" issue. Maybe that was something you wrote to a different moderator? Sounds like a fairly good "tell" for a sock puppet. If you have evidence like that, report it by all means and we'll investigate.

 

[Yazata]

Of late, we have...

[2]Claims that DM is not needed...

Actually, there have been quite a few suggestions to that effect by reputable cosmologists. There's apparently widespread discomfort with dark matter, which seems to be inferred indirectly as kind of a hypothetical fudge-factor in observed large-scale gravitational dynamics without any more direct evidence of its nature or even its existence. One of the more common alternative hypotheses is that the familiar inverse square law for gravity might break down on various scales. There has been quite a bit of work underway addressing this possibility, which suggests that somebody is taking the idea seriously.

Here's a survey article about that research:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwa...h/files/webfiles/publications/pdfs/review.pdf

And here's an article about various reasons to think that maybe we don't understand gravity as well as we think:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0702009.pdf

Certainly none of this questioning is conclusive at this point and none of it may amount to anything. But I don't think that hypothesizing in this manner is necessarily bullshit either. It's how science proceeds. If we look closely at 19th century science, we find many hypotheses in contention, many of which aren't found in textbooks today. But that doesn't mean that those proposals were unimportant or that they didn't play a role. The science in the textbooks today arose out of the intellectual controversies of the time and out of the experiments and obervations with which they attempted to test their competing hypotheses. (Things like the Michelson-Morley experiment that influenced Einstein.)

 

[paddoboy]

At the borders of science, though, often the best we can say is that there are many different ideas being tossed around and we just don't know which one (if any) is right yet.

I understand that, but the examples I did give do not represent "at the borders" imho.

It's fine to report any pseudoscience or nonsense posted in the Science sections when you see it. Moderators don't read every thread in every forum.

I understand that also, which is one reason I avoid criticising mods and admins, other than this current exchange between you and I.

I included 2. I wrote "1 to 3" not "1 and 3".

My mistake, apologies.

I don't recall the "per say" issue. Maybe that was something you wrote to a different moderator? Sounds like a fairly good "tell" for a sock puppet. If you have evidence like that, report it by all means and we'll investigate.

The PM I sent you.........September 22nd 2015:
as follows...............................................
I firmly believe rajesh is the god. Along with what evidence I have already sent, I just found something else.
Make of it what you will. I see is as convincing
______________________________________________
The God said:↑post 185:
I was trying to find out the definition of "Time Travel", I got these two links. They do talk of association of 'time dilation' with time travel, which per say is different from the pupular perception. Wiki definition is more towards popular perception.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-illusion-of-time-the-fabric-of-the-cosmos.152620/page-10
_________________________________________________
.
____________________________________________
rajesh said↑post 463:

Yes, momentum, light speed, energy, wave length and frequency of a photon are mathematically related, beyond that momentum cannot be linked with the effect per say.....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/all-photons-move-at-300-000km-s-but-dont.149931/page-24
_________________________________________

How many people mispell "per se" as "per say"

I am inhibited somewhat with limited IT skills to really look for anymore convincing evidence.
paddoboy​

 

[paddoboy]

Actually, there have been quite a few suggestions to that effect by reputable cosmologists. There's apparently widespread discomfort with dark matter, which seems to be inferred indirectly as kind of a hypothetical fudge-factor in observed large-scale gravitational dynamics without any more direct evidence of its nature or even its existence. One of the more common alternative hypotheses is that the familiar inverse square law for gravity might break down on various scales. There has been quite a bit of work underway addressing this possibility, which suggests that somebody is taking the idea seriously.

Here's a survey article about that research:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwa...h/files/webfiles/publications/pdfs/review.pdf

And here's an article about various reasons to think that maybe we don't understand gravity as well as we think:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0702009.pdf

Certainly none of this questioning is conclusive at this point and none of it may amount to anything. But I don't think that hypothesizing in this manner is necessarily bullshit either. It's how science proceeds. If we look closely at 19th century science, we find many hypotheses in contention, many of which aren't found in textbooks today. But that doesn't mean that those proposals were unimportant or that they didn't play a role. The science in the textbooks today arose out of the intellectual controversies of the time and out of the experiments and obervations with which they attempted to test their competing hypotheses. (Things like the Michelson-Morley experiment that influenced Einstein.)

Your paper is dated 2008:
Are you aware that the claim has been made by two posters, that according to recent scientific discoveries, [or words to that effect] that DM is not needed?
That claim is totally wrong, and is not the view held by mainstream academia in general.
see.......
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in...tists-have-come-up-empty-handed.157224/page-2
The claims by expletive deleted and the god in that thread re DM are completely false.
see.......
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.2483v2.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

or this paper on the history of DM.....
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04909


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.00400.pdf

https://people.roma2.infn.it/~dama/web/down.html

http://people.roma2.infn.it/~belli/belli_IDM2016.pdf


DM of course is best evidenced in the bullet cluster collision and observation...
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

X-ray/Optical Composite of 1E 0657-56
Press Image and Caption
Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and also many examples of gravitational lensing as caused by unseen [DM] matter


And just to add, DM in no way invalidates GR: It is simply contained within, just as Einstein's CC, does not invalidate GR.

 

[Yazata]

1. Is our solar system directly orbiting the GC, or is there any other intermediate Sol/System to which our solar system is orbiting ?

Does 'GC' mean 'galactic center'?

I guess that I'd say that the stars in our galaxy appear to orbit the center of mass of the galaxy. I'm not sure that any object physically occupies that point, the way that the Sun does in our solar system. Maybe there's a single supermassive black hole at that point, or maybe there are several massive black holes and very dense star clusters near the galactic center that orbit their common center of mass.

The pictorial representation of our Galaxy shows that our solar system is orbiting the GC directly, with a galactic year of around 225 million years, and radial distance from GC being around 25000 light years.

My Stand : The question is inconclusive. Its not that I have a proof that mainstream stand is not true and alternative is true.

What alternative? That the stars in the galaxy aren't orbiting or that they are orbiting, but orbiting something other than the center? I don't understand what your thesis is.

 

[paddoboy]

Does 'GC' mean 'galactic center'?

I guess that I'd say that the stars in our galaxy appear to orbit the center of mass of the galaxy. I'm not sure that any object physically occupies that point, the way that the Sun does in our solar system. Maybe there's a single supermassive black hole at that point, or maybe there are several massive black holes and very dense star clusters near the galactic center that orbit their common center of mass.

The observational evidence points to a location at Sgr A most likely to be a SMBH at the galactic center.
This is also obviously the case with most galaxies.

What alternative? That the stars in the galaxy aren't orbiting or that they are orbiting, but orbiting something other than the center? I don't understand what your thesis is.

As he says, he has no evidence of anything else, yet he [1] suggests that the Sun may not be apart of a single stellar system, despite the hundreds of probes like WISE, and SOHO and others that have viewed and photographed and logged and calculated the whole orbital faction of our solar system, then he [2] seems to suggest that the solar system does not orbit the galactic center...while that orbit is obviously perturbed by other stars and the conglomeration of the density clusters of the spiral arms, the overall orbit is again obviously around the galactic center.
This appears to be in the god's case, just a case of "argument/controversy, for argument/controversy sake" nothing more, nothing less.
At least with reference to his "casting doubts" as to how Sun and solar system being part of a single stellar system, is akin to still doubting that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, or that we live in a heliocentric system as opposed to a geocentric system. Quaint but 100% wrong.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

By way of explaining my participation and posts on such matters, I just posted (#61) to you and PhysBang in the thread, invisible-dark-matter-scientists-have-come-up-empty-handed , an explanation of the kind of information and comments and opinions I make on these aspects. Here is the post:

PhysBang:

PhysBang:

paddoboy:

Regarding the matter of DM, I am not presenting a treatise or new theory, merely alluding to new astronomical discoveries regarding enormous quantities of ordinary matter, as I explained. I invite you to read up on the last few years' astronomical reports re gas, dust in various forms and distributions which extend the effective galactic parameters and inhabit the intervening internal and external deep space expanses with many times the previous estimated mass based on older and now obsolete and incomplete 'previous visible' quantification methods. Please also see my post to Q-reeus above re ordinary versus extraordinary DM aspect. Thanks.

Regarding the GR GWs interpretations initially started by Hulse-Taylor Binary interpretations, I also am not presenting a treatise or new theory, merely pointing out that I cannot find anywhere in the literature, then or now, which has taken into account the now known extreme Electro-Magnetic field energies involved in interactions above and beyond the usual balanced gravitational dynamics of binaries. If once these now known extreme Magnetic fields and friction decelerative action is taken into account, it may be that most of the observed energy loss that causes orbital decay as observed may be due to EM radiation from inter-binary magnetic field interaction (just as magnetic interactions on the sun produce EM radiation we can see because we are close enough; but which we may not be close enough to actually see the radiation from Hulse-Taylor system as I described Extreme Magnetic interactions must produce according to known physics of Magnetic energy systems in general, as in heat energy from electric motors etc).

Thankyou for your own future efforts to update yourselves in these areas. Best.

ON EDIT:

I forgot to include discoveries of thousands of previously undetected galaxies where only 70 or so were thought to be. This also increases, by many times, the ordinary matter count in regions where previous estimates based on the then-visible meagre amount of matter were obviously very wrong and so needed the extraordinary DM 'fix' which is now increasingly no longer needed. Best.

I hope this will help avoid further misunderstandings about who is claiming what and who is merely making observations which bring those claims into question due to new information. Thankyou for understanding. Best.