Write me off as you like q-reeus. The last time I looked GR type GW's, stand as confirmed.
If and when that should ever change, then I will most assuredly acknowledge it.
Something that the general troll/s that frequent this forum do not do.
What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
If and when that should ever change, then I will most assuredly acknowledge it.
Something that the general troll/s that frequent this forum do not do.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
paddoboy:
This is a public forum for discussing science. That is what I have been trying to engage with you in. You keep making evasions and unreasonable demands of prior peer review which effectively forestalls any attempts to discuss science here. Do you realize how contradictory and ridiculous it is to use such illogical justification in order to avoid your own engagement in proper scientific discussion here?
And your own crank and troll behavior as observed by many already here makes me more than a little wary of accepting your personal beliefs and opinions, even at face value.
There you go again, if it's not "god botherers" it's "spaghetti monsters" being invoked by you in order to avoid proper scientific discussion responsibilities.
And I just presented known science Magnetic Field physics associated with NSs and more extreme bodies such as Magnetars and Black Holes. It is that physics which makes all the running against claims and assumptions based on Hulse-Taylor interpretations of GW instead of EM causes as I explained via the physics of magnetism as applied to NS binaries interaction and orbital decays observed.
Paddoboy, you are the one making ambit claims that all the stuff you keep "bombing" is correct. I just posted physics which brings that correctness into question. Have you any scientific counter argument to put to the Magnetic aspects I pointed out? If not, please don't keep "bombing" your links to "authority" which involve papers and assumptions based on possibly questionable early assumptions and interpretations which failed to take the extreme magnetic fields interplay into account as the main cause of energy loss and orbital decay, as observed. Thanks.
This is a public forum for discussing science. That is what I have been trying to engage with you in. You keep making evasions and unreasonable demands of prior peer review which effectively forestalls any attempts to discuss science here. Do you realize how contradictory and ridiculous it is to use such illogical justification in order to avoid your own engagement in proper scientific discussion here?
Experience with trolls and cranks on science forums.
And your own crank and troll behavior as observed by many already here makes me more than a little wary of accepting your personal beliefs and opinions, even at face value.
There you go again, if it's not "god botherers" it's "spaghetti monsters" being invoked by you in order to avoid proper scientific discussion responsibilities.
And I just presented known science Magnetic Field physics associated with NSs and more extreme bodies such as Magnetars and Black Holes. It is that physics which makes all the running against claims and assumptions based on Hulse-Taylor interpretations of GW instead of EM causes as I explained via the physics of magnetism as applied to NS binaries interaction and orbital decays observed.
Paddoboy, you are the one making ambit claims that all the stuff you keep "bombing" is correct. I just posted physics which brings that correctness into question. Have you any scientific counter argument to put to the Magnetic aspects I pointed out? If not, please don't keep "bombing" your links to "authority" which involve papers and assumptions based on possibly questionable early assumptions and interpretations which failed to take the extreme magnetic fields interplay into account as the main cause of energy loss and orbital decay, as observed. Thanks.
No, I make no claims at all. The onus is on you to show mainstream is wrong, and you have not done that. ...you are the one claiming certainty in your imagined scenario, nothing more, nothing less....and you are totally wrong.
Rubbish. Extreme magnetic fields have been known to be a part of Pulsars for many decades, plus of course the last paper I linked to was in 2014:'this one......
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.2164.pdf
And remember my friend, they received the Nobel prize for their efforts.
Last edited:
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
Q-reeus:
Thank you for your post, Q-reeus.
I have to point out that later studies have found that the energy levels involved in the Magnetic Field of Neutron Stars and Magnetars and Black Holes are enormous; and more active than theorized when the 'fitting' of the energy loss calculations/estimations to "GWs" were made and carried on uncritically into subsequent literature and assumptions. The actual EM energy radiated would be huge in such binary interactions between their respective extreme Magnetic fields as they get closer and closer. The Magnetic fields associated with their respective spins and their collective mutual orbital rotational dynamics would produce EM radiation (system energy) losses of many orders of magnitude greater than any GWs could given balanced nature of orbital motion as such. The reason such radiation and its true levels wasn't at first detectable/quantifiable is due to the early observations lacking the telescope technology to do so. Since then we have infra red and other wavelength scopes which may be useful in finally detecting and quantifying the WHOLE spectrum of EM radiations from nearby Binary NS and Magnetar and Black hole binaries.
All the earlier claims and papers were based on incomplete and unfounded dismissal of the actual possible energy levels from EM interactions and radiation loss to such systems. So I for one will not accept anything less than a full and proper research into the actual EM-versus-GW energy loss claims, using the new telescopes on the way which may settle the matter one way or the other scientifically and not just by 'fitting calculations' to a model that may have incorrectly interpreted the observed dynamics and its radiation energy loss characteristics in fact.
I wish you good luck in your own investigations and discussions, Q-reeus. I trust that the scientifically tenable settling of the Magnetic Field contribution question (one way or the other) will prove useful for all such discussions as these you have started. Thankyou for allowing me to post relevant questions and matter in your thread as indicated necessary from my own wish to clarify and understand better. Best, expletives deleted.
Thank you for your post, Q-reeus.
I have to point out that later studies have found that the energy levels involved in the Magnetic Field of Neutron Stars and Magnetars and Black Holes are enormous; and more active than theorized when the 'fitting' of the energy loss calculations/estimations to "GWs" were made and carried on uncritically into subsequent literature and assumptions. The actual EM energy radiated would be huge in such binary interactions between their respective extreme Magnetic fields as they get closer and closer. The Magnetic fields associated with their respective spins and their collective mutual orbital rotational dynamics would produce EM radiation (system energy) losses of many orders of magnitude greater than any GWs could given balanced nature of orbital motion as such. The reason such radiation and its true levels wasn't at first detectable/quantifiable is due to the early observations lacking the telescope technology to do so. Since then we have infra red and other wavelength scopes which may be useful in finally detecting and quantifying the WHOLE spectrum of EM radiations from nearby Binary NS and Magnetar and Black hole binaries.
All the earlier claims and papers were based on incomplete and unfounded dismissal of the actual possible energy levels from EM interactions and radiation loss to such systems. So I for one will not accept anything less than a full and proper research into the actual EM-versus-GW energy loss claims, using the new telescopes on the way which may settle the matter one way or the other scientifically and not just by 'fitting calculations' to a model that may have incorrectly interpreted the observed dynamics and its radiation energy loss characteristics in fact.
I wish you good luck in your own investigations and discussions, Q-reeus. I trust that the scientifically tenable settling of the Magnetic Field contribution question (one way or the other) will prove useful for all such discussions as these you have started. Thankyou for allowing me to post relevant questions and matter in your thread as indicated necessary from my own wish to clarify and understand better. Best, expletives deleted.
Thats good....really good one from you.
But the point is energy exodus and subsequent orbital decay !
How can you be so sure that orbital decay is 'exclusively' on account of GW radiation only, without refuting the viable alternative..
Reference? please!
Reference again?
My last paper was from 2014!
Not good for you or expletive deleted though.
Who said it was exclusively on account of GW? hmmmm.
But as with aLIGO and GP-B all contingencies were calculated and allowed for.
Who said it was exclusively on account of GW? hmmmm.
But as with aLIGO and GP-B all contingencies were calculated and allowed for.
Ref please !
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
paddoboy:
(and to Q-reeus: Please see PS to you at foot of this post. Thanks)
The paper you referenced (not your paper) merely rehashed the story of the early controversy and history of how we got to the current status quo re the Hulse-Taylor etc GW claims etc. It did not address the enormous Magnetic Field factors which I pointed to as possible explanation for energy loss and orbital decay rate and process. All its discussion was of the quadrupole GW possibility etc or not.
Anyhow, I see you now acknowledge that Neutron Stars (and other extreme bodies) do have enormously strong Magnetic fields/energy extending into the space surrounding them. And just as these same magnetic fields are responsible for the huge energy output from their poles (which we see as the pulsar 'signal'), the same overall magnetic fields interplay between two NSs (or magnetars or black holes or any binary combination of same) must produce enormous EM radiation into their own (and their common) spherical space surrounds.
You have still to show where any such extreme magnetic field interactions and radiation losses were considered when interpreting the Hulse-Taylor and subsequent orbital decays as associated with GW radiation and not EM radiation which could have accounted for the very subtle orbital period changes as observed.
So paddoboy, now you have acknowledged the extreme magnetic fields involved, I leave you with this assignment:
Research properly and point to where any serious and exhaustive consideration was given to the explanation possibility of Extreme Magnetic field interactions, and consequent EM radiation energy loss, as an explanation of observed minute changes in orbital dynamics and the decay rates of orbital period observed in such systems.
If you think you have found something worth discussing, please start a new thread accordingly so we don't have to keep imposing on Q-reeus's thread. Thanks, paddoboy.
PS @ Q-reeus: Please forgive this last post tying up some loose ends with paddoboy. Good luck with your thread and OP discussion.
(and to Q-reeus: Please see PS to you at foot of this post. Thanks)
The paper you referenced (not your paper) merely rehashed the story of the early controversy and history of how we got to the current status quo re the Hulse-Taylor etc GW claims etc. It did not address the enormous Magnetic Field factors which I pointed to as possible explanation for energy loss and orbital decay rate and process. All its discussion was of the quadrupole GW possibility etc or not.
Anyhow, I see you now acknowledge that Neutron Stars (and other extreme bodies) do have enormously strong Magnetic fields/energy extending into the space surrounding them. And just as these same magnetic fields are responsible for the huge energy output from their poles (which we see as the pulsar 'signal'), the same overall magnetic fields interplay between two NSs (or magnetars or black holes or any binary combination of same) must produce enormous EM radiation into their own (and their common) spherical space surrounds.
You have still to show where any such extreme magnetic field interactions and radiation losses were considered when interpreting the Hulse-Taylor and subsequent orbital decays as associated with GW radiation and not EM radiation which could have accounted for the very subtle orbital period changes as observed.
So paddoboy, now you have acknowledged the extreme magnetic fields involved, I leave you with this assignment:
Research properly and point to where any serious and exhaustive consideration was given to the explanation possibility of Extreme Magnetic field interactions, and consequent EM radiation energy loss, as an explanation of observed minute changes in orbital dynamics and the decay rates of orbital period observed in such systems.
If you think you have found something worth discussing, please start a new thread accordingly so we don't have to keep imposing on Q-reeus's thread. Thanks, paddoboy.
PS @ Q-reeus: Please forgive this last post tying up some loose ends with paddoboy. Good luck with your thread and OP discussion.
Last edited:
Plenty of references already given, many times, you know that, but it does not gel with your preconceived agenda.
You have not given any references, how the loss of orbit of binary NSs can only be attributed to GW radiation not to any other reason as taken up by Expletive Deleted...
Not addressed because it was not needed to be addressed.
The confirmation stands. You are correct though, not my paper! darn!!!
Common knowledge my dear friend, common knowledge.
It certainly does not invalidate GW's though. Keep trying though.
Pay attention! I need to show nothing. These are scientific experiments by expert professionals, and as I said, just as in the aLIGO experiment, all contingencies would have been allowed for. Afterall they are not amateurs like you and me.
No assignment necessary, the result is in and passed peer review and resulted in a Nobel prize for Hulse and Taylor. Secondly I really don't believe you are in anyway concerned about q-ueerus who has rebuked you anyway. You are only interested in your own agenda.
Your pathetic shenanigans fool no one my friend. The result stands.
You are confused again...or you are deliberately being obtuse.
No one has ever claimed the effects are due entirely to anyone effect.
But GW's surely as evidenced and as referenced, do play a part.
Moderator note: Following numerous complaints, off-topic posts from the following thread have been split to the current thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/simple-geometric-proof-grs-gws-are-impossible.157012/
A number of tangential matters have been raised, such as:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/simple-geometric-proof-grs-gws-are-impossible.157012/
A number of tangential matters have been raised, such as:
- existing evidence in support of the general theory of relativity.
- whether it is possible to disprove an accepted theory like GR on a science forum such as this, or to prove an alternative theory.
- matters to do with black holes and other topics unrelated to gravitational waves.
- personal arguments about whether people are or are not addressing the topic, whether or not they are qualified to do etc.
- the necessity or otherwise for peer review of claims made on forums such as this one
You are changing your position.....
H-T observation and analysis establishes that orbital decay matches exactly with the GW predictions, pl refere where in the calculations magnetic field which is massive for NSs, is taken care off...If you can do that then your position that everything has been taken care of will be thumpingly established, otherwise you are just shooting in the dark...
Not at all. You are obviously still confused due to your long holiday.
Again I don't need to show anything. Obviously the magnetic component was taken into account but the gravitational wave was of prime concern.
You can try until the cows come home my friend, but you as an amateur, will never invalidate something as concrete as GR or BH's despite your dreams of 2025.
This is a science forum, established for all that wish to take part.
Don't believe all you read on a science forum, unless it is a direct quote from reputable mainstream source.
I mean according to this forum so far over the last few weeks, we have [1] Adamant claims that Aliens have visited Earth and appeared to many, [2]adamant claims that we never went to the Moon, [3]adamant claims that aLIGO and GP-B are fraudulent, [4] adamant claims that the Pulse Taylor binary system was not thorough in its claim of GW's, [5] adamant claims that GR is wrong, [6] adamant claims that Einstein was wrong, [7]adamant claims that [wait for it] science forums such as this are a true representation of scientific academia, [8] adamant claims that some who have made some of the preceding claims are, [again wait for it
] scientists.Yep, we can believe all that and as well that I'm the fairy God Mother!
Still though, if the admins prefer content over quality, then great!
paddoboy:
You may consider his ideas wrong, but that is just your belief unless you can back it up with some kind of argument showing where Q-reeus is in error. Otherwise, you're just making a faith-based statement.
Equally, though, it is up to Q-reeus to convince people that his ideas are correct. He won't change minds if he refuses to back up his claims with evidence or argument.
In the relevant thread, several posters have questioned certain assumptions that Q-reeus has made. That discussion is ongoing and valid.
What is not valid is your trying to swamp all discussion of Q-reeus's actual points with what is effectively off-topic spam regarding irrelevancies. For example, the thread is specifically about gravitational waves. Thus, theories concerning black holes, for example, are off-topic. We know that the LIGO data looks to be consistent with certain predictions made using GR, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that some other theory might explain the data equally well or better. LIGO does not prove GR. And nobody here has yet put an argument that LIGO disproves Q-reeus's ideas.
Science is about questioning established ideas and theories. It is not a monolithic enterprise in which certain theories become unquestionable and sacred. Ideas stand or fall on their merits, even ideas with a long history and a lot of supporting evidence in their favour.
Science is not argument from authority.
Also, if a refutation was readily available, I imagine you would have found it by now.
An idea is not automatically wrong just because it is not (yet) peer reviewed, either.
I have no doubt that the theorists and experimentalists associated with LIGO are careful and professional people. But that, in itself, does not mean that GR must be right and all alternative theories wrong. If, in fact, it turns out that something in the LIGO results contradicts Q-reeus's ideas, then those ideas will be wrong (presumably). If you are aware of anything specific in that regard, by all means post it.
Q-reeus provided some support for his claim.
You may consider his ideas wrong, but that is just your belief unless you can back it up with some kind of argument showing where Q-reeus is in error. Otherwise, you're just making a faith-based statement.
Equally, though, it is up to Q-reeus to convince people that his ideas are correct. He won't change minds if he refuses to back up his claims with evidence or argument.
In the relevant thread, several posters have questioned certain assumptions that Q-reeus has made. That discussion is ongoing and valid.
What is not valid is your trying to swamp all discussion of Q-reeus's actual points with what is effectively off-topic spam regarding irrelevancies. For example, the thread is specifically about gravitational waves. Thus, theories concerning black holes, for example, are off-topic. We know that the LIGO data looks to be consistent with certain predictions made using GR, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that some other theory might explain the data equally well or better. LIGO does not prove GR. And nobody here has yet put an argument that LIGO disproves Q-reeus's ideas.
Science is about questioning established ideas and theories. It is not a monolithic enterprise in which certain theories become unquestionable and sacred. Ideas stand or fall on their merits, even ideas with a long history and a lot of supporting evidence in their favour.
Science is not argument from authority.
I haven't investigated whether the specific ideas referred to have been peer reviewed. Have you?
Also, if a refutation was readily available, I imagine you would have found it by now.
An idea is not automatically wrong just because it is not (yet) peer reviewed, either.
Was Q-reeus's particular idea considered as a contingency, to your knowledge?
I have no doubt that the theorists and experimentalists associated with LIGO are careful and professional people. But that, in itself, does not mean that GR must be right and all alternative theories wrong. If, in fact, it turns out that something in the LIGO results contradicts Q-reeus's ideas, then those ideas will be wrong (presumably). If you are aware of anything specific in that regard, by all means post it.
I am not the owner of this forum. I am merely an (unpaid) administrator.
We have clear guidelines about the posting of PMs on public forums. If you believe this rule has been breached, please report the relevant post and we will deal with the matter.
My strong suspicion is that Q-reeus is wrong and GR is not invalidated. But I have not investigated the details of his objection, so I am in no position to form a final judgment on that matter. All I have is a gut feeling, essentially, and I suspect that's all you have too. If that's all you have, then you should probably consider backing out of the discussion, unless you have the time and inclination and ability to progress matters.Pointing out?
You will notice that PhysBang and Schmelzer are directly addressing certain aspects of Q-reeus's argument, and their posts remain in the original thread. There are obvious disagreements there. At present, I am in no position to say who is right and who is wrong. And, from the point of view of moderation, it doesn't actually matter. It's a valid discussion of a scientific point, either way.
I think you'll probably find that there are many physicists who are exploring the interactions between various "alternative" or modified theories and the LIGO results. This is what scientists do. Of course, it is a plus for GR that LIGO seems to support it. But that doesn't mean all alternative theories are suddenly null and void.
While it is unlikely that any "amateur" will invalidate GR or BHs or whatever, it is not impossible.You can try until the cows come home my friend, but you as an amateur, will never invalidate something as concrete as GR or BH's despite your dreams of 2025.
And don't believe everything you read in reputable mainstream sources, either!
Claims are one thing. Evidence and argument in support is another.I mean according to this forum so far over the last few weeks, we have [1] Adamant claims that Aliens have visited Earth and appeared to many, [2]adamant claims that we never went to the Moon, [3]adamant claims that aLIGO and GP-B are fraudulent, [4] adamant claims that the Pulse Taylor binary system was not thorough in its claim of GW's, [5] adamant claims that GR is wrong, [6] adamant claims that Einstein was wrong, [7]adamant claims that [wait for it] science forums such as this are a true representation of scientific academia, [8] adamant claims that some who have made some of the preceding claims are, [again wait for it
Adamant claims that the "mainstream" must always be right fall into the same category as the other adamant claims you've mentioned.
Thread titles like "Proof that Gravitational waves don't exist" or "Einstein was wrong!" or whatever are deliberately provocative and mostly wrong. However, claims must be examined on their merits, not prejudged. Most of the time we find here that such extravagant claims are baseless. Some are harder to dismiss than others. Some might even be correct.
And so what? If they are known for often being in error, that might make it less likely that (a) they are taken seriously and (b) they are correct this time. But it doesn't automatically mean that everything they post is wrong. You're known for your pro-GR stance. So does that mean that you are always right, or that GR is necessarily right? No. Ideas ultimately stand or fall on their own merits, not on the reputation of the person putting them forward. Plenty of people have been ridiculed at first and later shown to be right. And plenty of established "experts" have been shown to be wrong.
Yes. You cannot validly conclude that any claim that GR is wrong is false, simply on the basis that the claim is posted on science forum, or posted by an "amateur". Ideas stand or fall on their merits, not by who posted them or where they were published.
If you've watched those discussions in my case, you will notice that I start with an open mind and closely question the claims being made. If it becomes apparent that there are flaws in the evidence, the arguments being made, the underlying assumptions, etc. then it is fair to conclude that the case being put is not very convincing. But not before.
Will you not entertain ideas until they have gone through a complete process of peer review and been rubber stamped by some "authority"? That's a very high bar you're setting there.
I am quite happy for Q-reeus, or anybody else, to attempt to make their case here, for starters. If they turn out to be wrong here, there's no need to submit it for peer review and the like.
Arrogance and misplaced self-confidence is never a good look. However, ideas ultimately stand or fall on their merits, as I keep saying.
If you were of the opinion that you had invalidated GR and/or Einstein, would you be here? [you don't need to answer that.
Perhaps as the admin you need to take the time and review the posts of mine you see as spam, and then review as to what and who they were answering.
What I see with the rest of your statement is an effort to bend over backwards to placate those that doubt the results, and then research how many other accepted scientific theories they also doubt.
And please in your research, please check out any use of the word "proof or prove" in any statement of mine. You may find it in the trolls and cranks posts but not mine.
In saying that, I now believe for expediency, you are under estimating the aLIGO results for whatever reason, but like I said, its your forum.
Are you saying the aLIGO results are not peer reviewed?
Please refer to any statement where I have ever said that any theory is unquestionable.
And while you are at it, please refer to anywhere where I have said anything other than, that science forums are open to all, and this one more than most.
We have trolls, we have cranks and religious god botherers, that try and install their god of the gaps whenever they see fit.
Do you? Perhaps the fact of the matter is that the thousands at aLIGO and associated science experiments are just unconcerned or unaware of such claims, or perhaps it simply is totally fabricated nonsense.
Can you show me where I have ever inferred this? What I do declare is the fact that anyone with an ounce of reasonability and logic, can expect any ground breaking, accepted scientific theory destroying, on forums such as this....impossible? no of course not...always a non zero chance, although far closer to zero than one.
I/m not the professional. There are many many papers supporting and listing all those contingencies. I suggest since you seem to believe that I'm giving the deniers of aLIGO results a hard time, you spend the time researching those many papers.
I'm waiting for publication and pee review of his ideas if it ever gets that far.
And if it doesn't get that far that is, where does q-reeus's claims lie then James?
So revealing E-Mail content from mods and admins is OK? Good stuff! I have a few also. [the relevant posts are obvious and already pointed out.Perhaps you just aint interested.
I'll stick to whether q-reeus's claims ever see the light of day beyond this forum. I doubt it ever will. In that respect, it will essentially remain as so much nonsense.
Last edited:
If it was so obvious, you would have given the link or copy pasted....
You are claiming that magnetic aspects were taken care of, what stops you from establishing your claim ?