This is a bit of an open letter to all the anti-cranks on this forum. For all the cranks (or if you like, independent researchers, whatever you want to call yourselves you know who I'm referring to) please leave this one thread alone. To everyone else, just ignore them if they post here so we can have a discussion.
Right, so here is my question. Why do we bother with this forum? There isn't a single thread that discusses anything meaningful and I note that we've gotten to the stage of calling each other 'retarded'. Surely this is a sign the discussion isn't going anywhere useful any time soon. There are some really good physics forums out there where really good interesting discussions go on all the time. Why then do we bother shadow boxing here?
I'm only a very occasional poster, and I can't even work out for myself why I bother coming back. Probably just a bit of procrastination now and again I guess. But when I step back and think about it, I'm not doing myself, or the cranks any favors by posting here. Any well thought response or post is quickly lost in a flood of ignorance so it's a waste of time putting any thought into a post. Hence why many of the anti-cranks have given up and resorted to calling people 'retarded'. It's easier than pointing out what their thoroughly closed minds have refused to consider time and time again.
But for the cranks themselves, what do they get from these forums? Even if they did convince someone that their theory is good on these forums, what would it ever do? It's really sad to see someone make literally thousands of meaningless posts pushing some crazy concept that they lack the ability to actually do anything useful with. Think about it, if it wasn't for the anti-cranks baiting them, they would have no reason to post.
If you look at every thread here there is actually zero discussion of ideas. It's entirely crank vs anti-crank at the level of whether the way they choose to explain an idea makes any sense, let alone the idea. If you look around you will not find people actually discussing and trying to improve on an idea or the explanation of it. Much of this is the nature of cranks and their theories, i.e. 'I've solved the ultimate theory of everything, it's so perfect it can't be improved'. Cranks simply can't discuss their ideas with other cranks since there is not substance there to discuss. Therefore if the anti-crank baiting was removed, the cranks would have nothing left to say!
There are other types of cranks, those that don't have a theory per se, but feel they have uncovered some enormous flaw in some existing theory. Again, if left on their own, they would have nothing to say or discuss as it's clear from the posts here that those type of cranks have no idea about the theories they are 'de-bunking'. Again, if left alone they would have nothing to discuss with other cranks, since their whole idea comes down to a one line statement displaying their complete lack of comprehension of the ideas they attack. They can't discuss any interesting details of their idea, since there are no details.
So you see, cranks actually need the anti-cranks around to keep them going. You can't be a marginalized, oppressed. misunderstood genius if there is no one around to marginalize, oppress and misunderstand you.
Therefore what I propose is this. Since this entire forum is unmoderated and as suggested by some, perhaps a large social experiment, what I propose is that we conduct our own experiment. I call on all the anti-cranks, and you know who you are, to cease posting on this forum entirely (not physorg entirely, just the 'new theories' section). I'll be doing this, only posting in this thread in discussion with other non-cranks about my plan. If we all have enough control to ignore them for a while it would be really interesting to see what happens to the forum. It would take a lot of self-control to ignore so much nonsense, but lets give it a go and see if we can't do some science on this forum.
So who's with me?
Dear Forum members,
In support of this thread I offer the following.
I have noted that the person Pupamancur has not provided any attempt to prove that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity requires of necessity that a singularity must occur and that it must occur where the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant is unbounded. I remark that the concepts of black hole and expansion of the Universe with big bang are firmly based upon the assumption of the validity of the foregoing condition. However, it is easy to prove that the assumption is completely false. Consequently, black holes, expansion of the Universe and big bangs are inconsistent with General Relativity. Indeed, General Relativity actually precludes them. Consequently, I shall ignore all remarks made by the person Pupamancur (and all persons of demonstrated similar disposition) for his failure to address any scientific matters in a scientific fashion. I for one have no time or desire to trade insults with persons who are hell bent on disruption for no other reason than it gives them some childish satisfaction. If this is indeed a science forum there is no room for childish abuse. The moderators of this site are remiss in not weeding out such offenders.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that black holes are predicted by General Relativity as claimed by the mainstream scientific community. Then it is plain that the black hole arises from an alleged solution to Einstein's field equations for a SINGLE gravitating body interacting with a single TEST particle. The test partlce has no mass or energy. Thus, the alleged black hole solution is not a solution for the interaction of two or more comparable masses. Before one can even talk of black hole interactions, such as black hole binaries, black hole collisions, or black hole mergers, one must first prove that Einstein's field equations permit of solutions for multi-body configurations of comparable masses. This can be done in two ways:
a) deduce an exact solution for multi-body comparable masses;
prove an existence theorem.
Now there are no known exact solutions to the field equations for multi-body configurations of comparable masses, so option a) has NEVER been met. Nobody has ever proved an existence theorem by which the field equations contain latent solutions for multi-body configurations, so option has NEVER been met. Furthermore, one cannot merely assert by an analogy with Newton's theory that black holes can collide, merge, or be components of a binary system. Therefore, all talk of black hole binaries, collisions and mergers is twaddle. But that has not stopped the mainstream astrophysicists and astronomers from claiming black hole binaries, mergers or collisions, from building instruments to detect them (at great expense to the public purse), or even from "seeing" them on an almost daily basis. The fact is, nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere, although all and sundry are misled to the contrary.
However, the issue is moot, since General Relativity does not predict black holes, and the Michelle-Laplace dark body of Newton's theory is not a black hole.
Here is another issue. According to Special Relativity, infinite density is forbidden because that would require infinite energy (or alternatively, that a ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum). However, point masses, such as a black hole singularity, have infinite density. So the orthodox relativists would have us all believe that on the one hand, infinite densities are forbidden by Special Relativity, yet on the other hand are allowed by General Relativity. The fact is that General Relativity also forbids infinite densities. The truth is that a point-mass is not a physical object, it is a centre of mass, which is a mathematical artifice. Einstein quite rightly always objected to the notion of singularity in the gravitational field.
Another relativist fallacy for forum consideration is this. Einstein's statement of the conservation of energy in his gravitational field involves his so-called pseudo-tensor. This pseudo-tensor is used by the mainstream relativists for all sorts of claims. However, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is mathematical gibberish because it implies the existence of a 1st order, intrinsic, differential invariant which depends upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. Well and good, but for this minor problem: the pure mathematicians Ricci and Levi-Civita proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist, as a matter of pure mathematics. Thus, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is entirley inadmissible and all arguments which utilise it are nonsense. Eddington was aware of the inadmissible consequences of the pseudo-tensor, but was unaware of the fundamental mathematical reason as to why, as can be verified by reading A. Eddington's famous book of 1923.
Any mainstream relativist on this site is invited to prove, before this forum, their as yet unproved assumption about the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant and that the Einstein pseudo-tensor is admissible, but they must do so with mathematical rigour, from first principles, not by ad hoc hypotheses or regurgitation of the mainstream fallacies. Mathematical physics requires rigourous proof. I await the attempts at proof. How the mainstream relativists handle the required proofs will be interesting, bearing in mind that they will be attempting to prove things that have already been rigorously proved false.
In support of this thread I offer the following.
I have noted that the person Pupamancur has not provided any attempt to prove that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity requires of necessity that a singularity must occur and that it must occur where the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant is unbounded. I remark that the concepts of black hole and expansion of the Universe with big bang are firmly based upon the assumption of the validity of the foregoing condition. However, it is easy to prove that the assumption is completely false. Consequently, black holes, expansion of the Universe and big bangs are inconsistent with General Relativity. Indeed, General Relativity actually precludes them. Consequently, I shall ignore all remarks made by the person Pupamancur (and all persons of demonstrated similar disposition) for his failure to address any scientific matters in a scientific fashion. I for one have no time or desire to trade insults with persons who are hell bent on disruption for no other reason than it gives them some childish satisfaction. If this is indeed a science forum there is no room for childish abuse. The moderators of this site are remiss in not weeding out such offenders.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that black holes are predicted by General Relativity as claimed by the mainstream scientific community. Then it is plain that the black hole arises from an alleged solution to Einstein's field equations for a SINGLE gravitating body interacting with a single TEST particle. The test partlce has no mass or energy. Thus, the alleged black hole solution is not a solution for the interaction of two or more comparable masses. Before one can even talk of black hole interactions, such as black hole binaries, black hole collisions, or black hole mergers, one must first prove that Einstein's field equations permit of solutions for multi-body configurations of comparable masses. This can be done in two ways:
a) deduce an exact solution for multi-body comparable masses;
prove an existence theorem.Now there are no known exact solutions to the field equations for multi-body configurations of comparable masses, so option a) has NEVER been met. Nobody has ever proved an existence theorem by which the field equations contain latent solutions for multi-body configurations, so option
has NEVER been met. Furthermore, one cannot merely assert by an analogy with Newton's theory that black holes can collide, merge, or be components of a binary system. Therefore, all talk of black hole binaries, collisions and mergers is twaddle. But that has not stopped the mainstream astrophysicists and astronomers from claiming black hole binaries, mergers or collisions, from building instruments to detect them (at great expense to the public purse), or even from "seeing" them on an almost daily basis. The fact is, nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere, although all and sundry are misled to the contrary.However, the issue is moot, since General Relativity does not predict black holes, and the Michelle-Laplace dark body of Newton's theory is not a black hole.
Here is another issue. According to Special Relativity, infinite density is forbidden because that would require infinite energy (or alternatively, that a ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum). However, point masses, such as a black hole singularity, have infinite density. So the orthodox relativists would have us all believe that on the one hand, infinite densities are forbidden by Special Relativity, yet on the other hand are allowed by General Relativity. The fact is that General Relativity also forbids infinite densities. The truth is that a point-mass is not a physical object, it is a centre of mass, which is a mathematical artifice. Einstein quite rightly always objected to the notion of singularity in the gravitational field.
Another relativist fallacy for forum consideration is this. Einstein's statement of the conservation of energy in his gravitational field involves his so-called pseudo-tensor. This pseudo-tensor is used by the mainstream relativists for all sorts of claims. However, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is mathematical gibberish because it implies the existence of a 1st order, intrinsic, differential invariant which depends upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. Well and good, but for this minor problem: the pure mathematicians Ricci and Levi-Civita proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist, as a matter of pure mathematics. Thus, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is entirley inadmissible and all arguments which utilise it are nonsense. Eddington was aware of the inadmissible consequences of the pseudo-tensor, but was unaware of the fundamental mathematical reason as to why, as can be verified by reading A. Eddington's famous book of 1923.
Any mainstream relativist on this site is invited to prove, before this forum, their as yet unproved assumption about the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant and that the Einstein pseudo-tensor is admissible, but they must do so with mathematical rigour, from first principles, not by ad hoc hypotheses or regurgitation of the mainstream fallacies. Mathematical physics requires rigourous proof. I await the attempts at proof. How the mainstream relativists handle the required proofs will be interesting, bearing in mind that they will be attempting to prove things that have already been rigorously proved false.
Interesting experiment. I pity those poor fools who try to get their physics homework done for free.
Unfortunately, as well as the crackpots there are enough idiots with no scientific knowledge to keep them going.
What would be handy is a filter to cut out a given list of members. This would also need a "I'm currently crank baiting" flag to also filter out the responses. Their may not be much left, but there may actually be some science.
Unfortunately, as well as the crackpots there are enough idiots with no scientific knowledge to keep them going.
What would be handy is a filter to cut out a given list of members. This would also need a "I'm currently crank baiting" flag to also filter out the responses. Their may not be much left, but there may actually be some science.
QUOTE (N O M+Dec 20 2006, 01:24 AM)
Their may not be much left, but there may actually be some science.
I think in this place there will be nothing left. But perhaps if the crank vs anti-crank wars cease, some will be allowed to blossom.
I think in this place there will be nothing left. But perhaps if the crank vs anti-crank wars cease, some will be allowed to blossom.
QUOTE (Wallace+Dec 20 2006, 04:11 AM)
...I call on all the anti-cranks, and you know who you are, to cease posting on this forum entirely...
This is not necessary at all, as the anti-cranks are in defensive stance already here. In fact, during last time their activity is just limited to the writing of negative comments to the members feedback (where they're relatively safe) and babbling on socially motivated clubs like this one.
It's surprising, how the mutual politeness and respect (albeit quite formal) is able to save a number of crashing marriages. So if you believe, somebody's idiot, it's your full right to think about it - but please, don't say it here. Just stop the demagogy and personal insults, and it will be enough for fluent life of this forum for the future. If nothing else, then because of the personally motivated attacks are simply off-topic here. I'm interested about causality of logic, not personal motivated discussions here.
So my another personal advice can sound: be so brief and matter of fact, as possible, here's no social club. The many problems are simply result of simple rule violation: if you don't understand something, please don't explain it here. Maybe you can't believe it, but it's incredibly easy to notify/determine, whether/how somebody understands the subject, which is talking about.
This is not necessary at all, as the anti-cranks are in defensive stance already here. In fact, during last time their activity is just limited to the writing of negative comments to the members feedback (where they're relatively safe) and babbling on socially motivated clubs like this one.
It's surprising, how the mutual politeness and respect (albeit quite formal) is able to save a number of crashing marriages. So if you believe, somebody's idiot, it's your full right to think about it - but please, don't say it here. Just stop the demagogy and personal insults, and it will be enough for fluent life of this forum for the future. If nothing else, then because of the personally motivated attacks are simply off-topic here. I'm interested about causality of logic, not personal motivated discussions here.
So my another personal advice can sound: be so brief and matter of fact, as possible, here's no social club. The many problems are simply result of simple rule violation: if you don't understand something, please don't explain it here. Maybe you can't believe it, but it's incredibly easy to notify/determine, whether/how somebody understands the subject, which is talking about.
QUOTE (Wallace+Dec 20 2006, 01:11 AM)
Therefore what I propose is this. Since this entire forum is unmoderated and as suggested by some, perhaps a large social experiment, what I propose is that we conduct our own experiment. I call on all the anti-cranks, and you know who you are, to cease posting on this forum entirely (not physorg entirely, just the 'new theories' section). I'll be doing this, only posting in this thread in discussion with other non-cranks about my plan.
Who are you to say who can and cant post about their theories? Im sure alot of people were called " cranks " back in the days when they would get killed for saying the world was round and not flat. Its people like you that hold science back. Its sad that in all the years of man kind that this still goes on today.
People cant just stick with certin " clicks " their whole life and just agree to what ever is being said just to " fit " in with that click.
I like the science experiment they did with the 6 or 7 guys 6 were actors one was a real person, had pictures of different lines, one line to the left and 3 others to the right, they had to choose which line to the right that matched the one to the left, they let all the actors choose 1st then the real guy last. All the actors picked wrong answers, low and behold the real guy, picked the same answers they would give. Knowing they was wrong, but didnt want to feel stupid i guess.
So i say to you, if you cant handle people who pick apart your theories or ideas then maybe you should just stop posting all together. because its better to have somebody to question your thoughts then to just agree and then confuse even more people and like i said before, hold science back even more then it is now.
Just my 2 cents =)
Who are you to say who can and cant post about their theories? Im sure alot of people were called " cranks " back in the days when they would get killed for saying the world was round and not flat. Its people like you that hold science back. Its sad that in all the years of man kind that this still goes on today.
People cant just stick with certin " clicks " their whole life and just agree to what ever is being said just to " fit " in with that click.
I like the science experiment they did with the 6 or 7 guys 6 were actors one was a real person, had pictures of different lines, one line to the left and 3 others to the right, they had to choose which line to the right that matched the one to the left, they let all the actors choose 1st then the real guy last. All the actors picked wrong answers, low and behold the real guy, picked the same answers they would give. Knowing they was wrong, but didnt want to feel stupid i guess.
So i say to you, if you cant handle people who pick apart your theories or ideas then maybe you should just stop posting all together. because its better to have somebody to question your thoughts then to just agree and then confuse even more people and like i said before, hold science back even more then it is now.
Just my 2 cents =)
QUOTE
Wallace Posted: Today at 1:11 AM
This is a bit of an open letter to all the anti-cranks on this forum. For all the cranks (or if you like---
This is a bit of an open letter to all the anti-cranks on this forum. For all the cranks (or if you like---
A simple and relatively effective method of dealing with the problem is for the site to provide a personal filter set by personal preferences, that removes posters and references to posters, that you deselected. Leif clicking, or something on poster adds that poster to a blocked list that you control. DTF
You only have words to throw at me. I have principle to throw at you.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL ZEPH --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL ZEPH --
Wallace,
That's a great question, which I too ask myself every day. Maybe we all just have OCD; we can't stand to see nonsense all over the forum potentially persuading innocent people that mainstream physics is entirely wrong. Or maybe it's some other reason, who knows. But I completely agree with you that this forum has turned into a complete mess. I remember when actual scientific discussions took place and you could read them without wanting to smash your head against the wall. I think your idea's great. Personally, I think that if only the cranks are left to post they will start fighting with each other.
Well, I'm willing to give it a try.
That's a great question, which I too ask myself every day. Maybe we all just have OCD; we can't stand to see nonsense all over the forum potentially persuading innocent people that mainstream physics is entirely wrong. Or maybe it's some other reason, who knows. But I completely agree with you that this forum has turned into a complete mess. I remember when actual scientific discussions took place and you could read them without wanting to smash your head against the wall. I think your idea's great. Personally, I think that if only the cranks are left to post they will start fighting with each other.
Well, I'm willing to give it a try.
Hi Wallace, et al,
People interested in discussing physics can continue to post with each other and just ignore the nonsense and negative attacks and foolishness. There ARE at least two threads that I continue to read with VERY intense interest, and if you read all the links on them (they're both huge: "Problem With The Two Slit Experiment" in the Quantum Physics Forum and "Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory" in this forum) you can spend a weekend (at least) for each just catching up. As an engineer, I really benefit from these discussions and links - because I'm LEARNING new things I haven't even thought about in years (yeah, like college physics days) !! And I'm 55 and an aeronautical engineer that spends a LOT of time writing computer programs.
I like this Forum a lot - just because there are real physicist and engineers here who are contributing. I can only hope they continue and not withdraw from the "coming age of stupidity" which we all see happening. WE ALL NEED TO SET A POSITIVE EXAMPLE: TO WIT:
THE GOLDEN RULE OF POSTING: Reply to posts as you would like to be replied to!
If we just try to do that, a good enough example will be set and win the day. That's all we can do anyway...our very best. And my best to you...
R/Jim
People interested in discussing physics can continue to post with each other and just ignore the nonsense and negative attacks and foolishness. There ARE at least two threads that I continue to read with VERY intense interest, and if you read all the links on them (they're both huge: "Problem With The Two Slit Experiment" in the Quantum Physics Forum and "Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory" in this forum) you can spend a weekend (at least) for each just catching up. As an engineer, I really benefit from these discussions and links - because I'm LEARNING new things I haven't even thought about in years (yeah, like college physics days) !! And I'm 55 and an aeronautical engineer that spends a LOT of time writing computer programs.
I like this Forum a lot - just because there are real physicist and engineers here who are contributing. I can only hope they continue and not withdraw from the "coming age of stupidity" which we all see happening. WE ALL NEED TO SET A POSITIVE EXAMPLE: TO WIT:
THE GOLDEN RULE OF POSTING: Reply to posts as you would like to be replied to!
If we just try to do that, a good enough example will be set and win the day. That's all we can do anyway...our very best. And my best to you...
R/Jim
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 20 2006, 02:39 AM)
This is not necessary at all, as the anti-cranks are in defensive stance already here. In fact, during last time their activity is just limited to the writing of negative comments to the members feedback (where they're relatively safe) and babbling on socially motivated clubs like this one.
I wouldn't so say. You are the one who constantly has to be asked to provide evidence or reason for his claims but then changes the subject or give an excuse like "I'm not paid for this"
The only way you'd have us on the defensive when it comes to accepting AWT would be if you could provide some evidence for your claims. We've seen nothing yet, so it would be logically to imply you're the defensive one because you are desperate for validation but without anything to back you up.
When there is a theory posted on the net we should understand that somebody was very broad minded to publish their ideas on the net for us. Instead of redirecting that person by pointing out where he/she is wrong, people only call them fools (may be they are disappointed by the fact that they weren't able to think like the theory poster).
good post Kkris and very true.
I wouldn't so say. You are the one who constantly has to be asked to provide evidence or reason for his claims but then changes the subject or give an excuse like "I'm not paid for this"
The only way you'd have us on the defensive when it comes to accepting AWT would be if you could provide some evidence for your claims. We've seen nothing yet, so it would be logically to imply you're the defensive one because you are desperate for validation but without anything to back you up.
QUOTE (Nick+Dec 20 2006, 04:05 AM)
You only have words to throw at me. I have principle to throw at you.
You mean you've opinion. None of your principles are valid and every one of them is countered in mainstream science if you just bothered to look.
You mean you've opinion. None of your principles are valid and every one of them is countered in mainstream science if you just bothered to look.
Oh! somebody has atleast thought that we are going no where.
Whether you people feel it or not I can see some good thinking in this forum. Some people have tried to post really good theories. Only problem is that that not their whole theory but part of it seems right and then there is no proper continuity or full fledged framing.
I think some of them are tired of posting new ideas one after the other and are discouraged by not being supported by other thinkers. There was a poster called 'amrit' a few days back. His theory had a nice base but the way it was developed became similar to the already proved theories. I don't see him now. Probably got discouraged too.
When there is a theory posted on the net we should understand that somebody was very broad minded to publish their ideas on the net for us. Instead of redirecting that person by pointing out where he/she is wrong, people only call them fools (may be they are disappointed by the fact that they weren't able to think like the theory poster).
PHYSICS by itself has anomalies and to prove it right we need the help of mathematics which I suppose only few are well versed in.
Probably another drawback that no scientific community is monitoring this forum. If that is possible then we can expect some guidance to keep the theorist in track with their theories.
I THINK WE ARE ALL BETTER THINKERS! OBVIOUSLY BETTER THAN THE NON-THINKERS!!
what you say?!
Whether you people feel it or not I can see some good thinking in this forum. Some people have tried to post really good theories. Only problem is that that not their whole theory but part of it seems right and then there is no proper continuity or full fledged framing.
I think some of them are tired of posting new ideas one after the other and are discouraged by not being supported by other thinkers. There was a poster called 'amrit' a few days back. His theory had a nice base but the way it was developed became similar to the already proved theories. I don't see him now. Probably got discouraged too.
When there is a theory posted on the net we should understand that somebody was very broad minded to publish their ideas on the net for us. Instead of redirecting that person by pointing out where he/she is wrong, people only call them fools (may be they are disappointed by the fact that they weren't able to think like the theory poster).
PHYSICS by itself has anomalies and to prove it right we need the help of mathematics which I suppose only few are well versed in.
Probably another drawback that no scientific community is monitoring this forum. If that is possible then we can expect some guidance to keep the theorist in track with their theories.
I THINK WE ARE ALL BETTER THINKERS! OBVIOUSLY BETTER THAN THE NON-THINKERS!!
what you say?!
QUOTE (KKris+Dec 20 2006, 04:40 PM)
When there is a theory posted on the net we should understand that somebody was very broad minded to publish their ideas on the net for us. Instead of redirecting that person by pointing out where he/she is wrong, people only call them fools (may be they are disappointed by the fact that they weren't able to think like the theory poster).
good post Kkris and very true.
KKris, you have a point. The genuine free thinkers should be allowed to have their say on new theories. But they should expect others to maybe find faults in their theories.
All too often an obvious flaw is pointed out by another poster who has often taken a great deal of effort to try to understand a new theory, but the owner of the theory's refusal to admit a mistake or to acknowledge that they are in over their head then devolves the discussion into a pointless shouting match.
All too often an obvious flaw is pointed out by another poster who has often taken a great deal of effort to try to understand a new theory, but the owner of the theory's refusal to admit a mistake or to acknowledge that they are in over their head then devolves the discussion into a pointless shouting match.
Thats right! NOM.
May be they will admit their theoritical flaws if we give them a genuine feedback as u said and not start the shouting game.
May be they will admit their theoritical flaws if we give them a genuine feedback as u said and not start the shouting game.
QUOTE (Wallace+Dec 20 2006, 01:11 AM)
This is a bit of an open letter to all the anti-cranks on this forum.
Wallace and all,
I agree to what you have posted.
I have a suggestion to PhysOrg, which should be for everyones advantage:
Why not split up this forum in three parts:
- Relativity and Quantum Physics
- New Theories – mainstream physics related
- New Theories – not mainstream physics related
By doing so, everybody have a say and members and guests know what’s what.
This would have a potential for more views for the forum, and avoid the not-so-nice language and controversy we have seen lately.
It should be an easy task for PhysOrg to set up this database, and the moderation could be a very easy task, mostly moving wrongly posted posts.
Le
Wallace and all,
I agree to what you have posted.
I have a suggestion to PhysOrg, which should be for everyones advantage:
Why not split up this forum in three parts:
- Relativity and Quantum Physics
- New Theories – mainstream physics related
- New Theories – not mainstream physics related
By doing so, everybody have a say and members and guests know what’s what.
This would have a potential for more views for the forum, and avoid the not-so-nice language and controversy we have seen lately.
It should be an easy task for PhysOrg to set up this database, and the moderation could be a very easy task, mostly moving wrongly posted posts.
Le
QUOTE (Tor+Dec 21 2006, 01:58 AM)
Why not split up this forum in three parts
Such arrangement will not work without moderation. Why the hell you're trying to change to character of PhysOrg forum and don't visit the forums, which are arranged exactly by the way, you're proposing? It's not supposed to change the PhysForum into another heavily organized physicsforums or physicsmathforums.
The PhysOrg forum is unique, just because it apears as spontaneous, as it really is. And I believe, it's designed well.
Such arrangement will not work without moderation. Why the hell you're trying to change to character of PhysOrg forum and don't visit the forums, which are arranged exactly by the way, you're proposing? It's not supposed to change the PhysForum into another heavily organized physicsforums or physicsmathforums.
The PhysOrg forum is unique, just because it apears as spontaneous, as it really is. And I believe, it's designed well.
Darn, what have I done … not knowing that only cranks posted ideas here, I just started a thread. I’m a dunce, not a crank really. My ideas make perfect sense to me .
There aren’t all that many places that non-mainstream ideas can even be posted within the rules. In my disclaimer I made a point, though I must be a crank and a dunce so it couldn’t be a good point, that there is a curve of scientific advancement. Ideas lead the curve, hard science is on the curve, and falsified theory is behind the curve.
I hope you do leave, and I hope all of those whose view is like yours, that the “new ideas” threads are not worth the time, would leave too. Actually, no one wants you here with that attitude.
And finally, you may be surprised that even with you gone these threads will do just fine.
.There aren’t all that many places that non-mainstream ideas can even be posted within the rules. In my disclaimer I made a point, though I must be a crank and a dunce so it couldn’t be a good point, that there is a curve of scientific advancement. Ideas lead the curve, hard science is on the curve, and falsified theory is behind the curve.
I hope you do leave, and I hope all of those whose view is like yours, that the “new ideas” threads are not worth the time, would leave too. Actually, no one wants you here with that attitude.
And finally, you may be surprised that even with you gone these threads will do just fine.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 20 2006, 11:19 PM)
The PhysOrg forum is unique, just because it apears as spontaneous, as it really is. And I believe, it's designed well.
Zephir,
The whole exercize is actually to put a saddle on you, otherwise this forum continues to be a mess.
Le
Zephir,
The whole exercize is actually to put a saddle on you, otherwise this forum continues to be a mess.
Le
Tor - I think your idea of splitting up this section is great. I have a feeling, though, that the first category, relativity and quantum mechanics, will still be "corrupted" with people promoting their own theory. It would be interesting to give it a try though.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 20 2006, 11:19 PM)
Such arrangement will not work without moderation. Why the hell you're trying to change to character of PhysOrg forum and don't visit the forums, which are arranged exactly by the way, you're proposing? It's not supposed to change the PhysForum into another heavily organized physicsforums or physicsmathforums.
The PhysOrg forum is unique, just because it apears as spontaneous, as it really is. And I believe, it's designed well.
Hi Zephy,
In all honesty, I have to agree with you even though it's not so popular to do so, but I find your argument sound in this instance. If there are highly moderated physics forums elsewhere which provide more exciting discussions than this one then there's nothing stopping an individual from participating in such heavy moderated forums, nothing at all.
Tolerance, people tolerance!!
Darren
The PhysOrg forum is unique, just because it apears as spontaneous, as it really is. And I believe, it's designed well.
Hi Zephy,
In all honesty, I have to agree with you even though it's not so popular to do so, but I find your argument sound in this instance. If there are highly moderated physics forums elsewhere which provide more exciting discussions than this one then there's nothing stopping an individual from participating in such heavy moderated forums, nothing at all.
Tolerance, people tolerance!!
Darren
Wallace. You're a big headed clod. Why do you bother with this forum? 7 posts a month ain't worth it. You don't like people who aren't like minded posting here, then clear off and start up your own forum. If we can put up with clods like you, I'm sure you can put up with us.
Some nutter going around calling everyone else cranks. What next? Send them all to the gas chambers?
Gotta watch where I step. I just trod in some dog's wallace.
Some nutter going around calling everyone else cranks. What next? Send them all to the gas chambers?
Gotta watch where I step. I just trod in some dog's wallace.
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 21 2006, 10:01 AM)
start up your own forum.
Said like you personally funded this one.
bogie, KKris, N O M, br4sco, Aerohead, dtfroedge and theometria have joined since you first posted here. As they are your juniors, you owe it to them to conform to the general rules of net-etiquette. ( theometria may require remedial education in this topic. ) If you disagree that you owe your fellow humans a civil discussion following generally accepted rules, then you lay yourself open to charges of socio-pathology.
The best way to deflect charges of "crank-dom" is to not act like a crank. You can't be open minded unless it's possible evidence exists to show you were wrong. 9-11 conspiracy-theorists are famous for not accepting any "official" evidence that hijackers stole 4 planes and crashed them into 3 buildings. The only evidence that they accept is non-official, which is funny, since no non-official evidence gatherers were on-site. Ether theory and gravity-speed-is-infinite proponents simply ignore the evidence that the universe is non-Newtonian. It's funny that they charge Relativists with "worshiping Einstein" while all the time ignoring the decades of experiments consistent with the idea that Newton was just mostly right, i.e. not God-like in perfection.
Said like you personally funded this one.
QUOTE
kaneda Joined: 6-November 06
bogie, KKris, N O M, br4sco, Aerohead, dtfroedge and theometria have joined since you first posted here. As they are your juniors, you owe it to them to conform to the general rules of net-etiquette. ( theometria may require remedial education in this topic. ) If you disagree that you owe your fellow humans a civil discussion following generally accepted rules, then you lay yourself open to charges of socio-pathology.
The best way to deflect charges of "crank-dom" is to not act like a crank. You can't be open minded unless it's possible evidence exists to show you were wrong. 9-11 conspiracy-theorists are famous for not accepting any "official" evidence that hijackers stole 4 planes and crashed them into 3 buildings. The only evidence that they accept is non-official, which is funny, since no non-official evidence gatherers were on-site. Ether theory and gravity-speed-is-infinite proponents simply ignore the evidence that the universe is non-Newtonian. It's funny that they charge Relativists with "worshiping Einstein" while all the time ignoring the decades of experiments consistent with the idea that Newton was just mostly right, i.e. not God-like in perfection.
QUOTE (rpenner+Dec 21 2006, 06:25 PM)
9-11 conspiracy-theorists are famous for not accepting any "official" evidence that hijackers stole 4 planes and crashed them into 3 buildings. The only evidence that they accept is non-official, which is funny, since no non-official evidence gatherers were on-site.
so do you agree with the "official" story ?
so do you agree with the "official" story ?
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 21 2006, 10:01 AM)
Some nutter going around calling everyone else cranks. What next? Send them all to the gas chambers?
There's already one nutter here who claims that never happened.
rpenner, are you grouping me in with the cranks?
... them's fightin' words
There's already one nutter here who claims that never happened.
rpenner, are you grouping me in with the cranks?
... them's fightin' words
Nope, just pointing out you joined later than kaneda did.
Hi All,
Can string theory explain why there are so many obnoxious mathematicians and physicists in the world?
Is it because they still cannot unify mathematic and physics … whereas a crank might?
I’ve used the j-function one-to-one map from the fundamental domain of the SL(ee,Z)y modular group to the complex plane which is stereotypically equivalent to the two-headed Janus Monster … to come to this conclusion … it took me:
8,080,174,247,945,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000
Attempts.
Come come people, the nature of this business is to crank … always was and always will.
If all you got is a degree … you’re cranked before you open your mouth.
If you only got a master’s they listen and then you’re cranked.
If you got a PhD you’re cranked because it wasn’t your work.
If you are a professor with a chair … the many after your job will crank you.
To be fully accepted you have to toe your government’s line … you then get funding … which equals jobs … and no one dares to crank you then.
When you’re on your death bed … no one cranks you then … whoever you are.
Merry Xmas and Good Will to All.
Cheers
Janus
Can string theory explain why there are so many obnoxious mathematicians and physicists in the world?
Is it because they still cannot unify mathematic and physics … whereas a crank might?
I’ve used the j-function one-to-one map from the fundamental domain of the SL(ee,Z)y modular group to the complex plane which is stereotypically equivalent to the two-headed Janus Monster … to come to this conclusion … it took me:
8,080,174,247,945,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000
Attempts.
Come come people, the nature of this business is to crank … always was and always will.
If all you got is a degree … you’re cranked before you open your mouth.
If you only got a master’s they listen and then you’re cranked.
If you got a PhD you’re cranked because it wasn’t your work.
If you are a professor with a chair … the many after your job will crank you.
To be fully accepted you have to toe your government’s line … you then get funding … which equals jobs … and no one dares to crank you then.
When you’re on your death bed … no one cranks you then … whoever you are.
Merry Xmas and Good Will to All.
Cheers
Janus
QUOTE (Janus+Dec 22 2006, 01:26 AM)
Is it because they still cannot unify mathematic and physics … whereas a crank might?
What? A 'theory of everything' isn't about uniting maths and physics, they are already deeply intertwined, hence why the language of physics is maths! There's no problem using maths to express physics and noone is working towards over coming some problem you seem to think exists but actually doesn't. A theory of everything is about gravity and other forces!
Besides, it would seem in the VAST number of cases, cranks don't know much, if any maths. Even calculus, the stuff high school students can do, seems to be considered 'too mainstream' for them. Usually because they don't understand it. Just look at this forum!
What? A 'theory of everything' isn't about uniting maths and physics, they are already deeply intertwined, hence why the language of physics is maths! There's no problem using maths to express physics and noone is working towards over coming some problem you seem to think exists but actually doesn't. A theory of everything is about gravity and other forces!
Besides, it would seem in the VAST number of cases, cranks don't know much, if any maths. Even calculus, the stuff high school students can do, seems to be considered 'too mainstream' for them. Usually because they don't understand it. Just look at this forum!
QUOTE (Janus+Dec 22 2006, 01:26 AM)
I’ve used the j-function one-to-one map from the fundamental domain of the SL(ee,Z)y modular group to the complex plane which is stereotypically equivalent to the two-headed Janus Monster … to come to this conclusion … it took me:
Ah, I see you fall somewhat within the 'Cranks who consider calculus too mainstream' group. Obviously the notion of rigour and formalism and the requirement for precise statements, not wild vague ones, is a little lost on you. So instead you attempt to make the notions in string theory (or related theories) seem stupid by parodying them in a childish manner.
You ask why string theoriest are arrogant. It would seem to me you consider people who actually understand the maths you just tried to parody (things like the SL(2,Z) non-perturbative duality between type IIA and M theory under compactification
) arrogant because they actually learnt something.
It's a common thing, you know something, therefore all the cranks denounce your views as worthless. Yep, actually putting time and effort into understanding something is seen as a bad thing.
You ask why string theoriest are arrogant. It would seem to me you consider people who actually understand the maths you just tried to parody (things like the SL(2,Z) non-perturbative duality between type IIA and M theory under compactification
) arrogant because they actually learnt something. It's a common thing, you know something, therefore all the cranks denounce your views as worthless. Yep, actually putting time and effort into understanding something is seen as a bad thing.
QUOTE (Janus+Dec 22 2006, 01:26 AM)
To be fully accepted you have to toe your government’s line … you then get funding … which equals jobs … and no one dares to crank you then.
No, you just have to realise that to be taken seriously you need more than vague ideas, a few crappy diagrams and perhaps a touch more maths than a 13 year old kid can do. After all string theory was not mainstream in 1970, but it is now very much mainstream because it's early proponents worked on it's formalism. They developed it, showed it could solve some of the problems QCD has, showed it has no internal contradictions mathematicially. They created it's formal structure from it's postulates in painstaking detail. Then others, initially skeptical, saw it's merits and began working on it. That is how you get new ideas to be looked at. Not shouting and ranting about how physicists are ignoring your 'theory of everything' which explains and answers all problems which you came up with in 30 minutes last night while stoned.
If someone can demonstrate their new idea is a worthy avenue of research, people will look at it. How else do you think science has moved on? Think of all the revolutions various areas have undergone? Yes it takes time, there are few overnight revolutions, but progress occurs and it occurs because new ideas are explained in detail, not with 3 animated gifs and an incoherent caption.
If someone can demonstrate their new idea is a worthy avenue of research, people will look at it. How else do you think science has moved on? Think of all the revolutions various areas have undergone? Yes it takes time, there are few overnight revolutions, but progress occurs and it occurs because new ideas are explained in detail, not with 3 animated gifs and an incoherent caption.
I refer AlphaNumeric to my previous post on this thread, and request him, or any other relativist here, for a scientific response. That means to include mathematics.
My general relativity knowledge isn't of a sufficent level to be able to know or even have an idea of how to prove the Hawking-Penrose Singularity theorems. However, considering that the theorems have been proved by Hawking and Penrose and have been within the scientific community for a number of years, that would lead me to think that the results are sound. General relativity doesn't only not preclude the existence of black holes, it's pretty much expects them to occur in most cases where you have a lot of matter.
Now just because I, or anyone else on this forum, cannot produce the maths you've requested doesn't mean that our comments should be ignored. I don't think any more than 1 or 2 (if that!) people in this forum could produce the result you've requested off the tops of their heads or even helped by a textbook (I left my copy of 'Wald - General Relativity' at uni, I'm home for Christmas).
You can, however, easily find plenty of material Hawking and Penrose have written on the results by following links from this page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose-Hawki...larity_theorems
Namely this link for Hawking's own words.
Now just because I, or anyone else on this forum, cannot produce the maths you've requested doesn't mean that our comments should be ignored. I don't think any more than 1 or 2 (if that!) people in this forum could produce the result you've requested off the tops of their heads or even helped by a textbook (I left my copy of 'Wald - General Relativity' at uni, I'm home for Christmas).
You can, however, easily find plenty of material Hawking and Penrose have written on the results by following links from this page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose-Hawki...larity_theorems
Namely this link for Hawking's own words.
QUOTE (theometria+)
Another relativist fallacy for forum consideration is this. Einstein's statement of the conservation of energy in his gravitational field involves his so-called pseudo-tensor. This pseudo-tensor is used by the mainstream relativists for all sorts of claims. However, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is mathematical gibberish because it implies the existence of a 1st order, intrinsic, differential invariant which depends upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. Well and good, but for this minor problem: the pure mathematicians Ricci and Levi-Civita proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist, as a matter of pure mathematics.
It seems pretty well established here. I haven't come across pseudotensors personally, but I have come across pseudo-scalars, which are commonly used in supersymmetry due to their transformation rules.
If Landau and Lifshitz think it's a viable mathematical entity, I'd be inclined to agree with them, given they (literally) wrote the book on so much mathematical physics!
If you follow that link you end up here where I notice the following comment :
The fact is, nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere, although all and sundry are misled to the contrary.
If Landau and Lifshitz think it's a viable mathematical entity, I'd be inclined to agree with them, given they (literally) wrote the book on so much mathematical physics!
If you follow that link you end up here where I notice the following comment :
QUOTE
Some people object to this derivation on the grounds that pseudotensors are inappropriate objects in general relativity, but this treatment only requires the use of the 4-divergence of a pseudotensor which is, in this case, a tensor. On the other hand, most pseudotensors are sections of jet bundles, which are perfectly valid objects in GR.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some people object to this derivation on the grounds that pseudotensors are inappropriate objects in general relativity, but this treatment only requires the use of the 4-divergence of a pseudotensor which is, in this case, a tensor. On the other hand, most pseudotensors are sections of jet bundles, which are perfectly valid objects in GR. |
The fact is, nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere, although all and sundry are misled to the contrary.
On the contrary, almost all the astrophysics community accepts their existence now. Binary systems like Cygnus X-1 have long been suspected to contain black holes, now it's pretty much universally accepted they do, given the size and mass of the invisible partner and the output of xrays from accretion disks.
QUOTE (theometria+)
Here is another issue. According to Special Relativity, infinite density is forbidden because that would require infinite energy (or alternatively, that a ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum). However, point masses, such as a black hole singularity, have infinite density.
You're somewhat jumbling things there. You say "Special relativity doesn't allow...." then say "But in general relativity...." Hardly suprising. There are a number of things which aren't allowed in special relativity but happen in general relativity, it's a more general theory after all! SR doesn't allow for gravity, so there's no natural mechanism to compact something into a point, you are required to do it by extrenal energies, requiring infinitely large amounts. However, in GR a substance can do it itself by self gravitation, no extrenal energy is required, hence a point singularity of finite mass and energy.
You can't just take any result in SR and expect it to automatically apply in GR, particularly when your result in GR can be influenced by gravity, something SR ignores! It's like complaining QED doesn't take into account gluon self interaction. Of cource not, it's not about gluons!
You can't just take any result in SR and expect it to automatically apply in GR, particularly when your result in GR can be influenced by gravity, something SR ignores! It's like complaining QED doesn't take into account gluon self interaction. Of cource not, it's not about gluons!
QUOTE (theometria+)
Any mainstream relativist on this site is invited to prove, before this forum, their as yet unproved assumption about the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant and that the Einstein pseudo-tensor is admissible, but they must do so with mathematical rigour, from first principles, not by ad hoc hypotheses or regurgitation of the mainstream fallacies. Mathematical physics requires rigourous proof. I await the attempts at proof. How the mainstream relativists handle the required proofs will be interesting, bearing in mind that they will be attempting to prove things that have already been rigorously proved false.
As I said, I don't know the exact proof of the Singularity Existence Theorems, but they are out there online (such as this Google search finds).
Your claim they are 'rigorously disproved' is dubious, given that many of the results in that search are people building on the results of Penrose and Hawking. If you have a link to a rigorous disproof I'd like to see it, though my GR knowledge might not be up to fully understanding it (the positive energy theorem in Minkowski s-t is about as far as I go for understanding proofs in GR).
You ask for mathematical rigour, but it would appear you've not looked for any. Hawking and Penrose published their result and having seen stuff of Hawking's he's pretty damn rigorous usually. As for pseudo-tensors, you'll find that Landau and Lipshitz were two of the most thorough authors in the 20h century, so their justification is out there too.
Bear in mind there are plenty of people who want to turn GR over and kill it, many with PhDs in theoretical physics and if there was as obvious a flaw as that, they'd have done it by now. Instead, GR still stands strong. Perhaps that would be a suggestion to people such as yourself that the flaw might lie in your understanding of the material, not in the material itself. I'm not saying GR is perfect, but if it's foundations were as weak as you claim, it'd never have made it to it's 90th birthday.
Your claim they are 'rigorously disproved' is dubious, given that many of the results in that search are people building on the results of Penrose and Hawking. If you have a link to a rigorous disproof I'd like to see it, though my GR knowledge might not be up to fully understanding it (the positive energy theorem in Minkowski s-t is about as far as I go for understanding proofs in GR).
You ask for mathematical rigour, but it would appear you've not looked for any. Hawking and Penrose published their result and having seen stuff of Hawking's he's pretty damn rigorous usually. As for pseudo-tensors, you'll find that Landau and Lipshitz were two of the most thorough authors in the 20h century, so their justification is out there too.
Bear in mind there are plenty of people who want to turn GR over and kill it, many with PhDs in theoretical physics and if there was as obvious a flaw as that, they'd have done it by now. Instead, GR still stands strong. Perhaps that would be a suggestion to people such as yourself that the flaw might lie in your understanding of the material, not in the material itself. I'm not saying GR is perfect, but if it's foundations were as weak as you claim, it'd never have made it to it's 90th birthday.
Dear AlphaNumeric (and forum members),
The person I have suggested that should be ignored is a person who has not earnt any respect, owing to his unseemly behaviour and failure to adduce any science.
Your referal to authority is no good. The authority of Hawking or Penrose is not a mathematical proof. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems suffer from the same false assumptions and are therefore meaningless. Indeed, it is rather easily proved that Einstein's gravitational field does not admit of curvature singularities. I therefore once again call for you or any other relativist here to provide a proof that Einstein's field equations require of necessity that a singularity must occur where the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant is unbounded. As I have previously remarked, such a proof would be interesting since it is easily proved that the assumption is false, and has been so proved. Furthermore, one cannot resort to the Kruskal-Szekeres extension because that relies upon the validity of the said assumption. Kruskal actually stated the assumption in his paper (1960) but did not recognise it as an assumption, and so be blindly used it. I await the proof of the validity of the relativist assumption. At least attempt the proof so that you can fully understand the problem. If necessary, seek the assistance of someone who has a deeper knowledge of mathematics. All else is loose talk.
The Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor is not the same as Einstein's pseudo-tensor. Even so their pseudo-tensor is also inadmissible, but that is another issue. I specifically spoke of the Einstein pseudo-tensor, so please do not muddy the waters. As I have remarked, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is gibberish, because it implies the existence of a 1st order, intrinsic, differential invariant that depends only upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives, but such invariants do not exist. However, that minor detail has not stopped the relativists from using Einstein's pseudo-tensor. Please therefore justify the use of Einstein's pseudo-tensor by proving that it is mathematically well-defined.
Your diffidence in the authority of Hawking, Penrose, Landau and Lifshitz, and your concomitant implication that their authority nullifies my arguments carries no weight at all. I am familiar with their works. All the authority in the world does not make a mathematical nonsense admissible.
Your claim that black holes have been found is false. All claims for black holes are indirect. Provide the forum with an example of a black hole observation that is not indirect and coupled with wishful thinking. Moreover, without a proof of the assumption on the Riemann tensor curvature invariant, the relativists don't even have a theory of black holes.
I am not jumbling things at all concerning infinite densities. Both SR and GR forbid infinite densities. If you disagree, please provide a rigorous mathematical justification of your claim. I remark that it is easily proved that GR too forbids infinite densities.
I am not addressing and have not addressed the question of the validity or invalidity of General Relativity. That has nothing to do with the issues I have raised. Once again, please do not muddy the waters - deal with the issues I have raised. I am concerned with what is and what is not mathematically consistent with General Relativity. Now without a proof of the assumption of the relativists concerning the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant, all their claims for black holes and big bangs are not justified. Moreover, with a proof that their assumption is entirely false, their claims for black holes and big bangs collapse completely. I have previously remarked that it is easily proved that their assumption is false, so General Relativity does not predict black holes, expansion of the Universe or big bangs; indeed, General Relativity precludes such phenomena.
You say you would like to see the proofs. They are avaialble, but before you and similar relativists are given them you must first fully understand the issues; attempt the proofs requested to satisfy yourself that my assertions are true. Only then will you be in a position to comprehend the proofs. The proofs are not really very difficult, but old bad habits are hard to break. However, I will give you a helping hint - a geometry is completely determined by its line-element. Thus, one can only utilise the line-element. One cannot simply make ad hoc assumptions about the line-element and variables which appear in it, or foist extraneous properties onto the components of the line-element, which is precisely what the relativists have done to get their black holes, expansions and bangs. Here is a second hint - satisfaction of the field equations is a necessary but insufficient condition for a solution to Einstein's gravitational field.
I await the requested proofs.
The person I have suggested that should be ignored is a person who has not earnt any respect, owing to his unseemly behaviour and failure to adduce any science.
Your referal to authority is no good. The authority of Hawking or Penrose is not a mathematical proof. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems suffer from the same false assumptions and are therefore meaningless. Indeed, it is rather easily proved that Einstein's gravitational field does not admit of curvature singularities. I therefore once again call for you or any other relativist here to provide a proof that Einstein's field equations require of necessity that a singularity must occur where the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant is unbounded. As I have previously remarked, such a proof would be interesting since it is easily proved that the assumption is false, and has been so proved. Furthermore, one cannot resort to the Kruskal-Szekeres extension because that relies upon the validity of the said assumption. Kruskal actually stated the assumption in his paper (1960) but did not recognise it as an assumption, and so be blindly used it. I await the proof of the validity of the relativist assumption. At least attempt the proof so that you can fully understand the problem. If necessary, seek the assistance of someone who has a deeper knowledge of mathematics. All else is loose talk.
The Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor is not the same as Einstein's pseudo-tensor. Even so their pseudo-tensor is also inadmissible, but that is another issue. I specifically spoke of the Einstein pseudo-tensor, so please do not muddy the waters. As I have remarked, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is gibberish, because it implies the existence of a 1st order, intrinsic, differential invariant that depends only upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives, but such invariants do not exist. However, that minor detail has not stopped the relativists from using Einstein's pseudo-tensor. Please therefore justify the use of Einstein's pseudo-tensor by proving that it is mathematically well-defined.
Your diffidence in the authority of Hawking, Penrose, Landau and Lifshitz, and your concomitant implication that their authority nullifies my arguments carries no weight at all. I am familiar with their works. All the authority in the world does not make a mathematical nonsense admissible.
Your claim that black holes have been found is false. All claims for black holes are indirect. Provide the forum with an example of a black hole observation that is not indirect and coupled with wishful thinking. Moreover, without a proof of the assumption on the Riemann tensor curvature invariant, the relativists don't even have a theory of black holes.
I am not jumbling things at all concerning infinite densities. Both SR and GR forbid infinite densities. If you disagree, please provide a rigorous mathematical justification of your claim. I remark that it is easily proved that GR too forbids infinite densities.
I am not addressing and have not addressed the question of the validity or invalidity of General Relativity. That has nothing to do with the issues I have raised. Once again, please do not muddy the waters - deal with the issues I have raised. I am concerned with what is and what is not mathematically consistent with General Relativity. Now without a proof of the assumption of the relativists concerning the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant, all their claims for black holes and big bangs are not justified. Moreover, with a proof that their assumption is entirely false, their claims for black holes and big bangs collapse completely. I have previously remarked that it is easily proved that their assumption is false, so General Relativity does not predict black holes, expansion of the Universe or big bangs; indeed, General Relativity precludes such phenomena.
You say you would like to see the proofs. They are avaialble, but before you and similar relativists are given them you must first fully understand the issues; attempt the proofs requested to satisfy yourself that my assertions are true. Only then will you be in a position to comprehend the proofs. The proofs are not really very difficult, but old bad habits are hard to break. However, I will give you a helping hint - a geometry is completely determined by its line-element. Thus, one can only utilise the line-element. One cannot simply make ad hoc assumptions about the line-element and variables which appear in it, or foist extraneous properties onto the components of the line-element, which is precisely what the relativists have done to get their black holes, expansions and bangs. Here is a second hint - satisfaction of the field equations is a necessary but insufficient condition for a solution to Einstein's gravitational field.
I await the requested proofs.
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
As I have previously remarked, such a proof would be interesting since it is easily proved that the assumption is false, and has been so proved.
As I asked you before, can you prove this? The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems are well known and only rely on such things as 'the weak/strong energy condition', such as R_ab u^a u^b >= 0 for null or time-like u^a. Those are pretty reasonable conditions, given they are also used to develop the Einstein Field Equations and the Positive Energy Theorem.
I personally am not that good at relativity to know the proof, not to mention it's probably many many pages long (the positive energy theorem in at least 4 and that's the spinor version!) and while someone like Rpenner here might be good enough, I imagine even he doens't want to type out a highly algebraic proof in just text (if indeed he does know it).
Obviously noone bothered to tell Hawking (among others) that black holes have been proved impossible in the realm of general relativity, he's got plenty of papers on them!
Given you're claiming that a well known and long standing result in GR is false, the burden of proof is on you, not us. There's tons of material online outlining and building on Hawking & Penrose's work, it's up to you to show them all wrong, not me to give you a list of all the work.
As I asked you before, can you prove this? The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems are well known and only rely on such things as 'the weak/strong energy condition', such as R_ab u^a u^b >= 0 for null or time-like u^a. Those are pretty reasonable conditions, given they are also used to develop the Einstein Field Equations and the Positive Energy Theorem.
I personally am not that good at relativity to know the proof, not to mention it's probably many many pages long (the positive energy theorem in at least 4 and that's the spinor version!) and while someone like Rpenner here might be good enough, I imagine even he doens't want to type out a highly algebraic proof in just text (if indeed he does know it).
Obviously noone bothered to tell Hawking (among others) that black holes have been proved impossible in the realm of general relativity, he's got plenty of papers on them!
Given you're claiming that a well known and long standing result in GR is false, the burden of proof is on you, not us. There's tons of material online outlining and building on Hawking & Penrose's work, it's up to you to show them all wrong, not me to give you a list of all the work.
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
At least attempt the proof so that you can fully understand the problem. If necessary, seek the assistance of someone who has a deeper knowledge of mathematics.
I don't do GR anymore, I only took a few graduate courses in it. However, the person who lectured me 'black holes' was an ex-PhD student of Hawking and built his lecture notes on lecture notes Hawking made years ago. While my proficency at relativity isn't amazing (did manage a distinction in it though ), my lecturer's ability was many times better and he was giving an entire lecture course on black holes, so he considered there existence a viable result.
), my lecturer's ability was many times better and he was giving an entire lecture course on black holes, so he considered there existence a viable result.QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
The Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor is not the same as Einstein's pseudo-tensor. Even so their pseudo-tensor is also inadmissible
Care to explain, in precise detail (maths preferablly), why the L-L pseudotensor isn't allowed? That wiki link mentions that is might first appear to be a problem but actually is a well defined notion.
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
Please therefore justify the use of Einstein's pseudo-tensor by proving that it is mathematically well-defined.
You seem to be using somewhat poor logic. Not every proponent of relativity can produce every result in the theory. However, this doesn't invalid their views, it just means that (as with many in science) they rely somewhat on the peer review others who can understand such results.
I can't do what you ask, but there's undoubtedly many many textbooks or published papers which discuss pseudotensors. The fact it's mentioned on the Wiki page as sometimes a stumbling block for some people means that the relativity community knows it needs special attention. Obviously they've looked at it and justified it's use or they wouldn't use it! They aren't mindless drones desperate to adhere to Einstein's results, anyone who can show a fundamental flaw in Einstein's work would become famous in the relativity community, yet pseudotensors arne't seen as a problem.
Actually, having just checked here it would appear pseudotensor really is just the 2nd rank extension of a pseudoscalar and a spinor. Hardly unexplored concepts and greatly used in both particle physics and relativity. Tensor densities are mentioned in my GR notes and are not dubious, they are just things you have to be careful about transforming.
Again, it's easy for you to say "It's not valid", but can you prove it? I don't know the fundamental analysis of differential geometry, but people who've lectured me do and they had no problem using such concepts. Different 'tensor densities' is hardly an outlandish ideas, I've seen it in numerous areas of physics.
Again, the burden of proof is on you to find a derivation of some result using pseudotensors and show it's flawed. The fact I don't instantly have the original derivation of the use of pseudotensors at my fingertips doesn't weaken my argument much, because I'm sure they exist. I suggest checking your local library or asking at your local university for information.
/edit
Having done more searching, I've realised that things like the Levi-Civita 'entity' is a pseudotensor because it depends on your choice of coordinates but you can combine it with the partial derivative of a tensor to give you a tensor object, something independent of coordinate choice. So you basically seem to be saying that the whole notion of a metric connection is not valid? That covariant derivatives don't make sense? While I'm not too hot on the fundamentals of GR I know I've seen enough peoples work (not just in GR but QFT) to know that covariant derivatives are so essential and fundamental their usage is extremely well justified in differential geometry work!
They are even mentioned in this Wiki article. They aren't swept under the rug, they are well defined things. You raise and lower indices using metrics but you don't have a coordinate independent entity. Hardly a dodgy notion, if anything it's required because to assuming all entities which raise and lower indices using metrics are coordinate invariant is a naive idea.
I can't do what you ask, but there's undoubtedly many many textbooks or published papers which discuss pseudotensors. The fact it's mentioned on the Wiki page as sometimes a stumbling block for some people means that the relativity community knows it needs special attention. Obviously they've looked at it and justified it's use or they wouldn't use it! They aren't mindless drones desperate to adhere to Einstein's results, anyone who can show a fundamental flaw in Einstein's work would become famous in the relativity community, yet pseudotensors arne't seen as a problem.
Actually, having just checked here it would appear pseudotensor really is just the 2nd rank extension of a pseudoscalar and a spinor. Hardly unexplored concepts and greatly used in both particle physics and relativity. Tensor densities are mentioned in my GR notes and are not dubious, they are just things you have to be careful about transforming.
Again, it's easy for you to say "It's not valid", but can you prove it? I don't know the fundamental analysis of differential geometry, but people who've lectured me do and they had no problem using such concepts. Different 'tensor densities' is hardly an outlandish ideas, I've seen it in numerous areas of physics.
Again, the burden of proof is on you to find a derivation of some result using pseudotensors and show it's flawed. The fact I don't instantly have the original derivation of the use of pseudotensors at my fingertips doesn't weaken my argument much, because I'm sure they exist. I suggest checking your local library or asking at your local university for information.
/edit
Having done more searching, I've realised that things like the Levi-Civita 'entity' is a pseudotensor because it depends on your choice of coordinates but you can combine it with the partial derivative of a tensor to give you a tensor object, something independent of coordinate choice. So you basically seem to be saying that the whole notion of a metric connection is not valid? That covariant derivatives don't make sense? While I'm not too hot on the fundamentals of GR I know I've seen enough peoples work (not just in GR but QFT) to know that covariant derivatives are so essential and fundamental their usage is extremely well justified in differential geometry work!
They are even mentioned in this Wiki article. They aren't swept under the rug, they are well defined things. You raise and lower indices using metrics but you don't have a coordinate independent entity. Hardly a dodgy notion, if anything it's required because to assuming all entities which raise and lower indices using metrics are coordinate invariant is a naive idea.
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
Your diffidence in the authority of Hawking, Penrose, Landau and Lifshitz, and your concomitant implication that their authority nullifies my arguments carries no weight at all. I am familiar with their works. All the authority in the world does not make a mathematical nonsense admissible.
I don't just 'defer to their authority', it's the fact their work has been read by thousands of academics and probably hundreds of thousands of students, postgrads and postdocs, yet their results stand. If the problem was as fundamental as you claim, why has noone called them on it?
The burden of proof is on you. You claim counterproofs exist, so lets see them. Are they published work? Are they flawless in their logic? Or (as experience as taught me when it comes to these things) are they flawed unpublished arguments which boil down to 'because I say so!' ?
The burden of proof is on you. You claim counterproofs exist, so lets see them. Are they published work? Are they flawless in their logic? Or (as experience as taught me when it comes to these things) are they flawed unpublished arguments which boil down to 'because I say so!' ?
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
Your claim that black holes have been found is false. All claims for black holes are indirect. Provide the forum with an example of a black hole observation that is not indirect and coupled with wishful thinking.
Rpenner gives a good post on the existence of black holes here. Cygnus X-1 is now accepted to be a black hole for the reasons Rpenner talks about.
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
all their claims for black holes and big bangs are not justified. Moreover, with a proof that their assumption is entirely false, their claims for black holes and big bangs collapse completely.
The fact we can see in the sky objects which fit the notion of a black hole would imply they exist, even if we can't describe them properly.
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
I am not jumbling things at all concerning infinite densities. Both SR and GR forbid infinite densities. If you disagree, please provide a rigorous mathematical justification of your claim. I remark that it is easily proved that GR too forbids infinite densities.
You and Zephir seem to share common traints. You demand someone provides you with results which are found in plenty of textbooks and papers, as if it's my job to teach you relativity from the ground up.
At present (ie ignoring your claims) GR obviously permits infinity density, but that's precisely the reason why it's not a universally valid theory. If it didn't permit infinite density and there was some phenomena which prevented total collapse, it would be a valid everywhere, because there'd be no result which was physically invalid.
Until you can provide evidence which overturns all the textbooks and all the results you can find on relativity you can't really speak from a position of authority or validity. You want mathematical derivation? I suggest you learn some relativity Just because you appear too lazy to bother finding the results you demand doesn't mean they aren't out there for you to find. It's just not all of us can produce them off the top of our head or want to bother explaining things you should already know to you.
If you've proven black hole solutions are impossible, then surely you've the GR knowledge and ability to have come across the derivation of the black hole solutions anyway. How else would you know they are wrong if you've never seen their derivation?
At present (ie ignoring your claims) GR obviously permits infinity density, but that's precisely the reason why it's not a universally valid theory. If it didn't permit infinite density and there was some phenomena which prevented total collapse, it would be a valid everywhere, because there'd be no result which was physically invalid.
Until you can provide evidence which overturns all the textbooks and all the results you can find on relativity you can't really speak from a position of authority or validity. You want mathematical derivation? I suggest you learn some relativity
Just because you appear too lazy to bother finding the results you demand doesn't mean they aren't out there for you to find. It's just not all of us can produce them off the top of our head or want to bother explaining things you should already know to you.If you've proven black hole solutions are impossible, then surely you've the GR knowledge and ability to have come across the derivation of the black hole solutions anyway. How else would you know they are wrong if you've never seen their derivation?
QUOTE (theometria+Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM)
but before you and similar relativists are given them you must first fully understand the issues; attempt the proofs requested to satisfy yourself that my assertions are true. Only then will you be in a position to comprehend the proofs. The proofs are not really very difficult, but old bad habits are hard to break
As I said, I don't do GR anymore and I'm not about to spend the next few weeks reaquainting myself with the specific details of it (I've got a project on Calabi Yau spaces to be doing instead ). Plenty of professors in universities HAVE attempted and done the proofs you claim are wrong. I trust them more than I trust someone who seems to have trouble understanding 'the burden of proof' who I don't know the abilities of.
The burden of proof is on you. Your 'requested proofs' are found in textbooks, published papers and lecture notes all over the world. Me just copying them out to suit your whim is pointless, you know they exist, I know they exist, even www.amazon.com knows they exist given they sell such textbooks! Saying "I'm not going to show you my result till I see your proofs" is childish and a sign you don't actually have the results you claim. Anyone wanting Penrose and Hawking's result can get a copy of Nature it was published in, or books like 'Wald - General Relativity' which goes through things in detail.
You're claiming these long standing results are fundamentally flawed and since the burden of proof is on you, unless you produce your results, you're blowing nothing but hot air. Personally I think your problems seem to be in a lack of understanding of tensor calculus and like Zephir and Nick here, you see problems with your knowledge as problems with the theory, since you couldn't possibly be wrong, so it must be hundreds of thousands of other (very clever) people over the last 90 years who missed something you claim is obvious, despite such qualms being brought up and explained in GR related material (ie that Wiki linked).
Either give your so called proofs or go blow hot air elsewhere
). Plenty of professors in universities HAVE attempted and done the proofs you claim are wrong. I trust them more than I trust someone who seems to have trouble understanding 'the burden of proof' who I don't know the abilities of.The burden of proof is on you. Your 'requested proofs' are found in textbooks, published papers and lecture notes all over the world. Me just copying them out to suit your whim is pointless, you know they exist, I know they exist, even www.amazon.com knows they exist given they sell such textbooks! Saying "I'm not going to show you my result till I see your proofs" is childish and a sign you don't actually have the results you claim. Anyone wanting Penrose and Hawking's result can get a copy of Nature it was published in, or books like 'Wald - General Relativity' which goes through things in detail.
You're claiming these long standing results are fundamentally flawed and since the burden of proof is on you, unless you produce your results, you're blowing nothing but hot air. Personally I think your problems seem to be in a lack of understanding of tensor calculus and like Zephir and Nick here, you see problems with your knowledge as problems with the theory, since you couldn't possibly be wrong, so it must be hundreds of thousands of other (very clever) people over the last 90 years who missed something you claim is obvious, despite such qualms being brought up and explained in GR related material (ie that Wiki linked).
Either give your so called proofs or go blow hot air elsewhere
In addition to my overly long last post, a 5 minute dig around Google brought up this excellent synopsis on Singularity Theorems :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605007.pdf
Seems to cover their development, issues people raised about them, their requirements and implications. It doesn't go through the specific derivation of many of the results but gives a qualative description of them and gives references where you can find all the full proofs you want, in the authors original words.
So there you go theometria, you have get ahold of the specific proofs if you so wish, though if you're as well read as you like to imply, you should have already seen them (how else do you know they are wrong?). So put your derivations where your mouth is, lets see your disproof of all those results.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605007.pdf
Seems to cover their development, issues people raised about them, their requirements and implications. It doesn't go through the specific derivation of many of the results but gives a qualative description of them and gives references where you can find all the full proofs you want, in the authors original words.
So there you go theometria, you have get ahold of the specific proofs if you so wish, though if you're as well read as you like to imply, you should have already seen them (how else do you know they are wrong?). So put your derivations where your mouth is, lets see your disproof of all those results.
Well, people seem to post anything, everywhere. Even this thread was wiped out of orbit..
--
GR
--
GR
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.