Black holes may not exist!

[Beer w/Straw]

It was the process involved before final publication that I alluded to. Their work took decades and much to-and-fro stages of discussion/revision etc etc before final publication. That was the point. No more; no less. Anything else is your own imputations.

When the evolving mainstream speculations start closing in on and increasingly confirming what my complete and consistent ToE 'from scratch' work has been telling me for some time now, then I may be excused for thinking that I may be ahead of the pack on many fronts based on the latest examples of the professional developments consistent with mine? Or is that too much for you to bear because you are already so certain that anyone who has posted on internet science forums cannot possibly be right, especially if they were not 'already mainstream' to begin with; you know, the same mainstream that is now coming round to my ToE results without any need for ad hoc fixes/excuses which mainstream has been bedeviled by all this time?

Wait until the published complete and consistent theory before you make such unscientific pronouncements about what is or is not possible/achievable through internet science forum discussions.

Special Project: 'Complete' Cosmology Theory From Scratch

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showforum=25

So tell us why rpenner banned you?

 

[paddoboy]

Hitting home? Your f'n greed and lust for immortality and power is glowing. I don't give .02 about greed or f'n power. I want 100% perfection!

Take it easy old china!!!
I don't want power...just more knowldege and the hope that it may help some poor soul like yourself.

 

[paddoboy]

Farsight:



That's according to somebody far from the hole, not according to somebody sitting at the event horizon. You're mixing up Schwarzschild coordinate time with the proper time of some observer.



There's gravity wherever there is curvature of spacetime. And at the horizon there is certainly curvature.

That zero clock rate you keep referring to is not the proper time of a clock located at the horizon. You can't infer what is happening for an observer at the horizon based on what an observer in a different region of spacetime sees. You need to look at what local clocks are doing. And the rate of a clock located at the horizon doesn't drop to zero for a person travelling with that clock.



Not really. The waterfall analogy tells us something about how things look to an observer at the horizon. To a distance observer, far from the hole, the event horizon looks like it is sitting still in one place (provided nothing is crossing it and adding mass to the hole, of course). But to an observer at the horizon, the horizon always appears to be moving outwards at the speed of light. Thus, any light trying to go out radially from the horizon only just manages to keep pace with the horizon itself. And so, it never escapes from the hole. And massive objects at the horizon are restricted to travel slower than the speed of light, which means that they must fall into the hole as the horizon moves outwards away from them.

Relative velocities in GR are only definable locally. This is why the velocity of the horizon looks so different to observers who are close to it, compared to ones who are far away.

Could agree more!!!!
I'm not sure what is wrong with some here...They refuse to recognise the validity of all FoR's.
I actually like the waterfall analogy.....

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

 

[Undefined]

Double Post. Deleted by me. Thanks.

 

[Declan Lunny]

So tell us why rpenner banned you?

This paradigm changing TOE has been a work in progress for almost a decade? So what's in it? All he has talked about for 9 years now is that it is almost ready, will be done soon, finishing touches, but never what it's about, nothing about the content,,,,, just the endless litany of the way it's going to chance physics for all time.

I want to hear the theory. Not how it's almost ready. Not how science should be discussed. At some point it's time to quit telling people how to talk about science and start discussing the science.

 

[paddoboy]

PS: Paddo: Give the inane personal/cheerleading stuff a rest, will ya, mate!

No, that's not up for discussion.
With the vast amount of trolls, anti mainstream nutters, conspiracy pushers, and pseudoscience ratbags on this forum, science needs someone like me.

 

[paddoboy]

This paradigm changing TOE has been a work in progress for almost a decade? So what's in it? All he has talked about for 9 years now is that it is almost ready, will be done soon, finishing touches, but never what it's about, nothing about the content,,,,, just the endless litany of the way it's going to chance physics for all time.

I want to hear the theory. Not how it's almost ready. Not how science should be discussed. At some point it's time to quit telling people how to talk about science and start discussing the science.

Nice to know past history...Thanks for that.

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks also to Beer w/Straw with reference to past histories.

 

[Undefined]

This paradigm changing TOE has been a work in progress for almost a decade? So what's in it? All he has talked about for 9 years now is that it is almost ready, will be done soon, finishing touches, but never what it's about, nothing about the content,,,,, just the endless litany of the way it's going to chance physics for all time.

I want to hear the theory. Not how it's almost ready. Not how science should be discussed. At some point it's time to quit telling people how to talk about science and start discussing the science.

All Magnum Opuses take time. Can't be rushed. Over that time I've dropped hints, clues, examples, solutions and even some details which have been proven correct despite the trolls trying to distract/deny it. What original ideas/work have you contributed over the same period to the advancement of theory, Declan?

 

[Undefined]

No, that's not up for discussion.
With the vast amount of trolls, anti mainstream nutters, conspiracy pushers, and pseudoscience ratbags on this forum, science needs someone like me.

So now you're the self-appointed keeper of the religious flame, paddo? Even though your "perfect understandings of mainstream understandings" may not be "in fact" as "perfect" as you "believe" your understandings to be? Quite a 'reach'. Quite a 'calling'.

Thanks also to Beer w/Straw with reference to past histories.

Which is against site rules regarding personal trolling, baiting and introducing personal baggage/agendas from other sites. Maybe you might take care what you 'cheerlead' and 'approve of' next time, paddo.

 

[Declan Lunny]

All Magnum Opuses take time. Can't be rushed. Over that time I've dropped hints, clues, examples, solutions and even some details which have been proven correct despite the trolls trying to distract/deny it. What original ideas/work have you contributed over the same period to the advancement of theory, Declan?

Well they haven't seemed like hints, clues or examples, they mostly have seemed more like vague deflections and attempt to avoid the question: What is the theory?

As far as trolls trying to distract/deny it? Well gee whiz, you certainly don't have to worry about that do you? You have to tell someone what the theory says before they can do any distracting or denying.

What original ideas/work have I contributed over the same period? Well it has to be at least as much and more than you have with your TOE because that is something you keep referring to but have yet to contribute it. So you can ask the question again after you make the contribution.

 

[Undefined]

Well they haven't seemed like hints, clues or examples, they mostly have seemed more like vague deflections and attempt to avoid the question: What is the theory?

As far as trolls trying to distract/deny it? Well gee whiz, you certainly don't have to worry about that do you? You have to tell someone what the theory says before they can do any distracting or denying.

What original ideas/work have I contributed over the same period? Well it has to be at least as much and more than you have with your TOE because that is something you keep referring to but have yet to contribute it. So you can ask the question again after you make the contribution.

Incorrect. The record proves it. You have not the full record, because that has been deleted/changed by the same mod-troll gang abuses which also framed me for banning. All these mod-troll gang abuses were proven at the time by internet experiments. Your biased denial of what actually transpired makes you just another ill-informed and self-interested troll not interested in anything but your own 'version' of the facts. So your attempt now to play down what I have been doing over the years, and the examples/arguments presented which were proven right and the trolls were banned for trying to avoid admitting same.

Yes, the WHOLE works will be published complete. You'll have to wait to learn all it covers (everything, including gravity mechanism). Get to work and do some real original work/thinking yourself, Declan. Your trollish agendas and personal tactics will get you into trouble with the mods here (it's not like 'over there' where the trolls have the mod scared to confront them), and so have the run of the place still). Good luck, Declan.

 

[Declan Lunny]

Incorrect. The record proves it. You have not the full record, because that has been deleted/changed by the same mod-troll gang abuses which also framed me for banning. All these mod-troll gang abuses were proven at the time by internet experiments. Your biased denial of what actually transpired makes you just another ill-informed and self-interested troll not interested in anything but your own 'version' of the facts. So your attempt now to play down what I have been doing over the years, and the examples/arguments presented which were proven right and the trolls were banned for trying to avoid admitting same. Get to work and do some real original work/thinking, Declan. Your trollish agendas and personal tactics will get you into trouble with the mods here (it's not like 'over there' where the trolls have the mod scared to confront them), and so have the run of the place still). Good luck, Declan.

Have you bumped your head? I've said nothing about banning, moderators, trolls, versions, or any of that. I'm just stating that I have seen you talk about this theory for nine years, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what is in it. Not what it's going to do, but what is in it.

If you aren't going to talk about what's in it, fine, don't. But why do you think just the fact that "you have one in progress" is worthy of a decade long conversation?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

 

[Undefined]

Have you bumped your head? I've said nothing about banning, moderators, trolls, versions, or any of that. I'm just stating that I have seen you talk about this theory for nine years, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what is in it. Not what it's going to do, but what is in it.

If you aren't going to talk about what's in it, fine, don't. But why do you think just the fact that "you have one in progress" is worthy of a decade long conversation?

I pointed out the possible reasons WHY you did not see all the bits that I have presented from my theory for separate discussions/soundboarding.

And I purposely posed only certain limited aspects for discussion. The whole works could not be made public or there would have been no book to publish. Besides, the discussions were useful and some of my observations were proven closer to developing mainstream speculations than any others so far. Couldn't let all the cats out of the bag and be embroiled in never ending piecemeal exchanges when everything will be revealed all at once and peer-review properly begun on the whole consistent theory rather than just disjoint pieces of it.

Works of such scope and breadth and complexity take DECADES to finalize. Patience, Declan.

 

[brucep]

Hey bruce, did you ever apologize to Dr. Mansker for accusing him of faking his credentials? I know your wife claims you have integrity and I'm sure you'd hate to disappoint her or be accused of being "intellectually dishonest". Speaking of that term, as a manifested psychological projection, have you ever accused others of it? *plonk* :roflmao:

I don't apologize to cranks. Except I apologized to you before I knew you were an intellectually dishonest crank. That all you have to say RJBerry? You're not a natural philosopher you're a hard headed crank that resorts to a nonsense post in compensation for having to wallow in illiteracy. Did you ever follow the derivation I detailed for both you and Farsight? No or yes? Why are the Schwarzschild coordinates
preferred over all the other possible coordinate solutions to the field equations. You should just step up and face the music like a grown up. You're in way over your head and you're making a fool of yourself. Whether you know it or not [probably not] the entire crux of your argument required the Schwarzschild coordinates to be preferred. You don't get it because you don't want to. Just like every other crank. Juvenile plausible deniability. LOL.

 

[Undefined]

Hi James R.

What do you think of my suggestion to przyk and Farsight (see my post #514) as to how they could work together and construct a mathematical LIMITS argument that they both could agree with and see what the results are, according to both the extrapolated empirical effects observed on clocks in gravity wells, and according to the mathematical construct/prediction of what the effect will be at the EH. I think only in that way could their perspectives be resolved to some common point of view that would form the basis for further discussions of all the rest of the issues involved? I would be very interested to see where they end up if they took that LIMITS approach as I described. Cheers.

 

[brucep]

Have you bumped your head? I've said nothing about banning, moderators, trolls, versions, or any of that. I'm just stating that I have seen you talk about this theory for nine years, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what is in it. Not what it's going to do, but what is in it.

If you aren't going to talk about what's in it, fine, don't. But why do you think just the fact that "you have one in progress" is worthy of a decade long conversation?

This thread is a Dunning and Kruger fest. LOL.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Hi James R.

What do you think of my suggestion to przyk and Farsight (see my post #514) as to how they could work together and construct a mathematical LIMITS argument that they both could agree with and see what the results are, according to both the extrapolated empirical effects observed on clocks in gravity wells, and according to the mathematical construct/prediction of what the effect will be at the EH. I think only in that way could their perspectives be resolved to some common point of view that would form the basis for further discussions of all the rest of the issues involved? I would be very interested to see where they end up if they took that LIMITS approach as I described. Cheers.

Here's a limit:

$$\lim_{n\to \infty } \, \left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right)=1$$

You know, cutting and pasting a previous post could've been a reportable offence.

 

[Undefined]

Here's a limit:

$$\lim_{n\to \infty } \, \left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right)=1$$

You know, cutting and pasting a previous post could've been a reportable offence.

The context and values representing the gravity well empirical effects on clocks and the value changes as the effect approaches the limit of the EH boundary condition, in GR terms, would be helpful to the exercise suggested as per my post #514. Maybe you could do it and save przyk and Farsight the trouble of doing that specific exercise?

That post was amended. Also the troll clutter made it likely that James would miss it. Hence the precautionary/amended post further down the page clear of the trolling clutter....for Jame's benefit.