Black holes may not exist!

[paddoboy]

Such uncritical 'trust in authority' dooms those who so naively trust to inevitable embarrassment as the science evolves from orthodoxy to new understanding. As always, because the professional theory is INCOMPLETE and they say as much if you cared to ask.

And of course, 'reputable posters' and 'reputable scientists' and 'reputable sources' have NEVER been known to get things arse-about before, nothing, never! lol

No, that's just you taking my posts to the nth degree.
The mainstream view is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory.

And yes, science gets things wrong...that's why we have the scientific method as a regulator self corrector.

 

[paddoboy]

If we can all drop such philosophical overlay abstractions and concentrate anew on the fundamental observables in the ENERGY-SPACE PROCESSING reality, ie space and motion, then we may have a hope of reaching a mutual understanding of all the subtleties and complexities involved. Good luck to all of us!

And if all did that including me, would that mean your model would be accepted?

The point is what you so continually class as abstractions is just your own take on things. Others see those things you call abstractions differently.

Only Me as far as I can see aligns with the accepted view pretty well.
I may just disagree on one little point, but he's certainly not attempting to rewrite GR.

 

[Undefined]

Space and time as far as "us" being aware of either are inseparable. Time being a bookkeeping tool to measure change is required to be aware of space. Even laying a ruler out to measure some distance involves change.

As a matter of practical awareness time is defined by the clock on the wall or wrist. A device that forms a basis to understand and communicate past, present and future events... Which are set apart from one another by change.

The abstract concept of time is required to communicate.

I couldn't agree with you more, OnlyMe!

I would add that "awareness" is also a philosophical 'state of mind' which humans overlay on "What is there already" independent of observer minds. Agree?

And that EVERY PHYSICAL QUANTUM of energy-space process STATE/FEATURE is a 'quantum scale ruler' independent of any human observer manipulation for its occurrence in the energy-space dynamics/evolutions; so all 'ruler' concepts/manipulations for our purposes does not change the fundamental occurrence of the quantum scale 'object' which is the minimal effectiveness scale 'ruler' and constituent of all higher scale rulers composed of these minimal units? Agree?

And further that we move a ruler or it is already moving and we RELOCATE it to some motion state which was different from its natural 'free' evolutionary dynamical subsequent location, does not make/create/measure any more 'time' than the original natural 'space location transition' would have 'represented abstractly' for us in our modeling USE of such relocations and rearrangements of motion in space. Agree?

I think you and I are not so far apart in our overall perspectives on this matter, OnlyMe. You better watch out for the 'usual suspects' trolls now! Sorry.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The mainstream view is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory.

So what you're saying is that it's a cross between popular vote and religion? Kind of like a vote on who will be Pastor in the Church?

 

[Trapped]

He discovered 40 years ago the classical description would need modification since it's no more a classical object than anything else in the universe.

Yes, in the same sense he predicted black holes were not entirely black... he predicted they gave off a glow due to Hawking radiation. He always seemed to subjectively have a problem about light escaping bodies.

 

[Undefined]

No, that's just you taking my posts to the nth degree.
The mainstream view is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory.

And yes, science gets things wrong...that's why we have the scientific method as a regulator self corrector.

My bolding above.

That "alternative theory" won't just appear 'by magic', you know, paddo. That is what these PRE-peer-review discussions of ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES that may end up as 'mainstream' down the line are all about.

And it is precisely because the orthodoxy may be incomplete that discussions such as these in open forum are probably the FASTEST and MOST EFFICACIOUS way of EXPEDITING the mainstream 'self-correction' process which may otherwise grind on slowly because of the mainstream authors of that incomplete orthodoxy being in charge of 'peer review'.

Get real, paddo. And be generous to those who risk much to HELP mainstream get ON with it FASTER. Ok, mate? Go gentle on your way as you step on those whom you don't even know or understand in most cases. Thanks, fair Aussie!

And if all did that including me, would that mean your model would be accepted?

The point is what you so continually class as abstractions is just your own take on things. Others see those things you call abstractions differently.

Only Me as far as I can see aligns with the accepted view pretty well.
I may just disagree on one little point, but he's certainly not attempting to rewrite GR.

You seem to have the impression that 'killing the messenger' is part of the scientific method. The abstractions are there in the model. Not MY fault or anyone else's except those who constructed/promulgate it? Don't look at ME and cry about who pointed out that the abstractions existed as I point out. Ask your 'reputable authority figures' to explain why they have not moved on from those abstractions that are obviously frustrating their professional theory efforts towards completion (including the mechanism for the abstract GR descriptions). OK?

Who cares who does what or whom? Only the objective ideas and the objective arguments and reality has the last word on 'acceptance' or otherwise of ANY new work/idea. Only full and fair and objective examination of all reasonably-put alternative perspectives will tell in the end what mainstream may or may not 'absorb' from such alternative perspectives, irrespective of source. Fair enough?

 

[paddoboy]

So what you're saying is that it's a cross between popular vote and religion? Kind of like a vote on who will be Pastor in the Church?

No, what I'm saying is that it is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory.

 

[paddoboy]

The abstractions are there in the model. Not MY fault or anyone else's except those who constructed/promulgate it? Don't look at ME and cry about who pointed out that the abstractions existed as I point out. Ask your 'reputable authority figures' to explain why they have not moved on from those abstractions that are obviously frustrating their professional theory efforts towards completion (including the mechanism for the abstract GR descriptions). OK?

Yep, I can see you standing in line to collect your Nobel prize..... :tic mode on of course:


You posts are obsessed and paranoid with the fairy tale, that your view is fact....Has that ever crossed your mind?
It's not. The real experts say different.
And I have given many links which you continue to cry "conspiracy" over.

 

[paddoboy]

I think you and I are not so far apart in our overall perspectives on this matter, OnlyMe. You better watch out for the 'usual suspects' trolls now! Sorry.

Like I said undefined, I think Only Me is fairly close, but that is a long way from your effort.
Just because he sees time as abstract, does not mean he questions GR as is.
You are obviously now grasping at straws.

 

[Undefined]

No, what I'm saying is that it is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory.

Let me rephrase that to be more in accordance with the extant reality of the situation, paddo....

...the mainstream, the vast majority (with increasingly restive dissenters within the ranks) believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory (as it stands AT THE MOMENT...incomplete and probably riddled with unwarranted assumptions, interpretations and abstractions which may prevent completion unless we weed them out and drop them in favor of the REALITY approach).

There, how's that for reflecting the status quo more objectively and factually than your above naive 'whitewash' attempt which avoided the bleedin' obvious 'elephants in the room', paddo?

 

[Motor Daddy]

No, what I'm saying is that it is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory.

What happens if the majority votes the other way on whom believes what?

 

[Undefined]

Yep, I can see you standing in line to collect your Nobel prize..... :tic mode on of course:


You posts are obsessed and paranoid with the fairy tale, that your view is fact....Has that ever crossed your mind?
It's not. The real experts say different.
And I have given many links which you continue to cry "conspiracy" over.

Not at all, mate. It suffices that I (and others) can point out the abstractions and what damage they are doing to the professional efforts toward completion. All else is EGO.

If I and others offer any alternative perspectives which may reduce/eliminate such obstructive abstractions, even better! That sort of thing should be applauded and welcomed by any true scientist caring more for the possible advance than who brought it. No advances are brought by "YES MEN' types who want to be part of the club, and hang the science. Get real, mate.

 

[paddoboy]

I'll rephrase it closer to the truth rather then your agenda laden fairy tale.

No, what I'm saying is that it is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory can, based on all current observational and experimental evidence.
The fact that the BB and SR/GR is so well supported, should mean that any future QGT will entail both the BB and SR/GR, extending the parameters, and possibly minor alterations or corrections.

Now that is closer to the reality, part of which was taught to me by two very reputable experts, one an Astronomer, Geraint Lewis, the other an expert theoretical and SR/GR physicist.

 

[paddoboy]

Not at all, mate. It suffices that I (abnd others) can point out the abstractions and what damage they are doing to the professional efforts toward completion. All else is EGO.

The abstractions that you think are abstractions are not as abstract as you think.

 

[Undefined]

Like I said undefined, I think Only Me is fairly close, but that is a long way from your effort.
Just because he sees time as abstract, does not mean he questions GR as is.
You are obviously now grasping at straws.

You 'think' he is fairly close. But I KNOW he is VERY close indeed... and I have presented the objective arguments to support MY understanding so that it 'completes' his perspective on that issue so that it becomes 'right on the money!'

Your 'understanding' however is still mired in 'reputable source' influences that mitigate against you objectively understanding and arguing about the subtle complexities involved.

So, if we were to apply your penchant for the 'better authority' (you or me in this instance) who would you 'believe' understands OnlyMe's stance/perspective/explanation more deeply and objectively...you or me?

 

[paddoboy]

who would you 'believe' understand OnlyMe's stance/perspective/explanation more deeply and objectively...you or me?

I'm with the mainstream position which Only Me appears to be close too and which my reputable references agree on.
That leaves you out in the cold..

 

[Undefined]

The abstractions that you think are abstractions are not as abstract as you think.

Prove that opinion scientifically or admit it's just a glib evasion to avoid admitting the abstractions DEMONSTRATED to exist do exist BY DESIGN in the abstract GEOMETRIC GR 'space-TIME' modeling construct. No more games, paddo. Put up or sit down and listen and learn, mate.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I'll rephrase it closer to the truth rather then your agenda laden fairy tale.

No, what I'm saying is that it is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory can, based on all current observational and experimental evidence.

I understand you loud and clear that the mainstream is what it is because the vast majority believe it to be so.

What I'm wondering is why you place so much emphasis on popularity? Why not place the most emphasis on ACCURACY? Don't you think it would match reality a little closer if you did away with the vote?

 

[Undefined]

I'm with the mainstream position which Only Me appears to be close too and which my reputable references agree on.
That leaves you out in the cold..

But you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what OnlyMe and Mainstream and I have described and examined in objective arguments that you have not yet understood let alone acknowledged and made your own objective arguments. Just linking and saying 'me too' doesn't cut it, mate.

 

[Undefined]

I'll rephrase it closer to the truth rather then your agenda laden fairy tale.

No, what I'm saying is that it is the mainstream view because the mainstream, the vast majority believe it to match what we observe closer then any alternative theory can, based on all current observational and experimental evidence.
The fact that the BB and SR/GR is so well supported, should mean that any future QGT will entail both the BB and SR/GR, extending the parameters, and possibly minor alterations or corrections.

Now that is closer to the reality, part of which was taught to me by two very reputable experts, one an Astronomer, Geraint Lewis, the other an expert theoretical and SR/GR physicist.

Now, you have admitted that reputable professional sources have been mistaken in the past. You have admitted that mainstream is evolving according to new scientific discourse/presentations which may affect the validity of currently 'written down' orthodoxy. You have agreed that even the professionals must entertain 'alternative perspectives' in order to move on from the present impasse.

Then all you seem to be upset and angry about is the possibility that someone NOT of your 'personal preference' may present arguments which may have significant effects in advancing the professional discourse/orthodoxy?

Please be aware that such advancing contributions/inputs from NON-professional sources have occurred often before, and they will again.....irrespective of your irrelevant upset and anger that it MAY happen again while YOU are playing the 'me too' card and 'name dropping' as a substitute for actual genuine original engagement on the new matter/perspective.

Quit that approach/act, mate....it won't wash, here or anywhere on the net where polite, genuine, orginal, objective science discourse is encouraged...even by the professionals...who in the past have not been too proud to 'nick' an idea from the amateur or acknowledge one when they came across it. Read the history of science before making any more personal/me too posts like almost all the ones you've been making of late.