Moderator note: some off-topic posts have been moved to a separate thread:
Faith and the scientific method
Please try to stay on topic.
Faith and the scientific method
Please try to stay on topic.
Black holes may not exist!
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
That's still not proof of a curved spacetime. Oh well, the thread is off topic. I posted whilst things were being moved.
Proof is not applicable in science......
What I have mentioned, is overwhelming evidence to support curved space/time.
Maybe you are able to tell me what GP-B was measuring? [forgetting all the other evidence/data supporting curved space/time]
On second thoughts, you need to keep jackass Ideas such as you have posted in pseudoscience.
He measured the inward movements of points that light moves through. That's all. Points can be any shape without being a curved flat space. You can put points in a 3D model and move them inwards like a sphere made from points, like the Earth made from atoms. Photons move into atoms, photons move into points. You don't need a curved, flat space. Just points. A black hole would be 1 long stretched point, and it would look like a tube, daffodil. Nature's shapes would then use the same system. Nature is 3D not flat. Anyway I'm going to make a computer simulation of it.
Maybe someone else can make heads or tails of that dog's breakfast.
I'll just give you the version that some scientists propose...
http://www.nature.com/news/single-photon-could-detect-quantum-scale-black-holes-1.11871
If you have points, you don't need to bend spacetime. You have the points to move around instead. So you can move the light from a distant star if the sun moves the points inwards.
If you interpret the GP-B results exclusively within the context of GR and the curved spacetime geometry is uses to describe gravitational dynamics.., you can make the leap of projecting that geometric description on reality and saying that space as well as spacetime is deformed dynamically by the presence of a gravitational mass...
The world and reality are more complex than that. Only as an alternate example and pure specualtion... The results could also be explained as the result of how the presence of mass affects the zero-point field around it... And then how the dynamics of that interaction affects another object within the same ZPF dynamic conditions.
We have reasonably good evidence that matter interacts with the local ZPF. The Casimir effect being but one example. It is not such a great leap to think that the earth's magnetic field, rotating and moving through space interacts dynamically with the associated ZPF... And that other objects within that local dynamics would also be affected. The earth changes the dynamics of a part of the local ZPF which affects all other objects within that part of the field...
Spacetime as a geometric description of gravitation, certainly involves curvature. How that is manefest in reality is not yet certain.
Last edited:
Nice link, discussing the possible quanta nature of space/time.
It's your conclusions that are at odds with observations.
I'm not at odds with observations, science is. My whole theory is based on observations. I only add the space grain structure as a relationship to the observation of water, and waves which are particle propagated. So that is still an observation. Refraction in water is the bending of light by moving points, so I use that to bend spacetime. It is an observation. The red shift is an observation also, and moving points inwards would create red shift. You have move the distance between objects inwards, and away from each other. And the Plank Telescope even observed the space grain once, but couldn't find it a second time. I use a scalar grain structure so finding it twice is harder, because it changes scale.
Science is at odds with observation, while you see the light...Hmmmmm
I reject that ridiculous claim totally.
Water is far denser then space.
Space/time curves and I have given you evidence supporting that.
You cannot refute any of that evidence.
OK, I shall just ask you the Theory Of Everything then next time. It saves a lot of trouble. And I didn't say that space didn't curve, I just said that it was a 3D curve that anyone can use in a computer by moving points inwards. Not a strange flat spacetime that sits like a rubber sheet. You have also given me no evidence of Spacetime.
Funny, the following link says the opposite.....
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-spacetime-smoother-brew-knew.html
You didn't read what I said. I said that photons travel through the points. So how would that show up? They are the points. It's the same as saying scientists couldn't find bees because of all the bees.
This is off topic.
If you want to rant about your alternative stuff, start a new thread in the appropriate section.