Spare this forum from you. Long ago you confirmed you're either a psychopath or a friggin crank. Go away with the bullshit. If I was you I'd shut up. You've been told to support your views which you refuse to do in any detail. Everybody knows that you haven't done that even once. You're a sick puppy playing a game on the Internet. Time to permanently run you off.
Gravity: The why and the how:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
You can keep claiming the model has a problem till the cows come home...
As usual nothing you say, is supported by any references or links.....just your dodgy say so.
Do better.
I understand it far better than you who is totally blinded by your own inflated ego.
The river/waterfall model is a mathematically validated and often cited paper.
You can sprout your nonsense like a chook with your head cut off as much as you like.
Until you are able to support what you say, you are pissing in the wind.
And of course continually ignoring that reasonable request, leaves the forum to logically deduce that you are unable to support it.
A pity you have the god on ignore bruce. You would be in for an even bigger belly laugh.
You
I've seen enough of it. I'm kind of curious what constitutes lying in this forum rule mentioned?A pity you have the god on ignore bruce. You would be in for an even bigger belly laugh.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Then learn to quote. You have quoted some text I have written, which was about arxiv not doing peer-review, in #208.
It becomes funny. My objections have been accepted as valid even by the author, but you ignore it.
No, it will be given up as a physical theory in I would guess ten or twenty years. It will remain an interesting domain of mathematics. Which is, anyway, the domain where it has really made some nice discoveries. Some of the mathematical methods may be applied somewhere in physics, as a mathematical tool without any fundamental importance.
LOL, your agenda - to support established mainstream theories - is so obvious that this claim becomes really funny.
The really interesting point is that for rational people the claim that somebody "has an agenda" is only a cheap ad hominem of not much importance. Every normal scientist has the agenda to find the truth, to develop true theories. And if he has found a good theory, he has, of course, the "agenda" to present it to others, to propagate it. There is nothing wrong with this - it would be morally much more dubious if he would try to hide the truth he thinks he has found from all other people.
But what is, then, the reason why paddoboy is using "having an agenda" as one of the most important attacks against his opponents, repeated with or without justification all the time against everybody? In a situation where his own agenda - support of all mainstream theories - is completely obvious? What comes to mind is that he thinks there is something bad with what he is doing. And, of course, there is: It is one thing to defend a theory you know, with arguments you understand. It is a different thing to defend theories you don't understand yourself, with arguments not understood but copypasted from other sources. So, if he thinks there is something wrong with his own case of "having an agenda", he would be right.
Not me. I say black holes form from the inside out. I've used a hailstone as an analogy. You're a water molecule, and you can't pass through the surface. But you are surrounded and buried by other water molecules, so the surface passes through you. The hailstone grows, and the "frozen star" black hole grows in similar vein.
Now that the Einstein digital papers are online, it's all there in black and white.
James, really can we do something about this please?
Yeah, James, could you please bar Farsight from the science sections?
Thanks to an unclear antecedent and a lack of rational argument, that is a possible reading of Farsight's request.
Do you mean this one Bruce?
That post was the one PhyBang found to be just too much. Haven't seen PhyBang since.
Perhaps more to the point you should refrain from fabricating unsupported conspiracies including prejudices that is not warranted.
That's your unsupported opinion, which I'll take with a grain of salt.
My only agenda is to support what is generally inferred as the most likely, and to continue refuting those would be's if they could be's with inflated egos that seem to think they can do better, yet spend their time on a forum open to any anti science nut that choses to post.
Your intellectual dishonesty for a scientists is a shame. The agendas I speak of are those driven by delusions of grandeur in thinking they have rewritten 20th/21st century cosmology.
Agreed and to do it via the accepted scientific method and peer review which you have derided at times...funny that.
Whatever way you see the need to twist what I claim is of no great concern to me. It's a shame you havn't really addressed a few of the issues directly that I have been involved in, instead of just attacking me due to my previous stance against your beloved ether paper. But that would be probably then having you agree with me.
Last edited:
or something about this?
Hypocrisy along with crankdom seems to be another of your faults.
The issues in this thread so far which have been resolved since they have been validated and supported by reputable links are as follows.
Of course as my friend OnlyMe would say, we really cannot be positive about anything inside the EH of a BH, and like all scientific theories, are always open for improvement/modification or total falsification.
As I said though, most of the following scenarios I'm about to list are in the main generally supported by mainstream cosmologists, and are really just an application of logic and common sense with regards to our already obtained knowledge in physics..
[1] A BH is thought to exist simply by the overwhelming indirect evidence of matter/energy and space/time within a region, that is unable to be explained by anything else. It is reasonable then to assume BH's do exist.
[2]GR tells us that when any mass undergoes gravitational collapse to its Schwarzchild radius, that further total gravitational collapse is compulsory.
[3] This tells us that GR predicts its own downfall or the limits of its parameters at the quantum/Planck level.
[4] Most cosmologists are certain that there is no physical singularity at the center, and that in time this will be explained via a QGT.
[5] Although [as detailed in the opening paragraph] we can know nothing with certainty about the inside of a BH beyond its EH, we are able to reasonably assign certain properties to it such as spin and charge.
[6] Both spin and charge, in time, will all be negated, but are subject to other conditions.
[7]The BH itself will also in time evaporate via the HR mechanism, if that mechanism is valid according to generally accepted theory.
[8] Inside the EH of a BH, is simply pure spacetime in a critically curved topology that exceeds "c" and the reason why all paths lead to the Singularity
[This obviously ignores any infalling matter/energy]
[9] The critically curved spacetime within the EH, and subsequently the tidal gravitational effects of gravity, will see all other forces being overcome including the strong nuclear force, as tidal gravity move towards infinity.
[10]The river/waterfall metric model is a mathematically validated model with citations, that simply explains why a BH is what it is for professionals and lay people alike. This is one of its greatest fortes. It also applies to the Kerr metric
Of course as my friend OnlyMe would say, we really cannot be positive about anything inside the EH of a BH, and like all scientific theories, are always open for improvement/modification or total falsification.
As I said though, most of the following scenarios I'm about to list are in the main generally supported by mainstream cosmologists, and are really just an application of logic and common sense with regards to our already obtained knowledge in physics..
[1] A BH is thought to exist simply by the overwhelming indirect evidence of matter/energy and space/time within a region, that is unable to be explained by anything else. It is reasonable then to assume BH's do exist.
[2]GR tells us that when any mass undergoes gravitational collapse to its Schwarzchild radius, that further total gravitational collapse is compulsory.
[3] This tells us that GR predicts its own downfall or the limits of its parameters at the quantum/Planck level.
[4] Most cosmologists are certain that there is no physical singularity at the center, and that in time this will be explained via a QGT.
[5] Although [as detailed in the opening paragraph] we can know nothing with certainty about the inside of a BH beyond its EH, we are able to reasonably assign certain properties to it such as spin and charge.
[6] Both spin and charge, in time, will all be negated, but are subject to other conditions.
[7]The BH itself will also in time evaporate via the HR mechanism, if that mechanism is valid according to generally accepted theory.
[8] Inside the EH of a BH, is simply pure spacetime in a critically curved topology that exceeds "c" and the reason why all paths lead to the Singularity
[This obviously ignores any infalling matter/energy]
[9] The critically curved spacetime within the EH, and subsequently the tidal gravitational effects of gravity, will see all other forces being overcome including the strong nuclear force, as tidal gravity move towards infinity.
[10]The river/waterfall metric model is a mathematically validated model with citations, that simply explains why a BH is what it is for professionals and lay people alike. This is one of its greatest fortes. It also applies to the Kerr metric
Last edited:
That's what I was referring to. Farsight has insisted on this wrong bullshit for quite awhile. He's been informed that his opinion is nothing more than an opinion while having had it explained, in detail, for him add infinitm [?].
So I'm sure he knows that he's lying and his purpose is to just disrupt threads and get a 'rise' out of us dumb funks who pay attention to him. It depends on the forum definition of lying and making a decision. I think the decision thing is a no go. Just my opinion.
His purpose of course is driven by a hugely inflated ego and self opinionated importance of himself, as it is with other alternative quacks we have infesting this forum.
paddoboy said:
The concept of BH explains the observations. There are certain alternative explainations too, but they have certain issues. Whether it is reasonable or unreasonable to assume that BH's do exist, is a subjective matter.
paddoboy said:
We do not know about any counterforce beyond NDP etc. As per prevalent theory, this statement appears to be true, but the very fact that a mass can fall below its Schwarzchild radius itself is not proved, satisfactorily. There is no direct evidence for this.
paddoboy said:
Crap. The GR equations (for non spinning/Neutral BH metric) give division by zero at r = 0, not at Planck's level. Planck or Quantum Level has nothing to do with GR equations, they are just numerical values for equations.
paddoboy said:
Second part is another speculative crap. What, When and How of QGT are unknown as on date or at the best inconclusive. Dreaming that QGT will explain singulairty is naive and defeatist approach.
paddoboy said:
Another childish and repeative crap. If we know "nothing with certainty about the inside of BH beyond EH" then thats it. It is foolish to say that we can assign charge and spin to inside of EH and in the same breath we say that spacetime inside EH is falling at a speed c or higher.
paddoboy said:
Vague statement, what is this subject to other conditions.
paddoboy said:
Another crap.
Theory behind HR mechanism (or process) is valid, but as long as CMBR absortption is there a stellar BH will never evaporate. We do not know when and after how much time CMBR will dilute to the level of nano degrees from a present 2.7 K and even then there is a possibility of equilibrum. Presently all stellar BHs, if any, are absorbing CMBR and increasing in mass.
paddoboy said:
Unmitigated Crap.
What is pure Spacetime?...Spacetime is spacetime.
What is critically curved topology thats exceeds 'c' ? How any topology can exceed 'c' ?
I am tired..
Last edited:
I've been asking you for those alternative explantions since you started here to no avail.
Again what are they? I mean you are starting to sound like a creationist now.
Simply on reasonable assumptions by learned men educated in that dicspline. Most scientists/cosmologists knowing at this time there is no other explanation, take the evidence to infer BH's. A creationist of course would have another non scientific view.
Here we go with the creationist type of dismissal again...you know the one, "Aha, but you can't prove it" GR is an overwhelmingly correct theory within its domain, and the compulsory collapse is predicted by GR and we have no reason or contrary evidence to indicate otherwise. And it certainly is proved enough for all Professionals to totally dismiss and BNS nonsense.
Nup , spot on in fact. By predicting total collapse and being a classical theory it predicts its own downfall at the quantum/Planck level.
Still, you could show a reference supporting your claim.....but there is none, is there?
You seem fond of the word crap, yet offer nothing in return, ignoring the demolished BNS nonsense. Again, a QGT will most likely, as its name infers reveal what conditions are like at the quantum/Planck level.
You disagree...All you need is a reference as your word and say so has been refuted many times, even in this thread.
Oh more name calling, more insults etc...your previous warning must have caused some angst.
As Professor Hamilton has said, Professor Lewis, and Professor Carlip from memory, we most certainly are allowed to assign properties such as spin and charge within the horizon as mainstream accept.EG: Any observed ergosphere, logically infers a spinning spacetime and mass.
To deny that is, well, akin to denying evolution.
Not vague at all and again supported by reputable links that happen to go against your agenda. Spin and charge will in time be negated, the rate depending on conditions.
That word again, crap, Must be the new flavour of the month.But again, totally wrong and devoid of any common sense.
Let me state it again. If HR is valid as is accepted, that all BH;s, micro, stellar, and SMBH's will in time be evaporated, just as their spin and charge will be.
Again though my friend, if you are able to refute what I say with a reliable reference, then be my guest.
HINT: The CMBR is not always going to be at its present 2.7K
No generally accepted scientific explanations....all of them
In reality the spacetime within a BH will have ingoing matter/energy that has crossed the EH and is on its one way trip to the Singularity region where the mass exists. Otherwise if the BH is entirely dormant, all we have is pure spacetime. Wasn't that easy? It's why as you were told on your previous handle, why speaking of BH density is not really done....I believe Q-reuss even pulled you up on that one, as well as myself.
At the EH, the spacetime curvature is such that the escape velocity is "c"
From there on its all downhill, as curvature approaches infinity at the Singularity.
I'm always here to lend a hand when and where necessary.
Sweet dreams!
Last edited:
"Just my opinion."
Well, we now know the mods knowingly allow fraudsters on the 'science' sections. Sad but true. it' s official, top dog mod acknowledges Farsight as fraud. perhaps Farsight's a paying customer.
Last edited by a moderator: