Pl explain why this is not ?
Gravity: The why and the how:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Pl explain why this is not ?
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Space is what is "flat" alright. And I'm not talking about the sense in which the Earth was once thought to be flat; I mean flat as in Lorentz contracted 'flat' as in, not a dimension that exists.
Like not realizing that matter is the same as energy, and that space is in every respect that matters, the same thing as the dimension of time. Like, a 1 to 1 relationship, not some pseudo Pythagorean relation, and not even in the sense in which you could even attempt to do Euclidean geometry in.
Colleges teach 'pop science'? General Relativity is 'pop science'? I think you are very confused.
If you disagree with these concepts that is fine, saying they are pop science is just stupid.
Last edited:
The only pop science in this thread is your own stupidity and take on science.
I have given many links to you under your old handle "rajesh"re gravity overcoming all other forces inside a BH.
You have given nothing except your usual Bollywood style approach to science.
And of course the reason you have given nothing, no links, or references to support your nonsense.
Gravity most certainly rules the roost inside BH's at distances approaching the EH, and dependant on the size of the BH.
Do better.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Past the point that you paid your tuition to get to, colleges DO teach "pop" science. They teach basically whatever they have the textbooks to teach.
If you are sufficiently forward thinking enough to perceive that even PhDs don't know everything (although many of them know quite a lot) in their chosen areas of expertise, there is plenty of room to publish papers which obfuscate, rather than extend an area of learning. And they still get full credit (and also credentials) for it. The Encyclopedia of American Loons is full of people like that, and it barely scratches the surface.
Both of my stepsons are PhDs; one in math, one in physics. I just kept getting master's degrees until I ran out of fields with enough real learning to be worth expanding my education. The education masters is what finally stumped me, and I've had enough learning in the manner that our society provides for seven lifetimes. Colleges will teach whatever they have textbooks to teach. There is value in this in the broadest sense, but there is no guarantee every area of learning is of intrinsic value simply just because someone, somewhere, knew enough about it to write a textbook once upon a time.
I thought it was a beautiful concept that the only assumption needed to create relativity was an invariant speed of light, and that light years were only the beginning. Light days, light hours, light minutes, and the light travel equivalent of a meter are all not just "good" examples of lengths as we define them. The ARE the standard. No other means of measuring length is even appropriate to a standard.
And then along comes Minkowski, and he says, basically: "Hey, look, I was Einstein's calculus teacher; I can do physics too. Look what ELSE is invariant; intervals in FOUR dimensions." And he goes on to completely muck up was was an auspicious start to relativity. Gets together with his pal Hilbert (who wrote his Eulogy) for god's sake -- and tries to 0ne-up Einstein by releasing a paper with a workable theory of GR based on -- you guessed it, the same old, same old, tired, Euclidean geometry. And the only reason it works, even half-assed, is because large gravitating bodies are ALMOST the same as a Euclidean solid in some respects. But in others, they are decidedly not. To get GR rolled out as a theory, they restore absolute time and absolute space (4D spacetime, no less), they pull out all the stops and cram in complex numbers, and the Pythagorean theorem to boot, just to make double sure no one understands the theory enough to call them out on it.
Then you start seeing absolute space and time coordinate systems mapped onto these stupid rubber sheets in inertialless space. Robert Hooke would have been pleased with it, if only because it resembled a two dimensional spring, but look how wrong he was about gravitation.
I don't care how many college level physics texts this stuff is written in. It's wrong on many levels.
The jig is up.
Last edited:
The jig is most certainly up! You are correct in that assumption. The jig of course being why the gang of "alternative pushers"we have on this forum, are actually mainstream rejects and failures, that even other forums have disowned in some cases, and totally banned in other cases.
The greatest failure among these rejects of course is how their collective delusions of grandeur, still has each seeing their own different versions as correct.
That just about says it all.
If you look up what pop science is, you will find it is basically watered down science that is non-technical and designed for people who are not educated in science.
So let me say I am sorry to here that you learned pop science, please let everyone here know which school you went to so they can avoid it! Of course if your degree is in Political Science or 17th Century French Poetry maybe your science course(s) was more along the lines of pop science. I thought it was implicit that I was talking about actual BS degrees!
Pop science along with incalcitrant mainstream science are just two cop outs that most of our alternative failures like the god and rajesh, see fit to use to try and scramble to gather at least an ounce of credibility.
So let's note that this kind of plot:
Is not what you can see a gravitational source doing--the proper projection is along a line passing through the gravitational object and the centre of the depression it makes in space.
Is not what you can see a gravitational source doing--the proper projection is along a line passing through the gravitational object and the centre of the depression it makes in space.
You're the one going against mainstream consensus.
You'll need to explain your objections.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
I was taught an alternate "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation equations from a freshman physics professor which he represented as original. It had so many flaws and inconsistencies, I don't even know where to begin. It did not even rise to a level of being worthy of refutation. I know this because I actually kept a copy of it for 20 years and went back and made sure I understood his approach long after receiving my degree in physics. And he also taught us about Minkowsi rotation as if it were something other than "pop" physics, too. He seemed to have a penchant for focusing on and teaching all the wrong aspects of any physics he was exposed to. It wasn't even "good" pop physics. This professor died some years ago without publishing anything of import about physics or anything else in the 40 years since he taught us that crap. University of Maryland, College Park, 1970.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Imagine building relativity's infamous 3D lattice of atomic precision clocks and meter sticks, each clock possessing a mass m, and each meter stick calibrated as a certain number of wavelengths of a certain frequency of light in the vacuum. Start with one clock. In the vicinity of that clock, the mass of the clock itself causes time to dilate in the 'space' surrounding it. Add another clock of equal mass, one meter away from the first clock. Now there is twice as much mass, and points equidistant from each clock now have different values of time dilation because the mass in the region it is being measured has increased.
You cannot add a meter stick or a clock without changing time dilation in the vicinity of the added clocks. Eventually, the mass of clocks in the rectilinear network will reach the equivalent mass of the Earth, or the Sun, or a black hole, but at each step along the way, there is really no point in the spaces surrounding the network of clocks and meter sticks in which it could be said that time does not dilate as a result of the mass of the surrounding network of clocks and meter sticks.
If the clocks and meter sticks have no uniformity other than spherical shells of equal time dilation, then NO CLOCK IN THE NETWORK will be a preferred reference. This is the essence of a bizarro real world of time and space geometry in which changes in position alone causes measurable differences in the rate at which time progresses. Differences in gravitational time dilation can be measured for differences in height on the order of 1 meter difference near the surface of the Earth. This is a scientific fact. It works exactly the same if the Earth were replaced by a network of clocks and meter sticks, and for the same reason.
And then imagine the entire lattice itself begins to move and also rotate in our grand thought experiment. Now not only are there no fixed time intervals, but no fixed lengths (aka light travel time) either, even if you previously considered the entire network itself to be at rest. This is the real world of relativistic space, and time dilation, and the best that can be said for doing geometry there is: keep your stopwatch, if you desire, but forget about your meter sticks measuring light travel time. Unless you are insane, you won't be doing geometry with those ever again. The spaces between those clocks contract as they approach an observer "at rest" with respect to the center of the rotating network. Time dilates even more than it does for differences in gravitation, and now it also varies considerably by latitude.
So, if you insist on rubber sheets to represent spacetime, the least you could do to make it more true-to-form is to LOSE THE RECTILINEAR GRAPH PAPER PRINTED ON IT. Areas of equal time dilation (or at least, as close to equal as is possible), are going to be represented in SPERICAL coordinates, not rectilinear ones. A rotating sphere will not even have a value for the mathematical "constant" pi that does not change with the rate of rotation.
I'm taking relativity back to its inception of clocks and meter sticks to represent the folly of imagining that the geometry of space is even a consideration here. It is time dilation that causes gravitational lensing, and this core insight is not naturally represented by a Cartesian or a rectilinear coordinate system.
By using time dilation instead of Minkowski "spacetime", we dispense with the idea that space is somehow absolute, or has inertia, or can "bend" or that light travel "proper" time is not an invariant quantity all by itself. "Space" isn't bending, around gravitating bodies, but time IS dilating. Time does have an origin; the instant of "now" that is the same instant everywhere, but following that instant, time intervals proceed at different rates everywhere.
Where is your God of solid Euclidean geometry now? Where exactly did you nail the origin of your coordinate system so that it can't possibly move? Not to one of those flimsy inertialless rubber sheets, I hope.
We may not be able to determine our absolute velocity relative to an aether wind, but it is actually relatively easy to calculate the rate at which time intervals will contract in the absence of any relative motion or local gravitational fields. There are several distinct advantages to this relativistic approach.
You cannot add a meter stick or a clock without changing time dilation in the vicinity of the added clocks. Eventually, the mass of clocks in the rectilinear network will reach the equivalent mass of the Earth, or the Sun, or a black hole, but at each step along the way, there is really no point in the spaces surrounding the network of clocks and meter sticks in which it could be said that time does not dilate as a result of the mass of the surrounding network of clocks and meter sticks.
If the clocks and meter sticks have no uniformity other than spherical shells of equal time dilation, then NO CLOCK IN THE NETWORK will be a preferred reference. This is the essence of a bizarro real world of time and space geometry in which changes in position alone causes measurable differences in the rate at which time progresses. Differences in gravitational time dilation can be measured for differences in height on the order of 1 meter difference near the surface of the Earth. This is a scientific fact. It works exactly the same if the Earth were replaced by a network of clocks and meter sticks, and for the same reason.
And then imagine the entire lattice itself begins to move and also rotate in our grand thought experiment. Now not only are there no fixed time intervals, but no fixed lengths (aka light travel time) either, even if you previously considered the entire network itself to be at rest. This is the real world of relativistic space, and time dilation, and the best that can be said for doing geometry there is: keep your stopwatch, if you desire, but forget about your meter sticks measuring light travel time. Unless you are insane, you won't be doing geometry with those ever again. The spaces between those clocks contract as they approach an observer "at rest" with respect to the center of the rotating network. Time dilates even more than it does for differences in gravitation, and now it also varies considerably by latitude.
So, if you insist on rubber sheets to represent spacetime, the least you could do to make it more true-to-form is to LOSE THE RECTILINEAR GRAPH PAPER PRINTED ON IT. Areas of equal time dilation (or at least, as close to equal as is possible), are going to be represented in SPERICAL coordinates, not rectilinear ones. A rotating sphere will not even have a value for the mathematical "constant" pi that does not change with the rate of rotation.
I'm taking relativity back to its inception of clocks and meter sticks to represent the folly of imagining that the geometry of space is even a consideration here. It is time dilation that causes gravitational lensing, and this core insight is not naturally represented by a Cartesian or a rectilinear coordinate system.
By using time dilation instead of Minkowski "spacetime", we dispense with the idea that space is somehow absolute, or has inertia, or can "bend" or that light travel "proper" time is not an invariant quantity all by itself. "Space" isn't bending, around gravitating bodies, but time IS dilating. Time does have an origin; the instant of "now" that is the same instant everywhere, but following that instant, time intervals proceed at different rates everywhere.
Where is your God of solid Euclidean geometry now? Where exactly did you nail the origin of your coordinate system so that it can't possibly move? Not to one of those flimsy inertialless rubber sheets, I hope.
We may not be able to determine our absolute velocity relative to an aether wind, but it is actually relatively easy to calculate the rate at which time intervals will contract in the absence of any relative motion or local gravitational fields. There are several distinct advantages to this relativistic approach.
Last edited:
One swallow does not a Summer make. And by the same token, all our many alternative hypothesis pushers here, cannot ever be consistent with each other as I said. You all sit there behind your computer screens, deriding accepted mainstream cosmology and GR, yet I have never seen any consistency in what you all claim.
Yourself, personally, I see as the best of a bad bunch, yet you have vigouressly argued with Schmelzer, Q-reeus, Farsight, and obviously with the even more lame-brained of your brigade, like the god, rajesh, constant theorist.
The claims all of you make re mainstream and incalcitrance is nothing more than conspired nonsense, driven by envy and greed in the overall success that mainstream science and cosmology in particular has achieved.
Even on other science forums, most of the lot I mentioned would be severely banned and curtailed...yet here you are allowed to preach your anti conspiracy driven nonsense as you like.
Science though, proceeds on without regard or even knowledge of the carryings on.
Have I said all that before?
Yeah, probably, and I'll go on saying it as long as my arse keeps pointing towards the ground and as long as we are continually infected with cranks and pseudoscientists.
That is one of the funniest and ironic things that has happened in a while. My son is getting his PhD at University of Maryland, College Park!
. That'll teach me to be flippant!!!
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
My oldest stepson, who got his PhD from UMBC had no such complaints. We discuss physics quite a lot, and he is VERY knowledgable. He got all the education he paid for, and it was a good one that has served him in a career in atmospheric physics very well.That is one of the funniest and ironic things that has happened in a while. My son is getting his PhD at University of Maryland, College Park!
Last edited:
origin said:
The point is, whether whatever I have written on this issue is against mainstream or not?
Few days back in one of the posts, I had stated something similar to what 'origin' said about pop science....popscience is watered down version for easy understanding. But in the same post I had coined one more word, 'poposcience' exclusively for 'Paddoboy'...Poposcience is few steps below popscience, nothing to do with mainstream; vague and absolutely incorrect representation of mainstream. Paddoboy's insistence that a charged BH will attract opposite charge from the other side of EH, his insistence that spin will go away without explaining how, his insistence with hovering of photon, his insistence with certain issues on HR, his confusion on diameter / volume of a BH and now this Strong Nuclear Force is nothing but 'poposcience'. So nowhere did I say that mainstream is poposcience, despite my otherwise opinion on certain points.
Now since Daecon has specifically raised this issue and wants to know why this nuclear force thingie is poposcience, then I must clarify...before you proceed you may like to brush up by referring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
1. In the context, your reference is about Strong Nuclear Force as attractive force between Neutron/Proton in a nucleus which is very strong. This force binds the nucleons together by despite the Proton-Proton repulsion. The classic theory behind this with potential well is know to any middle school Physics student, but it has something more which if required/raised will be taken up later.
2. This attraction force is inward, and Gravitational collapse is also inward, so there is no need for Gravity to overcome this. Gravity will have to overcome if this attraction force acts as resistance to collapse but it does not. So his argument fails here itself.
3. When a core collapses and say it has sufficient mass to form just the Neutron Star, then all Neutrons in the inner core, has strong Nuclear Force binding them, Gravity also acts as compressive / binding force only, so in the Neutron Star there is no overcoming of Nuclear Force (Which is present in its extreme maxima) by Gravity.
4. If the star core mass is more, then the 'Equation of state of matter' changes, and we really do not know, what becomes of Neutrons, you may like to read about hypothetical Quark Stars, and also above wiki link would have given you an idea about strong interaction...but thats no longer Nuclear Force, as there are no longer Neutrons/Protons...so called some kind of hypothesized Quarks/Gluons soup.
5. if the star core mass is still more than, a BH comes, and we know nothing about Equation of State for sure beyond Neutron Star, not even mathematically.
So can anyone pin point where the Gravity has overcome the strong Nuclear Force and how ?
Now coming to mass accretion by Black Hole..
6. If the BH is large, then nothing untoward may happen near EH because tidal forces may not be so strong. As the object approaches singularity, tidal forces become significant. How these Tidal Forces overcome Strong Nuclear Force, I do not know, this is a free fall and we do not know the maths under such extreme Gravity. The plight of the object as it merges with the singulairty (or vanishes to oblivion) is unknown...Its a very complex stuff and I am not aware of any paper/work which talks of a condition when for pair of Neutrons or protons or for Neutron Proton pair (Tidal Force > Strong Nuclear Force).
If any of you can put a paper, which explicitly discusses this issue, I am willing to retract.
So, I urge all three of you, pl desist from making such false accusations that I am terming mainstream as poposcience. I have no problem with your blind support to Paddoboy's popscience, Poposcience and adhoms posts, but do not make false representations. Post some science, contribute, not some one liners.
Degenerate matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
This page references all forms of highly compressed matter before reaching singularity.
Talk is quite cheap. And you as an outright forum crank indulges in plenty of it.
Most certainly just as I have referenced, although charged BH's would be somewhat of a rareity, the fact remains that they are a valid explanation and possible and would do as I suggest.
Unless of course you can link to something showing that as false.
You see, the word of the forum troll and crank and a lay person to boot, is just not good enough for most here.
You are unable to do that.
That is also a fact and has also been referenced. Again if you have any reference to show that is false, be my guest. Spin of course can be negated by twisted magnetic field lines, accretion disks and incoming matter etc...quite mundane.
You see, the word of the forum troll and crank and a lay person to boot, is just not good enough for most here.
You are unable to do that.
Yes, again, I am totally correct. Any photon emitted this side of the EH, directly radially away, will be never seccumb to the BH and never quite escape.
Much as a fish swimming at 10kms/hr upstream against a current of 10km/hr.
Of course if you have a reference to invalidate that claim, than again, be my guest.
You see, the word of the forum troll and crank and a lay person to boot, is just not good enough for most here.
You are unable to do that.
HR is generally accepted as likely and my claim stands despite your usual antics.
My diameter reference also still stands as does the relevant tutorial as a valid approximation.
Of course if you can reference anything contradicting my claim then again, be my guest.
You see, the word of the forum troll and crank and a lay person to boot, is just not good enough for most here.
You are unable to do that.
Since gravity certainly does overcome all other forces as I have referenced and since there has yet to be an issue of anything you are correct on and can reference, it appears you are the culprit indulging in popscience...although most times it is just pseudoscience, pure and simple.
Of course if you are able to show any reference invalidating my gravity mainstream claim, then be my guest.
You see, the word of the forum troll and crank and a lay person to boot, is just not good enough for most here.
You are unable to do that.
Despite your adhoc claims and the usual garbage, when matter/energy is swallowed by a BH, it is spaghettified and eventually stripped apart to its most basic constituents, by tidal gravitational interactions, pure and simple.
Now if you can show any reference invalidating that than go ahead.
You see, the word of the forum troll and crank and a lay person to boot, is just not good enough for most here.
You are unable to do that.
Total word salad.
Tidal gravity effects are what governs the spaghettifying and breaking down of matter/energy inside the EH.
It's not like standing on the surface of a planet, feeling a certain gravity potential of the whole planet, and then feeling less gravity as we move towards the centre of the planet. The BH's mass is not distributed in any spherical apparition you imagine. The BH is no more than spacetime critically curved, with all the mass at the singularity/quantum/Planck level.
Again if you can reference or invalidate that than go ahead. Otherwise it appears so far you are not doing real well.
Tidal gravity my boy, tidal gravity. Your description is rubbish and fabricated pseudoscience, nothing more, nothing less. And again, this has nothing to do with any Neutron star or Black Neutron Star for that matter.
But of course if you can than go ahead!
Bunkum. Quark stars, Neutron stars are not BH's.
And no, I have not visited your WIKI link but in time I will and I say now that you have as usual misinterpreted or lied. simple as that.
We can assume plenty of what goes on inside a BH as many professionals have agreed. While you are correct that tidal gravity effects depend on the size of the BH, the fact remains that according to mainstream accepted cosmology, that tidal gravity effect increases as one approaches the singularity, and any object will be spagehettified as I have described, and broken down into its most basic components, overcoming all other forces in the process.
The god version which is the same as the rajesh trivedi version, is a totally fabricated concept not recognised anywhere other than with the god and rajesh.
That would be a change but I don't believe you for one minute as past issues have proven.
Why not heed your own words. Your total false indignation and rant about others that see things logically and those that have you on ignore show you for who you are. A bloody fraud. nothing more, nothing less.