Mordred

I'm sorry I don't see this as feasible. Not from the videos, I assume you have the related math? Key questions. 1) diameter of Jupiter compared to diameter of Mars. Why would only a 2000 km region only be affected? 2) why would it dig a deep slope to its depth instead of a smooth gradual slope over a wider region. 3) the Hellas crater has a steeper slope on one side compared to the opposite side. How do you account for this. The far larger diameter of Jupiter compared to mars I would expect a far larger diameter of influenced region essentially the entire side facing Jupiter should be affected. secondly I don't see how you would get the crater walls in full dimensions in your scenario. Images I've seen of the Hellas crater are common in shape and depth of an impact. Erosion has been shown to remove the signs of melting Particularly since their is evidence of once liquid water in the region. I'd like to review the math involved to answer the above Oh forgot one key question. How does your model account for the greater depth of the Hellas crater on the west side? Mars has an axis of rotation of 26 degrees. Hellas crater is 67 degrees on the south side. Your videos has Mars approaching on the left side of Jupiter. This would place the North hemisphere closer to Jupiter. This also doesn't include the concerns on how Mars is in its current orbit. I will need to look up some details on that to see if there is any feasibility in the combination of the location of the HEllas crater, compared to Mars current orbit and how this compares in terms of the laws of angular momentum . As well as the details of mars current orbit. If you have those details on hand please post them

It took me a while to relocate this particular article. It is probably one of the more extensive and explanative articles I've read on galaxy rotation curves including the mass to luminosity relations. Of particular interest for your calculations is the region mass breakdown on the chart of page 25. The other key importance is the application of the virial theorem. http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.8215 You probably will find this article a great aid. Particularly since it covers the problems with using strictly the Kepler laws in rotation curves In particular the influence and distribution of the dark matter halo

There is no negative matter.

There is one other consideration you also need to consider the mass distribution of the intergalactic plasma. Which is significant.

Take out your basket ball measure the shortest distance between two points. There is your geodesic on a curved manifold

That is also accurate

Considering you supply zero evidence and math to support your outlandish claims your right this isn't the forum for you. I on the other supplied supporting links that show tests done in support of GR. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment do you not see the difference? Anyone can babble, but can you back up your claims? You've been a member on this forum for 3 years surely you took the time to learn the forum rules?

This isn't the forum for philosophy, Regardless of your opinions of Human frailty we can make accurate predictions using GR. That's the purpose of any good model. Even more so those predictions match experimental evidence. Is this the final answer of course not. There is still ongoing research and tests to couple quantum gravity and GR. No theory is ever final. However until something better comes along. GR is extremely useful and accurate. As mentioned science isn't some conspiracy. Not everyone works for NASA or any one government. Science doesn't work that way. In order to measure you must observe. Unless you have some hocus pocus way to measure without some form of observation or interaction.

There is none that's not what GR states This is your misunderstanding. Time in GR is treated as a vector Time affects reaction rates of particles. Here is some of the tests http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles http://m.phys.org/news/2014-10-fundamentals-physics-einstein-dilation-quantum.html

Unfortunately the choice of coordinates do make a difference. The Schwartzchild metric is a static solution. Inside the EH it is anything but static. Here read this page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_coordinates "Schwarzschild chart, a kind of polar spherical coordinate chart on a static and spherically symmetric spacetime" please note the killing vector section

Look up photon then look up what forces interactions affect the photon. Answer one only electromagnetic. Not the weak force not the strong force. Gravity also does not directly influence the photon. Space time curvature does. Now what does space time curvature really mean? Space is geometric volume, ONLY. space time is any mathematical model of space with the time component. Gravity is an influence upon particles. It cannot influence an empty volume. Gravity affects space time as an influence upon the particles contained within the volume of space time. In other words treat space time as a fluid ( perfect fluid or ideal gas) Higher gravity wells have a higher energy density, energy density per volume has a pressure influence depending upon the particles equations of state. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The stress energy tensor of the Einstein field equations show the energy momentum relations and includes the energy density to pressure relations. see the matrix on this page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor Space time curvature is an energy density distribution curve of the influences of gravity upon particles. It is not some magical material that stretches, bends etc. This is the problem with pop media articles. They supply the simple analogies but not what those analogies represent in terms of differential geometry That article you posted above is due to space time curvature. It does not mean light is naturally curved in its trajectory.

Then you need to find some evidence to support your ludicrous claims. As mentioned GR is well tested, physics does not instantly take any claim at face value, GR has been fought tooth and nail trying to prove wrong. GUess what, that hasn't happened. Now on to your ridiculous claim that light naturally curved. I mentioned lasers, if light naturally curved laser would quickly lose coherence, once it leaves the laser. If light naturally curves on its own every image we view in space would be highly distorted we wouldn't even be able to see beyond our own galaxy due to the resultant distortions. Go ahead try it lets say the light path from a star curves 1 degree per Mpc. Would you see an object at 4000 Mpc. Would angles add up to 180 degrees? Instead of randomly denying GR, perhaps you should spend time understanding why the model works and what it really means. Your argument is essentially " I don't like chocolate," " have you tasted it" "No I just don't like it" It's easy to discount something you obviously don't understand. Guess what, if you took the time to understand it, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. By the way space time is not something mystical fabric. That's pop media crap

Geodesics are the shortest path in curved space. In Euclidean geometry the shortest path between two points is a straight line. In curved space it's not the case. Your argument denies curved space. Which by the way is extremely well tested. Photons do not make a path they follow geodesics GR is extremely well tested

Your going to need to provide some references. Photon paths follow geodesics

Your welcome, I posted that paper to assist you in this debate, so you have a reference to discuss. It will help keep the discussion on track. You will also note I posted the second paper in a counter argument to the first paper. In the second paper the EH can be crossed by particles by a removal of the coordinate singularity due to the Schwartzchild metric. Adopting the "tortoise coordinates", is one method, the coordinates Strange mentioned being another. A key thing to realize, GR has come a long way since Einstein and Schwartzchild. Minkowskii metrics for example has limitations. There have been numerous later metrics developed to overcome aspects of the older metrics, The Mathius Blau book in my signature points out numerous shortcomings in the older metrics and shows the solutions with later developed coordinate systems. The first paper, recognizes the coordinate singularity, it points out the possibility, of particles not crossing the EH. However it doesn't conclusively state it is the case. The black hole wars is full of similar arguments lol Oh in regard to Hawking radiation converting infalling matter outside the EH,mentioned in the first paper. That process can't occur, the author of the first paper probably didn't realize Hawking radiation only occurs if the universe blackbody temperature is lower than the BHs blackbody temperature. Just a side note

The term dimensions, can represent various aspects in differential geometry. There is Three spacial dimensions, one time dimension, you can also assign a dimension to specific interactions such as charge, color,flavor, etc. The 11 dimensions you mentioned is string theory.

Galaxy rotation curves is a complex subject. First you have to examine the distribution of visible matter as well as hydrogen and intergalactic plasma. This using keplers laws still won't get the right answer. This is when you need to look at the distribution of dark matter. This article is very basic. However gives the general idea. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve more detail is here http://cds.cern.ch/record/1023900/files/0703430.pdf

This sounds like the information paradox though not precisely. you might want to read this paper as it's directly related to this discussion and what you've been trying to describe. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609024 Observation of Incipient Black Holes and the Information Loss Problem. The problem with using the Schwartzchild metric is that it is invalid past the EH. The coordinate system no longer works. On a personal note, I keep in mind the expression " The universe doesn't care how we measure it" In this context just because we cannot see the BH form from our observable perspective, doesn't preclude it from forming in a finite time from a different observer perspective. Ie the infalling test particle. As the mathematics can easily model the latter example it is also equally valid. Here "As we mentioned above, astrophysical BHs are the product of gravitational collapse, and then are not eternal black holes. A qual- itative view of the spacetime of a realistic black hole is shown in the Finkelstein diagram in Fig. 1.4, " This paper will step you through the solution http://www.roma1.infn.it/teongrav/leonardo/bh/bhcap12.pdf

Umm no it doesn't lasers is a good example.

To answer that would take far too long. You'd be surprised just how much we can model. Here is a very lengthy and technical paper that covers measurement and modelling the accretion disk including as close to the EH a possible. You might want to study the ZAMO and ZAVO metrics inside the article. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499:''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself.

No problem, As this is on topic, here is related posts. I would love to get this guy on this forum. https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/21/lies-teacher-told/

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/24/need-speed/ Came across this good coverage, on my Google+ Thought I'd share it

The most accurate of the three is mass/ energy density keeping in mind mass and energy is interchangeable. Energy being a property of particles. Matter isn't needed to bend space. As fundamental bosons isn't matter particles. You don't need a strong particle physics understanding to understand GR. However it's good to know the basics.

4 forces Photons carry electromagnetic Quarks carry the strong force W and Z bosons carry the weak force http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier The common name is gauge bosons. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson Graviton should be for gravity. However we haven't found the graviton. http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/elementary_particles_part_1_fos_v7n4.pdf

Who is being sloppy, the person pushing a metric artifact or the professional scientists involved in spotting that GRB? Are you claiming those scientists are wrong simply because of your misunderstanding of the Schwartz child metric? Here this covers what is known as a coordinate singularity. "Before exploring the behavior of test particles in the Schwarzschild geometry, we should say something about singularities. From the form of (7.29), the metric coefficients become infinite at r = 0 and r = 2GM an apparent sign that something is going wrong. The metric coefficients, of course, are coordinate-dependent quantities, and as such we should not make too much of their values; it is certainly possible to have a coordinate singularity The simple solution is change the coordinates. Exactly as Imaatsfal stated. http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/grnotes-seven.pdf There is an expression you should consider. "The universe doesn't care how we measure it". What this means is there is a limit to how far you can take any metric.