Zanket

Yes, this thread is about spotting pseudoscience, which the OP shows is done here with pseudoscientific criteria. Some sites are more scientific than others. I’d say that sciforums is the most scientific, and physicsforums the least. I’d rank this site as 2nd-least scientific. Here the King of Physics can be a barefaced liar with impunity, science be damned.

No, it would not even be read. The odds against validity are considered too high to even consider such work. If they were scientific, showing a flaw of a widely accepted theory would be enough. There are no “high gravity” tests of GR. The theory has been experimentally confirmed in only the weakest-gravity 0.0005% of the region above a theorized event horizon of a black hole. It doesn’t matter how often you test the same teeny tiny part of a theory’s range of applicability, you’re still not comprehensively testing the theory. And no, black holes do not confirm GR; those “discoveries” rely on the validity of GR. Nobody here could show a single example that proves otherwise. But never fear, in our Dim Age we can simply lock theories in stone and declare any doubters wrong regardless of the evidence they have.

Thanks for helping make my case. GR has barely been tested, but of course I must be wrong about that because you are the King of Physics. The list itself is pseudoscience, so it doesn’t help to spot it. The list is just dogma for your ilk.

You’re not only unscientific, you’re also a liar. The math has already been done in spades. I refer to the widely accepted predictions of GR, as put forth by several noted physicists. Math can mislead too. For example, no one in 90+ years has noticed that GR’s widely accepted predictions clearly contradict each other. Whatever. You can call any reference a paper makes just an “argument from authority”. My references to Einstein are no different than other papers’ references in general. By your logic, women’s work should be suspected as pseudoscience just because most scientific breakthroughs have been made by men. You think that works should be judged by historical odds and other criteria having no basis in scientific principles. And you are unscientific if you do so.

It’s a second revolution when physicists realize that physics has been revolutionized. The same unscientific thinking that this site uses for detecting pseudoscience is prevalent at the “reputable” journals too. For example, by editorial policy at Annalen der Physik, which originally published special relativity, no paper that challenges Einstein is eligible for consideration. A formal peer review from a reputable journal is not an option for my idea, even assuming it’s valid. You can ask them yourself to confirm.

Don’t worry, yours is a common knee-jerk reaction in the face of proof that even an amateur can revolutionize physics.

Yes, you amply showed that you are unscientific.

A counter-example is here or here. Rather than those who disagree being ignored, they have been soundly refuted. Nevertheless it must be pseudoscience. We don’t need science to tell us what pseudoscience is nowadays. We need only look at the odds, at least at this site.

Sorry, I’m going to have to go with the dictionary on this one. I’d like to see the proof that a scientific claim posted on a website is invalid. It’s hard to defend applying this nowadays. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are usually the work of men, so I guess we should suspect all women’s work as pseudoscience. Dr. Park is clearly trying to throw the babies out with the bathwater with his ironically pseudoscientific list. Tom Mattson’s list above is scientific—it’s the one that should be favored by this site.

Einstein did not work at a university when he wrote his 1905 "miracle year" papers. He worked as a patent clerk then. He was the only author. He collaborated only with a friend he bounced ideas off of. He didn't get a job at a university until later; his 1905 papers helped him get that job. Treating the act of submitting a paper for peer review as not working in isolation is ridiculous IMO. We’d never see pseudoscience in that case, because “worked in isolation” would mean that the person never showed it to anybody. But “worked in isolation” means exactly what the dictionary says it does, and Einstein did exactly that. So did Dirac and Newton to a large degree. Einstein did propose a new law of nature with his postulate that the speed of light is invariant. It doesn't matter if it was obvious from pre-existing sources. Einstein proposed a new law of nature with his equivalence principle as well. So you did. My bad, sorry.

Then I would change the description of #2 to "That is, its predictions must be derivable via logic and, if applicable, mathematics". Otherwise people might get the mistaken impression that the premises need be derived. I'd say that well over 90% of people on these forums think that a theory's predictive equations must be derived. An illogical theory (e.g. one that is self-inconsistent) can make predictions that are derivable via logic and, if applicable, mathematics. I think you need a separate point that says the theory must be logical.

SR was initially beyond the limit of detection. It wasn't confirmed until years later. "Worked in isolation" does not mean "never published". He did not derive the postulate that the speed of light is invariant; he invented it. He proposed a new law of nature.

How can the theory be valid according to your rules when it violates your rule #2? What is the derivation for this theory? A theory need not be derived. For example, Einstein invented his field equations; he didn't derive them. And theories cannot be known to be valid. Points #3, 6, and 7, if only because they applied to Einstein, make a strong case for the claim in #2.

I rephrased it here.

In my model the finite redshift of the CMBR can be explained by it sourcing from the beginning of the current phase of expansion of the universe, happening a finite time ago, hence the CMBR we see now sources from a finite distance away from us, just as it does in the leading model. In the leading model the CMBR sources from the big bang (or shortly thereafter), a finite time ago when any given patch of the universe was contained in zero volume (a singularity). In my model the current phase of expansion of the universe began from a finite time ago when any given patch of the universe was contained in a volume that can be arbitrarily small but not zero. In other words the expansion began from an event that can be exceedingly similar to the big bang.

You gave the reasoning on that above. It's the same reasoning used to see that they can get to any free object (e.g. a star) in that time. When they're at the bottom of the rocket, the star gets to them by traversing the rocket first. The ball can be treated like a star. OK, I've got some ideas on that. Maybe in a few days.

AlphaNumeric is correct there in that velocity can be accurately measured only locally, ideally in the limit of zero distance traversed. I pointed that out above in this thread.

Yes. It doesn't imply that. I could have said "regardless of the initial distance between the star and the mark in the crew's frame". That's the same distance as the "proper distance between the tip and the mark". I'm just referring to a specific distance using the fewest words. Why do you think that the time elapsed in the crew's frame is affected by whether the star traverses empty space or traverses the rocket?

True. Above you said: In this case you didn't think that anything exceeds c. Nothing moves faster than c in (b) for the same reason. Extend the rocket so that its tip is initially at the star. Leave a mark on the rocket where the tip was. Then by your own reasoning it is apparent that the star can traverse from the tip of the rocket to the mark in an arbitrarily short time in the crew's frame, regardless of the proper distance between the tip and the mark. You are stuck on the idea that if the star or ball is traversing empty space, it need not exceed c for the crew's time to be arbitrarily short, whereas if it is traversing the rocket, it must exceed c to do that. But it doesn't matter whether the gap between the mark and the star is empty or the rocket fills it. When the rocket fills the gap, the distance between the mark and the star can still be made arbitrarily small in the crew's frame by making the relative velocity approach that of light.

I’ll await your references on this point, if only because I don't have time to research this now. That’s Olbers’ paradox, covered in section 7. Section 7 says about the new cosmological model, “The universe has always been infinite in extent.” Unlike for cosmological models based on GR, both time and space are always infinite in any direction my model.

He was arguing above that situation (b) is false. Now he’s saying that it’s true. I predict that next he’ll say it’s false again.

You repeatedly said above that situation (b) is false; now you say it’s true. If both (a) and (b) are true then the equivalence principle is violated. The equivalence principle shows that, since (b) is true according to the relativistic rocket equations, (a) must be false.

Yes, that is evident in many of my discussions. My paper makes the following points: (b) is given by SR in section 8 of my paper. Then (a) is false according to the GR’s equivalence principle, which lets the tree and crew be analogous. But the paper shows that GR agrees with (a). Then GR is inconsistent; it contradicts itself.

accepted, thanks This is just an opinion. In science, facts determine whether there’s a flaw. In my paper, validly poking a hole in GR leads to a metric that is compatible with quantum mechanics and does not predict singularities, yet is still experimentally confirmed. Sometimes the status quo must be refuted in the process of deriving the successor. Newtonian mechanics was “well-thought out” for 200+ years. By your logic we should not have GR today. For the record I will show mathematically that a ball can traverse a rocket in an arbitrarily short time in the frame of its crew, the point of my paper that you mainly disputed above. In the paper this point is leveraged to show a flaw of GR. The relevant special relativistic equation is eq. 19 in my paper, which sources from the Usenet Physics FAQ here, and which is derived in section 6.2 of Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler: T = acosh((a * d) + 1) / a Definitions: a = Positive acceleration felt by the crew, in geometric units acosh = Inverse hyperbolic cosine function d = Distance traversed by the rocket in the gantry’s frame ly = light years T = Time elapsed in the crew’s frame (i.e. how much the crew ages), in geometric units y = years Let the rocket have a proper length of one light year. Let the ball be at rest in the gantry’s frame, initially near the tip of the rocket. Then d = 1 ly and the equation measures the years elapsed in the crew’s frame for the tail of the rocket to reach the ball, i.e. for the ball to traverse the rocket. Here are some sample results: d = 1 ly, a = 5 ly / y^2, T = 0.50 y d = 1 ly, a = 10 ly / y^2, T = 0.31 y d = 1 ly, a = 25 ly / y^2, T = 0.16 y d = 1 ly, a = 50 ly / y^2, T = 0.09 y The time T is inversely proportional to the acceleration. Then the time T can be arbitrarily short for any given d. The velocity v is always less than c, as reported by eq. 16.

Thanks for the suggestion. According to the equivalence principle, the duration of the traversal can be arbitrarily short in either frame. Otherwise an experiment could distinguish between the two situations in defiance of the equivalence principle. That’s the point that is used to show an inconsistency of GR. As I recall you’ve brought this up before. I think that would be sugarcoating. It seems that many people take offense at “flaw”. But the word is properly used, and the paper proves its point, so I don’t care if the word offends. The paper is intended to be matter-of-fact and not diplomatic. I think those people will have a knee-jerk reaction no matter what words I use. These are people who want to suppress anything that disagrees with their cherished status quo, regardless of the evidence.