beecee

Why your obsession with the other forum and your manufactured lies? Unlike you, I do learn...and I learn from the experts and professionals....certainly not from those at the level of conspiracy nuts.

I'm not telling you not to post your thoughts, but that's exactly what they are...thoughts, albeit incorrect thoughts, for the many reasons stated. Now again if you are so sure you are right, then write up a professional paper, for professional peer review....You have something against that? Perhaps your arrogance, along with your "certainty" on this issue, as against the general scientific community of professional experts, which you brush off, with baseless accusations, condemnations, and nutty conspiracy jibes along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracy ratbags. Whether you accept GR and all the observational and experimental data confirming it, is neither here nor there. It remains as our prime gravity theory and will for a long time yet. Your friendly GR fanboy!

Bingo! Or to put that more simply, a photon has no rest frame so we are unable to speak of how the universe is observed from that pseudo frame.

I do not believe if that did happen it would change your skewered view of GR, and GW's one little bit. Not sure how many times now you have threatened that you are done..... Again, let me repeat myself and as I have asked you here and elsewhere, with regards to your crusade, if you believe the errors and misinterpretations of your generally unsupported claim, then write up a professional paper, in a professional manner, for professional peer review. But Hey! wait! All the professional peer reviewers would be like the experts here and simply recalcitrant to your hypothetical unevidenced ideas, correct?

Forward time travel is indeed a possibility and within the laws of physics. In fact at very small scales it is occurring every time one of us takes a plane trip somewhere or other. Basically it goes like this...the faster one travels through space, the slower one travels through time. Time travel into the past is another kettle of fish and probably not viable, as one would need to go faster then light. Kip explains it far better then I.....https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

Your English is not the problem. It's actually very good pseudoscience.

The message is far simpler then that. Folks here, folks on the other forum that you have constantly referred to, where you were banned, folks in academia in general, students and professionals alike, Renowned scientists everywhere, all the reputable links I have supplied, all say you are wrong. Gravity does make gravity, gravity is simply spacetime geometry. When you get that message, then you may possibly be able to move on. That doesn't say though that in the course of time, some limitation to GR will be found. But as I have educated you in the past on, that will not probably come via science forums such as this and others where you attempt to conduct your crusade. That will come from the professionals that are already working towards improving and extending on GR and testing the same everyday, every year. But guess what? As Professor T'Hooft said, at this time GR still stands as the accepted, evidenced backed, most accurate theory of gravity that we have.

Pulsars are simply the spinning remnant of a very large star, and a version of a Neutron star. They have nothing to do with accretion disks, which are simply orbiting amounts of matter that rotate around a dense astronomical body like a BH. Gravitational lensing is simply the effects we see as a result of light from distant objects, being bent around an intervening object on its way to us on Earth, and is caused by light/photons following geodesics in curved/warped spacetime. We have strong, near irrefutable evidence to support all three of those definitions. ps: To the best of our present knowledge, relativity both general and special is correct and again both supported by observational and experimental evidence.

The CMBR at 2.73K and as predicted earlier by other researchers purely on theoretical grounds.

That's near word for word how an old Astronomer mate explained it...pretty straight forward actually. Nothing at all with your post and general description.

Known black holes as of Nov 15 This graphic shows the masses for black holes detected through gravitational-wave observations (blue). from.....https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/image/ligo20171115a

Given that I simply follow the scientific method, and latest science news, given that I am giving reputable links from reputable experts, who you as an amateur chose to be in conflict with, given that like the vast majority, I see the mainstream as the best explanation by far, given that it is you being contrary and quite arrogant as per your reply to Migl and others, given that you are known to dabble in conspiracies on that other forum you keep raising, given all that, I can safely say that I never chose to be a "winner" as you put it....simply letting you know that any alternative to GR and any incumbent model, will by necessity and rightly so, need to run the gauntlet. Nothing as yet has succeeded. Will something overtake GR? probably, one day, but it certainly is not going to do it by someone running a crusade on two or more forums, irrespective of his or her interpretations. Call me a fan boy, call me a science cheer leader, call me what you like, on this current issue, I'll stand by the incumbent until professionally invalidated in the professional way by a professional. http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html The above probably applies every day on every science forum, when some upstart or smarty that believes he can or has invalidated GR and/or Einstein. I mean knocking over the crowning ultimate top position will most certainly gain the notoriety or otherwise that these individuals seek for whatever reasons and/or whatever agenda. from the link..... Examples of the claims that professional scientists regularly encounter are: - "Einstein’s equations for gravity are incorrect", - "Einstein’s equivalence principle is incorrect or not correctly understood", - "Black holes do not exist", - "Einstein’s equations have no dynamical solutions", - "Gravitational waves do not exist", - "The Standard Model is wrong", - "The Big Bang never occurred; Hubble's Law for the cosmic red shift is being mis-understood", - "Cosmic background radiation does not exist", and the list goes on and on and on...........

The highlighted RH, should be EH...Event Horizon.

Don't take it too hard...that is the least of your technical errors of judgement. I'll keep repeating it as you have done nothing, nor said anything to dispatch it as you claim. Still it looks good for the record. Your highlighted part of my statement was simply referring to flat spacetime....in other words other then spacetime that isn't curved, warped, waved or twisted in the presence of mass, thereby exhibiting gravity, which irrefutably shows that gravity is simply the geometry of spacetime. Erroneous in your opinion, which has already been shown to be in error. All my sources are reputable including the Professor t'Hooft, a Nobel prize recipient I might add. And of course there was more then one authority supporting my position, and no, I certainly do not remember any reply inferring the authoritive position as not fully consistent. Quote mining?? The link with the full text is there for all to read, and always is in any point I make. Obviously you don't subscribe to your "show of hands" particularly when that show of hands disputes and/or disagrees with your made up interpretation of GR, gravitational waves, etc, that happens to be supported by an isolated minority of hands. Any appeal to authority that is appeal to authority educated and qualified in the relevant discipline under discussion, is admirable appeal to authority and totally justified, in attempting to facilitate your own understanding and the areas where you are simply wrong...and of course, most definitely yes, also to facilitate my own understanding. The usual inferences you are noted for are simply sour grapes and excuses. My memories are pretty good for an old bloke, and once again, the bulk of references, and authoritative statements from experts and reputable links, supported the fact that gravity being non linear, means that gravity makes gravity. Particularly authoritative figures that just happen to refute your own amateurish opinions. While thinking things through for ones self, is an admirable quality, it is not quite as admirable to make veiled inferences and accusations about science being recalcitrant and stubbornly dishonest, when your limited ability lacking the expertise and professionalism, happens to be in conflict with the well held and justified mainstream position. Excuse me for laughing, but really, you must be getting desperate. My devotion as you sarcastically put it, is simply adhering and appreciating the scientific methodology, and dismissing the conspiracy nonsense in this regard that you seem obviously taken with....I mean really, it's near as stupid and foolish as the nuts that push the 9/11 and Moon Landing nonsensical conspiracies. As per the thread I started re V4 gravity, and the other thread that discussion has taken place on, as per aLIGO and other reputable scientific people and orginisations, now considering and working through any possible anomalies with either the GR interpretations or that of the many alternative hypotheticals, all this shows your veiled accusations and conspiracy claims, as nothing but sheer nonsense and excuses when one is not achieving what his or her agenda dictates. If as you say, gravity is not simply geometry of spacetime, and if as you say gravity is not non linear, and if as you say gravity does not make gravity, and if as you claim V G4 is superior to GR, why not simply take the time, and write up a scientific paper for peer review and possible publishing if successful? I believe we/I have given enough evidence to show that if what you claim is superior, and if what you claim is correct, then in time, your model will be embraced and you will be in line for the Nobel. I never participated in that forum, but isn't it the one where you were banned? Anyway you keep referring to "that other forum" and I suggest to you that this is vastly different and far better, and the reason why I am here. So lets conduct ourselves in accordance with the far better rules and regulations here, without any references to that questionable other place, literally open to any and all nonsensical claims and conspiracies.

It's Hawking Radiation. And it doesn't radiate anything from within the RH of the BH. Rather it is based on the quantum effect of virtual particles being created just this side of the EH, with one falling in and the other escaping. The escaping particle becomes real and is seen as Hawking Radiation, while the other particle to counter the conservation law subtracts from the overall mass of the BH.

Here is another answer from https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_GR_highly_non_linear_while_electrostatic_interactions_are_linear_even_in_the_comparatively_stronger_electric_force_limit That re-enforces Professor Gerard t Hooft reply, and adds more legitimate corrections to some other unsupported statements made in this thread....... Matts Roos University of Helsinki "As Gerard said (and Stam implied) gravity generates gravity, But gravitons are hypothetical particles which need both the classical gravitational field and quantum mechanics for their description. Such a theoretical description is lacking, no astrophysical effect is known which needs it, thus it is premature to speculate about the interactions of gravitons."

Of course it is, and you have yet to show it isn't, other then denial... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-gravitation"Self-gravity is the gravitational force exerted on a body, or a group of bodies, by the body(ies) that allows it/them to be held together". Again gravitational radiation is simply ripples in spacetime and any effect that we feel as gravity is just geometrical spacetime that is curved, warped in the presence of mass/energy, or anything other then flat. So again, the troughs and crests that gravitational radiation exhibits in those ripples, which are caused by astronomical massive asymetric collisions or mergers, affect all other mass that experiences it...as per the aLIGO arms. No it is synonymous with making gravity and non linearity...In fact GR is said to be non linear.......http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity.html "One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamicsis a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts." In fact I once argued that point on another forum and had expert E-Mail replies from professionals that also supported that position. And other professionals also? No, obviously the non linearity of gravity is as most interpret it, including my above link, not withstanding your take on it. As I have attempted to explain to you in another thread, any new hypothetical must need to run the gauntlet, just as GR has, and while GR matches exactly what we observe, and makes predictions, that are continually verified, as per GW's, then it will always be hard to overthrow, until and unless it is shown to be invalid, or the new kid on the block predicts more.....That's science, that's the scientific methodology, and has far more going for it that any half arsed seemingly conspiracy jibe, or some unnecessary recalcitrance claim, on the part of mainstream and particularly GR. And if that happens, if, it won't be first announced on forums such as this, or claims by members of I told you so, that was stupidly trotted out when the BICEP2 error came to light, it will be science, and probably aLIGO or VIRGO at the forefront of such science. In the meantime, GR reigns supreme as our model of how the universe plays out. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_GR_highly_non_linear_while_electrostatic_interactions_are_linear_even_in_the_comparatively_stronger_electric_force_limit Gerard t Hooft Utrecht University "I think there was some confusion here because in the discussion it should have been stated clearly what is a linear function of what. Secondly, we are talking of mathematical models of physics; if we add all the dirty side effects nothing is linear anymore. In Maxwell's theory, the em fields are linear functions of the charged sources and currents that are around, but if you take into account that these sources back react, then the combined equations become non-linear. Only in this sense, the question posed is a meaningful one: if we keep the sources and currents fixed, then our mathematical models say that the em fields are linear but the gravity fields are not. In mathematical terms, this can be explained by the fact that the local gauge group in electromagnetism is Abelian (i.e. the effect of two consecutive gauge transformations does not depend on the order) while in gravity it is non-Abelian (the effect of two consecutive curved coordinate transformations does depend on the order). Physically, this means that gravity carries energy and momentum (although this depends on the curved coordinates chosen), so gravity generates gravity, while em fields are electrically neutral. All of this did not require the consideration of quantum mechanics. In ordinary quantum mechanics, what I say above is still valid. But now, even the vacuum has vacuum fluctuations of charged particles and they cause non-linearities in light when you include the back reaction of the vacuum". http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

Why are people so fearful that they must embrace racism? But year the problem appears world wide.

Of course its relevant...GW's are ripples in spacetime, and the troughs and crests in those ripples affect all mass that experiences it...as per the aLIGO arms. While already commenting on that, It's interesting to note that gravity/spacetime curvature is non linear, so gravity makes gravity so to speak.

?? It makes as much sense as saying a magnetic field is real..... I understand enough to realise and understand that at this time GR GW's have been discovered 6...or is that now 7 times? And that is the accepted mainstream position at this time. Without fear or favour, the final result will be as usual, observational science, and my money's still on GR for a while yet. I grasp enough to know that gravitons have yet to be verified and/or observed, and whether it is a tenet of that "theory" or not, that "theory" as yet is not the accepted mainstream position, and like the many theories of gravity, are somewhat at this time, more a novelty. But hey! If things change, I'll be the first to congratulate the scientists involved.

Perhaps he [the person Swansont was replying to] is referring to what could be called a "physical medium" or ether...Spacetime as real as I believe it is, is certainly not physical and certainly gravitational radiation is simply ripples in that same spacetime. Gravitational waves are spacetime....gravity is geometry...why would geometry of spacetime need to create more geometry? Doesn't make sense to me. Plus of course this gravitational wave/radiation that emenates from a particular mass, will affect all other masses that it passes through.eg: the aLIGO arms responsible for the discovery. Not sure any real issue exists within GR. As mentioned previously, that issue is already being looked at by the professionals in that arena, both associated with aLIGO and separated from them, and looked at I would add impartially and fairly. I mean with all the young up and comers in the discipline, who would not like to improve and/or extend on the great man's theory and be in line for a Nobel. Gravitons of course are still only hypothetical, so I'm not sure how it can be raised to support any alternate gravity hypothetical.

The BB is the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds. Like I said, matter came later. While certainly the closer we come to the t+10-43 seconds, the less certain we can be, the process as I posted, is the recognised scenario............... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/26/universe.physics 0^-43 seconds Known as the Planck Era, this is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time. At this moment, the universe is thought to be incredibly hot, dense and turbulent, with the very fabric of space and time turned into a roiling morass. All the fundamental forces currently at work in the universe - gravity, electromagnetism and the so-called strong and weak nuclear forces - are thought to have been unified during this stage into a single "superforce". 10^-35 seconds The so-called Grand Unification Era, at the end of which the superforce begins to break apart into the constituent forces we see today. Around this time so-called inflationary energy triggers a dramatic burst of expansion, expanding the universe from far smaller than a subatomic particle to far larger than the cosmic volume we can see today. In the process, the primordial wrinkles in space-time are smoothed out. 10^-32 seconds The energy dumped into the universe by the end of inflation leads to the appearance of particles of matter via Einstein's celebrated equation E=mc^2. Initially a mix of matter and antimatter, most of the particles annihilate each other in a burst of radiation, leaving behind randomly scattered pockets of matter. 10^-11 seconds The so-called Electroweak Era, when the last two fundamental forces still unified with one another - electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force - finally split, leaving the universe with the four separate forces we observe today. 10^-6 seconds As the universe continues to expand, it becomes cool enough to allow the familiar particles of today's matter, protons and neutrons, to form from their constituents, known as quarks. 200 seconds At a temperature of one billion degrees celsius, protons and neutrons start to come together to form nuclei, the charged cores of atoms. Within 20 minutes, the temperature of the universe has become too cold to drive the process, which ceases with the formation of the nuclei of hydrogen and helium, the simplest and most common chemical elements in the universe. The formation of all the other elements - including the carbon, oxygen and nitrogen needed for life - will emerge with the first massive stars millions of years later. 300,000 years The universe has cooled to about 1,000C - cool enough for electrons to pair up with nuclei to form the first atoms. By the end of this so-called Recombination Era, the universe consists of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. With the electrons now bound to atoms, the universe finally becomes transparent to light - making this the earliest epoch observable today.

I don't really believe in commenting on the present problem re the USA and its border decisions, but gee, the above is exactly the attitude in Australia taken by the conservative government...We have sent them off shore to various Islands, and somehow even achieved agreement of New Zealand and the USA to take some of what we have loosely described as boat people. Rather ironically, both the USA and Australia were built on Immigration.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-evidence-reveals-heavy-elements-big.html The Big Bang theory and the question of how life on Earth began has fascinated scientists for decades, but now new research from The University of Western Australia suggests the conditions that resulted from the Big Bang are different to what we thought. extract: "It is traditionally considered that turbulence was the mechanism for energy transfer and accumulation which resulted in chemicals being formed in the supernova," Professor Abarzhi said. "However our research has revealed it wasn't turbulent but actually a slow process where hot spots of energy were localised and trapped, resulting in the formation of, for example iron, gold and silver from atoms produced by the Big Bang". Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-evidence-reveals-heavy-elements-big.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/11/21/1714502115 Supernova, nuclear synthesis, fluid instabilities, and interfacial mixing: Abstract: Supernovae and their remnants are a central problem in astrophysics due to their role in the stellar evolution and nuclear synthesis. A supernova’s explosion is driven by a blast wave causing the development of Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities and leading to intensive interfacial mixing of materials of a progenitor star. Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov mixing breaks spherical symmetry of a star and provides conditions for synthesis of heavy mass elements in addition to light mass elements synthesized in the star before its explosion. By focusing on hydrodynamic aspects of the problem, we apply group theory analysis to identify the properties of Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov dynamics with variable acceleration, discover subdiffusive character of the blast wave-induced interfacial mixing, and reveal the mechanism of energy accumulation and transport at small scales in supernovae.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-scientists-universe-mysteries.html How scientists are working together to solve one of the universe's mysteries November 27, 2018 by Emma Platts And Amanda Weltman, The Conversation An artist’s impression of fast radio bursts in the sky above the Australian SKA precursor, ASKAP. Credit: OzGrav, Swinburne University of Technology One of the most baffling puzzles of modern astrophysics is the nature of Fast Radio Bursts, which were discovered in 2007. These are seemingly rare, extremely bright flashes of light with radio wavelengths. They last only milliseconds; originate outside our galaxy, the Milky Way; come from regions with enormously strong magnetic fields; and pass through a significant amount of gas or dust before reaching Earth. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-scientists-universe-mysteries.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-aussie-telescope-mysterious-fast-radio.html Aussie telescope almost doubles known number of mysterious 'fast radio bursts' October 10, 2018, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research Artist's impression of CSIRO's Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope observing 'fast radio bursts' in 'fly's eye mode'. Each antenna points in a slightly different direction, giving maximum sky coverage. Credit: OzGrav, Swinburne University of Technology Australian researchers using a CSIRO radio telescope in Western Australia have nearly doubled the known number of 'fast radio bursts'— powerful flashes of radio waves from deep space. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-aussie-telescope-mysterious-fast-radio.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.05836.pdf A Living Theory Catalogue for Fast Radio Bursts: Abstract: At present, we have almost as many theories to explain Fast Radio Bursts as we have Fast Radio Bursts observed. This landscape will be changing rapidly with CHIME/FRB, recently commissioned in Canada, and HIRAX, under construction in South Africa. This is an opportune time to review existing theories and their observational consequences, allowing us to efficiently curtail viable astrophysical models as more data becomes available. In this article we provide a currently up to date catalogue of the numerous and varied theories proposed for Fast Radio Bursts so far. We also launch an online evolving repository for the use and benefit of the community to dynamically update our theoretical knowledge and discuss constraints and uses of Fast Radio Bursts. 5. Conclusion: In this review article, we have catalogued a collection of postulated FRB models and have attempted to provide the reader with a general overview of the ongoing research in FRB model-building. The theories vary in their explanatory power, testability, and sometimes in their “exoticness”. Given both the number of theories and the range of physics used as a foundational framework, it seems like an ideal time to take stock of the theoretical work produced. The small data set and lack of observational counterparts means most of the theoretical work is phenomenological. Because of this, we believe radio astronomy in entering into a promising era with telescopes like CHIME and the SKA. With the predicted considerable increase in data, and expected increase in the number of observed FRBs, it is hoped that constraints on many of the models discussed here will be able rule out—and even favor—certain approaches. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The listed possibilities: Magnetic Braking. Magnetic Reconnection. Changing Magnetic Flux. Neutron Star–Supernova Interactions, Neutron Star–White Dwarf Mergers. Binary White Dwarf Merger. White Dwarf–Black Hole Mergers. Neutron Star–Black Hole Mergers. Pulsar–Black Hole Interactions. Kerr-Newman–Black Hole Interactions. Induced Magnetosphere Collapse, Supramassive Neutron Star to Kerr-Newman Black Hole. Neutron Star to Quark Star. Dark Matter Induced Neutron Star Collapse. Collapse of Strange Star Crust. Supernovae Remnants. Giant Pulses. Giant Flares in Magnetars. Variable Stars. Lightning in Pulsars. I have highlighted my "guesses" as to what FRB's are, and there are even more exotic choices in the paper, such as Superconducting strings and White Hole explosions. I wouldn't mind betting though that it will be eventually found to be something more mundane like a form of millisecond Pulsar. What do others think?