Black Holes (split from: So, you've got a new theory...)

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Direct experience of Black Holes if they exist for instance is said to be impossible.  I don't think Kitty knew about scientists who put so much faith in computer models.

BH's by there very nature can never be seen directly, but their existence is near certain. If we are to deny the existence of BH's we must then explain in some other way the incredible effects on space and matter energy within their vicinity.

see also....https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117001-on-the-existence-of-black-holes/

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

BH's by there very nature can never be seen directly, but their existence is near certain. If we are to deny the existence of BH's we must then explain in some other way the incredible effects on space and matter energy within their vicinity.

 

Black stars is one option.  I expect that idea will be labelled pseudo science by those in control of buttons on this forum, but I expect you've heard of it.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_star_(semiclassical_gravity)  To DENY the existence of Black Holes is not the same as questioning the existence of Black Holes.

Edited November 19, 2018 by coffeesippin
Added clarification that denial is not questioning

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Black stars is one option.  I expect that idea will be labelled pseudo science by those in control of buttons on this forum, but I expect you've heard of it.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_star_(semiclassical_gravity)

Your problem is with those that control the buttons, but instead of fabricating conspiracies, why not listen.

The Newtonian version as I said in the link, fails to consider the Schwarzchild radius, and its validity as given in the equations of GR. Again to deny BH's you must explain the incredible effects we see in their vicinities. You have another alternative? With evidence? 

Edited November 19, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your problem is with those that control the buttons, but instead of fabricating conspiracies, why not listen.

The Newtonian version as I said in the link, fails to consider the Schwarzchild radius, and its validity as given in the equations of GR. Again to deny BH's you must explain the incredible effects we see in their vicinities. You have another alternative? With evidence? 

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Here's a 2017 theory I just found by googling, it seems to be written by someone with a lot of education.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta

Just now, coffeesippin said:

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Here's a 2017 theory I just found by googling, it seems to be written by someone with a lot of education.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta

And I don't suggest conspiracies among the button pushers, just human nature.

4 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Here's a 2017 theory I just found by googling, it seems to be written by someone with a lot of education.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta

And I don't suggest conspiracies among the button pushers, just human nature.

http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf   Quite an impressive cv Anatoly Svidzinsky has.  

[beecee]

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

Quote

Here's a 2017 theory I just found by googling, it seems to be written by someone with a lot of education.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta

Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Quote

And I don't suggest conspiracies among the button pushers, just human nature.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

I have split this (potentially interesting) discussion of black holes off from the original thread.

I have given it the benefit of the doubt and put it in Astronomy and Cosmology. If it looks like coffeesippin is arguing that black holes don't exist, then it may be moved to Speculations where stronger rules for supporting arguments with evidence apply.

(Sorry it looks like beecee started it!)

 

54 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Black stars is one option.  I expect that idea will be labelled pseudo science by those in control of buttons on this forum

It is not pseudoscience, but it is purely hypothetical (until we have a full theory of quantum gravity).

45 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Science doesn't really prove anything. However, there are several lines of evidence that are consistent with there existence.

[coffeesippin]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

You're quite the insulting demeaning antagonistic troll looking for a fight in my opinion Beecee.  You are thoroughly familiar with this man's work? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta You don't consider him an expert?  You say I choose to ignore experts when I bring such an expert into the discussion?  You suggest I am saying Black Holes do not exist when I have said twice at least I am saying there is only doubt of their existence, Black Stars and this man's work part of that doubt?  You say I have 'copped some deserved wrath' but don't bring forward an example?  I bring forth an example of error on a mods part and you ignore it?  You say I reopen a thread six months old when it was never closed?  You can't consider I'm new to the forum so haven't been here to contribute to that thread before?  You accuse me of looking for controversy without bringing forth an example OUTSIDE of saying PERHAPS science suggests they may not exist?  You say I have no intention of accepting any answers yet bring forth no example of my having done so?  You're a troll, BeeCee, and a complete one at that.  

4 hours ago, beecee said:

BH's by there very nature can never be seen directly, but their existence is near certain. If we are to deny the existence of BH's we must then explain in some other way the incredible effects on space and matter energy within their vicinity.

see also....https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117001-on-the-existence-of-black-holes/

 

BeeCee you accuse me of not believing answers and insisting I should accept your answers on Black Holes when you yourself plainly say Black Holes may not exist?  "... their existence is near certain..."     What a confused mind you have directly opposing itself in such a way, no room for doubt and yet filled with doubt.  Allow yourself and others some common humanity, BeeCee, before you wake up one morning and find half your head on the floor.   

3 hours ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

I have split this (potentially interesting) discussion of black holes off from the original thread.

I have given it the benefit of the doubt and put it in Astronomy and Cosmology. If it looks like coffeesippin is arguing that black holes don't exist, then it may be moved to Speculations where stronger rules for supporting arguments with evidence apply.

(Sorry it looks like beecee started it!)

 

It is not pseudoscience, but it is purely hypothetical (until we have a full theory of quantum gravity).

Science doesn't really prove anything. However, there are several lines of evidence that are consistent with there existence.

Thank you Strange for the observation that I'm not 'guilty.'   I never said Black Holes do not exist, and BeeCee himself/herself whoever also says they may not exist so I'm not sure what his/her problem is, thought I think I know it's my faith in the Bible which he/she has certainly become aware of is simply causing him/her to view me in a prejudicial darkness equating me with those bible believers who are SAID not to believe in science, though I've never met one of those in 41 years of assembly with people who do believe in the bible.   I'll have to look into his/her profile to see if I can settle on a his or a her, not that it matters one way or the other.

BeeCee, here's another unsubstantiated quote from you:  "As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why?"   Your question is perhaps accusation that my belief in the bible puts me outside the experience of belief in science.  My childhood nickname which I'm still called at times is Sputnick because of my awe of the universe and my investigation of it which naturally was limited to a few books and a set of Encyclopedia.  You couldn't know that history though unless you read through my posts instead of scanning which I suggest you do.   I've never lost my fascination for cosmology, and I read a lot, and everything I read confirms we are not at an end of investigation, so conclusions are premature, and I suggest you take that to heart.

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

You're quite the insulting demeaning antagonistic troll looking for a fight in my opinion Beecee. 

!

Moderator Note

Hey, we attack ideas here, not people. Civility is the #1 rule. Knock this off right now!

 

[coffeesippin]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Hey, we attack ideas here, not people. Civility is the #1 rule. Knock this off right now!

 

Phi .. he attacked me.  I was not attacking him, I was telling him why he was attacking me.  Why do you ignore his attack?  is he a pal of yours?

Here is his attack on me:  Feel free to chastise your buddy.

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Hey, we attack ideas here, not people. Civility is the #1 rule. Knock this off right now!

 

I sent this message to a couple of admins.  I think your behaviour has to be stopped for the good of this forum.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Phi .. he attacked me.

Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek? 

(I am going to suggest this thread is closed)

[coffeesippin]

16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Phi .. he attacked me.  I was not attacking him, I was telling him why he was attacking me.  Why do you ignore his attack?  is he a pal of yours?

Here is his attack on me:  Feel free to chastise your buddy.

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

I sent this message to a couple of admins.  I think your behaviour has to be stopped for the good of this forum.

The message I sent to admins:    I have to object very strenuously to Phi For All's behaviour here on a few instances.   A poster who seems to be a pal of his/hers made a substantial personal attack on me, and I told that person WHY he was attacking me.   Phi For All then attacked me.   This is not civil, it is not intelligent, it casts a terrible light on this forum, and it should be stopped.

Just now, Strange said:

Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek? 

(I am going to suggest this thread is closed)

Yes. Absolutely.  And I didn't attack him, I pointed out WHY he was attacking me.  Close a thread with a 2017 theory from a guy who has 3 PHDs from the Moscow University and who now works in an American university?   If you read this guy's cv you probably wouldn't consider closing the thread for an instant. 

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Phi .. he attacked me.  I was not attacking him, I was telling him why he was attacking me.  Why do you ignore his attack?  is he a pal of yours?

Here is his attack on me:  Feel free to chastise your buddy.

beecee: Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT a personal attack, as he is pointing out an error in your reasoning. I would, however, point out to beecee that the term "god botherers" is a slur against a group, and should be avoided here.

 

28 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

beecee: Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

!

Moderator Note

Again, not personal. He's attacking a paper not held in great esteem, and pointing out behavior that keeps you from investigating further. 

 

28 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

beecee: Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

!

Moderator Note

All of this is observation. When we talk about personal attacks, it isn't about the ideas you're espousing. A personal attack would be to use language that disparaged you as a person, not the ideas you have, or the behavior you display. Calling someone ignorant points out a gap in their knowledge, but calling someone a moron is a personal attack. Does that make sense?

 

I think what you're experiencing (perhaps for the first time) is critical review of some of your deeply held ideas, and it's not going the way you thought. Sorry about that, but science works hard to remove as many emotional attachments and cognitive biases as possible. 

[coffeesippin]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT a personal attack, as he is pointing out an error in your reasoning. I would, however, point out to beecee that the term "god botherers" is a slur against a group, and should be avoided here.

 

!

Moderator Note

Again, not personal. He's attacking a paper not held in great esteem, and pointing out behavior that keeps you from investigating further. 

 

!

Moderator Note

All of this is observation. When we talk about personal attacks, it isn't about the ideas you're espousing. A personal attack would be to use language that disparaged you as a person, not the ideas you have, or the behavior you display. 

 

I think what you're experiencing (perhaps for the first time) is critical review of some of your deeply held ideas, and it's not going the way you thought. Sorry about that, but science works hard to remove as much emotional attachment and cognitive biases as possible. 

Phi if you read BeeCee's attack and still say it was not a personal attack then you really shouldn't be a moderator.  At 71 years old I've experienced critical review often in flesh and blood life, and on science forums by reviewers who use scientific language and references that can be checked.  BeeCee does none of that.  This isn't the first time BeeCee attacked me, and Strange made a note of that.  

Moderator Note

I have split this (potentially interesting) discussion of black holes off from the original thread.

I have given it the benefit of the doubt and put it in Astronomy and Cosmology. If it looks like coffeesippin is arguing that black holes don't exist, then it may be moved to Speculations where stronger rules for supporting arguments with evidence apply.

(Sorry it looks like beecee started it!)

Phi .. I'm not calling for your removal as a moderator, but I am letting the admins know what you're up to.  Why you're up to it is your own problem, but I've not only been critically and personally attacked by moderators before but bullied by them seemingly for their own enjoyment, and it ruins MY enjoyment and GREATLY devalues the forum the adminisitrators are trying to promote .. so I'm keeping records now of all that is involved, and will provide them to the administrators if it has to come to that.     

 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

  And I didn't attack him...

Just to help clear up your confusion, on this forum calling someone a "troll" is considered a personal attack.

3 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Phi .. I'm not calling for your removal as a moderator...

I'm sure he's relieved. How would he ever replace the income!

[coffeesippin]

Here it is Phi .. ignore it if you want:

"Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore."    I consider that a personal attack, don't you?   Plus .. BeeCee doesn't consider a guy with 3 Phds from Moscow university now working at a U.S. university an expert?

"Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda."

He is calling me liar in that statement.   

"Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested."

And because I tell him he is a troll, which you moderators happily use often to describe why you ban people, you call it a personal attack?

And while he used the term 'god botherers' whatever that is but which you objected to, I certainly didn't call him a satan worshipper or anti-Christ or spawn of the devil.

 

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just to help clear up your confusion, on this forum calling someone a "troll" is considered a personal attack.

I'm sure he's relieved. How would he ever replace the income!

Ah ... so in the list of banned people the many "trolls" have been personally attacked instead of being banned for reasons of a scientific nature!  Nice to know.  

Replace the income .. yes, he could get an honest job, maybe  insulting customers as they come in the doors at WalMart.  (I'm trying to be as comedic and factual as you are.)

Edited November 19, 2018 by coffeesippin
missed a y and other things.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Here it is Phi .. ignore it if you want:

"Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore."    I consider that a personal attack, don't you?   Plus .. BeeCee doesn't consider a guy with 3 Phds from Moscow university now working at a U.S. university an expert?

"Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda."

He is calling me liar in that statement.   

"Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested."

And because I tell him he is a troll, which you moderators happily use often to describe why you ban people, you call it a personal attack?

And while he used the term 'god botherers' whatever that is but which you objected to, I certainly didn't call him a satan worshipper or anti-Christ or spawn of the devil.

Calling someone a troll is a moderator call. We're sort of like the police, don't you think? Feel free to report anyone you think is trolling you, and if we agree they'll be banned as a troll. See how that works?

How is it a personal attack when someone points out something they think you're ignoring? That's not rational, and I think you know it.

For the rest, you have a different definition of personal attack, one that seems to include those who simply question you. Our differing definitions may be irreconcilable. You decide and let us know if this is the case.

[coffeesippin]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Calling someone a troll is a moderator call. We're sort of like the police, don't you think? Feel free to report anyone you think is trolling you, and if we agree they'll be banned as a troll. See how that works?

How is it a personal attack when someone points out something they think you're ignoring? That's not rational, and I think you know it.

For the rest, you have a different definition of personal attack, one that seems to include those who question you. Our differing definitions may be irreconcilable. You decide.

No Phi .. you choose to ignore not only the language but the tone .. as well as Strange's observation that BeeCee started it .. as well as your own observation that 'god botherers' is a derogatory term (I hadn't heard it before, I googled it, it's aimed pretty much specifically but not totally at Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on doors.)   BeeCee's opinion of me as a 'god botherer' colours his/her entire relationship with me in this forum and blinds his/her mind to what is before his/her eyes.  Perhaps you are in that same boat.  Whatever his/her relationship with you is colours your perception of what he/she writes.  Science is supposed to be impartial, observant, intelligent.  For you to say I consider that an attack is someone who questions me is absolutely ludicrous to the extreme. 

IF we can get back to science .. the writer of the Vector Theory Anatoly A. Svidzinsky         https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058    has a cv which should impress anyone on this forum:   http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf    1994, M.S. in Laser Physics, Summa Cum Laude, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 1997, Ph.D. in Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 2001, Ph.D. in Physics, Stanford University, USA.   

Strange has suggested we close this topic, though he didn't give a reason that I could see.  I hope the credentials of Svidzinsky will help keep it open for discussion, or at the least, to expose the theory to examination.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

(I am going to suggest this thread is closed)

the writer of the Vector Theory Anatoly A. Svidzinsky         https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058    has a cv which should impress anyone on this forum:   http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf    1994, M.S. in Laser Physics, Summa Cum Laude, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 1997, Ph.D. in Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 2001, Ph.D. in Physics, Stanford University, USA.   

 I hope the credentials of Svidzinsky will help keep it open for discussion, or at the least, to expose the theory to examination.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

No Phi .. you choose to ignore not only the language but the tone .. as well as Strange's observation that BeeCee started it .. as well as your own observation that 'god botherers' is a derogatory term (I hadn't heard it before, I googled it, it's aimed pretty much specifically but not totally at Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on doors.)   BeeCee's opinion of me as a 'god botherer' colours his/her entire relationship with me in this forum and blinds his/her mind to what is before his/her eyes.  Perhaps you are in that same boat.  Whatever his/her relationship with you is colours your perception of what he/she writes.  Science is supposed to be impartial, observant, intelligent.  For you to say I consider that an attack is someone who questions me is absolutely ludicrous to the extreme. 

I'm not sure why you chose a science discussion site to join for conversation. If you came to learn, like most of us, I don't think you'd have the same kind of troubles here. If you asked questions, instead of trying to tell people here where science is lacking (when it's clear you don't understand what you're criticizing), I think the members here would be happy to include you in their own learning processes. 

But you don't do any of that. You argue about things you don't know, and you get annoyed when your ideas are refuted. You constantly bring up religion and your god, even in mainstream science threads, and that always gets a negative reaction (because it's against the rules). I don't think you came here necessarily with a big chip on your shoulder, but you certainly have put one there since. I think many folks here are getting tired of short-sighted, oft-repeated (and refuted) religious arguments forced into science discussions. 

No offense, I'm sure you're a nice person, but you have only a popular science knowledge while trying to topple mainstream explanations. I recognize you, since I was in the same boat 14 years ago when I joined this site. I chose to learn instead of trying to teach.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

as well as Strange's observation that BeeCee started it .

Uh, what?

No. Don't drag me into your arguments. 

 

[coffeesippin]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Uh, what?

No. Don't drag me into your arguments. 

 

We`re all in this together Strange, at least for now, and as long as I`m here I will not abuse anyone here, but I will stand up for the integrity of the forum because it`s valuable, and even if I`m kicked out through Mod error I will petition the admins for my reinstatement.  

 P.S.  If I`d know `troll`was considered an insult in this forum I wouldn`t have used that word for BeeCee, but the way it`s used in the banned list indicated to me that it was an identifier for someone who deliberately causes contention mostly of a personal nature.

[beecee]

35 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

 IF we can get back to science .. the writer of the Vector Theory Anatoly A. Svidzinsky         https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058    has a cv which should impress anyone on this forum:   http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf    1994, M.S. in Laser Physics, Summa Cum Laude, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 1997, Ph.D. in Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 2001, Ph.D. in Physics, Stanford University, USA.   

Strange has suggested we close this topic, though he didn't give a reason that I could see.  I hope the credentials of Svidzinsky will help keep it open for discussion, or at the least, to expose the theory to examination.

the writer of the Vector Theory Anatoly A. Svidzinsky         https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058    has a cv which should impress anyone on this forum:   http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf    1994, M.S. in Laser Physics, Summa Cum Laude, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 1997, Ph.D. in Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 2001, Ph.D. in Physics, Stanford University, USA.   

 I hope the credentials of Svidzinsky will help keep it open for discussion, or at the least, to expose the theory to examination.

Ignoring your whinging [perhaps as the old addage goes, "sometimes the truth hurts] Carver Mead and Svidzinsky are obviously good scientists, and they obviously have come up with an alternative...The fact of the matter is that the alternative/s have been rejected at this time by mainstream, most specifically because the GR inferred BH's match all the data. In the late fifties we had a "great"astronomer named Fred Hoyle who was proposing an alternative to the BB. He called it the "Steady State" That SS is now hardly ever talked about because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the BB and invalidating the SS. 

The recent 5 discoveries of gravitational waves from colliding BH binary pairs were because the signals generated aligned with the templates that were constructed along with a myriad of other reasons...Those templates were constructed long before the gravitational waves discoveries. They "just happened" to align with the templates, and very good reasons why they concluded the BH collisions. Could they be wrong? Is it possible Mead's, Vector 4 model is better? Yes that's possible, but at this time I believe highly unlikely. If this highly unlikely model/interpretation is actually closer to observation, it will in time be verified and accepted as per the scientific methodology and as has always been the case with science. And you can bet your short n curlies, that if this unlikely model is shown to be closer to the truth, that it will be scientists that will find that out....not philosophers, not some religious adherent and associated miracle...It will be other scientists as they go about their business following what we call the scientific method. You do understand that GR that first proposed the existence of BH's is being put to the test every day?

Edited November 19, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not sure why you chose a science discussion site to join for conversation. If you came to learn, like most of us, I don't think you'd have the same kind of troubles here. If you asked questions, instead of trying to tell people here where science is lacking (when it's clear you don't understand what you're criticizing), I think the members here would be happy to include you in their own learning processes. 

But you don't do any of that. You argue about things you don't know, and you get annoyed when your ideas are refuted. You constantly bring up religion and your god, even in mainstream science threads, and that always gets a negative reaction (because it's against the rules). I don't think you came here necessarily with a big chip on your shoulder, but you certainly have put one there since. I think many folks here are getting tired of short-sighted, oft-repeated (and refuted) religious arguments forced into science discussions. 

No offense, I'm sure you're a nice person, but you have only a popular science knowledge while trying to topple mainstream explanations. I recognize you, since I was in the same boat 14 years ago when I joined this site. I chose to learn instead of trying to teach.

Typical ``I know far more than you so you`re an ignorant slob` statement.  If you choose to learn read the Vector thesis.   I`m not trying to topple anything .. why do you think that É (my question mark on my keyboard is misbehaving.)  Perhaps because a guy with two PHds and a lot of other education agrees with me that MAYBE the conventional theories of Black Holes need re-examinationÉ   Or do you think the author`s CV isn`t up to your standardsÉ   didn`t know about that theory until today, by the way, perhaps you didn`t either.  

In any case, if I`d know `Troll`was an insult here I wouldn`t have used it for BeeCee, but the way its used in the banned list I assumed it was simply label for someone who deliberately insults people or ideas to start a war.   

For you to say I constantly bring up religion is false, an untruth, an exaggeration, whatever, perhaps practicing to defend yourself when examined by an admin.  But you sound very identical to BeeCee, almost the same words.  Perhaps sock puppets are employed hereÉ  NOT that `m absolutely accusing you, just raising a possibility, it`s been done many times, admitted to by mods on other forums.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

  You are thoroughly familiar with this man's work? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta You don't consider him an expert?  You say I choose to ignore experts when I bring such an expert into the discussion?   You suggest I am saying Black Holes do not exist when I have said twice at least I am saying there is only doubt of their existence, Black Stars and this man's work part of that doubt?

I answered your example here....

Quote

 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

 

 you then said.....

Quote

You suggest I am saying Black Holes do not exist when I have said twice at least I am saying there is only doubt of their existence, Black Stars and this man's work part of that doubt? 

As I also noted and observed, you seem to be questioning everything, and while certainly questioning all of science is part and parcel of the scientific method, so to is honesty, and the avoiding of emotional inspired doubt and/or denial. Dark Stars again are a Newtonian description that does not entail any compulsory collapse as per the more accurate model called GR. The success of GR is well known. vector 4 model has most certainly been considered by aLIGO and the other gravitational waves detectors.

Quote

 You say I reopen a thread six months old when it was never closed?  You can't consider I'm new to the forum so haven't been here to contribute to that thread before?  You accuse me of looking for controversy without bringing forth an example OUTSIDE of saying PERHAPS science suggests they may not exist?  You say I have no intention of accepting any answers yet bring forth no example of my having done so?  You're a troll, BeeCee, and a complete one at that.  

If I said reopen I was of course wrong. I should have said raised a thread 6 months old.On the rest of your grievances, I'm not prepeared to go into, except to say, it is generally obvious where you are coming from, and that's your business. I though will continue to  comment on what I believe to be anti science agenda, as is being perpetrated by philsophical rhetoric and/or any other agenda.

Quote

BeeCee you accuse me of not believing answers and insisting I should accept your answers on Black Holes when you yourself plainly say Black Holes may not exist?  "... their existence is near certain..."     What a confused mind you have directly opposing itself in such a way, no room for doubt and yet filled with doubt.  

There existence is near certain at this time, but as per any scientific theory, not a 100% certain. If, and a big IF, they are shown to be invalid, then in time, science will discover that and a new theoretical model will be presented describing the extraordinary effects on spacetime and matter/energy that we now attribute to what we call BH's..

The rest of your complaints/whinging/ and emotional claims I'll let ride.

 

 

[coffeesippin]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ignoring your whinging [perhaps as the old addage goes, "sometimes the truth hurts] Carver Mead and Svidzinsky are obviously good scientists, and they obviously have come up with an alternative...The fact of the matter is that the alternative/s have been rejected at this time by mainstream, most specifically because the GR inferred BH's match all the data. In the late fifties we had a "great"astronomer named Fred Hoyle who was proposing an alternative to the BB. He called it the "Steady State" That SS is now hardly ever talked about because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the BB and invalidating the SS. 

The recent 5 discoveries of gravitational waves from colliding BH binary pairs were because the signals generated aligned with the templates that were constructed along with a myriad of other reasons...Those templates were constructed long before the gravitational waves discoveries. They "just happened" to align with the templates, and very good reasons why they concluded the BH collisions. Could they be wrong? Is it possible Mead's, Vector 4 model is better? Yes that's possible, but at this time I believe highly unlikely. If this highly unlikely model/interpretation is actually closer to observation, it will in time be verified and accepted as per the scientific methodology and as has always been the case with science. And you can bet your short n curlies, that if this unlikely model is shown to be closer to the truth, that it will be scientists that will find that out....not philosophers, not some religious adherent and associated miracle...It will be other scientists as they go about their business following what we call the scientific method. You do understand that GR that first proposed the existence of BH's is being put to the test every day?

First I`ll say if I`d known the term `Troll`was an insult here I wouldn`t have used it, I know insulting people doesn`t make for intelligent conversation, but from the way it is used in the forum`s banned  list I assumed it was simply a label for someone who sets out to deliberately insult people and ideas.

Second I`ll say I appreciate your comments above .. they represent what scientific discussion should represent, discussion.  I especially appreciate Could they be wrong? Is it possible Mead's, Vector 4 model is better? Yes that's possible, but at this time I believe highly unlikely. If this highly unlikely model/interpretation is actually closer to observation, it will in time be verified and accepted as per the scientific methodology and as has always been the case with science.``  You acknowledge you may not know the ultimate answer to Black Holes.   By the way, what are your qualifications compared to the author of the Vector theoryÉ (question mark out of order right now.)

Third .. what do ìntimate` short and curly body hairs have to do with this discussion, it only makes me view you as vulgar and unthinking.  

Fourth ..   if this unlikely model is shown to be closer to the truth, that it will be scientists that will find that out....not philosophers, not some religious adherent`...` How do you know at this point in time that if the vector theory turns out correct that the author is not a believer in either God or bibleÉ   If you have hear of George Washington Carver (you can google him)  he was a Christian, he said God showed him his discoveries, and that was why he did not patent his discoveries, to share freely with the world when he could have been one of the richest men of his day, probably equal to Bill Gates today.  (Henry Ford recognized who and what he was and became a close personal friend.)

Last for now:  I`m not familiar with your term winging and why you use it.

 

wing

/wiNG/

verb

gerund or present participle: winging

1. 1.

   travel on wings or by aircraft; fly.

   "a bird came winging around the corner"

   synonyms:

   fly, glide, soar "a seagull winged its way over the sea"
2. 2.

   shoot (a bird) in the wing, so as to prevent flight without causing death.

   "one bird was winged for every bird killed"

 

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

The rest of your complaints/whinging/ and emotional claims I'll let ride.

Again you resort to behaviour known as trolling .. but I won`t insult you and say you`re a troll .. just that you allow your behaviour to slip into that rut.

 

 

 

And you have admitted Black Holes may not be verifiable as reality.  You have honesty.  

For those of us who come here to learn, perhaps we can learn from this fellow:   

Awards and Honors Stanford Graduate Fellowship, 1997-2000 Fellowship of the President of the Russian Federation, 1996-1997 George Soros Graduate Fellowship, 1995-1996 Landau Fellowship from Forschungszentrum J¨ulich, 1994-1996 Fellowship of the Lebedev Physical Institute, 1994 2nd place, Physical Olympiad of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 1991 6th place, Mathematical Olympiad of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 1989 2nd place, International tournament of young physicists, Moscow, 1988

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Second I`ll say I appreciate your comments above .. they represent what scientific discussion should represent, discussion.  I especially appreciate Could they be wrong? Is it possible Mead's, Vector 4 model is better? Yes that's possible, but at this time I believe highly unlikely. If this highly unlikely model/interpretation is actually closer to observation, it will in time be verified and accepted as per the scientific methodology and as has always been the case with science.``  You acknowledge you may not know the ultimate answer to Black Holes.   By the way, what are your qualifications compared to the author of the Vector theoryÉ (question mark out of order right now.)

The ultimate answers as you claim,  can apply to all scientific theories. No scientific theory is proof. But scientific theories can and do grow in certainty over time. Some [well at least one] is as near certain as one could hope for. GR and BH's at this time are overwhelmingly supported due to the overwhelming evidence, but as in any discipline, there will always be some isolated differences of opinion...Fred Hoyle, as I mentioned before was a "great" astronomer, but he was wrong on a very important specific part of cosmology that we accept today.

My qualifications? wait for it...I do not have any...I ama total amateur and lay person, but I have read many reputable books, I have listened to manyreasonable reputable obviously professionals on forums such as this, and I have asked many questions on those matters that I have not understood, without any preconceived opinion or agenda.

Quote

Third .. what do ìntimate` short and curly body hairs have to do with this discussion, it only makes me view you as vulgar and unthinking.  

 I could also probably view some of your actions and opinions on this forum the same way.

 

Quote

Fourth ..   if this unlikely model is shown to be closer to the truth, that it will be scientists that will find that out....not philosophers, not some religious adherent`...` How do you know at this point in time that if the vector theory turns out correct that the author is not a believer in either God or bibleÉ 

??? What has that to do with anything? Except possibly reinforcing my opinion of you as having an agenda. The Father of the BB was a Jesuit priest named George LaMaitre. Galileo was religious, as to was Newton. It was the scientific knowledge and learning and reasoning that saw them make notable contributions to science. Religion had nothing to do with it. Again, I stipulate, it will not be some philosophical rhetoric, or some religiously inspired myth that will see science advance and new discoveries made.It will be science, scientists as governed my the scientific method.

The example you gave I don't accept as science. 

 

Quote

Last for now:  I`m not familiar with your term winging and why you use it.

Oooopsy daisy! Whinging!!! it should be...My humble apologies.

Edited November 19, 2018 by beecee