Vector theory of Gravity

[coffeesippin]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Quite a cynical outlook, as opposed to critical...Like I said, the many young up and comers that would dearly love to over throw GR, along with the established experts that would love that chance and the rewards that go with it, make any chances of skull duggery virtually non existant.

Also supporting that is the incredible experiments that are now being undertaken that will either confirm GR to even greater precision, or show some limitation with the model...the SKA now being built....the LISA Pathfinder when completed. And obviously of course the realisation and discussions of V4 and other models of gravity that have been discussed in the past like emergent gravity and LQG.

Why else would someone want to steal someone else's work in a skull duggery way?  To me that's a critical point.   Piltdown Man is a great example of skull duggery, maybe that's why it's called what it is.  But even more important is, why do some people get so upset when someone questions what is considered a Consensus theory .. surely if they have enough evidence questions aren't going to upset them, they will patiently explain the evidence.  If this same Vector theory has been proposed by me for instance with no scientific credentials, it would almost certainly have been met with tremendous derision simply because it could be a viable alternative to GR, another lunatic idea from an uneducated lunatic, and that's why I included the author's CV, to show he has the qualification to qualify the theory for consideration.  This hard core resistance to new ideas is what pits people in these discussions against one another so strongly that polite conversation breaks down and derision begin, and that of course is not productive or fun.  Also, why should the term 'overthrow' be used regarding theories .. overthrow is rather a violent term, unless in baseball or football, but in those applications it's called error, and everyone accepts an error.  I don't think scientists want to overthrow anything as in an armed revolution, they simply want new developments to come out.    

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm more suprised that you didn't want to know the name of the junior mathematician.

It is there in the post after the one where Studiot you mention it.

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Strange
just realised who I was replying to!

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

  Piltdown Man is a great example of skull duggery, maybe that's why it's called what it is. 

Neither Science nor any other institution is ever perfect...

Quote

But even more important is, why do some people get so upset when someone questions what is considered a Consensus theory 

 Who is upset? Again, GR is overwhelmingly evidenced and has a top notch predictive and observationally verified data. Any attempt by any other hypothetical by any other scientist, will by necessity, need to run the gauntlet. Why do you get so upset over that logical step of the scientific method?

Quote

 surely if they have enough evidence questions aren't going to upset them, they will patiently explain the evidence.

Again, who is upset, other then apparently you?

The rest of your post is simply reflecting what your posts have always reflected and your agenda laden cynical approach to science. 

Now if you want to discuss the pros and/or cons of V G4 then go ahead. Or alternatively if you would like to debate the excellent observationally verified, and excellent predictive nature of GR then that's OK too. But you need to live with the fact that the qualities and known success of GR, will be by necessity hard to overthrow and any potential adversary will again, wait for it....need to run the gauntlet.  In other words stop your nonsense and get back on topic.

Edited November 21, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

And yet in in previous threads, the clarion cry has been "institutional cover up" , though I don't want to attribute particular members.

I think in fact it has more often been personal, although influential persons can and have used their position for this.

The equivalent of the Nobel in Mathematics is the Fields Medal, which is not of such a high monetary value, but equal prestige in Maths.

Too often a male senior has done this to a female junior.

But mostly male/male since there have been far more males than females in Science.

 

 

I'm more suprised that you didn't want to know the name of the junior mathematician.

The junior mathematician .. too many details, but if you like please yes you can provide it.   I had a hard enough time remembering Pascual Jordan's name and he is the one who most influenced my science.  One of the preeminent founders of quantum theory, nominated for a Nobel by Einstein, Jordan's formula stopping Einstein in his tracks as he was crossing a street so abruptly that cars had to stop to avoid hitting him . "If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy" the star arises from nothing."  I must be showing my age I guess, to have forgotten his name.  He more than anyone opened the gate of scientific possibility to me, had I learned of Jordan while young I probably would worked very hard to become a physicist.  

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Piltdown Man is a great example of skull duggery, maybe that's why it's called what it is. 

That was an example of hoax/fraud, not stealing someone's ideas. I am not aware of any examples of the latter. Although there has been a tendency, in the past, for some female scientists to not be given the credit they deserve (Rosalind Franklin, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, etc)

Incidentally:

Quote

skulduggery (n.)

1856, apparently an alteration of Scottish sculdudrie "adultery" (1713), sculduddery "bawdry, obscenity" (1821), a euphemism of uncertain origin.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/skulduggery

So it long predates Piltdown Man.

21 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

This hard core resistance to new ideas is what pits people in these discussions against one another so strongly that polite conversation breaks down and derision begin

I have to say, it may seem unpleasant, but this resistance to new ideas is one of the reasons that science works as well as it does. 

Einstein was famously resistant to the implications of quantum theory, but that forced people to examine the theory more deeply and come up with experiments to test his objections. It made it a better theory.

[coffeesippin]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Science nor any other institution is ever perfect...

 Who is upset? Again, GR is overwhelmingly evidenced and has a top notch predictive and observationally verified data. Any attempt by any other hypothetical by any other scientist, will by necessity, need to run the gauntlet. Why do you get so upset over that logical step of the scientific method?

Again, who is upset, other then apparently you?

The rest of your post is simply reflecting what your posts have always reflected and your agenda laden cynical approach to science. 

Now if you want to discuss the pros and/or cons of V G4 then go ahead. Or alternatively if you would like to debate the excellent observationally verified, and excellent predictive nature of GR then that's OK too. But you need to live with the fact that the qualities and known success of GR, will be by necessity hard to overthrow and any potential adversary will again, wait for it....need to run the gauntlet.  In other words stop your nonsense and get back on topic.

I get upset at statements like yours .. 'who is upset other than you.'    I see upset people on these science forums all the time, they become insulting and angry when a new idea comes along.  I don't get upset by scientific ideas because I don't have a strong academic background ("THAT was obvious!" someone will say.) To me all of science is till exciting and fresh, what's to get upset about?  The need for a new idea to prove itself?  Of course!  But there is no need to set up psychological barriers of hate and fear along with the scientific barriers.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

That was an example of hoax/fraud, not stealing someone's ideas. I am not aware of any examples of the latter. Although there has been a tendency, in the past, for some female scientists to not be given the credit they deserve (Rosalind Franklin, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, etc)

Incidentally:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/skulduggery

So it long predates Piltdown Man.

I have to say, it may seem unpleasant, but this resistance to new ideas is one of the reasons that science works as well as it does. 

Einstein was famously resistant to the implications of quantum theory, but that forced people to examine the theory more deeply and come up with experiments to test his objections. It made it a better theory.

By and large, people listen/read until the first errors start to show up, and that's usually, pretty much, straightaway. If an idea starts out wrong, it's not going to finish right, is it?

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If an idea starts out wrong, it's not going to finish right, is it?

If it is completely wrong, probably not. But if there is a germ of an idea which then goes wrong, it could be corrected through discussion with colleagues, etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened quite often, science being the collaborative exercise it is.

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have to say, it may seem unpleasant, but this resistance to new ideas is one of the reasons that science works as well as it does. 

Einstein was famously resistant to the implications of quantum theory, but that forced people to examine the theory more deeply and come up with experiments to test his objections. It made it a better theory.

Agreed. For anyone to vaguely or otherwise suggest that GR will be easily surpassed,  by V G4 or any other of the many models of gravity around, is stupid. Likewise for anyone to suggest that aLIGO and/or the scientific community in general is hiding anything or being unreasonably incalcitrant on the matter, is also stupid. We are debating it now....I mentioned it on this forum before coffeesippin....aLIGO are well aware of it and researching at this very moment...other experiments are afoot that could invalidate GR or further enhance it...by the same token, it could enhance the V G4 model also. the SKA and LISA Pathfinder are two, along with the Horizon probe. 

[coffeesippin]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That was an example of hoax/fraud, not stealing someone's ideas. I am not aware of any examples of the latter. Although there has been a tendency, in the past, for some female scientists to not be given the credit they deserve (Rosalind Franklin, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, etc)

Incidentally:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/skulduggery

So it long predates Piltdown Man.

I have to say, it may seem unpleasant, but this resistance to new ideas is one of the reasons that science works as well as it does. 

Einstein was famously resistant to the implications of quantum theory, but that forced people to examine the theory more deeply and come up with experiments to test his objections. It made it a better theory.

Resistance of course is good, but derision is destructive.  

And no matter if I try to avoid it or not, there it is:     https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/news/2014/09/physics-beyond-god-play-dice-einstein-mean/    The whole big existential question.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Resistance of course is good, but derision is destructive.

I think you'll find that scientists can be a lot ruder to one another than is allowed on this forum. (And Einstein's "god" was not your god)

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I think you'll find that scientists can be a lot ruder to one another than is allowed on this forum. (And Einstein's "god" was not your god)

Spinoza's god, I have read somewhere.

[coffeesippin]

On 11/20/2018 at 3:48 PM, Strange said:

For completeness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Lobachevsky

The same ideas were also (independently) developed by Gauss and Bolyai. It was in the air at the time, I guess.

Wonderful link, thank you Strange.  He was quite the guy with numbers, his wife birthing 18 children.      

"The boldness of his challenge and its successful outcome have inspired mathematicians and scientists in general to challenge other "axioms" or accepted "truths", for example the "law" of causality which, for centuries, have seemed as necessary to straight thinking as Euclid's postulate appeared until Lobachevsky discarded it. The full impact of the Lobachevskian method of challenging axioms has probably yet to be felt. It is no exaggeration to call Lobachevsky the Copernicus of Geometry, for geometry is only a part of the vaster domain which he renovated; it might even be just to designate him as a Copernicus of all thought."

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Spinoza's god, I have read somewhere.

I resist the temptation.

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think you'll find that scientists can be a lot ruder to one another than is allowed on this forum. (And Einstein's "god" was not your god)

I shall resist the temptation, however:  Hoyle is a good example .. calling his contemporaries liars and cheats .. and missing the Nobel probably because of that.  Who wants to honour a scoundrel?   https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize   "He had called some of them liars and cheats in public."     

Edited November 21, 2018 by coffeesippin
'kids' to 'children' .. Lob was not an old goat.

[beecee]

38 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Resistance of course is good, but derision is destructive.  

It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by  our best brains. Derision is also sometimes deserved. You yourself have practised that art. [eg: the attempted derision of the theory of evolution via obtuse banter we have seen]

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

It is there in the post after the one where Studiot you mention it.

Yes I missed that.

But I would not get to starry eyed about the wiki article on Lobachevsky without first reasearching the following names who all contributed

Hasan ibn al-Haytham, Omar Khyyam who kicked off the game,

Saccheri who developed these ideas in 1733

Schweikart, Taurinus, Wachter who were active at the time  of Lobachevsky and Bolyai.

And of course Gauss who never published so we don't fully know what he knew, except that he feared the "Boeotians"

 

After this aside I feel I have been off topic long enough and should get back to reading the 'vector' paper.

 

Has no one any thoughts on the postulated vector field?

Edited November 21, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

If you listed all the mathematicians who contributed to special and general relativity I suspect it would look like a phone book (if anyone remembers them - phone books I mean, not relativity)

[coffeesippin]

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by  our best brains. Derision is also sometimes deserved. You yourself have practised that art. [eg: the attempted derision of the theory of evolution via obtuse banter we have seen]

 

No actually I have said a few times here in this fourums I agree that evolution is real.  I can't see how you missed those statements but I guess we get busy, or you simply misread what I said.  However, I place a limit on what evolution does.  If my limit offends you, perhaps you can tell me why we are stuck on a terminally ill planet instead of having evolved wings and other capacities allowing us to fly away?  

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you listed all the mathematicians who contributed to special and general relativity I suspect it would look like a phone book (if anyone remembers them - phone books I mean, not relativity)

They still deliver them around to our igloos here in Canada.   Now if we could only get landlines instead of these cellphones!  It's a problem of laying lines beneath permafrost I understand.  (I wonder how far that one will go?)  

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes I missed that.

But I would not get to starry eyed about the wiki article on Lobachevsky without first reasearching the following names who all contributed

Hasan ibn al-Haytham, Omar Khyyam who kicked off the game,

Saccheri who developed these ideas in 1733

Schweikart, Taurinus, Wachter who were active at the time  of Lobachevsky and Bolyai.

And of course Gauss who never published so we don't fully know what he knew, except that he feared the "Boeotians"

 

After this aside I feel I have been off topic long enough and should get back to reading the 'vector' paper.

 

Has no one any thoughts on the postulated vector field?

You weren't off topic at all, Studiot.  I'm sure  Lobachevsky must have been exposed to many great minds past and in his present that influenced his thought processes; indeed, during a trip in my time machine ...   HAHAHAHAAHAHHA.  Hillarious thought.  'Hello Lobachevsky, just dropped in to say hello from Sfn where not all of us are fans because of what you theaten to do with GR.'    'Have some vodka,' he might say, 'Sfn .. what are you sniffing up there?'   

[studiot]

14 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

You weren't off topic at all, Studiot.  I'm sure  Lobachevsky must have been exposed to many great minds past and in his present that influenced his thought processes; indeed, during a trip in my time machine ...   HAHAHAHAAHAHHA.  Hillarious thought.  'Hello Lobachevsky, just dropped in to say hello from Sfn where not all of us are fans because of what you theaten to do with GR.'    'Have some vodka,' he might say, 'Sfn .. what are you sniffing up there?'   

Well as said, I have started on serious reading of the pdf.

Immediately I note similarities to the Lemaitre approach and am therfore looking to see if this is another special case as here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric

 

If anyone can read the pdf in a modern version of Word (mine is too old to do pdf), resave it as a .doc document and post or send me (via PM) a copy I would be grateful.

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

If anyone can read the pdf in a modern version of Word (mine is too old to do pdf), resave it as a .doc document and post or send me (via PM) a copy I would be grateful.

Why do you want it as a doc file? The complete text is there on the web page. 

(I have never attempted to open a pdf in Word; is it supposed to work? I will try it when I get home.)

[studiot]

I only saw an abstract on the webpage, and a link to the pdf download, so I downloaded the pdf.

Although I can read the pdf in acrobat, when I try to copy and paste bits I get all sorts of funnies.
This is why I originally posted the abstract as a screenshot.

I understand The latest versions of Word can read and write pdf, but the last one I have is W2000.

[beecee]

17 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

No actually I have said a few times here in this fourums I agree that evolution is real.  I can't see how you missed those statements but I guess we get busy, or you simply misread what I said.  However, I place a limit on what evolution does.  If my limit offends you, perhaps you can tell me why we are stuck on a terminally ill planet instead of having evolved wings and other capacities allowing us to fly away?  

I did not say that you disagree with evolution per se...I was simply using it as an example of your general derision of science in the guise of supposed questions, evolution being one of them. The relevant part of what I said stands...."It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by  our best brains". And I supported that statement that it is not resistance for resistance sake or incalcitrance with the following examples thus...."We are debating it now....I mentioned it on this forum before coffeesippin....aLIGO are well aware of it and researching at this very moment...other experiments are afoot that could invalidate GR or further enhance it...by the same token, it could enhance the V G4 model also. the SKA and LISA Pathfinder are two, along with the Horizon probe". 

 

 

[coffeesippin]

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

I did not say that you disagree with evolution per se...I was simply using it as an example of your general derision of science in the guise of supposed questions, evolution being one of them. The relevant part of what I said stands...."It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by  our best brains". And I supported that statement that it is not resistance for resistance sake or incalcitrance with the following examples thus...."We are debating it now....I mentioned it on this forum before coffeesippin....aLIGO are well aware of it and researching at this very moment...other experiments are afoot that could invalidate GR or further enhance it...by the same token, it could enhance the V G4 model also. the SKA and LISA Pathfinder are two, along with the Horizon probe". 

 

 

"I did not say that you disagree with evolution per se...I was simply using it as an example of your general derision of science ..." 

You DEFINITELY said I did not agree with evolution:  "the attempted derision of the theory of evolution via obtuse banter."   

 If you see my doubts on BB as a general derision of science despite my what should easily be seen by you as my obviously long term exploration of science, with up to date examples, then your prejudice against my admission that the bible in the KJV to be true and God's Word is far too deeply entrenched and bulwarked to be much affected my anything I have to say.  Perhaps you choose to ignore the most recent scientific evidences I present with links, like the amount of water IN the earth being at least as much as all the oceans ON the earth.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

An off-topic hijack with a personal theory has been hidden. There is a thread in Speculations.

 

[Q-reeus]

As follow-on from my last post here:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117068-vector-theory-of-gravity/?do=findComment&comment=1081814

The mentioned then still forthcoming reply by Svidzinsky & Hilborn has now been posted at arXiv.org:
Comment on 'Tests of general relativity with GW170817'
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02604

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

As follow-on from my last post here:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117068-vector-theory-of-gravity/?do=findComment&comment=1081814

The mentioned then still forthcoming reply by Svidzinsky & Hilborn has now been posted at arXiv.org:
Comment on 'Tests of general relativity with GW170817'
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02604

 

So no response to my vector field question then, and we still have to go offsite to read any replies?