How You'd Actually Put General Relativity to the Test

[metacogitans]

(This is an idea I had for an experiment to prove/disprove General Relativity. I don't think this type of topic is against any rules, let me know if I need to move it. Also, to all you guys who point out something I didn't know before, thanks as always for helping me learn a little more every time I come here).

 

Maybe you've read or heard about one of the latest physics-related news articles going around about how they finally found 'proof' of gravitational waves, confirming General Relativity and spacetime curvature as the source for gravity. But, when reading about cosmological claims like these, us skeptics remind ourselves about the tight bottleneck of measurement. The parameters of the device(s) used and the limitations of the material(s) being used for a catalyst interacting with what is being measured ultimately add up to the big 'conclusion' really just being an exciting guess someone made after arguing over what a few blips on a poor-quality image mean.

 

And bad resolution data from satellites is pretty much all we ever get. Kind of a lack of creativity isn't it? Instead of looking at pictures taken by satellites and looking for something that looks what we're trying to find, we could devise a test for General Relativity with a mechanical experiment: Consider a centrifuge in space with openings around the wall of the centrifuge such that we could shine a light through one opening and have it go through an opening on the other side. The openings are at specific increments such that we could calculate which opening to expect the light to go through on the other side depending on how fast the centrifuge is rotating. Now, Einstein tells us that as an object accelerates, its relativistic mass increases, and the spacetime curvature the object produces should also increase, meaning the gravity produced by the object should also increase.

 

By increasing the rate at which the centrifuge rotates (or 'accelerating' the centrifuge, although that isn't the best term since rotation is already acceleration technically) until the matter making up the centrifuge approaches relativistic speeds, we should begin to find abnormalities in light's travel time due to spacetime curvature (dilation of spacetime within the centrifuge) if Special and General Relativity are correct. If classical mechanics is all that's involved, we should still be able to calculate specific openings light can be sent through just based on the dimensions of the centrifuge, how fast its rotating, and the speed of light.

 

Now, Einstein's Relativity would have us predict the travel time/distance of light would be greater than what we'd expect based on the dimensions of the centrifuge, and this would be more noticeable the faster the centrifuge was rotating -- because as an object approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass increases.

 

Also, for the experiment to work without random particles in space interfering with the light's trajectory by acting as a medium, it would all have to take place within a vacuum chamber in orbit.

 

Afterthoughts: concerning the energy required to get a centrifuge rotating at relativistic speeds, there certainly aren't very many practical fueling methods, and if we try simply making the centrifuge smaller in design to use less fuel, it'd be harder to produce a noticeable change in gravity due to its smaller mass. The best solution to the fuel problem I'm thinking of would be using solar sails - the biggest problem with that would be the inertia from the rotation ripping everything apart after a certain point; it'd have to be constructed all as one piece with strong atomic bonds attaching everything together, so that the centrifuge couldn't rip apart until it literally starts to reach the relativistic speed limit, and the speed of its rotation starts to contend with the speed of the electromagnetism holding it together. It doesn't have to get near the speed of light, just a fraction of it, which is when the relativistic oddities start to occur.

 

(Posted this on Reddit as well, but I like putting anything I write in two places in case it gets deleted, so I have a time & date of when it was posted).

Edited March 25, 2016 by metacogitans

[dimreepr]

At the risk of being flippant, use your sat-nav.

[Strange]

The parameters of the device(s) used and the limitations of the material(s) being used for a catalyst interacting with what is being measured ultimately add up to the big 'conclusion' really just being an exciting guess someone made after arguing over what a few blips on a poor-quality image mean.

 

So I guess you haven't actually looked at the quality of the results obtained.

 

And bad resolution data from satellites is pretty much all we ever get.

 

The gravitational waves were not detected by a satellite. (And were not bad resolution.) Neither was the Pound-Rebka experiment. Nor the Hafele-Keating.

 

 

Now, Einstein's Relativity would have us predict the travel time/distance of light would be greater than what we'd expect based on the dimensions of the centrifuge, and this would be more noticeable the faster the centrifuge was rotating -- because as an object approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass increases.

 

I am not sure that things are that simple. Relativistic mass is just a way of describing the total energy of the system. And while it is true that the spinning object would have more energy, it is not obvious this would have the effect you claim.

 

I would like to see the calculations of the expected size of the effect. (But I suspect this is non-trivial.)

 

 

Also, for the experiment to work without random particles in space interfering with the light's trajectory by acting as a medium, it would all have to take place within a vacuum chamber in orbit.

 

I suspect (although it is many years since I did any vacuum physics) that it would be hard to improve on the vacuum of space.

 

 

Afterthoughts: ...

 

It certainly sounds technically challenging. But then so are experiments like LIGO. And, like all such experiments where you try and measure a tiny effect, there would be all sorts of problems with noise, measurement accuracy, etc. It is not clear why you think this experiment would be any more convincing than any of the others. Is it just because you thought of it?

 

I think it might be easier to just find a large mass to send lasers past and test what happens. You know, like a planet or the Sun. Oh, hang on. They have done that. But you won't accept it.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

Maybe you've read or heard about one of the latest physics-related news articles going around about how they finally found 'proof' of gravitational waves, confirming General Relativity and spacetime curvature as the source for gravity. But, when reading about cosmological claims like these, us skeptics remind ourselves about the tight bottleneck of measurement. The parameters of the device(s) used and the limitations of the material(s) being used for a catalyst interacting with what is being measured ultimately add up to the big 'conclusion' really just being an exciting guess someone made after arguing over what a few blips on a poor-quality image mean.

I literally just got back from a colloquium on the LIGP experiment, and saw some of the raw data, and the analysis that gave rise to the signal. You're just making this up. Presumably it's because you have no actual scientific experience, so you have to guess at what it's like to do this. Perhaps not, but if you had actual examples, you should be able to point us to them, and you haven't.

 

And bad resolution data from satellites is pretty much all we ever get.

As others have pointed out, this is more noise lacking a signal.

 

Kind of a lack of creativity isn't it? Instead of looking at pictures taken by satellites and looking for something that looks what we're trying to find, we could devise a test for General Relativity with a mechanical experiment: Consider a centrifuge in space with openings around the wall of the centrifuge such that we could shine a light through one opening and have it go through an opening on the other side. The openings are at specific increments such that we could calculate which opening to expect the light to go through on the other side depending on how fast the centrifuge is rotating. Now, Einstein tells us that as an object accelerates, its relativistic mass increases, and the spacetime curvature the object produces should also increase, meaning the gravity produced by the object should also increase.

How much would it cost, and what would its sensitivity be?

 

By increasing the rate at which the centrifuge rotates (or 'accelerating' the centrifuge, although that isn't the best term since rotation is already acceleration technically) until the matter making up the centrifuge approaches relativistic speeds,

How fast do you mean by relativistic speeds? How big would it be?

 

Your proposal is curiously lacking in any real scientific analysis.

[metacogitans]

 

So I guess you haven't actually looked at the quality of the results obtained.

 

This. These are the results. http://podcasts.nytimes.com/podcasts/2016/02/11/science/space/ligo-chirp/LIGOChirp.mp3

 

The gravitational waves were not detected by a satellite. (And were not bad resolution.) Neither was the Pound-Rebka experiment. Nor the Hafele-Keating.

 

 

I admit I didn't look into the details that much. But I knew it was going to be something indecipherable picked up from distant light years away with only a handful of people who know how to explain it.

 

And I'm not saying it's not what they say it is, but wouldn't you rather have proof in hand? Proof you can replicate?

Telling someone you saw proof of something isn't as good as telling them how to find it and how to make it themselves.

 

I am not sure that things are that simple. Relativistic mass is just a way of describing the total energy of the system. And while it is true that the spinning object would have more energy, it is not obvious this would have the effect you claim.

 

I don't know, a quick search on google for 'relativistic mass gravity' garners a few supporting links: https://www.quora.com/Relativity-physics/Does-relativistic-mass-have-gravity

 

 

I suspect (although it is many years since I did any vacuum physics) that it would be hard to improve on the vacuum of space.

 

 

For the sake of the experiment, a near-vacuum has to be achieved, otherwise the centrifuge will push particles or any space debris to the walls of the centrifuge over time, and cause diffraction of light, which would probably look the same as gravitational lensing although it's not.

If a 'near-vacuum' to do the experiment in is not possible, then the experiment almost isn't even worth doing. Although, if the diffraction could be accurately accounted for and measured ahead of time, it could be compared to the results to see if they are significantly different.

 

 

It certainly sounds technically challenging. But then so are experiments like LIGO. And, like all such experiments where you try and measure a tiny effect, there would be all sorts of problems with noise, measurement accuracy, etc. It is not clear why you think this experiment would be any more convincing than any of the others. Is it just because you thought of it?

 

I think the most technically challenging aspect would be figuring out how to make the centrifuge strong enough so it isn't ripped apart by inertia. But if we have carbon nano-tubing down to a science now, I'm confident we could make a seamless centrifuge equipped with solar sails in a water-wheel formation bonded to the structure of the centrifuge.

 

 

I think it might be easier to just find a large mass to send lasers past and test what happens. You know, like a planet or the Sun. Oh, hang on. They have done that. But you won't accept it.

 

I don't believe that it's not just diffraction. We've never been close enough to the sun to be able to map out the density of its atmosphere; also what about the high temperature of the corona? Or the effect plasma has on light?

I literally just got back from a colloquium on the LIGP experiment, and saw some of the raw data, and the analysis that gave rise to the signal. You're just making this up. Presumably it's because you have no actual scientific experience, so you have to guess at what it's like to do this. Perhaps not, but if you had actual examples, you should be able to point us to them, and you haven't.

 

 

As others have pointed out, this is more noise lacking a signal.

 

 

 

How fast do you mean by relativistic speeds? How big would it be?

 

Your proposal is curiously lacking in any real scientific analysis.

I have no idea how to interpret whatever it is, so I won't give an opinion on it.

Although I do have questions about the equipment that picked it up - was it just a glorified antenna? Any chance someone is misreporting information? Fluke in the equipment? Someone hoaxing them?

How much would it cost, and what would its sensitivity be?

 

It'd cost whatever it takes to put it up in orbit plus the cost of building it. I'm guessing it would make use of graphene for its high tensile strength.

Its sensitivity would depend on how big you're willing to make it, as it will be measuring the travel time/distance of light emitted from an external source across the inside of the centrifuge while it's rotating, then detected on the other side. Based on where it was detected compared to where it should have been detected, we can deduce the extent of spacetime curvature from the increased relativistic mass of the centrifuge - assuming no other variables disturb the results, which is why it'd be most accurately done in an enclosed vacuum chamber, otherwise space debris might build up against the centrifuge walls over time and throw off results.

 

How fast do you mean by relativistic speeds? How big would it be?

Well it has to put a decent dent in 300,000,000 m/s; once you start going up fractions of that speed, the relativistic consequences start to become apparent from what I understand -- once that happens, we should be able to look for increased gravity produced by the relativistic mass. Is the tensile strength of graphene great enough to withstand, say, 10,000,000m/s rotation?

 

 

Your proposal is curiously lacking in any real scientific analysis.

 

If I spend the weekend googling formulas I could maybe scrap together something that looks more like numbers; we all know how bad I am at math by now though.. I have a bad habit of leaving out one little thing and my answer getting thrown off by several figures. (My most recent endeavor was trying to re-discover how to calculate sine cosine and tangent without a calculator, and without looking up how they're found. I went through about 20 pages of paper figuring out the slope of 22.5 degrees using only the area formula for a triangle and Pythagorean theorem, and had to reinvent radians. I kept forgetting a square root here or there or forgetting which equation was which. So I figured out how to calculate half of 45 degrees, but what about 1 degree? or 7.4324 degrees? I was stumped and was trying all sorts of combinations of mixing exponents, and eventually I gave up and looked it up and saw you use an equation switching between adding and subtracting factorials going up 2 factorial base numbers each time, and you can keep going until your answer is as precise as you want it to be. I probably spent 4 hours wasting paper.)

Edited March 25, 2016 by metacogitans

[Strange]

This. These are the results.

 

So you are just going to ignore the science and the actual data? That is a bit silly.

 

 

I admit I didn't look into the details that much. But I knew it was going to be something indecipherable picked up from distant light years away with only a handful of people who know how to explain it.

 

There were something 1,000 people involved. Any of them, and millions of others, could explain it. You can find any number of descriptions on line, from the superficial (like your audio sample) to the details of the experiment and data analysis. But presumably you have chosen to remain ignorant. That is a bit sad.

 

 

And I'm not saying it's not what they say it is, but wouldn't you rather have proof in hand? Proof you can replicate?

 

1. Science never "proves" anything.

 

2. It can and will be replicated by others.

 

 

Telling someone you saw proof of something isn't as good as telling them how to find it and how to make it themselves.

 

That information is readily available. But if you think that science is only valid if you can do it yourself, then you are deluded. Of course, you could, in principle, get together the billions of dollars and the massive team of scientists and engineers to reproduce LIGO. But you really don't need to.

 

I find it rather ironic that you say this after proposing an experiment which appears to be nearly technically impossible.

 

 

For the sake of the experiment, a near-vacuum has to be achieved

 

Which would be a good reason for doing it in outer space. Can we see your analysis of why this is inadequate and what level of vacuum (and, presumably, particle size) needs to be achieved.

 

 

I think the most technically challenging aspect would be figuring out how to make the centrifuge strong enough so it isn't ripped apart by inertia.

 

Can we see your analysis of how fast it would need to rotate and what this means for the required strength and the materials required.

 

(You know, to demonstrate that you not just making stuff up.)

 

 

I don't believe that it's not just diffraction.

 

There are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing and one significant difference from diffraction (or refraction) is the absence of dispersion.

 

However, feel free to show your analysis of how the sun's corona could cause the observed effect. (I assume you are not just making wild guesses here, and do know what you are talking about.)

Edited March 25, 2016 by Strange

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

This thread and the OP's topic is not up to the standard of the main physics forum. I am moving it to speculations - if the OP fails or decides not to defend their proposal then it will be locked. Please take a moment to reread the rules of the forum and the specific guidelines to the speculation forum. FYG just making stuff up is never good enough.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair

 

[swansont]

Although I do have questions about the equipment that picked it up - was it just a glorified antenna? Any chance someone is misreporting information? Fluke in the equipment? Someone hoaxing them?

Which indicates that you have absolutely no familiarity with LIGO at all. You just know it's crap.

 

(That's not skepticism)

 

The speaker actually mentioned that they went through and analyzed if there was some way somebody could have spoofed the data. They concluded it was technically possible, but would take a large team familiar with the experiment in order to do that. And "there aren't enough pissed-off former post-docs around to pull that off" (or something similar)

 

They also spent a few weeks getting additional data to show this wasn't just coincidental noise, and time checking the system for these errors. It's one reason the detection was 6 months ago and the paper only came out last month.

 

It'd cost whatever it takes to put it up in orbit plus the cost of building it. I'm guessing it would make use of graphene for its high tensile strength.

So IOW, no idea. No science.

 

Its sensitivity would depend on how big you're willing to make it, as it will be measuring the travel time/distance of light emitted from an external source across the inside of the centrifuge while it's rotating, then detected on the other side. Based on where it was detected compared to where it should have been detected, we can deduce the extent of spacetime curvature from the increased relativistic mass of the centrifuge - assuming no other variables disturb the results, which is why it'd be most accurately done in an enclosed vacuum chamber, otherwise space debris might build up against the centrifuge walls over time and throw off results.

Right. I want a calculation. If you're going to propose some experiment, you should have a handle on these details (even when you aren't pissing all over other peoples' hard work)

[Strange]

Although I do have questions about the equipment that picked it up - was it just a glorified antenna?

 

I suppose it is admirable that you are willing to admit your total ignorance. However, it also makes it clear that your opinions on the experiment are worth absolutely nothing.

 

If I spend the weekend googling formulas I could maybe scrap together something that looks more like numbers; we all know how bad I am at math by now though..

 

If you have so little confidence in your abilities, I see no reason why anyone else should take your wild guesses seriously.

[metacogitans]

Which indicates that you have absolutely no familiarity with LIGO at all. You just know it's crap.

 

(That's not skepticism)

 

 

Right. I want a calculation. If you're going to propose some experiment, you should have a handle on these details (even when you aren't pissing all over other peoples' hard work)

Skepticism is cruel but cruel to everything equally; something shouldn't be spared no matter how many doctorates are paraded around in front of it.

It's become a strong habit of mine; whenever someone makes any sweeping claim, even if I like the idea, I'll take a side against it and see if supporters can cover all bases. It's an efficient learning process.

 

 

 

The speaker actually mentioned that they went through and analyzed if there was some way somebody could have spoofed the data. They concluded it was technically possible, but would take a large team familiar with the experiment in order to do that. And "there aren't enough pissed-off former post-docs around to pull that off" (or something similar)

Yeah I'm not saying it's likely, but there always could be a scandal. What if they're about to lose funding if they don't get some attention somehow to seem worthwhile; so they took the tabloid route for the sake of saving their work team. Not saying that's the case, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

 

 

So IOW, no idea. No science.

I'm not a one-man NASA

 

 

 

They also spent a few weeks getting additional data to show this wasn't just coincidental noise, and time checking the system for these errors. It's one reason the detection was 6 months ago and the paper only came out last month.

Until I can poke my head around in all their data and spreadsheets and software and equipment at my leisure, I'm not closing the books on this one. Why does that noise mean 'black holes'? What software are they using to identify the little nuances and conclude 'the best answer is black holes'. What about that 12 second sound clip tells us it was black holes billions of light years away and not something less massive but closer? In the article I read, they said it was too powerful to be a neutron star, but that means it does sound similar? How similar? If they're similar, what makes them so dissimilar we can conclude it wasn't one but the other?

 

I suppose it is admirable that you are willing to admit your total ignorance. However, it also makes it clear that your opinions on the experiment are worth absolutely nothing.

 

 

If you have so little confidence in your abilities, I see no reason why anyone else should take your wild guesses seriously.

If my ideas and guesswork are that outrageous, there should be easy counter examples why it wouldn't work. Solar sails do work. right? If put in formation, the rotational velocity of a centrifuge they're attached to should continue to increase, correct? It probably has more to it, but so did the combustion engine

Edited March 25, 2016 by metacogitans

[Strange]

Skepticism is cruel but cruel to everything equally; something shouldn't be spared no matter how many doctorates are paraded around in front of it.

 

Scepticism should accept answers based on evidence. Scepticism is not dismissing evidence because you are totally ignorant of it. Scepticism means learning about that evidence and then forming a judgment. Not deciding it is nonsense and then refusing to learn about it.

 

It's become a strong habit of mine

 

Sounds like one you should break if you want to stop coming across as arrogant and ignorant. (A really bad combination.)

 

It's an efficient learning process.

 

I find that hard to believe, given the level of ignorance you have demonstrated in this thread.

 

Until I can poke my head around in all their data and spreadsheets and software and equipment at my leisure, I'm not closing the books on this one. Why does that noise mean 'black holes'? What software are they using to identify the little nuances and conclude 'the best answer is black holes'. What about that 12 second sound clip tells us it was black holes billions of light years away and not something less massive but closer? In the article I read, they said it was too powerful to be a neutron star, but that means it does sound similar? How similar? If they're similar, what makes them so dissimilar we can conclude it wasn't one but the other?

 

This is all documented in amazing detail in the papers (and some informal articles) published by the team. The fact you are too lazy to do any research does not give you the right to claim it is all wrong.

 

But it does give us the right to dismiss you as an ignorant troll.

[swansont]

This isn't sketicism, it's contrariness. The hubris that things can't be accepted until they get your stamp of approval - despite not knowing the science - is amazing. You have no objections actually based in science. Just ones based in ignorance.

[Strange]

If my ideas and guesswork are that outrageous, there should be easy counter examples why it wouldn't work.

 

"Hey you should build my ludicrously expensive and implausible experiment (and get someone to work out what the results will be) unless you can prove it won't work"

 

Surprisingly, science funding doesn't work like that. The teams building LIGO, LHC, SKA, etc. need to provide detailed project proposals with analysis of the cost and expected results.

[Greg H.]

How to test GR for the layman.

 

Program your GPS for a destination you've never been to - preferably one far from your home.

Go to that destination using only the directions from your GPS.

 

Expected result: You arrive at your destination (within the margin of error for your GPS).

 

Since this works literally thousands of times per day in the US alone, I don't really think we need any more proof at the non-scientific level.

[metacogitans]

 

Scepticism should accept answers based on evidence. Scepticism is not dismissing evidence because you are totally ignorant of it. Scepticism means learning about that evidence and then forming a judgment. Not deciding it is nonsense and then refusing to learn about it.

 

Skepticism sides against evidence by default as a method of problem solving using lateral thinking. Hey, we can break this down step for step with Kantian-esque philosophy - none of the evidence-knowledge concluding 'black holes' in this experiment is a priori or independent of experience, it is a posteriori; more specifically, the evidence-knowledge does not stand by itself through pure logic -- a mathematically described experiment which duplicates results, however, could be considered knowledge a priori if built from the bottom up.

Anomalies from a source distant light years out of solar system have nothing for us to even compare them to at that scale which we have a well-established knowledge of. It is guesswork, and the people behind it are banking off the fact that we'll never in our lifetime be able to go check it.

Let me propose just some possible alternatives:

- another celestial body incidentally falling in the path of the anomalies source and our measuring devices, altering the signal in unanticipated ways.

- considering they stated themselves it was similar to a neutron star collision, a variable here on Earth could have interfered with the reading while it was taking place

 

Let me point out what their claims imply if true:

- a blackhole would really just be a region in space where the gravitational force from particles exceeded the electromagnetic force, and therefore:

- gravity can't be mediated by a boson and is instead solely the result of 'space-time' curvature

- space-time in most interpretations of general relativity is not independent of all objects in the universe, but an object itself, and spacetime could therefore be most appropriately viewed as a sum of relations between particles (the distance between particle A and particle B is determined by their relation to other particles), and because of this:

- spacetime curvature could not exceed the electromagnetic force, because any curvature ultimately consists of a shifting set of relations which the photons of the electromagnetic force are included amongst

 

You might respond saying everything I just said is too philosophical to consider, but all I just did was point in the inconsistencies in the concepts which everyone else is using to suggest the existence of black holes in the first place.

 

The lack of an educating response or explanation which a person would usually include when stating that someone is ignorant, a troll, etc. indicates to me that I'm wasting my thoughts, and if not, they're being given away while unappreciated for them. I'm trying to take on a role that builds knowledge for both sides but in order to do that, two people have to bounce ideas off of each other, and that isn't taking place if one of them only responds with insults.

 

Also, yes, Kantian logic isn't the most efficient means of attaining truth, but the Schopenhauerian logic described in "the World as Will and Representation" building off of and refuting Kantian logic is usually what I'm getting at when I mention the Kantian logic from "Critique of Pure Reason", just thought I'd add a footnote about that. The concepts of the 'thing in itself' vs phenomenon were what I was trying to get across mostly-- or, as adapted by physicists, 'observer effect' and the well known Uncertainty Principle; the 'thing in itself' being independent and different from phenomenon is not limited to human observers or even living organisms, but anything with an intrinsic structure reactive to the phenomenon.

I really hope someone doesn't try taking the route 'philosophy is inferior to physics' now; the philosophy from the time between the birth of Kant to around the start of the 20th century literally was the framework for early 20th century theoretical physics; physics didn't lead to the discovery of those concepts, but the other way around - those concepts provided the mentality leading to the development of physics.

Edited March 26, 2016 by metacogitans

[Strange]

Skepticism sides against evidence

 

Nonsense. Scepticism tests evidence and accepts it if it is good enough.

 

Saying "I am totally ignorant so I am going to assume it is wrong and come up with some random guesses" is not scepticism.

 

 

a mathematically described experiment which duplicates results, however, could be considered knowledge a priori if built from the bottom up.

 

As that is exactly what this result is, you are talking nonsense.

 

 

It is guesswork, and the people behind it are banking off the fact that we'll never in our lifetime be able to go check it.

 

Nonsense. It is a highly accurate test of observation against experiment. An almost perfect example of the scientific method.

 

 

Let me propose just some possible alternatives:

 

Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail that your guesses are plausible alternatives to the analysis provided.

 

 

a blackhole would really just be a region in space where the gravitational force from particles exceeded the electromagnetic force

 

Nonsense. I assume you just made that up.

 

 

gravity can't be mediated by a boson and is instead solely the result of 'space-time' curvature

 

Nonsense. I have no idea what you base that on. But if you had read the main research paper, you would see that they do some analysis which puts an upper limit on the mass of the graviton.

 

 

spacetime curvature could not exceed the electromagnetic force

 

Meaningless nonsense. How can you equate "curvature" and "force". That is like comparing the price of peanuts with the number of kittens.

 

 

You might respond saying everything I just said is too philosophical to consider, but all I just did was point in the inconsistencies in the concepts which everyone else is using to suggest the existence of black holes in the first place.

 

It is not philosophical. All you did was display your total ignorance of the subject (Which you seem oddly proud of).

 

 

The lack of an educating response or explanation

 

If you were to ask questions you would get answers. However, you have made it clear that you have chosen to remain deliberately ignorant of the relevant science, so why should I waste my time trying to explain things you are just going to ignore/reject.

[metacogitans]

This isn't sketicism, it's contrariness. The hubris that things can't be accepted until they get your stamp of approval - despite not knowing the science - is amazing. You have no objections actually based in science. Just ones based in ignorance.

Unfortunately, they are in a position where it is too easy to hoax what they are claiming. profit immensely from it, and have history forget forgive it before it can ever be disproven. I'd like to say scientists are immune to that kind of greed, but push a human being towards joblessness, admitting failure, and facing accusations of stealing from the public (in this case, it would be tax dollars), and they'll do an extravagant tapdance for everyone that is everything they want to hear; it happens in the affairs of corporations too, and well, pretty much everywhere. Instinct equates social rejection to death, and responds accordingly.

 

Again, not saying that's the case, but they're certainly in the right position to do it.. Billions of dollars spent without results, everyone wanting to keep their jobs, before you know it everyone is playing ball. Again, just saying. It will make a cute artifact regardless though, like the pyramids, or CERN.. Pharoah's charting the stars again.

 

"Hey you should build my ludicrously expensive and implausible experiment (and get someone to work out what the results will be) unless you can prove it won't work"

 

Surprisingly, science funding doesn't work like that. The teams building LIGO, LHC, SKA, etc. need to provide detailed project proposals with analysis of the cost and expected results.

Launching stuff up into orbit is cheap; Machines that can craft carbon instruments are expensive, but it will get cheaper in the future; Solar Sails are expensive, but NASA is making them anyways, so.. why not slap some on a centrifuge and launch that up and see what happens?

[Strange]

Unfortunately, they are in a position where it is too easy to hoax what they are claiming.

 

Not if you look at the data.

 

 

profit immensely from it, and have history forget forgive it before it can ever be disproven.

 

Presumably you think the moon landings were faked as well. Seeing this level of ignorant cynicism on a science forum is rather depressing.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

No theory and no model - and now with added conspiracy; sorry but this is not what the speculations forum is for.

 

I am pretty sure I asked you to read the rules of this forum in the modnote under which the thread was moved - you have failed to comply to any extent.

 

Thread Locked.