Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

No, I'm simply saying that we don't have all the why answers in cosmology.
And consequently our religious fanatics quickly latch onto such, and try and slip in their god of the gaps...as imho you are trying to do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have a video there from one of the greats...Watch it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pl tell me which post of mine (in whichever thread on science) invokes God for any explanation.....
If you cannot do that, you are a liar.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Call me what you like my friend, you are not impressing anyone.
Logical deduction that someone who is an unqualified amateur and lay person, and has admitted he is a believer, and who denigrates all of 21st century cosmology, GR, and who refuses to answer probing questions,and who calls huge International experiments such as GP-B and aLIGO frauds, need be driven by something substantial. That most likely is your religion and your god of the gaps.
Just because you claim you do not mix your religion and science, does not make it true.
I totally reject it for the reasons listed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I of course failed to mention the many reputable links and expert opinions that you totally reject without one iota of evidence or reason needed to invalidate the standard accepted sciences of GR and Cosmology.

 

Oh ! So thats your logical deduction, based on your slavish thinking that those who speak contrary to mainstream positions on certain topics, must be laden with godly agenda.......

My logical deduction based on your posts here is that......you are a lovable chap, an obedient follower of mainstream, you do not question your master's voice, you are very enthusiastic about cosmology, this all to certain extent compensate your complete lack of formal education in science, due to extensive googling you have become conversant with certain topics and you have delusionally assumed yourself as next to Rpenner (of course till he shows you your place)

 

Except that you speak contrary to all mainstream cosmology and in recent time have made inane claims that GP-B and aLIGO are fraudulent, all from a position of ignorance, and yet you claim are never wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And refuse to answer any question that can back you into a corner.
Yes, I believe your magical spaghetti monster has a direct hold over you and whatever it is you continue to contaminate this forum with.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can deduce as many lies as you like, its all here to read. Again your habit in raising mods, is a habit of many cranks...your case it was James originally, and now rpenner.
My education has been supplemented with plenty of reputable reading and while I know my position,you see yourself as a Saviour when in actual fact it is you slavishly doing your mythical divine Spaghetti monsters bidding.
The rest of your rather contradicted claims we'll leave to your peers on this forum to judge, alrighty.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let me hope that Rpenner does not miss the Post # 229 amidst the Cacophony created by Paddoboy.

 

Now I will take Black Holes, a bit differently

3 of 10....

1. What all physical laws, theories etc etc are violated by Black Holes ? During their formation as well as after formation and during their existence. And how these violations are accounted for ?

 

None, obviously. Nothing that's accepted in science violates physical laws.

 

Ok to start with, can we associate any quantum of mass with zero volume, that is can a point contain any mass ?

 

No, so that rules out singularity...

 

How about an electron?

From Wiki article about electrons:
The electron has no known substructure and it is assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.

 

Let's revise first......
[1] Our solar system orbits around the galactic center and is a single stellar system.
[2] Spacetime exists as detailed and is curved/warped/twisted in the presence of mass and as evidenced by all experiments.

On [3] BH's are simply a result of gravitational collapse, beyond that mass's Schwarzchild radius as detailed by GR.
Or to put that another way, a region of spacetime where the gravitational force is so strong that not even light can escape from it. Black holes are formed when matter collapses in on itself catastrophically so that more than a critical quantity of mass is concentrated into a particularly small region.
The escape velocity of earth on its surface is 11/12 kms/sec...The escape velocity on the "surface" of a BH [the EH] is 300,000 Km/sec.

Most physicists do not believe that the point singularity will ever been reached.
All our theories fail anyway at the quantum/Planck level.

 

...isn't that getting into Idealization or Idealized Models ?

 

All models are idealizations, but the models we have today pick and choose their idealizations to encapsulate human ignorance of the true nature of reality and the limits of empirical observation.

Both the non-removable singularities of General Relativity and the point particles of Quantum Field Theory as well as the use of real coordinates to model physical quantities are not just idealizations, but specific rebuttable assumptions made in physical models because no finite amount of experimental data can tell you that an electron is a point-like particle, but only put a physical upper limit on a physical scale for it. No finite amount of experimental data can tell you that physical quantities are isomorphic to real numbers. No observation to date has implied anything about the neighborhoods where General Relativity says there should be singularities.

Thus these are necessarily areas where we are ignorant as as the most parsimonious model we have chosen the physical model with the simplest mathematical structure.

Models where electrons are not point particles exist as well as models where space-time is not a real manifold, but such models are difficult to bring into experimental tests that will distinguish them from the default assumptions of the commonly accepted models.

That's why it's not good enough to quibble that we can't confirm such assumptions or that other models don't have those assumptions. What is necessary to make progress in science is to demonstrate that a novel theory is comprehensively better, meaning nowhere not as precise and at least someplace more precise than current theory.

 

rpenner, so you saw a need to proffer a simple primer of sorts. That is all good and great, but sadly enough the members that would benefit the most from truly reading and fully understanding it will, most likely, ignore it.

What you neglected to make abundantly clear about Idealization and Idealized Models is that those Idealizations and Idealized Models are often based upon and utilize Assumptions that are completely False about what is being Modeled - and are only used to make it easier to Visualize or Conceive of the Modeled phenomena.

When discussing said Phenomena it is important NOT to mix, confuse or mistake what is Physically Real and what is Idealized in those discussions.

It seems to me, while following these discussions, that TG appears to be trying to get to the point that some of those Idealizations and Models should not be construed as the phenomenas Exact Physical Reality.

 

It seems to me that the god is doing far more than that.
So far he has seen fit to hypothesise that our Sun is more that a single stellar system, and that the spacetime is not real and does not warp/bend/twist in the presence of mass.
Now he seems to be claiming BH's are a problem because they violate physical laws, and in the past he has claimed they do not exist, without any explanation as to what would cause the effects we see.
The Sun of course is certainly and really a singular system according to the evidence, while spacetime follows from the confirmation that the speed of light is invariant, and that what follows is the fact that neither space nor time [spacetime] is absolute in any sense of the word: We assign such properties to it and so reality is a reasonable conclusion, despite it not being as physical as say mass.
BH's of course are near confirmed with the confirmation of gravitational waves and many other past observed effects.
Obfuscation aside, those are the accepted theoretical models based on current evidence.

He is though most certainly allowed his "free thoughts"

 

double whammy

 

What assumptions do you envisage that are false?
So far the only assumptions that are undeniably false are those proposed by the god...as in [1] the hypothetical that the Sun maybe part of a larger stellar system, [2] That spacetime cannot be seen as real and does not curve/warp/bend, and [3] that BH's are a problem in science without offering any alternative and ignoring the supportive evidence.

 

Like I said, rpenner, you saw a need to proffer a simple primer of sorts. That is all good and great, but sadly enough the members that would benefit the most from truly reading and fully understanding it will, most likely, ignore it.