Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

Space time curvature is a fundamental of GR: It is curved/warped/twisted/waved in the presence of mass.
This has been evident many times with observations of gravitational lensing, and GP-B to an incredibly high degree of accuracy.
So yes, we can see spacetime warp, when we see examples of gravitational lensing. Light follows geodesic paths in spacetime, and when mass/matter is in the vicinity, light is seen to apparently "bend" although not strictly correct, due to the simple fact that the light is simply following the geodesic path in that spacetime curvature.

Yet all this has been explained to you many times before and you still refuse to accept it.....That's OK, if you chose to remain ignorant.
One question if I may.........You have said many times that curved spacetime is ridiculous, BH's are ridiculous and other accepted aspects of GR...presumably because you cannot put your finger on any of these and grasp them, like you grasp a bit of fruit, or see them directly......But yet by your own admittance, you believe in an all powerful, omnipotent, invisible, infinite deity.
Can you explain the contradiction please?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do not understand rigid or stable orbits...and my comment about sun future was of the cuff to respond to Origin's irrelevant point...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How ironic, everyone here has been saying that exact same thing to you...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You still haven't explained what you mean by that.

Telling me to look it up is just avoiding the question - I'm asking YOU what you mean by that.

 

Sure I understand stable orbits.....I certainly though do not understand your fabricated rigid orbit nonsense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Off the cuff" obviously is another cop out when cornered similar to your "nose twitching" and "pop science" cop outs.

 

I see you chose not to answer the question I posed...Expected actually.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just in case he doesn't reply, or gets the wrong answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

I have grasped that it is mathematical formulation. But it seems you feel that it is more than that......so please put your thoughts in words and tell me what it is beyond maths ?

I feel curvature of spacetime has got nothing to do with spatial space....spatial space has no curvature at all around any massive object. Yes, if we assign some physical property to space, then things can be different...

 

Of whom ?

If it is for me, then please let me know where I cited the God in science discussions.

 

Been there, done that....again and again and again.

 

You are obfuscating and being obtuse again:
Here is the question again........
You have said many times that curved spacetime is ridiculous, BH's are ridiculous and other accepted aspects of GR...presumably because you cannot put your finger on any of these and grasp them, like you grasp a bit of fruit, or see them directly......But yet by your own admittance, you believe in an all powerful, omnipotent, invisible, infinite deity.
Can you explain the contradiction please?

 

1979 (dated as pre-clovis)
18 years of derision (leads one to a one fingered salute)
1997
acceptance(leads one to a two fingered salute)

cranky---------or accused of being a crank?

 

I'm still waiting for The God to teach and enlighten us "mere mortals" as to what rigid and stable orbits are...

You want me to learn "basic" physics and maths? Well you seem to just love teaching the uneducated masses as to how ignorant we truly are and how you know everything, so teach me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He also claimed from post 142

I replied at post 145......

Obviously with the incredible amounts of misuse of words and interpretations and simplistic errors he is making, the pressure on him to maintain his composure has totally disintegrated under opposing evidence and reputable links.
The second gravitational wave discovery may even make this era of childish mistakes much worse.
Stable orbits obviously is self explanatory....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System
Inferring rigidity though is completely misleading and wrong.
https://www.google.com.au/?ion=1&espv=2#q=rigid definition
1.
unable to bend or be forced out of shape; not flexible.
2.
not able to be changed or adapted.

 

Any good background source on the precession of the perihelion of Mercury will reveal that it's about 5600 arc-seconds per century because of the influence of other planets and it took careful work calculating those influences before the residual of 43 arc-seconds per century of unexplained precession was a problem for Newton's Universal Gravitation.

So the orbits are not "rigid" in any sense. Oddly enough, it's this attention to detail, unconsidered by The God, which makes the hypothesis of a stellar companion to the Sun so completely unjustified compared to the null hypothesis that the Sun has no stellar companion. It's the lack of rigidity of orbits which makes his misunderstanding of dynamics of the Galaxy so obviously ignorant. And since The God doesn't deal in details of reality, but contents himself with misunderstanding physical theory, this reduces to another argument with definitions.

You can't argue with definitions since those are the ground rules for making sure that we are all talking about the same thing. If you wish to invent new definitions, you carry all the burden of demonstrating your new terms are part of a precise, communicable framework for describing the behavior of a large class of related phenomena or you are not doing physics. If you fail to carry your burden and yet claim you are doing physics, then you are really a pseudoscientist. If you fail to carry your burden and leave it open to interpretation if you are doing physics, you are being intellectually dishonest. If you fail to carry your burden and consistently and straightforwardly deny you are doing physics, then you are engaged in metaphysics, which requires you to acknowledge that you can never be proven right but that without clear and well-reasoned writing of persuasive essays you will always be wrong.

 

Nice small write up. But instead of getting into nitty gritty of this, pl counter those 6 points as given in the link.

By writing semantics and making an indirect attack on me, with Mod hat on, you are giving fodder to few active guys.

Is it asking too much to ask the supporters of unitary orbit of our solar system, to draw the orbit around GC ? This will give an idea about reference to rigid and stable orbits.

Yes, there is a point, if the nearest known star is not the part of our system, then our companion, if any, must lie closer as compared to that, or in different plane. Since we could not find any, is no argument, to conclude. Its like any failed search for crashed aircraft BB.

 

So you're given an actual, carefully thought out answer, and what do you do? Brush it off, and demand that your points are addressed.

Some ol problem. The onus is on you to make your case, not on someone else to hand-feed you answers which you reject anyway.

Enough.

 

Enough of this attitude , .....dave ; answer TG points .

 

Stepping in for the underdog again river?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the god has no points. It would be obvious as stated in links and posts, if our Sun was in anything other than a unitary system.
The stable orbit certainly has variations over small scales caused by variations in mass density etc, but the orbit is stable over large scales.
That's how it stands, despite the rantings and ravings of anti cosmology frauds on a remote science forum.
"Dissent for dissent sake is totally idiotic"

 

How easily you have fallen down ! It's a pitiable situation that guys here are taking position based on what they have been told, kind of political fiat, rather than based on critical thinking...

FYI Rpenner's referred post is nothing but shifting the onus, someone remarked somewhere on this forum that mostly people are not conversant with higher level of understanding of subject here, why can't RPenner counter those 6 points or add to the mainstream position, giving evidences which shows unitary system. That will be informative too and bring out the thread from morass where it is being pushed to.