rivers et al: The Mainstream Science Club That should probably be the name of this thread, in fact we can create a whole forum dedicated to this notion and move a hundred or so threads into it. That seems to be primary motivation for "alternative theories" which is a kinder euphemism for "crackpottery". I'm catching up on my reading here, but noticed this parallels the Don Scott thread you opened a little while ago. I think to get to the bottom of your issues with science you need to be little more specific. If you come to a science board with several resident scholars, practicing and retired scientists and engineers, only to lodge some general complaints that science is fundamentally broken, you can expect to get feedback of the kind you see here. And that's true even when posting the fringe threads. Even here you should try to be more specific and tell us what your grievance really is all about. Why are you so fascinated with the fringe people who make up one atom of opinions in a sea of knowledge freely owned by the whole world? Is there something you are trying to learn or is this just a way of venting your frustration, and what's the source of those feelings? Normally I'd attribute this to religious fundamentalism but I haven't noticed you expressing any of that. I guess it all depends on what you really want to talk about. I didn't even play the video since it wasn't from a credible site. If that's club behavior to you, then maybe we can dwell on that issue for a moment. What clubs are you a member of? I would like to nominate the Geometry Club as the one you are really railing against. All scientists, engineers and mathematicians are certainly standing members. They may not all be on their best behavior at all times, but it's unassailable as the institution you seem to be lumping all of us into. Here we have certain principles we all subscribe to and they simply can't be demolished by anything you have to offer, nor any of the fringe folks you are bringing to our attention. In fact, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience (see James R and Herc Rockefeller's excellent threads on this) is the pretense of using science and math to prepare a bogus conclusion - by averting the laws of geometry. So yes there is a kind of club I suppose if that's what you want to call it - the club of people who actually know the correct answer to a question or two. But why wouldn't you want to join? Do you prefer to be wrong, or does it bother you that other people are right when you are wrong, or what? I don't get it. I mean I get it in general, but I don't understand what's eating at you. :shrug:
what my point is that , there is no serious discussion upon the electric Universe , it seems to me the theory is thrown out without examining the theory with depth for example imagine a club where many scientist gather , say once a month someone comes in and says , I came across this theory , here's the site , with not just the philosophy , but the mathematics as well so the group gathers , the theory is put up on a large screen , they go through the theory , nobody is dismissing the theory out of hand those that have the ability explore the philosophy and some meanwhile go through the mathematics , because many have the mathematics to back up what their saying the group as a whole are curious as to what this theory is suggesting , that's their Nature , relising that they don't have all the answers to what is going on out there in the Universe then the invite the person who proposes the theory in to get to know him/her , and discuss what they deem as problems , and /or ask for further information , in a friendly atmosphere , not one of insults and antagonism this is the kind of " club " I wouldn't mind being apart of river
This is yet another website where people vilify me but fail to adduce any scientific arguments of their own design to attempt to prove any of my arguments erroneous. Instead they just bleat epithets and, what can I say, nonsense. If I am to be vilified, surely the offenders can come up with an original utterance instead of trotting out the same old tired jibes. Einstein asserted that Ric = 0 describes his gravitational “outside” a body such as a star (see Einstein’s original paper, 1916, and his book The Meaning of Relativity). Do you see what he has done? First, he removes all material sources from his field equations by mathematical construction, by setting energy-momentum tensor = 0. Then in his very next breath Einstein reinstated the presence of a source with the deceptive words “outside” a body such as a star. He removed all material sources mathematically and immediately reinstated a massive source linguistically. Einstein’s argument is a contradiction, and therefore false. Hence Ric = 0 is physically meaningless, and violates his own theory. But it is from Hilbert’s ‘solution’ for Ric = 0 that the black hole was conjured. Thus, the black hole is false. We can reaffirm the falsity of Einstein’s argument very easily as follows. Einstein claimed that although energy-momentum tensor = 0 to produce Ric = 0, there is still an alleged massive source present, as detailed above. However, de Sitter’s empty universe is described by Ric = lambda (g_{uv}) where lambda is the so-called Cosmological Constant, and g_{uv} are the components of the metric tensor. Note that in Ric = lambda (g_{uv}) the energy-momentum tensor = 0 too. This is precisely why de Sitter’s empty universe is empty – there are no material sources present because energy-momentum tensor = 0. So according to Einstein and his followers, energy-momentum tensor = 0 both includes and precludes the presence of material sources. That is impossible! Ric = 0 contains no matter for the very same reason de Sitter’s empty universe contains no matter: energy-momentum tensor = 0. The fact that Ric = 0 is physically meaningless completely invalidates all claims for the existence of black holes. One does not need to investigate the complexities of metric spaces to see this. Since black hole theory is thus proven false, what about big bangs? They can’t contain black holes, since the latter is fallacious, a fallacy that is in fact not even predicted by General Relativity because Ric = 0 is physically meaningless. Black holes are not predicted by Newton’s theory either. So the black hole is a figment of irrational imagination. It is pretty easy to prove that big bangs are also fallacious.
I was about to say 'welcome' but this remark leads me to assume you are a former member who is for some reason using a new name. Ask a person trained in science and they will likely give you the same stuff you'll get in any course on the subject. Sounds like you have been beating a drum. You'd have to be specific before readers can understand what you're referring to. Ah. So you have news for us - that black holes are impossible? That would take considerable work and discovery. And you have the chops to do that? My baloney detector is going off, since a person with that kind of acumen wouldn't be complaining of rejection. In all likelihood we won't have to dig too deep to find out what your complaint is. However, I think it would help if you try to give us an abstract of what you're talking about, in the some language spoken by people in the field. One way to do this is to give us links to the status quo material you are attacking, and then, in their language, restate your position. Nothing is proven false until it's proven false. There's a long row to hoe. For now it would be more clean to speak of the Big Bang in the singular. A plurality of them is beyond the scope of whatever it is you're talking about. I have a feeling you are cornering the semantics of physical meaningfulness. What could that possible have to do with this issue of yours? Evidently you are looking for a debate on whether BHs exist. It's not clear to me why you chose this thread, but I suppose it's as good as any. I might be able to contribute to such a discussion if I could get to the bottom of your complaint. On the surface it seems absurd but it may just be a matter of semantics. Again, you should be speaking in the singular, and only concerned with the universe we live in. That should cover more than enough ground.
Aqueous Id For the jibes and vilification all you need to do is go back in this thread. It's that simple. All you have done now is much the same. You have not adduced a single scientific argument to substantiate your outburst. Quite typical. The argument I adduced is also very simple. It is claimed by proponents of black holes and big bangs that material sources for Einstein's gravitational field are both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0. That's impossible! I gave the two equations they use (1) Ric = 0 for the black hole, (2) Ric = lambda(g_{uv}) for de Sitter's empty universe. It is routinely claimed equation (1) contains a material source (a black hole) and that equation (2) contains no matter whatsoever. But in both cases energy-momentum tensor = 0. The universe of equation (1) contains no matter for the very same reason equation (2) is a universe that contains no matter, namely, energy-momentum tensor = 0. Since equation (1) also contains no matter it doesn't contain a black hole at all. Recall that according to Einstein and his followers, the energy-momentum tensor describes the material sources of his gravitational field. Surely the foregoing is not difficult for anybody to understand. Since this is supposed to be a scientific forum, please provide all readers here with a simple proof that material sources for Einstein's gravitational field can be both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0. That's all. If you can't do it then perhaps somebody else here can. Let's see.
