At no time is Farsight in line with anything GR has to say about the physics of gravity. He's spent no effort becoming familiar with the theory. GR isn't about who wrote it. Or what the author said about it. It's strictly about a set of field equations and everything that's been squeezed from them since they were published.
For both ether theories the prediction and observation of the dying pulse train falsifies the prediction of a Gravistar. The increased energy of the pulse after hitting the Gravistar would become visible as it moves away from the surface of the proposed Gravistar. Yilmaz and Alley wrote this paper in 1999. It has 3'citations. The pulse trains were first observed by Professor Joe Dolan in 2001. Not much activity after that. You can make dumb ass comments like you did about Chris Hillman, not my favorite either, but it just puts you further into the crank fringe. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9906458 This is an article from 2006 where Alley points out why he prefers Yilmaz. https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/30249 GR doesn't need defending by anything other than the confirmation of the theoretical predictions.
You also seem to fail to understand what I'm objecting to. The main problem of modern science is not peer review, but short term grants as the typical job, thus, extremal job insecurity, while independence of science requires, as the basis of independence of the scientists, extremal job security. In this sense, there was more freedom of science in communist times (of course, only in non-ideological sciences). This objection has nothing to do with peer review. Of course, I also see some general prejudice against alternative theories, which makes it much more difficult to publish papers about alternative ether theories than about mainstream theories. But my own example proves that this is not decisive, that it is possible to publish even an ether theory. It was extremely hard, yes, without such a prejudice I could have published 20 papers containing each 1/20 of the content of my paper about the ether model for the SM, with each containing really new and important progress of the model. But, anyway, it was published. Yes, an ether theory was published. And ether theory is the extremal thing in modern physics, if there is a strong, even irrational, prejudice against something in modern physics, it is against ether theory. Publishing papers for dBB theory was much easier, I have written in a quite short time 5 papers with 3 of them accepted for publication - and dBB is also an outsider theory. So, yes, peer review for alternatives outside the mainstream is not unproblematic, but is the best we have. And, another point, only a few rejections were based on incompetence of the reviewer. The main problem was that minor objections, which would have usually resulted in a request for resubmission after correction, have been used to reject the paper. Ok, there have been also some rejections caused by incompetent reviewers, but so what? This problem is usually solved by resubmission to another journal. (In the mainstream, there are many journals. There is also the problem that there are much less journals open for alternative theories.) So, I repeat: Peer review is not unproblematic, but there is nothing better available. The problem of peer review is not that the reviewers are mathematically incompetent, but that they can have some prejudices, and this becomes a real problem only to those who propose theories where almost all reviewers are prejudiced. So, my own negative experience can be expected to be an extremal case, because the prejudice against the ether is the most extremal one in modern science. Despite this, I have published my ether theories. Now, Nuevo Cimento is one of the journals quite open to alternative theories. In the decision to publish Misner's rejection of Yilmaz but not the answer some prejudice against alternative theories may have played a role - Yilmaz is not mainstream. But I think this situation is a quite special one - the conflict is about the mathematics, so the reviewers had to check the mathematics, and after this the case would be clear, or the mathematics of Misner is correct, then Misner's paper has to be accepted and the answer rejected, or it was incorrect (as claimed in the answer), then Misner's paper should not have been accepted. This is my interpretation of "With the correct premise the conclusion of the article regarding the absence of gravitational interactions applies to general relativity and not to the Yilmaz theory." The conclusion of the article itself is that the Yilmaz theory is BS, or, more politely said, "we find that the Euler hydrodynamic equation in the Newtonian limit is modified to remove all gravitational forces". Once, after correction suggested by the answer, this applies not to Yilmaz, but to GR, the claim of the answer is that GR is BS. A simple look at the basic formulas supports this. Yilmaz theory adds a term to the Einstein equations. This seems unquestioned from above sides. Misner claims the term remains important in the Newtonian limit. This is the mathematically difficult part, but it seems unquestioned. Because, else, the point that the criticism applies not to Yilmaz but GR would not make sense - if the term would be irrelevant in the Newtonian limit, Misner's objection would apply nor to Yilmaz, nor to GR.
If the dying pulse train applies to Yilmaz I don't know and don't care. For my theory it can, in principle, only give an upper limit for the parameter \(\Upsilon>0\). For sufficiently small \(\Upsilon>0\), the surface redshift as well as the part of outgoing radiation which reaches infinity would make a burst on the surface invisible. For values \(\Upsilon<0\), which are possible in my theory too, there would be no stable gravastar, thus, no problem with dying pulse trains at all. I have not made any comments about Hillman.
Let me clear it up for you. In recent times on this forum, I have seen four interpretations/alternatives of GR/accepted present day cosmology, besides the generally accepted theory. Some of those hypothesis are accepted as published alternatives but are not often cited and/or supported. In the end they fade away and die, while the generally accepted GR theory and other aspects of cosmology proceeds and withstands the tests of time, although sometimes added to with DM, DE, Inflation as new data becomes available. GR though stands as unchallenged as of this day. With all due respect, Bullshit. Scientific theories certainly may be falsified over time, but until that happens [if it ever does] it remains a scientific theory as generally accepted and as opposed to your own hypothesis and variations that may have been published, but remain in limbo. WIKI: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed]and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability. The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. See Occam's razor. As additionalscientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; You mean after what You have told me? Perhaps you have too many tickets on yourself? As a lay person, I'm still quite capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff, and the shit from the clay. If I prefer other opinions in place of your's, than you need to accept that and realise that perhaps it is you who are wrong, just as you are so obviously wrong in your agenda laden interpretation of a scientific theory. And that being pointed out to you by a lay person, is probably what's eating at you. I'll ignore some of the usual conspiracy nonsense you have once again decided to plaster over the forum. All the above nonsense is, is simply justification for your own languishing hypothetical paper. :shrug: SR/GR are an overwhelming supported theories that have stood the tests of observations and experiments over a 100 years, and remain as certain as one could ever wish within their domains of applicability. Just as is Newtonian mechanics is within its zones of applicability. Why you want to misconstrue that is to give as much credibility to your own hypothesis as is possible. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Please see previous reply. All scientific theories are by necessity approximations...Even a future QGT will probably be an approximation. All that is well known and that fact is often used by cranks and religious nuts in their futile attempts to deride the scientific discipline. What also is well known and accepted by most, is that they are correct theories within their zones of applicability and what's more, give correct answers. In essence all I see from you is semantics and pedant which shows a lack of professionalism which you so often point out to me. Pot, Kettle, Black comes to mind again. You have an alternative hypothesis, not a theory. What you chose to justify your own insults is like water off a Duck's back to me, and again, quite unprofessional of you. Like I said once before....I'll give as good as I get. Most are totally unworkable in principal, and are generally based on conspiracy nonsense. Oh, I can certainly read, and am able to sort the wheat from the chaff, which is why I'm ignoring the majority of your usual lengthy conspiracy laden, opinionated rants.
Feel free to believe this, no problem, but what's your point? Fundamental scientific research is a high risc job, the risc being even higher than professional soccer, because in professional soccer, there will be always some winners, in fundamental science there may be no winner for hundreds of years. So, once you have no ability to make a reasonable expectation about the abilities of a particular boy who wants to become a soccer player, you may reasonably tell him that he has no chance, because there are millions of boys who want it, but only a few who succeed. And if you evaluate chances of alternative physical theories, the prediction that they will fail will be even more justified. So what? The boy will try it nonetheless. And I have been even successful publishing a no go - an ether theory. A scientific theory remains a scientific theory even after falsification. Or have you ever heard about claims that Newtonian gravity is no longer a scientific theory? It is false, falsified, but nonetheless a scientific theory. As my own theory. Even if it remains to be ignored, it remains a scientific theory. And, of course, it is also "only" a hypothesis, as every scientific theory, in particular, as NT and GR. Fine, and not at all in contradiction with what I claim. "Inductive in nature" is another formulation for hypothetical, the "problem of induction" is that induction is always hypothetical, and one can never be certain about the correctness of an inductive conclusion. The other thing you may be not aware of is that experiments done in the past are not owned by particular theories - every experiment tests all theories about this domain of knowledge. Thus, once as GR, as my theory are in agreement with all observations and experiments made in the past, they are on equal foot regarding experiment. You are obviously unable to get some elementary points, and appear unable to sort. And you don't even know the mainstream opinion about scientific methodology. A wiki quote alone does not prove that you have understood it. That you seem to think that it contradicts some of my statements proves, instead, that you have not. Some are, by necessity - like my ether theory of gravity, which from the start is assumed to describe only the continuous large distance limit of the ether. Others are by necessity, because they lead to internal inconsistencies or singularities, like GR. Others are because they do not cover things known to exist, like gravity is not covered by the SM. But it is in no way clear if all scientific theories are by necessity approximations. The general principles of quantum theory are a scientific theory too. I think they are only an approximation, but this is not obvious, and there is certainly no necessity for this. What remains is not even worth to be answered.
And certainly likewise with your usual lengthy agenda laden rant and conspiracy nonsense. Just a point re your usual total misunderstanding/twisting/misinterpreting, I certainly respect all scientists and anyone for that matter, soccer player or science forum poster...But that respect is earned, and is most certainly detracted from by delusions of grandeur, "tall poppy syndrome" and inflated egos. I'll leave you to yours......
Changed my mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!I will address a couple of your misunderstandings. I have never said Newton was wrong, and his model was not falsified, just shown to have limitations at extremes. Within its parameters it works perfectly fine and is still used for most, if not all space endeavours. Even if what you say was true, the incumbent theory/model maintains superiority. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!The way of most of our alternative nuts and cranks, about links and reputable references that happen to debunk their own thoughts and delusions. Let me state it again, all or most of your claims are simply justification for your own languishing hypothetical paper. :shrug: SR/GR are an overwhelming supported theories that have stood the tests of observations and experiments over a 100 years, and remain as certain as one could ever wish within their domains of applicability. Just as is Newtonian mechanics is within its zones of applicability. And all scientific theories gain in certainty over time, as they continue to explain observations and make successful predictions. Why you want to misconstrue that is to give as much credibility to your own hypothesis as is possible. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2004/9/hypothesis-or-theory Scientists and science writers have a disturbing tendency to misuse these two words. In the vernacular, "hypothesis" and "theory" can be used interchangeably. However, in the scientific literature, scientists and science writers must be careful to distinguish between these two terms. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested through investigation; a theory is an established set of ideas that can be used to make predictions. Scientists and science writers themselves must make a conscious and concise distinction between the use of these terms if they expect the general public to make such a distinction. Paula E. Cushing Denver Museum of Nature & Science """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/Theories-Hypotheses-and-Laws/177 Scientific theories The term theory also has two meanings, and this double meaning often leads to confusion. In common language, the term theory generally refers to speculation or a hunch or guess. You might have a theory about why your favorite sports team isn't playing well, or who ate the last cookie from the cookie jar. But these theories do not fit the scientific use of the term. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated and comprehensive set of ideas that explains a phenomenon in nature. A scientific theory is based on large amounts of datum) A collection of pieces of information, generally taking the form of numbers, text, bits, or facts,... read more " title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(48, 110, 43); padding: 4px 2px; white-space: nowrap;">data and observations that have been collected over time. Scientific theories can be tested and refined by additional research, and they allow scientists to make predictions. Though you may be correct in your hunch, your cookie jar conjecture doesn't fit this more rigorous definition. All scientific disciplines have well-established, fundamental theories. For example, atomic theory describes the nature of matter and is supported by multiple lines of evidence from the way substances behave and react in the world around us (see our series on Atomic Theory). Plate tectonic theory describes the large scale movement of the outer layer of the Earth and is supported by evidence from studies about earthquakes, magnetic properties of the rocks that make up theseafloor, and the distribution of volcanoes on Earth (see our series on Plate Tectonic Theory). The theory of evolution by natural selection, which describes the mechanism by which inherited traitsthat affect survivability or reproductive success can cause changes in living organisms overgenerations, is supported by extensive studies of DNA, fossils, and other types of scientific evidence (see our Charles Darwin series for more information). Each of these major theories guides and informs modern research in those fields, integrating a broad, comprehensive set of ideas. So how are these fundamental theories developed, and why are they considered so well supported? Let's take a closer look at some of the datum) A collection of pieces of information, generally taking the form of numbers, text, bits, or facts,... read more " title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(48, 110, 43); padding: 4px 2px; white-space: nowrap;">data and research supporting the theory of natural selection to better see how a theory develops. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200 Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.” Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.” Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.” Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
This is, of course, wrong - Newtonian theory is false, and is falsified. You can name this falsification "limitations at extremes", but a theory which is false somewhere is false. Point. And, by the way, there have been no such limitations in Newton's theory. If you claim otherwise, please give a citation from Newton's writings where he claims that his theory is not applicable, say, for light near the Sun, or for the Mercury perihelion. The point is: A theory is usually proposed to be valid everywhere. Then, it is falsified by observation. And only after this falsification one finds a domain where it remains a good approximation. So, the "within its parameters" is only your fantasy, the parameters become known only after falsification. If observation makes no difference, the scietific method suggests other criteria for preference, like simplicity (Occam's razor), predictive power, explanatory power, even beauty. Being proposed earlier in time is not among them. Of course, in reality the earlier theory will be nonetheless preferred. But this is a human weakness (scientists are lazy humans too, if there is no strong need to learn a new theory, they prefer to use the one they have learned). It is nothing required or supported by the scientific method. They, of course, do not contradict my theory. If the claims I make today would contradict my theory, I would tell you that I no longer believe into my theory. And the repetition of your crank scientific methodology does not make it true. Learn the Popperian scientific method, and then think again about your crank theory, and then come back.
The only fantasy I see is your obsession with salvaging whatever credibility you can for your hypothesis. I stand by my claims as referenced Would you? Or would you fabricate more mainstream conspiracy? It's not crank, and it isn't mine. It's the accepted definition which you like to twist to your own conveniences, just as Farsight does with what Einstein says and GR. Not very professional of you I must say.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Congrats Schmelzer! That is the King of cop outs by far!
From about half-way down the 2nd article https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/30249 linked to in #242: Interesting that iconic physics heroes in one setting become 'crank fringers' in another. Maybe some here should take notice, especially when such have easily identifiable skeletons in their own closets. Anyone claiming Dolan's dying pulse train observations make some sort of conclusive case for GR's BH's had better be able to furnish explicit calculations ruling out all alternatives. Robertson's article linked to in #219: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809 makes some pertinent points in Appendix; 5 A. Central body metric That article overall provides numerous reasons to prefer Yilmaz metric, but one doesn't expect devout followers of mainstream to be impressed with mere logical consistency or a pleasingly self-consistent explanation for accelerated cosmological expansion that removes any need for problematic 'dark energy'. And now for the expected abusive responses.
It was not you who was slamming Hillman for preferring GR over alternative theory. The light wouldn't stay at the surface of the Gravistar. As it is reflected, or emmited by some explosive process, it will be visible, shortly thereafter, along its path. This is simple stuff. There is no empirical evidence for your theoretical object.
Actually the math for the dying pulse train is simple. It's a prediction of GR so it's available. The rest of it is your opinion which doesn't seem to agree with most folks. IE the constant reference to some kind of conspiracy keeping all you mention secret.
All of that is merely your prejudiced interpretation. Show me the precisely worked realistic mathematical model(s) ruling out either Yilmaz theory or even various other proposals based on GR such as ECO's or MECO's. A gravitationally deeply depressed object stabilized by some combination of radiation pressure, intense magnetic fields, and highly relativistic rotation, is not an easy animal to deal with [And maybe merely quasi-stable i.e. slowly collapsing.] Naive assumptions notwithstanding.
If you dig deeper, then Yilmaz is nothing but the superimposed GR. It is absurd to call it Yilmaz Theory, it is actually some improvization (which is qualitatively there in Eientsein GR but absent in maths) over GR. I feel like adding couple of more terms, but then I am not in support of GR. Coming to DPT, there is nothing wrong with the maths, it is the detection which raises questions. This guy Dolan is fiddling with old data set, he concluded in the past that no DPT and now almost after two decades he said wow he could find two instances of DPT out of huge huge huge data bits. You can't confirm the existence of BH with two bits of few milliseconds. It is insulting to that huge guy called Black Hole. If he is there he would love to issue a decent signature, not some tiny dyeing almost invisible pulse which would require to be distinguished from noise.
Feel free to 'add more terms' but if on a random ad hoc basis, no-one will take it seriously. If you are capable, try actually 'digging deeper' by studying the impetus leading to how Yilmaz theory was originally derived. It is quite surprising yet obvious once seen. Hint - exact not approximate gravitational redshift expression. The issue is not existence of DPTs, but the assertion only BH model is compatible with such.
