On DPT....the premises behind 'DPT' is non-impact disappearance only.......thats BH model, and not much should be read into it.
All this about theory and hypothesis being different words, with a different meaning. Irrelevant. It does not change the point that scientific theories have hypothetical character. That there is a difference of meaning between these words I do not deny, and I care myself about this difference too. from a physical theory one expects certain properties, like, in particular, evolution equations. In particular, I name my animal about gravity a theory of gravity, because it formally looks almost exactly like GR, there is a Lagrangian, one can derive the equations of this theory as Euler-Lagrange equations, the matter part of the Lagrangian is exactly the same, but the gravitational part is different, thus, there are also some additional terms in the equations. This is what makes it a different theory. About how the word "theory" is used in this context see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity "Many alternative metric theories developed during the 1970s and 1980s could be viewed as "straw-man" theories, invented to prove that such theories exist or to illustrate particular properties." You get the point? These strawman-theories have never been substantiated or confirmed by any experiment. Nonetheless, they are named theories. Everybody names them theories. The animal I have found for the SM I prefer to name "model" or "interpretation". This is because the point of them are not the evolution equations, so, there will be also no difference in the evolution equations in comparison with the SM. The aim is explanation. It explains why we have three color, three generations, the gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), and so on, that means, the things which are simply postulated without any explanation in the SM.
If there is an explosion if infalling matter near the surface, there will be radiation in all directions, all 360 degrees, or, if you ignore what is directed toward the surface, 180 degrees. Now, usually all 180 degrees directed up reach infinity. But in strong gravity, this is no longer the case, light emitted not exactly vertical is curved, and if the size is very close to the horizon size, most of this skew radiation will fall back to the surface. And even if you suggest that the surface is an ideal mirror for pure light, this will not change the point because in this case it will jump around the black hole forever. The part of raditation going out to infinity becomes zero in the limit of a star with exact horizon size. This is elementary mathematics about outgoing radiation on a Schwarzschild solution, so, yes, simple stuff. But you obviously don't know it. Or ignore it. "Generically, the fraction of rays that escape to infinity decreases as the emission point is moved towards the black hole, dropping below 50% at the photon orbit and dropping all the way to 0% at the horizon." writes http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.1105.pdf on page 3, illustrated with a nice picture.
Twist and squirm as much as you like...I stand by my view which is also the mainstream generally accepted view. A scientific theory is a well supported model or explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Again your semantics, your excuses, your fabricated pedant, flies in the face of what is generally accepted. Driven of course by your agenda.
A real pity you are not man enough, nor honest enough to reproduce my whole post. You lack any credibility, other than bullying your view on a science forum, and leaving the mainstream big boys alone.
A scientific theory is a well supported model or explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. You of course do not have a scientific theory, only a hypothesis which I don't believe anyone has or ever will cite.
Here is a scientific paper by our real uneducable pedantic story teller, which proves my comments about the extreme nature of both his political and scientific views and the obligatory conspiracy fabrications...... http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/independenceOfScience.pdf extracts.... I do not want to whine here about the poor fate of scientists: Now, if you, as a young scientists, have to think about a future job, it becomes very dangerous for you to argue against mature scientists: May be, your next job depends on their opinion? Now, revolutionaries, in science as well as in other domains, are usually young man, who like and have to fight against the establishment. But who likes to start a scientific revolution, knowing that he has, in one year, to ask his worst enemies in the scientific fight for a job? Summary. We have considered the major ways of control of scientist in the modern organization of science. And we have found, that they all have adverse side effects on the scientific process. Especially problematic is that they all lead to a concentration of scientific research in a few number of directions, with large numbers of scientists working in these popular directions. The young scientist is forced to choose such a direction, because it offers more working places, more journals to publish your results, reviewers who evaluate your papers more favourably because they work in the same domain, more scientists who can possibly cite your papers, more conferences, thus, more possibility to give talks and to publish in conference proceedings. If you have a tenured position, the monopolistic direction offers you, as well, more possibilities to get grants. These are sufficiently strong social and economic pressures: A young scientist has to look for another profession if one does not follow them. There is no place for outcasts in the modern organization of professional science. Those who get a tenured position have already invested most of their best years into the monopolistic direction — too much to change it. Such pressures into the direction of an already existing monopoly are very dangerous for science. They lead, obviously, to a preservation of existing theories, thus, to dogmatism, and prevent scientific revolutions. This is, clearly, not what we want from science. In the extreme, the resulting monopolistic “scientific theory” would be better named religion. Science should be, instead, organized in a way which minimizes the pressure to conformity. 5. My proposal I’m a libertarian, and reject the state. This is, clearly, a minority position. Therefore I make two proposals here: A libertarian one, and an alternative for those who believe the state is necessary to pay for science. The libertarian proposal would be a quite simple one: No tax money for scientific jobs. The consequence would be a return to the old way to do science: Scientists work as teachers in universities and do science as a hobby, to increase their reputation. Universities, who live from the money paid by students, will support this – if their teachers are well-known, successful scientists, this increases the reputation of the university, so that they can increase their prices or their number of students. But not all university teachers have to be good scientists – some have to be good teachers. If one does not have success in science, one will not be fired, but has to care more about teaching. The proposal to improve state science is also a very simple one: Let’s transform all short time jobs in science into permanent jobs. Point. Is this sufficient to make scientist independent? It is. Without the fear of unemployment, scientists will do what they really like – to work in the direction which they find most promising. Even if the job is not well-paid, and there is some competition for better paid jobs, it is not likely that the results are dangerous for the freedom of science. If, for getting these better paid jobs, he has to do things he doesn’t like – to work in a direction which he considers to be hopeless, to give up his own research which, he hopes, will lead to a scientific revolution, to remain silent if authorities talk nonsense – will he do it? The situation of the scientist is, in this point, different from that of a typical worker: The average worker is doing things he does not like very much, things he would not do without payment. Instead, the independent scientist is doing exactly what he likes to do, he is doing this even without getting paid, in his free time. This is nothing one easily agrees to give up for a little more money. Thus, with a safe job as a background, the positive motivations of the scientist – to find scientific truth, to receive scientific honour, and, last but not least, simply to do what he likes most – seem strong enough to protect freedom of science. Much much much more political and conspiracy orientated views expressed with science seemingly as an means to an end.
"Not man enough" to make a fullquote of usual repetitions? Sorry, but please learn that fullquotes are not a good style, but boring, and in many forums fullquottels are moderated and even banned if they repeat such behaviour. Everybody knows that part of your typical post is some personal rant and the claim that your position is in full agreement with the mainsteam. So, no need to quote and answer such things.
Just as is spamming your own hypothetical paper continually and claiming it to be something that it isn't. The evidence of the lengths of your rants in both the politics thread and the science threads says it all. Much blather, no substance. And my mainstream position and any explanation supporting it will continue to be given, to refute nonsense claims from the likes of yourself.
What is your argument??? I have never hidden the fact that I'm libertarian and ether theorists. And never hidden the fact that above positions are strong minority positions. So, there is exactly no point to "prove" this. What remains is calling names. Again, "conspiracy oriented" in a text where we have no conspirators at all, but simple economic interests, where each participant optimizes his own economic and other interests, without any need to conspire.
Conspire and conspiracies are in every paragraph you ever utter or put down in print......That or your ether nonsense, and then we have the "I don't care"attitude, while in the next breath claiming to be a scientist and acting all indignant when someone justifiably returns your insults. Really Schmelzer grow up.
Quote. And explain who are the guys who conspire. "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
As expected, without even a reasonable accusation, without evidence, without trial. So, who are the two or more persons, the group, who, through secret planning or so, cause something bad in my purely economic argument that the extremal job insecurity leads to scientists following a few mainstream fads?
Mods / Admins What is the relevance of this copy paste by this joker paddoboy,in Hawking radiation thread ? This lad is throwing mud and indulging into character assasination of almost every poster, his own contribution to this forum is amost nil....and more than 99% of his posts can be attributed to one single liner....I support the mainstream view....Why such a pitiable character is let loose here....
Spitting the dummy again my Son??? Feeling done and dusted? You see what matters most here is honesty and the application of science. Your efforts in getting my tutorials changed or modified to tickle your ego failed miserably. They were both honest. They were both correct. I suggest you'll fail in this trollish endeavour too.
It shows what an untterly despicable man you are....If you cannot contribute or if you cannot argue then you will start hitting below the belt..........and bring in some kids also along with you.
More of your Bollywood style false indignation? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm mortified! [tic mode on]
LOL! Even "mature" scientists i.e. professors don't get along with each other. They more care about having the right data and would scorn any political motivation.
