I don't believe Bennett was chased off by anyone. And I don't think he felt or feels as threatened by anything anyone has posted here, as you seem to be! Again progress in theoretical physics is not likely to come from always driving between the lines.
Hawking radiation
- Thread starter hardalee
- Start date
I wouldn't say 'challenge" is the right word. More like a logical conclusion after James Clerk Maxwell predicting a constancy of the speed of light.
Even Maxwell was challenging the consensus of his time, it just wasn't as obvious until Einstein used his work to make the front page...
But you are right, Challenge is and was an imperfect word and there was and continues to be more to what changes the mainstream consensus than the contributions of any single individual.., even where the credit often goes to an individual or small group...
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Feel free to give Yilmaz this benefit. I have given some, it seems enough to me. The GR authorities have, obviously, decided similarly.
And, just for your information, I have made a similar decision in the case of my paper against Schulz. My rejection has been published, his answer not, I'm happy now that I have a publication in the Annalen der Physik, a famous journal last but not least, and do not care to answer the answer of Schulz. And, similarly, even if I have found sufficient reason to reject this paper, I will not write a paper about this to put it on arxiv.
Anyway this claim is extremely dubious, and would be, if correct, worth to write a separate article.
Once you do not provide here reasonable counterarguments, I see no reason to doubt. And how an error around (11) could disappear around (23) is beyond me.
I realise you don't like my style OnlyMe....:shrug: That's your problem. But to misinterpret me is just dishonest.
My view on here is well known and I don't believe you are really ignorant of it. So I must conclude you have misinterpreted it for effect just as the god does so often and so dishonestly.
I have said many times that science in general is a discipline in constant progress. I have also said many times that what theories that are now accepted as mainstream theories, were not always like that. All mainstream theories have needed to run the gauntlet.....all mainstream theories were at one time simply hypothesis...all mainstream theories had to abide by the scientific method and undergo appropriate peer review.
You know that to be fact.
What is just as certain is that no "would be if he could be" with visions of over throwing SR/GR the BB or whatever, is going to do it on a science forum, as open and as broad in possible content as this one. They mostly refuse to abide by the scientific method, they deride and refuse peer review, they deride and stubbornly refuse effective reputable references that will invalidate their nonsense.
Forums such as this, are not going to unveil an Einstein. The gods, the Farsights, the constant theorists, the Sylvesters, the Atomzs, and the many others suffering from their delusions of grandeur and their dreams of over throwing some aspect of mainstream science, will not eventuate from here or any other science forum.
Now if you would like to debate that with me, rather than your gross misinterpretation, then go ahead....be my guest.
I didn't say he was threatened. But I firmly have reason to believe he ceased contributing here because of the gross ignorance and persistent railing against common sense mainstream theories as perpetrated by rajesh.
Your pretentious indignation does not really become you.
Still, I've reconsidered my decision.
The Professional replies were from Professor Geraint Lewis and Professor Hamilton respectively.
The point you have missed and that others have missed is that this Yilmaz theory [as inferenced in my replies] barely has created a ripple within scientific circles. And its been 17 years? since it was first released.
Obviously that simple refutation alone has upset some of our anti SR/GR imposters.
Let's review the E-Mail replies received so far.....
"Never heard of it. A quick look and it seems like it fails at the first hurdle in that it fails to reproduce Newtonian gravity.
Just because some one has a brain fart, it does not make it a viable alternative to GR".
Geraint F Lewis,
Professor of Astrophysics
Sydney Institute for Astronomy
Associate Head (Research),
School of Physics A28
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006 Australia
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I'm afraid I am not familiar with Yilmaz theory. - Andrew
Andrew J. S. Hamilton
Box 440
JILA
University of Colorado
Boulder
Colorado 80309
USA
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
It is a very long time since I looked at the Yilmaz theory, and I do not have time to refresh my memory. I suggest you contact Professor Clifford Will <cmw@physics.ufl.edu>. He is probably the world’s best expert on experimental tests of relativistic theories of gravity.
sincerely,
Kip Thorne
Kip S. Thorne:
350-17 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Yep such overwhelming interest!!
Barely a ripple...barely a zephyr!
"Never heard of it. A quick look and it seems like it fails at the first hurdle in that it fails to reproduce Newtonian gravity.
Just because some one has a brain fart, it does not make it a viable alternative to GR".
Geraint F Lewis,
Professor of Astrophysics
Sydney Institute for Astronomy
Associate Head (Research),
School of Physics A28
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006 Australia
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I'm afraid I am not familiar with Yilmaz theory. - Andrew
Andrew J. S. Hamilton
Box 440
JILA
University of Colorado
Boulder
Colorado 80309
USA
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
It is a very long time since I looked at the Yilmaz theory, and I do not have time to refresh my memory. I suggest you contact Professor Clifford Will <cmw@physics.ufl.edu>. He is probably the world’s best expert on experimental tests of relativistic theories of gravity.
sincerely,
Kip Thorne
Kip S. Thorne:
350-17 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Yep such overwhelming interest!!
Barely a ripple...barely a zephyr!
You are right on whatever you have stated, but Yilmaz, the author, claims that his theory does that..
Good, so you finally give the names.
Lewis a decade ago, in one of his papers (already discussed here) found fault with the spacetime description being taught to students, in the discussion he admitted that there were certain loose points in his paper as it was written few years back. Moreover his language for his fellow scientist (Yilmaz is no pushover) is bad, he is shooting from his hips (like you)without knowing about the Yilmaz paper...worthless comment from him.
Hamilton is a swimmer, he genearally keeps himself consigned to rivers only, thats proved as he admits he knows nothing about Yilamz theory, candid and non controversial admission. Does not prove anything against YT.
Kip Thorne, dignified and candid response, but proves nothing.
You have to understand onething, any alternative to GR (Even though Yilmaz maintains the basic spacetime postulate of GR) is bound to face stiff resistance, and not even very powerful guy can displace it smoothly. So reaction is understandable but it does not undermine Yilmaz.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Yes. The problem is that, following the discussion with Misner, above sides agree that or Yilmaz gravity fails to have an accurate Newtonian limit, or GR itself. That means, the additional terms of Yilmaz gravity makes a difference, already in the Newtonian limit.
So, if we believe Yilmaz, we have to accept that sufficiently simple standard mathematics, teached in every GR textbook, have to be wrong. I would not claim that this is completely impossible, but it is certainly very improbable.
Sure it proves absolutely that it was no big deal...Not even a ripple. zilch, nada, of no great concern.
But while we are at it, and since you cowardly degrade experts in the field, why don't you have the guts enough to admit that you are nothing but an unqualified "would be if he could be"with personal problems including delusions of grandeur and an over inflated ego.
Yilmaz hypothesis stands as a storm in a teacup, which some of our anti GR friends are grasping at for dear life.
It's been around for nigh on 20 years, and I dare say will still be lingering in oblivion in another 20 years, despite the howls and grasping at straws by anti GR nuts. It does not need undermining. It simply is of no interest for good reasons.
See, yesterday you heard of Yilmaz and today you are deriding him and his theory, without understanding an iota about his additional term in the maths. That speaks volumes about your intelligence and integrity.
And I have not degraded any expert, Lewis response deserved a fitting reply, calling someone's work as brain fart without knowing about the work, is the most disgraceful thing Lewis did on this public forum. And you can conevy this to him, if you have any guts.
Rave on clown, the fact remains that Yilmaz theory which I certainly new nothing about a few days ago, and neither did you, is no more than a storm in a tea cup and lingers like your BNS paper, in oblivion.
That's the facts.
Rave on clown, the fact remains that Yilmaz theory which I certainly new nothing about a few days ago, and neither did you, is no more than a storm in a tea cup and lingers like your BNS paper, in oblivion.
That's the facts.
Back to abuses, thats what you do when you have nothing to offer, and most of the time you have nothing substantial to speak about...Learn kiddo, learn ! Almost everyone here can match you (or teach you) abuses, but are you here for that?
As I'll keep telling you, I will give as good as I get.
And of course the proof of the pudding with regards to Yilmaz's theory, is in the fact that after 20 years it still attracts no body, except perhaps a few forum trolls doing their best to deride GR.
And also the clown jibe you have openly admitted too
You have crapped/soiled this thread, and now predictably you will start a new thread with some popscience news item.
You should have asked Lewis, why without reading the work of Yilmaz, he is making such derogatory comment. That would have been the most prudent thing to do, but you heard him say whatever you wanted to hear. This proves you a dishonest troll.
You should have asked Lewis, why without reading the work of Yilmaz, he is making such derogatory comment. That would have been the most prudent thing to do, but you heard him say whatever you wanted to hear. This proves you a dishonest troll.
Not really, and as agreed by most, its you who has crapped and soiled this and all threads where you decide to take part in your evangelistic crusade to deride accepted mainstream cosmology.
It's Professor Lewis to you clown, and as he said just by quickly glancing through it, he was confronted with the Newtonian aspect straight away. Still just another example of your usual lies, misinterpretations and out and out trolling.
Thank fuck though, you limit your trolling here and leave the real scientists at the coal front doing what they do best. Small blessings and all that.
No 100% called for just as Professor Begalman inferred with your silly BNS paper.
If you can't stand the heat sweety, stay out of the kitchen.
Abuses after abuses.....thats your argument, that in the end I will get tired....