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.
Pathetic, you are.
Hawking radiation
- Thread starter hardalee
- Start date
Pathetic, you are.
Amended slightly to 20 years in #332, #336. Like I wrote earlier, a no-tricks pony who cannot even do basic arithmetic. That or makes wild guesses owing to laziness. Yilmaz original scalar theory was published in 1958. Second tensor potential version in stages between 1971 to 1974. As I wrote here before. This is 2015 fyi. Try 2015-1958 again genius. That it has 'barely made ripples' is proof of what exactly?
Speaking of anti SR imposters, that in provides an opportune occasion to now make good on my claim in #295: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/relativistic-mass.151520
I came in p3 #58 that thread. It took you all of until p8, #146 for that eventual backdown and confession acknowledging in effect crank anti-SR BASIC error! Way to go vain hypocrite. It was in retrospect a bad mistake to show you some sympathy in #154, done in the forlorn and futile hope it might encourage you to actually reform. No way. Professional shit-stirrers do not change their spots.
Last edited:
Your particular case and attitudes is not imo some kind of worthy and general template from which to pass judgement on e.g. Misner rebuttal article. So you finally get a rebuttal published in a journal and things thereafter look so much brighter and fairer than before. A not so surprising human reaction.
IYO. Those advocating a physically real and necessarily spatio-temporarily infinite absolute space and time have many critics deriding such as extremely dubious. Not a game worth playing.
So evidently you couldn't see the point there. Too bad. You can actually detail an error in (11)? Please do - after going back even before (1) and made quite sure to have grasped the proper context leading up to (11) and beyond.
You do realize that (11) is pointing out a basic inconsistency in Misner's misrepresentation of their position, right? The arguments over GR's lack of any proper field stress-energy interaction (notwithstanding ad hoc tack-ons used by GR practitioners) vs the same built into Yilmaz theory as a foundational principle is all laid out there, also in e.g . Robertson article and original published works of Yilmaz et al. If you or others choose to reject that for whatever actual reasons then so be it. I am weary of all the useless bluster and inuendo in this forum. About time for a lengthy 'vacation' methinks.
The point was that arguments from authority, that do not identify the authorities, are worthless... Especially when the discussion is largely a mud slinging contest between individuals who do not seem willing to hear anything anyone else says or thinks. The original authors now identified alter the value of their comments. The problem now is that, that part of the discussion carries with it shadows of the initial unidentified argument from authority.
However, even this is not the real problem with most of these discussions, if you can even call them discussions.., the problem is that sometimes it seems there is more personal insult and mud slinging than discussion. Discussions have to be tolerant of differing interpretations, ideas and approaches to whatever subject is being discussed. That means that any real discussion cannot be limited to a hard line mainstream interpretation of any subject. When I mentioned the 300 year mainstream association with Newtonian mechanics my intent was to emphasize that, what is mainstream today, is really just a consensus of opinion, not a definition of any absolute description of reality. Science, especially theoretical physics, has to leave room for ideas that will ultimately fail, to have any chance of progress. The truth and future does not lie in ridgely holding onto what anyone believes today, because no one today has a totally convincing unified theory of anything, let alone an understanding of the underlying mechanism(s) driving what we known of as gravitation. And discussions that draw some hard line in the sand, limiting what can be discussed, are doomed to degrade to mud slinging.., and very little real discussion of any theory or science.
Too many of those posting here seemed to be personally threatened by any idea or interpretation different than their own. The result is more an issue of, psychology than physics...
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
It is a quite standard method to handle such things. Somebody proposes a theory, and succeeds in publishing it. Once peer-review is not ideal, this may be BS nonetheless. Once somebody observes that what was published is BS, he submits a paper which corrects the BS. The review process includes the author of the original paper, who is not only one of the reviewers, but can also write a response. The other reviewers consider above sides. Given that no journal likes to admit that it has published BS, one can be quite sure that there will be not much prejudice against the original paper. Thus, if only the response is published, but not the answer to the response, this is a quite clear situation.
I have always said that peer review is not without problems, and prejudice against theories far away from the mainstream is one systematic problem. But there is, essentially, nothing one can do about this, and there is no better replacement for peer review. But this general problem is less relevant in the case of rebuttals - here, the situation is more symmetric, given that the journal who has already published the outsider does not like to admit it has made an error. Moreover, it is less problematic if the argument is about math, and not about, say, interpretational questions.
The point is not what somebody names dubious. The point is that many people have to learn all this stuff written in textbooks, and that means, at least in high level universities, that they have to be able even to repeat the mathematical proofs on exams. So, if there would be an error in such math, it is highly improbable that this error remains undetected.
See the end of http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/page-16#post-3337686
I interpret is as showing a contradiction between Misner's assumption about what Yilmaz theory is and the assumption (obviously made by the authors) that the Newtonian limit of Yilmaz theory should be correct. This contradiction is a triviality, it is what Misner claims: that the Newtonian limit of Yilmaz theory is not correct.
Anyway, the question may arise if Misner has correctly identified the meaning of the theory. Fortunately, I have found the original Yilmaz paper from Nuevo Cimento, to check this, and, reading it, I have to say that I would have rejected this paper, because I have been unable to extract there a meaningful definition of the theory. The way Misner has extracted a Yilmaz theory out of this paper makes sense, given the equation on the top of p.954, but I'm not sure that starting from this paper one can derive also something contradicting this - if the original paper is contradictory, one can derive everything together with its negation from it.
If you think that it is important to have an energy-momentum tensor, then there is no reason to use Yilmaz theory, my theory also has such a tensor. And with my theory, there is no such problem with the Newtonian limit. From the status of the theory, my theory is published too, but, different from Yilmaz theory, there is no published refutation. My reason to reject Yilmaz theory is that I can follow the argument of Misner.
Abuses?? When will you learn my boy. Ignoring the factual posts on a forum in the vain hope that they may magically disappear is childish to say the least.
If you want respect, you answer the pertinent questions and give the same respect in return.
If by pathetic you mean confronting you with the truth, I plead guilty.
But again, if you are unable to stand the heat, either stay out of the kitchen or modify your own behaviour.
Not sure what you are trying to prove, but yes, certainly, when I am wrong, I will admit it. Pity you and the god do not follow suit.And of course my statement that it, Yilmaz theory, has barely made ripples is proof that it has barely made ripples.:shrug:
You know, not really important, has invalidated nothing, is not accepted by mainstream.
Your continued railing against my "derision" of this theory that has barely made any ripples obviously stems from your own anti GR agenda and the GR thread that you started with the usual provocative untrue headline, that was eventually shifted to the fringes. I'm too lazy to reproduce any of that here though, but you do remember, don't you?
.But don't worry your pretty little head too much, we still have one more reply to come, if Professor Will sees it important enough to comment on.
Last edited:
I don't agree. This is a science forum open to all and sundry, and I made a decision to protect professional people from one well known dishonest ratbag, that even you have noted likewise in the past.
Whether you agreed with that original decision or not, is of no concern to me.
Agreed. Why don't you than address all that take part in the personal insult game. You have in the past when it has suited you. You've criticised the god and rajesh many times for their insults and nonsense...You have tried to talk sense about the insulting childish rampages that Q-reeus has sunk to in the past. Both to no avail.
So yes, while you are correct, it should be noted that while I will certainly try and stick to facts, in the face of personal insults directed at me, I will always give as good as I get.
I agree. Remembering as I constantly say, that science forums such as this are open to all and sundry, some with delusions of grandeur, inflated egos, there own professional failures, all with a fanatical desire to upstage and/or invalidate modern day science and cosmology.
And just as logical is the fact that although there is a non zero chance that an idea may come from a science forum, if anyone really had any theory they believed invalidated or made more predictions than GR, they would not really be here, trading blows with little old lay people like me.
It's these fringe dwellers that are threatened simply because they are nobodies...Envy and greed and excessive ambition obviously are driving forces behind the continued railing by these people.
In the meantime, guess what? Mainstream accepted science/cosmology, continues to advance along with all their modern day state of the art equipment and tools, and the great minds behind them.
ps; Worth noting OnlyMe, that in your little rant here, you fail to address the points I made in post 325.
Last edited:
My bold
I think paddo has already answered this with..MY bold.
I don't think paddo takes the view of holding onto anything ridgely of what anyone believes today,that's why he says ''constant progress''. ( See my bold second quote) In fact, I was wondering what you (Onlyme) meant by 'The truth',(see my bold in the first quote), are you forgetting it's all models?
Does this show when using words like' The truth' when dealing with models?
Last edited by a moderator:
When those you are arguing with have already been questioning you.., or your position, arguing from authority without identifying the authority, is like chumming the water. It is of no value in the argument, apart from adding chum for the deserters.
Perhaps you should take it as a complement that I believe it is worth responding to you... Why, because if you stuck with just the science you believe is relative and refrained from joining in the mud slinging..., there would be less of it......, and it would be far easier to use the report function! It is useless to report bad behavior, when from one day to the next there winds up being multiple pages and nearly all parties posting are involved.
Provide a link to the post or restate your position or question. Without adding another round of posts, that must be dug through. When what little of a discussion is buried in pages of name calling, why would anyone not interested in name calling try to dig it out? The bad behavior begins to be what stands out.
I gave my reasons and after some consultation I changed my mind.
The reasons were real and genuine and whether you agree or not is neither here nor there. I made the decision. Your over the top reaction, was just that...over the top.
It doesn't bother me actually...Like I said, my nature is to give as good as I get. I don't bow to bullies especially.
Again, I do stick with the science and interject that with what I think the replies deserve. I'm not you, sorry. And I avoid using the report button.
At times, yes, at other times no. That in my opinion is the big fault with this forum...inconsistencies. We will have periods where they clamp down, than it's open slather.
It's only back to post 325 for f%$# sake! This is post 352. Anyway sweetpea has uncovered some of it actually.
OK
OnlyMe said:
The portion of your comment above is part of an underlying problem with your "mainstream" crusade. Think about it. The mainstream for 300 years, as far as Gravity is concerned, was defined by Newton. Had no one looked beyond Newton's conclusions, we would not today have your mainstream. How long did Einstein's new mainstream fail to present a credible alternative to Newton, before he arrived at your mainstream?
Progress in science is as much defined by those who challenge consensus, as it is by those who merely test or try to reconcile it, against new observations.
There has to be room in physics, especially theoretical physics, for those who challenge what we think of as mainstream today, at least until the theory that underlies today's mainstream, has been proven to be something more than theory.
OnlyMe said:
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.
Funny how you managed to post in a manner that when quoted I have only my own quoted comments to work with.... Since I find no reason to repost a cut and paste of my own words....
First, the only thing about your posting style that bothers me is that you jump into the personal insults almost as a rule. So you don't report. I did not used to for years, I have decided perhaps that should change, but often the only resolution to the food fights would be to close a thread completely, which is harsh treatment when there is some good discussion buried in the muck.
One of the points I was trying to make is that what you find as mainstream, tends at times to exclude credible discussion of even some published work. Sometimes what is thought of or spoken of as mainstream here is really nothing more than a consensus of opinion on the interpretation of theory, held by a few well known Professors. That does not mean there are not other opinions by other credible sources that should not be excluded from discussion, as not mainstream...
An example that touches on more than one aspect of the issue can be found in the posts of Schmelzer.., and don't get me wrong here because I don't agree with many of his theoretical positions, but he has published and presents his position here in a professional manner... He doesn't fall into the mud slinging, even when others attack him personally. But he does not fit into your mainstream box so...
Then there is Q-reeus, who does get abrasive and even personal at times but also makes clear argument to support his understanding and interpretation. I don't particularly agree with much of what I understand of his theory, but he should be able to put it forward and expect discussion rather than, again personal attack.
I have nothing negative to say about any interpretation of the science either of them present, because they are attempting to do exactly what the purpose of discussion is all about, even if I don't agree.
There are a few who seem more interested in the mud slinging than anything else and they are just most of the time not worth responding to. And at least one I am unsure is altogether, if you know what I mean, so I have no way to know just how to respond to some of his posts, because I am unsure what he is sometimes even trying to say.
I raised the example of Newton, because it seemed a good comparison for just how, limiting a discussion to an arbitrarily strict definition of what is mainstream could stifle discussion... And it is not a reasonable argument to say that just because it is unlikely that the next big thing will start here in these discussions, no one here should be allowed to explore the what ifs of anything they have read or heard of in the way of theoretical physics. And yes there will be many times that strays a bit far from what is taught, but most of the time unless you are talking graduate level thesis work, it is no where near the cutting edge of today. If someone is too far off base discussion should straighten it out or if necessisary moderation.
Theoretical physics does not have as ridged a mainstream as it seems to be defined here. There are a lot of people working on similar issues who sometimes don't even know what the other is doing... And there is a lot of disagreement among those who do publish.
On the issue about Professor Bennett's contribution to an earlier thread and why he left, all I can say is you are entitled to an opinion, however following is the first portion of his farewell post, which ends by clearly stating that no one drove him away. He just had work to do.
When I mentioned not being threatened by anything anyone here had to say, it was really I guess a reflection of the fact that, the way many posters here react almost in anger, when someone disagrees, seems to be a threat response. You don't usually find that in persons who are well grounded in their field, knowledge or even what they believe.
P.s. I am done with this now, if there winds up being a break in the food fights enough to comment, maybe I will.., on the science or interpretation there of...
Last edited:
I'm not commenting on the majority of your post, I have said my bit.
My only interpretation of the science in this thread is simply that Yilmaz theory is not all that a couple are cracking it up to be, and I have received E-Mails from reputable sources supporting that fact, and the fact that it has barely created a ripple.
Thanks to Prof. Misner for the informative comments.
Nice of you tashja to contact one of the parties brought up in discussion here. So that at least clarifies Misner's position. Have you attempted to contact Alley or Robertson btw? It might be interesting to get their side of this matter. Not that it is needed.
I have brought it up numerous times before, but will state it again. Misner, like Rovelli and numerous others, likes to claim GR 'fully covers' the situation of *still undetected* after a string of recent failures (BICEP2, Parkes 11-year survey) TT GW's carrying energy-momentum hence self-gravitating. Yet ask any of them to reconcile that postulate with the incontestable fact of zero Ricci curvature in exterior Schwarzschild spacetime. I would expect an embarrassing silence or deflection tactics. There is no such dilemma in Yilmaz gravity.
Thanks tashja, as usual great job.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
What is the problem here?
The situation with the energy-momentum tensor in GR is problematic only from a metaphysical point of view. It is not at all a practical problem. If you use harmonic coordinates, you can use any pseudo-tensor, in particular the classical Einstein one, to obtain energy-momentum conservation laws. The only problem is the metaphysical one - you should avoid to name these harmonic coordinates "preferred", and, therefore, can not identify the EMT in these non-preferred coordinates as a true or preferred energy-momentum conservation law which defines the true energy and momentum densities.
But the equations do not care about the metaphysical problems of the particular mainstream interpretation believers which use them. So, the energy-momentum conservation law behaves like an energy-momentum conservation law is expected to behave in the preferred coordinates.
Why zero Ricci curvature (which is not zero curvature, which, according to the equivalence principle, would make the field trivial) should be in some contradiction with the self-gravitating character of GR is beyond me. $$R_{mn}=0$$ is, last but not least, a quite complex non-linear equation for the gravitational field.