Understanding the universe.

[Obelix 11]

Dear Readers,

 

Above is a typical example of the abject nonsense that is resorted to by people who refuse to read anything, thinking that they are so smart that they can instead refute an argument without even knowing the argument, as missionaries preaching to cannibals. Also, here yet again is an example of fraud perpetrated by the usual editors, 'peer reviewers', and their authors, that we are entreated to idolise and prostrate ourselves before in awe:

 

Crothers, S.J., On Corda's 'Clarification' of Schwarzschild's Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0221

 

Also here:

 

http://principia-scientific.org/cordas-clarification-schwarzschilds-solution/

 

Cosmologists are like politicians - deny, deny, tell lies, and invoke irrelevancies when confronted with the truth.

 

The paper above not only reveals scientific fraud perpetrated by cosmologists, but also explains in detail how the mathematical theory of black holes violates the rules of pure mathematics, and is therefore utterly false.

 

Every reasonable person on this forum is invited to study the paper cited above and thereafter ask questions for discussion. I have made it plain, but reiterate, I will pay no heed to people who refuse to read anything or cite the absurd rationalwiki as a source of scientific worth.

 

1. I've not cited rationalwiki as a source of scientific worth. Please stop beating that strawman.

 

2. I've no intention of reading all of your output most of which is probably not germaine to the discussion. Please post, your evidence for

 

a) Where the errors are in the Kerr metrics.

b) Where you have to square a real number to get a negative value

c) Your explanation for the detected CMB or alternatively a reasoned cogent argument as to why it doesn't exist

 

2a-c are not difficult to do. If you refuse to post them it's easy to assume you have no evidence. We are waiting to debate the science with you - if you in fact provide it.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2016 at 15:20 ----------

 

Don't forget the fraud perpetrated by your editors, 'peer reviewers', and their author, reported here:

 

Crothers, S.J., On Corda's 'Clarification' of Schwarzschild's Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0221

 

and here:

 

http://principia-scientific.org/cordas-clarification-schwarzschilds-solution/

 

Perhaps you can explain to us all why the editors (Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics), their 'peer reviewers', and their author, are not guilty of fraud.

 

A cautionary note - libel is actionable in the UK and you appear to be committing it. I would suggest you withdraw the accusations levelled against the journal before the moderators remove it.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2016 at 15:23 ----------

 

 

But no disrespect intended. SJC is more interesting than you and more intelligent . An electronics degree- I afraid- doesn't make you an expert in astrophysics. Accept it .

In addition, you could publish something in an OA journal proving SJC as a fraud. Then you could engage with him outside of the world of SF. The air might do you good.

 

You presume that's my only degree. I hold undergraduate qualifications in electronics, astronomy and postgraduate in chemistry specialising in computation chemistry. If you really want to be tawdry and examine brains pans then go for it...

 

As for engaging him outside in an OA journal why should I bother when I can just point to my published record in peer reviewed journals? Debating SJC is an interesting diversion it's hardly my main field of research.

[petemcewan 27]

Unbeliver,

 

I'd be interested to take a look at what you've published. However, that would mean revealing your real name -you may not want to do that. I post under my real name and I appreciate that some people don't want to do that.

 

You could give me a hint at the subject and I could possible trawl for it.

 

You could private email me and give me a hint at where to find your work. If you do,

I sincerely promise not to reveal anything confidential no matter what the circumstances.

 

I also secretly believe that SJC is not trying to bury any of us under the weight of his work.

But I can appreciate the frustration when questions are asked and the answer are in the text. Now my maths are pretty sound-specialising in electrical engineering maths.

But I'm not going to go up against "Tensors". At some point one has to defer.

I think you will appreciate that the world of astrophysics is on the verge of a paradigm shift. All science goes through such a process at some time or other. For instance the conflict between Atomis and Conservation theory 1644 to 1860. The move from Newtonian physics into the world of atomic physics. And into the world of quantum physics .

I do believe that SJC -and other- are assisting the paradigm shift from a world of fantastical

cosmology to a more physics based cosmology ,less prone to mathematical theorising.

Don't misunderstand me there is obviously a place for maths.

Edited April 18, 2016 by petemcewan

[unbeliever 10]

Unbeliver,

 

I'd be interested to take a look at what you've published. However, that would mean revealing your real name -you may not want to do that. I post under my real name and I appreciate that some people don't want to do that.

 

You could give me a hint at the subject and I could possible trawl for it.

 

You could private email me and give me a hint at where to find your work. If you do,

I sincerely promise not to reveal anything confidential no matter what the circumstances.

 

I also secretly believe that SJC is not trying to bury any of us under the weight of his work.

But I can appreciate the frustration when questions are asked and the answer are in the text. Now my maths are pretty sound-specialising in electrical engineering maths.

But I'm not going to go up against "Tensors". At some point one has to defer.

I think you will appreciate that the world of astrophysics is on the verge of a paradigm shift. All science goes through such a process at some time or other. For instance the conflict between Atomis and Conservation theory 1644 to 1860. The move from Newtonian physics into the world of atomic physics. And into the world of quantum physics .

I do believe that SJC -and other- are assisting the paradigm shift from a world of fantastical

cosmology to a more physics based cosmology ,less prone to mathematical theorising.

Don't misunderstand me there is obviously a place for maths.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2016 at 15:47 ----------

 

Unbeliver,

 

I'd be interested to take a look at what you've published. However, that would mean revealing your real name -you may not want to do that. I post under my real name and I appreciate that some people don't want to do that.

 

You could give me a hint at the subject and I could possible trawl for it.

 

You could private email me and give me a hint at where to find your work. If you do,

I sincerely promise not to reveal anything confidential no matter what the circumstances.

 

I also secretly believe that SJC is not trying to bury any of us under the weight of his work.

But I can appreciate the frustration when questions are asked and the answer are in the text. Now my maths are pretty sound-specialising in electrical engineering maths.

But I'm not going to go up against "Tensors". At some point one has to defer.

I think you will appreciate that the world of astrophysics is on the verge of a paradigm shift. All science goes through such a process at some time or other. For instance the conflict between Aromis and Conservation theory 1644 to 1860. The move from Newtonian physics into the world of atomic physics. And into the world of quantum physics .

I do believe that SJC and other are assisting the paradigm shift from a world of fantastical

cosmology to a more physics based cosmology ,less prone to mathematical theorising.

Don't misunderstand me there is obviously a place for maths.

 

Any new model of physics not based on maths falls well inside the category of not even wrong.

 

I don't see how it's relevant, but look for publications in peer reviewed journals with M Robinson (University of Sheffield) on the author list, in the field of experimental particle astrophysics (dark matter, neutrinos and the like).

 

Maths is so fundamental that it would not even change if you were in a different universe. The only thing physics theory is looking for is what maths to apply to what phenomenon.

[petemcewan 27]

Any new model of physics not based on maths falls well inside the category of not even wrong.

 

I don't see how it's relevant, but look for publications in peer reviewed journals with M Robinson (University of Sheffield) on the author list, in the field of experimental particle astrophysics (dark matter, neutrinos and the like).

 

Maths is so fundamental that it would not even change if you were in a different universe. The only thing physics theory is looking for is what maths to apply to what phenomenon.

 

I do believe that maths is essential -but maths can only go so far. Experimental physics and cosmology have a massive bearing on how we understand the universe. I agree entirely with ,"The only thing physics theory is looking for is what maths to apply". However, just chucking equations around looks impressive. Cosmological experiments -so I've been told -are hard to do.

. Thanks for your info. I'm genuinely interested. I'll check out your work.

Edited April 18, 2016 by petemcewan

[unbeliever 10]

I've said once that maths is essential -but maths can only go so far. Experimental physics and cosmology have a massive bearing on how we understand the universe. I agree entirely with ,"The only thing physics theory is looking for is what maths to apply". However, just chucking equations around looks impressive. Cosmological experiments -so I've been told -are hard to do.

. Thanks for your info. I genuinely interested. I'll check out your work.

 

The work Crothers is criticising has made predictions which have been exhaustively experimentally tested. Crothers himself has not. Hence not even wrong.

[sh3rb3t 10]

__________________________

 

Dear Pete McEwan,

 

That is correct. Consider the surface in the spatial section of Hilbert's metric. There are two variables, theta and phi. The term r is not then a variable. The intrinsic geometry of a surface is entirely independent of any embedding space. The Gaussian curvature of a surface is perhaps its most important property. In 2-dimensional space the Gaussian curvature K is calculated by,

 

K = R_{1212}/g

 

where R_{1212} is a component of the Riemann tensor of the first kind and g is the determinate of the metric tensor for the surface. For the surface referred to above the answer is,

 

K = 1/r^2

 

This is meaning of r. That K is here a positive constant means that the surface is a spherical surface. This r is neither the radius nor even a distance in Hilbert's metric. Nonetheless, cosmologists always treat it as the radius and at a particular value r = r_s = 2GM/c^2 they allege that it is radius of a black hole 'event horizon' - they call it 'the Schwarzschild radius'. But it is in fact the radius of nothing in Hilbert's metric and so it is not the radius of a black hole event horizon, even if assumed for the sake of argument that black holes exist. However, they do not even exist.

 

PS. Pete McEwan is Pete McEwan, he is not me. He and I are not one and the same.

 

Gerard ’t Hooft gives a much better/thorough debunk of Crothers’ ramblings. And he is far better placed to do so than me, because I only have a lowly theoretical physics degree, whereas ’t Hooft is a Nobel prize winner in physics. See here:

 

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

 

if you are even contemplating believing SJCrothers’ nonsense.

Edited April 18, 2016 by sh3rb3t
Found a much better source to discredit the crackpottery…

[MAC33 10]

Still no take on why we can see the Chicago skyline across Michigan Bay - its around 60 miles across - so the skyline should be under 2400feet or over 700 metres of curvature.

 

If you believe what you're seeing is a mirage - then good luck finding the truth.

[petemcewan 27]

Waldo,

 

If you are still following. This is for you. "The bloke "didn't get back to you re, positive and negative signed numbers. I can only imagine the "pot noodles" and "chicken legs " done for him LOL

 

.https://www.sciencenews.org/article/limits-mathematics

[Annie Bynnol 611]

Still no take on why we can see the Chicago skyline across Michigan Bay - its around 60 miles across - so the skyline should be under 2400feet or over 700 metres of curvature.

 

If you believe what you're seeing is a mirage - then good luck finding the truth.

 

 

For example from 700' the horizon will be 36 miles away.

If two 700' hills were separated by 70 miles of water their summits would be visible to each other. Their bases would not be visible to each other which is because of curvature of the Earth.

[MAC33 10]

If the above explanation does it for you - then good luck in finding the truth!

Edited April 18, 2016 by MAC33

[petemcewan 27]

Gerard ’t Hooft gives a much better/thorough debunk of Crothers’ ramblings. And he is far better placed to do so than me, because I only have a lowly theoretical physics degree, whereas ’t Hooft is a Nobel prize winner in physics. See here:

 

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

 

if you are even contemplating believing SJCrothers’ nonsense.

 

 

Now we have 3 scientists on this thread. It's proving educational.

 

I do believe that SJC has-at some time- addressed the work of G. 't Hooft.

 

When I read the Corda controversy. What Corda had to say about SJC read very much like your criticism. So I'm assuming you are pretty ofay with the whole tooing and throwing between Corda and SJC.

I was going to ask SJC this question. But I'll ask it of you.

 

 

Can you explain in your own words, the "Accelerated Reference Frame " viz-a-viz a black hole. Thank you.

Edited April 18, 2016 by petemcewan

[sh3rb3t 10]

I will attempt to answer reasonable questions if you ask them, yes. What are you referring to? Are you asking me for an explanation of the principle of equivalence?