Jump to content

Understanding the universe.

Recommended Posts

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 by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,

The Sheffield Forum is on Google.

 

Look up S.J Crothers and Understanding the Universe.

 

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2016 at 20:59 ----------

 

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?

 

Is it not a reasonable question ? You see , I'm not an astrophysicist.

If the principle of equivalence is equated with the , "Accelerated Frame of Reference " then the answer is yes.

 

I was watching a youtube lecture by an astrophysicist, and he kept referring to the Accelerated Frame of Reference at the edge of a black hole. It had me puzzled . So, as you know about these things. I thought, "there's a person on SF that might be able to explain that to me ".

 

If the principle of equivalence and the AFR have a bearing on each other.

Then after your explanation , I will be wiser to the power of two.

In anticipation, Thank you.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2016 at 22:56 ----------

 

"Dr Vitaly Kudryavtsev."

 

"Dark Matter . Sheffield Uni."

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
,

The Sheffield Forum is on Google.

 

Look up S.J Crothers and Understanding the Universe.

 

That always happens if you type in the name of a user and the name of a thread, it's not special.

 

example I picked at random from general discussions

 

Google's clever like that.

 

The way you've instantly accepted this guy's claims to be some sort of self taught physics genius who knows more than all the people on the forum (and indeed the wider world) with actual physics qualifications is rather strange, imo.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2016 at 22:30 ----------

 

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.

 

No one cares enough to respond. Flat earth 'theory' is so stupid its ridiculous people figured out the earth was round and were even able to estimate the circumference over 2000 years ago. It is a joke.

Edited by flamingjimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flamingjimmy,

 

My god ! The Forum is all over it. I was getting all excited about Google.

 

NO DISRESPECT TO THE FORUM. But you seem to be implying that SF is a bastion of unrivaled

knowledge and enlightenment .As I said earlier . It's the SF not the Max Planck Institute.

So, SJC ,IMO, is worthy of a platform. It's an open discussion space. Consequently, I'm free to embrace whoever I like. Nothing strange in that.

The Forum provides space for all kinds of opinions (so long as fall within the rules).

Mach 33 is a shining example of expression in a free society,facilitated by internet Forums.

And it's astonishing; I've got a picture of Stephen Hawking grinning at me at the bottom of my chrome. I don't know how they do it.

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flamingjimmy,

 

My god ! The Forum is all over it. I was getting all excited about Google.

 

NO DISRESPECT TO THE FORUM. But you seem to be implying that SF is a bastion of unrivaled

knowledge and enlightenment

I'm really not, but yeah there are quite a few people who've studied and worked in the field of physics at varying levels. I'm still a student myself but there are actually quite a few on here you'd be surprised I think.

 

To be honest, I think you are being a bit disrespectful to unbeliever and obelix, and conversely a little too respectful with Mr Crothers, you respond to him as if he's some sort of world renowned authority taking time out of his busy schedule doing important science stuff and blessing us with his presence.

 

You question the others and ask if they're actual scientists and where they've been published yet do not apply the same scrutiny to this guy.

 

Just because he uses his real name and has self published some stuff on the internet doesn't make him any more credible than the people on this forum.

 

Mach 33 is a shining example of expression in a free society,facilitated by internet Forums.
Hey I wouldn't dream of censoring him I'm just mocking his demands that people respond to the flat earth nonsense as if this is 500BC or something. :hihi: Edited by flamingjimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Interesting. You cite 't Hooft but conveniently leave out my detailed response to him. So here it is:

 

Crothers, S. J., General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, 4 August, 2014,

http://viXra.org/abs/1409.0072

 

't Hooft then got even more ugly, and so I was compelled to reply again. Here it is:

 

Crothers, S. J., Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, On Black Hole Perturbations,

http://viXra.org/abs/1409.0141

 

Relying on 't Hooft will not save cosmology from the dustbin of history.

 

It seems that you too have not read my papers. Certainly you have not adduced a single scientific argument against anything I have argued or otherwise demonstrated that you know anything about my work. If you are also hell-bent on proving me wrong no matter what, then you had better first learn my arguments. That can only be achieved by studying my papers. Telepathy, and reliance upon the Authority of Nobel Laureate's are not scientific methods. "Anybody who argues from Authority is not using his brains, only his memory." Leonardo da Vinci

 

If after studying my papers, you put to this forum reasonable questions, I will answer, but if you go down the same road as others on this forum who refuse to read anything, and continue to rely on authorities, be they Nobel Laureates of rationalwiki scribblers, I will pay you no heed. Not one critic of my work, on this forum, has shown any evidence of having read any of my papers. In answering questions about my work I will engage only reasonable people who have taken the time to learn about my work before posing questions to me here about my work. But given the derision you have already resorted to, I doubt that you will suddenly become a reasonable person. But you now have a chance to change that.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 14:15 ----------

 

The way you've instantly accepted this guy's claims to be some sort of self taught physics genius who knows more than all the people on the forum (and indeed the wider world) with actual physics qualifications is rather strange, imo..

 

People like you, flamingjimmy, are now a dime a dozen. So, to remove yourself from the dime a dozen club, present your evidence to us all for your unsubstantiated charge. Or are you too relying on the Authority of the Nobel Laureate 't Hooft?

 

There are pages now on this forum that refer to me, yet not a single post by any critic has addressed any of the arguments I have adduced in my papers. Clearly the agendas of my critics here are not science. It's quite pathetic.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 14:23 ----------

 

Annie Bynnol

 

Please indulge us with your comments on the fraud perpetrated by the editors of The Electronic Journal for Theoretical Physics, reported here:

 

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

 

Also reported here:

 

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

 

Threats against me for libel have already been raised on this forum. Such threats are to no avail. Libel only holds if the charges are false. The paper by Corda (2011) published by the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics is a plagiarism of the work of Karl Schwarzschild (1916).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your article attacking Croda was not published in the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics for the reasons given to you by the founder an director and the editor in chief:

 

Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics

"We had you asked to make submissions and requests correctly, and not to the whole editorial board. This attitude is very intrusive. Anyway...... the `serious nature of the matter’ is precisely the point that differentiates us. In pre-review phase we have concluded that the question of "Schwarzschild's solution" is not of interest for EJTP. No editor has shown the slightest interest in a review process. We recommend that you submit your article to a journal focused on the gravity themes, or in history of Physics. We must also specify that the "dialectic" question between you and Corda can remain serenely in the repositories, not concern us."

 

I fail to see why you should spend so much time promoting your cause on here and why you have repeated your own name and links 30+ times.

 

Your contributions on here include more and more personal comments which very much weaken any stand point you had.

 

The authors I read on scientific matters will certainly not be associated so closely with Myron Evans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flamingjimmy.,

 

I'm going to be lighthearted about this . I have respect for the Forum contributors and the knowledge base-but it's an open forum and not MIT or la Sorbonne . I count myself in that knowledge base . And it warms my heart to think

that the experience and knowledge acquired from 30 yrs of teaching can be deposited into the knowledge banks of the Forum.

 

I'm quite sure that if Unbeliever and Obelix have thought that I've been impolite

they would tell me quick enough. Both of them are mature enough to stand up for themselves. I'm delighted to learn that Unbeliever is a particle physicist at Sheffield Uni.I've even found what he is working on.

 

SJC is a newcomer to the Forum and it is polite to be kind to strangers. He deserves a platform. In the world of science-particularly nowadays it's not unusual for scientist to be the recipients of personel attacks and

ad hominem

 

In addition , I can ask posters anything I like so long as I stay within the rules. I'm not aware of any etiquette filter-except my own natural politeness and the rules of the Foum- that I must syphon my contributions through before I put them up.

What you say about the Forum has raised my self-esteem. I shall now consider myself as a kind of stealth codger of the Forum. Ready to spring out upon the unsuspecting and thrust upon them pearls of wisdom-weather they like it or not.

 

Ps. A much younger friend of mine recently told me. " You know Pete. The Forum is not life and death. It's not real life you know". They were wise words.

PPs. I think Mac33 will be reassured by your inclination to freedom of thought. So it goes. We should go back on topic.

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your article attacking Croda was not published in the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics for the reasons given to you by the founder an director and the editor in chief:

 

Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics

"We had you asked to make submissions and requests correctly, and not to the whole editorial board. This attitude is very intrusive. Anyway...... the `serious nature of the matter’ is precisely the point that differentiates us. In pre-review phase we have concluded that the question of "Schwarzschild's solution" is not of interest for EJTP. No editor has shown the slightest interest in a review process. We recommend that you submit your article to a journal focused on the gravity themes, or in history of Physics. We must also specify that the "dialectic" question between you and Corda can remain serenely in the repositories, not concern us."

 

I fail to see why you should spend so much time promoting your cause on here and why you have repeated your own name and links 30+ times.

 

Your contributions on here include more and more personal comments which very much weaken any stand point you had.

 

The authors I read on scientific matters will certainly not be associated so closely with Myron Evans.

 

Yet again you avoid the fraud perpetrated by the editors, peer reviewers, and author. Corda's paper (2011) is a plagiarism of Karl Schwarzschild (1916), pure and simple. There are no excuses. Apparently you condone fraud, which leaves you with no credibility. I also note that you have ignored the scientific issues contained in my paper exposing Corda, his editors and reviewers, wherein I have explained geometrically and analytically how the mathematical theory of black holes violates the rules of pure mathematics and is therefore false.

 

Concerning "personal comments", such are all you have ever made here, instead of science. There are now many pages here with the scribblings of my critics, who read nothing yet pontificate upon that which they do not know, and make false charges. Quite typical, but not scientific method.

 

You now slight professor Myron Evans, who has nothing to do with the price of fish.

 

Instead of such evasive drivel why not present a scientific argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
,

"Dr Vitaly Kudryavtsev."

 

"Dark Matter . Sheffield Uni."

 

Not me by the way. Already gave you my name. It's not a secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not me by the way. Already gave you my name. It's not a secret.

 

Unbeliever,

 

Sorry. I know that is not you. But when I was searching the Sheffield Uni

Physics and Astronomy (i think that's right ) Depts. I found your name along with Dr VK (VK is leading the Dept in the search for dark matter ).

 

I hope I got that right. Thanks for the lead into that.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 14:29 ----------

 

Sh3. I think I got the answer -without the maths attached. You know, polar co-ordinates and hyperbolic curves ,etc. "Accelerated Frame of Reference".

 

For any teachers following this. The university Prof delivering the lecture on the maths of black holes, that I was watching. Had the most untidy white board technique I've ever witnessed. Sorely in need of Staff Development on Smart Screen. If I'd been a student at the Uni- I would have asked for my fees back. LOL

 

"As an object is accelerated close to the speed of light, relativistic effects begin to dominate. In particular, adding more energy to an object will not make it go faster since the speed of light is the limit. The energy has to go somewhere, so it is added to the mass of the object, as observed from the rest frame. Thus, we say that the observed mass of the object goes up with increased velocity. So a spaceship would appear to gain the mass of a city, then a planet, than a star, as its velocity increased."

Apparently all the above happens at the edge of a black hole.

 

If you have the inclination,I'd like to read your ,"Equivalence " Theory explanation. Thank you.

 

He's here again ! Stephen Hawking is grinning at me from the bottom of my chrome screen. He's inviting me to, " Dive Deep Into Science". What is going on ? Am I being stalked by SH !

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.