They are not threats. They are direct responses to members violating our rules. As in this case.
- Status
*Moderator Hat On*
Please remember that discussion of moderator actions is not to take place within the forum.
If you have an issue with something a moderator does, there are channels. If you want to find out
how to go through them, let me know through PM, and I will happily PM them to you.
Consider this tangent closed.
*Moderator Hat Off*
Wayne
Please remember that discussion of moderator actions is not to take place within the forum.
If you have an issue with something a moderator does, there are channels. If you want to find out
how to go through them, let me know through PM, and I will happily PM them to you.
Consider this tangent closed.
*Moderator Hat Off*
Wayne
noblackhole":14wkg484 said:
Sorry but the Big Bang was "spawned" by observations, starting with observations of receding spiral "nebulae" made by Vesto Slipher in 1912. It was another ten years before Alexander Friedmann derived his equations from General Relativity and showed that the universe might expand.
Answer me this, if General Relativity is completely invalid, how do you explain the facts presented in the link below?
Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System
Oh boy :roll:
I know I have had my own theories about the universe and question certain things about the theories. However didn't Edwin Hubble (just one of the more famous names off the top of my head) observe that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum? the further that galaxy was from our galaxy. He also noted by observation that galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. I believe his research was to discover what General Relativity ( the cosmological constant, though Einstein himself first thought was an error and had a hard time believing his own equations) predicted. So yes, Einstein did make the prediction... however Hubble proved it by observations. He also did extensive work using Supernovae observation in relation to the expansion of the universe as described in this link I found some time ago:
http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/public/papers/aasposter198dir/aaasposter.html
His study of 40 Supernovae in relation to expansion was published in the Nature journal in 1998.
Here is the main web page for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's World Wide Web server for the Supernova Cosmology Project to which this diagram was derived:
http://panisse.lbl.gov/public/
*Awaits an extensive critique*
I know I have had my own theories about the universe and question certain things about the theories. However didn't Edwin Hubble (just one of the more famous names off the top of my head) observe that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum? the further that galaxy was from our galaxy. He also noted by observation that galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. I believe his research was to discover what General Relativity ( the cosmological constant, though Einstein himself first thought was an error and had a hard time believing his own equations) predicted. So yes, Einstein did make the prediction... however Hubble proved it by observations. He also did extensive work using Supernovae observation in relation to the expansion of the universe as described in this link I found some time ago:
http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/public/papers/aasposter198dir/aaasposter.html
His study of 40 Supernovae in relation to expansion was published in the Nature journal in 1998.
Here is the main web page for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's World Wide Web server for the Supernova Cosmology Project to which this diagram was derived:
http://panisse.lbl.gov/public/
*Awaits an extensive critique*
Oh Boy are you confused.
Hubble discovered that distant objects are moving away, and the further away an object is, the faster it is moving away. It was indeed from the redshift of the spectral lines.
That doesn't really have anything to do with relativity
Hubble discovered that distant objects are moving away, and the further away an object is, the faster it is moving away. It was indeed from the redshift of the spectral lines.
That doesn't really have anything to do with relativity
xXTheOneRavenXx":3jcj126x said:
I'm not sure why you are attributing Edwin Hubble (who died in the 50's) with the much more recent work done on Supernovae by Saul Perlmutter in the 90's.
Actually, Einstein did not make the prediction, Friedmann did - he found a solution to Einstein's equations that showed that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein believed the universe was static and so inserted the cosmological constant into General Relativity in order to solve the problem. Then Hubble discovered the redshift-distance relationship, which implied the universe was expanding (although there had been hints before, as I mentioned earlier), so Einstein took the cosmological constant out again and thought of it as one of his biggest mistakes! The cosmological constant may yet be valid in a modified form, as it is a possible candidate to describe dark energy.
lol, that's why I said "awaits an extensive critique".
You are correct however, everyone knows about Einstein's "blunder", though as you also mentioned that it may still be useful in relation to dark energy. My point was that with General Relativity Einstein's equations made the prediction of a expanding universe. Friedmann found the solution to the equations which proved it. Einstein not believing in his own formulas created the "Cosmological Constant" which would have worked had it not been for Hubble's observations. So to me, Einstein still made the prediction with his equations, Friedmann just exposed it, Einstein added his Cosmological Constant to "fix the problem", and Hubble proved the expansion via observation of the expansion via supernovae. So then Einstein retracted the Cosmological constant as you said. I only used Hubble as an example for these reasons to close the relationship, and their two of the most famous names I know. Einstein's equations, and Hubble's observation. I hope that's a bit clearer.
Notice I said "(just one of the more famous names off the top of my head)". Without Einsteins equations to begin with, Friedmann didn't have a leg to stand on. I should have been a bit more clear, though I didn't think it required the depth of explanation, but I added my statement just in caseSpeedfreak":20z48kb0 said:
You are correct however, everyone knows about Einstein's "blunder", though as you also mentioned that it may still be useful in relation to dark energy. My point was that with General Relativity Einstein's equations made the prediction of a expanding universe. Friedmann found the solution to the equations which proved it. Einstein not believing in his own formulas created the "Cosmological Constant" which would have worked had it not been for Hubble's observations. So to me, Einstein still made the prediction with his equations, Friedmann just exposed it, Einstein added his Cosmological Constant to "fix the problem", and Hubble proved the expansion via observation of the expansion via supernovae. So then Einstein retracted the Cosmological constant as you said. I only used Hubble as an example for these reasons to close the relationship, and their two of the most famous names I know. Einstein's equations, and Hubble's observation. I hope that's a bit clearer.G'day from the land of ozzzzz
I posted the above links in response to a statement about Jets and their ability to eject enormous amounts of matter.
We see this in supernova, huge bubbles and huge jets from large galaxies such as M87 and monster jets from the centre of galaxy clusters.
Search giant jets
http://chandra.harvard.edu/search_resul ... %3A11#1395
The properties of jets is well documented.
I do not see the need to support general information about jets.
Jet-induced Emission-Line Nebulosity and Star Formation in the High-Redshift Radio Galaxy 4C 41.17
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540..678B
Multipolar Bubbles and Jets in Low-Excitation Planetary Nebulae: Toward a New Understanding of the Formation and Shaping of Planetary Nebulae
Search on NASA/ADS
Giant Jets
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... &version=1
These links are not for me prove a point but for people to get more information on the topic.
As to the formation of these jets there are serveral Mechanisms that take place that are triggered by magnetic reconnection of double layers as to their stability one must look at the origin of the jet and the size and mass of the centre nucleon.
I posted the above links in response to a statement about Jets and their ability to eject enormous amounts of matter.
We see this in supernova, huge bubbles and huge jets from large galaxies such as M87 and monster jets from the centre of galaxy clusters.
Search giant jets
http://chandra.harvard.edu/search_resul ... %3A11#1395
The properties of jets is well documented.
I do not see the need to support general information about jets.
Jet-induced Emission-Line Nebulosity and Star Formation in the High-Redshift Radio Galaxy 4C 41.17
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540..678B
Multipolar Bubbles and Jets in Low-Excitation Planetary Nebulae: Toward a New Understanding of the Formation and Shaping of Planetary Nebulae
Search on NASA/ADS
Giant Jets
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... &version=1
These links are not for me prove a point but for people to get more information on the topic.
As to the formation of these jets there are serveral Mechanisms that take place that are triggered by magnetic reconnection of double layers as to their stability one must look at the origin of the jet and the size and mass of the centre nucleon.
That's just it Harry, you do need to prove your point. I'm not going to do the legwork for your ideas, and I doubt anybody else will. I may read a paper you use to support your data, but merely throwing out search results doesn't help your argument at all.
Throwing out a bunch of search results for a generic search so that I can read through your dozen or so papers to possibly, maybe find information relevant is a waste of my time. Especially since most of the results are only tangentially related to the point you tried to make.
For instance you have yet to tell me exactly how much mass you believe are in these jets. While it can be considerable, many solar masses even, it does NOT compare to the mass of a galaxy. And since you claim the formation of new galaxies is caused by the material from these jets, you need to provide a source or estimate of exactly how much material these jets are spewing into space.
Take your last batch, just from scanning the titles I can tell you they don't help. The one paper you do link to directly is about jets and STAR formation, an entirely different animal. Especially since the paper is about how the jets provide a shock to a star-forming nebulae, triggering the gravitational collapse and birth of proto-stars. NOT providing and creating stars directly.
So, until you provide a source, and direct quote from that source, of how much mass a jet contains, I'm going to continue saying: Sorry, no dice, your wrong.
Hubble and Humason claimed a redshift-distance relation. This was hijacked by the big bangers and turned into a redshift-recessional velocity relation, alleging Doppler shift, in order to match their claims for expansion of the Universe from General Relativity. The claim for an expansion of the Universe came from General Relativity, not from observations previous. Observations, previous and post, have been misconstrued, deliberately, by the big bangers, in order to attempt to legitimize their silly theory. That is unscientific. Moreover, Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity (since matter cannot manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter), and so it is physically meaningless. In consequence Einstein's field equations are identically zero; the energy-momentum tensor and Einstein's tensor vanish identically; there is no possibility for the localization of gravitational energy; and the field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum, placing them in direct conflict with experiment. The big bang is a big nonsense, like its ridiculous cousin, the black hole. Both are dead ducks, because they were born dead ducks. But they earn their proponents big bucks, and so the big bangers and black holers fight tooth and nail, not for science, but for their bank accounts. They are not scientists at all, just charlatans who have built their reputations on demonstrable claptrap, and extract vast sums of money from the public purse, producing for themselves sinecures at the public expense, not scientific work; infecting the minds of the public at large with phantasmagorical ideas and mesmerizing the gullible. Anyone who challenges them they ridicule, in enraged desperation, to salve their egos and to protect their 'reputations' (and their 'jobs'). Black holes and big bangs are the products of intellectual decrepitude and money-grubbing. No thinking person takes them seriously. Passive reception of the big bang and black hole rubbish is akin to subliminal suggestion, not thought. Bangs and holes been proven to be absolute tripe - anathema to the big bangers and black holers. But their resistance is futile.
Big bangers live in fantasyland. When challenged they invariably resort to a predictable unscientific drivel and ignore the scientific issues, hoping that the facts will go away in time for their lunch. This site is replete with such big banger evasive rubbish. Big bang is mysticism trussed up in pseudo-scientific jargon, lending itself thereby the facade of science when in fact it is unmitigated stercus tauri. With their copious nonsense the big bangers and black holers try to convince all and sundry that black holes interact with dark matter emitting dark energy under the impress of a 'dark force', in the midst of 'quintessence', all produced from absolutely nothing by a BANG. Such drivel is far removed from science. A greater pile of tripe is hard to imagine. It was Einstein who remarked that if the facts don't fit the theory, then change the facts. The relativists do just that, taking his lead.
/Mod Hat On
NoBlackHole, you should understand a few of our rules, before you continue.
To dislike or have objections to any given scientific concept is fine. We exist to debate and discuss ideas.
However, a few important items you must consider: you have posted your objections serially, in multiple forums and threads. This is unacceptable under our rules, as it is a form of spamming. Please contain your objections to one thread in one forum at a time, preferably the one most closely related to the topic at hand. Inasmuch as this is the first thread/forum you posted your objections in, this is the one you should continue in.
Also, it is also incumbent upon any poster here to state a case and, if requested, provide documentation. So far, you have made numerous claims and statements with no referential links. It would be a good thing if you linked a few articles or abstracts to back up your statements, and would lend credibility.
This being said, I am removing all of the (identical) commentary from the multiple threads you posted in in the Physics forum, plus that in the Ask The Astronomer forum.
Thank you.
/Mod Hat Off
NoBlackHole, you should understand a few of our rules, before you continue.
To dislike or have objections to any given scientific concept is fine. We exist to debate and discuss ideas.
However, a few important items you must consider: you have posted your objections serially, in multiple forums and threads. This is unacceptable under our rules, as it is a form of spamming. Please contain your objections to one thread in one forum at a time, preferably the one most closely related to the topic at hand. Inasmuch as this is the first thread/forum you posted your objections in, this is the one you should continue in.
Also, it is also incumbent upon any poster here to state a case and, if requested, provide documentation. So far, you have made numerous claims and statements with no referential links. It would be a good thing if you linked a few articles or abstracts to back up your statements, and would lend credibility.
This being said, I am removing all of the (identical) commentary from the multiple threads you posted in in the Physics forum, plus that in the Ask The Astronomer forum.
Thank you.
/Mod Hat Off
noblackhole":x962sj1o said:
Really? "Big Bangers" live in fantasyland? No. Michael Jackson lived in "Neverland" and the world of "Peter Pan". What 'unscientific drivel' are the "Big Bangers" relying on? What 'scientific issues' are you basing your position on? With regards to cosmology, that is? Before I relish my Big Mac, what are the facts of the universe? I'd like to know before I enjoy my lunch.
By the way, what are the facts? I mean, before I eat my lunch?
What are "Big Bang" theorists evading? Previous incarnations of the "universe", perhaps? I can understand that position.
'Mysticism' by definition is 'psuedo'. You'll have to better than that, young Jedi!
"Big Bang is mysticism trussed up in pseudo-scientific jargon, lending itself thereby the facade of science, when in fact it is unmitigated bullshit.(oh, sorry, stercus tauri. Apparently the Latin words for what comes out of the hind-end of a bull is okay.)
Much of your next sentence makes no sense. I honestly didn't know that black holes interact with dark matter to emit dark energy under the 'impress' of a dark force. That is, in the midst of a 'quintessence'. Which, according to you, was all created by a "BANG"! There was no 'big', or 'bang', in the "Big Bang".
Such 'drivel' is far removed from science? Really? Whose science? Yours?
"A greater pile of tripe is hard to imagine." I couldn't agree more! What is your pile of tripe? Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine! :lol:
You're last statement is truly incongruous. Einstein saw that his GR and SR theories demonstrated that the universe was flexible and had to be expanding! He refused to believe and/or accept what his own equations clearly showed!!! It wasn't until Hubble proved through observation that Albert was right after all in his theoretical equations!!!!!
yevaud":q09fgmsi said:
First, your claim is patently false. My posts were not 'identical'. There was no 'cut and paste'. Your actions amount to deliberate suppression of freedom of speech. I can write similar things on different threads because those threads share elements of the topics. Your actions are unscientific, and culpable.
Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, dark force, quintessence, big bangs: none have any valid basis in any theory and none have any valid observational substantiation. They are all products of irrational pen pushers, scribbling a few pithy equations on the back of a dirty old envelope. Holes and the BANG are in violation of both the rules of mathematics and the physical principles of General Relativity, and basic logic. But all and sundry are entreated by the thoughtless acolytes of the scribblers to believe that they are products of 'genius'. Not so: the alleged 'geniuses' peddling this muck are no more than great salesmen, masquerading as profound thinkers. Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum (since matter cannot manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter), and are therefore in conflict with the experimental facts. Consequently, holes and the BANG and Einstein gravitational waves and all associated paraphernalia, are all fantasies. Nobody has ever found a black hole (no wonder), nobody has ever detected gravitational waves (no wonder), the so-called Lense-Thirring effect was not found (no wonder), and the alleged 'evidence' for the BANG is nothing but deliberate distortion of the facts in order to make them comply with a nonsensical theory. That is not science.
noblackhole":1i43v4o4 said:
/Mod Hat On
Afraid not. While the precise wording of each now removed post was not identical, the message was. We restrict people from posting the same issue over and over repetitiously. That is, in fact, stated in our rules. I would suggest you read them before continuing.
There is no presumption of "Free Speech" on a message board. This is a privately owned venue, and the rules set by the owners - Imaginova - are here for a reason. They are not negotiable, and this is not a debate.
/Mod Hat Off
noblackhole, could you please enlighten us with YOUR explanation on how the universe came to be, or how it manifested itself into what we see today? After all, that IS the question that is essentially being asked in this topics title. No need to cut people down, or rehiterate your opinion on current theories or those of the fore-fathers of science. Just you own opinion. I like many other have read the "popular" explanations on how the universe came to be. We all have our own opinions. Hubble, Einstein, Friedmann, etc... exercised their freedom of speech as did many, many, many others past and present in their scientific beliefs. However, like I mentioned; what is YOUR explanation? I'm sure with your expertise, you could perhaps amaze us all. You never know, the explanation you give may revolutionize current beliefs and you'd be known as a revolutionary of science. It can't hurt, that's for sure.
[***Comment Removed *** - See Moderator post below for further information]
The CMB is not cosmic. The alleged 'observations' of the CMB are false. Here are some papers that expose the fraud:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-01.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-02.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -11-11.PDF
The WMAP and COBE data have been deliberately manipulated in order to fudge a match with a fallacious theory. Big bang is a figment of an irrational imagination that has become a fully fledged fraud, just like its dark cousin, the black hole.
The CMB is not cosmic. The alleged 'observations' of the CMB are false. Here are some papers that expose the fraud:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-01.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-02.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -11-11.PDF
The WMAP and COBE data have been deliberately manipulated in order to fudge a match with a fallacious theory. Big bang is a figment of an irrational imagination that has become a fully fledged fraud, just like its dark cousin, the black hole.
Well, I have to say I normally disagree with you (noblackhole), and your methods of expressing your opinions. However, on this ocassion I do find your point intreguing. Who is responsible for ensuring the very equipment they utilize does what it's intended to do. I read over your source papers, and it was quite interesting. Not saying there is a conspiracy, but like any agency a good way to maintain funding is to acheive the intended results. They could hire another agency, kind of like an inspection agency to say do a chunk of the analysis themselves just to ensure nothing is being tampered with or falsified. But that would assume someone in governement is intelligent, lol. Good work noblackhole. The papers did catch my attention, now if the concern ever gets addressed by the right authority is another story.
/Mod Hat On
1. Discussions of Moderators and their actions or motivations is against our rules. Please refer to the "Community Guidelines," (link located at the top of the screen) for details on how to grieve Moderator actions appropriately.
2. These forums are intended for debate and discussion of scientific topics, not appearing, throwing out a comment and a link, and then disappearing. If you wish to participate in these forums, then you must defend your assertions.
3. Your posts in other forums were not removed due to "we don't like them," they were all essentially the same comments, merely worded slightly differently each time. Multiply redundant posts in multiple forums are also in violation of our rules and guidelines. I would seriously suggest that you read them before posting again.
Consider the above an official warning.
/Mod Hat Off
1. Discussions of Moderators and their actions or motivations is against our rules. Please refer to the "Community Guidelines," (link located at the top of the screen) for details on how to grieve Moderator actions appropriately.
2. These forums are intended for debate and discussion of scientific topics, not appearing, throwing out a comment and a link, and then disappearing. If you wish to participate in these forums, then you must defend your assertions.
3. Your posts in other forums were not removed due to "we don't like them," they were all essentially the same comments, merely worded slightly differently each time. Multiply redundant posts in multiple forums are also in violation of our rules and guidelines. I would seriously suggest that you read them before posting again.
Consider the above an official warning.
/Mod Hat Off
Only theOneRaven has commented on the papers by Prof. P-M. Robitaille, in which the CMB fraud is revealed. No other big banger here to attempt defense of the frauds committed by the WMAP and COBE teams ? Robitaille has revealed their frauds, in great detail - there is no way out for these fraudsters. The big bang (and the black hole) are dead ducks.
According to Einstein and his followers, his Principle of Equivalence and his Special Theory of Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field, and these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Both the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses, and so neither the Principle of Equivalence nor Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.
“Let now K be an inertial system. Masses which are sufficiently far from each other and from other bodies are then, with respect to K, free from acceleration.We shall also refer these masses to a system of co-ordinates K’,uniformly accelerated with respect to K. Relatively to K’ all the masses have equal and parallel accelerations; with respect to K’ they behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K’ were unaccelerated. Overlooking for the present the question as to the ‘cause’ of such a gravitational field, which will occupy us later, here is nothing to prevent our conceiving this gravitational field as real, that is, he conception that K’ is ‘at rest’ and a gravitational field is present we may consider as equivalent to the conception that only K is an ‘allowable’ system of co-ordinates and no gravitational field is present. The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of coordinates, K and K’, we call the ‘principle of equivalence’; this principle is evidently intimately connected with the law of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of relativity to co-ordinate systems which are in non-uniform motion relatively to each other. In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For, according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K’)."
Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, Science Paperbacks and Methuen & Co. Ltd., pp.56, 1967.
“Stated more exactly, there are finite regions, where, with respect to a suitably chosen space of reference, material particles move freely without acceleration, and in which the laws of special relativity, which have been developed above, hold with remarkable accuracy.”
Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, Science Paperbacks and Methuen & Co. Ltd., pp.57, 1967.
“We may incorporate these ideas into the principle of equivalence, which is this: In a freely falling (nonrotating) laboratory occupying a small region of spacetime, the laws of physics are the laws of special relativity.”
Foster, J., Nightingale, J. D. A short course in General Relativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1995.
“We can think of the physical realization of the local coordinate system Ko in terms of a freely floating, sufficiently small, box which is not subjected to any external forces apart from gravity, and which is falling under the influence of the latter. ... It is evidently natural to assume that the special theory of relativity should remain valid in Ko .”
Pauli, W. The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1981.
“General Relativity requires more than one free-float frame."
Taylor E. F. and Wheeler J. A. Exploring Black Holes — Introduction to General Relativity, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
“Near every event in spacetime, in a sufficiently small neighborhood, in every freely falling reference frame all phenomena (including gravitational ones) are exactly as they are in the absence of external gravitational sources.”
DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, Edited by Richard A. Matzner, CRC Press LLC,, Boca Raton, USA, 2001,
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre.timu ... ronomy.pdf
Thus, I reiterate, neither the Principle of Equivalence nor Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But that does not stop the black holers and big bangers (and Einstein himself), who never let the facts get in their way of a good story. What do they do ? They write Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, and conjure up their ridiculous black hole with it.
“Black holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein’s field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of General Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time.”
DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, Edited by Richard A. Matzner, CRC Press LLC,, Boca Raton, USA, 2001,
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre.timu ... ronomy.pdf
But since Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, it violates Einstein's physical requirements that the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity manifest in finite regions of his 'gravitational field'. Consequently Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and is inadmissible. It immediately follows from this that Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum, placing them in direct conflict with the experimental evidence, and so making them invalid. Consequently the big bang theory (and its equally ludicrous cousin the black hole) is also invalid, since it is based upon the validity of General Relativity.
What did Einstein do to try to save his theory from catastrophic violation of the usual conservation of energy and momentum ? He did something unscientific and just plain dishonest - he invented something, ad hoc, to get what he wanted; he invented his pseudo-tensor, the components of which he says are 'the “energy components” of the gravitational field' [Einstein, A. The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916, The Principle of Relativity (A collection of original memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity), Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1952] and which Einstein says 'expresses the law of conservation of momentum and energy for the gravitational field.' (Einstein, A. The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916, The Principle of Relativity (A collection of original memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity), Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1952.)
But Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols and so cannot be used for anything, and so it is invalid, and so is everything that relies upon it, and the relativists use it all the time thinking that is is valid, being as they are rather ignorant index raisers and lowerers. The pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it implies (by contraction thereof) the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, i.e. an invariant that depends solely upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. However, the pure mathematicians Girgio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus, proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist ! Bye-bye big bang theory ! And Prof. Robitaille's careful analysis of the alleged CMB observational data of the WMAP and COBE teams reveals that there is no physical support for big bang theory at all (the WMAP and COBE reported data are deliberate falsifications of data to give the facade of correspondence to what is an invalid theory to begin with). The big bang and the black hole are scientific frauds.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
According to Einstein and his followers, his Principle of Equivalence and his Special Theory of Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field, and these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Both the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses, and so neither the Principle of Equivalence nor Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.
“Let now K be an inertial system. Masses which are sufficiently far from each other and from other bodies are then, with respect to K, free from acceleration.We shall also refer these masses to a system of co-ordinates K’,uniformly accelerated with respect to K. Relatively to K’ all the masses have equal and parallel accelerations; with respect to K’ they behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K’ were unaccelerated. Overlooking for the present the question as to the ‘cause’ of such a gravitational field, which will occupy us later, here is nothing to prevent our conceiving this gravitational field as real, that is, he conception that K’ is ‘at rest’ and a gravitational field is present we may consider as equivalent to the conception that only K is an ‘allowable’ system of co-ordinates and no gravitational field is present. The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of coordinates, K and K’, we call the ‘principle of equivalence’; this principle is evidently intimately connected with the law of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of relativity to co-ordinate systems which are in non-uniform motion relatively to each other. In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For, according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K’)."
Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, Science Paperbacks and Methuen & Co. Ltd., pp.56, 1967.
“Stated more exactly, there are finite regions, where, with respect to a suitably chosen space of reference, material particles move freely without acceleration, and in which the laws of special relativity, which have been developed above, hold with remarkable accuracy.”
Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, Science Paperbacks and Methuen & Co. Ltd., pp.57, 1967.
“We may incorporate these ideas into the principle of equivalence, which is this: In a freely falling (nonrotating) laboratory occupying a small region of spacetime, the laws of physics are the laws of special relativity.”
Foster, J., Nightingale, J. D. A short course in General Relativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1995.
“We can think of the physical realization of the local coordinate system Ko in terms of a freely floating, sufficiently small, box which is not subjected to any external forces apart from gravity, and which is falling under the influence of the latter. ... It is evidently natural to assume that the special theory of relativity should remain valid in Ko .”
Pauli, W. The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1981.
“General Relativity requires more than one free-float frame."
Taylor E. F. and Wheeler J. A. Exploring Black Holes — Introduction to General Relativity, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
“Near every event in spacetime, in a sufficiently small neighborhood, in every freely falling reference frame all phenomena (including gravitational ones) are exactly as they are in the absence of external gravitational sources.”
DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, Edited by Richard A. Matzner, CRC Press LLC,, Boca Raton, USA, 2001,
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre.timu ... ronomy.pdf
Thus, I reiterate, neither the Principle of Equivalence nor Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But that does not stop the black holers and big bangers (and Einstein himself), who never let the facts get in their way of a good story. What do they do ? They write Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, and conjure up their ridiculous black hole with it.
“Black holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein’s field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of General Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time.”
DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, Edited by Richard A. Matzner, CRC Press LLC,, Boca Raton, USA, 2001,
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre.timu ... ronomy.pdf
But since Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, it violates Einstein's physical requirements that the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity manifest in finite regions of his 'gravitational field'. Consequently Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and is inadmissible. It immediately follows from this that Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum, placing them in direct conflict with the experimental evidence, and so making them invalid. Consequently the big bang theory (and its equally ludicrous cousin the black hole) is also invalid, since it is based upon the validity of General Relativity.
What did Einstein do to try to save his theory from catastrophic violation of the usual conservation of energy and momentum ? He did something unscientific and just plain dishonest - he invented something, ad hoc, to get what he wanted; he invented his pseudo-tensor, the components of which he says are 'the “energy components” of the gravitational field' [Einstein, A. The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916, The Principle of Relativity (A collection of original memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity), Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1952] and which Einstein says 'expresses the law of conservation of momentum and energy for the gravitational field.' (Einstein, A. The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916, The Principle of Relativity (A collection of original memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity), Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1952.)
But Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols and so cannot be used for anything, and so it is invalid, and so is everything that relies upon it, and the relativists use it all the time thinking that is is valid, being as they are rather ignorant index raisers and lowerers. The pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it implies (by contraction thereof) the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, i.e. an invariant that depends solely upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. However, the pure mathematicians Girgio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus, proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist ! Bye-bye big bang theory ! And Prof. Robitaille's careful analysis of the alleged CMB observational data of the WMAP and COBE teams reveals that there is no physical support for big bang theory at all (the WMAP and COBE reported data are deliberate falsifications of data to give the facade of correspondence to what is an invalid theory to begin with). The big bang and the black hole are scientific frauds.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A Rebuttal to the Infrared Redshift Interpretation of Type Ia Supernovae
- Started by Jzz
- Replies: 10
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question Mars Colonization: A Bold Frontier or an Expensive Dream?
- Latest: Catastrophe
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram