Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(12-10-2014 01:34 PM)David Stone Wrote:  This is really quite interesting. You say I am Crothers, I am not. He is in Australia and I am in the UK.
You say Crothers makes freshman mathematical mistakes, he does not, perhaps you would care to highlight one??? You should explain what you think is in error and then correct it of course.
If you consider the point made by Inquisition, and his response to nearly 100 pages of argued reasoning in his tag line, whose failure of intellect to comprehend the world around one do you think has occurred?
Chas has a problem with the word asymptotic;
No, I don't. You and Crothers do.
Quote:infinite density and infinite gravity are absolutes, asymptotic means approaching something and is implying that the asymptotic variable never gets there
Correct.
Quote: except at infinity,
Incorrect.
Quote:and infinity is another of the concepts which you don't quite get,
Incorrect.
Quote:it cannot be real by definition.
Not quite; it can never be completed.
Quote:Simply consider what lies beyond and you are not there. Talk about how many angels on the head of a pin!
Your reference to Newtonian gravity is curious. Einsteins theory is intended to replace Newtonian gravity in toto.
Incorrect. The equations that are the descriptive model still work.
Quote:Therefore to try to depend on a different theory depending on a completely different set of assumptions, real forces and masses concerned with the effect, is crass. Nowhere does Crothers depend on anything to do with Newton to demonstrate the errors in GR.
Never said he did.
Quote:The errors in GR are logical and mathematical, for example division by zero to produce valid data, complete disregard for the theorems and structure of tensor calculus, and invention of constructs which are mere collections of mathematical symbols with no meaning whatsoever. All proved in the paper referenced which you have not read and do not understand.
There is no division by zero - that is a misunderstanding of the maths.
Quote:
I would like to discuss God next, particularly with reference to the inquisition. Do you understand what the inquisition was about, why the Church (Catholicism) was attempting to root out those who were in conflict with some church doctrines with no basis in the bible? What was carried out was evil, by men who did not understand their own faith. Here we are discussing science, and you are doing the inquisition (as are many others). The faith which is now physics has been challenged by those outside the cognoscenti of the standard model, their faith is shown to be false by their own instruments of mathematics and logic.
The point is that it hasn't been shown incorrect.
Quote:Anyone who knows the error is to be burned on the stake of the internet and you are helping them! Are you paid servants of the faith, because that is all you have as you do not understand what they have done, and cannot see why their faith in false science is all that it can be? Skewed perception by you (without the help of prayer) is all it can be!
Let your rage and paranoia out - you will feel better. Thumbsup
Quote:It is interesting to see your faith in the correctness of websites by those in question. Professor t'Hooft makes many claims, some against Crothers, but he does not support any of them with mathematics or logic. He even disagrees with Hawking, who now denies black holes (he read Crothers papers).
Incorrect - Hawking denies a singularity, not black holes, and he did that long before Crothers published anything.
Quote: t'Hooft does not engage in intellectual discussion of his allegations because they are baseless and cannot be supported, which is denial of the peer review process. He cannot therefore be taken seriously as an academic of standing, which is a pity as he may have done some good work, but not on GR.

Riiiiiiiight. You can't take a Nobel Prize winning physicist seriously when it comes to physics. Facepalm

And it's not just t'Hooft.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2014, 09:27 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(12-10-2014 01:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-10-2014 01:34 PM)David Stone Wrote:  This is really quite interesting. You say I am Crothers, I am not. He is in Australia and I am in the UK.
You say Crothers makes freshman mathematical mistakes, he does not, perhaps you would care to highlight one??? You should explain what you think is in error and then correct it of course.
If you consider the point made by Inquisition, and his response to nearly 100 pages of argued reasoning in his tag line, whose failure of intellect to comprehend the world around one do you think has occurred?
Chas has a problem with the word asymptotic;
No, I don't. You and Crothers do.
Quote:infinite density and infinite gravity are absolutes, asymptotic means approaching something and is implying that the asymptotic variable never gets there
Correct.
Quote: except at infinity,
Incorrect.
Quote:and infinity is another of the concepts which you don't quite get,
Incorrect.
Quote:it cannot be real by definition.
Not quite; it can never be completed.
Quote:Simply consider what lies beyond and you are not there. Talk about how many angels on the head of a pin!
Your reference to Newtonian gravity is curious. Einsteins theory is intended to replace Newtonian gravity in toto.
Incorrect. The equations that are the descriptive model still work.
Quote:Therefore to try to depend on a different theory depending on a completely different set of assumptions, real forces and masses concerned with the effect, is crass. Nowhere does Crothers depend on anything to do with Newton to demonstrate the errors in GR.
Never said he did.
Quote:The errors in GR are logical and mathematical, for example division by zero to produce valid data, complete disregard for the theorems and structure of tensor calculus, and invention of constructs which are mere collections of mathematical symbols with no meaning whatsoever. All proved in the paper referenced which you have not read and do not understand.
There is no division by zero - that is a misunderstanding of the maths.
Quote:
I would like to discuss God next, particularly with reference to the inquisition. Do you understand what the inquisition was about, why the Church (Catholicism) was attempting to root out those who were in conflict with some church doctrines with no basis in the bible? What was carried out was evil, by men who did not understand their own faith. Here we are discussing science, and you are doing the inquisition (as are many others). The faith which is now physics has been challenged by those outside the cognoscenti of the standard model, their faith is shown to be false by their own instruments of mathematics and logic.
The point is that it hasn't been shown incorrect.
Quote:Anyone who knows the error is to be burned on the stake of the internet and you are helping them! Are you paid servants of the faith, because that is all you have as you do not understand what they have done, and cannot see why their faith in false science is all that it can be? Skewed perception by you (without the help of prayer) is all it can be!
Let your rage and paranoia out - you will feel better. Thumbsup
Quote:It is interesting to see your faith in the correctness of websites by those in question. Professor t'Hooft makes many claims, some against Crothers, but he does not support any of them with mathematics or logic. He even disagrees with Hawking, who now denies black holes (he read Crothers papers).
Incorrect - Hawking denies a singularity, not black holes, and he did that long before Crothers published anything.
Quote: t'Hooft does not engage in intellectual discussion of his allegations because they are baseless and cannot be supported, which is denial of the peer review process. He cannot therefore be taken seriously as an academic of standing, which is a pity as he may have done some good work, but not on GR.

Riiiiiiiight. You can't take a Nobel Prize winning physicist seriously when it comes to physics. Facepalm

And it's not just t'Hooft.

I note that you conveniently fail to cite these:

The Black Hole Catastrophe:‭ ‬A Short Reply to J.‭ ‬J.‭ ‬Sharples,
http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0032

The Black Hole Catastrophe:‭ ‬a Reply to J.‭ ‬J.‭ ‬Sharples,
http://vixra.org/abs/1011.0062

Also, in GR gravity is not a force, it is spacetime curvature. A black hole supposedly has a finite mass and at its singularity density is infinite and spacetime curvature infinite. So a finite mass produces infinite gravity!

Furthermore, all proponents of black holes claim that black holes have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously and at the same place!

It's obvious you and others here have not read the paper cited by David Stone,
General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate,
http://viXra.org/abs/1409.0072

Finally, I note that none who defend holes and bangs here have offered a single scientific argument in opposition to the paper 'General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate'. But then again, neither did 't Hooft. So it seems you're done!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2014, 09:44 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
It must be a sad, sad day when a "scientist" has to resort to posting on any non-scientific site to have their hypothesis heard and discussed.

Einstein

You might have us confused with:

http://phys.org/journals/astrophysical-journal/
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X
http://web.mit.edu/astrophysics/
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu

If you'd like to submit a paper to The Astrophysical Journal here's the link http://apj.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex, and please let us know when it comes out...can't wait.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Full Circle's post
13-10-2014, 05:04 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
Are David Stone and noblackhole the same person, or acolytes?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 05:48 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(12-10-2014 09:27 PM)noblackhole Wrote:  
(12-10-2014 01:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I don't. You and Crothers do.
Correct.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Not quite; it can never be completed.
Incorrect. The equations that are the descriptive model still work.
Never said he did.
There is no division by zero - that is a misunderstanding of the maths.
The point is that it hasn't been shown incorrect.
Let your rage and paranoia out - you will feel better. Thumbsup
Incorrect - Hawking denies a singularity, not black holes, and he did that long before Crothers published anything.

Riiiiiiiight. You can't take a Nobel Prize winning physicist seriously when it comes to physics. Facepalm

And it's not just t'Hooft.

I note that you conveniently fail to cite these:

The Black Hole Catastrophe:‭ ‬A Short Reply to J.‭ ‬J.‭ ‬Sharples,
http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0032

The Black Hole Catastrophe:‭ ‬a Reply to J.‭ ‬J.‭ ‬Sharples,
http://vixra.org/abs/1011.0062

Also, in GR gravity is not a force, it is spacetime curvature. A black hole supposedly has a finite mass and at its singularity density is infinite and spacetime curvature infinite. So a finite mass produces infinite gravity!

Furthermore, all proponents of black holes claim that black holes have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously and at the same place!

It's obvious you and others here have not read the paper cited by David Stone,
General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate,
http://viXra.org/abs/1409.0072

Finally, I note that none who defend holes and bangs here have offered a single scientific argument in opposition to the paper 'General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate'. But then again, neither did 't Hooft. So it seems you're done!

Sorry, pal. Black holes don't have infinite gravity. You are wrong from the get-go.

You have an obsession based on misunderstanding.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-10-2014, 06:00 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(12-10-2014 09:27 PM)noblackhole Wrote:  I note that you conveniently fail to cite these:

The Black Hole Catastrophe:‭ ‬A Short Reply to J.‭ ‬J.‭ ‬Sharples,
http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0032

The Black Hole Catastrophe:‭ ‬a Reply to J.‭ ‬J.‭ ‬Sharples,
http://vixra.org/abs/1011.0062

I didn't "conveniently fail to cite" anything - those weren't relevant to the point I was making.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
So far Chas you have not made any points, all you have done is denied the points made by others. All your denials are unsupported in any way, which is a result of faith, which presumably you deny in all its forms!

If you have a science forum you must expect science to be discussed, particularly when posters have already mentioned important science in a very rude and derogatory way towards the author. I have attempted to discuss science, and others have begun to join me with interesting posts. However your "regulars" have made no attempt at any form of scientific discussion, and therefore have shown themselves to have infinite faith in the god "physics" as it is taught through the available publications. I notice that the comment on theism and atheism is similar, no content, just ad hominem remarks. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) It would seem that you do not seek knowledge here, or truth, or even certainty. So I wonder what you have in life, which is clearly none of these things.

Several have accused me of having more than one name on the forum, I have not! It is very small minded to believe (faith again) that everyone agrees with your position.

t'Hooft may well have a Nobel prize, but these are unfortunately not awarded on merit. This proved by the failure of the last 3 physics prize winners to provide proper scientific support for their findings, and for others to find so many errors in their work that it is clearly a lottery. Even NASA has walked away from COBE data, and the prize winner is now almost a non-person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
I notice I failed to answer a point by Chas.

We need to examine the idea of a singularity. A singularity is by definition a single value in a mathematical expression which is not defined and therefore can have no known properties. These often occur as a result of division by zero. GR gives the singularity properties of mass, infinite space-time curvature, and therefore by definition infinite gravity, leading to total material collapse to a singular point (that point being the singularity). The big bang theories also give the same or similar properties to a singularity, and therefore are by definition invalid as it is impossible for a singularity to have properties at all by definition. Your claims for a singularity (as in GR as the centre of a black hole) are therefore entirely false without even examining the mathematics further. Gravitational collapse is often quoted as leading to infinite density, whereas even you must see that this is mechanically impossible, your famous infinity can never be approached as I stated, and your argument is completely refuted without a single equation. The faith you are showing is that the GR mathematics mimics reality and it does not, so again is false. Once you remove infinite density, space time is not infinitely curved and light cannot be prevented from permanent escape. But then that doesn't happen in reality either, perhaps a "black hole" is entirely different from Einstein's construction, and it might be worth you while to look at his mathematical errors, just for interest, you never know you might come up with a better theory!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(13-10-2014 07:36 AM)David Stone Wrote:  So far Chas you have not made any points, all you have done is denied the points made by others. All your denials are unsupported in any way, which is a result of faith, which presumably you deny in all its forms!
<snip
>

Several have accused me of having more than one name on the forum, I have not! It is very small minded to believe (faith again) that everyone agrees with your position.

t'Hooft may well have a Nobel prize, but these are unfortunately not awarded on merit. This proved by the failure of the last 3 physics prize winners to provide proper scientific support for their findings, and for others to find so many errors in their work that it is clearly a lottery. Even NASA has walked away from COBE data, and the prize winner is now almost a non-person.

I dismiss you because you have shown all the signs of being a crank, like the bolded statement above.

Poor you - 'The Establishment' is against you, the Nobel committee is corrupt, your papers are suppressed, everyone else is incompetent.
Your maths have been shown to be wrong by competent physicists.

You should try to understand the objections instead of whining like a five-year-old.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
13-10-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(13-10-2014 07:58 AM)David Stone Wrote:  I notice I failed to answer a point by Chas.

We need to examine the idea of a singularity. A singularity is by definition a single value in a mathematical expression which is not defined and therefore can have no known properties. These often occur as a result of division by zero.

You are conflating mathematical notation and reality.

Quote: GR gives the singularity properties of mass, infinite space-time curvature, and therefore by definition infinite gravity, leading to total material collapse to a singular point (that point being the singularity). The big bang theories also give the same or similar properties to a singularity, and therefore are by definition invalid as it is impossible for a singularity to have properties at all by definition.

The idea that the Big Bang starts from a singularity is simply one hypothesis, and it is not held by all physicists, e.g. Hawking says there was no singularity.

Quote: Your claims for a singularity (as in GR as the centre of a black hole)

When did I claim that? I didn't as I don't think that is the case. Black holes do not have infinite gravity - the idea is ludicrous.

Quote: are therefore entirely false without even examining the mathematics further. Gravitational collapse is often quoted as leading to infinite density,

If your argument is based on this, you are basing it on a misunderstanding.

Quote:whereas even you must see that this is mechanically impossible, your famous infinity can never be approached as I stated, and your argument is completely refuted without a single equation.

Not my argument. I see that you are tilting at windmills of your own devising.

Quote:The faith you are showing is that the GR mathematics mimics reality and it does not, so again is false. Once you remove infinite density, space time is not infinitely curved and light cannot be prevented from permanent escape.

I don't claim it does. And again, infinite density is not required.

Quote:But then that doesn't happen in reality either, perhaps a "black hole" is entirely different from Einstein's construction, and it might be worth you while to look at his mathematical errors, just for interest, you never know you might come up with a better theory!

You can play with the maths all you want, but the problem is that the evidence strongly indicates that black holes exist. Deal with it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: