Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2014, 12:55 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
So why do you abuse Crothers. He only says that GR is false, and if black holes have another construction we can look at that. This forum seems to want it all ways, I am a crank (not proven as you have no idea of my work, although you may gather that mathematics may have some part), Crothers is a crank although you are unable to give any reason why this might be a reasonable conclusion, Black holes exist but may have no connection to GR, the big bang may have happened but might have no relation to anything we can prove etc. I don't have to deal with this, the evidence for gravitational waves is zero, the evidence for black holes is zero (despite the increasingly desperate claims), the CBR is shown to be a result of faulty experiments, the big bang needs to define what was there before (otherwise it is simple creationism, just as the bible says), and so far no one here has made a SINGLE SCIENTIFIC POINT! That's where you are at, disappointing isn't it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(10-04-2014 03:32 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  Edit: Nevermind, I found what I was looking for after some more searching. Apparently Crothers is merely a crackpot, and part of a group of crackpots that believe in some pseudo-science called the Electric Universe theory. He uses the rejection of his claims by the scientific community as a defense of "They won't give me any acknowledgement because my claims go against the theories of people like Hawking and Einstein! They know that I'm actually right! They just don't want to admit it!" Sadly, there are people who fall for this bullshit, like the guy who tried to use Crothers' arguments as a defense against me. Glad I found out who he was though. Leaves me with another weapon in my arsenal when confronted with bogus scientific claims.

I really hate assholes who think God started out of nothing (mind you that infinite regress blows this bullshit out of the water) But that they use the god of the gaps to prop up their particular god as if other god claims have never existed.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 01:03 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(13-10-2014 12:55 PM)David Stone Wrote:  So why do you abuse Crothers. He only says that GR is false, and if black holes have another construction we can look at that. This forum seems to want it all ways, I am a crank (not proven as you have no idea of my work, although you may gather that mathematics may have some part), Crothers is a crank although you are unable to give any reason why this might be a reasonable conclusion, Black holes exist but may have no connection to GR, the big bang may have happened but might have no relation to anything we can prove etc. I don't have to deal with this, the evidence for gravitational waves is zero, the evidence for black holes is zero (despite the increasingly desperate claims), the CBR is shown to be a result of faulty experiments, the big bang needs to define what was there before (otherwise it is simple creationism, just as the bible says), and so far no one here has made a SINGLE SCIENTIFIC POINT! That's where you are at, disappointing isn't it?

What is truly disappointing is that you have ignored what has actually been said here, we have cited several reasons why Crothers can be considered a crank, you are wrong about the evidence for the CBR, and there does not need to be an explanation of what was before the Big Bang - that is exactly like the creationist argument against evolution.

So, crank away.

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, 08:25 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
Chas - You are wrong. Gravity is not a force in GR, it is spacetime curvature. According to Einstein and the cosmologists the more spacetime is curved the greater Einstein's alleged gravitational field. At the singularity of the black hole spacetime is, say the black holers, infinitely curved. A black hole they also say has a finite mass. Thus, they do indeed claim that a finite mass produces infinite gravity.

The black holers also claim that a black hole has and does not have an escape velocity (or escape speed) simultaneously and at the same place. Well, that is nonsense. If you and your colleagues think not, then provide your proof that a mass can have and not have an escape speed simultaneously and at the same place.

You have not provided a single scientific argument. All you have done is render abuse and derision and parade your ignorance. It is obvious that you don't know what is in the paper cited by David Stone:

Crothers, S. J., General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate
http://viXra.org/abs/1409.0072

It is plain to sober readers here that you have an agenda other than science, since you provide no scientific arguments. Like it or not, you, and the black hole, are done!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(13-10-2014 01:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 12:55 PM)David Stone Wrote:  So why do you abuse Crothers. He only says that GR is false, and if black holes have another construction we can look at that. This forum seems to want it all ways, I am a crank (not proven as you have no idea of my work, although you may gather that mathematics may have some part), Crothers is a crank although you are unable to give any reason why this might be a reasonable conclusion, Black holes exist but may have no connection to GR, the big bang may have happened but might have no relation to anything we can prove etc. I don't have to deal with this, the evidence for gravitational waves is zero, the evidence for black holes is zero (despite the increasingly desperate claims), the CBR is shown to be a result of faulty experiments, the big bang needs to define what was there before (otherwise it is simple creationism, just as the bible says), and so far no one here has made a SINGLE SCIENTIFIC POINT! That's where you are at, disappointing isn't it?

What is truly disappointing is that you have ignored what has actually been said here, we have cited several reasons why Crothers can be considered a crank, you are wrong about the evidence for the CBR, and there does not need to be an explanation of what was before the Big Bang - that is exactly like the creationist argument against evolution.

So, crank away.

Chas - once again you are wrong, and you provide not one shed of a scientific argument. You continue to parade your ignorance of science. The COBE, WMAP and Planck satellites are space junk:

Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille,
The Cosmic Microwave Background,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

It is a scientific fact that no monopole signal has been detected beyond the influence of Earth. And so the curtain falls on the so-called 'CMB'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(13-10-2014 05:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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

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.

Chas, you are wrong again, and as usual you give no scientific argument whatsoever and merely parade your ignorance. Gravity is not a force in GR, it is spacetime curvature. According to Einstein and his followers the more spacetime is curved the 'stronger' his 'gravitational field'. The black holers assert that a black hole has finite mass and that at the singularity of every black hole spacetime is 'infinitely curved'. Thus, they do in fact assert that a finite mass produces infinite 'gravity'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 08:44 PM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(13-10-2014 06:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

Now you've told another big fib there Chas. You ignored the fact that the website David Stone cited contains the two responses to Sharples. Anybody can visit that website and see the papers there. You did not include them, obviously, because this does not meet with your agenda, which is other than science, bearing in mind that you have not provided a single scientific argument. All you ever do is resort to abuse and derision, and parade your ignorance of science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 04:29 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(13-10-2014 08:25 PM)noblackhole Wrote:  Chas - You are wrong. Gravity is not a force in GR, it is spacetime curvature. According to Einstein and the cosmologists the more spacetime is curved the greater Einstein's alleged gravitational field. At the singularity of the black hole spacetime is, say the black holers, infinitely curved. A black hole they also say has a finite mass. Thus, they do indeed claim that a finite mass produces infinite gravity.

The black holers also claim that a black hole has and does not have an escape velocity (or escape speed) simultaneously and at the same place. Well, that is nonsense. If you and your colleagues think not, then provide your proof that a mass can have and not have an escape speed simultaneously and at the same place.

You have not provided a single scientific argument. All you have done is render abuse and derision and parade your ignorance. It is obvious that you don't know what is in the paper cited by David Stone:

Crothers, S. J., General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate
http://viXra.org/abs/1409.0072

It is plain to sober readers here that you have an agenda other than science, since you provide no scientific arguments. Like it or not, you, and the black hole, are done!

Nice rant. I didn't say that gravity was a force in GR, but you read what you want instead of what is said.

Keep referencing buffoon sites like viXra.org - it does wonders for your credibility.

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
18-10-2014, 04:45 AM
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
Quote: Keep referencing buffoon sites like viXra.org - it does wonders for your credibility.

Well lets try again Chas, as you are obviously in need of some help.
Why is vixra a "buffoon" site?
Just answer Crothers mathematics and we will believe you, otherwise you show yourself to be simply a pedagog without the knowledge to back it up, perhaps that explains your headline!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2014, 06:57 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2014 07:01 AM by Chas.)
RE: Stephen Crothers And The Rejection Of The Big Bang Theory
(18-10-2014 04:45 AM)David Stone Wrote:  
Quote: Keep referencing buffoon sites like viXra.org - it does wonders for your credibility.

Well lets try again Chas, as you are obviously in need of some help.
Why is vixra a "buffoon" site?
Just answer Crothers mathematics and we will believe you, otherwise you show yourself to be simply a pedagog without the knowledge to back it up, perhaps that explains your headline!

It's spelled "pedagogue" and it means teacher. You, however, are a poor student.

The viXra site accepts submissions without requiring authors to have an academic affiliation and without any threshold for quality. Every crank ends up there.

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: