Addendum #1. I sent Electric Universe’s Wal Thornhill my ‘A Sky Dance’ video. Here’s his reply:
Thanks Allan,
they look like ionospheric sprites usually seen above powerful thunderstorms. But they could be there in a clear sky to power an earthquake.
Very interesting!
Wal
Check out the Wiki photo (jnset) of an Ionospheric sprite. Yep, looks like that’s what it was. Those of you who haven’t done so yet, please go to the Electric Universe site, and to Wal’s site as well. Trust me; you will learn something.
The fuzzy blob looks exactly like my images in ‘A Sky Dance.’
I believe that Wal has solved – or at least come close — the issue of the mechanism of gravity. (Einstein’s curved space theory is not only incorrect, but… ‘not even wrong’, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, since his reasoning is clearly circular: Einstein gives us no mechanism for how mass ‘bends’ space-time, so he has really told us nothing. In fact, he has not even told us what ‘space-time’ is. For example, what metric would you use in measuring ‘space-time’? Meters? Seconds? ‘Meter-seconds’? Meaningless crapola.)
Addendum #2: I ask you to think about the fact that the substance of what follows on this post cannot be found anywhere (that I am aware of) at any alt media outlet. Add to that the fact that what I’ll tell you today is, One, True, and Two, Important.
#
Pretty much every morning I wake up with the thought that I’ll finish the Sam Harris letter today, but then something distracts me. Next thing I know it’s sundown and I’m futzing with my camera and rummaging for a good movie to watch.
Film festival deep state fodder.
This morning – aside from Wal Thornhill’s revelation in my Inbox – the distraction was a movie I finally watched yesterday (I’d been putting it off) and which has been bugging me almost since the opening credits. The movie is titled Behind the Curve, and is about the flat earth ‘movement.’ (Clever title, no? I mean, as clever as, say, Into Thin Air, and clever for the same multiple-meanings reason.)
I knew from the get-go that it’s a spook movie promoting a spook agenda/black op, so after my viewing I did some quick research on the filmmakers; I quickly found an interview wherein Caroline Clark, one of the producers, blabbed that she’d done a previous film, on the Sandy Hook ‘hoaxers.’ Patrolling Sandy Hook is that one’s title. Turned out to be a hit piece on Wolfgang Halbig, one of the true heroes of the exposure of that hoax.
Two college spookettes grilled about their black op movie.
Although I wasn’t about to waste a lot of time on exposing the filmmakers as state moles, it didn’t take long to find additional evidence. In this clip of Caroline Clark answering audience questions at the Brooklyn Film Festival, she is unable to answer two simple and direct queries: Who (in the production) decided to target Wolfgang Halbig and why the ‘outside money’ all went to their production when it was supposed to be for all student projects (it was technically a Notre Dame student film). The stuttering non-response said it all, i.e., the same entity who financed the film also told them to target Wolfgang. An added takeaway from this mess is the extent of infiltration of black ops on our college campuses (as if we needed more evidence of that!). The knowledge that Behind the Curve is part of a black op makes the film a more interesting experience.
In fact, the film (it’s all over the Net) really is worth a view if you view it as an exercise in understanding how these ops work. Here are a few of my notes:
Mark Sargent, flat earth scumbag.
The Flat Earth Op has been quite successful – otherwise they would not be promoting it with this film (nor would they bother to make the film). Yes, in spite of the half-assed proofs that the earth is in fact a sphere, the film is very pro-flat earth.
Addendum: They could have ended the ‘controversy’ 5 minutes in, when, from the south shore of Whidbey Island, Washington State, Mark Sargent pointed at the Seattle skyline and said that given the distance ‘…all we should see is the tops of the tallest buildings.’ Meanwhile, that’s precisely what we do see, i.e., the tops of a handful of buildings. (See insert)
The FE target audience is made clear from the get-go: folks who tend to feel ‘alienated’ and who don’t trust the PTB. Yes, obvious, but it’s nice to see them formally own up. (I say ‘obvious’ but I mean in subtext and if you’re paying attention.)
A grab from the film showing exactly what you’d see of Seattle if the earth was round…
Since they were looking for a ‘wide release,’ there were some fine lines they had to tap dance around. With one or two exceptions no FEers were displayed as nut-jobs, and the two main characters, Sargent and ‘Patricia Steere’ were given wide latitude to look ‘normal’ and even ‘charming.’
An amusing moment was Steere telling us that she had never thought about the fact that the last three letters of her first name are ‘CIA’ and that she is meant to ‘steer’ the masses. She goes on to say that the CIA wouldn’t be so stupid as to name an operative that way. This produced a howl from yours truly, plus a bit of embarrassment – I hadn’t thought of her name as meaningful in that way. (The spooks in fact love that sort of thing.) Steere of course is a classic honeypot/dangle, a fantasy for alienated, lonely single guys, i.e., the classic ‘mom’s basement’ Youtube viewer.
Spook honeypot ‘Patricia Steere.’
Another good moment was Sargent’s reaction to an unexpected query from the audience: ‘Who in the CIA planted you in the movement?’ His deer-in-the-headlights look was priceless. Then the questioner let him off the hook with ‘Just kidding.’ (I assume the spooks included that moment for a private laugh.)
What was new to me was a clarification. I’d always wondered about the percentage of moles to useful idiots (in this case the term fits), assuming that most of the ‘names’ were of the former. I still see it that way but was nevertheless surprised at how many idiots the movement has corralled.
Since I’m in no mood to do a formal analysis of the film I’ll just point out three other significant moments, two of which are disheartening (which is why I’m not in the mood, etc..). Near the end, at the ‘conference’ we see a kid of about 12 asking Sargent a question after his keynote speech. He’s a FEer and his parents (talk about useful idiots!) had brought him. Bad enough but soon thereafter Sargent read a note from a ‘grandparent’ bragging that the family is now ‘three generations of flat earthers.’
Sargent’s reaction to the ‘CIA’ question from the audience.
Hence the film, its wide release, and its success at film festivals; they want more. (Apparently, Patrolling Sandy Hook didn’t do as well, as it’s currently very difficult to find on the web.)
Keep in mind that the FE movement’s main agenda – aside from discrediting NASA hoax exposers (like me) — is as grist for the A.I. mill. They of course want to know to what extent they can get Americans to believe whatever utter horse shit they tell them to believe but it’s more than that. Their algorithm(s) want to know how exactly to turn people into morons, and, just as importantly, who demographically can be turned. So it keeps a close eye on who watches what (plus google searches) and what they do afterwards.
Science Gatekeeper Sean Carroll. Enlarge to see ‘us.’ WHERE THE FUCK IS THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE, SEAN?
Now, back to Sam Harris…
Allan
I came across this image of Sean Carroll at a presentation about ‘The Big Picture’ and for a beat put myself in the audience yelling out a question as he shows the famous ‘Pale Blue Dot’ photo. (Supposedly inspired by Carl Sagan who had NASA turn the Voyager space probe around to do an earth ‘selfie’): ‘Hey, Sean, where are the stars?’ I cannot imagine his answer, given that the earth’s luminosity at that distance (a billion miles) would have made it the faintest speck in the sky.
One last thing. Another impossible feat from Spacex: This time they landed all three boosters (three days ago). Here’s the proof!
It just never stops, does it?
Okay, Sean. This post is now closed. I have a new post just for you, Sean! Have fun with it!
I just now read a lot of this. You are expecting a six year old to understand relativity? Seriously? How do you explain 1+1=2 in poetry, or music? It still comes down to 1+1=2. Not 3, not 1, not 11. The language of physics and relativity is math. Writing a nice story about it, or a video isn’t going to make 1+1=3 no matter how great or convincing the explanation is. And if you are really, absolutely convinced you want to prove 1+1=3, guess what you’re going to have to use? Math! Sean tried to explain it multiple ways, and everyone seemed rather thick about it. You can only simplify it so much, and if you only have a simple understanding of it, you’re not going to successfully prove relativity wrong. To be honest, no one here including me and Sean (and Crothers) seems capable of such an understanding of the mathematical fundamentals. Like cavemen arguing about iPhones. Unga bunga bunga. Grunt!
LOL just googled unga bunga. Whoops. Yeah, not what I meant. I thought it was nonsensical. Always double check. Urban dictionary definition was news to me. Yikes. What is the unga bunga joke? I don’t think I want to know.
This is a re-post with separated URLs given suggestion by ‘Todd’ in response to Allan’s ‘Sean-post’ comment thread which seem to disappear.
Notice Allan is continuously raising the ceiling of knowledge despite the fact that
1. Allan has no clue and cannot verify neither Crothers’ nor the rebuttal of Crothers’ arguments with mathematical rigor which is in fact the only meaningful way.
2. Allan he himself, who objects the falsehood and tricks dished out by the flat earth society, does not set out to debunk every one of those. Yet he seems to be using the tactic on me: “Hey Sean, you have mathematical argument for 1. Now let’s skip math and do 2, 3, 4, 5, … If the 19th does not check out by linguistic explanation, Crothers wins.” But the fact is that he cannot and will not understand any of the existing proofs regarding the extent to which Crothers is wrong.
Well, in response to Allan’s links I dish out the equals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t-7-rUyW3I
One of black hole theories most egregious logical/empirical contradictions is in its definition of ‘escape speed,’ which Steve C perfectly points out in his paper at
http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v6.pdf
As he says below:
Similarly, the astronomers and cosmologists assign to their black hole two different escape speeds (v_esc = 0 metres per second and v_esc = c = 300,000,000 metres per second, and in the same equation) and no capacity for an escape speed (since nothing can even leave), simultaneously, at the same place (at the ‘event horizon’). But nothing can have two different escape speeds and no capacity for an escape speed, simultaneously, at the same place! (See [1]). Furthermore, the astronomers and cosmologists assert that the escape speed at the event horizon is the speed of light, yet light cannot either leave or escape; indeed, nothing, they say, can even leave the event horizon. But since light travels at the speed of light, which is the escape speed at the event horizon, light must both leave it and escape! And, moreover, anything else can leave.
I urge everyone to go to Steve’s paper (link above) to see the diagram he includes (scroll to ‘Black Hole Escape Velocity’). None of Sean’s mathematical mumbo jumbo can misdirect us from the obvious nonsense. Sean, if you can’t answer how there can be and not be an escape speed at the same time/place, please admit your error, or shut up.
Why then, Allan, haven’t you approved the ‘moderation’? It includes two links that narrate to you what’s going on behind the linguistic confusion.
Sean, the behavior with this WP website is if you post a comment with two URL’s, it will automatically await moderation. If you wish no moderation, use less than two.
Allan deleted a thread of comments. Screenshots to prove.
Then resubmit with less than two URLs.
Steve Crothers has seen fit to reply to Sean’s ramblings. Scroll down for two of them (so far). To add to his thoughts about the recent ‘photos’ of a ‘black hole’ here is Wal Thornhill’s analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4NffTr_GMk
Pray to your master as you wish Allan. I’ve formally responded to your ‘post’ comment and it’s awaiting ‘moderation’.
None of your replies need moderation. Why are you lying about this? Is this some absurd attempt to claim that you’ve proved your point but I’m censoring it? Pitiful.
Also, be advised that my readers are aware of how misdirection works. Your failure to answer simple questions (like how there can be an escape speed and no escape speed at the same time/place) gives your game away.
This is the second time you are deleting my comment. Wanna see the screenshots?
Notice Allan is continuously raising the ceiling of knowledge despite the fact that
1. Allan has no clue and cannot verify neither Crothers’ nor the rebuttal of Crothers’ arguments with mathematical rigor which is in fact the only meaning way.
2. Allan he himself, who objects the falsehood and tricks dished out by the flat earth society, does not set out to debunk every one of those. Yet he seems to be using the tactic on me: “Hey Sean, you have mathematical argument for 1. Now do 2, 3, 4, 5… If 999 does not check out, Crothers wins.” But the fact is that he cannot not and will not understand any of the existing proofs regarding the extent to which Crothers is wrong.
Well, in response to his links I dish out the equals. Feel free to point out where the mathematics are fudged and I will respond to that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t-7-rUyW3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
1000mph? Uhmmm. Hmmmm. Where is that being measured? “Spinning about an axis” at 1000mph? Sigh.
Like how planet earth spins at 1000mph? Sorry you missed that, I’ll break it down into easier pieces for ypu next time. Do go on? The organic matter?
He has a point, though. If the theory relies on black holes being eternal, it must be wrong due to them evaporating through Hawking radiation. No black hole is eternal. If it indeed relies on that. I’m sorry?
See Steve C’s replies to Sean. If you’re interested in this subject (and you should be), it takes a little looking into.
Do you know what a penumbra is? How about an umbra?
We may well live on a plane but eventually it will have to land for fresh fuel.
It’s this prick ‘Mellanonin’ above, obviously,,,he’s so knob-cheesy he has to sign in again under an alias, hahaha, too funny.
April 16, 2019 at 7:13 pm
‘Todd’ stated:
“… He’s certainly … and keeps ignoring (maybe misdirecting) any details of what’s wrong with the specifics of what Crothers puts forth.”
In response, one presents a low-level yet fundamental and key mistake in Crothers’ attempt to disprove SR.
Check 34 mins in at Crother’s complete set of arguments against special relativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zWy6_Mog70&t=2078s
To clarify Crothers’ linear algebra mistake, look at the Lorentz formulation listed by him linking at the top after 34min.
There are four equations implied: x’=f(x, t), t’ = g(x,t), where x, t are independent variables for one system; since no observer is privileged by principle of relativity symmetrically we have x=k(x’,t’), t=h(x’,t’) where x’, t’ are independent variables for the other system (just switch out x with x’, t with t’ and v with -v).
This implies if two inertial systems have nonzero constant relative velocity then one frame’s interpretation of another system’s clock-readings must involve both its own time and location readings, same with distance. When Crothers algebraically cancels out x, which is actually redundant (indicating conceptual inferiority) since it’s exactly the function t=h(x’, t’), for each value of t_i there’s a distinct linear relationship between x’ and t’ where t’=t_i(x’) holds true.
There are two things to notice here: First, due to the fact that v is not zero the slope is not zero. Second, for different t_i it’s only the interception that changes. This means we are no longer looking at the primed inertial system’s own right since now as we walk with incremental distance x’ away from our origin in the primed system we must adjust t’ with the fixed proportionality so that the intersection stays the same for every distinctive t_i. And since clock-readings of {t_i} has nothing to do with the primed system’s clock-synchronizing process this adjustment is purely artificial in the primed system and has nothing to do with its own clock-synchronicity. When Crothers sets t_i=0, he in fact is looking at the set of {(t’,x’)} that defines all possible scenario in terms of locations and clock-readings in the primed system such that no matter where a person is in the unprimed system the clock-readings of t would be zero.
I have one bar and will try to post this. Sean, non of us are mathematicians, so let’s stick to logic and critical thinking. Below is a talk Crothers gave on LIGO’s ‘detection of black holes colliding.’ Maybe start with his beginning bit about black hole universes and how they cannot be combined with big bang universes. It appears to me that this is enough to debunk black holes and all that comes with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E
Please, no math, just explain Steve’s chart. And do not dodge or cherry pick some irrelevancy. This is not about Crothers, but about mainstream physics’s deceptions. Via logic, all it takes is one impossibility in the theory (of black holes) to debunk it.
I had forgotten that last time you chimed in you refused to answer simple questions (thanks to Todd for reminding me). Let’s not have a repeat of that. The question here is how black holes can exist in the various big bang theoretical universes.
Given the chart at 2:35 from Allan’s link above, the ‘incompatibility’ argument forwarded by Crothers hinges on the alleged contradiction that ‘Black Hole universes are eternal (given a static solution) and Big Bang universes have a beginning.’
To show that no such logical inconsistency exists, one simply observe that relativity does not suggest black holes are eternal, rather they evaporate away through Hawking radiation. Specific solutions exist for spherically-symmetric electromagnetic radiation, e.g. the Vaidya solution which can be combined with expanding-universe solution to be exactly consistent with Einstein’s field equations.
I maintain the fact that one cannot make virtually any scientific argument without mathematics. This is in spite of the fact that Crothers can no longer claim that ‘black holes have never been observed.’ given the EHT breakthrough.
You write, “the alleged contradiction that ‘Black Hole UNIVERSES are eternal” (emphasis added), and then you write, “[but] relativity does not suggest BLACK HOLES are eternal, rather they evaporate away….”
I.e., you express Crothers correctly (“black hole universes are eternal”), but you address quite a different issue (black holes themselves).
You also write that Crothers’ incompatibility argument HINGES on the eternal nature of black hole universes, despite the fact that that is only point #3 out of 6.
Crothers’ chart shows 6/six contradictions. You picked only one and falsely claimed that it was the linchpin. Then you didn’t even address the actual assertion, but rephrased it into something else. Disproving something your opponent did not in fact claim is the very definition of “strawman”. There is no amount of math, no matter how sophisticated, that will make your argument above relevant, let alone valid.
I’m left wondering if this is deliberate misdirection, or if you are so enchanted by mainstream physics that you honestly didn’t see what you did there. You will now a) ignore this; b) say, Oops, and then provide the argument you should have made; or c) wave some more math in an argument as askew to mine as the above was to Crothers’s.
“I.e., you express Crothers correctly (“black hole universes are eternal”), but you address quite a different issue (black holes themselves).”
No. Here ‘black hole universe’ refers to the black hole itself in its entirety which Crothers incorrectly argues can’t not coexist inside a big bang universe.
‘You also write that Crothers’ incompatibility argument HINGES on the eternal nature of black hole universes, despite the fact that that is only point #3 out of 6.’
#3 is the key where Crothers demonstrates his fallacy by focusing on static solutions only and yet dynamical solutions do exist. In fact, Crothers used #3 as the leading point for the argument that black holes cannot exist in big bang universes during interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c68WLDArWUw.
Point #1,2,4,5 involve purely mathematical misconceptions. Since now you demand it, I will write up a separate entry in proper language.
Point #6 again falls back to the lack of understanding regarding solutions of the Einstein field equations.
In case you’re wondering about the ‘other’ contradictions’ listed in the chart, note that they are of the same very nature which originates from Crothers’ inability to progress forward with different solutions (e.g. one that’s capable of allowing coexistence of multiple black holes) consistent with Einstein’s field equations.
To explain any further and completely take apart every absurd assertion from Crothers mandates straight graduate level mathematics. That’s the reason Crothers’ linear algebra mistake with SR should be one of the most understandable for a proper perspective on this con artist.
If your grad-level-math rebuttals of the other 5 are as on-point as your rebuttal of #3, Crothers remains unchallenged here. Especially since you most likely picked on the one you felt most confident you could.
Let me put it this way, neither you nor Allan understand the mathematics behind the arguments Crothers put forward. That means you don’t understand the arguments. Period. Let alone logic since you cannot verify the premise to begin with.
While I compile in as simple terms as possible the abuse of mathematical concept for #1,2,4,5# (it will involve math), why don’t you try to understand freshman linear algebra mistake made by Crothers for his arguments against SR written above?
No ‘Sean’, you are wrong. General Relativity is a nonlinear theory so the Principle of Superposition doe not hold. Let X be some black hole universe and Y some big bang universe. Then X + Y is not a universe, neither is X + X, or Y + Y, because superposition does not hold. so how do the astronomers and cosmologists get all their phantasmagorial black holes and stars etc., all together inside some big bang universe? They superpose! General Relativity cannot account for anything beyond one mass. Newton’s theory puts no limitation on the number of masses present and does not prevent superposition. So Sean, give us all a set of Einstein field equations for just two masses inside some big bang universe.
No one said anything about superposition. In fact, the dynamic solution does not do so specifically.
In terms of coexistence and many-mass problem, I would instead wait until the formal paper of EHT discovery is published.
I have a problem with non mathematicians arguing mathematics using logic alone, which in itself is a form of mathematics. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Arguing against Einstein involves terrible math. You can’t prove it wrong with logic alone. Your head is going to hurt beating it against the wall like that.
Really? My head isn’t going to hurt at all. Here’s another one that ‘Sean’ will not deal with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzyxl-xVc
Do as you wish. Good luck.
I’ll be in the outback of Kentucky and offline for a couple days. We’ll talk then. Beautiful here, btw.
UPDATE: Friday the 19th and I am back and happy to see that Steve Crothers has answered Sean’s ramblings. Anyone really wishing to take apart this matter should go to Steve’s paper here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v6.pdf
Please have a good time, and get a refresh. Best wishes.
Allan you sure attract a lot of “pompous know-it-alls”. I saw the Flat Earth doc and they do kind of show that these folks are idiots, but rather subtly. You see some of their experiments fail big time, but then leave it hanging.
My theory about flat earth is two-fold- 1) take the wind out of the moon landings were faked momentum, and 2) as a way to measure how stupid is populous generalis. After all a rapid descent into idiocracy before the robotics and automation are ready to replace us could hamper that goal.
Yes, flat-earthers are so idiotic in such a subtle way. *rolls eyes* And keep trying to prove Einstein wrong, like a caveman trying to explain an iPhone. All the other cavemen, “Yeah, I get it…”
Being so dismissive of Einstein is practically the definition of pompous know-it-all ignorance.
Some dissent with that:
“Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. . . . Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”
— Tesla, New York Times, July 11, 1935, p. 23 c.8
Great quote and right on the money. Sean? No comeback?
Tesla failed because of his inability to do the math, so don’t get all horn tooty. He never realized he couldn’t just keep increasing the power, something he could have proven, and saved himself a lot of grief. As great as he was, who cares what he thought about Einstein, who was in another league. Does anyone care what Bill Nye thinks of Hawking?
@ Chris: ???
Tesla “failed” in his personal life and in business, neither of which are relevant to his grasp of physics. Which inventions and/or theories of his do you see as having failed, and in what way?
I care what he thought of Einstein (not that I’m anyone). I don’t care about Nye, a popularizer & gatekeeper, and Hawking was at best a one-trick pony like Einstein.
Their A.I. algo will be keeping close track of what people do after watching the movie. It will find that they lose almost no FE idiots and gain quite a few. I’m sure. Therefore the film is a success.
Please “steere” us in the direction of more red-headed spook photos….PLEEZE!!!!
What is this supposed to mean? That you can’t navigate the web yourself or that you’re one of the ‘basement boys’?
Naw, he’s just admiring the Steele chick.
I typed in red headed female spooks. Turns out someone is leaking spook pics like a sieve! Damn Russkies!
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=red+headed+female+spooks&atb=v134-1&iax=images&ia=images
No pic of Steere though- probably a double agent…
I really wish someone could explain the shape of the earth in terms a simple minded person like me can understand. I won’t lie I’ve been listening to a bit of Eric Dubay lately..no hate please! I’m honestly trying to understand my world. Why is it my actual observations are seen as so stupid? like the moon & sun being the same size & the fact they seem so close?
Your observation that the sun & moon seem the same size is one of the greatest(!!), most stunning & breathtaking coincidences (IF it’s a coincidence) ever, so much so that it’s worthy of being a separate discussion, so we’ll save it for later.
You can show yourself that the sun & moon can look the same size without being the same size very simply: hold your hand at arm’s length and use your thumb to perfectly cover (“occlude” is the technical word) an object across the room. For me it’s a coffee cup.
My thumb is in reality much smaller than the cup, but when the thumb is 2 feet away from my eye and the coffee cup is 8 feet away, they APPEAR the same size. Furthermore, I can turn and use my thumb to occlude a car down the street. Thumb, cup, car: different real sizes but the same *apparent* size.
And that’s how your actual observation (a car as small as a thumb!) can be different from their physical reality.
I’d be happy to go on but this is Allan’s blog; also, pictures help and I can’t insert them. If you’re serious, drop me a note at lostforth at gmail. Put “shape of the world” in the subject line.
read the book “ Who Built the Moon”
Tennis ball covered in water with small portions covered with land growing plants and animals of a remarkably similar dna.
Just pay attention with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeHtjUxjEFE&t=78s
See the photos of the ship? that is all you need. Or should. If you really are wondering.
If the Earth were flat, cats would have pushed everything off it by now.
You’re an interesting character, to be sure. You’ve got the lingo down-pat, yet a careful reading of what you have to say reveals an addiction to Bill Nigh type TV shows, and a borderline ASD, I’d venture to add.
Go away, and take your ABC science somewhere else– you’re making a total fool of yourself on this thread you tiny-minded creep. You epitomise all that’s wrong with the world,
Ahem!
This guy ‘Sean’ is one of two types: A simple HUYA (Head Up Your Ass), i.e., someone with a little information (just enough to sound erudite), and/or a government worker assigned to my site. In any event, my limited math background means that in order to suss out who is telling us truths and who is lying, I have to look at subtext. Anyone interested in one of the Big Lies we’re told, i.e., General Relativity (big bang, expanding space, black holes, dark matter & energy, etc.) should look at Steve Crothers battle with Nobel Laureate Gerard d’Hooft (Crothers is referred to in Sean’s comment). This is Crothers’s page:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v6.pdf
dHooft’s version is here:
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html
He refers to Steve Crothers as ‘C’. I only have a suspicion of why he refuses to use Steve’s name (this is part of the subtext).
Having read both sides, IMO Crothers has the class AND the smarts, but this is mostly from subtext, which I’m fairly good at reading. It’s also from using my common sense and listening to people smarter than myself whom I KNOW are not lying. I can’t say this about d’Hooft.
So rather than looking at the evidence itself and learning to correctly putting pieces together you are looking at the hollowed-out presentation styles and ‘class’ without any understanding of the actual material being spoken of.
If Crothers has any clear mindset left, he knows he would be going down in history as a charlatan who sought to mislead beginners of science. Despite the likelihood that his fraudulent arguments might actually inspire more people to rigorously study relativity and actually understand it.
You didn’t pay any heed to the content of my reply to Mr. ‘t Hooft, so your comments have no scientific merit. And you can all me anything you please, I’m sure; any fool can do that, and they do. But let’s consider the M87 black hole image claimed by the EHT Team. No it’s not an image of a black hole. It is not a discovery at all. This is how astronomers and cosmologists do science: fraud by means of mass-media induced mass-hysteria. It beggars belief. Think about it: according to the astronomers and cosmologists the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated in a ‘physical singularity’ of zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity. But no finite mass has zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity, anywhere!
Similarly, the astronomers and cosmologists assign to their black hole two different escape speeds (v_esc = 0 metres per second and v_esc = c = 300,000,000 metres per second, and in the same equation) and no capacity for an escape speed (since nothing can even leave), simultaneously, at the same place (at the ‘event horizon’). But nothing can have two different escape speeds and no capacity for an escape speed, simultaneously, at the same place! (See [1]). Furthermore, the astronomers and cosmologists assert that the escape speed at the event horizon is the speed of light, yet light cannot either leave or escape; indeed, nothing, they say, can even leave the event horizon. But since light travels at the speed of light, which is the escape speed at the event horizon, light must both leave it and escape! And, moreover, anything else can leave.
On the mathematical level, the black hole is conjured by violations of geometry. Geometrically speaking, the theory of black holes moves a sphere originally centred at the origin of a coordinate system to some other place in that same coordinate system but leaves its centre behind. By this means the two ‘singularities’ of the black hole are produced, the centre of the moved sphere, now thought to be an event horizon, and the left behind centre at the origin of coordinates, thought to be the ‘physical singularity’. (See [2]). Analytically speaking, the violation of geometry manifests in black hole theory as the requirement that the absolute value of a real number must take on negative values – which is also impossible. (See [3]).
The laws of thermodynamics require that temperature must always be an intensive thermodynamic property. To argue otherwise is a violation of both the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The Hawking temperature of a black hole is however non-intensive, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. So black hole thermodynamics is entirely nonsense. (See [4]).
So their black hole does not exist; proven with common sense and high-school science. Yet they have managed to image that which does not exist. Of course they did – they have to justify their lucrative jobs and their vast grants of unaccountable public money.
For a comprehensive coverage of the frauds see [5], [6], and [7].
[1] Crothers, S.J., Black Hole Escape Velocity,
Sky Scholar, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZbDLd42Uws
[2] Crothers, S.J., Black Hole Geometry Analyzed, Sky Scholar,
2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-xCMZLUc2A&t=5s
[3] Crothers, S.J., On Corda’s ‘Clarification’ of Schwarzschild’s Solution, Hadronic
Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0221v4.pdf
[4] Robitaille, P.-M., Gravitational Thermodynamics – Is it Science?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ2F2Kw5-nQ
[5] Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO’s Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves
Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, n.3, Vol. 39, 2016,
pp.271-302, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v5.pdf
[6] Crothers, S.J., LIGO — Its Claims for Black Holes and Gravitational Waves | EU2017,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E&t=496s
[7] Crothers, S.J., Gravitational Waves: Propagation Speed is Co-ordinate Dependent, Poster Presentation, 2018 April APS Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, presented on 14th April 2018. http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0399v1.pdf
Your open letter to the EHT team has no merit since it does not focus on disputing the imaging process itself but chooses to repeat the debunked anti-relativity arguments.
Just because ‘fools’ can call your names doesn’t mean you don’t deserve such names.
Science challenged, eh Crothers? Reality doesn’t match up with what you consider to be common sense, so it must be wrong!
LOL. I just noticed your “citations.” Me me me some other guy me me me. Yup, I’m convinced. You are definitely not an ignorant charlatan who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Definitely not a sour grapes person with an axe to grind, and a lot of pent-up frustration at your own shortcomings as a scientist. Nope, definitely not.
If it makes you feel any better, go look up “loop quantum gravity theory.” Then you don’t have to whine about singularities. You can just have extremely curved space time inside there.
Allan says “For example, what metric would you use in measuring ‘space-time’?”
Answer: What units would you use to measure Pythagorean Theorem? The space-time interval, although does not follow Pythagorean theorem, can fit arbitrary units of length given (ds)^2 = (cdt)^2 – (dx)^2 where (cdt) is measured in distance units.
As for the ‘bending’ part, it refers to the degree to which geometry of the surrounding world deviates from Euclidean postulates. e.g. In special relativity the Lorentzian four-space indicates hyperbolic geometry lines of which are no longer ‘straight’ if drawn in standard Cartesian coordinates.
I was partially expecting you to call the first human visual evidence of a black hole fake. After all, you like to talk and make judgement on things completely out of your intellectual reach and are a defender of Stephen Crothers’ ‘alternative science’ crank ideas. That is, despite the fact that you don’t even understand any of the mathematical tools Crothers wrongfully applied to begin with.
(And please, don’t tell me to debunk ‘every point’ of these fraudulent arguments since you yourself haven’t done so for the complete set of gimmick tricks and manipulations from flat earth channels for a good reason.)
Your comment is a great example of something. Does anyone understand anything about his first two paragraphs (I’ll leave Crothers for another time)? Don’t be shy. I don’t know what he’s talking about and I’m not stupid. I’m seriously looking for someone who understands what ‘space-time’ actually is, and this guy’s blather is not helping.
‘If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.’ This is a paraphrase from a well known physicist; I believe it was Einstein.
Well, Sean, pretend I’m a six year old and explain how space… and time…. became ‘space-time’… and which somehow has something to do with gravity. (You might also explain how ‘curvature of space’ EXPLAINS how gravity works, and is not circular.)
By the way, I’ve noticed you are RIGHT ON my blog; you are commenting before it’s even formally posted, so you must keep checking. Why the deep interest in someone with such limited ‘intellectual reach’?
For time dilation, think of two people standing further apart from each other viewing each other as shorter.
Once introducing constant light speed, two events happening at different locations at the same time for inertial-1 are no longer spontaneous for inertial-2. Such is the entanglement of space and time (stationary clock-readings).
A rough, preliminary yet straight-forward intuition for space-time curvature is such:
– Assume Newton’s First Law
– Suppose a planet with initial velocity v in ’empty space’ (does not mean empty set).
– Planet must follow Newton’s First Law hence travel in a ‘straight line’.
– We observe that its path around a star mass is elliptic in geometry.
– We conjecture that the existence of mass alters space geometry (no longer Euclidean).
– We connect the abstract mathematical expression of geometrical curvature to the idea of ‘gravity’ that acted like centripetal force in the above situation.
For your btw question, didn’t I say I’m doing a side project using statistics to study social learning theory, if and how society influences a person to become a criminal.
The path of a planet about its primary or, heck, the parabolic path of a tossed stone on the planet’s surface, violates Galilean expectations of a straight line, yes. That “space” is “curved” (for some strange values of “space” and/or “curved”) does little more than describe the violation, as does “gravity”.
My high-school physics class went to a playground. Some of us rode the merry-go-round while two classmates, standing on either side of the merry-go-round, tossed a ball to each other, back and forth, over our heads.
We riders saw the ball plainly and clearly change direction as it passed over the center of the merry-go-round. The faster we were riding, the more sharply the ball whipped around.
Of course, that was simply an artifact of our own movement, and needed neither some special force, or any “curvature” of “space”, to explain.
Your curved space-time might just as easily be an explanation of something that is only *apparently*, but not *real-ly*, happening. E.g., if all matter is expanding at a uniform rate (and if there is no “gravity” at all) the actually-straight path of a tossed stone will *appear* to be a parabola.
This is to say, “curved space” is a conjecture to resolve a violated expectation, nothing more. To regard it as fact is to quit thinking.
In reply to Mellyrn April 16, 2019 at 3:17 am
All theories that describe the same physical phenomenon while consistently passing rigorous experimental tests are isomorphic.
In fact, your argument is analogous to that of crothers’ attempt to define ‘time’ by arguing what it ‘really is’. Both are irrelevant since in physics it’s the observable physical phenomenon (e.g. reading of a mechanical or atomic clock, trajectory of hypersonic missiles etc.) that matters.
For your btw question, didn’t I say I’m doing a side project using statistics to study social learning theory, if and how society influences a person to become a criminal.
Are you suggesting that M. Weisbecker is a criminal?
Allan, isn’t this the same ‘Sean’ that you warned that he would be banned if he could not deal with Crothers’s point on black holes for your blog back on Jan.12?
http://blog.banditobooks.com/tyson-and-the-national-science-foundation/
Also, isn’t this the same Sean who said he’s now ‘Unsubed’ you back on Jan.7,2019 11:54pm???
http://blog.banditobooks.com/the-point-where-is-it/
Interesting the he’s still trolling your website. He’s certainly vocal about this topic and keeps ignoring (maybe misdirecting) any details of what’s wrong with the specifics of what Crothers puts forth.
You cant debunk any of it because youy cant proveany of the nonsense of the topic your spouting poff about. These are examples as Tesla said of brilliant mathemagicians doing equation after equation and coming up with big ass formulaes that have no bearing in reality. Mental masturbation by smart idiots.
This reminds me of what Tesla said about math. I’ll paraphrase. Math is a good tool for mental masturbaters to use to justify the conclusion they wanted to justify before they pulled out their math tool.
In reply to
stephen ALLENBAUGH
April 16, 2019 at 1:37 pm
le berger des photons
April 16, 2019 at 2:00 pm
Not only were the arguments false by default given definition of mathematics, they accuse me of improper sexual action while the people making the assertion sit back and suck up benefits of modern technological society.
LoL, good times.
nice explanation, with the merry go round
Thx. It was quite cool to experience, vividly!, the importance of frame-of-reference.
Minkowski-Einstein spacetime does not exist. It is a violation of the Theorem of Pythagoras, so it is certainly false [1,2].
[1] Crothers, S.J., Does spacetime exist? Sky Scholar, 2018,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJz10bDcccY
[2] Crothers, S.J., Minkowski-Einstein spacetime: insight from the Pythagorean theorem, Physics Essays, 31, 3 (2018), http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0208v1.pdf
The Hyperbolic Theory of Speical Relativity:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.0462.pdf