General relativity is self-inconsistent

[Guest Zanket]

The proof

 

 

Supporting info

From pg. 1-19 of

Exploring Black Holes

by Taylor and Wheeler: “The spacetime arena for special relativity is the

free-float (inertial) frame

, one in which a free test particle at rest remains at rest and a free test particle in motion continues that motion unchanged. We call a region of spacetime

flat

if a free-float frame can be set up in it. ... In principle one can set up a latticework of synchronized clocks in a free-float frame. The position and time of any event is then taken to be the location of the nearest lattice clock and the time of the event recorded on that clock. The

observer

is the collection of all such recording clocks in a given reference frame.”

 

From the glossary of

Exploring Black Holes

:

 

• flat spacetime
  : Region of spacetime in which it is possible to set up a free-float (inertial) reference frame.

 

• horizon
  : One-way surface surrounding a black hole, defined by the property that anything may pass inward through the horizon, but (in the non-quantum description) nothing, not even light, may pass outward.

 

• inertial frame (free-float frame)
  : Generally, a reference frame in which a free test particle initially at rest remains at rest. More technically, a reference frame with respect to which relative (tidal) accelerations of test particles can be neglected for the purposes of a given experiment.

 

• tidal acceleration [(tidal force)]
  : Relative acceleration of two free test particles located in different parts of a reference frame.

From the

glossary

of

Black Holes & Time Warps

by Thorne:

 

• event
  : A point in spacetime; that is, a location in space at a specific moment of time. Alternatively, something that happens at a point in spacetime, for example, the explosion of a firecracker.

 

• freely falling object
  : An object on which no forces act except gravity.

 

• local inertial reference frame
  : A reference frame on which no forces except gravity act, that falls freely in response to gravity’s pull, and that is small enough for tidal gravitational accelerations to be negligible inside it.

 

• tidal gravity [(tidal force)]
  : Gravitational accelerations that squeeze objects along some directions and stretch them along others. Tidal gravity produced by the Moon and Sun is responsible for the tides on the Earth’s oceans.

 

• Spacetime curvature and tidal gravity [(tidal force)] are different names for the same thing.

Note that:

 

• The spacetime throughout an inertial frame is negligibly curved (all but flat).

 

• The definition of an inertial frame allows them to be arbitrarily large (they need be only “small enough”).

 

• More than one type of horizon is defined for a black hole. In texts about black holes, an unqualified “horizon” usually refers to an absolute horizon, as it does here.

From pg. 2-6 of

Exploring Black Holes

: “The constant, ever-present "force of gravity" that we experience on Earth is gone, eliminated as we step into a free-float [(inertial)] frame. What remains of "gravity"? Only curvature of spacetime remains. What is this curvature? Nothing but tidal acceleration [(tidal force)]. Curvature is tidal acceleration and tidal acceleration is curvature.”

 

The equivalence and relativity principles

: From pg. 98 of

Black Holes & Time Warps

(the italicized statement is Einstein’s): “

In any small, freely falling reference frame anywhere in our real, gravity-endowed Universe, the laws of physics must be the same as they are in an inertial reference frame in an idealized, gravity-free universe

. Einstein called this the

principle of equivalence

, because it asserts that small, freely falling frames in the presence of gravity are equivalent to inertial frames in the absence of gravity. This assertion, Einstein realized, had an enormously important consequence: It implied that, if we merely give the name "inertial reference frame" to every small, freely falling reference frame in our real, gravity-endowed Universe (for example, to a little laboratory that you carry as you fall over a cliff), then everything that special relativity says about inertial frames in an idealized universe without gravity will automatically also be true in our real Universe. Most importantly, the

principle of relativity

must be true: All small, inertial (freely falling) reference frames in our real, gravity-endowed Universe must be "created equal"; none can be preferred over any other in the eyes of the laws of physics.”

 

GR predicts that an inertial frame can exist everywhere except at the center of a black hole. Here are confirmations:

 

• From pg. 2-4 of

Exploring Black Holes

: “Our old, comfy, free-float (inertial) frame carries us unharmed to the center of a black hole. Well, unharmed

almost

to the center! ... No one can stop us from observing a black hole from an unpowered spaceship that drifts freely toward the black hole from a great distance, then plunges more and more rapidly toward the center. Over a short time the spaceship constitutes a "capsule of flat spacetime" hurtling through curved spacetime. It is a free-float frame like any other. Special relativity makes extensive use of such frames, and special relativity continues to describe Nature correctly for an astronaut in a local free-float frame, even as she falls through curved spacetime, through the horizon, and into a black hole.” From pg. 2-6: “Confronted by tidal accelerations, how can we define a free-float frame falling into a black hole? At the center of the black hole we cannot; general relativity predicts infinite tidal accelerations there. However, short of the center, [we limit] the space and the time—the region of

spacetime

!—in which experiments are conducted.” See also the section

free-float frame

on pg. 2-31.

 

• From pg. 21 of
  Black Holes: A Traveler’s Guide
  by Pickover: “If you were approaching a 10 solar masses black hole with a radius of 30 kilometers, you would be killed long before you reached the horizon, at an altitude of 400 kilometers. However, you could reach the horizon of a 1,000 solar masses black hole, and even be able to explore the
  interior
  of a 10 million solar masses black hole. The tidal forces at the horizon of this gigantic black hole would be weaker than those produced by Earth, which are already impossible for us to feel.”

 

Another online reference

: “In a supermassive black hole the tidal forces are weaker, and you could survive well inside the horizon of the black hole before being torn apart.”

From the

Black Holes FAQ

: “You can think of the horizon as the place where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light. Outside of the horizon, the escape velocity is less than the speed of light ...”

 

From pg. 2-22 of

Exploring Black Holes

: “... Einstein predicts that nothing, not even light, can be successfully launched outward from the horizon ... and that light launched outward EXACTLY at the horizon will never increase its radial position by so much as a millimeter.”

 

A

definition of

escape velocity

: “In physics, for a given gravitational field and a given position, the escape velocity is the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to have to move away indefinitely from the source of the field, as opposed to falling back or staying in an orbit within a bounded distance from the source.”

 

Arguments against the proof

 

Most arguments against the proof contradict the supporting info above. The most common such claim is that GR does not allow an inertial frame to straddle a horizon. This is contradicted by Einstein himself in his statement of the equivalence principle above (note the word “anywhere”), and also by three other references (see “Here are confirmations”).

 

An argument against the proof, which I call the “not exactly flat” argument, claims that the self-inconsistency is explained away by the fact that the spacetime in X is not perfectly flat (the tidal force in X is not nonexistent). The notion that SR applies in only perfectly flat spacetime (or, put differently, that SR applies in only a zero-sized frame) is refuted by Einstein himself in his above statement of the equivalence principle. Those putting forth the “not exactly flat” argument should be prepared to show that the situation described in X is duplicable in the inertial frame of the International Space Station (ISS). After all, the relativity principle says that no inertial frame in our real, gravity-endowed universe can be preferred over any other in the eyes of the laws of physics. Keep in mind that the tidal force in X could be less by any degree than the tidal force in the ISS, for a sufficiently large black hole.

 

A variant of the “not exactly flat” argument claims that the escape velocity must be c (the speed of light) throughout X, therefore the particle cannot be escaping to r=infinity. But GR predicts that the escape velocity varies in any nonzero-sized frame. Above the horizon, where the particle is, GR predicts that the escape velocity is less than c.

 

Another type of argument tries to use the self-inconsistency of GR against the proof of that. For example, the argument may claim that the box and the particle cannot be at rest relative to each other, because then the box would be passing outward through the horizon, which GR does not allow. But X is an inertial frame in which GR says that SR applies, and nothing about SR suggests that the box and the particle cannot be at rest relative to each other. If they cannot, GR is self-inconsistent.

 

Another argument goes like this: “X is inertial for only an arbitrarily short time, after which the box and the particle cannot be expected to stay at rest with respect to each other”. Not only is the proof designed to work in an arbitrarily short time (if the box were at rest relative to the particle for even a moment in X, then the box would be passing outward through the horizon), but also a frame can remain inertial for an arbitrarily long time in principle. Consider the North Star, which has indicated north on Earth for at least a thousand years. Our Sun and the North Star have remained essentially at rest with respect to each other for at least a thousand years, even as the tidal force imparted on the Milky Way by the Andromeda galaxy has grown as those galaxies have fallen toward each other. The tidal force in X is negligible as it falls through the horizon, and GR predicts that the tidal force in X was even less when it was wholly above the horizon. Then there is no reason—in a self-consistent theory of gravity—why the box and the particle could not remain essentially at rest with respect to each other for an arbitrarily long time as measured in their common frame, as they both move outward toward r=infinity.

 

Those claiming that the proof’s lack of math is a problem should be prepared to show proof that math is required to refute a theory.

 

Some claim that black holes have been observed, so the proof of GR’s self-inconsistency must be wrong. But there is no direct observational evidence of a black hole, and the indirect evidence relies on the validity of GR (as in “if GR is the correct theory of gravity, then the observation indicates a black hole”). The theory has been experimentally tested only in relatively extremely weak gravity far from a theorized horizon. In the

strongest-gravity test of GR to date

, the minimum r-coordinate is 210000M in

geometric units

.

[snoopy]

Hello again Zanket,

 

And here we go again except even this time you provide evidence that contradicts what you are saying.

 

From your own excerpt from Taylor and Wheeler

It says -

 

That the arena for SR is the free float inertial frame that is either a particle which is at rest that remains at rest or a particle that is in motion whose motion remains unchanged.

 

Now seriously how can a particle that is falling into a black hole be considered to be at rest and to remain at rest or if it is in motion do you seriously expect the particles motion to remain unchanged ? No again its a misapplication of SR.

 

Around the event horizon you can always find a region of space that you can consider to be flat and therefore apply SR to it, this is fine.

 

The region of space you have chosen straddles an event horizon this region of space cannot be considered flat so the test particle at rest cannot remain so and the test particle in motion cannot remain unchanged in its motion.

 

In this situation GR will contradict SR but hardly is this a refutation of GR.

 

In fact applying SR in this situation will provide you with the wrong answer only by applying GR (the irony of it) will you furnish yourself with the correct answer.

 

Its hardly a nail in the coffin of GR is it ?

 

In your last post you misapplied GR in this post you misapply SR whats next ?

 

Your last bit about Black Holes being found only through the application of GR is also absolute piffle Black Holes have been found in many ways by Astronomers who had no self interest in proving GR. In a lot cases they have been found by X-Ray telescopes as extremely small but extremely heavy X-Ray sources.

 

Black Holes exist there is no better explanations for the various effects cosmologists observe out in the universe.

 

Again thanks for playing and goodbye

:)

[Guest Zanket]

Again thanks for playing and goodbye

:)

When you are ready to have an all-scientific discussion, let me know. Until then, others are free to adopt your points as their own. They will not be able to support them.

[snoopy]

To Zanket,

 

Others may not be able to support them but I can and as it happens this enough for me.

 

Again you can choose a region of space around the event horizon and apply SR to it, you can even choose a region inside the event horizon as long as its not too close to the singularity and apply SR to it but you cannot do what you suggest.

 

Cheers

:)

[Guest Zanket]

Again you can choose a region of space around the event horizon and apply SR to it, you can even choose a region inside the event horizon as long as its not too close to the singularity and apply SR to it but you cannot do what you suggest.

Your argument is already covered in the OP:

 

Most arguments against the proof contradict the supporting info above. The most common such claim is that GR does not allow an inertial frame to straddle a horizon. This is contradicted by Einstein himself in his statement of the equivalence principle above (note the word “anywhere”), and also by three other references (see “Here are confirmations”).

Taylor and Wheeler in particular explicitly contradict you: "special relativity continues to describe Nature correctly for an astronaut in a local free-float [(inertial)] frame, even as she falls through ... the horizon".

 

To make your case you need to show evidence that refutes Einstein, Taylor, Wheeler, and the two other references given.

[andrewgray]

Hello, Zanket. This is Andrew Gray. We are continuing our ongoing discussion here, as sciforums has been abandoned. We were discussing the equivalence principle in the vicinity of a horizon, and we agreed that in a small neighborhood of the horizon, we had equivalence between a SR hyperbolic horizon and a Schwarzchild event horizon:

 

 

 

We saw how the hyperbolic time goes to infinity relative to the inertial frame as the horizon is approached, as we plotted the x=1 geodesic in the accelerated coordinates.

 

 

We saw that the horizon was a distance of [math]\frac{1}{a}[/math] from the accelerated observers in both the hyperbolic frame and the Schwarzchild constant r frame, where a is the acceleration felt by the accelerated observer.

 

Are we still agreed to this point?

 

 

Andrew A. Gray

[Guest Zanket]

We were discussing the equivalence principle in the vicinity of a horizon, and we agreed that in a small neighborhood of the horizon, we had equivalence between a SR hyperbolic horizon and a Schwarzchild event horizon

What you call a “SR hyperbolic horizon” I call a Rindler horizon. You showed a mathematical proof that there is a Rindler horizon at r=2M for an observer hovering at r=2M+ε, where ε is arbitrarily small. I’ve accepted the proof and I’ve confirmed the results to my satisfaction in a spreadsheet.

 

I don’t agree that this Rindler horizon at r=2M is the same as the event horizon of a black hole. The predictions of these two types of horizons differ. For example, whereas an object can pass upward (outward) through a Rindler horizon (it just can’t reach the accelerating observer), GR predicts that an object at an event horizon must fall below the horizon. More on this below.

 

As I recall, what you were saying is that you think an event horizon does not exist at r=2M; you think that only a Rindler horizon exists there, for an observer hovering at r=2M+ε. That is, you think that objects can pass upward through r=2M, in defiance of the widely published predictions to the contrary for GR (and you gave some math to support this). You think that those widely published predictions are the result of a bad interpretation of GR’s math. Do I have all that right?

 

We saw that the horizon was a distance of [math]\frac{1}{a}[/math] from the accelerated observers in both the hyperbolic frame and the Schwarzchild constant r frame, where a is the acceleration felt by the accelerated observer.

 

Are we still agreed to this point?

Yes, we agree, where “horizon” is a Rindler horizon.

 

Where we left off our discussion, I had made the point that your proof of a Rindler horizon at r=2M, for an observer hovering at r=2M+ε, reinforces the proof in the OP. Even if you disagree with me that an object can pass upward through a Rindler horizon, it doesn’t seem to matter here, because you agreed with me that nothing can reach the accelerating observer for which that horizon exists, from at or below the horizon. That is, you agreed that nothing, not even light, can reach r=2M+ε from r<=2M. I see no difference between that and GR’s prediction that nothing can pass upward through r=2M. If the box in the OP cannot increase its radial position (e.g. the part of the box at r=2M cannot reach r=2M+ε—any higher r-coordinate), then the proof in the OP holds: the box cannot be at rest relative to the particle, in which case GR contradicts SR in X, where GR says that SR applies.

 

Note also that your proof depends upon GR’s equation for the acceleration required for an observer to hover at a given r-coordinate. At r=2M that acceleration is infinite, in which case all objects at r<=2M must fall to r=0. Then the part of the box at r<=2M must fall, which reinforces the proof in the OP. While you have shown that there is a Rindler horizon at r=2M for an observer hovering at r=2M+ε, GR contradicts SR’s prediction that an object can pass upward through r=2M.

 

The bottom line is this: Even if you were right, GR would still contradict SR in X. And when GR contradicts SR in X, GR is self-inconsistent.

[Guest Zanket]

Black Holes exist there is no better explanations for the various effects cosmologists observe out in the universe.

That is true only when GR is assumed to be the correct theory of gravity. Give a link to any scientific paper that shows an observation of a black hole, and I will show you where its conclusion depends on an assumption that GR is the correct theory of gravity.

 

From ARE BLACK HOLES REAL? (boldface mine):

 

Although black holes do not glow, they do have gravity, and so they affect (sometimes drastically) their neighborhood, and we can infer the presence of a black in this way. This is of course indirect, which is not as nice as just seeing the black hole itself, and so can be suspect for the skeptical observer. Yet, it turns out that we often cannot understand what we see from the neighborhood unless a black hole is present, and sometimes this argument can be especially strong when the properties of the neighborhood conform to predictions for how a black hole will affect it.

Now tell me, where do those predictions come from? They come from GR. The “properties of the neighborhood” need not conform to the predictions of every theory of gravity. And GR is experimentally confirmed in only relatively extremely weak gravity far from a theorized horizon.

 

To begin to make your case that black holes exist in nature, you need to show that your case does not depend on any theory of gravity.

[snoopy]

Your argument is already covered in the OP:

 

 

Taylor and Wheeler in particular explicitly contradict you: "special relativity continues to describe Nature correctly for an astronaut in a local free-float [(inertial)] frame, even as she falls through ... the horizon".

 

To make your case you need to show evidence that refutes Einstein, Taylor, Wheeler, and the two other references given.

 

 

Actually NO I dont, all I need to show is the following

 

Einsteins pricinple of equivalence states that the force you experience when standing on the earth is the same as the pseudo-force experienced in a non inertial frame of reference such as a rocket with a constant acceleration of 10m/s.

 

This principle holds in Euclidean geometries of spacetime where the spacetime can be treated as as assymptomatically flat.

 

In GR this euclidean geometry is replaced with a curved non-euclidean metric

In GR the principle of inertia is replaced by the principle of geodesic motion

and the principle of equivalence no longer applies in this theory.

 

The principle of equivalence applies to SR not GR.

 

This phenomenon of geodesic deviation means that frames of reference do not exist globally as they do in classical mechanics or SR.

 

However mathematically GR reduces to SR over sufficiently small regions of spacetime where the curvature of spacetime can be treated as less important.

 

The region you have chosen straddles two very different types of spacetime and at the event horizon the curvature is so extreme that a photon being emitted by the black hole will be curved back intoward the black hole no matter which path it chooses.

 

The region you have chosen cannot be said to be assymptomatically flat, if you had chosen a region outside the event horizon you could have taken this to be roughly equivalent to euclidean spactime. You could have also chosen a region inside the event horizon and providing the area was indeed small enough have taken this to be roughly equivalent to a euclidean spacetime, even though this area is indeed highly curved in the same way you can always find regions of a mountain that are flat even though to a distant observer the curvature of the mountain is self apparent.

 

 

You cannot apply SR to the region of space you have chosen you are forced by convention to use GR.

though GR is only an approximation of what happens at the event horizon as quantum mechanical processes come into play but since we have no theory of quantum gravity you are forced to use GR.

 

Einsteins principle only applies to SR not GR so your argument using it in this scenario is self redundant.

 

Excerpt from Taylor and Wheeler : Exploring Black Holes Chapter 1

 

"regions of spacetime are flat only over a limited range of space and time. Evidence that a frame is not inertial (so that its region of spacetime is not flat) is the relative acceleration (tidal acceleration) That a pair of test particles with respect to one another. If tidal accelerations affect an experiment in a region of space and time then we say that region of spacetime is curved and special relativity cannot be validly be used to describe this experiment."

 

You have chosen a region of spacetime which straddles an event horizon if I release two test particles one above the horizon and one below the horizon I can show that tidal accelerations in this region affect the particles in different ways the first test particle may not even fall into the black hole while the second particle cannot avoid falling into the black hole as all paths are sufficeintly curved within this region to always lead to the black hole singularity. The tidal accelerations are therefore not the same so the region cannot be treated as assympotmatically flat and in the words of Taylor and Wheeler

 

"special relativity cannot be validly used to describe this experiment"

 

You might as this point be wondering what Taylor and Wheeler suggest using in this situation ?

 

Amazingly enough its GR.

 

If I choose a region above the black hole event horizon and release two test particles then the tidal forces are much the same and I can use SR.

 

If choose a region below the Horizon then tidal forces are pretty much the same when I release two test particles and I can use SR.

 

I am hoping beyond hope this is now clear enough for you to understand but some how I doubt it.

 

You do not understand SR

You do not understand GR

You do not understand Taylor and Wheeler's Book : Exploring Black Holes

You do not understand Einsteins principle of equivalence

You do not understand black holes

 

Please refrain from posting on any of the above subjects

 

All you are doing is willfully or through sheer ignorance posting misrepresentations of theories and books that you do not seem to understand.

 

Thank you and goodbye

[Guest Zanket]

Einsteins pricinple of equivalence states that the force you experience when standing on the earth is the same as the pseudo-force experienced in a non inertial frame of reference such as a rocket with a constant acceleration of 10m/s.

The OP states the principle verbatim from Einstein. The version you state is implied from it.

 

The principle of equivalence applies to SR not GR.

The equivalence principle is at the core of GR; it does apply to it. From here: "At the heart of General Relativity lies the equivalence principle."

 

The region you have chosen straddles two very different types of spacetime and at the event horizon the curvature is so extreme that a photon being emitted by the black hole will be curved back intoward the black hole no matter which path it chooses.

...

You cannot apply SR to the region of space you have chosen you are forced by convention to use GR.

The spacetime curvature at the horizon need not be extreme. I can apply SR to the inertial frame X. GR predicts that an inertial frame can straddle a horizon. I gave four references in the OP to support that, including the equivalence principle. You are contradicting Einstein, Taylor, Thorne, Wheeler, and the other two references I gave (see “Here are confirmations”).

 

The rules of this forum say (boldface mine) “In general, back up your claims by using links or references” and “If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on”. You are disobeying these rules. Your opinion contradicts multiple references that I have given in the OP from reputable sources, even including Einstein. You need to back up your claims.

 

You have chosen a region of spacetime which straddles an event horizon if I release two test particles one above the horizon and one below the horizon I can show that tidal accelerations in this region affect the particles in different ways the first test particle may not even fall into the black hole while the second particle cannot avoid falling into the black hole as all paths are sufficeintly curved within this region to always lead to the black hole singularity. The tidal accelerations are therefore not the same so the region cannot be treated as assympotmatically flat and in the words of Taylor and Wheeler

 

"special relativity cannot be validly used to describe this experiment"

Again, I cover this argument in the OP:

 

Another type of argument tries to use the self-inconsistency of GR against the proof of that. For example, the argument may claim that the box and the particle cannot be at rest relative to each other, because then the box would be passing outward through the horizon, which GR does not allow. But X is an inertial frame in which GR says that SR applies, and nothing about SR suggests that the box and the particle cannot be at rest relative to each other. If they cannot, GR is self-inconsistent.

 

All you are doing is willfully or through sheer ignorance posting misrepresentations of theories and books that you do not seem to understand.

The situation is clearly the opposite given that you think “The principle of equivalence applies to SR not GR”. Look at the principle as stated by Einstein in the OP. It talks about an inertial frame in our “our real, gravity-endowed Universe”. SR does not handle gravity. From here: “The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907”. SR was published earlier, in 1905.

 

The forum rules say “Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth”. I’ve given multiple references that support my claims and contradict yours. It’s time for you to back up your claims instead of just giving your opinions. Don’t be surprised if I ignore your posts that just repeat the same invalid points you’ve made. I’m willing to do some teaching here, but not for someone who’s rude and ignoring my references.

[Guest Zanket]

Actually NO I dont, all I need to show is the following

FWIW I reported this post to the mod with:

 

The forum rules say "In general, back up your claims by using links or references" and "Rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated". Snoopy here violates both rules and not for the first time. He has given no references to back up his claims, which contradict multiple references I have given. I point out my many references, only to have him ignore them and repeat his claims to the contrary, with rudeness to boot.

 

It would be nice to have a scientific discussion here. That's what the forum rules are for.

[InfiniteNow]

FWIW I reported this post to the mod with:

 

 

 

It would be nice to have a scientific discussion here. That's what the forum rules are for.

 

I would watch out holding to the rules as your armor, mate. Your tone thus far hasn't exactly been warm and in the interest of furthering the knowledge of those around you. In fact, you're quite prickly and your less likely to have quality involvement considering the methods of reply you've engaged thus far.

 

Just saying... Life is a mirror.

 

 

Per the dialog at hand, GR is not a complete theory. Please clarify what yours adds to our body of knowledge, what predictions it makes, and how we may test those predictions. That's the shield which wins the battle.

 

 

You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur-king, you and all your silly English kaniggets. :)

[freeztar]

:

All you are doing is willfully or through sheer ignorance posting misrepresentations of theories and books that you do not seem to understand.

 

The situation is clearly the opposite given that you think “The principle of equivalence applies to SR not GR”. Look at the principle as stated by Einstein in the OP. It talks about an inertial frame in our “our real, gravity-endowed Universe”. SR does not handle gravity. From here: “The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907”. SR was published earlier, in 1905.

 

The forum rules say “Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth”. I’ve given multiple references that support my claims and contradict yours. It’s time for you to back up your claims instead of just giving your opinions. Don’t be surprised if I ignore your posts that just repeat the same invalid points you’ve made. I’m willing to do some teaching here, but not for someone who’s rude and ignoring my references.

 

There is another rule here that nearly mandates that you read up on logical fallacies (SEVERAL links are given). From the above quote, both of you are using logical fallacies.

 

This discussion can only be fruitful if it is kept on track and not distorted, imo.

[Guest Zanket]

In fact, you're quite prickly and your less likely to have quality involvement considering the methods of reply you've engaged thus far.

If it's a problem here to point out rudely-made unsupported claims then the mod should ban me forthwith.

 

Per the dialog at hand, GR is not a complete theory. Please clarify what yours adds to our body of knowledge, what predictions it makes, and how we may test those predictions.

Is it being prickly to ask: did you read the OP? Clearly this thread is not presenting a new theory. Look at the title.

[Guest Zanket]

From the above quote, both of you are using logical fallacies.

A rule says "If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on". But you ignored it. You gave no evidence.

[InfiniteNow]

If it's a problem here to point out rudely-made unsupported claims then the mod should ban me forthwith.

 

Is it being prickly to ask: did you read the OP? Clearly this thread is not presenting a new theory. Look at the title.

 

Exactly. So much easier to point out flaws than it is to offer alternatives. Thanks for further reinforcing my point. :)

[Guest Zanket]

Exactly. So much easier to point out flaws than it is to offer alternatives. Thanks for further reinforcing my point. :)

Give me a break :)

 

I'm getting the picture that this forum is just another one of those that is scientific in name only. I wouldn't be surprised if the thread was locked.