I agree.
Spacetime is not a physical material object. It is an irrational 20th century mathematical concept.
If it is curved then they must be able to tell us what color it is.
Don't quote me out of context.
Upvote
0
I agree.
Spacetime is not a physical material object. It is an irrational 20th century mathematical concept.
If it is curved then they must be able to tell us what color it is.
How about the observed phenomena best explained by their presence?I can't think of one aspect of universal gravitation and black holes that isn't nonsense.
I agree.
Spacetime is not a physical material object. It is an irrational 20th century mathematical concept.
If it is curved then they must be able to tell us what color it is.
Things claimed to be explained by universal gravitation and black holes are better explained by electromagnetism and magnetars. Even by magic and Cinderella's invisible pink unicorns.How about the observed phenomena best explained by their presence?
Electromagnetism has the beauty of containing all of the colors in the visible light spectrum...What colour is electromagnetism?
And you've yet to show this in any way, except to post quotes from philosophers and historians from over a century ago, which only tangentially graze the subject of physics at all.Things claimed to be explained by universal gravitation and black holes are better explained by electromagnetism and magnetars. Even by magic and Cinderella's invisible pink unicorns.
Electromagnetism has the beauty of containing all of the colors in the visible light spectrum...
It is weak but masses are large. Again, ask the child to pick up a piece of paper with the magnet.I wasn't talking to you.
But you are ignoring everything.
Duh. It's so weak that electromagnetism is the dominant force in the universe.
The Gillies paper is a long review. I have only quickly read through it at this point but I see nothing in it that justifies your argumentsThe universal gravitational constant myth G has no precise value because it is entirely imaginary.
Vila, S.C., Changing Gravitational Constant and White Dwarfs, Astrophysical Journal, Volume 206, Pages 213-214, May 1976
Gillies, G.T., et al., The Newtonian Gravitational Constant: Recent Measurements and Related Studies, Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225, Feb 1997
From the abstract:Gundlach, J.H., and Merkowitz, S.M., Measurement of Newton's Constant Using a Torsion Balance with Angular Acceleration Feedback, General Relativity and Quantum Physics, Aug 2000
I read this paper, it is quite interesting but it does not in any way justify your arguments. Do you understand the concept of precision in measurement. This is a difficult constant to measure. There is some possibility that it may vary with time though that is very controversial. That does NOT make it imaginary.Fixler, J.B., et al., Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity, Science, Volume 315, Number 5808, Pages 74-77, Jan 2007
It is not unfortunate for me in any way. It is just a consequence of tidal dissipation as has been explained to you.Unfortunately for you, the moon falls away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.
Not sure why you quoted this guy because he is wrong."If it be true that every atom occupies the same volume of space, then gravitation might seem to be an effect depending on the crowdedness of electrons; but when an atom, breaks up into unequal parts, the smaller portion must in that case undergo considerable expansion, and that would be inconsistent with the constancy of gravitation, if it depended on crowdedness: hence I think it more probable that it depends on some interaction between positive and negative electricity, and that it is generated when these two come together, that is whenever an atom of matter is formed." -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicist, 1904
Things claimed to be explained by universal gravitation and black holes are better explained by electromagnetism and magnetars.
Not true; Any mass needs spacetime in order to move. Past the event horizon and spacetime starts to bend in on itself and thus there is no direction to go to. No time and no space. Even if you had all the power of the universe, you will still go nowhere. Now if you were made up of pure antimatter then that is a different story albeit you would need to be of a mass greater than the black holes in order to have enough anti matter left to survive.This part of the article is nonsense.
If I have a spacecraft capable of super light speeds I also have a space craft that can cross an event horizon because it can already summon more than infinite energy.
If I can go any speed I like I can cross event horizons, the curvature of space time is meaningless.
WRONG!Things claimed to be explained by universal gravitation and black holes are better explained by electromagnetism and magnetars. Even by magic and Cinderella's invisible pink unicorns....
WRONG!
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION!4 CORNER DAYS, CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God!
Actually it is not a matter of technology. All matter is made up of quantum particles and all matter must abide by the fundamental constants that allow for matter to exist. In a singularity; Time is ZERO, and without time, space cannot exist, and thus in the centre of a black hole there is no space time and no amount of technology can change that.
That is the assumption that we must make, but what if we are wrong? All assumptions of what might happen after crossing the event horizon are based on our current understanding, which is limited by our technology at this point.
OH MAN!!! YOU DE BAWSWRONG!
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION!4 CORNER DAYS, CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God!
I knew assumption was a bad word to use, but it was the word that came to mind at the moment. Fortunately, it seems like every time there is an advancement in technology, there is improved understanding of the unknown which leads to another advancement in technology.
In a singularity, logic gets torn apart.What do we conjecture happens within the singularity itself? It almost seems like "hole" might be literally correct.
The hole is the net result of having your braincells sucked out by pseudoscientific nonsense.
Believers have a half brain, they can't think Opposite of Crap they have been taught.In a singularity, logic gets torn apart.
Thornhill, W., Black Holes Tear Logic Apart, Mar 2004
The hole is the net result of having your braincells sucked out by pseudoscientific nonsense.