-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof against black-holes
- Thread starter Jonathan Ainsley Bain
- Start date
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Corvus
Feathered eyeball connoisseur
You are one singular mystic christian Jon. I admire your passion for the untenable.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
The 'black-hole' is surely an untenable myth.
Only when they do it wrong. Yours is an example of that. It is a perfect example of the GIGO principle. Garbage in, garbage out. Now learn to really program the correct equations.
Yes, gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. That doesn't produce the spiral effect you seem to think it would. One reason is that gravitational waves are not emitted from spherically symmetric sources. So your whole argument shows you don't understand even the basics of the subject. We can solve the equations for general relativity and they *do* give stable orbits.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
Can you please supply links to algorithms that you yourself have written that demonstrate this claim?
Have you ever even clicked 'compile' once?
Or even attempted to write a piece of computer software?
Are you even a real person with a real name, perhaps?
You make claims without even vaguely backing them up with geometrical graphics
like this for example:
source:
Instant Gravity Proof
(with more precision and details)
or use the software and see it evolve in real-time:
Download LIGO simulation software: OGS11
or just use any search engine with keywords 'instant gravity proof'.
Sadly, your entire argument is no more than pop-culture.
;-j
No need. The required math is easy enough to solve that computer modeling isn't required.
LMAO! I don't usually 'click' to compile. I use the command line! That's where *real* programmers live.
Have you ever compiled an OS that you then used on a real device?
How about a bit of assembler? If so, which processor?
The problem is, of course, that if you don't understand what you are modeling, your algorithm will just produce BS. It's known as GIGO. From what I have seen, your algorithms are subject to it.
Show your code and I will show where you went wrong.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
That is an incorrect assumption.
Until you appreciate these diagrams,
your 'understanding' is nothing but assumptions.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
The internet is killing intelligence... Seriously.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
No I will not allow you to copy-paste my work.
Do the hard labor yourself you lazy sod.
As it is I explain how it works here:
Simulator physics of orbit-gravity-sim-11.exe (OGS11)
and there is more detail in the full article as well.
The logic is fairly simple to explain,
and no amount of appealing to ego will get me
to allow a copy-paster like you to cheat.
Here is the simplest explanation:
If a binary pair operate with gravity itself travelling at the velocity of light,
they will pull to a point BEHIND the midpoint.
If you cannot appreciate that, nor follow on logically from there,
then you are not capable of appreciating logic.
I am willing to talk you through it,
But before we go further you will first need to demonstrate that
you can put a binary pair into a normal Newtonian orbit in real-time,
and upload you program as a demo.
The language used is unimportant, it is the logic that matters.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
The internet is still in its infancy.
Hopefully it will grow up beyond the stage of pseudonyms,
then people will think twice before they comment on articles they have not read.
I have no desire to copy and paste your faulty material.
And this is where you are simply wrong. Unless you actually deal with the equations describing gravity in general relativity, you will continue to make basic mistakes like this.
Yes, I understand what you are attempting to say. But you are *wrong* because of the specifics of how gravity works in GR.
Yes, I understand your claim. It just has nothing to do with how gravity is actually treated in GR.
This is a rather trivial exercise I assign to DiffEq students to practice with different approximation techniques.
If you use Newton's law of gravity with a time delay for the speed of light, your logic would be correct. But that isn't how GR deals with gravity.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
The only way around the logic in my article would be if relativity somehow allowed each of the binary pair
to look into the future, and attain the information as to where the opposing body will be PRECISELY
in keeping with the Newtonian orbit.
Your interpretation of relativity would then DENY that gravity moves at the velocity of light.
You would then reject this claim form Hawking as to how gravity moves at the velocity of light.
You would also then DENY the LIGO claim that gravity is moving at the velocity of light.
That is why they made such a big deal out of the gw150914 signal being DELAYED by
an amount which mean that the signal WAS moving at the velocity of light.
If you look at the hypothetical example I use with a binary pair of 1 solar mass, 150 million km apart
you would need to find something in relativity that compensates for a difference in direction of over 14000 km
for that hypothetical binary pair. And that compensation would *coincidentally* make it seem that the
Newtonian paradigm was luckily correct. So it would be "as if" gravity was instant, but not actually
because that would mean that thousands of theorists were incapable of geometrical logic.
Or do you just take it *on faith* that relativity is correct?
The only way around the logic in my article would be if relativity somehow allowed each of the binary pair
to look into the future, and attain the information as to where the opposing body will be PRECISELY
in keeping with the Newtonian orbit.
Your interpretation of relativity would then DENY that gravity moves at the velocity of light.
You would then reject this claim form Hawking as to how gravity moves at the velocity of light.
You would also then DENY the LIGO claim that gravity is moving at the velocity of light.
That is why they made such a big deal out of the gw150914 signal being DELAYED by
an amount which mean that the signal WAS moving at the velocity of light.
If you look at the hypothetical example I use with a binary pair of 1 solar mass, 150 million km apart
you would need to find something in relativity that compensates for a difference in direction of over 14000 km
for that hypothetical binary pair. And that compensation would *coincidentally* make it seem that the
Newtonian paradigm was luckily correct. So it would be "as if" gravity was instant, but not actually
because that would mean that thousands of theorists were incapable of geometrical logic.
Or do you just take it *on faith* that relativity is correct?
The main mistake you make is thinking that the gravity exchange between the binary partners is primarily via gravitational waves. It is not. Gravitational waves do NOT form from spherically symmetric situations, so they are NOT the mechanism of gravitation between the stars in a binary!
Here is a paper on the technical details of numerical solutions of GR equations for binary black holes. It does NOT support your position, but *is* consistent with both the GR equations and the observations from LIGO and other places.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.5260.pdf
There is a *gradual* decay of the orbits because of the loss of gravitational waves, but it isn't anything like what you predict.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
I will read the article during the week coming.
But you refuse to answer the questions, which is charming.
Hawking and LIGO both clearly state that relativity claims that gravity moves at the velocity of light.
And logically, if gravity moves at the velocity of light, then you have already admitted,
a binary pair will spiral outwards.
I have studied the original LIGO articles VERY closely.
More closely than those who wrote them.
I realize that LIGO are claiming an inward spiral of the black-hole binary
at a rate of 3000km per second.
But as the opening post states,
if nothing moving at the velocity of light can be emitted from the black-hole,
and gravity is said to be moving at that same velocity,
then gravity itself would not be emitted, so black-holes would give off ZERO gravity,
and could not be in ANY form of orbit.
The only way around this would be if we abandoned the principles of logic,
and cosmology attained the status of a dogmatic religion
to be taken ON FAITH, rather than
reason.
You see, nothing can come out of a black-hole, by definition,
yet nobody noticed that this would logically include gravity too.
It is said to be travelling in the same manner as light.
My dear fellow,
your black-hole
is entirely
constipated.
No, that is false and I have not 'admitted' it.
Again, wrong. Go see what GR actually says instead of spouting unsupported opinions.
Technically, gravity isn't coming out of the black hole. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime produced by the mass of the black hole.
And you don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
All the sources on GR certainly claim that gravity is moving at the velocity of light.
This includes Hawking, AND that article which you quoted earlier and clearly have not read properly.
Hawking:
note: TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT (3rd line)
Now if we apply this to a normal binary at the parameters I suggest
(each 1 solar mass, 150 million km apart)
then their is a discrepancy of roughly 15000km in the direction that gravity pulls,
if the gravity is delayed because it travels at the velocity of light.
So 500 seconds X 30km/s = 15000km, that is the difference
in the direction of gravity depending on which theory is applied.
You certainly also claimed that you understood my argument, that
IF gravity moves at THAT velocity, then a binary pair will spiral outwards.
Are you now claiming that you did not understand this argument?
Just because nobody has applied the logic of their theories geometrically like this,
is no excuse for anyone to simply ignore the logic when it is presented.
That would be dogma.
I think it is you that just ignores the claim from GR that gravity is moving at C,
because then you would have to apply the logic which would disprove your famous theory.
Phfffft! Plop!
The science and cosmology of Black Holes by the scientists qualified do this very well.
Selective quote mining of someone not qualified claiming bogus proof does not do the trick