The false god(s) of physics

That seems at best a very sloppy wording of what is suggested. LIGO observed a wave contracting/expanding ("warping") space, in a way predicted by General Relativity (and not other theories, such as Hatch's). That's not really saying that gravity is a wave, but that space curvature (gravity) also can come in waves, and that such waves are contractions and expansions of space (as predicted by General Relativity).

But go on, you brought up Hatch's solutions, aethers and the like, could you provide the evidence for us to review on those please?

 

We start with the simple stuff first, you bit now chew.
You dont even know what hatches theory is, by your own admission yet you claim not hatchs theory wtf?
So anything with a wave warps space? Water? Radio? Sound? Photons? LOL
All of which contract and expand either traverse or longitudinally.
So then we have space waves, not gravity waves?
Explain.

 

Koko, do you have a place designated in your home for your nobel prize you are sure to be getting, for having disproven Einstein and all of modern physics?

 

I highly recommend starting here: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/physi...9yxoCKP4QAvD_BwE#idiq=6509967&edition=6351116
Can you afford 3 bucks?
Im sure you would be able to post something more constructive with more education and maybe in 75 years of study you will be able to post something that actually applies and makes sense?

 

So does this mean you've picked out a spot for your nobel prize?

 

Nice try. It sounds a lot like you have nothing. As you said "A good first step is to address the points made in the OP", so I guess the first step is for you to provide enough info to assess the points in the OP, which includes claims about Hatch that could do with some evidence.

I don't know Hatch's theory in full, but I know some of its predictions (I have given you the link to the presentation). Hatch predicted LIGO would disprove General Relativity, when in fact it ended up confirming the relativity predictions.

Again, that is not what I, or the papers I quote, said. If gravity is a curvature of space time, then waves in gravity will manifest as contractions/expansions of space. Anyway, the paper goes through this (and there'll be more details in the references).

If gravity is the curvature of space time, then they're sort of the same thing (that is sort of the point of the experiment).

 

you want to move on before demonstrating how space can physically contract/expand, either tell us how space is capable of contracting/expanding or admit its all made up bullshit, simple as that.

When you tell me an iron rod can be bent you will bend it then hand me a bent piece of iron to prove it. Hand me a bent piece of iron I am forced to concede iron can be bent.

We need an answer for warped space, weener said space warps, prove it. saying weener said therefore it warps is circular and proves nothing!

We all know weener said it. We also know weenee never proved it. you bit it now chew it.

If SPACE is capable of contracting and expanding we didnt discover gravity waves we discovered SPACE WAVES! LOL Which of course would mean we could apply it also to Water, Radio, Sound, and Photons

Please stop trying to dodge proving or conceding the point.

 

Starting with the first one on the list:

 

I have a feeling "how" isn't the question you're really trying to ask here, because General Relativity gives an answer to how it happens. The LIGO observations is the bent iron rod in this analogy, consistent with the "how" detailed in General Relativity.

And no, I don't necessarily want to "move on", I'm sure we can discuss the above in parallel with a review of your claims about aether and Hatch's theory. (Or, as seems more likely, discuss with how little evidence and understanding you're willing to make claims when you haven't got an axe to grind).

Keep your arguments straight. The point I was making in the paragraph you quoted was that General Relativity predicts this effect from gravitational waves, not from water waves or sound waves etc.. In order to make that point, I needed to show what General Relativity said, so that's what I presented.

The waves observed were generated in a gravitational event (collision/merger of two massive objects) so they are gravitational waves. They were observed to give the shifts in space (in particular, the spacial component of curvature of space time). This links gravity to the curvature of space time, in the way predicted by General Relativity.

There is nothing in these theories or observations that applies to water or sound etc. (arguably, radio waves and photons are similar but in the electromagnetic field, observations of those is one of the reasons people started developing post-Galilean relativity in the first place, but it kinda depends on how far you're willing to stretch the analogy).

I have provided the peer reviewed paper with plenty of relevant references, as well as detailed discussions about the processes and theories involved. Your support of aether and Hatch's theory amounts to nothing but vague remarks. You're behind, and by a lot.

 

False, GR makes a naked claim, nothing more.

So now you are right back to your circular argument fallacy, space warps because weenee said it warps is not an explanation how space (something with no substance) can possibly get warped in the first place.

At this point you are wasting your time if continue to dodge explaining how 'space' something with no physically bendable properties can get warped in the first place.

You should refrain from taking bite out of issues you really cant defend or support.

As I said, first on the list, the 'simple' stuff first, the subject matter under examination remains 'simple' space warping, not not 'complicated' ligo.

So I presume you concede the point.

 

Correction: *Both GR and SR, make the same naked claim. Fallacy physics!

 

So are you putting the Nobel on your mantle or dresser? If it were me, I’d have a custom made display case to put it in.

 

Dont worry, I could never match the prestigious awards they gave you! Are you going to expand your shelving fpr more?

 

It’s so funny that you still think you’ve disproven Einstein lol.

 

What are these "physically bendable properties", and how do they relate to being able to be bent? And what proof do you have of that?

Consider, as a simile, the curvature of the earth. If two people leave the north pole in two different directions and move in what seems to them a straight line (and at the same speed), both of them will meet at the south pole. If they looked at each other while they were walking, they would first see the other person move away, and then get closer again. If we didn't know about the curvature of the earth, we might think that some force bent the other person away from their straight path.

The curved space time as proposed in General Relativity is conceptually not very different from the curved surface that the people in the example walk on, the answer to "how" you can have curved space will be the same as the answer to "how" you can have a curved 2D surface. As you can see, there are no logical issues with having a curved surface and the curvature didn't depend on any particular "physically bendable properties". The concept of curvature as presented in the previous paragraph does not rely on any relativity, modern physics or Einstein assertions.

Sounds like another dodge to me. For someone so adamant to point at evidence, you can't seem to do it yourself.

 

so warped space is a 2D pile of dirt with big puddles that cant be shovelled.....


This is going to be an exciting discussion!

 

This isn’t a discussion. This is you hilariously claiming to have disproven Einstein and all of modern physics and everyone else laughing their assets off.

 

Somebody is very JEALOUS of Einstein!

 

And by "no one" you mean everyone knows it is gravity that can bend light! We see it every time the sun rises in the East. That's right we see the sun BEFORE it clears the horizon because its light is bent by Earth's gravity.

 

You beat me to it. I didn't see your post when I posted mine.
Great minds think alike!

 

jealous of someone who is proven wrong,
hilarious!

So then you agree that Newton was right! Which of course goes without saying weenee is wrong, since as you just admitted its gravity that bends the path of light not LSD-time.

Looks like thats not true?

Now the question is, do you accept reality or worship the false god?

 

Still claiming to have debunked Einstein - and Modern Physics - and still putting words in mouths of others.

 

No the example above is just to show that the curvature of space doesn't require the "physically bendable properties" you assert without evidence that it needs (or that space already has them).

So you've gone from just failing to provide any proof of your position, to just adding assumptions (also without proof) to other ideas.

 

it shows no such thing, its merely a figment of your imagination and worse its 2 D !
Seriously? Gravity bends light and gravity can only act upon a mass.

you showed us curvature of dirt.

You assume space 'physically warps', as weeners GR and SR claim, the OP challenges weeners theories, its never been proven, you need to prove that space in fact physically warps like weener says. chop chop

 

Seems most of us are on the same page here - and it is what you are stating that is "figment of your imagination" - well - the rest of us - along with Science Logic and Reason.

Your claim that Gravity can only act on mass is demonstrably false - a figment of your imagination contrary to the aforementioned.

Here is some material to help bring you onboard !

Understanding gravity—warps and ripples in space and time

https://www.science.org.au/curious/... spacetime, which,of light caused by gravity .