Stephen Crothers’ Latest Numerology Presentation

[comingfrom]

Do you have a link to that thread?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/pleya ... ades_9.htm

[Electro]

It's just that they tend to disagree with the mainstream explanations, for much of what is observed.

Well, unfortunately, with a telescope at light-years away, observation is mostly interpretation (and belief in the dogma)...

Furthermore, mainstream scientists often "look" for something that will fit with the math, instead of coming up with the math for a phenomena...

And the article above is a good example of interpretation based on assumption:

Assuming stars are nuclear furnaces, or that light bends under Einstein's gravity, will definitely change the numbers considerably... Distances to stars not measurable by parallax could be completely wrong...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/pleya ... ades_9.htm

All of the older methods of determining the distance to the stars involve assumptions based on either the theory of nuclear stars or the theory of gravity (or both). But from an Electric Universe point of view, stars are powered by galactic electric currents, not nuclear furnaces. And gravity isn't a constant, but a variable dependent on electrical characteristics.

[celeste]

Celeste

This is where we have to get back to the "Pleiades distance problem"

Do you have a link to that thread?

cheers

kiwi, this is a good link
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... -08282014/
fairly recent, easy to read, and showing that there still are unresolved problems. Also note the great range of distance answers in their plot.

What is not shown in their plot, is that there are two different types of trigonometric parallax, and they yield very different answers. Hipparcos used direct parallax, while some others (like Hubble), used relative parallax. With direct parallax, you look at where the Pleiades cluster is in the sky, you wait 6 months for the Earth to orbit half way around the sun, and then you measure again the angle to the Pleiades. This is simple trigonometry, where if you know the length of one side, and the two adjacent angles, you know the distance to the Pleiades. With relative parallax, you look past the Pleiades to see what distant stars are behind them, wait 6 months, and see which stars are behind the Pleiades then. Now you simply measure the angular distance between the background stars. Again simple trigonometry, and it should yield the same result.
There is one catch: If light is bent around the Pleiades cluster, then those background stars in the relative parallax measurement are not really as far apart as they appear. This does work to make the direct parallax distance measurements shorter than the relative parallax measurements. This is consistent with the Hipparcos distance being less than the Hubble distance (which is where the problem first came to my attention).
Again, this idea should have been clear to everyone doing these measurements, except they had no reason to look for this degree of bending. There is clearly not enough mass in the Pleiades cluster to do this bending.

Back to the point raised in this thread: The mainstream sees "gravitational" bending that matches GR. When there is bending that does not match GR, they don't even interpret it as bending. They see a mistake, which future observations will hopefully clear up.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Electro.

Well, unfortunately, with a telescope at light-years away, observation is mostly interpretation (and belief in the dogma)...

Furthermore, mainstream scientists often "look" for something that will fit with the math, instead of coming up with the math for a phenomena...

And the article above is a good example of interpretation based on assumption:

Assuming stars are nuclear furnaces, or that light bends under Einstein's gravity, will definitely change the numbers considerably... Distances to stars not measurable by parallax could be completely wrong...

Each one of these statements of yours lends justification to Crother's "numerology" remark, imo.

Cheers
`Paul

[kiwi]

Celeste

This is where we have to get back to the "Pleiades distance problem"

Do you have a link to that thread?

cheers

kiwi, this is a good link
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... -08282014/
fairly recent, easy to read, and showing that there still are unresolved problems. Also note the great range of distance answers in their plot.

What is not shown in their plot, is that there are two different types of trigonometric parallax, and they yield very different answers. Hipparcos used direct parallax, while some others (like Hubble), used relative parallax. With direct parallax, you look at where the Pleiades cluster is in the sky, you wait 6 months for the Earth to orbit half way around the sun, and then you measure again the angle to the Pleiades. This is simple trigonometry, where if you know the length of one side, and the two adjacent angles, you know the distance to the Pleiades. With relative parallax, you look past the Pleiades to see what distant stars are behind them, wait 6 months, and see which stars are behind the Pleiades then. Now you simply measure the angular distance between the background stars. Again simple trigonometry, and it should yield the same result.
There is one catch: If light is bent around the Pleiades cluster, then those background stars in the relative parallax measurement are not really as far apart as they appear. This does work to make the direct parallax distance measurements shorter than the relative parallax measurements. This is consistent with the Hipparcos distance being less than the Hubble distance (which is where the problem first came to my attention).
Again, this idea should have been clear to everyone doing these measurements, except they had no reason to look for this degree of bending. There is clearly not enough mass in the Pleiades cluster to do this bending.

Back to the point raised in this thread: The mainstream sees "gravitational" bending that matches GR. When there is bending that does not match GR, they don't even interpret it as bending. They see a mistake, which future observations will hopefully clear up.

Thanks a bunch Celeste, fully "quoted" because its worth it

[noblackhole]

I have no objections whatsoever to you fellows discussing gravitational theories; have at it with my blessings. But on occasion (and this is one), I may rudely interrupt the proceedings with comments regarding Stephen Crothers’ EU2015 presentation and his 88 papers. Please forgive the intrusion.

The following is a list of five noteworthy Stephen Crothers critics and their analysis of his work. Crothers has specifically singled out these five individuals for derision (all are highly regarded mathematicians or physicists), referring to them as "My Malicious, Gormless Critics": http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/critics.html

"Gormless", in case you are wondering, means stupid. So without further ado, I present the evidence against Stephen Crothers' claims as told by his top 5 critics:

Dr. William D. Clinger:

• “Mathematics of Black Hole Denialism”
  http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... alism.html
  
  "Black holes: history versus mathematics”
  http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st10777342

Dr. Jason J. Sharples:

• "Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension: a Rebuttal
  to the Relativistic Claims of Stephen J. Crothers"
  http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -20-L1.PDF
  
  "On Crothers' counter-examples to the Kruskal-Szekeres extension"
  http://crankastronomy.org/contrib/sharples/KSdoc.pdf
  
  "Watching the World Cup"
  http://crankastronomy.org/contrib/sharples/ReplyBS.pdf

Dr. Gerard ‘t Hooft:

• "Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity"
  http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft10 ... onceptions

Dr. Christian Corda:

• "A clarification on the debate on the original Schwarzschild solution"
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.6031

Dr. Gerhard W. Bruhn:

• "Enemies or Opponents?"
  http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... 41008.html
  
  "Discussion of S. Crothers' Views on Black Hole Analysis in GRT"
  http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... Views.html

However, here are the gormless critics:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Clinger.html

Crothers, S.J., Reply to the Article ‘Watching the World Cup’ by Jason J. Sharples, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0412v1.pdf

Crothers, S.J., Counter-Examples to the Kruskal-Szekeres Extension: In Reply to Jason J. Sharples, http://vixra.org/pdf/1604.0301v1.pdf

Crothers, S. J., The Black Hole Catastrophe: A Short Reply to J. J. Sharples, Hadronic Journal, 34, 197-224 (2011), http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0032v1.pdf

Crothers, S. J., General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, 4 August, 2014, http://viXra.org/abs/1409.0072

Crothers, S.J., On Corda's 'Clarification' of Schwarzschild's Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0221v4.pdf

Bruhn, http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... tters.html

[Zyxzevn]

Thanks steven.
I love your work.

I still try to grasp the problems of general relativity in simple terms.
Wikipedia and such are good sources for that.
Let me summarize what I think of it:

For example. General relativity uses tensor equations.
The tensor is generally a 4D matrix in each cell of the 4D matrix.
So instead of the 3 variables of space + 1 of time, we get 16 variables (with 16 equations).
How does 16D tensor-space/time correspond with the original 4D space/time?
It seems that the scientists just mix up both, as you show in your black-hole
example: The schwartzshield radius is calculated in 16D tensor space, and not in 4D space. So it has
no physical meaning.

General relativity itself breaks with quantum entanglement, as Einstein already recognized.
That is because the same information starts at two different places at the same time.
Most scientists try to solve by assuming that there is something wrong with entanglement.
Why is it so hard for them to see that general relativity has been build on wrong assumptions?
For me, who has been well educated in quantum physics, it seems as if they just do not understand
the problem. Like: if you are trained to work with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Are these scientists nowadays so specialized, that they can only see a small part of the system?