An Infinite Steady State Universe - The recycle Bin?

[Neil Russell]

Nereid, are you being deliberately obtuse, I told you what deflection could be expected " equating to the gravitational attraction of the body being studied"

Don't play word games "what I know, or don't know is not relevant,is it?" you know very well about that experiment, so why waste both our times. What I am proposing is perfectly logical, whether it is possible currently, I don't know but that does not detract from the theory.

[Swift]

Nereid, are you being deliberately obtuse, I told you what deflection could be expected " equating to the gravitational attraction of the body being studied"

Don't play word games "what I know, or don't know is not relevant,is it?" you know very well about that experiment, so why waste both our times. What I am proposing is perfectly logical, whether it is possible currently, I don't know but that does not detract from the theory.

Neil Russell,

Don't call other users names and don't play games yourself. Stick to your idea and answering questions. If you think another member has stepped over the line, Report their post (red triangle in upper left corner of every post), don't debate their tactics in thread.

[Nereid]

Nereid, are you being deliberately obtuse, I told you what deflection could be expected " equating to the gravitational attraction of the body being studied"

Indeed, you did.

However, I was hoping you'd first spot the circular logic in this, and correct it.

Now that you have repeated the claim, please answer this question: how can "the gravitational attraction of the body being studied" be estimated, independent of the observed deflection?

Don't play word games "what I know, or don't know is not relevant,is it?" you know very well about that experiment, so why waste both our times. What I am proposing is perfectly logical, whether it is possible currently, I don't know but that does not detract from the theory.

(bold added)

As I have said, at least once in this thread, and many times in others, what may seem "logical" to you, the BAUT member proposing an ATM idea, does not necessarily seem so to others.

My question remains unanswered; if you require clarification, please say so (I'd be only too happy to provide any such as you need, in order to prepare your answers).

Oh, and FWIW, as I have just pointed out (above), the logic in your claim is circular ...

[stutefish]

Nereid, are you being deliberately obtuse, I told you what deflection could be expected " equating to the gravitational attraction of the body being studied"

Neil Russel, the mainstream model provides a specific, internally consistent method for predicting the deflection. It is this prediction--and its repeated success at matching observations--that gives rise to what is "expected".

Does your ATM idea include a method for predicting the deflection? If so, what is that method? Can you demonstrate it? Do its predictions match observations?

If not, how does your model determine what deflection is expected, for the gravitational attraction of a given body?

Don't play word games "what I know, or don't know is not relevant,is it?" you know very well about that experiment, so why waste both our times. What I am proposing is perfectly logical, whether it is possible currently, I don't know but that does not detract from the theory.

Let me be absolutely clear: I do not know how your ATM idea goes about setting its expectations. I do not know how well your ATM expectations match the mainstream expectations. I do not know how well your ATM expectations match observations, even for the sun.

I also do not know if you even know how the mainstream idea goes about setting its expectations. I also do not know if you know how well your ATM method (if any) compares to the mainstream method (if you even know what that method is).

I hope to gain this knowledge by your answers to my (and Nereid's) direct questions in this thread.

No word games. No suppositions. No assumptions about what the mainstream can or can't do. Just your ATM idea, answering our questions. Fair enough?

[Geo Kaplan]

NR -- Perhaps you ought to review the distinction between a theory and "random guess that feels right to you." Having lurked the BAUT forums for quite a long time, it amazes me how many folks feel so confident in presenting shockingly ill-formed ideas, and then are angered when asked quite reasonable questions. The truly revolutionary thing about the scientific method is the dispassionate way it separates fact from fertilizer, how it provides a means to overthrow the tyranny of the "it feels right, therefore it must be right" arrogance that characterizes most other systems of thought. The "it feels right" part is a terrific motivator to seek new theories, but you have to TEST them! And if you don't have anything testable, then it's just hot air. No sense acting offended when scientists point this out to you. If you can't answer basic questions about your idea, then maybe the idea isn't as solid as it felt/feels to you, and maybe you need to revise it. But don't get angry at the questioner.

[Nereid]

[...] please answer this question: how can "the gravitational attraction of the body being studied" be estimated, independent of the observed deflection?

This thread has but hours (max one day) to go, so I'm bumping this question ...

[Neil Russell]

Nereid, I say that BHs have G attractio9n less than C. I have suggested that it should be possible to measure G for BHs using the deflection of light past them and comparing such deviations to known bodies such as our own star,which has been recorded as far back as 1919.
I repeat the deflection expected will be proportional to the mass of the BH being measured. Surely you do not expect me to give you specific degrees of variation? First the theory, then the experiment then the maths? If I was in a position to answer that question now, I would be publishing my results and awaiting the "glory".
Deflection under standard astrophysics? What are you expecting here?

[Nereid]

Nereid, I say that BHs have G attractio9n less than C. I have suggested that it should be possible to measure G for BHs using the deflection of light past them and comparing such deviations to known bodies such as our own star,which has been recorded as far back as 1919.

Indeed, you did say that.

I repeat the deflection expected will be proportional to the mass of the BH being measured.

Which is just what it is in standard (astro)physics textbooks, and entirely consistent with the results of thousands of independent experiments and observations.

Surely you do not expect me to give you specific degrees of variation? First the theory, then the experiment then the maths? If I was in a position to answer that question now, I would be publishing my results and awaiting the "glory".

So, just to make sure I've understood ... you are saying that it might be possible, at some time in future, for the expected deviations to be calculated, but as of today you have no idea of when - or even if - such a calculation might be possible?

Deflection under standard astrophysics? What are you expecting here?

It's called the "null hypothesis". A well-designed test (experiment, observation) determines - ahead of time - what would be expected if the new idea/theory/whatever were not relevant/effective/true/whatever. The design of the test includes a phase where the expected result is determined, perhaps only within a range, assuming the new idea/theory/whatever were relevant/effective/true/whatever. If the test is expected to discriminate between the two, then it's probably worth proceeding; if not, then not.

So, if I may be so bold, the answers to my original questions are as follows:

What deflection would be expected, under your ATM idea? Don't know.

What deflection would be expected under standard astrophysics? Don't know.

Did I misunderstand something significant?

[Neil Russell]

Nereid,"how can G be estimated, independent of the observed deflection". Good question, I have been led to believe that our suns G attraction is known? I do not know how that was done, this does not detract from my ATM. Geo Kaplan is saying that my ATM is only a "good idea" and not testable? Well I have given an example of a galaxy exploding hydrogen outward from its core, my explanation is my ATM, perhaps if you wish to attack my ATM that might be a point to answer.
The crux of my ATM is that BHs do not have gravity attraction greater than C I made a suggestion how this could be proven, big mistake, I am now being thrashed on this point, when there are lots of other points which could be addressed?

[Geo Kaplan]

Geo Kaplan is saying that my ATM is only a "good idea" and not testable?

That's not what I said. Please do not misquote me. Post #35 contains the full text of what I actually did say. It's wishful thinking to imagine that I called your ATM idea "good."

[Nereid]

Nereid,"how can G be estimated, independent of the observed deflection". Good question, I have been led to believe that our suns G attraction is known?

Yes, it is.

I do not know how that was done

Why not make use of the collective knowledge of BAUT members and ask how, in the Q&A section? Many people would be only too pleased to help you.

, this does not detract from my ATM. Geo Kaplan is saying that my ATM is only a "good idea" and not testable? Well I have given an example of a galaxy exploding hydrogen outward from its core, my explanation is my ATM, perhaps if you wish to attack my ATM that might be a point to answer.

I think I missed that; is it "On 13/8/2002 the Subaru Telescope announced it had discovered an exploding galaxy 14 billion light years away, they stated that clouds of hydrogen moving at several hundred kilometres per second were coming from the centre of the galaxy"?

If so, perhaps you are referring to an 8 August, 2002 Subaru PR, "Subaru Discovers an Exploding Galaxy at the Edge of the Universe", and you perhaps misread it (there's nothing about "the centre", or "the core").

Here's a suggestion: why not check out the actual published paper(s) based on observations such as this? They're easy enough to find ... in this case it seems it's "A New High-Redshift Lyman alpha Emitter: Possible Superwind Galaxy at z = 5.69" (click here to go to the arXiv preprint).

The crux of my ATM is that BHs do not have gravity attraction greater than C I made a suggestion how this could be proven, big mistake, I am now being thrashed on this point, when there are lots of other points which could be addressed?

Well, if this "example of a galaxy exploding hydrogen outward from its core" is another, then the primary science source (i.e. the paper) doesn't seem to be evidence in favour of that ATM idea at all ...