Any Maverick Mathematicians out there?

[Native]

Stephen Crothers details: Are Stephen Crothers' claims legitimate?

He is not a competent source. Footnotes on article researching his references and comments on his misinformation..

• 
  19
  This would be the same Stephen Crothers who seems proud of being expelled from his PhD course and has called Paul Davies and George Szekeres "inept". There may be occasions where one man is right and everyone else is wrong (Galileo?), but I don't think this is one of those occasions. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 8:41
• 13
  There is no way to answer this if you're a layman. On the one hand you have Stephen Crothers saying black holes don't exist. On the other hand you have every other physicist since 1916 saying they do. As a layman how can you tell who is right? The only way to learn enough physics to judge for yourself. Every argument I could make to a layman comes down to saying that history suggests the majority are right most of the time. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 9:37
• 11
  Einstein did not deny that the Schwarzschild metric was a valid solution to the equations of GR. He believed that in the real world a black hole wouldn't form due to rotation of the infalling matter. He subsequently discovered that his own equations predict that rotation cannot stop matter falling into a black hole once it gets closer than three Schwarzschild radii, and consequently changed his mind. The paragraph you cite says: This paper received no citations, and the conclusions are well understood to be wrong. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 10:26
• 6
  I did look on Crothers' site, and I glanced through his papers on vixra.org. I have also read Schwarzschild's original paper - in fact I read it many years ago. My point is simply that non-specialists are not in a position to judge the validity of his claims so how can I answer your question? Except to say, which is undoubtably true, that his view is not the mainstream one. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 14:11
• 3
  I'm downvoting for the reasons given here: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4918 . If the OP wants to replace or supplement the video link with a link to Crothers' papers on vixra, I'll be happy to remove my downvote. – user4552 Oct 12 '13 at 15:49

Is this gossipping all you can come up with in an OP which deals with *Maverick Matheticians* who dares to have the guts to reveal how modern scientist tinkers with maths in all kind of speculative ways which have nothing to du with real science?

Apparently you haven´t even understod the OP in this thred, så stop spamming it anymore.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Watched enough"? So you even didn´t reached his conclusions?

Why should I? If the guy talks drivel from the get-go, he's hardly likely to reach a sensible conclusion.

This is excactly why shouldn´t be in this OP anyway, because you have NO *Maverick Mathemahical* skills at all. You´re just uncritically following the indoctrinated path INSIDE the squared box and it doesn´t seem that you´re coming out of the box any time soon.

This is also why you´re not able to jugde others who have left the box and begin to think independently and critically of whats going on.

The problem is that you don't really seem interested in maverick mathematicians, just people who say things that you like, even if they don't have a clue about the mathematics and science. An example of a genuine maverick (who I rather admire) is Roger Penrose, who questions inflation in cosmology, thinks wave-function collapse is a real phenomenon connected to gravity, doesn't think the solution to unifying general relativity with quantum field theory necessarily involves throwing out GR and replacing it with a quantum theory of gravity, has proposed a GR based cyclic universe without any contraction phases (via conformal geometry), and has some considerably less convincing but even more eccentric and unique ideas about consciousness (unless he's given up on that, I haven't heard much recently) but he knows what he's talking about; he published joint papers with Stephen Hawking.

There are a lot of wingnuts out there and you can pretty much guarantee that you'll find somebody who'll agree with anything you want and even sound scientific about it (as long as you don't actually understand the science).

As I said, it's easy to bamboozle people when you know the mathematics and they don't. Take a look at the proof that 2 = 1 I posted (#78), without the other comments or using google, would you be able to tell what's wrong with it?

 

[Native]

Why should I? If the guy talks drivel from the get-go, he's hardly likely to reach a sensible conclusion.

Really? Doesn´t it occur to you that some mathmaticians do everything with constants; maths and equations in order to get their cosmos to fit their hypothesis and theories instead of the other way around? Maybe*the idiotic crank* just reveals such tinkerings, hence his unpopularity in consensus circuits?

An example of a genuine maverick (who I rather admire) is Roger Penrose, who questions inflation in cosmology, thinks wave-function collapse is a real phenomenon connected to gravity, doesn't think the solution to unifying general relativity with quantum field theory necessarily involves throwing out GR and replacing it with a quantum theory of gravity, has proposed a GR based cyclic universe without any contraction phases (via conformal geometry), and has some considerably less convincing but even more eccentric and unique ideas about consciousness (unless he's given up on that, I haven't heard much recently) but he knows what he's talking about; he published joint papers with Stephen Hawking.

Do you have a link to the joint papers?

I admire Roger Penrose as well for his guts to think outside the consensus squared boxes, and I even have contacted him by mail, so far without any reply.

Regarding *understanding maths* and experiencing *Maverick Mathmatematicians* what do you expect Roger Penrose to meet from *consensus scientists* when launching his alternate ideas and theories?

Will he be very welcomed - or put somewhat aside by the consensus community as happens with lots of other alternate persons who dared to think otherwise out of the squared boxes?

As what happens to me here when I´m throwing alternate ideas up in the RF air?

 

[ratiocinator]

Really?

Really.

What? Stephen Crothers published joint papers with Roger Penrose?

No - Stephen Hawking.

 

[ratiocinator]

Regarding *understanding maths* and experiencing *Maverick Mathmatematicians* what do you expect Roger Penrose to meet from *consensus scientists* when launching his alternate ideas and theories?

Will he be very welcomed - or put somewhat aside by the consensus community as happens with lots of other alternate persons who dared to think otherwise out of the squared boxes?

His ideas have been criticised but he is still well respected because he knows what he's talking about and doesn't talk utter nonsense like Crothers. Crothers isn't a maverick, he's a buffoon.

 

[Native]

No - Stephen Hawking.

Sorry my confusion. Edited quickly in my post above and before/at the same time as your latest paost
Please read it once more.

 

[ratiocinator]

Maybe*the idiotic crank* just reveals such tinkerings, hence his unpopularity in consensus circuits?

But he doesn't know what he's talking about. Much of what he says at the start suggests that he thinks that black holes are impossible unless the Schwarzschild metric applies to the entire universe, rather than to just the region near to the mass in question. Note also that the metric doesn't only apply to black holes, it's more strictly called the Schwarzschild external metric. It applies to exterior space-time around any mass.

Putting up a bunch of equations and using technical terms like asymptotically flat (that most average people won't have any understanding of) doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

Do you have a link to the joint papers?

The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology

 

[gnostic]

Also, do you have yourself the relevent skills and knowledge to truly discuss physics and mathematics at this level?

Nah.

Native is only interested in make-believe pseudoscience (eg Plasma Cosmology, Electric Universe) and in spinning conspiracy theories.

 

[Polymath257]

Really? Doesn´t it occur to you that some mathmaticians do everything with constants; maths and equations in order to get their cosmos to fit their hypothesis and theories instead of the other way around? Maybe*the idiotic crank* just reveals such tinkerings, hence his unpopularity in consensus circuits?


Do you have a link to the joint papers?

I admire Roger Penrose as well for his guts to think outside the consensus squared boxes, and I even have contacted him by mail, so far without any reply.

Regarding *understanding maths* and experiencing *Maverick Mathmatematicians* what do you expect Roger Penrose to meet from *consensus scientists* when launching his alternate ideas and theories?

Will he be very welcomed - or put somewhat aside by the consensus community as happens with lots of other alternate persons who dared to think otherwise out of the squared boxes?

As what happens to me here when I´m throwing alternate ideas up in the RF air?

Penrose has proven his understanding of the 'consensus ideas' and gives intelligent and insightful criticisms. He will be met, as with *everyone* proposing new ideas with the question of how to test his hypotheses. The good thing about Penrose is that he also suggests ways of testing his ideas and admits it when he is wrong. He knows what is required of scientific ideas and follows through with predictions and, usually, some math to go along with his hypotheses.

So, while most people see Penrose' ideas as 'out there', they are also taken seriously and considered.

Sorry, but you comparing yourself to Penrose is like me comparing myself to Whitney Houston as a singer.

 

[Polymath257]

But he doesn't know what he's talking about. Much of what he says at the start suggests that he thinks that black holes are impossible unless the Schwarzschild metric applies to the entire universe, rather than to just the region near to the mass in question. Note also that the metric doesn't only apply to black holes, it's more strictly called the Schwarzschild external metric. It applies to exterior space-time around any mass.

Putting up a bunch of equations and using technical terms like asymptotically flat (that most average people won't have any understanding of) doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology

Evidently he doesn't realize the 'singularity' at the event horizon is a coordinate singularity and not an actual singularity in anything real. Sort of like the coordinate singularity at the north and south poles of the Earth. I can say this is just ignorance, but if he is claiming any expertise in the subject, it is something he *should* know.

More problematic is that he claims the 'r' in the Schwartzchild solution isn't the radius, but the inverse square root of the curvature (which he says he computed). But, the equation he gets that from is the line element for a sphere. And for a sphere, the inverse square root of the curvature *is* the radius. So, he seems to be deliberately misstating what is going on because he knows his audience doesn't know enough to be able to contradict him.

In other words, he either knows how to compute this and is deliberately lying about its meaning OR he doesn't know what it means and is lying about that.

My conclusion is that he isn't actually an idiot. He is deliberately lying. And this is also evident from most of the other things he says in the video.

Again, he either understands the material and is deliberately lying about it, or he doesn't understand the material and is lying about THAT. Too many things he says show his dishonesty.

 

[Polymath257]

More convincing if you're more general:

Do you know this one?

ln(2) = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - 1/6 + 1/7 - 1/8 + 1/9 - 1/10 + 1/11 - 1/12 ......

Collect every odd term with its double and bring the fourth terms along:

ln(2)= (1- 1/2) - 1/4 + (1/3 - 1/6) - 1/8 + (1/5 - 1/10) - 1/12 ....

= 1/2 - 1/4 + 1/6 - 1/8 + 1/10 - 1/12 ...
=1/2*(1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - 1/6 ...)
= (1/2)ln(2).

Since ln(2) is not 0, we can cancel and get
1 = 1/2
so 2=1.

 

[Heyo]

Hello All,

I wonder if all astrophysical and cosmological mathematicians just are able to work with consensus approaches in these scientific areas - or if someone also have the guts and the intellectual and logical skills to think outside the squared box of the consensus society.

If so, I´ll like to make such contacts for a common discussion of alternative perceptions of it all.

Anyone interested in this *Maverick Project* can apply here and we´ll find a way to discuss *in private* so to speak.

Remember: Only gutsy Maverick Mathematicians are Welcome.

Regards
Native.

I'm far away from being a maverick mathematician, heck, I'm far away from being a mathematician but I have an out-of-the-box idea to find one or become one:
Study the ideas of those mathematicians who have been mavericks in the past. Look at non-Euclidean geometry. That was the idea to investigate what happens when you drop an axiom.
Look at the beginnings of stochastic, calculus or tensor maths. Those were new ideas in the field of maths.
I don't know the innards of renormalization, but that solved some problems with infinities in cosmology.
And look at infinite sums. The normal rules of maths don't apply there (commutation, association, distribution). (That's why @Polymath257's prove of 2=1 fails.) Really understanding the maths of infinity may help to solve the outstanding problems with infinities in cosmology.

 

[Native]

So, while most people see Penrose' ideas as 'out there', they are also taken seriously and considered.

I know: Nobel Prize`s based on consensus matters can get you anywhere - and can get you nowhere.

I only admire Roger Penrose for his maverick guts trying to think outside the squared boxes.

Roger Penrose has made contributions to the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize in Physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems. and one half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".

I´m not impressed at all of *an assumed discovery of a black hole and it´s prediction in GR*.

*Black holes* are nothing else but a bi-derectional toroidal funnel of E&M formation as you can learn in this video - and explained on 3 minutes by a REAL FORCE in black on white on a board by your belowed maths equation calculations.

Just exchange your *singularity and event horizon speculations* whit this real explanation of whats´s going on in galactic centers. The entire event is a circuit of formation.

Toroidal motion visualized

Watch the logical E&M forces in action on gaseous atoms as seen here on time stamp 6:42

Here´s my example of how INTUITION works:

"The timestamp 6:42 "Mystery" solution is this:
Add the electromagnetic laws to the gaseous atoms in the two vortex rings:
Explanation:
Two charged atomic vortex rings collides and reacts accordingly to the electromagnetic laws: Magnetic fields induces electric currents which again induces perpendicular magnetic fields, in this case showed by more E&M formatted vorticities rings - etc. etc.

All credit to the Video maker and especially to the Danish physicist and chemist, Hans Christian Ørsted, who discovered the Electromagnetism back in 1820.
---------------
There are no such highflying speculative things as *singularities*, which only is a mathematical invention. All motions in cosmos are *electromagnetic circuits of formations* as illustrated above, and that´s it.

Sorry, but you comparing yourself to Penrose is like me comparing myself to Whitney Houston as a singer.

MY comparison to Roger Penrose dealt ONLY whith HIS - and my - GUTS to think again and outside the ortodox consensus boxes.

Your comparison to Whitney Houston stands for your self and itself

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you know this one?

ln(2) = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - 1/6 + 1/7 - 1/8 + 1/9 - 1/10 + 1/11 - 1/12 ......

Collect every odd term with its double and bring the fourth terms along:

ln(2)= (1- 1/2) - 1/4 + (1/3 - 1/6) - 1/8 + (1/5 - 1/10) - 1/12 ....

= 1/2 - 1/4 + 1/6 - 1/8 + 1/10 - 1/12 ...
=1/2*(1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - 1/6 ...)
= (1/2)ln(2).

Since ln(2) is not 0, we can cancel and get
1 = 1/2
so 2=1.

Okay, that took me longer than it should have to spot. Reminded me how much of my pure maths course I've forgotten. Fun though.

 

[Native]

Look at the beginnings of stochastic, calculus or tensor maths. Those were new ideas in the field of maths.
I don't know the innards of renormalization, but that solved some problems with infinities in cosmology.
And look at infinite sums. The normal rules of maths don't apply there (commutation, association, distribution). (That's why @Polymath257's prove of 2=1 fails.) Really understanding the maths of infinity may help to solve the outstanding problems with infinities in cosmology.

Thanks Heyo
IMO the maths fails all over in cosmos EXCEPT FROM from the very calculations of Newton´s celestial motions - which was based on unscientific dynamically explained *occult agency forces*.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks Heyo
IMO the maths fails all over in cosmos EXCEPT FROM from the very calculations of Newton´s celestial motions - which was based on unscientific dynamically explained *occult agency forces*.

Thanks, that answer and your last post is sufficient evidence to know that @gnostic was right.

 

[Native]

Thanks, that answer and your last post is sufficient evidence to know that @gnostic was right.

Your personal gossipping reply is completely out of the OP Topic.

 

[Native]

Subject: *At the time when scientists were real scientists.

David Suzuki interview with Dr. David Bohm (Reposted 11. sep. 2015)

There´s an interesting part in timestamp 19:28 which deals with *what other scientist tought/think about new ideas* and gues what? They politely thought Bohm´s ide was interesting, but they didn´t wish to participate before all the maths were done and succeded.

Where is it now, I´ve meet that self-assurance chicken approach before?

David Bohm apparently also accepted religious and philosophical thoughts of Creation (timestamp 20:28 and some minutes forward) and he had no problems of mixing these topics,

Now there I > You > We have a REAL *Maverick Mathmatician and Philosophical Scientist* to follow .

In timestamp 28:39 David Bohm even speak of understanding nature via giving attention and wait for everything to speak intuitively back to us and give us real informations.

David Bohm Biography
(David Joseph Bohm 20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992)

Personally i was/is very pleased with his objective, logically and selfcritical distance to the subjects, and with this universal approach, he was a genuine *Maverick Mathematician Philosophical Scientist* at it´s very best.

David Bohm was/is to me a genuine *Polymath* indeed .

What are your thoughts and comments?

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: *At the time when scientists were real scientists.

David Suzuki interview with Dr. David Bohm (Reposted 11. sep. 2015)

There´s an interesting part in timestamp 19:28 which deals with *what other scientist tought/think about new ideas* and gues what? They politely thought Bohm´s ide was interesting, but they didn´t wish to participate before all the maths were done and succeded.

Where is it now, I´ve meet that self-assurance chicken approach before?

David Bohm apparently also accepted religious and philosophical thoughts of Creation (timestamp 20:28 and some minutes forward) and he had no problems of mixing these topics,

Now there I > You > We have a REAL *Maverick Mathmatician and Philosophical Scientist* to follow .

In timestamp 28:39 David Bohm even speak of understanding nature via giving attention and wait for everything to speak intuitively back to us and give us real informations.

David Bohm Biography
(David Joseph Bohm 20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992)

Personally i was/is very pleased with his objective, logically and selfcritical distance to the subjects, and with this universal approach, he was a genuine *Maverick Mathematician Philosophical Scientist* at it´s very best.

David Bohm was/is to me a genuine *Polymath* indeed .

What are your thoughts and comments?

Bohm gave an interpretation of classical quantum mechanics that makes *exactly* the same predictions of observations as the standard theory while *also* being much more complicated to actually use. In many ways, it is similar to the 'pilot wave' point of view.

As such, it is *philosophically* interesting, but doesn't carry much *scientific* interest. It is considered to be *observationally* equivalent and harder to actually use for no real benefit.

Even more, when more advanced aspects are brought in, Bohm's outline ails miserably to deal with, for example, spin and the Pauli exclusion principle (which is the basis for stability of matter).

So, Bohm's ideas are usually discussed more by philosophers than physicists because there is little use for it in the *science*.

 

[Native]

As such, it is *philosophically* interesting, but doesn't carry much *scientific* interest. It is considered to be *observationally* equivalent and harder to actually use for no real benefit.

So, Bohm's ideas are usually discussed more by philosophers than physicists because there is little use for it in the *science*.

Sorry Polymath257,
I don´t care the least of comments which comes out of the squared box of restricted *science* definitions in the standing modern cosmology.

This topic is about the quite opposit - as it also was/is a part of the context in the entire video you watched - if you did.

Polymath257 - Read up on your polymath definitions here.