Page 2 of 2

Re: The truth about black holes

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:35 am
by Donovan Ready
My money is on you saying it's shit. I read the first 'paper' and gagged on the video. Just my opinion, of course.. :mrgreen:

Re: The truth about black holes

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:38 am
by Doug Coulter
Well, didn't get to read all the paper (pressing other issues right now) but it's fairly impressive baffle-gab, really using the jargon, but not shedding much light. He blows it in my mind by using holograph all the time without mentioning the basis functions which would be Laplacian or Fourier transform type stuff, and by saying the the Planck constant isn't anthropcentric (needless use of a fancy word to mean "not having to have been measured by humans, defined as fundamental).

That's wrong. Look it up in wikipedia for crying out loud. Every aspect of that constant and law requires human measurement - wavelength in what units again? Frequency in what units? All arbitrary human concepts - any unit of length or time isn't fundamental, just made some size that suits humans.

If he really derives the mass of a proton from scratch, that's not unimpressive, actually, but due to the above, I have real doubts that he even knows what "from scratch" means - or is all too aware that most of the audience doesn't know.
The only real question is he self-decieving or just working on us. Seems people want to believe some things so hard, and are so easy to make skip over the details (which are the crux of the biscuit) that this kind of thing proliferates all too easily, especially if you can point to this or that thing everyone knows as part of the derivation. The thing is, it just doesn't follow that if I tell you one truth, that I know and tell all truth. Not hardly.