Something Strange Happens When You Follow Einstein's Math.

[expat500]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

 

[rampart]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

excellent graphics in that clip.

 

[luiza]

See Miles Mathis and Einstein's array of maths errors .

Miles outlines each blunder and then provides the correct answers .Both for his 1905 paper and then in 1915 when he knows things are wrong but still cannot solve the problems .
Miles did, and not one person has even tried to refute him .

The greatest scientist that you have never heard of , and is feared by the CIA .

 

[Innocynioc]

In the part of Alabama where I grew up we learned all that in 7th grade science.

 

[scruffy]

None of that matters.

What matters is, the gravitational constant isn't a constant.

Einstein's constant is a complicated multidimensional tensor.

 

[ReinyDays]

Doesn't QM predict that the wavelength of a particle be smaller than the particle itself ... thus singularities are impossible ...

Einstein's constant is a complicated multidimensional tensor.

... over non-Euclidian domains ... [eyes glazing over] ... or so I'm told ...

 

[Resnic]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

So?

I mean how many scientific discoveries have you been correct about?

It's also pretty low hanging fruit to call him out for being wrong on something we dont know much about today, let alone 90 years ago. They had virtually no scientific equipment to understand a black hole. It was all just guessing and theorizing.

He died in 1955. We didn't even actually find evidence of one or have a detection of one until 1964, 9 years after he died.

Black holes: Everything you need to know

These gluttonous beasts are some of the most fascinating objects in space.

www.space.com

I'd say it's pretty amazing what he came up with about something no one had even actually seen or had verified really existed.

 

[ding]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

People misuse the term singularity all the time. It seems like these guys think singularity is a physical phenomenon. It's not.

 

[expat500]

People misuse the term singularity all the time. It seems like these guys think singularity is a physical phenomenon. It's not.

What is it then?

 

[ding]

What is it then?

It's a mathematical artifact of Einstein's field equations. It's the point where the equations yield infinite density. Something which isn't possible. It's a mathematical limitation of the equations. No one believes there is a point where there is an actual infinite density. It's basically the equations showing - mathematically - where they don't work anymore.

 

[scruffy]

It's a mathematical artifact of Einstein's field equations. It's the point where the equations yield infinite density. Something which isn't possible. It's a mathematical limitation of the equations. No one believes there is a point where there is an actual infinite density. It's basically the equations showing - mathematically - where they don't work anymore.

That's what renormalization is for.

It keeps the calculations from running off to infinity.

 

[ding]

That's what renormalization is for.

It keeps the calculations from running off to infinity.

Which is a mathematical gimmick. Bottom line is that singularities are not a physical phenomenon but many people treat them as such. It’s just where the solutions to the field equations stop working.

 

[scruffy]

Which is a mathematical gimmick.

Some people say it's a trick. But it's something nature itself could do. There is considerable evidence for instance, that entanglement mitigates many of the infinities. Renormalization works "most" of the time. Topological lifting would work 100% of the time, but it"s so computationally intensive no one has the resources.

Bottom line is that singularities are not a physical phenomenon but many people treat them as such. It’s just where the solutions to the field equations stop working.

I disagree with your reasoning. Mathematically, any discontinuity could be considered a singularity. For instance, divide by 0 could happen at a point, but it could also happen over a region. (For example in fiber bundles, in places where there are no fibers).

Physically, there are many examples of non-point singularities. My favorite example is the gap around t=0 in the brain. It can be viewed as a vanishingly small interval in the limit, but calling it a point makes no sense.

A similar concept would apply to something like a Cantor dust, which can't be simply differentiated, but is integrable everywhere. The weirdo thing Cantor proved, is the dust has the same number of "points" as the real number line. Therefore, one can transform to the reals, do math, and transform back.