Electric Universe

[el_flesh]

Heavier objects actually DO fall faster than lighter objects, only the effect is so entirely negligible compared to mass of Earth, which warps space to a far greater degree, that it isn't observable at the human scale. The human "common sense" version, however, would have the effects vastly magnified and in that regard it is wrong. Unlike your EU, which is entirely wrong.
Yes, again with your being a high school dropout, and therefore, very likely ignorant of what you're talking about. ONCE AGAIN: I have said it is possible for HS dropouts to actually be self-educated. ONCE AGAIN: I have said they are extremely rare. ONCE AGAIN: given the bovinewaste you post; you are not among them.
I will continue to point it out as long as it is relevant, and your ignorance of Physics makes it entirely so.
ONCE AGAIN: I have provided proof several posts ago, in links that demonstrate how gravity causes the effects you claim are eckeltricity. Proof of a model is completely possible; Galileo modeled gravity's pull on falling objects using weights and inclined planes. Commander David Scott dropped a geologic hammer and a feather on the Moon and PROVED the model of gravity pulling objects at the same (observational) speed. Mass spectrometers PROVE the models of stellar composition. Solar observation probes also PROVE it and DISPROVE your bovinewaste eckletrical sun.
I ignore your last post entirely because, ONCE AGAIN, I will not go in a circle of endless BOVINEWASTE. I will not copy paste my previous posts, unlike yourself and your 'questions' that were NOT invited; I SAID "by those who actually want to know," not "by the dropout who wants to repeat his bovinewaste ad nauseum".
A crackpot index is for those who hold crazy fantasies in contrast to reality, like claiming we never landed on the moon and it is all a big conspiracy. Just like your eckletrical univarse is also "held down" by a big conspiracy. That makes YOU the crackpot; and me, one of the VAST majority of Scientists the world over who agree upon reality, NOT APPLICABLE to the CRACKPOT index. D'uh. And by the way, "conspiracy" on the crackpot index = 40 points (#34).

There is a universe of difference between curved spacetime and flat spacetime.
So, you can add up #2, #3, #4 =6 total for you on that one.

Ricci tensor explained using University level MATH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzBzh8fWRiM Don't understand it and frustratingly want it spoon fed to you in here by word? Tough. You're a self-proclaimed "genius". You should be able to follow it no problem.

I've answered your questions once. If you don't like the answers, then ONCE AGAIN, mathematically demonstrate how they are wrong. Or score on the crackpot index = 10 points (#15)
Oh, and 10 points for #18, ">140 IQ"

ONCE AGAIN,

The underlying physical processes that give rise to the "string of pearls" structure are related to the Jeans instability, a physics phenomenon that occurs when the internal pressure of an interstellar gas cloud is not strong enough to prevent gravitational collapse of a region filled with matter, resulting in star formation. This process is analogous to that which causes a column of water falling from a rain cloud to disrupt, and rain to fall in drops rather than in continuous streams.

Source: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/july/hubble-spots-spiral-bridge-of-young-stars-linking-two-ancient-galaxies/
I know, I said I wouldn't repeat myself in here; but mr. dropout-yet-UnGenius' repetition is getting tiresome.

SAYING you're not worth answering is simply me getting sick and tired of CONSTANTLY refuting your SAME points OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER with DEMONSTRABLE PROOF.

From Earth we see [MWC 922's] two cones of ejecta from side-on, but they point in opposite directions. As the ejections of dust and gas are expelled in almost a 90-degree cone the nebula seems square.

Genius level intellect, huh? Suuurrrrrreee.

Oh yes, and #37: 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Let us know when you can spot New Horizons by eye as it approaches!

[Gold Bearer]

Heavier objects actually DO fall faster than lighter objects, only the effect is so entirely negligible compared to mass of Earth, which warps space to a far greater degree, that it isn't observable at the human scale. The human "common sense" version, however, would have the effects vastly magnified and in that regard it is wrong. Unlike your EU, which is entirely wrong.

Common sense, if you had any, would tell you that falling objects accelerate at the same rate regardless of their weight because otherwise two falling objects that touched would start to accelerate faster than if they hadn't touched, very silly. How could heavier objects fall at a faster rate? I'm going to look into this because I'm genuinely intrigued, it never come across that before.

Yes, again with your being a high school dropout, and therefore, very likely ignorant of what you're talking about. ONCE AGAIN: I have said it is possible for HS dropouts to actually be self-educated. ONCE AGAIN: I have said they are extremely rare. ONCE AGAIN: given the bovinewaste you post; you are not among them.

It's not rare. Most people can read.

I will continue to point it out as long as it is relevant, and your ignorance of Physics makes it entirely so.

It only became apparent at the exact time that I posted it, funny that.

ONCE AGAIN: I have provided proof several posts ago, in links that demonstrate how gravity causes the effects you claim are eckeltricity.

No you haven't! The links you provided describe the gravitational interpretation, they don't justify that interpretation, they merely describe it. By posting links like that that have no relevance you're either hoping that a blatant misdirection will be enough to sidestep the issue or you genuinely can't grasp that in order to show that one model is superior to another you have to demonstrate that one can explain phenomena that the other can't. Something the EU model does exceptionally well.

Proof of a model is completely possible; Galileo modeled gravity's pull on falling objects using weights and inclined planes. Commander David Scott dropped a geologic hammer and a feather on the Moon and PROVED the model of gravity pulling objects at the same (observational) speed. Mass spectrometers PROVE the models of stellar composition. Solar observation probes also PROVE it and DISPROVE your bovinewaste eckletrical sun.

Galileo's model was wrong. You don't need to drop two objects to show that they wall fall at the same rate, it's common sense. There's nothing profound or surprising about it. Mass spectrometers measure wavelengths, which are not solely dependent on the composition of the body, so not really. There's no solar observation probe that either proves disproves the electric sun hypothesis or proves the nuclear one. If anything the do the exact opposite by providing details of the sun that can be explained far easier in electrical terms than they can by the nuclear sun model.

It's impossible to prove a model correct, all you can do is fail to disprove it by showing that it works within the specific set of conditions imposed by the experiment. Be honest, have you really done any further scientific education at all? I think you're lying about that as well because you really should know this Mr martial arts instructor. What style of martial arts do you teach?

I ignore your last post entirely because, ONCE AGAIN, I will not go in a circle of endless BOVINEWASTE. I will not copy paste my previous posts, unlike yourself and your 'questions' that were NOT invited; I SAID "by those who actually want to know," not "by the dropout who wants to repeat his bovinewaste ad nauseum".

That's it, talk Latin, that will make you seem clever. Questions that you have completely failed to provide answers to. You ignore points that you have no answer to. That's obvious. Any attempt to deny that at this point just makes you look even more dishonest. If you could you would tear the points apart, but you can't.

A crackpot index is for those who hold crazy fantasies in contrast to reality, like claiming we never landed on the moon and it is all a big conspiracy. Just like your eckletrical univarse is also "held down" by a big conspiracy. That makes YOU the crackpot; and me, one of the VAST majority of Scientists the world over who agree upon reality, NOT APPLICABLE to the CRACKPOT index. D'uh. And by the way, "conspiracy" on the crackpot index = 40 points (#34).

The crackpot index only applies to people who disagree with my backward interpretation of reality, it doesn't apply me and people who agree with it. That is an absolute classic! Quadruple d'uh, no backsies. You're not a scientist, that's clear by the way you try to debate. It couldn't be more obvious from the stuff you write that you're just a pathetic loser twat troll who likes to go online and pretend that you're things that you wish you were.

There is a universe of difference between curved spacetime and flat spacetime.

Name one! If you view it as objects following straight paths through flat spacetime then you can apply that exact same curvature gradient to an objects path through flat spacetime and get identical results so how could there possibly be any difference? Do you know that it's actually possible to reformulate GR into a flat spacetime description, proving that even if GR were accurate, curved spacetime is nothing more than a different way of looking at the same thing?

Ricci tensor explained using University level MATH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzBzh8fWRiM Don't understand it and frustratingly want it spoon fed to you in here by word? Tough. You're a self-proclaimed "genius". You should be able to follow it no problem.

This is yet another deflection. There issue isn't how the Ricci works, that's not what's in dispute. If you have any understanding of that video (highly doubtful) then you should know that when it's set to zero it describes a massless universe. The Ricci tensor has to be set to zero for GR's equations to work. Our universe does have mass so if GR's equations can't describe our universe then, at least in their current form, what good are they?

Why is there no gravitational bending of light when it passes outside the sun's atmosphere and why is there no gravitational lensing at the centre of the galaxy? This is a killer blow to GR. This is best possible place to test gravitational lensing because there's so much mass and so many stars orbiting around it and there no lensing to be found. Why R's definition in GR equations keep changing? Why is it impossible to formulate a single coordinate system that covers the entire manifold, or to smoothly transition between two coordinate systems that do? And best of all, why does GR predict that objects both can and can't cross the event horizon of a black hole depending on their frame of reference and/or how they formulate their coordinate system?

I've answered your questions once. If you don't like the answers, then ONCE AGAIN, mathematically demonstrate how they are wrong. Or score on the crackpot index = 10 points (#15)
Oh, and 10 points for #18, ">140 IQ"

Plus ten trillion points for continuously lying by claiming you given answers when you blatantly haven't. I sorry I forgot, the index only applies to people who don't share you views and believe what they're told by a source that they think of as reliable without any understanding what they're talking about beyond a few facts that they've goolgled to pretend that they do. You've given no answers for me to either like or dislike. If I was to mathematically demonstrate how these imaginary answers of yours were wrong then it would be a purely theoretical argument. If on the other hand I point out direct observational evidence that refutes them then that's a far better and more scientifically rigorous disproof. Do you dispute this fact?

ONCE AGAIN,
The underlying physical processes that give rise to the "string of pearls" structure are related to the Jeans instability, a physics phenomenon that occurs when the internal pressure of an interstellar gas cloud is not strong enough to prevent gravitational collapse of a region filled with matter, resulting in star formation. This process is analogous to that which causes a column of water falling from a rain cloud to disrupt, and rain to fall in drops rather than in continuous streams.
Source: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/july/hubble-spots-spiral-bridge-of-young-stars-linking-two-ancient-galaxies/
I know, I said I wouldn't repeat myself in here; but mr. dropout-yet-UnGenius' repetition is getting tiresome.

"Astronomers don't quite know how to explain the origin and ultimate fate of the object, but the answer must be extraordinary, say scientists." Or painfully obvious.

"We were surprised to find this stunning morphology, which must be very short-lived." It's not short lived rediculously dumb professional sciencey person!

"We were stunned by what we saw in SDSS J1531+3414," EU supporters weren't. They predicted it.

"Whatever the origin for this star-forming gas is, the result is awesome. It's very exciting. You can't find a mundane explanation for this." And the Jeans instability is a really lousy attempt.

They have no idea how to explain it, they just think it might be related to the Jeans instability. You've taken one tiny part of the article and presented it in a way that's completely out of context. Just one more example of how deep your dishonesty really goes.

From Earth we see [MWC 922's] two cones of ejecta from side-on, but they point in opposite directions. As the ejections of dust and gas are expelled in almost a 90-degree cone the nebula seems square.

Nope, that can't explian the image. You're going to have to do a lot better than this. Firstly there are two straight lines on either side running along the width of each of the trianlgular parts of the image. One of them looks very much like it separates a region containing arc mode plasma from a region containing glow mode plasma (not saying this part's definitely true but I'd be very supprised if it isn't) and the other seperates an area of uniform plasma from an area where it's arranged in a fillamentary structure. Assuming these features are real and not due to refraction (I don't see how they could be) or due to an imperfect imaging process, they can't be explained by using any known physical process other than electric current. Secondly if those really were cones then the parts at the edges would be the faintest because there would be less gas there as the cone curves around but those are the dencesed parts from this two dimensional view so the gas/plasma must go back further along those lines. Show this picture to an electrical engineer and ask them what they're looking at.

Genius level intellect, huh? Suuurrrrrreee.

Don't call me a lyer! You're the one who has been demonstrated as being totally full of *lemony goodness* (pretending to be a martial artist for some reason and an instuctor no less, using the kind of dishonest debating tactics that you use and probably lying about your education as well as you seem to think it that can validate an invalid argument). I hate dishonesty and being called a lyer by somebody who obviously doesn't care about honesty is like being told how to do a knife hand block by somebody who doesn't know the first thing about martial arts. Don't try dragging me down to your level. I've taken two IQ tests in my life. I got 142 on the first one and 148 on the second one. That's not especially high, especially compared to some people who work in this field but it's still good compared to the average. I think I could get a bit higher now. Intelligence and knowledge aren't the same thing anyway so it really makes no difference.

Oh yes, and #37: 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

How many more times? The EU has made predictions and this is in fact one of its strongest assetts, this is one accusation that definitely can't be made against it. It predicted that there would be no bow shock at the edge of the solar system due to the larger galactic electrical enviroment that the solar system sits in. The solar wind keeps on avccelerating well past the edge of the suns magnetic influence. This was definitely not expected by the standard model but was predicted by the electrical model. "The models that have been thought to predict what should happen are all incorrect." - Stamatios Krimigis, Physicist, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. They're not all incorrect, just the ones that they don't refuse to acknowledge were all incorrect. Even more impressive, it predicted the presence of energised neutral atoms. This was a beautful prediction. Because the positrons don't travel around the curcuit, they recombine with electrons that do to produce energetic neutral atoms that build up just outside the solar system. This is nothing short of magestic. If you take the view that the solar system doesn't have an electrical current flowing through it then how do you explain the accuracy of these predictions?

It predicted stars and galaxies on strings and it made a ton of predictions about comets that have just been confirmed, and it's made loads of successful predictions that I haven't mentioned. I can't remember all of them. It also makes crap loads of predictions that have yet to be tested. Accusing the EU of this is a joke.

Let us know when you can spot New Horizons by eye as it approaches!

Will do.

SAYING you're not worth answering is simply me getting sick and tired of CONSTANTLY refuting your SAME points OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER with DEMONSTRABLE PROOF.

Just saying that doesn't make it so. You have to actually refute the points, not just claim that you have when you obviously haven't.

What force provides the neccissary counteraction to the planet's gravitational influences on each other in order to stabilse their orbits?

Why are they regularly spaced?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08mar_solarwind/ This is the only link you've posted that actually attempts to directly address a point that I've made rather than deflect around it. Transverse magnetohydrodynamic waves were proposed as a mechanism for solar wind acceleration but failed and now we have ion cyclotron waves. That will probably fail as well when it's tested but even if it doesn't, it would still only be able to explain the acceleration out to roughly the same distance from the sun as Jupiter. Further away from the sun the solar wind continues to accelerate, well beyond what this model can explain. So this can't be the reason for the solar wind acceleration, as least not the only contributing factor. You still need to provide an explanation for solar wind acceleration beyond the orbit of Jupiter other than chaged partice moving in an electic field.

You haven't explained nebula alignement close to the galatic core either, or a load of other stuff that I can't be bothered to list. Basically you've explained fraggle all. You've been completely unable to support your claims and justify your position. The only things you've been able to do are troll, provide irrelavent links or ignore points altogether, call me names and say d'uh. Is this supposed to be anything other than a demonstration of the complete ignorence an ineptitude of an iddiott with no understanding of what he's trying to demonstrate? If so it hasn't worked. Your soul is corrupt!

From now on I'll only be responding to reasonable arguments and valid points, so this will probably be my last post unless el_flesh miraculously manages to get his act together. I'm done with the rest of it. If you continue to troll then you're just going to turn more people against you. If you decide you want to have a sensible discussion I'll be here.

[knightkrawler]

It's impossible to prove a model correct, all you can do is fail to disprove it by showing that it works within the specific set of conditions imposed by the experiment.

That is what I have learned repeatedly, in classes, university courses, and reading up different topics myself, from natural sciences to philosophy.
It stands to common intuition that this is how every last one of us should see the world and sciences dealing with it.
It's a great personal loss if you regard anything as a final irrefutable truth. It will make you a believer in science which is when your scientific model is on par with a sect.

[Anderas]

Je suis Charlie.
Amen.

el_flesh actually posted links that explain the pictures of Gold Bearer well inside the Standard Model/Relativity. Gold Bearer in turn keeps reposting these same pictures stating they show the opposite.

Well, this can last a loooooong time.

Everybody has the right to his own opinion as long as he lives in one of the well-managed states of the earth. Selling his opinion as fact needs a proof in turn, and it is the one who wants to convince the others to bring a proof - so it is opposite to a lawsuit in front of the court.
el-flesh has the comfortable position to have numerous people working on proofs in favor of his opinion and other people tried to disprove his position and were not able. Then he was able to post links to exactly these proofs.
Gold Bearer states that he has also people working on his position and people finding evidence, but he does post no links nor quotations; if he posts something it is a photo but without link to the source.
If he would, it would be too easy to find the real explanation.

For example, the red square Nebula he posted one page before:

Source

The explanation proposed by Tuthill and his collaborator James Lloyd of Cornell University claims that the square shape arises from two cone shapes placed tip-to-tip, as seen from the side. This also explains the "double-ring" structure seen in SN 1987A.[1]

Of course there are unclear points. But this is what is fascinating about astrophysics, isn't it?

[knightkrawler]

Why does everybody get the proving/disproving wrong?
It is not possible to prove something right. It is only possible to prove contradicting other things to be wrong.
Geez.

[Gold Bearer]

el_flesh actually posted links that explain the pictures of Gold Bearer well inside the Standard Model/Relativity. Gold Bearer in turn keeps reposting these same pictures stating they show the opposite.

This isn't true. The links el_flesh has provided do not explain the points that I've made. Most of the links he's given don't even address the issue raised, they just describe the standard model's interpretation while doing nothing to answer the actual point I've made.

Everybody has the right to his own opinion as long as he lives in one of the well-managed states of the earth. Selling his opinion as fact needs a proof in turn, and it is the one who wants to convince the others to bring a proof - so it is opposite to a lawsuit in front of the court.

Any good scientist knows that proof is an impossibility. It's based on a process of elimination, or it should be. GR has been disproved multiple times but they refuse to let it go. It's extremely easy to show that GR is nonsensical because it contradicts itself, as well as making predications that have now been proven false. The current state of mainstream science is a broken system that no longer practices the scientific method. Anything that refutes a model that is established gets rejected regardless of how well it does it, whereas utter crap that falls in line with the accepted models gets published.

There were a group of people who used a computer program to extract completely random parts of already published papers and mash them together. They made a bunch of these and submitted them under false names. Well over half were published in fully established and respected scientific journals. This was a huge embarrassment and shows just what a sorry state they're now in.

el-flesh has the comfortable position to have numerous people working on proofs in favor of his opinion and other people tried to disprove his position and were not able. Then he was able to post links to exactly these proofs.

They were able to! People have disproved parts of the standard model but they just get ignored. The links he posted are not proofs of anything, they're just descriptions of a model that's already been falsified in most cases, or at least ruled out as a complete explanation.

Gold Bearer states that he has also people working on his position and people finding evidence, but he does post no links nor quotations; if he posts something it is a photo but without link to the source.
If he would, it would be too easy to find the real explanation.

Utter bullshit! The points I've raised (including the images) can't be explained using the standard model. The standard model can't explain the acceleration of the solar wind, the concentration of energised neutral atoms just outside the solar system that were predicted by the electrical model, the fact that the solar system is stable despite the gravitation interactions of the planets and the regular spacing of the planets (both of which are easily explained by charge separation), stars and galaxies formed along strings (predicted by the EU and now shown to be common), the alignment of nebula close to the galactic core and a crap load of other stuff that can be understood electrically.

For example, the red square Nebula he posted one page before:
Source

The explanation proposed by Tuthill and his collaborator James Lloyd of Cornell University claims that the square shape arises from two cone shapes placed tip-to-tip, as seen from the side. This also explains the "double-ring" structure seen in SN 1987A.[1]

That nebula can't be explained by two solid cones because the outside rim of the cones as we see them would be the faintest parts of the triangles, not the brightest/densest. Those are hollow cones. That's exactly what happens with Birkland currents, the charged particals are arranged into concentric cylinders. That nebula is part of an electrical circuit undergoing a z-pinch. The plasma sheaths keep on going outside the lit up parts of image. The pinch concentrates the current into a smaller volume and when there's enough energy it switches the plasma from dark mode into glow mode (the red bits). Those lines going across the cones are where the double layers form and the plasma inside of that is in arc mode. That's an electrical interpretation of an image that the standard model can't explain and doesn't want to talk about.

Of course there are unclear points. But this is what is fascinating about astrophysics, isn't it?

Er yes, and the EU model provides one underlying process that can explain a huge variety of unclear points that the standard model has failed to explain.

[Anderas]

It's extremely easy to show that GR is nonsensical because it contradicts itself, as well as making predications that have now been proven false.

If so, do it. Don't state again and again that it is possible. Just do it.

For the nebula, it seems to be less extremely easy; so it would suffice to quote one (just one) serious (serious!!!) source supporting your idea. I am not talking about people that upload a youtube video of 2 hours of blabla. I rarely have the time for a video with more than two minutes length. Quotable linkable text should suffice.

[Gold Bearer]

It's extremely easy to show that GR is nonsensical because it contradicts itself, as well as making predications that have now been proven false.

If so, do it. Don't state again and again that it is possible. Just do it.

I have.

GR has never been proven to you, that's a complete impossibility. It's been shown to you that it can predict very well the effects of gravity under certain conditions. Nobody has created a source of gravity in a lab strong enough to prove to you that GR gives an accurate description in extreme gravity, like that around a black hole where GR fails. They've also never been able to demonstrate to you that gravitational lensing occurs around all massive objects, or explain the paradox that occurs in GR around a black hole. They've also never even been able to show you any equations that apply to our universe because GR can only work in a universe with the object it's describing in it and no other mass. Ask your physics teacher what the Ricci tensor represents and why it has to be at zero for the equations to work and see what they say. Ask them why R's definition in what are supposed to be self consistent equations keeps changing. Also ask them whether it's possible for an object to cross the event horizon of a black hole because either way I can give you a set of coordinates from GR that says the opposite. While you're at it ask them why the hell it's impossible to formulate a single coordinate system that covers the entire manifold, or to smoothly transition between two coordinate systems that do cover the whole manifold.

The Ricci tensor has to be set to zero for GR's equations to work. Our universe does have mass so if GR's equations can't describe our universe then, at least in their current form, what good are they?

Why is there no gravitational bending of light when it passes outside the sun's atmosphere and why is there no gravitational lensing at the centre of the galaxy? This is a killer blow to GR. This is best possible place to test gravitational lensing because there's so much mass and so many stars orbiting around it and there no lensing to be found. Why R's definition in GR equations keep changing? Why is it impossible to formulate a single coordinate system that covers the entire manifold, or to smoothly transition between two coordinate systems that do? And best of all, why does GR predict that objects both can and can't cross the event horizon of a black hole depending on their frame of reference and/or how they formulate their coordinate system?

Black holes also break the rule that all the rules and equations of physics should be independant on the arrow of time, they should work exactly the same in reverse and black holes don't in GR because if an object crosses the event horizon and the arrow of time is reversed then the object would exit from inside the event horizon and that's impossible according to GR so it creates a situation where events change if the arrow of time is reverse, which is a direct violation of one of the established principles of physics.

GR directly violates some of the results of quantum mechanics as well. QM is the best theory that exists in physics in terms of giving accurate testable results and it describes gravity completely differently to GR. It doesn't need curved spacetime to describe it. One disproof is enough, that's what disproof means. How many do you want?

For the nebula, it seems to be less extremely easy; so it would suffice to quote one (just one) serious (serious!!!) source supporting your idea. I am not talking about people that upload a youtube video of 2 hours of blabla. I rarely have the time for a video with more than two minutes length. Quotable linkable text should suffice.

You're asking for a quote from a scientific source to support an idea that the mainstream doesn't support? That makes no sense! The whole point is that this should be the leading candidate to explain images like that but it's not. The electrical description I gave is more or less the same one that any supporter of the EU who knows what the EU models are based on would give. Electrical engineers would no doubt come to the same conclusion.

What do you mean "it seems to be less extremely easy"? More complicated than the description of two cones? Like I said, those are hollow cone shapes. If it were simply matter ejected from the star then way would it form this shape? And how would those straight lines running across the cones be made? Why would those lines seperate ares of filaments from areas of uniform gas and areas of darker and brighter (higher/lower energy states) gas?

[Anderas]

Well, actually you didn't show it. Instead you posted a set of claims without a single proof or argument.

Just one short example - Gravitational lensing was THE prediction that was taken as proof that the GR actually does correct predictions; and it was measured first with stars observed directly next to the sun; changing their perceived position a little bit. So this statement of you is utterly wrong.

Black Holes, same story. While it is not possible to use relativity to calculate things crossing the horizon, they themselves actually have been a prediction of this theory.

As the claims of you are not proven and apparently not correct, maybe you better go on and quote somebody serious for any (A-N-Y) future claim in this direction. There are admittedly some holes in the GR, but you didn't state them. The equations work fine and do correct predictions. And, no-one has something better.

I certainly didn't see anything comparable from the EU; let's say, from my premier source about the EU. That is you in person, as long as you don't quote sources we could rely on.

[Gold Bearer]

Well, actually you didn't show it. Instead you posted a set of claims without a single proof or argument.

I did post proofs. GR does give self contradicting information about black holes depending on the coordinate system used. That proves it's not accurate all the time. No coordinate system that GR can formulate is able to cover the entire manifold, so it never gives an 100% accurate coordinate system.

Just one short example - Gravitational lensing was THE prediction that was taken as proof that the GR actually does correct predictions; and it was measured first with stars observed directly next to the sun; changing their perceived position a little bit. So this statement of you is utterly wrong.

You really need to start actually reading what you're trying to argue against. As I said:

Why is there no gravitational bending of light when it passes outside the sun's atmosphere and why is there no gravitational lensing at the centre of the galaxy? This is a killer blow to GR. This is best possible place to test gravitational lensing because there's so much mass and so many stars orbiting around it and there is no lensing to be found.

Black Holes, same story. While it is not possible to use relativity to calculate things crossing the horizon, they themselves actually have been a prediction of this theory.

And they've never been observed, how could they be? I think they do exist but GR obviously doesn't give a good description of them and can't be claimed as a complete description of gravity if it can't fully describe them.

As the claims of you are not proven and apparently not correct, maybe you better go on and quote somebody serious for any (A-N-Y) future claim in this direction. There are admittedly some holes in the GR, but you didn't state them.

How many more times do you need to be told that no scientific model can ever be proven? By "quote someone serious" I take it you mean someone within the mainstream, so how can any challenge ever be made to existing models if refutations need to be supported by the people being challenged? And no, I'm not going to quote other people and rely on them to make my case for me.

The equations work fine and do correct predictions. And, no-one has something better.

They work better than Newton's, they don't work fine. They give descriptions that can't be accurate.

I certainly didn't see anything comparable from the EU; let's say, from my premier source about the EU. That is you in person, as long as you don't quote sources we could rely on.

Are you taking about the red square nebula? Why do I need somebody else to say the same thing to make a valid point? That's ridiculous.