Slashdot Mirror

Sounds like you need a better model.

Give this one a try.

Chris,

I'm curious what you think about this model.

This one has no ads, no filler, is non-radio, and by the way has unique content.

At least you didn't go here.

The aether: invented by Isaac Newton, reinvented by James Clerk Maxwell. This is the stuff that fills up the empty space of the universe. Discredited and discarded by Einstein, the aether is now making a Nixonian comeback.
  - Leon M. Lederman

Re-reinvented by another Maxwell.

even a thing like finding a unified model or disproving the standard model isn't necessarily in line with what the Nobel prize is supposed to be awarded for.

The scientific hegemony would never allow any disproving of the Standard Model to occur. Instead it would be "new results" which "extend" it, and may "hint" at "dark matter", "dark energy" and "exotic new particles".

As to a unified physics model not winning, if that doesn't win a Nobel prize in physics it ain't much of a prize, is it?

- - - - -

Nobel specified "greatest benefit on mankind"

My new (and unified) model of physics provides great potential benefit to mankind because it steers physics away from the lunacy of particle smashing & endless star cataloguing, and toward valid models & simulation. With zero tolerance for ludicrous fudge factors. The economic benefit of that would be in the billions (to tens of billions) of dollars a year.

But let's be frank here. The physics shell gamers don't want a unified theory. They have managed to transform a scientific field to a science fiction cash cow and want status quo (or SNAFU) until the end of time.

- - - - -

The Nobel prize has a fairly absurd list of rules that effectively snuff out true innovation.

(1) "Nomination forms are sent by the Nobel Committee to about 3,000 individuals, usually in September the year before the prizes are awarded. These individuals are generally prominent academics working in a relevant area."

So if one is working in a completely new way (i.e. area), then no one else is and so none of the 3,000 will nominate you. In this method the Nobel mirrors the Oscar process. An elite club decides which person becomes part of the elite club.

(2) "The Nobel Committee then prepares a report reflecting the advice of experts in the relevant fields."

Again, true innovations will be specifically avoided by this approach. The Higgs monstrosity will succeed, though.

(3) Why no posthumous award? What does that have to do with anything? Great innovators have families, or at least relatives. What am I missing here?

(4) "Nobel's will provided for prizes to be awarded in recognition of discoveries made "during the preceding year"."

Again, why? If it takes 366 days to figure out how advanced someone was, then too bad? Idiotic.

At least this last one has morphed -- "According to Ralf Pettersson, former chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology or Medicine, "the criterion 'the previous year' is interpreted by the Nobel Assembly as the year when the full impact of the discovery has become evident."

Clearly what is needed is more input from the general public. Not a popularity contest, but at least some way to break through the decades of dust and repetition that cloud the minds of most.

Theorists who prove to be right should be valued about cataloguers.

The "maximum of 3" constraint should be dissolved in battery acid. The cash amount is fixed, and that is enough. If more win, they get less each. Simple.

- - - - -

Radical ways to improve the Nobel process...

(a) If there is no real winner that year, the prize money carries forward to the next year.

(b) People nominated but not winning get an automatic re-nomination the next year.

(c) People from other disciplines get to judge the merits of a nominee. I've found alleged scientists to be the most closed-minded group I deal with on a day-to-day basis. They have found their religion and have turned off the "Welcome" sign. Artists are wide open and often on the same wavelength as myself, because they are creative dreamers with vision. I'm pretty sure the world needs more of those.

Spring-And-Loop Theory is a better model than quantum mechanics (and relativity, and string theory). Here is the intro.

Anyone on Slashdot who claims otherwise had best produce the Nobel prize in physics and Fields medal in mathematics, because it's going to require just as many discoveries there.

This implies that the Nobel and Fields awards are fair, honest or well-intentioned. When it is quite apparent that approximately nothing in life is fair, honest or well-intentioned.

nobody actually has a grand unified theory

For non-zero values of "nobody".

Abolishing the lunacy that is particle smashing would save the world tens of billions of dollars a year.

The only thing worth debating is how long before the systems of control blocking progress in all important fields are dissolved. Work will have to begin with The Fed, of course. We're only up against trillionaires...how hard can it be?

Both are wrong because both deny there is an ether.

Agreed. Currently I professionally care for a person that needs 24x7 care. It is a very bohemian situation and they all have a great time drinking and smoking and THCing. Well, I have a great time right along with them and at no time do I wish I was drinking or smoking.

Drinking is like tattoos. One can somewhat justify it during one's teens, but that is about it.

It is not even about how harmful it is, which any LD50 analysis will tell you. It is about how insidious it is -- slowly enslaving you over a period of decades. It is about how harmful it is to newborns -- you haven't lived until you've had to care for a fetal alcohol syndrome person for a year or two -- woo hoo! And it is about the gigantic amounts of money involved in the booze industry that push everyone involved to do the ugliest things.

My dad made homemade wine for decades. Never over-consumed. Profited no one. His consumption was as close to balanced as it gets. But the thing is, his wine tasted awful...because alcohol tastes awful. In every single form. Not to see this is to lie to yourself.

Alcohol is a microcosm of society. All the best lies are said about it. People do the worst possible things to other people because of it. And for what? To be "loose"? Why not just be loose, when the situation dictates it?

While I'm at it, please allow me to take a giant dump on Lifehacker, who promote booze as if it is, in any way shape or form, a life hack. May they die in a pool of their own vomit.

Cheers!

Anyway, if you really are looking for alternate theories, might I suggest my own alternate theory?

appreciated. to evaluate it, i need to see some papers: some mathematical equations, i don't mind if they're in text form or PDF form, however PDF is the standard format. words outlining the "features and benefits" without actually giving the *actual* maths and a step-by-step recipe on how a mathematician can follow them, won't help, and nor will videos of the same.

do you have something like that available? i use vixra as it's self-publishing.

Do you mean Dr. Randell Mills? For those curious, his site is here

Wiki is not very kind...

Anyway, if you really are looking for alternate theories, might I suggest my own alternate theory?

Agreed

It is not the first step of a theory but a last step to provide specific numerical results. What has been accomplished so far is not too shabby, considering it has been done with zero budget. Please compare $0.00 with the $5,000,000,000/year waste that is the LHC.

Also note that many of the predictions made by Spring-And-Loop Theory do not need to be numeric to be significant. That is the whole point of a new model. You are like a buggy whip maker demanding I show you a new and improved buggy whip.

For example, Albert Einstein won his Nobel for the photoelectric effect, despite that being nothing but a theory; a mere speculationj -- an "I wonder that was unsubstantiated for the next 9 years.

...then I will convince mainstream physicists whom I have worked with that they should stop working on string theory and the standard model and general relativity and instead follow your lead...

Anyone who would put forward string theory as something of value evokes my empathy. And so, out of kindness, I continue.

As to the "standard" "model", Wikipedia's List of (hundreds of) unsolved problems in physics puts the lie to anyone saying it is valid, sound or useful.

Views like yours are the real problem -- bought and paid for "scientists" with zero incentive to support anything that actually works.

I get it. I just can't go down that corruption route. Primarily because it is the least interesting path.

This is a good point of discussion. Things aren't as black and white as you imply, of course, but distractions are way up these days.

I came up with my theory because of an unusual job situation -- caring for first one and later a second Alzheimer's person, on very long shifts, the second one at night -- one in the country, the second where I wasn't able to have the lights on.

I listened to a physics series on audio player almost every waking minute for a year and a half.

So it can be done, but circumstances will need to play a big part.

If you really want to prepare your son for the future of physics, go with a better theory than relativity (or anything else Einstein came out with).

A maximum of 10,000,000 microwatts per meter squared. The government limit. Works out to 1% of what it takes to cook a body. Seriously

Try this one.

The theory GP linked to has been discredited.

While I did only have time to skim a chunk of the website GP linked to, one clear difference between his EMRP theory and Le Sage's theory was the speed of the propagation of gravity (partly due to variation in 'c', if I read it right). So I'd hardly say his theory has been discredited, even if Le Sage's (and others') was ... although I'm not convinced the author addressed the thermodynamic issues with Le Sage's theory - like I said, I only had time to skim it.

In essence it says there is a push everywhere, and that one atom/mass blocks another from this push, and this is what (somehow) attracts the two things together. Even intuitively this sounds bizarre/non-workable.

Well, it might sound bizarre and unworkable to you, but it does kind of make intuitive sense to me. Funny thing about intuition is we don't all intuit the same things. Besides, even 'regular' physics has the idea of a sea of virtual particles (with their anti-particle pair) continuously popping into existence and, in most cases, popping out again as they 'annihilate' each other. Vacuum energy? I'm not sure that the idea of a universal non-local EM radiation is any more bizarre than this.

Spring-And-Loop Theory also thinks gravity is a push, not a pull.

But there the similarities end. Perhaps the introduction is the best place to start.

There I shall start then.

And thanks for the input! I look forward to reading your papers.

Disclaimer: Spring-And-Loop Theory is also an alternative model of how things work at all scales.

The theory GP linked to has been discredited. In essence it says there is a push everywhere, and that one atom/mass blocks another from this push, and this is what (somehow) attracts the two things together. Even intuitively this sounds bizarre/non-workable.

Spring-And-Loop Theory also thinks gravity is a push, not a pull. But there the similarities end. Perhaps the introduction is the best place to start.

Disclaimer: Spring-And-Loop Theory is also an alternative model of how things work at all scales.

The theory GP linked to has been discredited. In essence it says there is a push everywhere, and that one atom/mass blocks another from this push, and this is what (somehow) attracts the two things together. Even intuitively this sounds bizarre/non-workable.

Spring-And-Loop Theory also thinks gravity is a push, not a pull. But there the similarities end. Perhaps the introduction is the best place to start.

Yup, you figured out how to avoid it. Well done.

It is a matter of convenience. For example, on my main system I use BiggerCalc [Size comparison]. I don't want to type "biggercalc" or "calc2", so I renamed the default one and renamed BiggerCalc as calc. But I imagine I couldn't do that on Windows 10 Alpha, until today, whoopdedoo!

Right-ish. What they want, ideally, is the NOEL -- No Observable Effect Level. At a minimum, they want a maximum level that is 100 times less than the harmful level.

Unless it's fluoride. Then it can be at or even one thousand times above the harmful level -- "Make sure you don't swallow that 20,000 ppm dental gel..."

My theory vs the major physics theories

44 points of comparison with SM, GR/SR, QFT, GT, LQG

There is at least one other factor. The current system of handouts and subsidies has allowed them to freeze (and even lower) wages, while inflating the money supply by a factor of 100, in a hundred years.

Since they aren't finished with sucking money out of the system, but the money system has no real money left in it, subsidies have to increase. But this cuts directly into their potential profits.

With a UBI, since it is a "wage", it can be frozen/only very slowly increased. Anyone not able to live on this "wage" will be scorned, not sympathized with. The 99% will become poor quicker, with no one caring. And their profits can once again spiral upward.

It is an end game strategy like that of the movie "In Time". People scrambling to earn enough to live another day, while prices randomly rise, and no one in the mosh pit can alter the system.

For bankers to become trillionaires, billions must live on dirt floors. But even better is to institute ways to kill off the 99%. Hence the "need" for fluoridation, mandatory vaccinations, glyphosate-saturated crops, and the B2 stealth bomber of destruction -- microwave radiation.

There is at least one other factor. The current system of handouts and subsidies has allowed them to freeze (and even lower) wages, while inflating the money supply by a factor of 100, in a hundred years.

Since they aren't finished with sucking money out of the system, but the money system has no real money left in it, subsidies have to increase. But this cuts directly into their potential profits.

With a UBI, since it is a "wage", it can be frozen/only very slowly increased. Anyone not able to live on this "wage" will be scorned, not sympathized with. The 99% will become poor quicker, with no one caring. And their profits can once again spiral upward.

It is an end game strategy like that of the movie "In Time". People scrambling to earn enough to live another day, while prices randomly rise, and no one in the mosh pit can alter the system.

For bankers to become trillionaires, billions must live on dirt floors. But even better is to institute ways to kill off the 99%. Hence the "need" for fluoridation, mandatory vaccinations, glyphosate-saturated crops, and the B2 stealth bomber of destruction -- microwave radiation.

Our theories have been broken for a very long time. But the bills have to be paid so we pedal the same B.S. day after day, year after year.

Here is a completely new theory taking on the hundreds of unresolved problems on that page you linked to.

It is not wiki's fault. Physics theories today are embarrassing houses of cards. A simple theory exists, but no one wants to stop the gravy train.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

I'm definitely getting crankier as I get older but I blame it on the additional war wounds. Pulled the extensor tendon out of my right middle finger this year...trying to liberate the roots of a root-bound new tree. But I digress.

As to Einstein, that is a complicated question.

If Einstein borrowed stuff that others had thought of, but never gave them credit, is that ok with you? For me personally I am not overly bothered by the fact that Einstein wasn't the first to conceive of e=mc^2, but some are.

What I am definitely anti about are bad theories. Which physics today is studded with. Check out Alexander Unzicker's definitive Bankrupting Physics for a very thorough, quite humorous and yet surprisingly polite dressing down of most of the big names behind most of the modern nonsense that passes for physics today. FWIW, Unzicker was/is a huge Einstein fan.

Getting back to bad theories, Einstein's time marked a transition in physics -- from intuition and common sense things like there must be an ether, to the math-dominated and particle-smashing dark ages we have been in for decades. Like Unzicker, I think particle smashing is worse than futile. He ably chronicles why as well, if you would prefer his perspective to my own.

Regarding Einstein, I think he is, at a minimum, overrated. Worse, I think that special relativity is valueless, being limited to a no-gravity/no-acceleration system. You can't have two protons in such a system, for example, as their gravitational interactions would not compute. Does that meet your definition of "anti"?

Then, more tragically and questionably, ten years later Einstein releases general relativity that is built directly on top of special relativity. We don't build wells on top of latrines, except in physics.

Regarding Einstein's highly disappointing later years, it is most interesting to watch him play with words. He came up with countless words for the ether. They all were attempts to describe the same thing but, incredibly, Einstein actually thought that by playing word games, he would be advancing physics.

tldr; ? I prefer to begin with a model that includes/resolves the biggest problems in physics. And then to expand it to explain things other theories don't. Like gravity, and neutrinos. And ultimately, in more than one major area, to be predictive. Oh, BTW, I think my theory is not only a theory of everything but the simplest possible theory of everything.

Summary: I am not so much anti-Einstein -- I actually greatly admire his philosophical side, his humor, his way of living and how he lived his life his way -- as I am pro-my theory. I think my theory makes all others theories look awful.

But heh, it will be a lot easier to down-mod me and shout vicious responses (that get up-modded), as normally happens in the comfy confines of /.

People think black holes are giant vacuum cleaners because that is what conventional physics says they are -- things come too close (cross the event horizon) and become imprisoned in the SMBH. So you are authoritatively saying this doesn't happen? No, well then we are only talking degree -- newbs think SMBH's suck a lot, and you think they suck a little. FWIW, "you" (i.e. conventional physics) have your work cut out for you to explain why things don't get sucked in. I imagine you will trot out something to do with "curved space orbits" but implicit in that must be that every single thing orbiting the SMBH manages to stay outside the event horizon. My question #1 (given that SMBH size (diameter) is related to their SMass) is how does everything know exactly where that event horizon is? And question #2 when the SMBH grows in size, how do the objects orbiting the closest not end up now inside the event horizon? My own thoughts on black holes.

A black hole has exactly the same gravity as any object of the same mass. Nothing magical happens to the gravitation once the object becomes smaller than the Schwarzchild radius.

That last bit doesn't make much sense to me. You honestly think he's saying black holes don't suck in more stuff as they grow? Yes, they do. They also eventually tend to stop. That's why some quasars are active and some are docile.

There is a simple equation that links the black hole's area and its mass.

I had a look at the blog. Are you some kinda anti-Einstein crank..?

People think black holes are giant vacuum cleaners because that is what conventional physics says they are -- things come too close (cross the event horizon) and become imprisoned in the SMBH. So you are authoritatively saying this doesn't happen? No, well then we are only talking degree -- newbs think SMBH's suck a lot, and you think they suck a little. FWIW, "you" (i.e. conventional physics) have your work cut out for you to explain why things don't get sucked in. I imagine you will trot out something to do with "curved space orbits" but implicit in that must be that every single thing orbiting the SMBH manages to stay outside the event horizon. My question #1 (given that SMBH size (diameter) is related to their SMass) is how does everything know exactly where that event horizon is? And question #2 when the SMBH grows in size, how do the objects orbiting the closest not end up now inside the event horizon? My own thoughts on black holes.

A black hole has exactly the same gravity as any object of the same mass. Nothing magical happens to the gravitation once the object becomes smaller than the Schwarzchild radius.

That last bit doesn't make much sense to me. You honestly think he's saying black holes don't suck in more stuff as they grow? Yes, they do. They also eventually tend to stop. That's why some quasars are active and some are docile.

There is a simple equation that links the black hole's area and its mass.

I had a look at the blog. Are you some kinda anti-Einstein crank..?

People think black holes are giant vacuum cleaners because that is what conventional physics says they are -- things come too close (cross the event horizon) and become imprisoned in the SMBH.

So you are authoritatively saying this doesn't happen? No, well then we are only talking degree -- newbs think SMBH's suck a lot, and you think they suck a little.

FWIW, "you" (i.e. conventional physics) have your work cut out for you to explain why things don't get sucked in. I imagine you will trot out something to do with "curved space orbits" but implicit in that must be that every single thing orbiting the SMBH manages to stay outside the event horizon. My question #1 (given that SMBH size (diameter) is related to their SMass) is how does everything know exactly where that event horizon is? And question #2 when the SMBH grows in size, how do the objects orbiting the closest not end up now inside the event horizon?

My own thoughts on black holes.

People think black holes are giant vacuum cleaners because that is what conventional physics says they are -- things come too close (cross the event horizon) and become imprisoned in the SMBH.

So you are authoritatively saying this doesn't happen? No, well then we are only talking degree -- newbs think SMBH's suck a lot, and you think they suck a little.

FWIW, "you" (i.e. conventional physics) have your work cut out for you to explain why things don't get sucked in. I imagine you will trot out something to do with "curved space orbits" but implicit in that must be that every single thing orbiting the SMBH manages to stay outside the event horizon. My question #1 (given that SMBH size (diameter) is related to their SMass) is how does everything know exactly where that event horizon is? And question #2 when the SMBH grows in size, how do the objects orbiting the closest not end up now inside the event horizon?

My own thoughts on black holes.

I agree with your points. Einstein's relativities do not have to work everywhere to be useful in many places and ways. And a Black Hole could easily be an edge case where laws/assumptions are incomplete/not applicable. I said the same thing (here) in 2014.

In addition, since when is a 5-D simulation related to relativity? Einstein never went beyond 3+1. So this article/the simulation team's conclusion is insulting to Einstein's work but otherwise not related to it.