Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible

Go back to from the start of this thread, and the spin-offs, and just count how many times I have already stated just precisely that!

Oh good. So no more dancing around. So now you will do what the other two avoided like the plague, and take up #62 challenge. Great. I await the outcome of that. One final suggestion - avoid engaging here with known malicious posters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are now first time explicitly saying that GR GW solution is incorrect, so far you have been maintaining a clarified position that it is formally correct. Bar crossed.

So now, please pin point the error in the maths involved in the solution, standard texts are available and known to you, both approximate as well as detailed. You may like a ready reference in http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/theses_pdf/thesis_T_G_F_Li.pdf

Just highlight which step is problematic or what is the incorrect assumption made in the solution. You see you are talking about global inconsistencies, forest view, where should it have appeared in the solution ? What would have been the direction of solution if forest view was to be considered ? And why was it not considered ?

Alternatively,
you can simply say that look they did not consider the global view so I cannot pin point as the entire premises of the solution is bad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm... worth making the effort again? Sigh. From what is, at time of writing this, still #195:

Do not keep trying my patience. Take up the #62 challenge and settle it for yourself. There is a good reason why school lessons always contain exercises.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its your theory, you are tired well before it got some acceptance ?

Still I will try once more.

I am taking the relevant part of your #62 in quote as below.

You want some mathematically proficient critics to counter you mathematically, but you give no maths, just a picture and you are prompting everyone to that picture as if it so grandly self explanatory.


I give you the maths it contains your far field (Forest) and Local Field (Tree), terminology is somewhat different it is far zone and near zone. It is standard text, so no need to claim, onus is on you to first counter it mathematically then call for proficient mathematicians to counter your fault finding...

Page #23 onwards till you pin point the error...
http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/theses_pdf/thesis_T_G_F_Li.pdf

 

Enough. Your "I am...." in, at time of writing this, still #184 claimed you were up to doing as asked. Now I doubt it. Choose some other thread to engage in please.

 

What is this ?
The text contains both far field and near field analysis. You are claiming GR GWs are inconsistent with global perspective, maths is there for global view, just pin point the flaw.

Conclude it; It may hurt you, but it does not take away the efforts you put in this. May be you will get some better idea.

All my 20 odd posts are on topic and very much relevant. All your responses are full of sighs and shrugs, but now you have the text infront of you. You cannot shrug it away and claim success. Can you ?

 

In retrospect, it was a bad mistake to start such a (progressively dismembered) thread. Deliberately pitched as a qualitative critique - assuming educated and honest folks would recognize the logical conflict within GR owing to the character of it's GW solutions, that approach just became ammo for disingenuous types. And for others, something to keep stumbling over.
As thoroughly demonstrated here, SF is simply a bad environment to air anything posing a challenge to an incumbent, especially a deeply entrenched incumbent like 100th anniversary GR.

 

No it just appears. Folks will join you and rejoice you and feel proud of you, if you could do that.

Without countering the maths as stated in page #23 onwards of the link, you cannot make any headway...

 

There is nothing to counter! You were told many times exactly where the issue lies. But refuse to or incredibly genuinely still fail to see it.
And actually are incapable of doing as asked re #62 - right? Otherwise, something that takes less than an hour in total would have been done and dusted and the issue starkly evident.
Actually, starkly evident to anyone already having an appreciation of GR's GW metric form. The assumption in OP. You obviously do not.

 

With a PNG you want to thrash maths, why don't you thrash maths with maths. Did you refer to page #23 onwards of the link ? I think, you did not.

 

Not so much a mistake per se, rather a provocative attempt [as per the title]
to totally ignore the fact that you may be wrong, in either the maths, your assumptions, or how you have interpreted and/or applied what you so fervently believe.
Again, you know the way to go if you still assume your claim to be infallible.
the god of course is another matter: His problem, with your claim, is that he totally rejects the notion of spacetime and spacetime curvature, and which your claim although a rejection of GR, is not apparently a rejection of spacetime curvature. Each to there own I suppose.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not right. I am not objecting because of any of my notions. He is claiming that GR GW solution is correct but far field inconsistent. I referred him to the far field maths and asking him to pin point the error. He is evading. He wants other to dispute his PNG with maths, he won't give any.

 

It appears you both are evading.

 

Do not keep repeating falsehoods. It is you who have constantly evaded my oft repeated requests to meet challenge in #62. Which you claimed to be both capable of doing and was willing to do so. So why not? My analysis in #1, recapped in #94, simply and cleanly undermines the very framework on which GR is based, thus rendering 'pointing out the errors in GR equations' POINTLESS. That you continually fail to see or acknowledge that, after many posts making it perfectly clear, is your problem not mine.

 

Cool down.

1. Did I not refer you to the exact maths of GR - Gw ?
2. Did I not refer you to the exact maths of GR - GW far field analysis ?

You say far field analysis of Gr-GW solution is inconsistent, so simple thing for you would be to pin point the error in far field solution. Why are you evading that ? You make a statment that GR is bad so it is pointless to pinpoint the error, that does not cut anything. Earlier you made a claim that GR-GW solution is formally correct but globally inconsistent....when questioned you could not sustain that and you kind of subtly changed to solution being bad.

 

So? If the conceptual basis is faulty, why spend any time worrying about 'exact maths' based on such? Once it is seen, as per #1, that 'exact maths' predicts physically impossible field solutions, game is over. Shop around elsewhere. It's insane to do otherwise.

You keep suggesting, wrongly, it's only the far-field solutions where problem lies. The advantage of evaluating far-field situation re GW's is that it eliminates the need to treat the far more complex intermediate field case, where all possible field orientations are present. The problem is made much cleaner and easier in far-field, that's all. If it fails for far-field GW's, which it does, it fails everywhere. Just not enough in certain other non-GW regimes to have been noticed. What's more, extreme far-field is all that any GW detector such as aLIGO can be concerned with.

I sustained it. You seem to lack the basic capacity to recognize what I have unveiled.

Once more - and answer this directly - are you capable of meeting #62 challenge that you keep evading? If yes, just do it, and show everyone you are not playing stupid games.

 

Q-reeus,

You are resorting to abuses. I pointed out to you that if far field fails, it fails. But despite that you maintained that the GR GW solution is formally correct. Now you have clearly abandoned that approach and taken a bigger line that GR is ab initio bad, so no need to look into any maths.

I see nothing in your #62 except a picture, give your maths for that PNG, that you are evading, mere qualitative statement around a PNG will not chuck out GR.

 

I am of the opinion and learned opinion that if a theory can explain an observation and if there is maths for that explanation, and if that theory turns out to be bad, then surely there will be a step hidden or explicit in that maths, which can be pin pointed as wrong.

Can you pin point that wrong step with GR GW far field or local field or intermediate field maths ?

 

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Read again last passage in #153. YOU choose a favourite article containing the appropriate expressions - and apply to scenario of #1. If you cannot do that or are unwilling to take the step, quit pestering me. Engage elsewhere, at least till as long as a certain agitator's insistence on pinning you as a sock-puppet doesn't come to a head.

 

Just to clarify what is wrong with #94:

This argument seems quite clearly based on the assumption that the Euclidean $u = 2\pi r$ holds exactly. That means that at least spatial curvature has to be zero. So here something is assumed which is simply known to be wrong in GR.

I have tried to clarify if this is indeed assumed, but Q-reeus refuses to answer my questions about this. But if $u \neq 2\pi r$, why $h_{\varphi\varphi}$ cannot be non-zero?