This observation cannot be explained under GR. And it is based on data accumulated over years. https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.6537 Does it not falsify GR?
If it is confirmed that it cannot be fixed under GR, then this is sufficient to falsify GR. There is no requirement of more than one 'swallow' to falsify. It needs to be fixed, and it is fixable under GR.
GR formulation as such cannot fix it. So when I said....fixable under GR....I meant by bringing in other effects or other contributions, unknown so far.
Well unfortunately your wording was an extremely poor attempt to convey what is for me still not a clear statement. The author of that article adopts a more cautious position - IF further refinements of planetary geological effects fail to fix the anomaly, THEN alternatives to GR need to be invoked. Given the hopelessly tiny contributions from accelerated cosmic expansion. For me, a more basic issue relating to failures of self-consistency, rule against GR. I have in the past conveyed to you in PM's just why, and you ignored such. Won't therefore raise such matters here.
Yes, my bad. I found it difficult to appreciate that GR could have self consistency issues, after all this is a century old stuff, so I prefer to take a direct path, that is falsifiabity through failure in explaining the observations. I recall your excellent attempt on GW/TT gauge to question GR GW, but to me the magnitude of GW is so small that it could be conceived as anything, anything. As far as cautious approach of author is concerned, you know this will become unprintable (won't be printed) if he takes strong stand against GR.
And yet it does. And provably so at a very basic level. Unfortunately GR got to become established partly based on it's early successes at predicting 1st order corrections to Newtonian gravity. Also, by adopting certain 'self-evident' physical/mathematical assumptions, it seems to be the 'natural end result'. Higher order corrections are notoriously difficult to detect in the first place, and tend to be plagued with 'contamination' issues as for the article in question. That thread was not an example of one I had in mind. It was based on taking at their word the authors of many GW articles that e.g. referred to physical motion of LIGO-style mirrors as means to detect GW's. Some referred instead to 'stretching and squeezing of space' between the mirrors. The latter is closer to the actual position but neither picture can be correct as my thread clearly demonstrated. The actual situation compatible with GR style GW's is that space has to be simultaneously created and annihilated in orthogonal directions. You just don't see that stated in any article I am aware of. It only came out quite late after many correspondences with various authorities - only one individual finally nailed it to my subsequent satisfaction. [One can, from that internally consistent basis, still loosely talk of 'moving mirrors' or 'stretching/squeezing of space', but it's misleading to not clearly explain these are at best perspective based and not where it's fundamentally at.] Which still doesn't mean GR GW's are per se correct. It is still internally inconsistent, but on a different basis. Yilmaz gravity predicts the same type of GW but has a physically justified basis for having energy-momentum in such, that is entirely lacking in GR. My objections mentioned in PM's are established on a very simple basis. One in particular relating to a simple static arrangement involving Schwarzschild metric. Which is getting off-topic. You mean it would automatically fail peer review by a mainstream journal. Probably so.
Any theory must be falsifiable. So the simple question is what will or what can falsify GR? Its not a big problem to keep adjusting based on new observations, but then there must be some contradiction, which will beg (yes beg) that look now please abandon this approach. So can anyone state in clear terms what is the falsifying criterion for GR? Or theories are living in a "theory farm", some are more equal to others?
If a theory, like GR, is close enough to observations it has been tested with, it's going to be difficult to "falsify". Dark Matter falsified the idea that GR works on scales much larger than planetary ones. On the scale of galaxies, some other source of gravitational force that is invisible to our estimations of galactic gravitation seemed to be missing, and so we have the Dark Matter hypothesis, which is still a hypothesis, but gravitational lensing around objects like the Coma cluster and the Bullet cluster seems to suggest, such a source of invisible gravitation has more than an even chance of being a part of the explanation. In GR, gravitational fields themselves are invisible, but not the masses that concentrate the force of gravity in inverse square fashion. At this point, I think it would be ludicrous and inappropriate to choose another theory of gravity based on observations of the precession of the excentricity of the Moon, which is to say, there may be another cause unrelated to gravity. A very large superconducting (when operational, for about 10 hours a day) ring on the France-Geneva border bleeding electrodynamic energy out of the Earth-Moon system is just one possibility. The LHC ring itself actually experiences lunar tides. Unintentional, perhaps, but I don't think anyone has calculated the drain or the forces involved. You might not even notice such a gradual change if it is small enough. How strong is the Moon's magnetic field?
By definition, trivially true. That in red contradicts the remainder. Trademark Dan. Which, reasonably assuming "source of invisible gravitation" actually meant "invisible source of gravitation", contradicts that highlighted in blue of first quoted. More trademark Dan. We sort of agree here - obviously it all depends on how well any appreciable extraneous factors has already been accounted for. Please keep particularly absurd science fiction out of this thread. What 'drain' owing to very weak tidal forces? A quick web search and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon Not only very feeble, but a hodgepodge quasi-random multipolar 'landscape' confined to near the moon's surface fapp. Something else you'd like to throw up for amusement? No - please don't take that up!
He he. At a first level of craziness, we could imagine the LHC ring was a sort of massive circulating superconducting loop current constituting a magnetic dipole source (which it very much is not). Draining all the world's energy output in order to create a 'whopping' magnetic dipole field of strength just less than that required to tear the ring apart owing to induced magnetic stresses. The order-of-magnitude calculations are straightforward enough but I can't be bothered to do them. Anyone with a feel for the basic physics and relative sizes involved will realize such a hypothetical loop dipole will have a magnetic moment far feebler than earth's. Despite the far greater intensities locally exerted by the hypothetical LHC 'loop current'. Given any asteroid out there, pure iron or otherwise, will be influenced gravitationally to a vastly greater degree than owing to earth's magnetic field, this should quench any idiocy re LHC 'asteroid attractor' nightmare. The real kicker is that LHC ring is nothing like a huge loop current. Rather an interlaced string of dipole and quadrupole and maybe higher-order multipole magnet 'beads'. Generating precisely zero aggregate dipole moment around the ring. What's more, almost zero even local external fields. Thanks to the obligatory and long standard yoke design that has appreciable fields only internally acting across the air gaps between precisely shaped and spaced pole pieces: https://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/components/magnets.htm Asteroid puller NOT! Moon disturber NOT!
What if the LHC were a superconducting disc of the same physical size? I know it isn't (just a large circular assemblage of dipole (steering) and quadrupole (focusing) superconducting magnets).. The magnets are cooled with liquid helium from Amarillo, TX. They just sit there counteracting the magnetic fields generated by the requisite beam currents and obeying Lentz's law most of the time. And remaining buried firmly in the Earth's crust, of course. Which is why it surprised me to learn that there were evidently lunar tidal forces acting on the entire structure, and that these were part of the reason that the LHC could only be operated for about 10 hours at a stretch before the counter rotating beams of protons became de-focused sufficiently, they needed to be dumped into multi-ton graphite blocks to absorb their energy. A magnet in orbit might easily be made into a geostationary satellite at what otherwise would be an inappropriate distance to maintain such an orbit by means of maglev. For it to remain levitated over a superconducting disc that large is perhaps beyond available critical current densities that are possible today, but who really would know? The field only needs to be strong enough to perturb the orbit of the moon slightly. Nothing else in the vicinity seems to have changed very much recently. We already knew that tidal forces would eventually cause the moon to actually leave Earth orbit. Is there reason not to expect the shape of the orbit to change? Our own geostationary satellites are put into orbits tilted relative to the plane of the equator because such trajectories mean that they tend to oscillate about the nearest Earth-Moon Lagrange points. These will move along with the moon as well, and sarellite engineers will notice the difference. GR calculations only to account for a satellite leaving orbit woud be prohibitively complex, so, no, this does not falsify the theory yet either. My apologies for getting side tracked into what some of you considered an irrelevant discussion about the LHC ring as a candidate for perturbing the moon's orbit. It was bound to be at least as controversial as global warming, of which I AM convinced.
Err, no. They do what you stated earlier - steer via the dipole magnets and focus via the quadrupole ones. There are also higher order multipoles which (I think) act to stabilize beam X-section against puckering type instabilities etc. As far as Lenz's law (correct spelling) - it's always obeyed, but merely an incidental feature re bending/focusing magnets. Of initially running up the magnet strengths to sync with ramping up beam energies, but plays no part in the above mentioned which are static (strictly; quasi-static) field features. Beam bunching and energizing relies on longitudinal E-fields generated in casdcaded rf cavities in the initial injection tubes and various storage/acceleration rings. Surprisingly, moon tides do have a noticeable effect, but not so as to cause beam dumping: http://www.livescience.com/21043-moon-tides-lhc-atom-smasher.html https://project-physicsteaching.web.cern.ch/project-physicsteaching/english/brochures/lhc-guide.pdf (see pp30-31) Apology accepted. It was an interesting diversion - unrelated in any way to OP.
