Mainstream GR versus Farsight, mote in their eye or beam in his?

No it isn't. If it was, a NIST optical clock at the floor would run at the same rate as a similar clock up at the ceiling, and my pencil wouldn't fall down.

No you wouldn't. Those optical clocks run at different rates because they're in a place where the speed of light is spatially variable. Curved spacetime is where this variation is not linear, where there's a tidal force and g varies. Rpenner will verify this.

Rpenner: please change this thread title to Einstein's GR versus cargo-cult GR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That isn't the whole truth. Einstein described space as the aether of general relativity, see this dating from 1920.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, just what is "cargo-cult" GR?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Things like the waterfall analogy, which paddoboy has been promoting.

 

The creation of this website was supported by the National Science Foundation. Statements made herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of any other entity.

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html


I think you're a fraud and angering people trying to learn science.

:EDIT:

That would be me.

 

*Sigh*

Einstein said no such thing. I have explained to you, as have many others, that, in his Leiden talk, he refers to the metric tensor field as the aether of GR.

It is not hard to see why, and I, and others, have guided you through it - whereas the source term, the curvature term and its trace in the field equations can all be zero at some point(s) in spacetime, the metric is non-zero everywhere. This is precisely what one would expect of an "all-pervasive, space-filling aether"

Do please read your own quotes, Farsight. That is what Einstein said or implied

 

We've been over this before; it's "your model" in the sense that it's the model you advocate. As I said in my previous post, whether or not Einstein agreed with it doesn't really matter from a scientific standpoint.

That's the one; thanks for the link. Too bad it's behind a paywall.

This is exactly why I think your model's most vulnerable aspect is how it deals with matter. I'll grant that you've listed several real and interesting physical effects, many of which call to mind light and/or circular motion. I'll even grant that looking at these effects, one might think there could be some fundamental connection between matter and light. That's the kind of high-level seed of an idea that can spark great research projects. But I can't emphasize enough that it's just the seed of an idea. It's not a finished theory, or even a working hypothesis; it's a vague inclination that could provide a good starting point for research. Before you go spreading the word about this model of yours, you need to do the legwork to show that the model is actually coherent. And I'm sorry, but this step will inevitably involve some math. Otherwise, your ideas will never progress beyond "kind of like papers X, Y, and Z, but different", and that's no way to do science.

 

Oh it matters. I'm with Einstein. If you're not, and you can't elucidate why not, then you're the one misteaching GR, not me.

Try this.

Of course there is. This is why we have atom bombs, and a little something called E=mc². Even Newton knew of this fundamental connection between matter and light. See Opticks query 30: Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another...?

And this is not Nature. This is just a quiet little science forum.

But they aren't my ideas, and it's not my model. I'm not some my-theory guy. I'm just a woo-fighter.

 

As far as I can see...
Farsight's problem isn't so much with GR where he may (or may not) be able to 'explain' some of the observed effects but with SR where there are no 'energy densities' to cause the observed effects. Real GR (I think) is continuous between 'flat' and 'curved' space whereas Farsight GR grinds to a halt in flat space.

 

I don't think this is quite right.

For........

SR states that for a body in uniform motion relative to a certain set of coordinates, there always exists coordinate transformations that will "bring it to rest" on new coordinates. That's SR in a nutshell.

In GR, the same argument fails - given a gravitational source, call it \(T_{\mu\nu} \ne 0\) if you like, there is no coordinate transformation that will make \(T_{\mu\nu}=0\) on new coordinates. Absolutely none.

And accepting that what you call "flat space" requires that \(T_{\mu\nu}=0\) and thus that the curvature \(R_{\mu\nu}=0\) (and hence its trace), your claim about "continuity between flat and curved space" requires more explanation. At the very least.....

 

Fair comment. Let's try this then. SR can handle weak gravity but Farsight can't handle no gravity - he has nothing to bite on.

 

Again, that isn't how science works! When discussing a physical theory, "You're misinterpreting Einstein" is not actually a valid objection. We study the greats like Einstein and Maxwell because they wrote good papers and out of historical interest, but for the task of weighing competing theories, it does not matter who believes what. The question of whether Einstein shared your views should be at most a footnote to the discussion of whether your model is internally consistent and makes effective predictions. Instead, the Einstein question seems to form a major -- if not the primary -- part of every debate you engage in.

Thanks!

A fair point, but you've published a book. I'm just saying you seem keen on jumping from "preliminary idea" to "dissemination and advocacy" without spending enough time on the hardest (but most important) middle step: "make sure your idea actually works."

 

Phooey. You haven't explained anything, you made some specious handwaving assertions that are not supported in any way. Here's the article. Note this:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether".

You are delusional. Now go and read what Einstein said, and stop kidding yourself that he said something that supports your own warped misunderstanding of general relativity. He didn't.

Huh? There's no issue with SR.

It is when Einstein is supported by the evidence. "You're ignoring the evidence" is a valid objection.

It isn't actually the Einstein question. The evidence trumps Einstein. The real recurrent theme in the debates I have, is that people totally ignore the evidence, and I have to hold their nose to that grindstone.

I need somebody to ride shotgun and open some doors.

 

Where is your math?

If not math, all you are trying to sell is snake oil.

 

As compared to your own rigourous mathematical logic?

Now, now - this is not polite. Remember that insults do not win arguments, rather they weaken your case

 

I guess I can't argue with any of that, at least not at face value. I got a little sidetracked from my main point, which is just that I think anyone arguing against you will have a lot more success focusing on the behavior of matter instead of what Einstein did or did not say.

 

The moot point is that if they're referring to the hard scientific evidence, they won't be arguing against me. Ditto if they're referring to the Einstein digital papers.

You said Einstein refers to the metric tensor as the aether of GR. But he absolutely doesn't. You still haven't actually sat down and read something by Einstein that contradicts your conviction. If you had, you would have noticed things like this:

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter."

 

From the paragraph previous to the one you quoted

If you cannot see that he is referring to the GR aether as the field of "potentials" i.e. the metric tensor field, then I am done here

PS by edit.

I have no idea what E. means here - if he is truly identifying the EM field with matter and nothing else, if he is truly identifying space with the field of potentials and nothing else, he is off his head

 

Yet you continue to ignore the logical situation I have listed in post 94:

So again, it seems you believe that the whole world is wrong and you are its Saviour and Einstein's Mohammad/messenger?
PS: I have read many of your links including the Leyden address, and I see it as painfully obvious you are misinterpreting the great man, or failing to accept the fact that on occasions when he refers to "space" he does mean spacetime and possibly other examples of lazy speech.
I see nothing to support your pseudo alternative view of the speed of light, as being variable.
And further more, no matter how many times you like to quote your general interpretation and the analogies you incorrectly use, the logical mainstream picture remains as it should be,

 

I think Farsight wants to be the great man. Sad, really.

Hopeless and helpless, he remains in the 17th century, wondering why Newton's alchemy can't help him ascend to the pinnacle he can just see in the distance.