A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

A photon is emitted at a lower frequency when it's at a lower elevation. It doesn't reduce in frequency as it ascends. In similar vein the descending photon doesn't increase in frequency. If you send a 511keV photon into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c². Conservation of energy applies. There is no magical mysterious mechanism by which a photon gains energy as it moves through space.

No, you look it up. And pay attention to "An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated".

Einstien said what he said, and conservation of energy is ubiquitous. I understand gravitational redshift. You don't.

And that local region is an infinitesimal region.

Yep.

Just another guy saying Einstein was wrong.

Freidwardt Winterberg's firewall.

It shows that Robertson doesn't understand gravity. The force of gravity at some location relates to the local gradient in the coordinate speed of light. At the event horizon the coordinate speed of light is zero. So the force of gravity there is zero, not infinite.

I don't misteach it, you do. I quoted from The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, which you dismiss as some "antique text". You're just another guy saying Einstein was wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where is the ad hominem? You identified that you have a weird, irrational bias against GR.

What is there to criticize? You imagine that there is something there, please identify it. I can't see anything there that is damaging to GR.

What is hard for you to understand? How physics works? The paper you cited uses GR; anyone who reads the paper can see that, they do not even need to know a whole lot about GR.

Did you not understand, "the author is assuming that GR is correct and requires an additional clarification factor that can be measured from the phenomena of gravity that appear only if we assume that GR is correct." If so, then you didn't read the paper you cited.

Did you not understand this: "This is exactly what Einstein did with Newtonian mechanics: assume (based on the staggering amount of evidence) that the theory is very much correct and use it to produce more evidence for a new theory." This is a really standard part of the history of relativity theory. The piece of evidence that influenced Einstein the most was the proper prediction of the perihelion advance of Mercury. Now this prediction comes about only after looking at a host of Newtonian corrections that account for the influence of other planets. The fact that GR can account for exactly the left-over amount is a great piece of evidence, but it relies on the assumption that Newtonian physics is almost exactly right.

Similarly, the author you cited assumes that GR is almost exactly right. (As one can see from how the author actually uses GR throughout the paper.

By "classical", people mean "not quantum". Einstein looked for an extension to GR his entire life, so it is certainly not correct to say that he thought it was perfect!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, look at how Farsight refuses to consider any other systems of coordinates in which this physics might be described. Given that this is a classic test of GR reported in many books and textbooks, it is silly to accept Farsight's position.

I gladly say that Einstein was wrong in the way he treated his first wife. He was also wrong about many aspects of GR, as is well documented in many places. To treat him as some kind of divine source is foolish.

Note again Farsight's refusal to use a different system of coordinates. In this case, a system likely to be incompatible with the system he uses in his earlier example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe one could accept that sort of reasoning on forums such as this, open to any Tom Dick and Harry, with the majority being lay people and taken in by the promotional hype etc as you put it.
But the obvious flaw in your "conspiracy" type reasoning is that of course within scientific circles, there would not be too many young up and comers, that would not dearly love to show that Einstein and GR were wrong, and would be doing their darndest to gather together whatever irrefutable evidence they could find, to actually show that he was wrong and consequently be in line for the next Physics Nobel.
That of course hasn't happened as yet, and when getting down to the nitty gritty, it's obvious that GR is continually passing all tests thrown in its directions, and becoming more certain within its known zones of applicability every day.

And of course the proof of the pudding is in the fact of how many gravitational hypotheticals that we do have and that are all languishing in oblivion simply because of the fact that they do not describe and/or predict as good as GR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

 

No. Some alternative theories have been proposed, but not "many many". Usually they have been developed by lone guys without much support. Ok, the state has paid them as scientists. Or as university teachers or so. And would have paid them too if they would have worked on something completely different. But these few alternative theories are nothing which costs millions of dollars each year.

Of course, "logical proofs" carry no weight. Because everybody knows that somebody who claims to have "logical proofs" of physical theories is a crank.

 

They always pick on Einstein. I don't know why.

Take a break, guys - what we need next is a simple proof that Feynman got it wrong, or Dirac, or Schrodinger, or Gibbs, or Maxwell.

 

You could ask Farsight to set us all straight, but I don't think he's read anything printed since 1905 or so...

 

Q-reeus:

Farsight:

James R:

rpenner:


Thanks Q-reeus for this thread.

Thanks to Farsight for his quote of Einstein, as follows:

Thanks for your comments James R and rpenner.

I make reference to my earlier thread which was aimed at trying to distinguish the actual determinants of cosmological redshift, as opposed to just assuming it was all due to SR velocity of expansion and differential Doppler effects.

This is my thread of some months ago:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/distinguishing-cosmological-expansion-frame-from-sr-frame.156053/


In my opinion it was effectively sabotaged, and discussion of the alternatives shut down before proper discussion on the actual OP alternatives got under way, by posters who were adamant in misconstruing the alternatives put by me, for consideration on their respective merits, as somehow preferring one or the other. I hope by now it will have become clear that I just posed the alternatives for consideration and discussion to eventually hone in on the actual cause and mechanism responsible rather than just assuming SR Doppler because no distinguishing possibilities between the two existed or were so far identified.

The reason I bring up my past thread is that if proper discussion was allowed to proceed then without all the prejudicial misconstruing, we may have all arrived at the answer to the question raised by Farsight's quote of Einstein above.

It appears that those who effectively shut down my earlier thread are now claiming that the GR considerations of spacetime condition is not relevant?

Yet how can this be IF there is no SR or Doppler speed differential involved in the purely gravitational scenario where light is emitted/absorbed in gravitational well positions which differ and so create different frequency/wavelength photons as per the clock rate applicable at those respective locations according to GR experimental evidence confirming such clock rate differentials exist due to gravity well position?

As far as I can ascertain, Farsight has raised a valid point in quoting Einstein in the context of clock rate and photon frequency emitting/absorbing processes which are determined by such clock rates at different gravity well radial positions.

It is now on those who disagree with Farsight to explain why in my earlier thread the possible condition of spacetime during expansion was dismissed in preference for assuming SR/Doppler causes due to expansion speeds etc, but Einstein and GR clearly present the spacetime differences in different gravity well radial positions as being the determinant not any speed or SR considerations.

Maybe if my earlier thread and discussion had not been sabotaged and shut down so early by posters who didn't really understand what was being considered, then this question raised by Farsight and Einstein quote could already have been settled?

I can only conjecture what might have come of my thread if it had not been so carelessly mistreated and ignored by those very same posters who now cannot present any SR/Doppler arguments for emission/absorption frequency differences at different GR gravity well radial positions where spacetime condition differs between the two positions according to well proven scientific evidence from relevant GR-ONLY scenario clock rate experiments excluding SR/Doppler factors.

This post after long absence has been my overt expression of disappointment at the way my earlier thread and discussion was treated by those learned members who should have known better how to read that OP and how to discuss properly without prejudicial straw man and ego based dismissals out of hand like that was.

I am not going to participate further in this thread or indeed my above earlier thread, because I have come to realize very quickly that certain groups of posters here are more interested in politics and ego than in proper discussion based on objective merits of OPs. I have no objections to obvious pseudoscience etc being moved and ignored as appropriately; but I do have strong objections to the way my earlier thread and OP alternatives were treated by learned members who should have read properly before making misconstrued and straw man responses like they did and I was helpless against because it would have involved in never ending conflict and confusion brought by those who did not want proper discussion because they has already made up their minds and beliefs rather than discussing on merits/possibilities involved.

That is my opinion on the above issue raised by Farsight-Einstein GR quote; and my personal reaction to what happened to my earlier OP and thread which taught me not to pursue any really serious discussion at this site in future; but merely make occasional comments, if at all, if and when I bother to read here, which is now seldom.

Thanks again Q-reeus, Farsight, James R and rpenner for giving me something of interest to comment on today. I will come in again next week to see how this thread gets on in the question of gravitational redshift cause and effects on photon frequency/wavelength and associated issues. See you then.

 

You should come back when the god gets back as I am sure he can contribute.
I have always followed your posts and his because they seem different but similar.
Alex

 

I was actually of the opinion that it was you who was misconstruing and being highly pretentious when opinions on the status quo were offered, and as is evidenced in posts 25 and 31 headings.
Let me also add, that standard cosmology models/theories are never going to be changed from science forums such as this.
This is for amateurs, guided by the odd professionals, to discuss current science in the science threads, and alternatives in the alternative sections....
And as you have just said, "misconstruing the alternatives put by me, for consideration" in post 28, which means you are in the wrong thread.

 

Some people seem to think changing models is as easy as changing their socks.
Alex

 

paddoboy:

Just your usual cluttering crap which does exactly as I just said: misconstrue and then attack based on that misconstruing. You are a sad case, paddoboy. I just posted an opinion on this thread's Farsight-Einstein quote; and I linked my thread which I abandoned because it's discussion and outcome would have been relevant to this thread's question I alluded to above. But what do you do? You again misconstrue and say I posted in the wrong thread. What utter stupidity must run in you to allow you to pretend you are being in any way helpful or constructive or even on-topic, let alone in any was intelligent.? A parrot with obvious and irrelevant-links and opinionated repetitive diarrhea would be more useful than your posting and linking and opining from ignorance and prejudice, paddoboy. I take pity on you and your "likes loser" Xelasnave who follows you around and likes every inane useless clutterbuck post you make. This is what this site has been reduced to by such counterproductive posters allowed to clutter up otherwise serious discussion. Useless site now you have been allowed to make a "Likes" circus out of it. What a waste of time and blood pressure you two have become with your likes and ignorance being the basis for your parroted opinions and linking obvious irrelevances as if it was somehow of any importance or use to anybody serious in discussing the actual matters not your lame clutterings. Useless and silly just as this site is becoming every day you and your "likes" troll gets away with such ignorant political posts without any science substance. No wonder this site is becoming a point of ridicule among serious scientific forummers. They allow you and so they must own you. Best of luck with that.

 

Xelasnave.1947:

Thanks anyway, but as I just posted above, I am not intending to participate further in the discussion in this or the other thread I mentioned, so your suggestion is irrelevant and useless; which you would have known if you had bothered to read my post properly.

You seem to be follower of stupidity and irrelevance in the form of clutterbuck inane paddoboy. Your opinion now is therefore just as useless and ignorant as his has just been (again).

Enjoy your silly conversations with your ignorant useless equal, paddoboy; and yes, I too noticed that his and your posts "seem different but similar", Xelasnave.1947. And useless to serious scientific discussion.

 

Yes fair enough I did not think you would hang around.
The god is similar fails to stay around if it looks like real science may come up.
He is a pretender I hope you are not like him in that regard.
Alex

 

No I am not in his league.
Just remember if you are civil with him he will help you learn about cosmology and probably even discuss some of the deeper aspects of which you are at present unaware.
And please call me Alex it seems more appropriate and in keeping with being up front, xelasnave, sounds so "net" like.
By the way your handle is rather clever but may I call you Bruce?
Alex

 

Xelasnave.1947:

What makes you think that the paddoboy clutterbuck is teaching/linking anyone anything they haven't come across already in the scientific literature? He has nothing to tell me that I haven't already considered and made scientific assessment of. Your pretending that he can help me or anyone else already well versed in the sciences is what makes your posts so stupid, even more stupid than the stupid poster you "like" so often when he posts/links obvious and irrelevant crap and clutters the real discussion/point. You posting such drivel is proof that you are either a sock puppet of the paddoboy or a friend of his pretending to not know him so as to build up his reputation. A reputation which has never risen above the level of ignoramus parrot linking for all he is worth in the hopes of getting supporters here for his personal vendettas which he demonstrated on the very first day of my arrival when he tried to prejudice my opinion against strangers even before I got to discuss with them. You have nothing of interest or worth to offer me or science discussion, just your personal "likes" for an ignoramus who you pretend is teaching anyone anything about serious science. Your opinion is already too compromised for anyone to take at face value. It's your own doing, "liking" crap from paddoboy as if you aren't already well acquainted from elsewhere. What a site! Useless for real science discussions and getting worse due to you and your paddoboy "like" friend who is no more scientific than you seem to be. Enjoy your social media "likes". No-one who is serious and objective works on how many "like" or dislike. It's the objective science discussion not the personal likes, stupid.



On Edit: Why "Bruce"? Is your stupidity even more profound than you have already demonstrated by your latest posts to me in both threads? My name is not bruce and I will call you by your Xelasnave.1947 because you are not worthy of any familiarity at all if you work on "likes" and dislike in a science discussion, while apparently having wrong impressions about others' names. Stupid is being too kind to you, Xelasnave.1947. Useless "liker" and irrelevant clutterbuck fanboy troll is spot on.

 

I gave you a like so to get you started, and I like that you can speak your mind, you are prepared to put it out there and clearly you do not worry about how others may view you.
That indeed takes courage.
But dont get angry and be careful with your words when they become insulting.
You dont want to end up like the god having to crawl back in here on his hands and knees begging for forgiveness.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The evidence here and elsewhere shows you to be the clutterer, along with another banned member.
And with regards to likes, whether people like my posts or not, is not of interest to me. In fact I would rather see them done away with, as we have had at least two members who were using them other than what they were intended for...a sort of reverse sarcasm on their part.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]
So although I'm in front in the likes department, it really means nothing.
Some advice though.....Dont be so pretentious, it isn't fooling anyone, and if you want to keep up with your rather childish spitting the dummy and insults, you may end up the way of your friend, the god.
Alex of course has overstated my position here and knowledge somewhat, but as a lay person like yourself and the god, I have read many reputable books off many reputable science authors and generally kept up with current discoveries.
In that respect, unlike you and the god, my stance is mainly mainstream, not because it is what I have read, but because it makes the most sense. Plus of course I do not have an agenda.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This thread, along with the referred paper, does not invalidate GR.
Schmelzer another professional member here also has a paper on an ether. That also does not invalidate GR.
Present cosmology, boosted by the GP-B and aLIGO results stands on reasonable solid ground, although there are still more questions to be answered by the experts.
But as I said, whatever you think, or anyone else thinks, changes to the accepted standard cosmology will not be birthed on forums such as this...I know that, you know that, the god knows that, and so does everyone else.

We give our views here as amateurs that's all, guided by a couple of professionals [James and rpenner]. When we all realise that fact, you and the god included, then discussions will be far more fruitful and beneficial to all.
Alrighty?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Xelasnave.1947:

Your "like" is not wanted nor appreciated, coming as it does from someone who thinks a "like" is any way to start an honest conversation instead of actually admitting you are in error by "liking" a paddoboy clutterbuck all too much for his useless drivel and links on a science site during a serious discussion.

Your opinion and "like" about me, and what I say and why, is of no consequence to anyone except yourself. Keep it to yourself, Xelasnave.1947.

You bringing up another poster to justify your own impressions about what I will do is so stupid it surpasses even your previous efforts today. Has it ever occurred to you I am not as desperate as you seem to be for friends and likes from irrelevant strangers? Have I ever angled for likes? No. Do I care what this site does now? No. You have all the information from my posts today as to what I care or not about what happens on a site which is as I have already well described with argued examples of its paddoboy (and you his fanboy "liker" loser or covert sock/friend) failure to keep the discussion serious and prevent his and your cluttering with inane likes and other personal crap. If the site managers don't want to change all that, then it's on their heads what happens to the site; and my being asked to leave will not be any great burden or loss to me and my scientific discussion elsewhere in forums where the science takes precedence over paddoboy and your likes and clutter from ignorance. Keep your "likes" to yourself; and enjoy your soaring stupidity and plummeting relevance to serious not infantile scientific discussion, Xelasnave.1947.



On Edit: Don't forget to "like" paddoboy's post above; for his missing the point that it was he that misconstrued even my post in this thread! Let alone the mess he and other posters made of that other thread I mentioned. It seems that this site prefers clutterers and stupids who make a mess of everything serious, and then proceed to crow about it and blame those who they have misconstrued so positively stupidly that it's beyond belief that management let's them get away with it even now in this thread. What a stupid site this has become. Unbelievable.