A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

So tell me... how do you really feel.
May I call you Eddy?
You see Eddy what you can learn from Paddoboy is not to lose control.
Now here you have let me upset you by drawing attention to how unhappy you are about "likes" and on your very own definition calling me stupid is being kind, and yet you let this more than stupid person sidetrack you and get you angry.
You are so much like the God. Do I have to worry about you and your blood pressure.
I hope not.
Stay calm I am going to have some lunch.
Have a great day and if you need to know anything whilst I am gone just ask Paddoboy.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously true.

No other postings since my last are worth responding to bar this one. Was that line serious or rhetorical? If serious, maybe you failed to notice the logical proof i.e. Appendix A of cited article in #1, amounts to invalidating Schwarzschild metric, thus GR. It was NOT a 'proof' FOR another theory. Savvy? And btw feel perfectly free to find a flaw in something so simple and straightforward. No-one else here has so far attempted to do so. Which is very interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Xelasnave.1947:

If you think that your stupidity has any effect on me you are sadly stupider than you seemed so far. You cannot take the hint that your opinion is useless and irrelevant to me and to science discussion. Your passion for paddoboy is what makes your opinion worthless and your judgement of people compromised beyond belief. The God is a stranger whom paddoboy tried to prejudice me against from day one. You don't have a clue and your pretense at concern is just too funny for words. You seem to be more interested in the person than the science. Bad mistake if you are pretending to care about what paddoboy has to teach anyone. It's obvious you two have a personal agenda between you and follow it at every opportunity with your conversational posts about others rather than sticking to the science or being silent while those who know do the discussion properly without your stupid agendas cluttering up the threads. Better luck next time, stupid. And that's not from anger; that's form objective observation of what has been going on which makes this site a target for ridicule of any serious science person wishing to discuss science not other people and your "likes". Ignoramuses, paddoboy and friend Xelasnave.1947. What a combo for dragging a site down to the mire and ridicule. In sadness; not anger: Enjoy it, stupid and stupid fanboy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The god is a pretender. He does not pretend to be a fool however.
So you say you want to talk science go ahead and stop getting sidetracked by someone less than stupid.

I bet you cant offer anything relating to the OP... GO ON prove you can say something, anything that sounds the least bit like science... You wont because you fear Paddoboys review and him getting some more likes for presenting real science.
Come on forget me, forget Paddoboy and present science, show us all you know... Just try and make your paragraphs on science longer than your paragraphs on how you dont get any likes.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://theconversation.com/why-is-...tivity-such-a-popular-target-for-cranks-49661
Why is Einstein’s general relativity such a popular target for cranks?


Scientists may be celebrating the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but there was also a death in 1915. It was one of the many deaths of simple and intuitive physics that has happened over the past four centuries.

Today the concepts and mathematics of physics are often removed from everyday experience. Consequently, cutting edge physics is largely the domain of professional physicists, with years of university education.

But there are people who hanker for a simpler physics, toiling away on their own cosmologies. Rightly or wrongly, these people are often labelled cranks, but their endeavours tell us much about misconceptions of science, its history and what it should be.

I regularly browse open access website arxiv.org to look for the latest astrophysics research. Real astrophysics, that is. But if I want to take a look at what pseudoscientists are up to, I can browse vixra.org. That’s right, “arxiv” backwards. The vixra.org website was founded by “scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org” because that website’s owners filter material they “consider inappropriate”.

There are more than 1,800 articles on vixra.org discussing relativity and cosmology, and many don’t like relativity at all. Perhaps one reason why cranks particularly dislike relativity is because it is so unlike our everyday experiences.

Einstein predicted that the passage of time is not absolute, and can slow for speeding objects and near very massive bodies such as planets, stars and black holes. Over the past century, this bizarre predication has been measured with planes, satellites, and speeding muons.

But the varying passage of time is nothing like our everyday experience, which isn’t surprising as we don’t swing by black holes on our way to the shops. Everyday experience is often central to cranky ideas, with the most extreme example being flat earthers.

Thus many crank theories postulate that time is absolute, because that matches everyday experience. Of course, these crank theories are overlooking experimental data, or at least most of it.

History and linearity
One of the most curious aspects of pseudoscience is an oddly linear approach to science. To be fair, this can result from an overly literal approach to popular histories of science, which emphasise pioneering work over replication.

A pivotal moment in relativity’s history is Albert Michelson and Edward Morley’s demonstration that the speed of light didn’t depend on its direction of travel nor the motion of the Earth.

Of course, since 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment has been confirmed many times. Modern measurements have a precision orders of magnitude better than the original 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, but these don’t feature prominently in popular histories of science.

Interestingly many pseudoscientists are fixated on the original Michelson-Morley experiment, and how it could be in error. This fixation assumes science is so linear that the downfall a 19th century experiment will rewrite 21st century physics. This overlooks how key theories are tested (and retested) with a myriad of experiments with greater precision and different methodologies.

Another consequence of the pseudoscientific approach to history is that debunked results from decades past are often used by buttress pseudoscientific ideas. For example, many pseudoscientists claim Dayton Miller detected “aether drift” in the 1930s. But Miller probably underestimated his errors, as far more precise studies in subsequent decades did not confirm his findings.

Unfortunately this linear and selective approach to science isn’t limited to relativity. It turns up in cranky theories ranging from evolution to climate.

Climate scientist Michael E Mann is still dealing with cranky accusations about his seminal 1998 paper on the Earth’s temperature history, despite the fact it has been superseded by more recent studies that achieve comparable results. Indeed, it devoured so much of Mann’s time he has literally written a book about his experience.

What about the maths?
During the birth of physics, one could gain insights with relatively simple (and beautiful) mathematics. My favourite example is Johannes Kepler’s charting of the orbit of Mars via triangulation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the 17th century, Johannes Kepler used elegantly simple mathematics to chart the motion of Mars. Johannes Kepler / University of Sydney

Over subsequent centuries, the mathematics required for new physical insights has become more complex, as illustrated by Newton’s use of calculus and Einstein’s use of tensors. This level of mathematics is rarely in the domain of the enthusiastic but untrained amateur. So what do they do?

One option is to hark back to an earlier era. For example, trying to disprove general relativity by using the assumptions of special relativity or even Newtonian physics (again, despite the experiments to the contrary). Occasionally even numerology makes an appearance.

Another option is arguments by analogy. Analogies are useful when explaining science to a broad audience, but they aren’t the be-all and end-all of science.

In pseudoscience, the analogy is taken to the point of absurdity, with sprawling articles (or blog posts) weighed down with laboured analogies rather than meaningful analyses.

Desiring simplicity but getting complexity
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of pseudoscientific theories is they hark for simplicity, but really just displace complexity.

A desire for naively simple science can produce bizarrely complex conclusions, like the moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. NASA/flickr

Ardents of the most simplistic pseudoscientific theories often project complexity onto the motives of professional scientists. How else can one explain scientists ignoring their brilliant theories? Claims of hoaxes and scams are commonplace. Although, to be honest, even I laughed out loud the first time I saw someone describe dark matter as a “modelling scam”.

Again, this isn’t limited to those who don’t believe in relativity. Simple misunderstandings about photography, lighting and perspective are the launch pad for moon landing conspiracy theories. Naively simple approaches to science can lead to complex conspiracy theories.

Changing intuition
Some have suggested that pseudoscience is becoming more popular and the internet certainly aids the transmission of nonsense. But when I look at history I wonder if pseudoscience will decay.

In the 19th century, Samuel Rowbotham promoted Flat Earthism to large audiences via lectures that combined wit and fierce debating skills. Perhaps in the 19th century a spherical world orbiting a sun millions of kilometres away didn’t seem intuitive.

But today we can fly around the globe, navigate with GPS and Skype friends in different timezones. Today, a spherical Earth is far more intuitive than it once was, and Flat Earthism is the exemplar of absurd beliefs.

Could history repeat with relativity? Already GPS utilises general relativity to achieve its amazing precision. A key plot device in the movieInterstellar was relativistic time dilation.

Perhaps with time, a greater exposure to general relativity will make it more intuitive. And if this happens, a key motivation of crank theories will be diminished.

 

Xelasnave.1947:

I wanted to talk science in that other thread I linked. You missed that? It was others who wanted to avoid talking science and so sabotaged that thread by misconstruing what the OP alternatives discussion was all about.

Now you want science when I said I wan't interested anymore because of the treatment that thread and discussion OP got then? You are truly either too stupid to realize what you are posting, or are just too careless about your agenda of personal challenges and baiting while being ignorant of when science is actually being discussed. My bet? You are too stupid.

I did that very thing in my first post above. But you are too stupid and dishonest to have seen it or even read it properly. Yep, you being too stupid and dishonest is getting shorter odds now.

You have a stupid sense of humor to go with your stupidity and dishonesty without any humor at all.

paddoboy wouldn't know which was objective science and which was your own duet of stupidity and dishonesty clutterings.

Listen, you two are too stupid to read and understand?

I already pointed out that the discussion in my other thread would have settled the issue of what Farsight-Einstein said above. I already made the scientific connection between the arguments for what Farsight-Einstein said and the discussion outcomes which would have illuminated just that issue if that other thread had been left alone to follow the discussion of the OP as posed not as misconstrued.

But you two are so stupid and dishonest, even when you are being too funny for words, that all that has passed right over your heads and so we get more stupid and clutter from you both. Make sure you "like" each other for that too, you unbelievably stupid products of a site which allows such levels of stupidity to post here at all. Enjoy your continuing stupidity and ridicule ratings for as long as these two dunderheads are allowed to misconstrue even the most clear posts, site managers!

 

Sorry, I'm unable to load the paper for some reason, and secondly just because no one here is able to invalidate whatever claim is made, does not mean it can't be invalidated.
But obviously for many reasons, I don't believe it does invalidate GR.
If that was the case, and for the reasons I have already given, someone of renown would have pounced on it by now.

Why the f*&% do you believe that if GR could be invalidated, they would simply ignore it or hide it away?
That makes about as much sense as MR and Fat Freddy in their claims in other threads.

 

Wow!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Such vitriol! Such animosity!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps if you talked sense, and said what you mean, and didn't have an agenda against mainstream cosmology, you may do better.

 

paddoboy:

You are the only one taking a valid OP and discussion points as any sort of 'agenda' for or against anything. It is your misconstruing and then attacking your own straw man that has cluttered and confused the original OP and discussions with your personal posts which did nothing for the discussion objectively. You also misread disgust at your personal posts as anger on my part. No, you are not worth getting angry over; just telling you what and how stupid you have been. The latest stupidity is you misconstruing my first post in this thread and then telling me it was me at fault. Your stupidity is exceeded only by your dishonesty and ignorant arrogance based on your own and your garnered "likes" as if they had any relevance or validity in a science discussion. You are what's wrong with this site. more than any other poster I have yet to encounter here. You started in on day one trying to prejudice me against other posters; and have been posting irrelevant and unscientific opinionated posts while misconstruing proper science and OPs for all you're worth: which isn't much at all if your performance to date on this site is any guide. You are too stupid and full of yourself; and have taken the linking game and parroting act to new heights. Your stupidity being allowed to run riot on this site has told me exactly what this site is about: anything BUT science discussion. More politics and personal "likes" games than science discussion from you and your Xelasnave.1947 sidekick (sock puppet?). Anyhow, I don't care now. The site had its chance. It blew it. Enjoy the increasing ridicule and stupidity ratings for as long as this stupids duo is given such latitude to clutter and misconstrue, site managers.

 

Look you are probably correct.
I have an agenda after my last encounter with the god to seek out anyone who acts the same way as he does because I suspect they may be his stooge. He likes to say I am not who I am which makes me think that if he thinks that about others that is probably the way he carries on... And was this guy on another sight sounded just like him and the both of the shafe this hatred of me that causes them to get angry.
Now you display the same characteristics so I think you are up to something. Your anger tells me you are used to bullying people when you dont get your way, you name call just as every bully I have stood up to in my life, so forgive me if I react badly.
If you are genuine open a thread say on spagettification the god did not want to discuss it because like you he just wanted to make it personal.
Maybe you have something of a science nature to discuss well start a thread. I will have to let Paddoboy discuss the science however as my knowledge is only a little past yours, but he will be happy to help you.
But dont try and bully me or talk down to me or I will have you on your ha ds and knees the same way the god must now crawl back.
I agree it should notbe about personalities but you too seem to have this thing where you resent Paddoboy because he can link to great science articles a d calls out folk who rail against mainstream because they have a religious motive.
And your only problem with me seems to be that I get likes and you are jealous. And I gave you a legitimate like and you felt unworthy and said you dont need them. All I can say is you have to think mlre highly of yourself, you are as good as the next person and you deserve a like now and then. But if you are a bully or a pretender look out.
I love cosmology and astronomy as I am sure you do but you must learn not to lose your temper as your health will suffer.
Alex

 

Of course that last bit is an obvious truism, but empty of substance. There are a number here well equipped mathematically to do so, but I imagine they recognize the impasse doing so would place them in.
As to not being able to load the page, try again - no-one else seems to have a problem with that.
You were certainly able to do the usual paddoboy thing and flood the page with full reproduction of an 'against the cranks' generic polemic, as per #45.

So you believe, and so you claim. But again, empty of substance.

Try reading - and digesting - my posts on p1. Or your memory is getting really bad? And try avoiding foul language - it really doesn't help.

Same tactic as physbang - avoid the key issue - Appendix A, and instead rope in extraneous issues. Professional thread derailing is not appreciated.
If you wish to show some semblance of objectivity - why not try and get an objective, appropriately targeted response (i.e. dealing with Appendix A). From one of your fav GR Profs? Or is it a case of having already tried, and no-one willing to bite?

 

There you go why would you think "sock puppet"??? Do you know anyone you plays the game this way.
You may have missed but Paddoboy and I do not hold the same views on various issues. He likes GW astronomy and I would prefer that money devoted to the seach for life... He hates Tony Abbott and I only dislike him.. So there.
And now you are sucking up to Paddoboy saying nice things to get him on side, just to get a couple of likes I bet.
Where is the science?
Are you going to run and hide like the god.
He will be crawling back soon, hands and knees, begging for forgiveness and grateful he was not banned for life.
The site must like him as do all of us when he stops beating his chest and grunting out meaningless one liners, and stops letting delussions rule his interaction with other members.
Come on some science.
I think black holes are not there and there is only a singularity.. What do you think.
Alex

 

Xelasnave.1947:

How self-serving and plain stupid can you be? Haven't you considered that you are the "common denominator" in all your troubles to date?

For example, you just assumed your knowledge to be just a little past mine. The posting and discussion to date proves you are fooling yourself. You didn't recognize or even understand the subtleties already posted by me which make your and paddoboy's 'knowledge' just so much parroted uncomprehended tripe and links which either were irrelevant or already obvious stuff from which the discussion took off from.

How you can fool yourselves that you have had anything to offer genuine science discussion of real issues at the forefront of scientific discovery and understanding is too ridiculous for words.

Xelasnave, consider that you are the problem here, not me or whomever you fixate upon to blame for your own ignorance, stupidity and futility so far in all your dealings. I have only ever posted questions or observations or OPs for discussion as posed not as misconstrued by ignoramuses and dishonest personal agenda pushing trolls pretending to be interested in science discussion instead of their own ego and ignorant control attempts at bullying others with such tactics as I have already pointed out you two have been using.

It's your tactics and dishonesty and plain ignoramus postings and conversations about people rather than the science issue itself that brings you down. I am as I started and continued to be: genuine and curious; and well read up and understanding on the science issues which you and paddoboy can only parrot or miss altogether as you bully by tactics already pointed out. If management seeks to improve this site, the first thing is to ban you two permanently. Maybe then the rest can get on with science discussion on merits not on ignorance, personal vendettas and parroting/linking tactics like you and paddoboy use so far.

If the truth hurts, my condolences, Xelasnave.1947. But the common denominator seems to be your own ignorance and "like" desperation which leads you to make wrong choices. It may be that you know some things, but the rest you are missing is far beyond you and paddoboy to bridge across at the rate you two are going with enabling each others' willful tactics and misconstruing for your trolling purposes not science. Start again; be less stupid and more honest; and less interested in "likes" and people and more about engaging in actual discussion or keeping silent when you don't have anything to contribute to advance the discussion. Whether you take the advice is your choice. Consider the problem may be you not others; as I have just pointed out was the case today even in this thread. Best wishes.

 

Only if you think that "we can't count the money spent on academics as money spent on this, because those academics would have to work on something" is a good argument. There are lost of alternatives to GR beng examined and there is expensive telescope, satellite, reactor, and particle accelerator time given to the search for a replacement for GR. It is ludicrous to believe that all the physicists working on finding a replacement theory are somehow conspiring to hide any possibility of a replacement.

GR is not the Schwarzschild metric. Nor does science advance on logical proof, given that much of physic involves approximations that are, in some sense, strictly contradictions.

The real question is whether or not there is actual evidence that the world behaves like the system that your author proposes. Until there is good evidence for the specifics, there is little anyone can say on this matter.

 

I appologise for throwing mud here.
I usually dont do this and to do so in your thread was wrong of me.
On the positive I was absolutely enjoying the various posts until I got distracted by Eddy.
I am sorry I will withdraw.
Alex

 

You may imagine that Appendix A is the key issue, but if it was the key issue, why is it in an appendix? The author seems to think that the key issue was whether or not the addition that the paper added to GR fit the available evidence. Why do you dodge this issue? Why do you claim that the paper is about how wrong GR is when the author relies on GR being almost exactly correct? The author relies on GR being almost exactly correct throughout the paper, not merely in one appendix.

 

I cannot help it if you continue to misconstrue or outright misrepresent the true situation. Can you spot a mathematical flaw in that straightforward derivation of exponential redshift expression? Evidently not, or you would have done so. Einstein's GR is dead in the water. The tragedy is it has proven good enough till now to have it's internal contradictions shielded from observational falsification. An extraordinary situation to have lasted so long. But as Robertson has pointed out, the exceeding weakness of gravity in most situations has 'saved' GR. Maybe not much longer.

 

You must know how it hurts.
Now get on with it or get out of the way.
We are both guilty of thread derailing.
I have appologised and will now read what members have to say about the interesting proposition raised in the OP.
Good day to you sir,
Alex

 

Xelasnave.1947:

If your distraction had been due to you recognizing the scientific comment and its implications I made in my post relating to the issue raised by Farsight-Einstein quote; and if your distraction had continued in a vein of actually addressing that issue/comment on the science; and if your distraction had led to constructive comments from you instead of counterproductive personal comments which missed all the science issue involved; then perhaps your distraction may not have arisen and blamed on me instead of your own distraction, by choosing to ignore the science issue/comments and instead proceeded to make a stupid fool of yourself; for which you should now apologize to Q-reeus as well as being distracted by your own troll tactics and agendas and cause all that clutter in his thread (in which I posted a relevant point re Farsight-Einstein quote issue raised in discussion and related to my earlier thread as linked and explained; the rest of my posts were provoked by you and paddoboy's trolling and misconstruing for personal agendas).

Xelasnave.1947, you trolling and ruining a thread with the able assistance of paddoboy misconstruing is not good. It is better in future to avoid doing that altogether; so you won't have anything to apologize for. Less stupidity means less apologies for same, Xelasnave.1947. Consider your next post against that.

 

Xelasnave.1947:

I posted on science issue raised in discussion. You and paddoboy made it all about the person. Please blame yourselves and not the one who posted on science and related thread issue. If you are genuine in your apology and remorse for derailing the thread as pointed out, then please just stop trying to shift the blame and making excuses for your own stupidity which derailed this thread. Thanks and good day to you too, Sir.