A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see your point; no effort along those lines to speak of.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your opinion - but please explain what articles on Yilmaz theory you checked, and how you arrived at the conclusion his primary 'crank' aim was to prove Einstein wrong. As opposed to coming up with a new theory that then obviously needed to be compared to GR and any distinctions i.e. flaws in the latter clearly set out.

By now, if following this thread from the start, and had looked at article linked to in #1, it should be obvious intensive effort has gone in to doing just what you seem to conclude wasn't done. Searching for any possible distinguishing astrophysical phenomena such as associated with GBHC's, in particular re Sagittarius A*.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have checked the article linked in OP, which is not very convincing and also this article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280590514_Yilmaz_Theory_of_SNe_1a_Redshift

also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yilmaz_theory_of_gravitation

and this critics:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070204022629/http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#ya

From some new alternative theory, which would be true, I would expect more new predictions and also explanations of yet unexplained observations. This redshift prediction is one of very few specific predictions and it is unfortunately not very convincing compared to standard GR explanation. Both explanations could be true. As already written, it seems to me like Yilmaz was spending 90% of time trying prove GR wrong and only 10% to find new features of alternative theory which would predict something really interesting.

 

Oh my. The qualified GR relativist Chris Hillman, also a fanatical AE's bulldog, was behind both the Wikipedia entry and that archive.org relic - last edited by CH in 2001.
If you have read both of Robertson's most recent arXiv articles and concluded, somehow, they don't pass muster iyo, not much more to say. Except - as I recall from engaging you in one or two previous threads, you don't have a real good grasp of GR. Hence not likely to be able to judge such matters terribly accurately. Am I wrong?

 

"The" experiment, meaning experimental tests in general, has to find out if the predictions of GR are accurate or not. And, of course, GR can account for arbitrary large accelerations (or at least makes predictions for them). Your appendix A, which considers, for whatever reason, some arbitrary elevators, is completely irrelevant.

It would be relevant only if GR would claim that they have to be described in an equivalent way. But GR does not claim such things.

 

Yes, you are right, Im not that good in GR math. Im certainly not able to determine what exactly is wrong with Yilmaz math.
My point was rather general. Even if he would be right with his description of flaws in GR, he should have been focusing more on better/different predictions, because as already pointed out by Schmelzer, finding logical errors in math of established theory is something which has low probability for success and Im adding that it is something which is "hard to sell" to others, even in the unlikely scenario, if he is right. The only real possibility for succesfull new theory is to predict new things, which will be confirmed by experiments/observations. If there would be more predictions which would be more convincing I would easily reconsider.

Just to clarify things, Im not thinking that Yilmaz theory is obviously a crank theory, but I think his approach was similar to obvious cranks, which are overly focusing on proving GR wrong and not on alternative predictions, which could be tested.

 

A better theory is centered on one provable assumption; the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. There is a net flow matter into energy in our universe and not energy into matter. Based on this net flow of potential, the speed of light, is at lower potential.

The speed of light, as the ground state, explains why the speed of light is the same in all inertial references. All inertial references will use the same ground state; laws are the same in all references. An analogy is sea level is the same for all the water of the earth, whether the water is in the clouds, mountain tops, streams, lakes, rivers, etc. Each reference may set a different potential with C-level, but sea level is the same for all. The ground in an electrical circuit is the same all through the circuit.

This assumption makes it easier to explain gravity and GR. When gravity acts on matter, the matter clumps and space-time contracts via GR. The action of gravity on mass is heading the mass general direction of the reference of the speed of light; point-instant. Gravity approximates this reference with black holes. It usually falls short, but will use other forces to return back to C-level; weak and strong nuclear force and EM generate energy ta C.

Even the universal red shift can be explained with C-level. At the speed of light an infinite universe will appear like a point. That means only infinite wavelength energy can be seen. Wavelengths less than infinite will be only a fraction of a point, which is not mathematically possible, since the point is defined as the smallest size. The red shift; expansion, is moving energy back toward the ground state.

 

That in parentheses is certainly true. Infinite g at a perfectly finite radius in the case of BH EH. And maybe you are beginning to warm to wormholes or CTC's or such nonsense which GR also allows 'valid' solutions for. Unlike Yilmaz theory for which such monstrosities never can arise.

So you assert. Not surprising, given you have hitched your own wagon to GR in the sense of making it 'the natural limiting case' of GLET gravity theory. A shrewd choice if desiring any chance of getting publication for sure.

You mean lack of tidal effects in rocket propelled elevator? Not important, as exponential metric falls out of such case as an exact differential relation. As per Appendix A. Valid for an infinitesimal interval, but also valid over an arbitrarily large interval. The straightforward equating to true gravity case is defective where exactly? You can point to some error of maths or logic there? I think not.

 

I can give you them at one institute: https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/research-areas

Here you have different kinds of string theory, different kinds of loop quantum gravity, and different kinds of other quantum gravity proposals. And this is outside of a university.

 

Notice that in both these cases, Farsight is committed to a specific, true reference frame. A bullet can have absolutely no kinetic energy in a reference frame in which it is at rest, but Farsight refuses to allow physicists to use such reference frames.

 

Just like I can't help it if you have a fantasy about this paper and refuse to read it.

After a careful reading of that Appendix and the paper again, it seems that the author is not even offering a correction to GR, the author is merely showing a solution to the Einstein Field Equation that is more accurate and provides significantly better information for the specific application than a specific metric known to be an approximation.

There is no contradiction with GR shown in Appendix A or in any other part of the paper. This entire thread is based on a fantasy.

 

Is it really 511keV photon ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Suppose you are on the black hole, If I send a 511keV photon (that only I know the quantity of energy of the photon but not you/it's unknown to you) from earth to you then if you receive and measure this photon's energy so will it be the quantity(photon's energy) about 511keV ?

 

There has never been a "decision" to "hitch my own wagon to GR" or any "shrewd choice" to get published. Because if I would have cared about getting published, I would never have done everything for an ether theory. And it is not GR which is the limiting case, but the Einstein equations of GR. That's a difference, because even in the limit no wormholes or similar fantasies appear.

In your appendix it is claimed:

If you like to require such thing, fine, do it, and end up with Yilmaz or whatever else theory. This is nothing I would care about. But it has simply nothing to do with GR. That's all.

 

Are you joking or what?
There is no list of non GR alternative theories on the linked page and what is more important, there is no information about any specific research dedicated to the non GR alternative theories. So there no information about alternative non GR theories which are "being examined and there is expensive telescope, satellite, reactor, and particle accelerator time given to the search for a replacement for GR."

 

By falling. Gravity converts some of your mass-energy into kinetic energy. When you hit the ground the kinetic energy is dissipated, and you're left with a mass-deficit. You can't directly measure this on a weighing scales, but you can measure that kinetic energy.

Yes. It takes work to make you go up. It doesn't take work to make a photon go up.

It's easier to start with why you lose energy when you fall. It's because of the wave nature of matter. The photon has an E=hf wave nature, it is kinetic energy. We can reduce the photon kinetic energy in Compton scattering, and in theory we could reduce it all the way, such that all of the photon E=hf wave energy is converted into electron kinetic energy and there's no photon left. Or we make matter out of it in pair production. This matter is made of kinetic energy. Simplify yourself to a single electron, then remember electron spin and the Einstein-de Haas effect and the Poynting vector, and simplify that electron to light going round and round a square path. Gravity makes the horizontals curve downwards, so the electron position changes. It falls down, faster and faster:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hence gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. Or if I throw an electron up into the air, it converts external kinetic energy into internal kinetic energy. Ditto when I throw you up into the air.

You don't need to do any experiment. You know the bullet didn't change. Just as you know that photons don't change just because you accelerate towards them. Not unless you believe in magic.

Not really, because matter is made of kinetic energy, and energy is the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. I do not reduce the bullet's energy by accelerating you.

That bullet is absolutely present, and it is made of kinetic energy, whatever you think its kinetic energy of motion might be.

I'm not wrong. You're clutching at straws.

 

Why do you write such a transparent lie? String theory and quantum gravity are both there and both of them are alternatives to GR.

You can literally follow the links to the publications of the various researchers. Don't complain about your own incompetence or laziness.

 

Just give me one DIRECT LINK to alternative non GR theories which are "being examined and there is expensive telescope, satellite, reactor, and particle accelerator time given to the search for a replacement for GR." You are obviously not able to to that.

 

Science forums such as this, as well as others, are the only outlet that our "would be's if they could be's " have to ply their anti Einstein/GR trade.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I love the way that they swing from one extreme to the other.....one claiming Einstein had it wrong, the other with a fixation on his words of a 100 years ago, without any thought to the improvement in the mean time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I'm fond of saying, nothing substantial will ever come about by these people on forums such as this, as ego deflating as that obviously is for those with such delusions of grandeur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In the meantime to break their obsessive monotony and their collective of banging their heads against brick walls, here is an interesting paper on the summary of GR today, done in 2007:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0754v1.pdf

General Relativity Today∗
† Thibault Damour Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques
35 route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France

Abstract:
After recalling the conceptual foundations and the basic structure of general relativity, we review some of its main modern developments (apart from cosmology) : (i) the post-Newtonian limit and weak-field tests in the solar system, (ii) strong gravitational fields and black holes, (iii) strong-field and radiative tests in binary pulsar observations, (iv) gravitational waves, (v) general relativity and quantum theory.

12 Conclusion
For a long time general relativity was admired as a marvellous intellectual construction, but it only played a marginal role in physics. Typical of the appraisal of this theory is the comment by Max Born [29] made upon the fiftieth anniversary of the annus mirabilis: “The foundations of general relativity seemed to me then, and they still do today, to be the greatest feat of human thought concerning Nature, the most astounding association of philosophical penetration, physical intuition, and mathematical ability. However its connections to experiment were tenuous. It seduced me like a great work of art that should be appreciated and admired from a distance.” Today, one century after the annus mirabilis, the situation is quite different. General relativity plays a central role in a large domain of physics, including everything from primordial cosmology and the physics of black holes to the observation of binary pulsars and the definition of international atomic time. It even has everyday practical applications, via the satellite positioning systems (such as the GPS and, soon, its European counterpart Galileo). Many ambitious (and costly) experimental projects aim to test it (G.P.B., MICROSCOPE, STEP, . . .), or use it as a tool for deciphering the distant universe (LIGO/VIRGO/GEO, LISA, . . .). The time is therefore long-gone that its connection with experiment was tenuous. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the fascination with the structure and physical implications of the theory evoked by Born remains intact. One of the motivations for thinking that the theory of strings (and other extended objects) holds the key to the problem of the unification of physics is its deep affinity with general relativity. Indeed, while the attempts at “Grand Unification” made in the 1970s completely ignored the gravitational interaction, string theory necessarily leads to Einstein’s fundamental concept of a dynamical space-time. At any rate, it seems that one must more deeply understand the “generalized quantum geometry” created through the interaction of strings and p-branes in order to completely formulate this theory and to understand its hidden symmetries and physical implications. Einstein would no doubt appreciate seeing the key role played by symmetry principles and gravity within modern physics.

Interesting extract, remembering this was in 2007....
To conclude, let us also mention how much concerted theoretical effort has been made, both in calculating the general relativistic predictions for gravitational waves emitted by certain sources, and in developing methods adapted to the extraction of the gravitational signal from the background noise in the detectors. For example, one of the most promising sources for terrestrial detectors is the wave train for gravitational waves emitted by a system of two black holes, and in particular the final (most intense) portion of this wave train, which is emitted during the last few orbits of the system and the final coalescence of the two black holes into a single, more massive black hole

 

I'm sorry that you think that modern physics is one big conspiracy.