A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Q-reeus, Jul 6, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Let me reiterate, and as I also told the god..."One swallow does not a Summer make" You like the hand full of others, see fit to express your fabricated objections to GR on a science forum....I'm sure even you are professional enough to know that that counts for zilch.
    This is simply something to satisfy your own ego.
    In essence, and despite your purposely provocative headlines, GR stands as overwhelmingly valaidated particularly in light of aLIGO discoveries, and it will certainly take much more than one or two unreviewed accusations and fanatical fabricated objections to change that. The god obviously has a religious agenda. What's your excuse?
    I also take note of the likes of yourself, Farsight, the god, expletive deleted, and the fabricated nonsense you chose to try and invalidate GR from a science forum.
    You need to do better.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Q-reeus,

    If you read the paper carefully, you will see that..

    1. This exponential metric was proposed way back in 1975...not anything new.

    2. The author himself admits that this metric cannot explain all.

    3. In fact author's maths is more inclined towards Yilmaz.

    4. The author himself offers that in 1907 Einstein did think about exponential component but did not include in his final GR.

    5. Mainly author attempts to get rid of EVent horizon by this. In this metric that is certainly a better prospect than what we get from SM.

    6. In any case not many beleive that SM is realistic down to r = 0, as chances of having a spinless stuff in nature is non existent.

    7. As I said You cannot have MECO formation at r > Rs for SMBH, that's simple physics independent of metric chosen. You can't say SM MECO is possible in Yilmaz and not in GR.

    In fact IMO any metric based solution cannot claim complete overthrow of GR. The author here while pushing exponential being very defensive and clarifies clearly that this metric is not all.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Quite correct, in fact GR will never be "over thrown" as you put it. It's predictive powers and observational verifications has of to date, been A1.
    It will in time of course, hopefully be extended upon with a validated QGT, that may scrub entirely, or push back to a lower level, our Singularity with regards to BH's and of course the BB.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Did I say that GR cannot be overthrown ? I did not.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    You have certainly inferred that many times in past discussions.
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Pl give reference or withdraw.
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Come on now relax everything has been nice lets keep it that way.
    I have been trying to find something on how they make the measurement but so far I do not have anything. Given the extraordinarily small movement I would like to know the technical side, I think the reasons for the movement has been well covered.
    Alex
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I'll stand by my claim that you have many times in the past, inferred GR is wrong, and/or will be scrapped by 2025?
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Oh, yes. Thats true. I thought you were talking about negative. Thats what your post implies.
     
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    Wrong, as your 4 points out. Yilmaz first published a derivation in 1958, and unlike AE, recognized the need of such a metric.
    Again wrong. Robertson is simply still undecided if the interior metric is fully self-consistent wrt arbitrary matter regions. The vacuum solution is not in question.
    Of course!
    See above.
    He does not attempt to get rid of it - it is inherently absent simply by adoption of Yilmaz gravity. Period.
    Another huge advantage of Yilmaz theory is that even in the totally unrealistic scenario of unrestrained spinless collapse of a spherically symmetric 'dust' distribution, that never offers counterbalancing radiation pressure, there is no curvature singularity at R = 0. The Kretschmann curvature scalar is zero, not infinite as in GR.
    You are confusing the character of Schwarzschild metric of GR with exponential metric of Yilmaz gravity. Try and follow my actual dialogue in earlier post.
    Your opinion. Maybe have a rethink.
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    See his Para #2 Eq 3, he did not credit this metric to Yilmaz 1958


    He also states that this metric is not all.
     
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    Of course not. Recall your claim in #142 I was responding to:
    'This' was unspecified there but the default assumption is exponential metric per se. And Yilmaz re-derived and adopted it and had it subsequently published in 1958.
    Rastall's particular implementation of a more general version in 1975 hardly changes that.
    Of course not. Not because it is inherently defective, but that it pertains only to spherically symmetric mass distributions (possibly includes spin). There are lot's of other possible situations, but the vast majority of interest has been in 'just' the axially symmetric cases.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,590
    Just to quote myself:
    I have not seen an answer to these arguments, thus, see no reason for further discussion.
    Same situation. I have given some arguments. You simply disagree, without any argument. The usual behavior of people without arguments, thus, no reason to consider further details (like, say, the actual formulas).
    Same situation. You accuse me of "freely exaggerating/distorting" your words, without presenting some evidence, even without clarifying what you really tried to tell us, and what I have possibly misinterpreted.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,590
    I think you don't even understand why the claim "GR will never be "over thrown" as you put it" is fine, but your explanation why is completely off.

    First of all, obviously, because there is no such animal as an "observational verification" of a general theory. An "observational verification" is possible only for existence claims - "there exist Yetis" can be verified by observing them - but not for general physical theories.

    Then, the point that GR will survive as an approximation is that it lacks predictive power. Because whatever you observe, it will be compatible with GR if one assumes arbitrary "dark matter". All one needs for this is that it is metric-based. Because for every metric-based gravitational field you can simply define dark matter as $T_{mn}^{dark} = G_{mn} - T_{mn}^{obs}$, and then the whole picture will fulfill the Einstein equations.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    You cannot see the contradiction above? Anyway, whether you choose to ignore the historical importance of 'elevator experiment' in setting the initial foundation for GR, one can compare a standard GR approach such as by Carroll here: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll4.html
    with the mathematically exact treatment given variously by Yilmaz, Alley, Robertson (e.g. Appendix A). The latter is the rigorous one and leads to a sensible metric without absurdities.
    Which is too bad for GR. Carver Mead's G4v is explicitly founded in part on Mach's principle, and nicely passes all the so-called 'crucial tests' for GR. As does Yilmaz theory. Additionally, as per other thread on GW's, G4v predicts GW's without the absurd inconsistencies of GR's variety.
    Completely wrong. You choose to ignore that exactly the same rigorous definition for redshift naturally emerges when applied directly to a gravitating body - exponential metric is demanded for consistency. The logical development is the same.
    No, you gave jaundiced opinion re GW's issue in other thread - 'no equations, so nothing to discuss'. I guess you have read post #49 there. Stings a bit perhaps.
    Actual formulas for what, a linear mass-quadrupole oscillator? Sure, easy enough to link to e.g. p12 here:
    https://www.ego-gw.it/public/events/vesf/2010/Presentations/Quadrupole-Ferrari.pdf
    The crucial feature is the supposed shear strain geometry, and those small deforming ellipses in the figure in #1 illustrate the relative orientations of purported local shear deformations well enough. But then a global view shoots it down as absurdly self-contradictory.

    But by now, having basically declared my argument there 'irrelevant', you will by such nay say commitment find it too embarrassing to then enter that thread and try to coherently defend GR's, thus your precious GLET gravity theory's, TT GW's. Let's see if I'm wrong on that.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    Farsight:

    Only from you. It's not a claim that is found in standard physics texts.

    Pick any one of hundreds of physicists. Sean Carroll or Kip Thorne if you like. I'm just telling you what's in any standard text.

    Why do I feel the ground pushing upwards on my feet when I stand on the surface of the Earth? Please explain.

    In general relativity, which you say you are using, gravity is not a force.

    Are you sure you're using general relativity?

    So you're saying there's a non-Newtonian definition of force? What is it?

    So, you supply energy to make it go up. When it returns to your hand (back to where it started), there has been a net loss of energy, has there? Does the brick end up less massive when it returns to your hand? Suppose, then, you throw it up again and catch it again. It will have lost some more mass, right? If you keep doing this for long enough, will the brick eventually disappear completely as its mass energy dissipates away? Is that your claim?

    Is there such a thing as gravitational potential energy, in your opinion? Or just kinetic and mass-energy?

    What kind of radiation is emitted?

    Apparently, you have a self-published book spruiking your theories. And your ideas about relativity never match what the standard textbooks say. Doesn't that make you a "my-theory" guy?

    Now I'm interested in hearing your take on potential energy in general - not just in the context of gravity, but generally. Suppose I compress a spring. It takes work to do that. Where does the energy go?

    A few errors here. First, space (assumed to be an ideal vacuum) is not a medium. On the matter of the variability of the speed of light, we'd have to try to get you to understand reference frames, and I know from past experience that there's not much hope of that happening. It's probably easiest to say that the speed of light is not variable in any particular frame of reference. Thus, photons travel at constant speed.

    Oh, you have hard scientific evidence, do you? Great! Could you please start by posting the mathematics that describes the conversion of mass-energy into kinetic energy as an object such as brick falls?

    I already pointed out that those are all red herrings that are irrelevant to the discussion we are having. What does the Compton effect, for example, have to do with falling objects? Nothing.

    It sounds like you're getting my drift.

    Do I say I'm a physicist? Er... let me think.

    Are you sure I don't know anything about all that stuff? How do you like my bluffing then? I'm pretty good at it, aren't I? Do you think I'm up to your standard?

    Probably not. Why would I need to do that?
     
    ajanta and Xelasnave.1947 like this.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    The over riding fact of course is that GR still stands as unchallenged as the optimum theory of gravitation that is overwhelmingly evidenced and supported.
    Not withstanding the usual fanatical efforts of some in trying to invalidate it.
     
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,590
    I hope, you recognize that GR is also defined in a quite rigorous way. It defines the gravitational field, as described by $g_{mn}(x,t)$, and defines the Einstein equations to describe the evolution.

    If some other theories of gravity use some postulates of their choice, and derive their equations rigorously from their postulates, fine, but this is not a problem of GR, which does not use these postulates.

    And, yes, for the question if GR is defined in a rigorous and logically consistent way, the history of development of GR is completely irrelevant.

    About Mach's principle not holding in GR:
    Feel free to prefer a theory which is in agreement with Mach's principle. I couldn't care less. There are, of course, no "absurd inconsistencies" of GR GWs.
    There is no such demand for consistency. GR is, despite its various problems, consistent. There are, of course, incompatibilities with some other principles, like some exact global versions of the Equivalence Principle, or with Mach's principle. But these are not GR inconsistencies.
    Stings? LOL. It is fine if you recognize that "As for the maths, of course when it comes time for a suitably prettied-up publication-ready article, there will be the appropriate equations some can't think without". Some progress.

    Of course, I have also given hints which suggest that this is not worth to be discussed. These are known and reasonable hints: The "no formulas" hint works. The "claims of logical contradictions" hint apply nicely to, given you write there "GR's and similar tensor gravity theories brand of pure tensor GW's are logical absurdities".

    But I have also given a physical argument, in #132:
    You have IIRC claimed that you have been unable to make sense of it, unfortunately in a form which has prevented me from trying to explain you more. But the argument has been made, and does not disappear if you don't understand it.

    Of course, one simple method to avoid the "no formulas" hint is to copypaste some formulas into the text without understanding them. After this, the "no formulas" hint no longer works. But the quality of the text has not been improved.

    If you would try to understand what is done in this text, and, in particular, all the "HOW TO SWITCH TO THE TT-GAUGE" stuff (more important would be the corresponding "WHY") you would probably able to understand my point better.
    So the first thing you have to understand is that all the GW business does not consider exact global solutions, but only approximations. Which is the first formula of your link: $g_{mn} = \eta_{mn}+h_{mn}, \quad |h_{mn}|\ll 1$.

    And this approximation works only as an approximation. And uses properties which are only approximately correct, but, in fact, known by everybody to be wrong.

    In particular, if $\eta_{mn} + h^1_{mn}(x)$ is a solution, and $\eta_{mn} + h^2_{mn}(x)$, then the linear combination $\eta_{mn} + (c_1 h^1_{mn}(x) + c_2 h^2_{mn}(x))$ is a solution too. That's true in the approximate equations, which are used once one studies GWs, but clearly wrong (and known to be wrong by everybody who works with this) if one cares about exact solutions of the Einstein equations.

    I hope you understand that it makes nonetheless sense to consider such approximations. If not, I think this would be the place where one has to start further explanations.
     
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    Your re-quote above still makes no sense. I honestly cannot follow the train of thought. But note that the last bit re changing coordinates, I can reasonably guess the intended point. Changing coordinates cannot eliminate tidal effects and that's what aLIGO and presumably similar detectors following later, detect. So utterly moot point to argue.
    I do expect reasonable folks to get the drift - noting from the field expressions in that article that the purported local strain geometries correctly correspond with the small ellipses depicted in #1. But someone out to just be argumentative will of course make a point of emphasizing any perceived issues not to their liking.
    What point? As an extremely weak far-field perturbation, TT-gauge just reduces in practice to 'free floating' response to a plane wave front having pure transverse shear character. What the aLIGO suspended mirrors are designed to do.
    Of course it makes sense to do so! Your whole ramble about 'only approximations' is another irrelevancy. The linear approximations used, purely in respect of reasonably expected field amplitudes, is not in question. How do you figure I have somehow been arguing otherwise? Where in particular is the supposed conflict with my global analysis - based on simple geometric symmetry constraints? Having absolutely NOTHING to do with linearity vs non-linearity. Raising false issues is bad form. I suspect you are afraid to enter that other thread, and find it convenient to just snipe from the sides here.

    I initially respected you when first making your presence at SF, despite never taking GLET philosophy as viable, at least you came across as fair and objective. Copping a lot of mindless flack from the likes of paddoboy and various others.
    But here I see another side, a person that imo simply enjoys being contrary - argumentative for the sake of it - as 'sport'. Sad.
     
  23. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    424
    Test of my understanding here:-
    Let's have a mass M that is sufficiently dense that it lies inside its own Schwarzchild radius Rs. The mass lies at the centre of a sphere of radius r.

    As I understand it Einstein/Schwarzchild would have it that the entire properties of M are accounted for when integrating out from Rs. There is nothing left below Rs to integrate which won't give you an unphysical >M result. This proves nothing except that I have faith in the people who have repeated this calculation many times.

    There are people who don't believe the entire properties of M are accounted for when integrating out from Rs. This proves nothing except that they don't have faith in the same people as I have faith in.

    If I am correct then the OP is about faith and lack of it - which is not proof.
     

Share This Page