A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

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

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    So, without a word of apology or explanation, now re-posting here what was dumped before here:
    Still a bad fail. The OP has nothing to do with faith, and certainly doesn't require consideration of extreme situations like BH vs no BH re unconstrained collapse. But if you choose to see it as a 'faith issue', won't try and stop you taking that position. Just about anything goes at SF. Even philosophical types chiding me for taking exception to stupid or even intentionally misleading criticisms. Such is SF.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    I thought I had posted "Sorry, wrong thread" before reposting. I apologise (again) for not concentrating fully on something that is clearly of importance to you.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    No problem then - thanks for making the situation re posting plain. I'm sure you are trying to be insightful in #160 here, but it doesn't come across that way from my pov. Peace.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    The mass deficit is found in standard texts.

    Some of the material in your standard text contradicts Einstein, and is wrong.

    The ground isn't pushing upwards on your feet. You push down on the ground, because you're standing in inhomogeneous space where light curves downwards. And as per the hard scientific evidence of pair production and the wave nature of matter etc, you're made out of electrons etc which are in turn made of light. And you can simplify one electron to light going round and round a square path. It falls down. And if it can't, it pushes down.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In the Einstein digital papers, there's plenty of references to gravitational force.

    Yes. Are you?

    Gravitational. As described by Einstein.

    No. Energy conservation applies. I threw it up at 10m/s, and when I catch it it's falling down at 10 m/s. But when I dissipate the kinetic energy, the energy of the brick is less than what it was when it was momentarily motionless at the top of its trip.

    No. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    There is such as thing as gravitational potential energy. But it's actually mass-energy. And that mass energy is actually kinetic energy.

    Low frequency radiation.

    No, because I'm referring you to Einstein and the evidence.

    Into the electromagnetic bonds in the spring. The spring is more massive as a result.

    It's a medium. It's a popscience myth that it isn't. Trust me on this.

    Another popscience myth. Is there some part of what Einstein said that you somewhow missed?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Duh. Mathematics is not scientific evidence.

    You can convert a photon into the motion of electrons, or into an electron. It demonstrates that matter is made of kinetic energy.

    No, you aren't. You know fuck-all physics, and it shows.
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    You may understand that your formula-free "analysis" makes as much sense to me as my one-line argument to you. You seem to think that your text is a valid argument. For me, it is just a yet quite meaningless collection of words, and I yet have to make sense of it.

    All I can do is to invent some vague interpretations of your "analysis" which could, at least in principle, make sense. Of course, a highly error-prone endavor. Up to now I have failed:
    Fine. This removes the IMHO most problematic thing which one could use to argue against GWs in GR in principle. Namely that there may be some such approximate solutions of the linearized equations around the Minkowski metric, but that, in principle, there may be (or cannot be for some known only to you reason) no global GR solution which corresponds to this approximate linearized solution. Once this is not the line of your argument, the whole thing simplifies a lot. Instead of the non-linear, quite complicate Einstein equations we have a linear equation for the small disturbances $g_{mn} = \et_{mn}+h_{mn}$.

    Let's try another idea. Let's assume that the problem is hidden behind the "Only pure transverse shear deformations being allowed?" line. One can, say, imagine that if there is some local restriction that all waves have to be transverse, then, given that we have different directions everywhere, combining them all the result could be that no nontrivial wave is possible at all.

    But who forbids something else, like longitudinal deformations? Sorry, nobody. Once we have moved from the general $g_{mn}$ following a non-linear Einstein equation to the $h_{mn}$ following a usual linear second order wave equation, every $h_{mn}(x)$ is allowed as long as it fulfills the wave equation.

    Unfortunately, such devices such as LIGO are unable to detect most of these waves. But so what? It does not mean that they are forbidden in GR. It means only we cannot observe them. But this is already another issue.

    So, what makes you think that somehow longitudinal waves are forbidden in GR (instead of simply being undetectable by LIGO-like devices)?
  9. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Schmelzer - just caught your above post. Too late for me to reply in detail. Except to say, your posting here is off-topic. If you wish to seriously engage, fine, but over in the other thread. So re-post verbatim and I will respond there later.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Ok, you seem right about this been off-topic here. Feel free to answer there to this post. I think to copypaste a whole posting to another thread would be worse.
  11. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    If I can convert a photon into an electron so you say it demonstrates that matter is made of kinetic energy but the kinetic energy of what ? Photon, that theorized by Einstein but anything about photon's kinetic energy from Einstein ?
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    I see that Farsight is back to defending his claims about Einstein by using the guaranteed not in Einstein claim that everything is made of photons. If that isn't pseudo science, then nothing is.
    rpenner likes this.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    So what do we have here? As suggested as early back as post 4
    And here......
    and we get this reply, which imo supports the conspiracy inference by James, and as I have pushed also.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Excuses, excuses, excuses. [and conspiracy!]

    I reiterate again exactly what James has suggested and inferred, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to be done.
    Obviously suggesting that GR or any other well supported mainstream theory is wrong, certainly does not need to undergo the strict "running of the gauntlet" on a simple science forum, as does proper professional peer review.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I was going to respond to your post until I read this:

    Now I will not be wasting more time on you.

    There is no reason I should have to put up with your rudeness. Clearly, you are unequipped to discuss physics anyway.
    origin, Xelasnave.1947 and rpenner like this.
  15. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Apart from the fact that you give free rein to abusive trolls who trash every decent discussion.
  16. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Light. The photon is not some billiard ball thing that has kinetic energy, it has an E=hf wave nature. It is kinetic energy.
  17. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Popscience cargo-cult metaphysics. The Great Man called me yesterday to complain that you're a complete fraud. I gave him your number.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Farsight is mixing terminology in a confusing way. Kinetic energy is energy that an object has due to its mass and its velocity. Rest mass energy is energy that an object had associated with its mass at rest, according to Einstein's equation \(E=mc^2\). They are not the same thing.
    ajanta likes this.
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Just so you don't think any following action was sour grapes from James I reported your post for bad language, but did not mention it was insulting.
    origin likes this.
  20. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Thanks a lot. So photon has energy. Then what kind of energy it is ?
  21. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    So if the frequency doesn't actually change then wavelength doesn't change also but gravitational time dilation means you and your clocks are going slower, so you measure the frequency as being increased. But who changed the wavelength here and how can you get it as blueshift ?
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2016
  22. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Einstein's explanation for these observations was that light itself is quantized; that the energy of light is not transferred continuously as in a classical wave, but only in small "packets" or quanta. The size of these "packets" of energy, which would later be named photons, was to be the same as Planck's "energy element", giving the modern version of the Planck–Einstein relation: E=hf

    Einstein's postulate was later proven experimentally: the constant of proportionality between the frequency of incident light (f) and the kinetic energy of photoelectrons (E) was shown to be equal to the Planck constant (h).

  23. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    • Farsight is banned from the main science sections of this site until September 1.
    No, the photon is energy. See Einstein's E=mc² paper where he said "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²". Radiation is a form of energy, it doesn't "have" energy. The point about Compton scattering is that some of the photon's E=hf wave energy is converted into electron kinetic energy. If you do another Compton scatter using the residual photon, and another and another, in the limit you remove all the wave energy, and then the wave isn't there any more.


    Nobody changed the wavelength. The light didn't change. You changed.

    Note though that a photon can have any frequency you like, and any wavelength you like, and any energy you like.

    Yes, it has the dimensionality of energy x time or momentum x distance. Look at some pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. What's always the same regardless of wavelength?

Share This Page