Measuring the curvature of spacetime

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Totally untrue, as you obviously know due to the following excellent pseudoscience thread of yours....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/cosmology-at-the-threshold-of-encountering-the-reality.153132/
Probably though should have been one rung lower in cesspool.

What you maintain is your problem: It mostly is not evident and is certainly not what reputable mainstream scientists accept. Academia proceeds as per normal, thankfully ignorant of the arrogance and stupidity some crank posts like yours, like to exhibit on this and other forums:
Plus most all of your points have been totally demolished and refuted as was your BNS paper.
Check out the two tutorials [BH and the Universe] that stand as a good understanding of present day cosmology.
Keep trying though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have to keep trying, not me..

For me it is a foregone conclusion that very soon this BS called BH and related maladies will go away...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not really: My stance is basically mainstream and the most logical and reasonable at this time. I don't need to try and achieve that: Logic and sensibility in mainstream theories does that itself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like Schmelzer and his mythical ether, your delusions are noted, but don't make a scrap of difference to reputable mainstream academia.
And that my boy will continue to stick in your craw as long as your arse points towards the ground.
In the meantime I'll continue to be the lighthouse on your path of destruction for you.
http://www.universetoday.com/108044/why-einstein-will-never-be-wrong/

WHY EINSTEIN WILL NEVER BE WRON:

13 Jan , 2014 by Brian Koberlein

One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have “proven Einstein wrong”. These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as “it is obvious that..”, or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced.

For example, in the late 1700s there was a theory of heat known as caloric. The basic idea of caloric was that it was a fluid that existed within materials. This fluid was self-repellant, meaning it would try to spread out as evenly as possible. We couldn’t observe this fluid directly, but the more caloric a material has the greater its temperature.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ice-calorimeter from Antoine Lavoisier’s 1789 Elements of Chemistry. (Public Domain)

From this theory you get several predictions that actually work. Since you can’t create or destroy caloric, heat (energy) is conserved. If you put a cold object next to a hot object, the caloric in the hot object will spread out to the cold object until they reach the same temperature. When air expands, the caloric is spread out more thinly, thus the temperature drops. When air is compressed there is more caloric per volume, and the temperature rises.

We now know there is no “heat fluid” known as caloric. Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material. So in physics we’ve dropped the caloric model in terms of kinetic theory. You could say we now know that the caloric model is completely wrong.

Except it isn’t. At least no more wrong than it ever was.

The basic assumption of a “heat fluid” doesn’t match reality, but the model makes predictions that are correct. In fact the caloric model works as well today as it did in the late 1700s. We don’t use it anymore because we have newer models that work better. Kinetic theory makes all the predictions caloric does and more. Kinetic theory even explains how the thermal energy of a material can be approximated as a fluid.

This is a key aspect of scientific theories. If you want to replace a robust scientific theory with a new one, the new theory must be able to do more than the old one. When you replace the old theory you now understand the limits of that theory and how to move beyond it.

In some cases even when an old theory is supplanted we continue to use it. Such an example can be seen in Newton’s law of gravity. When Newton proposed his theory of universal gravity in the 1600s, he described gravity as a force of attraction between all masses. This allowed for the correct prediction of the motion of the planets, the discovery of Neptune, the basic relation between a star’s mass and its temperature, and on and on. Newtonian gravity was and is a robust scientific theory.

Then in the early 1900s Einstein proposed a different model known as general relativity. The basic premise of this theory is that gravity is due to the curvature of space and time by masses. Even though Einstein’s gravity model is radically different from Newton’s, the mathematics of the theory shows that Newton’s equations are approximate solutions to Einstein’s equations. Everything Newton’s gravity predicts, Einstein’s does as well. But Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes, the big bang, the precession of Mercury’s orbit, time dilation, and more, all of which have been experimentally validated.

So Einstein trumps Newton. But Einstein’s theory is much more difficult to work with than Newton’s, so often we just use Newton’s equations to calculate things. For example, the motion of satellites, or exoplanets. If we don’t need the precision of Einstein’s theory, we simply use Newton to get an answer that is “good enough.” We may have proven Newton’s theory “wrong”, but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was.

Unfortunately, many budding Einsteins don’t understand this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Binary waves from black holes. Image Credit: K. Thorne (Caltech) , T. Carnahan (NASA GSFC)

To begin with, Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work. Einstein’s theory didn’t supplant Newton’s until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn’t agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.

The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein’s theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that.

But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein’s (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein’s theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won’t have been proven wrong, we’ll simply understand the limits of his theory.


http://www.universetoday.com/108044/why-einstein-will-never-be-wrong/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's look at the following stupidity and ignorance.......

 

The god said
I said and I am still maitaining...

1. GL does not prove curved spacetime.
Gravitational lensing does prove spacetime curvature: And spacetime curvature is a postulate of GR
2. Deflection of light around a massive mass which is seen as GL, may include deflection due to refraction. It need not be 100% due to curvature of spacetime.
No one has denied that: This is just the usual you obfuscating after being shown to be in error. Gravitational lensing though is the greater part of the new apparent image.
3. Black Holes cannot form, as the singulaity is only a mathematical artifact.
The singularity is at the quantum/Planck level and GR is a classical theory: A mathematical singularity was always going to be evident and does not invalidate the formation of BH's:
4. Worm Holes / White Holes are imaginations, bad ones too.
Your lack of knowledge about GR is even more evident: Wormholes are a prediction of GR and the equations and maths give solutions.
5. Travel to past is as ridiculous as anything can be. This is no science. Pure BS.
Well at least I have taught you something! Earlier you said all time travel was impossible. Backwards time travel does appear to have problems.
6. Curved Spacetime is not a reality. Its a mathematical artifact.
Spacetime exists: Spacetime curves warps and twists in the presence of mass:
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists.
7. GP-B and experiment for detecting Gravitational Waves as a ripples in the curvature of spacetime, is all sham.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another divine effort at shock and awe, when in reality you are only expressing and highlighting the stupidity of your posts.
8. BH cannot evaporate as long as CMBR is present and as long as gravitational time dilation is understood the way it isbeing pushed as of now.
All BH's will evaporate over time [a long time] if Hawking radiation is valid.

These points are beyond your understanding, formal education of Physics is not something which can be acquired by reading some popular science articles. Formal Education of Physics covers vast arena of topics, you and Brucep are venturing into something about which you have no foundational idea. First act as students, acquire decent knowledge, then take side, till then learn and learn.......
As I have shown, I understand them all too well. Your own understanding though is certainly questionable, as is any formal education or study you
like to pretend that you have.
Your efforts here in shock and awe and trying to inflame normal science lovers, is only a reflection on your hysterical, and emotive attempts to at least gain the smallest scrap of credibility.
Obviously you have failed at that too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You still need to improve somewhat, but I won't hold my breath.

 

Please stop to falsify quotes like in #83, where you attribute to me some nonsense I have never said.

Let's note that this is exactly the way I have used. My ether theory of gravity is a theory such that Einstein's theory is an approximation of it, for the limit \(\Xi, \Upsilon\to 0\), where it gives the ether interpretation of the Einstein equations. It also makes some new predictions (no wormholes, no causal loops). I have been able to present these ideas in a clear enough way to survive peer review.

What is missed is only that I will be listened too. Up to now, ignorance is the only argument which has been presented. But this is what one has to expect, given the current way to organize science in a way which makes scientists - as long as they depend on having a job in science - extremely dependent. So, the claim that in such situation one would be listened too, is a nice memory from the past, when scientists usually had safe jobs at universities.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I suspect most of you also have learned, a good argument stands on its own merits, and bad ones are obsessions that are usually not worth the effort to invest heavily in, and science and math ideas both share these characteristics. Both disciplines have limits, and when you are at the edge, it might as well be the edge of a flattened Earth. No one will catch your mistake if you carry a mistaken argument or idea so far that you fall off. Madame Curie, now honored as one of our greatest scientists fell off. So can you.

We look at ancient beliefs like giant tortoises and flat Earths with one time zone and probably think something like: that can't happen to us, because WE have science and math to protect us from such obviously mistaken ideas.

THINK again. The more you think you know, the easier it is to fall into this trap.

The scaffolding that is complete is safe to walk upon so long as you remain on the completed parts. But if your plan is to venture beyond those limits, you will be taking a risk you might have avoided by a more careful examination of the limits of the foundation of the scaffolding.

 

Yes, and the math he uses is the math of curvature, regardless of what he says. He is literally describing the mathematics of spaceetime curvature while claiming that it is not spacetime curvature. Ridiculous.

 

Really? Why do you speak with such astounding ignorance.

GR represents spacetime as a manifold.

Here is a definition: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Manifold.html

"The God", you are pathetic.

 

The refraction related to the corona is something one can distinguish from the GR effects which the spacetime interpretation interprets as caused by curvature of spacetime. To distinguish them, one can use a simple difference: Usual refraction depends on frequency, the GR effects don't.

With this qualitative difference, claims that mainstream science is unable to distinguish this part correctly is an uphill battle you will lose.

The BH singularity is deep inside the horizon, if BHs form is decided near the horizon. Thus, the problems with the singularity (which remains to be a proof that GR is only an approximation) is irrelevant for the question if BHs really form.

They are, of course, solutions of GR. If these solutions appear in reality or not is a different question. Up to now, they have not been observed, thus, are purely theoretical solutions of the GR equations.

Nothing in reality suggests it is possible. But causality is also only a scientific theory. In principle, it may be wrong, and somehow falsified by observation. To use namecalling is not a valid argument.

GP-B as well as experiments for detecting gravitational waves are important and valuable contributions to scientific progress. Of course, scientists would prefer more interesting results, and the most interesting result would be a falsification of existing theories. Because this would be a chance for permanent fame for those scientists who find a replacement for the falsified theories. But that this has not happened is no reason to blame experimental physicists. They simply do their jobs, and their job is to test existing theories with more and more accurate tests.

Popular interpretations of the results as "proving spacetime curvature" and similar nonsense paddoboy likes is low quality science journalism, enhanced by the problem that the mainstream is unable to distinguish what is supported by observation from what depends on the interpretation one prefers (a side effect of having only one interpretation, so that one is unable to distinguish what changes if the interpretation changes). These are problems related with popular science, and with a strong prejudice against interpretations and philosophy based on a strong positivistic tradition. But these are certainly not problems of the experiments.

I disagree. To assign a temperature to black holes is not the problem of Hawking radiation. During the collapse, there will be some time during which there will be some component of radiation of the collapsing star which is related with the effect computed by Hawking. And this effect will be similar to a radiation of the temperature computed by Hawking.

The problem with Hawking radiation is that this radiation can be expected to decrease exponentially. But this does not change the temperature of the radiation. It is one thing if a star radiates with temperature X degrees, or if something of the size of an atom radiates with with temperature X degrees, or if something of size \(10^{-100} l_{Pl}\) radiates with temperature X degrees. The error is not the wrong computation of the temperature, but of the amount of that radiation.

 

No. My claim is that time dilation works fine for the math and conceptually and everything else because there is literally nothing else taking place in this universe that is not an energy transfer event. Curvature is irrelevant, and time dilation is different everywhere and anywhere there is relative motion, gravitational fields, or a sufficient amount of other energy present to change it. Because a sufficient amount of unbound directed energy skirting and bending around a gravitating body will cause the body to move toward it also. Tell me that GR predicts that. It can't, because those who use it still have their minds mired in the absolute space of Euclidean geometry, space curvature, and the like, just like Minkowski.

It is the time dilation, if anything, that is responsible for effects that seem like curvature. Lorentz contractions of bound energy are simply Doppler shifts, not covariance, not rotations into higher dimensions, and certainly not curvature.

Go bold. Hilbert and Minkowski aren't around to hear anything about it. Spacetime curvature and the relativity of simultaneity (that wasn't actually simultaneous like entanglement) was their intellectual baggage. They understood exactly nothing about either entanglement or Higgs. The bulk transport of energy in bound and unbound forms was literally all they knew anything at all about, and they didn't even understand very much about that.

With this conceptualization, quantum entanglement makes perfect sense. But the math to support that idea currently doesn't. Let's all work on fixing that. Quantum mechanics must be reconciled with relativity, and alternatives like string theory don't work, because strings don't even support a working description of energy transfers.

This was not my contention before the Higgs boson was discovered. It was as though the blinders had been removed and suddenly I could see, the giant tortoises, like spacetime curvature, were only myths.

 

I'm inferring your general apparent fanatical exercise in raising the mythical ether where ever you can.
If the cap fits, wear it.

And yet it still languishes in obscurity with zilch citations or even the remotest mentions:
In reality you are being totally dishonest in claiming Einstein's theory is an approximation to something that languishes in obscurity, and in reality does not exist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure thing Schmelzer....conspiracy after conspiracy after conspiracy: The evil of academia and mainstream! As I said previously, you are sounding as daft as what the divine one's posts claim: and totally unprofessional to boot.
In the most simplistic terms, you are not listened to, because there is no evidence for the ether, and it is totally superfluous anyway.

 

Except that is not what is maintained by GR, the reigning overwhelmingly supported theory of gravity.
The evidence shows that spacetime curves, warps, and twists in the presence of mass: Curved/warped spacetime is GR: To claim any different is totally inane.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good work Schmelzer!!! Seriously! It's nice to see that my efforts in trying to shame you in refuting other maverick crazy pseudoscience claims has worked.
A pity though you obviously are still too unprofessional to realise the futility of your mythical ether.

 

Removing the blinkers is admirable: But to deny the equations of GR after the many modes of evidence is totally daft and unforgivable.
Spacetime curvature is an integral part of GR.
Do better.

 

I think we all understand that you don't really get physics.

An "event" happens at a place and a time. All your work requires geometry. The math to which you were referring is the math of spacetime curvature. I'm not sure what extra math you think there could be.

And the change, other than that of relative motion, is done through what everyone but you calls "curvature".

Since Minkowski died well before all the language of "curvature" was developed, he couldn't have been thinking about it.

This is yet another example of how you would rather use insulting language about historical figures and spout your own fantasy history than actually learn history or physics.

The relativity of simultaneity is something that Einstein introduced. And in quantum mechanics, simultaneous (pseudo-)events involving entanglement are also relative, since quantum mechanics is consistent with special relativity. This is all old stuff that you simply ignore because you weren't taught it and it contradicts the position you want to hold now.

 

No, in #83 you have attributed to me the claim "For me it is a foregone conclusion that very soon this BS called BH and related maladies will go away...". I have never said this. Up to now, I have considered that to be an error, and expected an apology. Now it looks like an intentional lie.

If theory A is a limit of theory B is a simple mathematical fact. And this fact has nothing to do with what you think about the success of above theories or their truth. In this case, the fact that the Einstein equations of GR appear as the limit of the equations of my theory if \(\Xi,\Upsilon\to 0\) is a mathematical triviality. It would be, therefore, true even if my theory would be falsified, but GR not, say, by observing a wormhole.

Learn the meaning of the word "conspiracy". There is nothing evil, nor of academia, nor of the mainstream, it is simply a stupid way to organize science which I criticize. If ether theory would become a fad, ether theory would profit from the same stupid way to organize science. But it would be stupid nonetheless.

Which is simply wrong, given that it solves important problems of modern physics, namely quantization of gravity, and explanation of the Standard Model of particle physics.

 

Ooops! Sincere apologies. It appears I have made a typographical albeit innocent blunder of immense proportions: That should have been attributed to the god: Apologies again, but it is too late to edit:
What it should have been:

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You keep avoiding the issue: Einstein's theory is not a subset of your hypothesis as distinct from theory: The ether does not exist and is superfluous.

I don't need to learn the meaning of the word "conspiracy" And you often dabble in it. What you believe about any orginisational aspect of science is your opinion only, noting of course that not everything is perfect. [including the scientific method]

If that were true, it would of course support your conspiracy wouldn't it?
It's not true though and will never be true.
Your ether is a fabricated illusion in your own mind.

 

In post 83, I attributed the following quote to Schmelzer:
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Schmelzer said:
"For me it is a foregone conclusion that very soon this BS called BH and related maladies will go away"...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
That was an error on my part and should have been attributed as follows.

Again apologies to Schmelzer.