Relativity of rotational motion confirmed:

Relativity of rotational motion confirmed
May 12, 2016:


It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-relativity-rotational-motion.html#jCp

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.epj.org/images/stories/news/2016/10.1140--epjp--i2016-16091-9.pdf
THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL PLUS:


An interesting consequence of the general principle of relativity
Øyvind Grøna and Torkild Jemterud Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway Received:
15 January 2016 Published online: 12 April 2016 – c Societ`a Italiana di Fisica / Springer-Verlag 2016

Abstract.

We show that Einstein’s general theory of relativity, together with the assumption that the principle of relativity encompasses rotational motion, predicts that in a flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-RobertsonWalker (FLRW) universe model with dust and Lorentz Invariant Vacuum Energy (LIVE), the density parameter of vacuum energy must have the value ΩΛ0 = 0.737. The physical mechanism connecting the relativity of rotational motion with the energy density of dark energy is the inertial dragging effect. The predicted value is necessary in order to have perfect inertial dragging, which is required for rotational motion to be relative. If one accepts that due to the impossibility of defining motion for a single particle in an otherwise empty universe, the universe must be constructed so that all types of motion are relative, then this solves the so-called cosmological constant problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then Oyvind and Co are in trouble, because the more recent observations have downgraded the 'DE' value to 68.3 %, significantly less than his 73.7%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DMPie_2013.svg
I have pointed out several times here and elsewhere that the persistent and popular notion, even amongst GR buffs, that rotation is relative in the sense given in that physorg article is just stupid:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-gr-contradict-machs-principle.505896/page-2#post-3352410

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.epj.org/images/stories/news/2016/10.1140--epjp--i2016-16091-9.pdf
Even with the DE value downgraded, is no reason to believe that the assumption of the paper is wrong I suggest.
GR stands as the overwhelmingly accepted universal model of gravity, and it has passed all tests thrown in its direction, particularly of late with aLIGO.

Also from the paper I linked to.....

4 Conclusion
The prediction that ΩΛ0 = 0.737 might of course be falsified by observations. It is remarkable that the WMAP and Planck measurements have given a present value of the density parameter of dark energy which is 0.73 ± 0.03 [7] in agreement with the predicted value. This shows that relativity of rotation may be a physical reality in our universe, namely, this implies that the fact that the swinging plane at the North Pole rotates together with the stars, is no coincidence. It shows that the rotation of the plane is a gravitational effect from the cosmic masses upon the pendulum. The rotation of its swinging plane is due to perfect dragging from the rotating cosmic mass. This means that every gyroscope is also acted upon by the inertial dragging effect due to the cosmic masses. The cosmic perfect inertial effect lines up the axis of a gyroscope so that it keeps on pointing at a fixed star even as the night sky rotates around it. This was used as a reference in the Lageos I and II experiments and the gravity probe B experiment that confirmed the existence of inertial dragging. The agreement of the predicted present value of the density parameter of dark energy and observations, confirms the existence of perfect cosmic dragging and implies that rotational motion is relative in our universe. The density of vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude less that the quantum-mechanical cut off value, which is the Planck energy density. This is considered to be the quantum mechanical prediction for the energy density of the vacuum energy, leading to the largest known conflict between theory and observation. We have shown that the general theory of relativity tells another story. It is not possible to define any type of motion for a particle that is alone in the universe. Motion can only be defined relative to other particles. One may therefore argue that the universe must be constructed so that if we have the correct theory, then this theory has to contain the principle of relativity for all types of motion. This was the way Einstein argued a hundred years ago inspired by Ernst Mach. We have here investigated a consequence of assuming that the principle of relativity is valid for rotational motion in our universe according to Einstein’s theory, and shown that if this is the case, and if the 3-space of the universe is Euclidean and dominated by dust and LIVE, then the universe must be constructed so that the present value of the density parameter of the vacuum energy is ΩΛ0 = 0.737. Our calculation was motivated by a question about where the assumption that rotational motion is relative would lead us according to the general theory of relativity. It has turned out that the answer to this question has provided a solution of the cosmological constant problem. The solution is that the universe has to be constructed so that all types of motion are relative, since the opposite would imply that it should be possible to define the motion of a particle which is alone in the universe, which is not regarded as meaningful. This implies that LIVE with a constant density represented by the cosmological constant, contributes with an energy having 73.7% of the critical density of the universe.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Of course like any scientific endeavour, further tests/experiments will continually be undertaken to further validate something that is pretty well essentially already validated speaking overall.
Let's see what happens.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

See end of 3rd para here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#Overview
See last main para here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planck/news/planck20130321.html

While quoted Planck survey results have a small scatter, none exceed 'DE' = 70% and the mean is around 68-69%. Planck survey figures are universally accepted as more accurate than earlier WMAP result that evidently Gron et al are clinging to cherry-picking style. Sad. Evidently an example of 'this is my beautiful baby and I love it too much to let go'.

As per my earlier linked post(s) in another forum, there is no logical sense to the persistent notion of supposedly 'Machian relative rotation' where the rest of the universe is deemed as spinning around some axis. Seems Bishop George Berkekey started the crazed perspective, which has unfortunately taken hold ever since. The logically correct thing is to treat the instantaneous motion of each mass element (in say a spinning flywheel) separately - the 'rest of the universe' then can be correctly Machian treated as having instantaneous relative motion of the opposite sign but equal magnitude.
It's an imaginary procedure but no less logical than the EM rough counterpart of a charged particle moving in the magnetic field of some 'distant' current distribution. In both cases, 'symmetric' propagation delay is not part of the analysis.

Feel free to quote this and my last post to Oyvind if intending to evoke a response tashja style. Do resist your strong tendency to cherry-pick - make sure to quote his entire response though.

As for aLIGO 'confirming GR' i.e. BH's, you seem to have a very short memory span:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/exotic-alternatives-to-bh-mergers-by-aligo.156273/
See also: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...g-gravitational-wave-signals-from-black-holes

Gravity probe B is an even funnier cite as 'confirmation' - an inherently weak field experiment results of which are compatible with numerous alternative gravity theories.

 

As I have said, and as I'm sure the Professor agrees, further tests will decide...tests by professionals.

I have no strong tendencies to quote anything or anyone out of context, but since you as usual are starting with insinuations, perhaps you are still smarting somewhat from your previous anti GR nonsense that was consequently shifted to the fringes.
Whether I E-Mail the professor or not, you will certainly know, and like any other E-Mail confirmation I have received, all will be revealed as is.
Obviously also I sense some "vitriol"to the past excellent tashja E-Mails, probably since most all have refuted your general position.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Worth noting that It was I that first linked to those remote possibilities.
And obviously even accepting the two possibilities of wormholes and Gravistars, the chances of either being the cause is very slim, since neither have been evidenced in any way........whereas BH's certainly have.
And again just as obviously the real professionals out there, with their noses to the grind stone do not hold to either of those hypothesis.
aLIGO and GP-B are two reputable, experiments held in high regard, by near all worthwhile cosmologists and/or Physicists, ignoring our on line would be's of course.
For all intents and purposes, aLIGO certainly has confirmed GW's and consequently BH's to within any reasonably considered precision and accuracy, despite what yourself and the god so steadfastly refuse to accept.

 

That last bit was last discussed here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3379388/
You want to take me on regarding details of that farcical episode - then do so!

Then your sense of things is out of kilter. And given you have zero intellectual clout to dispute me on any technical level, best you keep quiet on such matters.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The only things out of kilter my friend, is your total inane claims re aLIGO and GP-B.
On your delusional other claim, I don't need clout...I'll gladly and proudly link to real professional people that can do that for me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now you have a good night, OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Learn to sleep without me in mind, baby !! You know I don't sing lullabies...I don't indulge in goody goody.

And Yes, BH is an impossibility, not at all realistic, it is pure and simple mathematical masturbation, being indulged by few guys who hold the mainstream.

And of course in reality spacetime too is fooling around with maths...so you know both GP-B and aLIGO are nothing but data manipulation....

 

Since the Earth's gravitational field is dominant at the North Pole (compared to the Galactic field) wouldn't the main drag component also come from Earth? That is to say a gyroscope at the North Pole might be expectred to ignore the Galaxy and turn with the Earth?

 

Milky way is very diffuse and rotation rate of once every 220-250 myr is s l o w. One therefore expects an extremely feeble gravito-magnetic field having imperceptible influence on any gyro precession. It's bulk mass would be expected to contribute more to stabilizing gyro orientation by contributing to the Machian inertia of gyro.

The only hypothetical sense in which a gyro would tend to turn with the earth is if the earth were spun up from zero angular velocity. The coupling would be extremely weak - with gyro much preferring to maintain it's spin speed and orientation wrt the rest of the universe, which includes our milky way.

 

Sorry, I was actually thinking 'orientation' when I wrote 'spin'. If I had my time over again it would be ... wouldn't the orientation (E-W) of a gyro at the North pole tend to follow the spin of the Earth? Not (for example) the Galaxy.

 

Would you care to grace these humble pages with an argument to support this claim?

Again, assuming you mean there is a fundamental disconnect between "reality" as you see it, and the mathematics that describes it in the most precise language known to Man, let's have your argument rather than a bald assertion

 

Again plenty of bluster but no substance. Your obvious agenda is making you totally irrational.
Learn to accept the highly stupid, irrational, unlikely scenario of the whole world being wrong except for the god.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And of course as usual, if you did have anything other than bluster, would you be here or need to be here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and with regards to my sleep, I actually sleep like a baby and wake totally reinvigorated and refreshed, but perhaps before you make such obviously deluded comments, you need to check out the meaning of the word "irony" and how it so often applies to your blustering posts with no substance, and as indicated by the following quick, short research.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, lets take one by one...hope you would rebut, rather than making bald statements....

1. First and foremost, science is not what majority thinks or feels.
2 Secondly there are certain observations which support, repeat support not prove, the concept of BH, but nothing supports and proves the reality of spacetime.

So, we take BH first...

A. If we leave Michell aside then BH is a prediction of General relativity, based on certain mathematical solutions of EFE.
B. If we focus only on Schwarzchilds BH, then the immediate rebuttal comes as follows..

In SR we encounter division by zero when we have v = c for a frame. So what we do ? We state that rest frame for photon does not exist. Right ?

But in GR when we encounter division by zero at r = 2M (at Schwarzchilds radius), we lap it up and say lo we got the BH and singularity follows after that. Why ? Why division by zero qualifies for "does not exist or permissible" while division by zero is permissible in GR and named too ? The answer is very simple, in SR it is verifiable and will bust everything, but in GR it is not verifiable so, lets do it.

C. Schwarzchild solution is fine as long as r > 2M, not beyond...It is just mathematical manipulations. There is no evidence that the radius in the solution is really a physical radius for r < 2M. Theory also says that below 2M, the temporal and spatial coordinates swap rather t becomes radial...just to save on division by zero or sqrt of negative value ?

D. Can you give even a single example of physical reality where division by zero, yields something physical ?

E. The BH detection is generally done with the help of orbital motions of the nearby objects or with the help of xray emissions (jets etc). These are two most prominent methodologies. Now first one is applicable only for BHs in our Galaxy, simply because we cannot see individual stars in any other Galaxies. So the BH around our Sgr A* was detected based on motion of S2/S14 stars nearby, so far so good. But after the BH was announced, we got something called G2 gas cloud, we predicted the motion of this G2 around our central BH, it was kind of great opportunity to prove the existence of BH in central region. Nothing happened to G2...flop show. So if we can establish the existence of BH based on orbital motion of stars nearby, then as a corollary the failure of prediction of G2 motion, should dump it ? Post mortem is going on, but no one talks of dumping BH.

F. The other phenomenon is x ray emission, jets etc. Fine. The real mechanism is conclusively established. So if the real mechanism itself is not established, then saying that BH exists is untenable. Still let us take it. If the BH gorging on some object then this object interacts with accretion disc around BH and accretion dic material gets heated up to very very high degree and xray is emitted....so far so good, but how the material (of disc) can get ejected out away from BH ? That too in the axial direction of BH ?

G. Stellar BHs cannot form due to violation of causility and violation of Baryon number conservation.

H. Mersini paper is dumped, without finding any fault in her maths.

I. Many more points can come, try rebutting above.

On Spacetime : Next post.

 

On Spacetime:

1. What is spacetime, what is the connect of spacetime with reality ?

2. Physical events happen in 3D space, not in spacetime. Space is the reality not the spacetime.

3. The space coordinates are (x,y,z), why spacetime coordinates are (ct,x,y,z) ?

4. Why ct, why not t ? Do not tell me that it makes the unit of x,y,z and ct as same, thats useless explanation. Why c, why not c/2 ? And ct is light travelled in t time, so it is 'space-lighttravel' not spacetime.

5. Spacetime is not space. You agree ?

6. But GP-B tried to find the frame dragging in space ? Why and what is the connect ?

7. But aLIGO is an attempt on space curvature. Why and what is the connect ? And please note aLIGO second observatory was at around 10 ms in space (if you travel at c), suggesting that aLIGO team was observing two events (effect of one event you can say at two locations in space), so where is the spacetime ?

8. Space can be theorised to have certain physical properties, not spacetime. Spacetime has geometry and nothing else. Give me an example of non mathematical entity which has geometry but nothing else. You can't ?

So Spacetime is some maths artifact, has no connection with reality. Time cannot be dimension in a sense represented in spacetime metrics. They are just maths models.

9. Give me the flow rate of time in spacetime ? You can define dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt but dt/dt stops everything ? Can you say that a coordinate is changing with respect to itself ? Thats why they had to bring in ct. Which in principle means a coordinate travelling at the speed of c ? Can you explain this in reality keping SR in view.

Many more, but first rebuttal for above ?

 

Good research Paddo, but faulty one.

I have referred you in a thread, in which you were the participant. But you remebered me in a thread where I had not posted anything till then. Understand the difference.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Faulty?? No totally relevant.....If I wasn't so lazy I could link another dozen or more posts showing your unwanted infatuation with me in posts addressing other members.

 

Ignoring all your nonsensical misunderstanding in two posts and addressing the above......
Firstly, certainly there is some truth in that statement, but even more certain is the fact that in the vast majority of cases, what mainstream accepts based on the current knowledge, is most likely to match the data available.......
Secondly, again it is near certain that any alternative model that happens to be raised on forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, purposely avoiding the proper academia and associated peer review, is in all likelyhood nonsense.....
Thirdly, the point above is continually shown to be factual by the fact that other forums in many cases has banned these delusional alternative claimants, and even here where rules are far more lax, most of those same alternative claimants, have threads moved to pseudoscience, and/or cesspool after a short period of what can loosely be described as discussion or debate.
Fourthly, if any alternative claimant had any science of any substance, they would not be wasting there time on this or any other science forums.
Those are undeniable facts.
The rest of your fabricated nonsense re GR and spacetime has been revoked, derided and invalidated many times and is not worth the effort again as most are fully aware of your standing/s.

 

try rebutting the points one by one....just let me know how they are non sensical.........

try in your language, if you have to cite some work, just give the link, do not clutter the thread with copy pastes...