Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Q-reeus, Jul 7, 2016.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Bad.

    What you are saying is that I should stay in this thread if I agree with you, otherwise I should stay off.

    One more try with you....

    Your objection is inconsistencies in global view. I have referred you the maths, pl pin point where the error is.

    And pl note, beads on the Feynman stick would move even in Newtonian Gravity, point is they will move barring certain exceptionally symmetrical non perturbative scenario. So your claim that they will not move fails on the first step.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,605
    You think? How so exactly? Given for starters GW's cannot exist under Newtonian gravity! See what I mean about profound comprehension issues?
    He he he. And you can justify that not quite coherent statement (but I get the general drift) with a specific, clear counterexample? One relevant to the axially symmetric scenario of OP? That I would like to see you attempt! Post it here, preferably with a clear illustration - conforming to rehash given in #222. So just a 2D plan view is all that's required. Good luck!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,546
    No comprehension issue. It is just that you have closed yourself with this current stuff in your mind.

    When I said Newtonian surely I was not referring to GW. There is a nice internet example, not able to link it now. But I will describe. Take a fixed stick with beads, move the gravitational source periodically in a linear harmonic motion, beads would move. Simple Newtonian Solution.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,605
    Talking apples when the OP is about oranges is rather pointless. You do recall the OP title, right?
    Yes, and simply irrelevant entirely. Who cares if the trivial case of relative motions involving only a static Newtonian g-field yields trivial bead motions? And even there, such relative motions between source and beads would necessarily have no relation to those applying to OP axially symmetric scenario.

    OP scenario involves a linear quadrupole radiator. Your task was to show axially symmetric GR GW's generated by that radiator can logically induce peripheral motions of beads. Evenly distributed along that far-field sized circular array of Feynman's stick(s). That is the scenario I recapped in #222, and you have claimed presents no issue. Justify your claim!
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2016
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    So, you simply ignore your clearly identified errors. A serious errors in the conceptual understanding of GR, in particular of the role of gauge conditions in GR, and a clearly false claim about properties of transversal waves, namely that this would require $u=2\pi r$.

    And want to start some ill-formulates talk in prose about some Feynman beads.

    Do first your homework, accept and correct the errors I have already identified. This is a prerequisite. Because it is clear that if you refuse even to argue about your own errors, it makes not sense to talk with you.
     
  9. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Your habitual misrepresenting, on my actual position on those particular matters in this case, is not worth pursuing. But a further nice record of your style and tactics.
    Thanks for confirming you lack the guts to simply declare an unequivocal yes or no position on the so-called 'prose about some Feynman beads.' Such 'prose about some Feynman beads' is of central importance. A correct understanding of which inevitably leads to the unraveling of GR. But I'm sure you won't take my word on that.
     
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Don't cry. Not a single formula, not a single point about the content of my objections.

    Of course. It is a side remard made by Feynman, which is of some historical interest, but not more. Not much more than a vague analogy, a thought experiment. And had nothing to do with what you discuss here, because it was about the possibility to measure gravitational waves.
     
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Why would I cry, rather than just sigh? And why bother responding to intended merry-go-round side issues? Always just distractions, blown up and distorted by you into 'terribly important issues'. BS.
    The 'vague analogy' has enjoyed essentially universal support within GR community ever since given in 1957. The original by Feynman himself:
    http://www.edition-open-access.de/sources/5/34/
    That 'vague analogy' was credited with silencing almost all doubters of GR variety GW's reality. And that 'vague analogy' assumes a certain, local patch, pure transverse pure shear metric form for the passing GW. Which, as I have shown beginning in #1, falls apart once examined from a global basis. Hence GR itself fails, since it allows only such a globally inconsistent form for GW's. A refrain repeated very often, but falling on deaf ears.

    Disparaging not only myself personally, but the value and importance of what 'Feynman's sticky beads argument' really implies, is not smart.
    And continued refusal to commit to that simple yes or no just keeps reinforcing an obvious conclusion. You are aware of and fear the consequences of doing so. But a nice further record for any later referral.

    [No email notification of last post #247. Interesting. Wonder if I should read anything into that.]
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2016
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Thank, so if you react appropriately so that we can resolve the issues with the OP which I have already identified, I will take a look at it and tell you about what I think about it. I would guess that I will support it too, but I will start such an argument only after your behavior shows that you are not simply a crank who is not even ready to discuss the objections I have already made. There would be no point of finding some more objections which you will ignore in exactly the same way, without any arguments.
    The system which defines when an email notification is send is indeed strange and behaves in unexplainable ways. This has happened for me too, several time, but I have not seen yet any pattern.
     
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    There is and never was any legitimate reason for other than directly addressing and responsibly responding to the dead simple scenario in OP. It's what responsible, serious members of a properly functioning forum are expected to do. Approx. 250 posts (here) + ~ 280 (relevant posts in split offs) later, and still that has not happened. But then this is SF.
    Seems this time my email client or ISP connection failed without warning. So likely nothing to do with SF as such. But I never have gotten a response from admin as to why I NEVER get email notification beyond a single reply to my last post, unless logging in after each last reply post comes. Automatic email notification is supposed to be that afaik. But this is SF.
     
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    The point being?

    Here my first objections:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-2#post-3392120

    Here I ask some simple questions, no answer received up to now:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-4#post-3392776

    Here my second objection:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-4#post-3393047

    Above objections in more detail:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...ws-are-impossible.157012/page-12#post-3395032

    Above objections are directly responding to the OP.

    (1) If you recognize that TT is only a gauge, not a part of GR itself, you have to take back the claim that you have found some logical problems with GR even if there would be problems with the TT gauge. (Note also that your correction of this nonsense would also remove the informal hint that those who claim logical problems in established theories are usually cranks.)

    (2) You have acknowledged that the $u=2\pi r$ plays a role in your OP argument. Once it is wrong, as I have shown, this is a serious argument about the OP.
     
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    No, their intent is imo exactly the opposite - to draw attention AWAY from central issue uncovered in OP. Namely, geometric self-contradiction in assumed transverse shear GW's of GR.
    I have never stated anything to the contrary. Only by deliberate misconstruing could it be slanted otherwise.
    TT gauge is the popular choice, since it addresses the preference for 'local physics'. But choose any legitimate gauge you want. It won't alter the physical fact that far-field GR GW's are transverse and shear in character. Similarly in EM, far-field waves are transverse, irrespective of gauge choice.
    Response of test particles are not necessarily entirely transverse, but induced longitudinal components are, for induced transverse velocities << c, insignificant.
    One article comparing EM waves and the purported GR GW's, considers induced longitudinal responses to such purely transverse waves: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2247
    As my OP makes clear, adoption of the usually taken for granted validity of local patch GW metric fields, just negates the entire analysis based on such. But not for the EM waves which are self-consistent.
    Given you are labelled a crank by others, so what?
    Only in a manner entirely different to your attempt at 'negating it' with that water wave on a globe model. Which model it now seems is actually trying to imply by analogy I should be somehow concerned with a GW moving away from and within the appreciable gravitational influence of a massive body. Err - no. One is concerned with tiny far-field disturbances propagating in a notional otherwise flat Minkowski spacetime. Hence the proper analogy would have been truly transverse torsional shear waves propagating outward in a thin and planar elastic sheet. And evaluated very far from the torsional oscillator source - i.e. far-field.
    Maybe you will get serious at last. But I have no hopes of that happening.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Once TT is only an irrelevant gauge condition (which may have, possibly, some problems, but these would be not GR problems, but TT gauge problems), when why do you mention transversality in your argument? Without the TT gauge, there is no requirement for transversality.
    No, it does. TT means "traceless transverse". So, without the gauge condition there is no transversality required.
    Similarly wrong, but off-topic.
    Note that the example contains not only the property $u<2\pi r$, but also the property that $u(t)$ for a fixed r changes in time.

    Your point could be, at best, that the metric is approximately Minkowski. But this gives you, at best, $u \approx 2\pi r$, which is no problem at all for GR gWs, but in no way an exact $u= 2\pi r$.

    And there is another problem with your excuse: If we talk about $u \approx 2\pi r$, we compare circumference (completely far field) with radius (not completely far field). So even if the far field metric itself is appropriately Minkowski, it does not mean that $u \approx 2\pi r$ holds. Imagine a mountain in a plane. Far away everything is flat, but for a circle with the center at the top of the mountain and distances measured on the surface $u = 2\pi r$ will not hold.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I am yet to understand how hoop bead and rod bead set up can be considered same ?

    1. It is true that hoop will not expand or contract, so it is quite likely that during hoop distortion there may not be relative motion of beads with respect to hoop but nonetheless position of beads changes.

    2. On the other hand if we just have a rod beads set up, since the position of beads changes,interference would be there...
     
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Spurious as usual. The 'requirement' for transverse is that is the very nature of such GR far-field GW solutions. You are the only one suggesting otherwise.
    See above. In far-field there is only transverse wave. That's the physical 'fact' of GR's GW's. You keep suggesting otherwise. Again (and you have failed several times to respond already) - cite some recognized authority claiming longitudinal wave component of a physically generated GR GW exists in far-field. Well?
    Both water wave properties are totally irrelevant to OP scenario - globally axially symmetric far-field GW's. Why keep this pointless merry-go-round diversion up?
    Try imagining being serious and actually dealing with central issue in OP. Global geometry reveals impossibility of GR's transverse shear strain GW's. The point of then arguing over some hypothetical nuances that assume such impossible waves somehow exist, in your imagination, is worse than stupid.
     
  19. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Given how easily in #244 I decimated every confused and irrelevant point you raised in a previous post (and similarly in earlier exchange), I see no reason to just keep this up yet again. Nothing you say above is coherent or relevant. Unfortunately you simply lack the capacity to understand the issue. Sorry but I'm sick of trying to get through. Give it a rest.
     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    First, the "very nature" is not a category of GR. Second, who cares if I'm the only one? Do you want to suggest that majority opinion is somehow important? In this case, one can ignore your #1 simply for being in disagreement with the majority opinion. You are the only one who proposes this argument.

    Third, in this first point I do not care at all if the TT gauge has some problems or not. The majority opinion (which I, just to clarify this, support) is that the TT gauge is fine for GWs. But, for the sake of the argument, I do not defend in point (1) that the TT gauge is fine for GWs, but assume that there may be some problems. In this case, to use the TT gauge would be wrong. And, therefore, the position of the majority would be wrong too. Nonetheless, this would be only a problem of the TT gauge, not a problem of GR. And even less a logical problem of GR.
    No. There are valid GR solutions which violate the TT gauge and have longitudinal components. The TT gauge is a gauge condition. It is not a "physical fact", it is not even a theoretical fact of GR.
    Why do you think such sources should exist?

    You obviously don't get the point that I accept here, only for the sake of the argument, a hypothesis which is, in reality, wrong, namely that there are some problems with the TT gauge for GWs. In reality, there are no such problems, so there is no reason for standard GR sources to consider them.
    They are not, because the math of the water waves is the same as the math of 2+1 dimensional gravity waves, and is globally axially symmetric. And from a mathematical point of view 2+1 dimensional gravity is sufficient to show your errors. Given that you have not responded to all my attempts to obtain precise purely mathematical information, I think that it may be helpful to use examples of 2+1 dimensional gravity waves which have a simple model in form of a water surface.

    I have no problem to modify the spherical model a little bit so that it will be Euclidean in the far field. Use an undisturbed surface around a mountain described by a high $h_0=(1+r^2)^{-1}$ and then add surface waves to it. Far away from the center $h\approx 0$, thus, the far field is Euclidean (Minkowski if we add time). Note that in this case, with waves of type $h=h_0+\sin(r-ct)$, the waves are exactly transversal in the coordinate $r$. But this coordinate $r$ has nothing to do with the physical radius, which has to take into account that we have ups and downs on the surface. So, the TT gauge would favor the unphysical coordinate $r$, which does not define the true, physical radius.

    Sorry, but this is even lower than paddoboy- level polemics. With such cheap attempts to use polemics to get rid of simple mathematical arguments you will not win any scientific discussion.
     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You have #1, may be #32, may be #64, may be #94, and now #244 and you have a png....and you want to kill GR.

    You are repeating yourself and challenging people to find fault with your png ? This is not art forum.

    On serious and humble note: Your answer to all the questions raised by all the posters, relevant or irrelevant is one liner that is pl refer to my post #xyz and find fault. What changes is #xyz, nothing else.


    My question to you is that GR is not the GW only. GR maths is also not the GW maths only. And GW has a distinct maths for all the combinations and permutations which you are talking about, just pin point the fault in that. Your stand that since GR itself is bad, there is no need to look into maths is Paddoboyesque that is since few posters here are anti mainstream so they cannot talk sense, so non need to look into their bonafide argument also.

    Onus is on you to prove your claim that GR is wrong, onus is not on any of the posters here to prove that your argument is wrong; you make them accept it. So far you have failed in that.
     
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Admirably summing up your entire personal 'applied philosophy', as practiced at SF. One day, you may admit even to yourself that the claim in #247:
    is false in all respects. But any such admission will not appear here. Do have another nice day.
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    I accept you truly believe all that, and that it makes coherent sense. Doesn't to me. So - live and let live. OK?
     

Share This Page