Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible

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

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Hinted at in reply to PhysBang in #41. You have forgotten that 4 links were given toward end of #1? Maybe have a good read of those again, or for the first time. And as stated in subsequent posts, I don't claim Carver Mead's G4v is necessarily THE correct theory. However given such vector waves have no logical impediment to existence, G4v is for now at least imo THE default choice. Just by that pass, and further, matching GR in other areas where the traditional 'crucial tests' have been performed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Sorry Q-reeus. I had forgotten the context of your opening post. I can't really spare the time to look into this G4v theory right now, so I'll stay out of this thread.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,605
    A smart decision James.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Ok, case finished, you refuse even to answer simple questions, no base for any further discussion.
     
  8. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Wrong. I never hinted at accepting such as 'ultimate authority' - merely that as representative of mainstream position, your 'valid' longitudinal waves in GR are clearly not recognized as such within GR community. Why 'check it' - there are a numerous sites showing derivation of that linearized solution within GR, none afaik contrary - within GR.
    Meaning? That by pointing out only TT GW's exist as formal GR far-field physical solution, I then somehow have to forget my own finding that such are invalidated on geometric consistency grounds? Err - no. Try and make sense. About your insincere questions in #38, the general wave expressions referred to, centred on line
    \[ \eta_{mn} dx^m dx^n \to \eta_{mn} d(x^m+ f^m(x,t)) d(x^n+ f^n(x,t)) \approx \eta_{mn} (dx^m dx^n + \partial_k f^n dx^k dx^m + \partial_k f^m dx^k dx^n + \ldots) = (\eta_{mn} + h_{mn}(x,t)) dx^m dx^n .\]
    are, as you acknowledge, purely formal mathematical concoctions having no physical basis. Hence your aim in bringing such up here is suspect, and #46 confirms it. But you have a nice day too.
     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    If you use point masses, then it's a toy system.
    If you think writing, "it's obvious," is good enough, then perhaps the rest of us are right to assume that "it's obvious" that you're wrong.
     
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    No, it's just a typically idealized system, free of absurd irrelevancies such as 'bead stresses'. Remember my injunction - KISS?
    Yes yes. Keep making vague criticisms, never taking the risky step of quoting anything specific and relevant to argument in #1, which might get you into a corner.
    Are we finished then?
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    EOD. Enough is enough. Learn to behave in a civilized way.
     
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    When the problem with your argument is that you just say, "it's obvious," then the criticism can't be any less vague. As I've said, your position is not obvious and as you have said, you are biased.
     
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    You also continually lie. A relevant few passages from #1:
    To make the preposterous charge "you just say, "it's obvious,"", is bald faced lying. A coward not prepared to engage in a real discussion he knows he will lose.
    Who is the really shamelessly biased one here? So committed to GR, cannot afford to be honest even once. Recall your baseless charge of 'I hate Einstein' as typical tactic of continual misrepresentation.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1602/1602.03837.pdf

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

    On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0 × 10−21. It matches the waveform predicted by general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203 000 years, equivalent to a significance greater than 5.1σ. The source lies at a luminosity distance of 410þ160 −180 Mpc corresponding to a redshift z ¼ 0.09þ0.03 −0.04 . In the source frame, the initial black hole masses are 36þ5 −4M⊙ and 29þ4 −4M⊙, and the final black hole mass is 62þ4 −4M⊙, with 3.0þ0.5 −0.5M⊙c2 radiated in gravitational waves. All uncertainties define 90% credible intervals. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger

    VIII. CONCLUSION
    The LIGO detectors have observed gravitational waves from the merger of two stellar-mass black holes. The detected waveform matches the predictions of general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It's no lie to point out that the problem with your post is where you was "obvious". "The 'sticky beads' are stuck, even if perfectly frictionless! Dilation/contraction along lines of latitude makes zero sense. Something obvious when viewed globally ('forest view'), only seemingly sensible if viewed as a local perturbation ('tree level' view i.e. the small ellipses). Feynman got it badly wrong."

    I asked repeatedly for you to work out an example where there might be internal stress on the beads, a case where there might be some work done even though your example holds the beads in place as rigidly as possible. There are many so-called "paradoxes" of relativity theory that disappear when one considers the limits of rigidity.
     
  16. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Unbelievable! No-one could reasonably conclude 'being glued in place' was implied! You could not figure, that the term 'stuck' in "The 'sticky beads' are stuck, even if perfectly frictionless!" was a figure of speech?! Clearly referring to the logical impossibility of circumferential motions - by way of circular symmetry. As made even clearer by the very next sentence you quoted above: "Dilation/contraction along lines of latitude makes zero sense." Meaning - spatial metric dilations/contractions. As every derivation of GR quadrupole GW radiation claims exists in such scenario.
    And that entire theme was repeated several times. You could not once realize that a global view - circular symmetry in case of equatorial hoop - destroyed Feynman's argument relying on a locally viewed stick-and-beads. Here, have another think if that view now makes sense:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bead_argument#Description_of_the_thought_experiment
    Illustration in #1 has a large array of such sticks fused to form a large circular hoop, centred about and normal to the oscillator axis. Uniformly arrayed beads. Not that 'uniformly' mattered. It is absurd to now find there can be any motions between beads, or between any bead and supporting hoop. And as I clearly stated - even if beads have zero friction - obviously wrt supporting hoop. How could a bead 'decide' to move one way or the other - just to please Feynman! I next considered the possibility of hoop radial 'breathing' - contrary to TT character of GR GW's. Still can't help - as explained.
    For an example that is completely misleading owing to ignoring the axial symmetry implications of a linear quadrupole radiator, see:
    http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2016/06/gravitational-waves-explained-sticky.html
    So try and do away with the paradox I have presented. Which has nothing to do with 'limits of rigidity'. Then again, I have asked for just that too many times already.
     
  17. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It seems that you are determined to ignore the relevance of the physics I requested. So be it.
     
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    What relevance to what physics? You speak in riddles. Surely not after all this spoon feeding, now harking back to 'stressed beads'? It's not up to me to explain what relevance such a distraction could have.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The following E-Mail reply from Kip Thorne:

    Re: gravitational waves
    Kip S Thorne [kip@caltech.edu]
    I wish I could read his case and comment, but I am so overwhelmed that I cannot do so. But I will remark that the measured waveform agrees beautifully with the predictions of general relativity for a black hole binary. And this is so not just for the first signal to be discovered, GW150914, but also the second one 16151226.

    Best wishes

    Kip

    ==================================================
    Kip S. Thorne: kip@tapir.caltech.edu
    350-17 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
    Phone: +1 626 395-4598; Fax: +1 626 796-5675

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    cue: More unsupported alleged conspiracy like accusations from one of our chief conspirators.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    That in red is what is most relevant, as next posting will show.
    You now cross a line and outright accuse me of being a chief conspirator! As opposed to just the usual baseless allegations of being a 'conspiracy theorist' for disagreeing with your GR religion. A foolishly out of place smiley won't save you here. Before I report you for recklessly engaging in serious character assassination, will give you a chance to unreservedly apologize. Don't delay - clock is ticking.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    James your understanding there is not quite right. The major content of #1 certainly is my own analysis, quite independent of anything by anyone else I'm aware of. It's not a theory at all. Just a critical analysis of whether an almost universally trusted solution of GR, unequivocally predicting GW's having the character as described in #1, is logically self-consistent. Toward the end I referenced to a very recent theory - G4v, that predicts GW's not subject to the inconsistencies I claim are demonstrably present in GR's (and similar theories) version. And have made clear I do not endorse G4v as necessarily correct in all respects. I have yet to see a detailed development of it, but am impressed by that claimed for it so far.

    One further point of interest re precedent for this thread. The reason for landing here at SF back in early 2013, was owing to being illegally life-banned from PhysicsForums late 2012. What seems to have been the 'last straw' trigger was my supposedly 'private' email exchange (containing nothing describable as contrary to then existent forum guidlines). With one of the participants in this thread:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-conserved-stress-energy-tensor-in-gr.648949/
    Part way through (the thread, not email), I had a 180 degree shift in opinion, from pro GR GW's, to suddenly realizing they made no sense. The post in question is #76, p4.

    That then is my true precedent date re claim GR GW's can't exist. At that initial floundering stage, I assumed it meant GW's per se were impossible. Having been poisoned with claims by iirc a Living Reviews article stating any vector gravity theory was ruled out observationally. Intended to nevertheless add a corrective caveat to thread stating it only ruled out GR variety waves for sure, but 'fast-tracked' life-ban got in first. As mentioned earlier this thread, only recently stumbled onto G4v and found out Kip Thorne takes G4v quite seriously.

    I realize one member in particular here will look through that thread and use some parts where exchanges got a bit acerbic, as excuse to launch into another rant against me. Please don't. Apart from it being derailing, you will not have had my background experiences there to judge properly. I will admit to having been a bit short tempered at times. Not being one to easily suffer either perceived foolishness or knavery.

    In summary:
    I am not proposing a theory of my own. Just a critical evaluation of GR variety GW's. Claiming to show they cannot exist owing to geometrically imposed constraints evident on a global view.
    I have linked to an alternative theory - G4v owing to it's vector GW predictions having no such inherent fatal flaw. But recognize a better theory may be out there somewhere. Or perhaps G4v just needs further refinement. Depending on it's status as 'final version' or not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    I have criticized the "only pure transverse shear deformations being allowed" as not making sense. all deformations are allowed. Not all are considered to be physically different states of the gravitational field. This does not make them forbidden.

    As far as I was able to make sense of the whole argument, this point seems to be a central one. If everything is allowed, the job of proving no waves are possible looks a little bit harder. So, no wonder that Q-reeus has reacted in a quite aggressive way to my questions.
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    The topic of OP was, without any reasonable chance of confusion possible, viability of GR's predicted GW's. Obviously, far-field, small amplitude waves relevant to say aLIGO detections. In respect of linear oscillator modelled, while yielding far-field plane waves as judged locally, yet spherical (in the phase front sense) on a global view. Which, as any textbook or mainstream online article dealing with such makes explicitly clear, can ONLY have purely transverse pure shear character - the so-called quadrupole mode TT-gauge GW's. GR admits to no other possible physically real GW type. Certain other theories do. Of course GR admits to general curvature for general configurations of matter. The OP had no interest in general configurations - just GW's.
    All of above was made clear over and over again, to no avail. I recently gave a listing of posts that anyone can judge as to sincerity of relevant poster.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.

Share This Page