What is the use of General Relativity

I do not like to ctitisize given I am always presenting a position wherein I say not to critism if one can not offer a better model however I must say that second paper I find extrodinary.
It smacks of a commercial for the big bang model and folk who support the idea.
It reinforces the uncomfortable feeling I have with the big bang that it conveniently hints at a point of creation and when one adds that to the fact a Catholic priest first presented the idea of "a comic egg" is that uncomfortable feeling to be ignored.
What I found disturbing about the second paper was it didn't seem at all scientific and I am a lay man.
The hint that inflation could be abandoned seemed only appropriate for a casual and informal speculative discussion one could expect whilst having a coffee with an acquaintance.
I really do think that such a paper gives ammunition to the critics of the model.
And frankly if that paper was a mere article presented by a "science journalist" it would be worthy of less critism.
I am sorry Paddoboy I am not having a go at you and I am not trying to shoot the messenger but I simply think that for the author to present such musings as a scientific paper is unforgivable.
The other problem I now see is that it seems most difficult to find the best model of the big bang.
It is taking on a will o the wisp nature in my view and if nothing else that "paper" would seem to support my observation.
I think a thread entitled and to address " The current big bang model" could be helpful both for supporters of mainstream and for those who often attack a premise they see belonging to the big bang when it does not.
I don't know. What do you think?
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The BB is scientifically supported for the evidence that supports it.
It is irrelevant, that the Catholic church conveniently supports it due to the beginning aspect, and actually more commendation for science, that it still sticks to the scientific method and to where and how the evidence points, in spite of the opening left for the church to cling to.
That is also done often here with regards to god botherers and such, asking for proof of scientific theories, when the defining thing about a scientific theory, is it is not actual proof, and will always remain open for further observations and possible modifications.
Fred Hoyle, a firm Atheist, was an otherwise great scientist who rejected the BB because of that reason and irrespective of how the BB gained in stature [and SS fell by the wayside] as time progressed and more and more evidence was forthcoming.
The other powerful aspect re the BB is how it fits hand in glove with GR and the particle model of physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes indeed.

All things are relevant in cosmology.
The very nature of cosmology opens many doors.
I certainly would not eliminate the possibility that , given their many educational facilities, the church could guide outcomes.
Frankly if I had influence I would ban anyone with anything near a religious belief or education from engaging in cosmology.
But I am not going to get support for that approach.

I am with Fred.
But here is the problem that is so hard to get away from.
As careful as we are our beliefs have a bearing on what we readily accept or reject.
Few are immune from cherry picking to support their core beliefs.
Thank goodness for Popper, thank goodness for scientific method.

Yes and that I often say you can't just criticize the big bang.
If one can find a better model OK but in reality one would have to start from scratch which would be near impossible.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post.
I said elsewhere its a special day for me as I have now been a mber here for one year.
Happy new year as well.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Alex.....
I'm pretty busy at this time [bloody relos and visitors I need to entertain

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] hence the reason I did not cover all your previous post.
We may though [shock, horror!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] need to disagree on a few points.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Firstly if you are saying that the BB should not be adhered to simply because it gives the church and the likes of our resident god botherers, something to hang their hat on, then I believe you are mistaken, as was Hoyle.
Because to do such also means giving up the scientific methodology and the definition of a scientific theory.
[1] The abundance of the lighter elements:
[2] The observed expansion:
[3] The CMBR:
[4] Formation of the Galaxies and the structure over large scales:
No other theory matches these four pillars as well as the BB.
So to say science should ignore such, just because it leaves the door open for ID enthusiasts is against the scientific method.

See previous reply.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, and that's why cosmologists at this time still hold it in high regard.

With your first comment, admittedly there are aspects that seem to defy logic and common sense, but remember that at one time we also viewed time and space as both absolute.....
Why did the BB bang? How did it bang? etc are questions that we are unable to answer with any confidence.
What did the BB bang into? What was before? etc, are questions that are answered, but like time and space and their flexible nature, are hard to comprehend.
Like you, I'm a lay person also, as you know...also the likes of all our god botherers are unqualified lay people, so what we muse about here, whether in the sciences, or here in pseudoscience, is changing nothing in the greater scheme of things and academia.
The powerful aspect of the BB other than its complimentary part with GR, is that science is able to reasonably explain the universe from t+10-43 seconds to the present, and even eons ahead.

Don't be too concerned with the god botherers and the church being able to hang their hat on one aspect. The ID solution is not scientific as we know, and any deity has ben pushed back to near oblivion, despite their hat hanging attempts.

Happy New Year to you also...again the bloody visitors are calling!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think we disagree, I am having a grizzle.
Look after your visitors and have a great day.
Alex

 

It made me suspicious that is all.
I am not saying burn the house down rather than let them live in it.
I am sortta cranky cause I am back in Sydney after 2 weeks in the bush and I did not get to go home.
Everything is fine.
I am thinking of a thread in the religion section...did god cause the big bang? ..be good for site traffic.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That'll bring em out of the woodwork!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well I was thinking this way...
If we can gather a crew who believe God caused the big bang when we get folk like Gravage we turn the God did it big bang crew loose.
Again would be good for site traffic.
Why do I concern myself about traffic? Without it the forum shrinks and in addition I would like to see the site owner rewarded for providing me and others with a neat place to visit.
Alex

 

Here's a New Scientist article that some may be interested in...quite lengthy but since one needs to log in, I'll reproduce it all here.......

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...cs-who-were-the-relativity-deniers/?full=true

When people don't like what science tells them, they resort to conspiracy theories, mud-slinging and plausible pseudoscience – as Einstein discovered

"THIS world is a strange madhouse," remarked Albert Einstein in 1920 in a letter to his close friend, the mathematician Marcel Grossmann. "Every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political affiliation."

Einstein's general theory of relativity, published in 1915, received an overwhelming public response - not all of it positive. Numerous accounts which appeared during the 1920s claimed to show relativity was wrong, and Einstein received many letters from laypeople who claimed to have found the ultimate refutation of his theory.

Many of today's physicists and astronomers (not to mention science journalists) continue to receive this kind of mail. On densely written pages - and, increasingly, in rambling emails, blog posts and online comments - self-proclaimed scientists keep trying to foist their astonishingly simple solutions to much-discussed problems upon genuine academics. Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that included physics professors and even Nobel laureates.

Who were Einstein's opponents? Why did they oppose one of the most important scientific theories of the 20th century? And was Einstein right in saying "political affiliation" was responsible for the fierce opposition to relativity theory?

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to access papers belonging to the physicist Ernst Gehrcke, one of the most outspoken critics of Einstein in Germany. As I delved into the material he had neatly collected in banana boxes, a whole world of anti-relativity emerged from hundreds of pamphlets, thousands of newspaper clippings, and piles of letters from Einstein's opponents across Europe and the US.

I discovered that the group opposing relativity was much broader than many historians believed till now, and that their tactics had much in common with those used by creationists and climate-change deniers today. Their reasons for countering relativity were also more complex and varied than is usually thought. Even Einstein misjudged the motivations of many of his opponents.
Don't mess with time

Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and time. Relativity messes with these to the extent that events which one observer deems simultaneous are no longer simultaneous as viewed by observers moving in different frames of reference.

Gehrcke could not imagine such a scenario. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural phenomena.

What's more, the theory of relativity abandoned one of the most important concepts of 19th-century physics: that light waves and electric and magnetic forces were carried in a medium called the ether. For a classical physicist like Gehrcke, giving up this notion was akin to someone today claiming that sound waves travel in a vacuum.

These objections were first raised in scholarly journals, with discussion restricted to academia. But after a key prediction of general relativity was confirmed during an eclipse in 1919, Einstein was transformed into a media star and the debate acquired a much broader public impact. In 1919, The New York Times published an article headlined "Lights all askew in the heavens. Men of science more or less agog over results of eclipse observations", while a German magazine celebrated Einstein as "A new giant of world history". In the years that followed, the newspapers reported on everything from his clothing and Jewish background to his affection for music.

People were also troubled by more fundamental questions. In December 1921, the letters pages of The Times of London carried a lively discussion of whether space is actually endowed with physical qualities as general relativity required. Opinion was clearly divided.

The controversy in Germany intensified in August 1920 with the launch of a series of public lectures against Einstein at the Berlin Philharmonic hall. The event included a lecture by Gehrcke, who repeated the arguments he had been raising unsuccessfully for years, as well as an impassioned speech by the anti-Semitic activist Paul Weyland, who had organised the series. The event made a clear impact, prompting Einstein to think seriously about leaving Germany.

Gehrcke's papers show that opposition to Einstein extended well beyond a handful of sidelined physicists and politically motivated troublemakers. Gehrcke was in touch with physics Nobel laureates Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard, and an international network comprising not just physicists, astronomers and philosophers, but also engineers, physicians and schoolmasters.

One of Gehrcke's boxes contained documents from a mysterious organisation called the Academy of Nations, whose title and letter-headed paper contrived to give it the aura of a scholarly academy. In fact, it served as a home for an international network of Einstein's opponents. Its founder was Arvid Reuterdahl, then dean of the faculty of engineering and architecture at the University of St Thomas in St Paul, Minnesota. He was also a devoted theist who attempted to reconcile religion and science in what he termed "new science".

Concerned that science was becoming ever more specialised, the Academy of Nations aimed to reconnect different branches of knowledge by integrating scientific findings into a unified, religious account of nature. To Reuterdahl, nothing better symbolised the modern specialisation and incomprehensibility of science than relativity. Almost half the Academy of Nations' founding declaration consisted of polemics against Einstein's theory. "We are emerging from a period of material and intellectual chaos. Nations have clashed in war. The intellectual world is still in conflict on the fields of knowledge. Never before has the demarcation between intellectual camps been so clearly defined... Einstein has served as a chemical reagent which has precipitated relativity from the present content of knowledge as a mass insoluble to the average man."

Reuterdahl was eager to establish contact with Einstein's opponents all over the world, and the American section of the academy united some prominent anti-Einstein figures. One of these was the astronomer Thomas J. J. See of the US Naval Observatory at Mare Island, California, who in the early 1920s published several harsh articles in which he accused Einstein of plagiarism and denounced his theory as "a crazy vagary". Though popular with the broader public, See was largely isolated from his colleagues because of the eccentric theories he advanced on the evolution of the solar system and almost every phenomenon in the universe.

Other members included Charles Lane Poor, professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, New York, who published several articles discounting the experimental confirmation of general relativity, and the inventor Charles Francis Brush, a pioneer of the commercial development of electricity, who espoused a kinetic theory of gravitation that stood in opposition to general relativity.

When Reuterdahl approached Gehrcke in 1921 with the idea of setting up a German branch of the Academy of Nations, Gehrcke immediately welcomed this new forum for activities against Einstein. His first recruits were German physicists who argued that there was no need for relativity because classical physics could explain all astronomical observations. Philosophers, engineers, physicians and even a retired major general joined too. A partial membership list from 1921 included 30 members from 10 countries.

But why did this ramshackle alliance between laymen and scientists emerge? What did it take to get a conservative physicist like Gehrcke involved with American theists?

The chance to cooperate with allies in the fight against relativity was obviously one reason. Einstein's opponents found themselves in the unenviable position of outsider, their arguments dismissed as "old crop" by most physicists. Scholarly journals and scientific associations closed their doors to them. The establishment of a self-governing academy and journal must have come as a welcome opportunity to break out of this marginalised position.

continued:

 

continued from previous post....................

Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasingly mathematical approach of theoretical physics collided with the then widely held view that science is essentially simple mechanics, comprehensible to every educated layperson.

This way of thinking can be traced back to the 19th-century heyday of popular science, when many citizens devoted their leisure to the pursuit of scientific understanding, and simple theories of gravity or electricity were widely discussed in scientific magazines. Relativity represented a quite different way of understanding the world. It was a theory that "only 12 wise men" could comprehend, The New York Times declared in 1919.

The increasing role played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of metaphysics."

The Academy of Nations therefore saw itself as directed not only against the theory of relativity, but also towards the salvation of what it considered to be real science. Gehrcke insisted that the Academy "must become an alliance of truth".

Compounding all this was the fact that the 1920s was an unsettling decade for Germany. The country was experiencing hyperinflation and political upheavals, as well as radical cultural developments such as Dadaism and expressionism. In a world of uncertainties, some felt science at least should be relied upon to provide firm ground. For Einstein's opponents, relativity theory was endangering not only science but also culture and society.

So was Einstein right to blame political affiliation for the opposition to the theory of relativity? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.
Conspiracy theories

For a start, someone's views about whether time could be stretched were not defined by ethnicity, nationality, religion or political convictions. Einstein's opponents included people who held progressive views, and some who were of Jewish descent. So it would be simplistic to characterise the fight against relativity theory in the 1920s as a one-sided nationalistic or anti-Semitic campaign.

Nevertheless, those who opposed the theory were not above attacking Einstein the person - the democrat, the pacifist, the Jew. Lenard, for instance, was an early adherent of Nazism and a proponent of the nationalist and anti-Semitic "German physics". By 1922, he was already ranting about the Jewish "alien spirit" that he claimed the theory of relativity incorporated.

Aware of their marginalised position, many of Einstein's opponents turned to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. "Our trouble in America is that all scientific journals are closed to the anti-relativists through Jewish influence. The daily press is almost entirely under the control of the Jews," Reuterdahl wrote in 1923. From this position, it was easy for Einstein's opponents to see themselves as victims rather than aggressors. In their interpretation of reality, the mere existence of relativity theory and the non-acceptance of arguments against it qualified as an attack on them.
Einstein's opponents saw themselves as victims. The mere existence of relativity and non-acceptance of their arguments was an attack on them

By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up, and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early 1930s.

But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951, Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity. "The day will come where everything, but everything about this theory will be abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked.

The debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors. These perhaps show up best on the conservative website Conservapedia, which uses wiki technology to allow people to document counterexamples to relativity. Conservapedia claims that relativity is "heavily promoted by liberals" and lists 32 reasons why the theory is wrong. Einstein's critics continue to perceive relativity as a threat to their world view, and often invoke conspiracy theories to explain their marginalised position.

There is a difference, though. The protest against relativity in the 1920s had closer ties to the academic world. This was not because Einstein's opponents back then offered more convincing arguments, but because the paradigm shift that was moving physics onto new foundations was still under way.

The controversy over relativity represents a scientific dispute that is crucially shaped by the participants' world views and draws heavily on metaphysical conceptions of reality. Like those who oppose Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's opponents back in the 1920s were impervious to reasoned criticism, just as his critics today are. Physicists do sometimes try to discuss relativity theory with their opponents and point out their misunderstandings, just as physicists did 90 years ago. But this will not resolve the controversy. The opponents' understanding of the very nature of science differs so fundamentally from the academic consensus that it may be impossible to find common ground.

Milena Wazeck is a researcher at New York University. Her latest book, published in German by Campus Verlag, is Einsteins Gegner ("Einstein's Opponents"). It is based on research carried out at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.

 

Something close to BH?? Before merging.
Thats not BH-BH merging, that is 'something close to BH' with BH merging.

What is mainstream (aLIGO GW detection advocates) position about existence of BH BH binary?

 

The Universe is a big place and obviously BH binary systems are systematically created, whether by orbiting stellar objects, or SMBH in galactic mergers.
And as we all know, a source of gravitational waves.

 

Hi Paddoboy,
Thank you for taking the time to post all that history.
I had no idea.
Alex

 

Orbiting stellar objects cannot make orbiting binary BHs. And galactic mergers with SMBH cannot be systematic, it would be catastrophic.

 

We both know that is nonsense don't we my boy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just as nonsensical as any sugestion of ID or any other spaghetti monster you adhere to for comfort...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well since you have been at odds to even understand how BH's are able to move in spacetime, I can understand how you find any accepted knowledge about BH's as beyond your understanding.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1602/1602.03840.pdf
Properties of the Binary Black Hole Merger GW150914
B. P. Abbott et al.* (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) (Received 18 February 2016; revised manuscript received 18 April 2016; published 14 June 2016)
On September 14, 2015, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detected a gravitational-wave transient (GW150914); we characterize the properties of the source and its parameters. The data around the time of the event were analyzed coherently across the LIGO network using a suite of accurate waveform models that describe gravitational waves from a compact binary system in general relativity. GW150914 was produced by a nearly equal mass binary black hole of masses 36þ5 −4M⊙ and 29þ4 −4M⊙; for each parameter we report the median value and the range of the 90% credible interval. The dimensionless spin magnitude of the more massive black hole is bound to be < 0.7 (at 90% probability). The luminosity distance to the source is 410þ160 −180 Mpc, corresponding to a redshift 0.09þ0.03 −0.04 assuming standard cosmology. The source location is constrained to an annulus section of 610 deg2, primarily in the southern hemisphere. The binary merges into a black hole of mass 62þ4 −4M⊙ and spin 0.67þ0.05 −0.07 . This black hole is significantly more massive than any other inferred from electromagnetic observations in the stellar-mass regime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1606/1606.04855.pdf

GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence
B. P. Abbott et al.* (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) (Received 31 May 2016; published 15 June 2016)

We report the observation of a gravitational-wave signal produced by the coalescence of two stellar-mass black holes. The signal, GW151226, was observed by the twin detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) on December 26, 2015 at 03:38:53 UTC. The signal was initially identified within 70 s by an online matched-filter search targeting binary coalescences. Subsequent off-line analyses recovered GW151226 with a network signal-to-noise ratio of 13 and a significance greater than 5σ. The signal persisted in the LIGO frequency band for approximately 1 s, increasing in frequency and amplitude over about 55 cycles from 35 to 450 Hz, and reached a peak gravitational strain of 3.4þ0.7 −0.9 × 10−22. The inferred source-frame initial black hole masses are 14.2þ8.3 −3.7M⊙ and 7.5þ2.3 −2.3M⊙, and the final black hole mass is 20.8þ6.1 −1.7M⊙. We find that at least one of the component black holes has spin greater than 0.2. This source is located at a luminosity distance of 440þ180 −190 Mpc corresponding to a redshift of 0.09þ0.03 −0.04 . All uncertainties define a 90% credible interval. This second gravitational-wave observation provides improved constraints on stellar populations and on deviations from general relativity

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/supermassive-black-holes-found-spiraling-in-at-seven-percent-light-speed/

Supermassive black holes found spiraling in at seven percent light speed
The first system found moving so fast has big implications for galaxy evolution.
XAQ RZETELNY - 9/25/2015, 1:20 AM

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Simulation of the supermassive black hole binary system PG 1302-102. The smaller shines more brightly because it's farther from the center of mass and thus closer to the outer disk of gas. This gas accretes onto the black hole, heating up as it falls in, so it emits more light. The more massive black hole, therefore, is starved of gas and doesn't glow as brightly.
Zoltan Haiman, Columbia University
Data from NASA’s Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) and the Hubble Space Telescope has confirmed the presence of a pair of supermassive black holes orbiting each other so closely that they're moving at relativistic speeds—a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Supermassive black holes are expected to come in pairs pretty often. That’s because every galaxy has its own supermassive black hole, and galaxies often merge, bringing the two together. These mergers are very slow processes that distort both galaxies until their stars settle into new orbits (a process known as "violent relaxation"). While this is happening, extremely heavy objects, such as supermassive black holes, will tend to move in toward the center of the new galaxy. The new galaxy would end up with two supermassive black holes, one from each original galaxy, orbiting each other at its core.

Objects have been observed which look a lot like supermassive black hole binaries, matching the prediction. These objects have a lot of mass—billions of times the mass of the Sun, as we’d expect from a pair of supermassives—and they’re periodic, meaning the amount of light the object produces rises and falls with a predictable time period.

(It may at first seem contradictory to think of light coming from a black hole, an object from which no light can escape. The light doesn’t actually come from the black hole itself but from matter falling in, which produces light from the incredible friction it experiences as it speeds up, spiraling into the black hole).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I'm always happy to bring you up to speed my young friend, and also your brothers in arms.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So why doesn't the Sun suck us all in ?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Far more admirable then being a "disguised" God Botherer along with his brother's in arms!
And we all know it is your own uneducated nonsense that continually floods the fringes!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So the Earth is getting closer to the Sun ?

 

The earth is in orbit [free fall] around the Sun river.
That orbit is elliptical and that means we get closer and then further from the Sun, plus of course the Sun is slowly losing mass...See where we are going river?
And we have around 5 billion years before the Sun enters its red giant phase.

 

The Earth orbit around the Sun is near perfect ; circular , though .