A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

[expletives deleted]

Xelanave.1947:

Sorry I do not understand what point you are trying to make or are your just trying attract more "likes"
I am probably too stupid for you to try and have a meani gful discussion.
But if I have any problems I blame the god he is the problem.
I bet he is getting cranky with you the way you have been sucking up to Paddoboy and trying your best to be my friend.
We are friends now aren't we Eddy I mean you tell me things about my problems only a friend would come forward and tell you.
But again try a fesh start and lay some science on us.
I know everyone has it out for you, the site the mods maybe and of course Paddoboy but I know you dont blame me. I am just a victim, they are using me to get to you.
Look give it a go contribute something relating to science.
I cant keep replying to you and be your accomplice in thread derailment.
Alex

What more proof needed that you are a paddoboy friend or sock puppet? Your continuing derailing of this thread and making absurd tries at turning it over to suit your agenda is clear sign of stupidity because you think you are not being rumbled. Bad luck, Xelasnave.1947. Neither your creepy "likes" nor your pretend concern can disguise your trolling agenda here. Makes my decision to not discuss science here anymore even easier. It's too bad this site is allowing itself to be made ridiculous by such obvious trolls out for their own creepy amusement rather than science discussion. Best of luck, management.

 

[Q-reeus]

Well that sounds more than reasonable.
I have done somewhat similar where you slip something into the record and once its in build upon it.
But if you are sucessful (not you specifically but who knocks out the champ) win need to come up with so much more.
What we have probably does not mean GR has been knocked out but may need some bleeding stopped.

No, it's all or nothing with GR. It has had a final form set in stone ever since first published in 1916. To revise even slightly is to overthrow it. Period. And Stan Robertson piece sets the case for a major 'revision'.

But even if presented with a worst case one needs a better model.

And Stan Robertson has been working with one, in that and the previous arXiv article of his (that did away with problematic 'dark energy'). Yilmaz gravity. Till just recently my favoured theory. Just maybe still is.

I think you could suggest to all of us the implication if the position you seem to be taking is the future.

As per last para in #1, no sudden wind change - far too much 'social inertia' in place. This will almost certainly be a slow grind. Just maybe scheduled upcoming results from the Event Horizon Telescope trained on Sagittarius A* will yield a clear cut result, but I doubt it will be fine enough to truly distinguish between GR and say Yilmaz.

Do we throw out ligo etc and goback to looking at apples falling from a tree.

Of course not. But see below.

Mind you Newton gravity is great, his telescope better, but you see what I mean... Where do we go from here in your view.

See above. Actually, having teased everyone here on various occasions re GR's brand of GW being logically impossible, I will present the case very soon. Having decided recently to send out a short note to several GR and related folks, setting out the simple argument. That clears any worry about being plagiarized - having just received initial acknowledgements from two folks. It's a quick and dirty piece but no-one here will be able to put a hole in it. Stay tuned!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

See above. Actually, having teased everyone here on various occasions re GR's brand of GW being logically impossible, I will present the case very soon. Having decided recently to send out a short note to several GR and related folks, setting out the simple argument. That clears any worry about being plagiarized - having just received initial acknowledgements from two folks. It's a quick and dirty piece but no-one here will be able to put a hole in it. Stay tuned!

Well you have my attention thats for sure
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What more proof needed that you are a paddoboy friend or sock puppet?

I have never met Paddoboy but I would be happy to have him as a friend just as I would be happy to have you as a friend and when the god has finished apologising upon his return I will be the first to help him up from his hands and knees position and I could even treat him as a friend. But like you I am desperate to have a friend I dont have that makebelieve friend so many delude themselves with little chats.... Do you have a make believe friend or even a real one.
Getting "likes" is near as good as a friend. Would you like another like? I dont want you to get carried away now.
And this site I mean I wonder do I want to belong to a forum that is prepared to have me as a member. Do you worry they let you in at all?
But its a great site you know it and I know it and dont get upset because I give you a bit of stick.
You cant talk about science so I will help I will chat and you wont need an imaginary friend.
And if you like stupid you will love the god, he is only stupid because he thinks I will take his crap.
Like most bullies because you are humble they think they can dominate you and boss you around.
I am teaching him not to be so stupid, thatswhy he has to crawl back on his hands and knees.
I have to go I want to count my likes... Now you be a good chap and contribute some science... Who knows you may get another like so it will be worth it.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Makes my decision to not discuss science here anymore even easier.

That makes sence so where will you start your next thread in free thoughts, alternative theories or shoe doh science... Religion maybe but honestly and I really mean this you write very well, you argue very well and you are a worthy opponent so I for one would like to see you write more I find you have a certain talent and you dont want to hide that from the world do you.
Its people like you who cause us to think, cause us to defend our positions my only worry is your blood pressure, you seem as dottery as me so you must be rather old and probably shouldbe taking care of your blood pressure.
Anyways if you cant go on I will all have to go without your contributions.
You must not punish us by denying us your input.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:
What a phenomenon! Too thick for even the thickest nut soup. Laughs when he should be crying at the phenomenal levels his own stupidity have risen too in even just one day. No cure for such ingrained stupidity. What to do with the paddoboy? What to do with such compulsive stupids? What to do? Ban them for their own sanity's sake. Management?

What to do with paddoboy? Nice thought.
I always believed the god when he got emotional and desperate and started calling me names and the usual carryings on that you are flogging now, that he was standing in front of a mirror.
That most certainly applies with you also.
Oh, and no I havn't reported any of your past dozen or more posts and the childish infantile nonsense you are carrying on with both myself and Alex.
Perhaps you in reality you are leaving us for good and are trying to get me also banned?
Or perhaps the effects of the god's second holiday in short time, is more a focus of your infantile seething anger?

 

[paddoboy]

No, it's all or nothing with GR. It has had a final form set in stone ever since first published in 1916. To revise even slightly is to overthrow it. Period. And Stan Robertson piece sets the case for a major 'revision'.

Rubbish to the first bit and we'll wait and see to the second.

See above. Actually, having teased everyone here on various occasions re GR's brand of GW being logically impossible, I will present the case very soon. Having decided recently to send out a short note to several GR and related folks, setting out the simple argument. That clears any worry about being plagiarized - having just received initial acknowledgements from two folks. It's a quick and dirty piece but no-one here will be able to put a hole in it. Stay tuned!

Wow! Confidence supreme! But really, so what?
I mean who the f*&% are you trying to convince.
I love your comment "Actually, having teased everyone here on various occasions re GR's brand of GW being logically impossible", as it actually says plenty about your character.

Seriously, and ignoring the history between you and I and your past threads, if you are so confident and sure of this, why not publish it with a worthwhile publisher and through the accepted scientific method undergo proper peer review.
I mean really, this sounds like a vendetta that the god or one of his ilk, is trying to fool the forum with.

It's not this forum that you or the god or anyone else needs to convince re your personal dreams about establishing another model of gravity that will finally over throw GR.
And no, I'm pretty sure you won't do it.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: expletives deleted has received an official warning for ongoing personal attacks on other members in this thread.

Members are advised to report any further inappropriate behaviour by this member. Hit the "report" button; do not reply in kind.

 

[Q-reeus]

Rubbish to the first bit and we'll wait and see to the second.


Wow! Confidence supreme! But really, so what?
I mean who the f*&% are you trying to convince.
I love your comment "Actually, having teased everyone here on various occasions re GR's brand of GW being logically impossible", as it actually says plenty about your character.

Seriously, and ignoring the history between you and I and your past threads, if you are so confident and sure of this, why not publish it with a worthwhile publisher and through the accepted scientific method undergo proper peer review.
I mean really, this sounds like a vendetta that the god or one of his ilk, is trying to fool the forum with.

It's not this forum that you or the god or anyone else needs to convince re your personal dreams about establishing another model of gravity that will finally over throw GR.
And no, I'm pretty sure you won't do it.

Given you weren't even game as to so much as email a Prof or two as suggested twice, you are in no position to lecture me on anything. No-one has been able to touch Robertson's simple proof of exponential metric, and yes it will be a similar case once I upload re GR's impossible GW's. Owing to this forum's incredibly lax standards, unfortunately it will doubtless be inundated with much useless bluster and ad hominem attacks from the likes of you, and the usual thread derailing bun-fight distractions.

 

[paddoboy]

Given you weren't even game as to so much as email a Prof or two as suggested twice,

I'm sorry, I did not realise you were an amputee.

you are in no position to lecture me on anything. No-one has been able to touch Robertson's simple proof of exponential metric, and yes it will be a similar case once I upload re GR's impossible GW's. Owing to this forum's incredibly lax standards, unfortunately it will doubtless be inundated with much useless bluster and ad hominem attacks from the likes of you, and the usual thread derailing bun-fight distractions.

And you are on no position to lecture me also, particularly since you have had previous GR threads banished to the fringes.
Robertson it appears is another anti GR/anti BH adherent like yourself which forums with such lax standards seem to absorb.
With your childish adhom accusation, I suggest you take care of your own underhanded adhom attacks and bouts of arrogance, illustrated with the incredible remark, "Actually, having teased everyone here on various occasions re GR's brand of GW being logically impossible"

And of course whatever you post on this forum, while avoiding the proper methodology and peer review I suggested, will almost certainly also need to run the gauntlet. The bun fight will depend on how well you receive or otherwise any just criticism, whether from me or a professional.
But remember, It's not this forum that you or the god or anyone else needs to convince re your personal dreams about establishing another model of gravity that will finally over throw GR.
And no, I'm pretty sure you won't do it.

You take it easy, OK, and we'll all wait with bated breath re your overthrow of GR.

 

[Schmelzer]

Was that line serious or rhetorical?

Serious. A logical error in an established physical theory is something with a probability close to zero, but one can find such claims in (perceived) around 50% of crank writings. Of course, at least in principle one cannot exclude logical errors in established physical theories. But this does not change the fact that "logical error" claims are a very strong indication for crank science.

If serious, maybe you failed to notice the logical proof i.e. Appendix A of cited article in #1, amounts to invalidating Schwarzschild metric, thus GR. It was NOT a 'proof' FOR another theory. Savvy?

It has nothing to do with GR. It is about the elevator thought experiment which has played some role for Einstein during the development of GR, but are not part of GR. A similar role has played, BTW, Mach's principle.

It is well-known that in GR Mach's principle does not hold, and that an accelerated frame in flat space can be distinguished from a solution of GR with nontrivial gravitational field. The difference is something known as curvature, it is zero without gravity (in accelerated frames or not) but nonzero in nontrivial gravitational fields. So, the elevator thought experiment has a point only for first order approximations.

PS: Those interested in a more civilized discussion of such questions are welcome in my forum http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/

 

[Q-reeus]

It has nothing to do with GR. It is about the elevator thought experiment which has played some role for Einstein during the development of GR, but are not part of GR. A similar role has played, BTW, Mach's principle.

I know you are very anti-Machian but it's a useless distraction here.

It is well-known that in GR Mach's principle does not hold, and that an accelerated frame in flat space can be distinguished from a solution of GR with nontrivial gravitational field. The difference is something known as curvature, it is zero without gravity (in accelerated frames or not) but nonzero in nontrivial gravitational fields. So, the elevator thought experiment has a point only for first order approximations.

Then you seem not to have grasped the significance of it's application as per Appendix A. Which shows that to the contrary, GR is necessarily only a first order accurate theory. The exact expression corresponds to, for exterior vacuum about a static spherically symmetric mass, an exponential metric. Doing away thus with an event horizon, and all the accompanying guff about 'BH information paradox' 'firewalls' etc.

 

[Schmelzer]

Then you seem not to have grasped the significance of it's application as per Appendix A. Which shows that to the contrary, GR is necessarily only a first order accurate theory.

And this is the "logical proof"-nonsense. GR may be as accurate as you like, but the elevator-variant of the equivalence principle only first order. This is what the experiment has to decide.

 

[Q-reeus]

And this is the "logical proof"-nonsense. GR may be as accurate as you like, but the elevator-variant of the equivalence principle only first order.

Wrong. In order to be accurate to all orders, needful to account for arbitrarily large acceleration, metric must be exponential. As shown there. It was AE's choice to opt for a 1st order approximation that laid the faulty foundation for GR.

This is what the experiment has to decide.

What 'the' experiment?

 

[Farsight]

No, it's all or nothing with GR. It has had a final form set in stone ever since first published in 1916. To revise even slightly is to overthrow it. Period. And Stan Robertson piece sets the case for a major 'revision'.

This just isn't true. GR has been revised. In fact it's been traduced, and converted into an ersatz cargo-cult version of the real thing. It's nothing like Einstein's original. That's why I get grief from the like of rpenner when I quote from The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. In reply to your earlier post:

It does and must do so wrt the emitter frame! Your restrictive viewpoint is one seen from an inertial frame. The derivation which obviously takes into account the frame of the receiver is perfectly correct.

It's perfectly wrong. The ascending photon doesn't change. It doesn't lose any energy. Instead I do work on you when I lift you up. I add energy to you. At the higher elevation you comprise more energy than you did at the lower elevation, as do your clocks. That's why they're going faster. So you measure the photon frequency as reduced, even though it didn't change. The photon didn't change, you did.

And there is some argument with Robertson on that?!

Yes. He's arguing against MTW relativity, and he's obviously never read the Einstein digital papers. If he had he would have noticed this. Then he wouldn't be using c in his expression.

This has been gone over many times in many threads and still it never gets through - Einstein when uttering that quote, did not understand the full implications of his own theory.

The nub of this is that people adhere to a cargo-cult GR which is not in line with Einstein, then say GR is wrong. Note this: "This occurrence of an event horizon can be traced to Einstein’s exclusion of gravitational field energy as a source of spacetime curvature." Now you show me where Einstein said energy is a source of spacetime curvature. When you can't, make sure you read this: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 .

Evidently you are still not aware that the vacuum Schwarzschild solution explicitly precludes 'self-gravitation of gravity' - given the Ricci scalar curvature R = 0.

I'm aware. The moot point is that the black hole is black.

Why should he? It's a desperate attempt via QFT to patch over internal inconsistencies inherent in applying GR to 'BH's'.

Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall isn't. When you've read the Einstein digital papers, you understand that Winterberg's firewall, which is absolutely nothing to do with QFT, is correct.

It's well known AE never accepted the possibility of unrestrained gravitational collapse. He recognized the 'singularity' implications, but had no theoretical way out.

But he didn't object to the frozen star. If you're talking to Robertson, tell him what I've said.

 

[Ultron]

There are lots of alternatives to GR being examined and there is expensive telescope, satellite, reactor, and particle accelerator time given to the search for a replacement for GR. It is ludicrous to believe that all the physicists working on finding a replacement theory are somehow conspiring to hide any possibility of a replacement.

Please name at least 5 alternative non GR theories which are "being examined and there is expensive telescope, satellite, reactor, and particle accelerator time given to the search for a replacement for GR." I guess you would struggle to name 5 such theories with links to how they are given expensive experimental/observational research support.

I think there are VERY FEW, like less than 5 non GR alternative theories with at least some limited experimental/observational research support. Personally I could track down only Loop gravity and Holographic theory. M-theory is not tested, because it is not testable/falsifiable and MOND theory is not supported by any experimental/observational research support, they just try to fit existing data, without having any special observations.

 

[quantum_wave]

Please name at least 5 alternative non GR theories which are "being examined and there is expensive telescope, satellite, reactor, and particle accelerator time given to the search for a replacement for GR." I guess you would struggle to name 5 such theories with links to how they are given expensive experimental/observational research support.

I think there are VERY FEW, like less than 5 non GR alternative theories with at least some limited experimental/observational research support. Personally I could track down only Loop gravity and Holographic theory. M-theory is not tested, because it is not testable/falsifiable and MOND theory is not supported by any experimental/observational research support, they just try to fit existing data, without having any special observations.

I don't know if these observations support any of those Alternative GR cosmologies, but we do observe hemispherical anisotropy in the CMBR, and there is the "as yet" unexplained cold spot.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/this-is-the-best-map-yet-of-the-early-universe
Of course, they can be explained to fit the consensus view.

 

[Farsight]

So if I measure, say, the hyperfine caesium transition frequency here on Earth in the lab, then I go to the international space station and I measure the same transition frequency there, your claim is that I'll get different results. Is that what you're saying?

No. When I lift you and your atomic clock to the higher location, I do work on your atomic clock, and on you. I add energy to all the atoms. You change, and your atomic clock changes too, including all the caesium atoms. So when you measure the frequency of a locally-emitted photon, you get the same result. But when you measure the frequency of a photon emitted from the surface of the Earth, you measure a lower frequency. However this isn't because the photon changed when it ascended, it's because you changed when you ascended.

It's not as simple as that. For example, kinetic energy is obviously a frame-dependent quantity.

It is as simple as that. You and I would agree that a bullet moving at 1000 m/s has considerable kinetic energy. Then if I accelerate you to 1000 m/s you might say that this bullet has less kinetic energy than it did before. But that bullet hasn't changed one iota. Instead you changed.

I already looked at the document you cited that includes that quote. Clearly, you didn't understand the context... Arrogance doesn't help make your case. Your claim is empty, as usual... Obviously, something that Einstein wrote in 1907, or whenever it was, isn't the last word on general relativity... In this instance, I'm not saying that Einstein was wrong, by the way. I'm saying you're wrong.

I understand the document. Einstein wasn't wrong, and I'm not wrong. Conservation of energy applies. There is no magic.

 

[Ultron]

In a previous thread, I managed to get, via evidently now departed tashja, feedback from imo the brilliant theoretician Stanley Robertson re GR vs Yilmaz gravity theory:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/page-20#post-3338529
Note particularly his reply paras 2 and 3 - emphasizing that logically redshift need be an exact exponential function of Newtonian gravitational potential.
Well in his latest arXiv article, that logical proof is conveniently set out explicitly and simply in appendix A of: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417#

Most of you are so enthralled with the promotional hype glorifying 'infallible' Einstein this continuing centenary celebration year, mere contrary logical proofs will carry no weight.
Still, one or two might recognize that just on it's own, appendix A (add appendix B for good measure) provides a death strike against 'perfect' GR.

How long it takes for a general recognition of that will be more down to sociological/ideological forces than pure reason. In the end, that 2 + 2 = 4 must prevail. Will add that owing to GW self-consistency considerations, Carver Mead's G4v may prove to be a superior theory even to Yilmaz gravity. Currently corresponding with a few relevant parties on that one.

I have shortly checked Yilmaz gravity theory and I think his general approach has the same flaw as most obvious crank theories. He is focusing on how to "prove wrong" GR, instead focusing on building alternative theory which would be compatible with existing experiments/observations and which would explain existing unexplained observations like for example galaxy rotation curve or introduce NEW unexpected predictions, which could be confirmed by experiment or observation.

 

[Ultron]

I don't know if these observations support any of those Alternative GR cosmologies, but we do observe hemispherical anisotropy in the CMBR, and there is the "as yet" unexplained cold spot.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/this-is-the-best-map-yet-of-the-early-universe
Of course, they can be explained to fit the consensus view.

I wasnt asking for some yet unexplained observations. There are plenty of it. I was asking for specific observations/experiments which were specifically conducted within research specifically devoted to non GR alternative theories of gravity/relativity.