Flat Spacetime Theories that are Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity
Shubee
in GR. I have also included the best of the free standard reference
materials. The title of the directory is General Relativity Directory
- Everything Important.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity. I wish that
everyone could understand why this category is important. If you are
aware of any other papers that fit in this very interesting but
despised and neglected category, please let me know.
Shubee
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
>
> One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
> Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity.
Do you really mean "empirically indistinguishable from general relativity"
or do you mean "consistent with the evidence so far"? I'm pretty sure that
discovering that the universe had nontrivial topology would falsify those
theories but not general relativity.
The second paper in the first section is basically nonsense, as I've said
before:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6833b8bb46304f6e
Message-ID: <db3gu1$pck$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
In fact, my opinion of most of the papers in that section is just as low.
Where they're not outright wrong, they're stating the obvious at a length
which makes me think the authors don't understand why it's obvious.
-- Ben
tommy1729
even if so
it would probably be unfalsifiable ...
i have considered it too once ...
but science is based on proof.
tommy1729
Des
Hi math wizard. Look at "Holographic Principle" where information
contents in 4D spacetime can be modeled on 2D surface so
that's about the flatest you can have... lol.. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
"The holographic principle is a speculative conjecture
about quantum gravity theories, proposed by Gerard 't
Hooft and improved and promoted by Leonard Susskind,
claiming that all of the information contained in a volume
of space can be represented by a theory which lives
in the boundary of that region. In other words, if you
have a room, you can model all of the events within
that room by creating a theory which only takes into
account what happens in the walls of the room."
des
des
tommy1729
exactly
Shubee
On Aug 6, 11:53 am, Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276delet...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
>
> > One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
> > Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity.
>
> Do you really mean "empirically indistinguishable from general relativity"
> or do you mean "consistent with the evidence so far"?
I meant "consistent with the evidence so far". Thank you. I changed
the heading to read, "Flat Spacetime Theories that are Empirically
Indistinguishable from Testable General Relativity". Please correct me
again if I'm still wrong. Would it be clearer if I chanced the heading
to say, "Flat Spacetime Theories that are Consistent with all
Empirical Evidence"?
> I'm pretty sure that discovering that the universe had nontrivial
> topology would falsify those theories but not general relativity.
You are right of course, but, as I understand it, observations up till
now still indicate nothing inconsistent with a trivial topology and a
flat space.
> The second paper in the first section is basically nonsense, as I've said
> before:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6833b8bb46304f6e
> Message-ID: <db3gu1$pc...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
And I still agree with you. However, my point is the importance of the
topic in the hierarchy of elementary spacetime models, not the clumsy
manner or the confusion of physicists when they try to explain
childishly simple concepts.
> In fact, my opinion of most of the papers in that section is just as low.
> Where they're not outright wrong, they're stating the obvious at a length
> which makes me think the authors don't understand why it's obvious.
>
> -- Ben
I couldn't agree with you more. My interest in that topic is from the
observation that many physicists are not aware of the new and
elementary conclusions that arise when trying to conceptualize special
relativity on a circle universe. It's like no one coming up with the
pole and the barn paradox until the 1950s. There is something very
wrong here. I believe that the spacetime SxR is even easier to
understand than ordinary special relativity in one spatial dimension.
I can't imagine why a simple study of this spacetime is not included
in elementary textbooks. I also can't imagine why physicists are
generally so confused about the childishly simple implications of
nonstandard clock synchronization schemes. I look forward to the day
when all these simple things that physicists now obfuscate or
misunderstand will be taught at the high school level.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
It is neither despised or neglected, it is simply an unsuccessful way
of doing things.
BTW: You need more than an agreement with weak field predictions. The
weak field limit is flat space with a small perturbation so finding a
flat space theory that agrees with GR in the weak field limit isn't
surprising.
Finding one that meshes with strong field predictions [rotating black
holes, for example] would be more interesting.
>
> Shubee
galathaea
!! Yesterday I created a directory of important and/or informative papers
!! in GR. I have also included the best of the free standard reference
!! materials. The title of the directory is General Relativity Directory
!! - Everything Important.
!!
!! http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
!!
!! One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
!! Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity. I wish that
!! everyone could understand why this category is important. If you are
!! aware of any other papers that fit in this very interesting but
!! despised and neglected category, please let me know.
there have been a number of theories formulated
that provide gravity in flat spacetimes
a number of quantisation programmes do this where gravity becomes just another field
however
one of the more clever techniques has been that of "analogue gravity"
which takes as its starting point interpretations of gravity
as fluid flow equations on a flat background
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505065
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Shubee
To disprove the myth that gravity must be spacetime curvature and that
this curvature has been measured directly, it suffices to construct a
consistent flat-spacetime theory that passes all the tests that have
been applied to general relativity.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Why is it all your attempts to play with physics are geared towards
destruction? Everything you do is an attempt to quash some sort of
imagined "myth" in physics.
While you are moving your armada of ignorance in position to attack
GR, you might want to consider the fact that you know even less about
GR than you do SR. There are a few people here who know enough about
GR to argue with you about it, and I'm one of them.
I simply cannot wait to hear your misconceptions! Will your
misunderstandings be something I've seen a dozen times before, or will
you misunderstand something simple in a new and interesting way? I
can't wait to find out! Remember shooby, you are entertainment. Don't
allow the illusion that you are doing good physics to take hold,
otherwise the crippling depression that will land upon you after a
decade of spewing on USENET might drive you to swallow the 9mm pill.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
galathaea
the analogue gravity work i mention shows how the acoustic equivalent
of black holes
so called "dumb holes"
are accounted for correctly
Des
>
> - Show quoted text -
You self-study SR and GR. What books did you use? I found out
there's a difference when one discusses it with GR wizards
because it would clear up many misconceptions.
Anyway. For a start. You must read Clifford book "Was Einstein
Right? Putting General Relativity to the Tests", Wheeler "A
Journey into Gravity and Spacetime", etc. However, if you'd
tell me you have read such book as Wald "General Relativity"
and understood everything then I salute you.
About flat spacetime theory. Well. It's just that our rulers
measure the curvature so even if spacetime is really
flat and there are gravitons. Calculations show that
it produces curved spacetime as a classical limit,
something like that. So it seems there is no way
we can tell if spacetime is really curved or just appear
curved.
I just found SR and GR to be amazing. Years ago.
I thought they are just mathematical concepts without
relevance to reality. But stuff by Lee Smolin and
company teaches one how to think of it physically
and the effect is like poetry. That is, the beauty of
GR is like poetry, one has to appreciate it.
Of course I'd be equally glad if I'm just a victim
of relativity hypnotists and Pentcho is the King
of Physics who dislodge Einstein :)
des
Des
I wonder if Shubee even read an SR book or just self study it
by reading wikipedia. Well. I really want to understand how
he thinks there is an absolute frame when SR is anti-absolute
frame. Maybe he sees something we don't? There's this
Wheeler book called "Spacetime Physics" that people
recommended before but I didn't get it. I finally got it a while
ago after reading the following review.
"The aim of this book is to explain to one the essential
of the theory of special relativity: The GEOMETRY of
spacetime! Keyword: GEOMETRY. Those who give
this book one or two stars because they think this
book is too wordy or does not retain enough rigor
simply do not see the simplicity and elegance in
the authors' presentation.
Yes. You don't see complicated equations in this
book because the ideas are, as I said, geometric.
The authors even tell the reader not to pay too
much attention to things like the Lorentz transformation
because it conceals the intuitive geometric ideas.
Everything in speical relativity can be done
without appealing to any local coordinate frames
because spacetime IS geometry, the quantities
we are interested in are inheritedly covariant.
This is all built into the theory of relavity.
And the paradoxes that arise when one first
studies the subject can all be expalined by the
relativity of simultaneity, which is again because
space or time alone is not covariant but spacetime
as a whole.
This book gives a concrete meaning to spacetime.
Things like 4-vectors are not just something
the physicists cook up to make their equations
look better on paper; They have their very own existence.
As for the nontechnical language used in the book,
I would have to say that any bright high school students
can learn from this book.
I hope Shubee would own this book too so he can be
acquainted with the common sense of SR and can
attack it at its turf if he still sees there is a problem
with it. Without serious reading. Shubee would spend
another decade here like Seto who has already more than
a decade giving the same arguments that the book
can easily refute. But I guess Shubee is much better
than Seto, isn't it.
des
>
>
>
>
> > Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bill Hobba
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186409939.4...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Of course they are. There is no known way to tell the difference between a
theory where space-time is curved or rulers and clocks behave as if it was
curved. This has been known since the time of Riemann. So?
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Des" <descart...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186442483.8...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Wald is THE book to learn about GR IMHO. Difficult - yes - but well worth
it.
Thanks
Bill
Eric Gisse
[...]
> I hope Shubee would own this book too so he can be
> acquainted with the common sense of SR and can
> attack it at its turf if he still sees there is a problem
> with it. Without serious reading. Shubee would spend
> another decade here like Seto who has already more than
> a decade giving the same arguments that the book
> can easily refute. But I guess Shubee is much better
> than Seto, isn't it.
Shooby is a slightly lighter shade of stupid compared to Seto, but
that isn't saying much. fully expect Shooby to spend a full decade
arguing here. He is coming along nicely - he has been arguing about
relativity since 2003.
What I don't get is what turned him on to relativity. He is a huge
fundie - he loves his 7th day adventist shit, and that is what he was
doing for as long as the internet can remember. Then suddenly in
mid-2003, he starts obsessing over relativity!
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.everythingimportant.org
He had the domain for many years - then he goes super-religious. Which
it stays that way for several years.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030314220830/www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Notice how his presentation hasn't changed much at all in 4 years.
Complete with the "exercises" that he hasn't himself ever EVER been
able to do.
The internet is infinitely entertaining sometimes...
>
> des
>
>
>
> > > Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf-Hide quoted text -
The_Man
> On Aug 6, 7:04 pm, Des <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I hope Shubee would own this book too so he can be
> > acquainted with the common sense of SR and can
> > attack it at its turf if he still sees there is a problem
> > with it. Without serious reading. Shubee would spend
> > another decade here like Seto who has already more than
> > a decade giving the same arguments that the book
> > can easily refute. But I guess Shubee is much better
> > than Seto, isn't it.
>
> Shooby is a slightly lighter shade of stupid compared to Seto, but
> that isn't saying much. fully expect Shooby to spend a full decade
> arguing here. He is coming along nicely - he has been arguing about
> relativity since 2003.
>
> What I don't get is what turned him on to relativity. He is a huge
> fundie - he loves his 7th day adventist shit, and that is what he was
> doing for as long as the internet can remember. Then suddenly in
> mid-2003, he starts obsessing over relativity!
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.everythingimportant.org
>
> He had the domain for many years - then he goes super-religious. Which
> it stays that way for several years.
>
>
> Notice how his presentation hasn't changed much at all in 4 years.
> Complete with the "exercises" that he hasn't himself ever EVER been
> able to do.
Amusingly, it only took 7 days after his triumphant announcement that
his transforms had been proven to be a group (which Shubee couldn't
even do himself)
for the despised "chimps" to completely annihilate his transforms.
He's hoping that GR is sufficiently difficult that it will take much
longer for his errors to be exposed....
>
> The internet is infinitely entertaining sometimes...
>
>
>
>
>
> > des
>
> > > > Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf-Hidequoted text -
Shubee
The only disagreement that has merit is where Ben Rudiak-Gould and I
disagree. In that debate I know that I have the upper hand.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9f9a1aa34b49ff2e
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ba2b82c6cf480db6
Shubee
Juan R.
Yes, it is a despised and neglected category because of the multiple
myths and mistakes promoted during decades by relativists.
You can read below a message from Eric with something like:
"BTW: You need more than an agreement with weak field predictions.
The
weak field limit is flat space with a small perturbation so finding a
flat space theory that agrees with GR in the weak field limit isn't
surprising."
Which is completely wrong.
The confusion that a flat spacetime theory is valid only in the weak
limit is one of the spreaded myths by relativists. Currently that myth
is spreaded by Baez, Hillman, Carlip, and other well-known flammers.
Fortunately, this myth begins to be corrected in last literature.
Your list of gravitational theories lacks the more popular
contributions. One is telleparallel gravity, where gravity is modelled
in a flat spacetime. Gravity is not curvature but a real force like
electromagnetism.
The scheme is
Non-metric theories --> metric theories --> (Curvature OR torsion)
Now when choosing the metric procedure, you can select different
spaces. If you select a classical Riemannian structure you get
curvature and GR. If you select teleparallelism then you get
telleparallel gravity, where the geometric interpretation is not
curvature but torsion. Of course, this modelling of gravity is valid
beyond the weak limit.
Telleparallel gravity is being actively under research now because let
the 'unification' with rest of forces and spin can be included in the
torsion metric structure (which is useful for quantum gravity
studies).
Other great theory is Feynman field theory. Here also gravity is
modelled like the rest of forces and is being advanced in recent
years. Here gravity is a field propagates over a background. In some
sense Feynman approach is the basis for current superstring theory.
However, both approaches, field and metric (either torsion or
curvature), are limited in the description of gravitational phenomena.
For an alternative theory see relativistic gravitational theory i
cited in a new micro-thought (see the message "Relativistic Lagrangian
and limitations of field theory" but wait for the second part).
References:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011087
Juan R.
wrote:
This is the scheme, maybe you could use in your site instead
presenting the theories in flat.
| | Field (Feynman)
| Non-geometric -|
| | AAAD (Stefanovich)
Gravity -|
| | Telleparalel (torsion gravity)
| Geometric - |
| | Riemannian (General Relativity)
Note: Maybe Stefanovich disagrees with this classification for his
theory. I do not know where clasify the analoge gravity models cited
by the other poster, Some of them may be probably listed under the
field approach because the field is substituted by some other
continuum model. They inherit limitations of the field model.
Note: Gravity is not a force in GR but gravity *IS* a proper force in
the other formulations. This may confuss many students and laymen. I
wait the myth "gravity is curvature" (e.g. Wald) to be eliminated from
textbooks in some decades. The geometric formulation is useful but is
neither fundamental nor complete.
Note: It is ironic that the more un-promising way to model gravity is
precisely the more popular today: General Relativity. The Feynmann
approach is very promising for unifications tasks but is based in
fields and, therefore, limited.
eugene_st...@usa.net
wrote:
> This is the scheme, maybe you could use in your site instead
> presenting the theories in flat.
>
> | | Field (Feynman)
> | Non-geometric -|
> | | AAAD (Stefanovich)
> Gravity -|
> | | Telleparalel (torsion gravity)
> | Geometric - |
> | | Riemannian (General Relativity)
>
> Note: Maybe Stefanovich disagrees with this classification for his
> theory.
Hi Juan,
how I can disagree with you when you place me on the same level as
Feynman. I am just flattered.
Eugene.
eugene_st...@usa.net
> BTW: You need more than an agreement with weak field predictions. The
> weak field limit is flat space with a small perturbation so finding a
> flat space theory that agrees with GR in the weak field limit isn't
> surprising.
>
> Finding one that meshes with strong field predictions [rotating black
> holes, for example] would be more interesting.
As far I know nobody has seen black holes and measured their
properties directly. So, I prefer to remain agnostic about black
holes.
Eugene.
Shubee
wrote:
> Your list of gravitational theories lacks the more popular
> contributions.
That is correct. For special theories of gravity, I have only listed
Lorentz invariant theories because I view them as being captivatingly
beautiful.
Shubee
Juan R.
Hi Eugene, i see obligate to explain this a bit (you know).
The above scheme is helpful for understanding what are the theoretical
foundations basis for each theory.
In no way i suggest each theory to be in the same basis. Even
teleparallel theory sometimes named an equivalent of general
relativity by different authors is in some sense an extension of GR
because can introduce spin.
I know that you have worked only up to c^2 terms. Feynman theory has
been worked beyond, including the test of binaries, which you still do
not reproduce in the theory because you avoided radiation phenomena in
your first approach.
However, your introduction of a non-retarded component in the
potential energy is an interesting feature where your theory goes
beyond that of Feynman (and the others). You can embrace a kind of
gravitational version of the Chubykalo et al. electromagnetic dualism
(i think you know).
Sam Wormley
Black hole measurements include
o gravitational mass
o clocking the speed of a black hole's spin rate
o measuring the angle at which matter pours into the void
o evidence for a wall of X-ray light pulled back and flattened by gravity
eugene_st...@usa.net
wrote:
> You can embrace a kind of
> gravitational version of the Chubykalo et al. electromagnetic dualism
> (i think you know).
Yes, I find Chubykalo's ideas very similar to mine. He also has the
benefit of being able to test his ideas in experiments. Do you have
any comments on the paper http://www.arxiv.org/physics/0601084 which
also appeared in J. Appl. Phys. in January 2007?
Eugene.
eugene_st...@usa.net
> Black hole measurements include
> o gravitational mass
> o clocking the speed of a black hole's spin rate
> o measuring the angle at which matter pours into the void
> o evidence for a wall of X-ray light pulled back and flattened by gravity-
Do you have references about observations of black hole properties?
How confident are we that these are really black holes and nothing
else?
Eugene.
Shubee
> The second paper in the first section is basically nonsense, as I've said
> before:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6833b8bb46304f6e
> Message-ID: <db3gu1$pc...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Ben,
The abstract of that second paper that is so terribly wrong can be
split in two parts. The first half is correct and nicely stated:
"We consider the twin paradox of special relativity in a universe with
a compact spatial dimension. Such topology allows two twin observers
to remain inertial yet meet periodically. The paradox is resolved by
considering the relationship of each twin to a preferred inertial
reference frame which exists in such a universe because global Lorentz
invariance is broken. The twins can perform "global" experiments to
determine their velocities with respect to the preferred reference
frame (by sending light signals around the cylinder, for instance)."
I kept that first part and removed the rest from
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
"Here we discuss the possibility of doing so with local experiments.
Since one spatial dimension is compact, the electrostatic field of a
point charge deviates from $1/r^2$. We show that although the
functional form of the force law is the same for all inertial
observers, as required by local Lorentz invariance, the deviation from
1/r2 is observer-dependent. In particular, the preferred observer
measures the largest field strength for fixed distance from the
charge."
Shubee
Sam Wormley
I have posted references as they were news storied in the sci.physics
during the last several years. Are you wanting me to repost them?
eugene_st...@usa.net
> I have posted references as they were news storied in the sci.physics
> during the last several years. Are you wanting me to repost them?-
If it is not much trouble for you, I would appreciate one or two
recent references on black hole observations. Hopefully, I would be
able to find earlier references by looking at the literature section.
I am interested to know if existence of black holes is an
experimentally proven fact or just a theoretical hypothesis.
Thanks.
Eugene.
Rock Brentwood
> One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
> Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity.
That's Teleparallel Gravity. It still counts, if the torsion is not
zero! So, the notion above is misleading to the point of disiingenuous
misrepresentation.
The CORRECT statement should have been "Theories with Spacetimes
Possessing Connections that have BOTH Zero Curvature and Zero Torsion
that are Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity", NOT
"Theories with Zero Curvature But Non-Zero Torsion that (etc.)".
It's easy, and almost trivial, to convert either Mathematically to the
other. There is a large family of transformations in ANY manifold with
a connection that converts the connection to/from one with either
(1) 0 curvature, non-zero torsion
(2) 0 torsion, non-zero curvature
(3) just about any combination of the two you want
The transformation involves a system of partial differential equations
whose compatibility requirement is just the first and second Bianchi
identities, themselves. Therefore, they are always solvable, and the
transformation can be carried out along any of the 3 lines above.
This shows that torsion is just a fancy way of expressing curvature.
So it still counts, when the torsion is not zero; and the
transformation of the connection between the different alternatives
means nothing, physically.
Eric Gisse
There are only a handful [Tom Roberts, Steve Carlip, and Uncle Al {He
has the equivalence principle down pat...}] of people who know more
about relativity than I do at this point. Shooby is /not/ one of
them.
[...]
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On Aug 6, 4:18 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yesterday I created a directory of important and/or informative papers
> > in GR. I have also included the best of the free standard reference
> > materials. The title of the directory is General Relativity Directory
> > - Everything Important.
>
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
>
> > One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
> > Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity. I wish that
> > everyone could understand why this category is important. If you are
> > aware of any other papers that fit in this very interesting but
> > despised and neglected category, please let me know.
>
> > Shubee
>
> Yes, it is a despised and neglected category because of the multiple
> myths and mistakes promoted during decades by relativists.
Once again you try to frame the debate by using the word "relativists"
in the pejorative form.
>
> You can read below a message from Eric with something like:
>
> "BTW: You need more than an agreement with weak field predictions.
> The
> weak field limit is flat space with a small perturbation so finding a
> flat space theory that agrees with GR in the weak field limit isn't
> surprising."
>
> Which is completely wrong.
>
> The confusion that a flat spacetime theory is valid only in the weak
> limit is one of the spreaded myths by relativists. Currently that myth
> is spreaded by Baez, Hillman, Carlip, and other well-known flammers.
I love how someone with no formal education in physics walks by and
shits all over three people who have Doctorates in physics.
Read what I said _very carefully_, because like I have told you
before: reading is fundamental.
I said the WEAK FIELD LIMIT - not *all flat space theories*. Finding a
flat space theory that agrees with the weak field limit is NOT
difficult because the weak field limit _IS_ a flat space theory.
>
> Fortunately, this myth begins to be corrected in last literature.
The "myth" doesn't exist. The only confusion is in your head.
You are encouraged to find flat space theories that mesh with GR in
strong field situations...
[...]
Shubee
> On Aug 6, 9:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
> > Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity.
>
> That's Teleparallel Gravity. It still counts, if the torsion is not
> zero! So, the notion above is misleading to the point of disiingenuous
> misrepresentation.
>
> The CORRECT statement should have been "Theories with Spacetimes
> Possessing Connections that have BOTH Zero Curvature and Zero Torsion
> that are Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity", NOT
> "Theories with Zero Curvature But Non-Zero Torsion that (etc.)".
Thank you. I changed the heading to "Lorentz Invariant Theories of
Gravity that are Empirically Indistinguishable from Testable General
Relativity".
Shubee
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 7, 4:01 pm, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 9:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > One category, last but not least, is Flat Spacetime Theories that are
> > > Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity.
>
> > That's Teleparallel Gravity. It still counts, if the torsion is not
> > zero! So, the notion above is misleading to the point of disiingenuous
> > misrepresentation.
>
> > The CORRECT statement should have been "Theories with Spacetimes
> > Possessing Connections that have BOTH Zero Curvature and Zero Torsion
> > that are Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity", NOT
> > "Theories with Zero Curvature But Non-Zero Torsion that (etc.)".
>
> Thank you. I changed the heading to "Lorentz Invariant Theories of
> Gravity that are Empirically Indistinguishable from Testable General
> Relativity".
You know even less about GR than you do SR. Spare us.
[...]
Sam Wormley
Included in these are at least sound from five black holes.
http://msowww.anu.edu.au/~pfrancis/Music/index.html
Shubee
wrote:
> The confusion that a flat spacetime theory is valid only in the weak
> limit is one of the spreaded myths by relativists. Currently that myth
> is spreaded by Baez, Hillman, Carlip, and other well-known flammers.
I haven't seen Baez or Carlip flame anyone but Chris Hillman certainly
deserves a prize. I don't know of anyone more condescending and rude.
I think he's way up there with Uncle Al.
You are right in saying that relativists teach myths that go beyond
proof and empirical facts. Even worse, I still remember the disgust I
felt 18 years ago when witnessing a well-known relativist praise
Albert Einstein with greater reverence and devotion than most
Christians express for Jesus Christ.
Shubee
Eric Gisse
It must make you mad to see a scientist get more respect than god.
>
> Shubee
Shubee
That's the funniest parody of Eric Gisse logic that I've ever heard.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Garyl
Is it possible the "gravity is curvature" myth is just a veil or decoy
to hide something. "Gravity is curvature" is the only one that
doesn't allow anti-gravity because we are led to believe in
eternal motion in geodesic path proportional to time. So the
only way to stop geodesic path is to stop time which is
impossible. If gravity is some kind of force. Then it is possible.
Could the other models of gravity permit anti-gravity?
It is possible Einstein GR is just a coincident it was correct.
Later when the Nazi developed anti-gravity machines
and the US stealing them and created Area 51 to
study the technology. United States continued to promote
GR so that no one would suspect anti-gravity propulsion
are already being developed and deployed by the US
in clandestine operations.
Go for it Shubee! Expose the cover-up and you will be
our next Einstein (or his official replacement).
Garyl
>
> Note: It is ironic that the more un-promising way to model gravity is
> precisely the more popular today: General Relativity. The Feynmann
> approach is very promising for unifications tasks but is based in
> fields and, therefore, limited.- Hide quoted text -
Shubee
When scientists worship Einstein, it is only an attempt to live
vicariously through the myths that they've created about Einstein. In
reality, they are only worshiping themselves through the power of
presumption and willful deception.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 7, 12:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > I have posted references as they were news storied in the sci.physics
> > during the last several years. Are you wanting me to repost them?-
>
> If it is not much trouble for you, I would appreciate one or two
> recent references on black hole observations. Hopefully, I would be
> able to find earlier references by looking at the literature section.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/brief/65488.abstract.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
Failing that - fucking google it.
> I am interested to know if existence of black holes is an
> experimentally proven fact or just a theoretical hypothesis.
Plenty of experimental evidence for bodies that obey most known
properties of black holes.
>
> Thanks.
> Eugene.
eugene_st...@usa.net
> > If it is not much trouble for you, I would appreciate one or two
> > recent references on black hole observations. Hopefully, I would be
> > able to find earlier references by looking at the literature section.
>
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/...
> http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
Hi Eric,
thank you for the references. These seems to be high quality works.
However, you would possibly agree with me that they do not offer 100%
proofs. So, there still remains some room for scepticism. On the other
hand, there is no proof that non-geometrical theories of gravity
cannot explain properties of black holes, should they be firmly
established. So, they are not ruled out yet.
Eugene.
Dono
The won't, Eugene. We've been over it.
You are using a Newtopnian potential in your Hamiltonian (eq 8)
>From that you get equation of motion (11) that you later on find to
"contradict" PoE (eq 26). GR doesn't use Newtonian potentials (for a
good reason), so you didn't find a contradiction with PoE, you have
simply constructed a self-contradictory theory, your very own. Any
decent editor will continue to reject your paper.
Dono
They won't, Eugene. We've been over this before.
You start your argument by using a Newtopnian potential in your
Hamiltonian (eq 8).
>From (8) you get equation of motion (11) that you later on find to
"contradict" PoE (eq 26). Surprise! Surprise!
Dono
They won't, Eugene. We've been over this before.
You start your argument by using a Newtonian potential in your
Hamiltonian (eq 8).
>From (8) you get equation of motion (11) that you later on find to
"contradict" PoE (eq 26). Surprise! Surprise!
GR doesn't use Newtonian potentials (for a good reason), so you didn't
find a contradiction with PoE, you have simply constructed a self-
contradictory theory, your very own. Any decent editor will continue
to reject your paper.
Besides , how can you claim that your theory is indistinguishable from
GR when your very math (eq.26) attempts (unsuccessfully) to falsify
PoE. Didn't you know that there are plenty of experiments that verify
PoE? You always have experiments quotes ready, how could you miss such
an important one?
Eric Gisse
Well, when the non-geometrical theories of gravitation make a
prediction that a) differs from GR and b) can be tested, we will talk
about them. Until then, they can sit in the corner.
>
> Eugene.
Juan R.
I knew but did not check the results because i want first to derive
dualism from microscopic theory instead postulating it to work on any
EM phenomena as Chubikalo and Smirnov-Rueda did.
Probably experimental work is right. But i dislike the v>c and the
v=infinity you can read during the paper. No-retardation does *not*
implies v>c. This is impossible to grasp when working directly with
the macroscopic Maxwell equations. Precisely, that is one of reasons
which are trying to derive dualism from microscopic theory.
Also new non-local understanding about magnetic fields has been
experimentally verified in other situations Marinov motor and AB
effects. Relativists are still trying to derive the experimental
outcomes.
Another situation where the retarded potentials fail experimental test
is cited in http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/
Take a look to recent http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1661 also.
Juan R.
READ
Juan R.
> On Aug 7, 4:55 am, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The confusion that a flat spacetime theory is valid only in the weak
> > limit is one of the spreaded myths by relativists. Currently that myth
> > is spreaded by Baez, Hillman, Carlip, and other well-known flammers.
>
> I haven't seen Baez or Carlip flame anyone but Chris Hillman certainly
> deserves a prize.
Hillman once maintained a completely wrong webpage about relativity in
the web with technical nonsenses and personal attacks to works of
people he never understood. He now has eliminated the page. (Note: i
maintain a copy for historical reasons.)
Baez or Carlip are cited as examples of flamers in several sites, and
dictionaries about flamming.
> You are right in saying that relativists teach myths that go beyond
> proof and empirical facts. Even worse, I still remember the disgust I
> felt 18 years ago when witnessing a well-known relativist praise
> Albert Einstein with greater reverence and devotion than most
> Christians express for Jesus Christ.
>
> Shubee
I remember a discussion with Tom Roberts where he tried to show us
that curvature of spacetime had been measured. After some presure, he,
of course, did mean that indirect mesures (anomalous perihelion, ...)
were *interpreted* as being produced spacetime curvature.
Now, and this is the point, any of the other theories cited pass the
same tests that GR but without any spacetime curvature. I wonder that
Tom will say now.
An elementary proof of how relativists spreaded myths: just count how
many diagrams where a 'space' is drawn curved around Sun appears in
laymen books about relativity or history or strings, and count how
many torsion diagrams or AAAD diagrams.
Or just count how many times you read "Gravity is curvature not a
force" in academic textbooks (e.g. Wald).
Fortunately those myths will be corrected during next decade.
Juan R.
Relativists are well-known to spread many myths about physics or
distort the history of relativity.
E.g. almost none particle physicists take relativist approach to
quantum gravity seriously. And in either public or private they call
Baez and others crackpots.
Many of recent work by Carlip about black holes has been discredited
but Carlip continues spreading myths about black holes. The term myth
(when refering to Carlip) is also used in certain Hardvard physicist
blog.
> "Gravity is curvature" is the only one that
> doesn't allow anti-gravity because we are led to believe in
> eternal motion in geodesic path proportional to time. So the
> only way to stop geodesic path is to stop time which is
> impossible. If gravity is some kind of force. Then it is possible.
> Could the other models of gravity permit anti-gravity?
Please read links i subbmited, if i am not wrong in some (Feynman) i
read about gravity containing an anti-gravity component. And if i am
not wrong that component apparently has been measured in binary pulsar
test. Please check that.
> It is possible Einstein GR is just a coincident it was correct.
> Later when the Nazi developed anti-gravity machines
> and the US stealing them and created Area 51 to
> study the technology. United States continued to promote
> GR so that no one would suspect anti-gravity propulsion
> are already being developed and deployed by the US
> in clandestine operations.
Well it is obvious (except for relativists who see Einstein as God)
that much of Einstein popularity was due to the War propaganda.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[...]
>
> An elementary proof of how relativists spreaded myths: just count how
> many diagrams where a 'space' is drawn curved around Sun appears in
> laymen books about relativity or history or strings, and count how
> many torsion diagrams or AAAD diagrams.
"laymen books". Imagine that.
You discredited your own idiocy. Handy.
>
> Or just count how many times you read "Gravity is curvature not a
> force" in academic textbooks (e.g. Wald).
>
> Fortunately those myths will be corrected during next decade.
Fortunately your spew will be confined to your worthless blogging and
USENET postings while real physicists get stuff done. Enjoy a life of
being not noticed.
Garyl
wrote:
> > > > Non-metric theories --> metric theories --> (Curvature OR torsion)
That's right. Tom Roberts may be under payroll from the Bush
Administration to cover up what may be going on in Area 51
by trying to convince us anti-gravity is impossible because
geodesic motion is perpetual motion related to time (which
is unstoppable), so an object can't hover in midair in principle
without propulsion. This is also to make us dependent
on Oil controlled by Bush. Anti-gravity can set us free if gravity
is connected with electromagnetism that can be manipulated
(and gravity shields engineered) that Bush and his Pawn Tom
Roberts want to cover up and make slaves of us forever.
Shubee, etc. Fight the fight, you are our hero and our future.
Garyl
Juan R.
> On Aug 7, 11:24 pm, eugene_stefanov...@usa.net wrote:
> They won't, Eugene. We've been over this before.
> You start your argument by using a Newtonian potential in your
> Hamiltonian (eq 8).>From (8) you get equation of motion (11) that you later on find to
>
> "contradict" PoE (eq 26). Surprise! Surprise!
1) My version of Eugene preprint contains not equation (26). I see not
the "=" but a ~~ symbol.
2) Does Newtonian potential contains a c^2 component? That is new.
Eric Gisse
Read what? More assertions?
Find me one flat space theory that matches observation in strong
fields. Since you have no formal education in physics, I'll explain
exactly what I mean by "observation".
* Orbital decay of the binary pulsar system PSR 1913+16 via emitted
gravitational radiation.
* Existence of black holes, and gravitationally hyperbound objects.
Having a large fraction of your effective mass being contained in
gravitational self-energy makes for curious objects.
* Absolute agreement with all equivalence principle tests. The
Nordtvelt effect will be a super-bitch to handle in a linear theory.
Have fun.
* Agreement with observation consistent with a near-maximal spin Kerr
black hole. I can find a bunch more of these, this is just my personal
favorite. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/brief/65488.abstract.html
But since I'm bored, I'll toss in some weak field effects that it will
need to cover.
* Frame dragging & geodetic effect
* Gravitational time dilation
* Precession of perihelion
* Shapiro delay
* Gravitational lensing
* Gravitational redshift
You see, I have been studying cosmology for quite awhile now. All that
I have listed has been pulled off the top of my head or from a handy
bookmarks folder. Finding a flat space theory that matches a few of
what is listed isn't terribly difficult. However, to my knowledge,
there is not one flat space theory that matches /all/ of them.
Han de Bruijn
Uhm. Is it true that gravity is a force which causes space to be curved?
Or is it true that gravity is curvature of space which appears to us as
a force? Or none of both?
Han de Bruijn
Eric Gisse
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 11:41 pm, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >>An elementary proof of how relativists spreaded myths: just count how
> >>many diagrams where a 'space' is drawn curved around Sun appears in
> >>laymen books about relativity or history or strings, and count how
> >>many torsion diagrams or AAAD diagrams.
>
> > "laymen books". Imagine that.
>
> > You discredited your own idiocy. Handy.
>
> >>Or just count how many times you read "Gravity is curvature not a
> >>force" in academic textbooks (e.g. Wald).
>
> >>Fortunately those myths will be corrected during next decade.
>
> > Fortunately your spew will be confined to your worthless blogging and
> > USENET postings while real physicists get stuff done. Enjoy a life of
> > being not noticed.
>
> Uhm. Is it true that gravity is a force which causes space to be curved?
No.
> Or is it true that gravity is curvature of space which appears to us as
> a force? Or none of both?
That's pretty much it, actually.
>
> Han de Bruijn
Eric Gisse
There are better scientists than Einstein, asshat. Crack a [real] book
on QM and try to go 3 pages without hearing about Dirac or Feynman.
Go into any field and there will be stars. Einstein is simply one of
many.
Why don't you take a minute from your anti-relativity ranting and tell
us why you are even bothering? From the archive.org and google
records, you didn't say word one about relativity for YEARS until
2003. Then BOOM, you go apeshit about relativity and won't shut the
fuck up about it.
Why?
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Juan R.
There is not black hole known. All past claimed candidates were
eliminated after further observation.
Recent example of doubts about object labelled blackholes in the
recent past
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060811_quasar.htm
Because the indirect data collected by astronomers and astrophysicists
can be interpreted using other models.
The empirical 'proofs' of existence of black holes have same validity
that decades of claims that clasical tests of gravity proved the
curvature of spacetime. That is *none* because the same tests are
passed by other theories (without curvature).
But the most interesting part is that the concept of black hole arises
when you apply general relativity to gravitational strenght far beyond
that of validity for a classical theory.
I see interesting that if a student were to apply EM equations to
field strengs corresponding to the Bohr radius scale, we would warn
(s)he about how unphysical that is.
I see interesting that if a student were to apply GR equations to
field strengs corresponding to infinite or cuasinfinite strengs, (s)he
is thought how magical and interesting GR is.
For a very recent work on why black holes cannot form see
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070620115358.htm
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5715
" 'Nothing there,' is what Case Western Reserve University physicists
concluded about black holes after spending a year working on complex
formulas to calculate the formation of new black holes."
They argue there is not horizons not Hawking radiation (never observed
indeed) because there is no dinamical process which the black hole
would form in this universe in any finite time. They show that the
object completely evaporates ***before*** the event horizon is able to
form.
"An outside observer will never lose an object down a black hole,"
"If you are sitting outside and throwing something into the black
hole, it will never pass over but will stay outside the event horizon
even if one considers the effects of quantum mechanics."
Unfortunately for relativists and believers, the article was published
two months ago here
Han de Bruijn
> * Agreement with observation consistent with a near-maximal spin Kerr
> black hole. I can find a bunch more of these, this is just my personal
> favorite. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/brief/65488.abstract.html
If black holes contain actual infinities, then they cannot exist.
> But since I'm bored, I'll toss in some weak field effects that it will
> need to cover.
>
> * Frame dragging & geodetic effect
> * Gravitational time dilation
> * Precession of perihelion
> * Shapiro delay
> * Gravitational lensing
> * Gravitational redshift
>
> You see, I have been studying cosmology for quite awhile now. All that
> I have listed has been pulled off the top of my head or from a handy
> bookmarks folder. Finding a flat space theory that matches a few of
> what is listed isn't terribly difficult. However, to my knowledge,
> there is not one flat space theory that matches /all/ of them.
General Relativity is a splendid piece of mathematics, built on
quicksand (: Leon Brillouin in "Relativity Reexamined", Academic
Press, 1970).
http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9780121349455/Leon_Brillouin/Relativity_Reexamined.html
Just sceptic.
Han de Bruijn
Garyl
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > * Agreement with observation consistent with a near-maximal spin Kerr
> > black hole. I can find a bunch more of these, this is just my personal
>
> If black holes contain actual infinities, then they cannot exist.
>
> > But since I'm bored, I'll toss in some weak field effects that it will
> > need to cover.
>
> > * Frame dragging & geodetic effect
> > * Gravitational time dilation
> > * Precession of perihelion
> > * Shapiro delay
> > * Gravitational lensing
> > * Gravitational redshift
>
> > You see, I have been studying cosmology for quite awhile now. All that
> > I have listed has been pulled off the top of my head or from a handy
> > bookmarks folder. Finding a flat space theory that matches a few of
> > what is listed isn't terribly difficult. However, to my knowledge,
> > there is not one flat space theory that matches /all/ of them.
>
> General Relativity is a splendid piece of mathematics, built on
> quicksand (: Leon Brillouin in "Relativity Reexamined", Academic
> Press, 1970).
>
>
> Just sceptic.
>
> Han de Bruijn
Seriously. If General Relativity is false, how come it can approximate
very accurate the behavior of gravity? It's as if nature designs
reality to be in such a way that GR is just a cover for something
else... to hide something else... perhaps the real force of gravity.
What mathematical coincidence can explain it?
garyl
Han de Bruijn
> Seriously. If General Relativity is false, how come it can approximate
> very accurate the behavior of gravity? It's as if nature designs
> reality to be in such a way that GR is just a cover for something
> else... to hide something else... perhaps the real force of gravity.
> What mathematical coincidence can explain it?
Seriously. Haven't you noticed that Einstein adapted his equations, in
order to obtain Newton's gravitation law in the non-relativistic limit?
And BTW, I didn't say General Relativity is false. I've only suggested
it's overkill.
Han de Bruijn
Garyl
Because newton's gravitation law works. Also c is c. Hence Einstein
uses them.
>
> And BTW, I didn't say General Relativity is false. I've only suggested
> it's overkill.
If there is no Special Relativity. Einstein won't discover GR. Since
SR is proven, it will just take some curvature to make gravity
exists. As much as I want it. I still find it hard to believe how
GR can be false but SR real.. unless reality is counterfeit and
is designed to look that way to hide something deeper. The book
you mentioned "Relativity ReExamined" is not available
anywhere. Do you have a copy? Can you summarize its
main points?
Gar
>
> Han de Bruijn- Hide quoted text -
Han de Bruijn
> On Aug 8, 6:58 pm, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
>>Garyl wrote:
>>
>>>Seriously. If General Relativity is false, how come it can approximate
>>>very accurate the behavior of gravity? It's as if nature designs
>>>reality to be in such a way that GR is just a cover for something
>>>else... to hide something else... perhaps the real force of gravity.
>>>What mathematical coincidence can explain it?
>>
>>Seriously. Haven't you noticed that Einstein adapted his equations, in
>>order to obtain Newton's gravitation law in the non-relativistic limit?
>
> Because newton's gravitation law works. Also c is c. Hence Einstein
> uses them.
>
>>And BTW, I didn't say General Relativity is false. I've only suggested
>>it's overkill.
>
> If there is no Special Relativity. Einstein won't discover GR. Since
> SR is proven, it will just take some curvature to make gravity
> exists. As much as I want it.
You say it: "as much as I want it". By adjusting / tuning parameters,
thus establishing kind of an equivalence with the _old_ model. (Guess
I would almost be able to do such a cheap trick myself ..)
> I still find it hard to believe how
> GR can be false but SR real.. unless reality is counterfeit and
> is designed to look that way to hide something deeper.
Remember that GR, as well as SR, are _hardly_ real, when compared with
the technological impact of e.g. quantum mechanics. Also remember that
the differences between GR (/ SR) and Newtonian mechanics are marginal
and difficult to establish empirically, most of the time.
> The book
> you mentioned "Relativity ReExamined" is not available
> anywhere. Do you have a copy? Can you summarize its
> main points?
A good book (and this IS one) can not be summarized without danger. I'm
very proud to have it in my personal library (among other works, such as
"The Theory of Heat Radiation" by Max Planck). I would like to publish
such things on the Internet, but CopyRight issues are still prohibiting,
I think ..
BTW. How long does it take before you can republish a book from 1970, if
the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
Han de Bruijn
Garyl
No. It occurs right after the discovery of quantum mechanics when
Dirac makes it relativistic. So SR is built right into our physics
from
the very start. Without SR, there will be no spin and electrons
would collapse to the ground states or be like bosons and
there won't be no nothing. In fact, Standard Model is SR all
along so SR is as real as anything. Now there's just a thin line
between SR and GR. That is why I wonder how GR can be
wrong. It may just be a surface to a deeper theory and yes,
there is one. It's called Quantum Gravity.
> the differences between GR (/ SR) and Newtonian mechanics are marginal
> and difficult to establish empirically, most of the time.
It is easy to establish. See above.
> > The book
> > you mentioned "Relativity ReExamined" is not available
> > anywhere. Do you have a copy? Can you summarize its
> > main points?
>
> A good book (and this IS one) can not be summarized without danger. I'm
> very proud to have it in my personal library (among other works, such as
> "The Theory of Heat Radiation" by Max Planck). I would like to publish
> such things on the Internet, but CopyRight issues are still prohibiting,
> I think ..
> BTW. How long does it take before you can republish a book from 1970, if
> the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
>
By the power vested upon me by the Freedom of Information Act
and Bush. I hereby declare it decopyrighted. So you can post the
contents to a web site now so we can scrutinize it.
:)
Han de Bruijn
> On Aug 8, 7:37 pm, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
>>Garyl wrote:
[ I give you the last word on most issues ]
>>>The book
>>>you mentioned "Relativity ReExamined" is not available
>>>anywhere. Do you have a copy? Can you summarize its
>>>main points?
>>
>>A good book (and this IS one) can not be summarized without danger. I'm
>>very proud to have it in my personal library (among other works, such as
>>"The Theory of Heat Radiation" by Max Planck). I would like to publish
>>such things on the Internet, but CopyRight issues are still prohibiting,
>>I think ..
>>BTW. How long does it take before you can republish a book from 1970, if
>>the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
>
> By the power vested upon me by the Freedom of Information Act
> and Bush. I hereby declare it decopyrighted. So you can post the
> contents to a web site now so we can scrutinize it.
>
> :)
>
Serious:
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html
Han de Bruijn
Garyl
> Garyl wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 7:37 pm, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
> >>Garyl wrote:
>
> [ I give you the last word on most issues ]
If there is no SR and GR just came out of nowhether.
Then I'd doubt it very much. But in light of SR, GR is
very natural, almost like a common sense. I guess
I'm still hypnotised by relativists if that's the case.
Hope Shubee can convince us because I want to
see greener pasteur. SR and GR is just pretty boring
and simple.
>
> >>>The book
> >>>you mentioned "Relativity ReExamined" is not available
> >>>anywhere. Do you have a copy? Can you summarize its
> >>>main points?
>
> >>A good book (and this IS one) can not be summarized without danger. I'm
> >>very proud to have it in my personal library (among other works, such as
> >>"The Theory of Heat Radiation" by Max Planck). I would like to publish
> >>such things on the Internet, but CopyRight issues are still prohibiting,
> >>I think ..
> >>BTW. How long does it take before you can republish a book from 1970, if
> >>the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
>
> > By the power vested upon me by the Freedom of Information Act
> > and Bush. I hereby declare it decopyrighted. So you can post the
> > contents to a web site now so we can scrutinize it.
>
> > :)
>
> Serious:
>
> http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html
Just how good the book is. Summarize the major points.
If it's good enough. I could get a second hand copy even
if it costs marginally high.
gar
Shubee
> the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
>
> Han de Bruijn
In most countries copyright lasts until 50 years after the death of
the author.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/about/copyright-issues.html
Shubee
Garyl
> > BTW. How long does it take before you can republish a book from 1970, if
> > the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
>
> > Han de Bruijn
It's now 37 years since 1970. For all these times, whatever the author
said should already be refuted No? Anyway I found the following in the
net describing the book:
"Reference is made to Brillouin who in his book Relativity
Reexamined'' (1971) refers to some experiments by Kennedy
and Thorndike (Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA l7: 620 (1931)) and by
Drill (Phys.Rev.56: 184 (1939)) in which an electrostatic
analogue of the gravitational redshift was sought.It is pointed
out that these authors did not attempt to deduce theoretically
the quantitative prediction of generai relativity theory for the
electrostatic redshift; they appear to have proceeded in a
purely experimental and intuitional fashion.In order to show
that their null result was to be expected, and that the electrostatic
redshift is inaccessible even with present techniques, a brief
derivation of the general relativistic prediction for this effect
is given.(UK)"
Han de Bruijn
>>BTW. How long does it take before you can republish a book from 1970, if
>>the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
>
> In most countries copyright lasts until 50 years after the death of
> the author.
> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/about/copyright-issues.html
Thanks. However, my computer says the adress cannot be resolved ..
Han de Bruijn
Shubee
It's working for me at this moment.
Shubee
wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 4:55 am, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > The confusion that a flat spacetime theory is valid only in the weak
> > > limit is one of the spreaded myths by relativists. Currently that myth
> > > is spreaded by Baez, Hillman, Carlip, and other well-known flammers.
>
> > I haven't seen Baez or Carlip flame anyone but Chris Hillman certainly
> > deserves a prize.
>
> Hillman once maintained a completely wrong webpage about relativity in
> the web with technical nonsenses and personal attacks to works of
> people he never understood. He now has eliminated the page. (Note: i
> maintain a copy for historical reasons.)
>
> Baez or Carlip are cited as examples of flamers in several sites, and
> dictionaries about flamming.
Please list URLs that present the evidence for this.
> > You are right in saying that relativists teach myths that go beyond
> > proof and empirical facts. Even worse, I still remember the disgust I
> > felt 18 years ago when witnessing a well-known relativist praise
> > Albert Einstein with greater reverence and devotion than most
> > Christians express for Jesus Christ.
>
> > Shubee
>
> I remember a discussion with Tom Roberts where he tried to show us
> that curvature of spacetime had been measured. After some presure, he,
> of course, did mean that indirect mesures (anomalous perihelion, ...)
> were *interpreted* as being produced spacetime curvature.
>
> Now, and this is the point, any of the other theories cited pass the
> same tests that GR but without any spacetime curvature. I wonder that
> Tom will say now.
Indeed, it's quite remarkable to have "Lorentz Invariant Theories of
Gravity that are Empirically Indistinguishable from Testable General
Relativity." http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
> An elementary proof of how relativists spreaded myths: just count how
> many diagrams where a 'space' is drawn curved around Sun appears in
> laymen books about relativity or history or strings, and count how
> many torsion diagrams or AAAD diagrams.
>
> Or just count how many times you read "Gravity is curvature not a
> force" in academic textbooks (e.g. Wald).
That's why I love the open-mindedness of David Hilbert's philosophy
of physics. Hilbert was a genius for giving equal weight to all
logically consistent physical theories, even to theories that didn't
come near to our reality.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
(Section 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
(Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
Shubee
Han de Bruijn
> It's working for me at this moment.
Okay. For me as well now.
Han de Bruijn
Shubee
> On Aug 7, 10:24 pm, eugene_stefanov...@usa.net wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
>
> > thank you for the references. These seems to be high quality works.
> > However, you would possibly agree with me that they do not offer 100%
> > proofs. So, there still remains some room for scepticism. On the other
> > hand, there is no proof that non-geometrical theories of gravity
> > cannot explain properties of black holes, should they be firmly
> > established. So, they are not ruled out yet.
>
> Well, when the non-geometrical theories of gravitation make a
> prediction that a) differs from GR and b) can be tested, we will talk
> about them. Until then, they can sit in the corner.
Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
that curved spacetime theories of gravity are better than Lorentz
invariant theories of gravity, they should put on dunce hats and sit
in the corner.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
Garyl
I thought curved spacetime theories are already lorentz invariant
theories of gravity. No? Isn't it General Covariance (or Invariance)
is GR nature?
gar
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
Dono
wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:59 am, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 11:24 pm, eugene_stefanov...@usa.net wrote:
> > They won't, Eugene. We've been over this before.
> > You start your argument by using a Newtonian potential in your
> > Hamiltonian (eq 8).>From (8) you get equation of motion (11) that you later on find to
>
> > "contradict" PoE (eq 26). Surprise! Surprise!
>
> 1) My version of Eugene preprint contains not equation (26). I see not
> the "=" but a ~~ symbol.
Then you are unable to read <shrug>
>
> 2) Does Newtonian potential contains a c^2 component? That is new.
Then you are unable to comprehend <shrug>
Shubee
Curved spacetime theories are only locally Lorentz invariant as in a
very small freely falling elevator at some instant.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
Sam Wormley
> On Aug 7, 12:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> I have posted references as they were news storied in the sci.physics
>> during the last several years. Are you wanting me to repost them?-
>
> If it is not much trouble for you, I would appreciate one or two
> recent references on black hole observations. Hopefully, I would be
> able to find earlier references by looking at the literature section.
> experimentally proven fact or just a theoretical hypothesis.
>
> Thanks.
> Eugene.
>
Here you go -- Have fun.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=group%3Asci.physics+%22black+hole%22+author%3Awormley&qt_s=Search
Shubee
Curved spacetime theories are only locally approximately Lorentz
invariant as in a very small freely falling elevator in a very small
interval of time.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
Dono
wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:59 am, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 11:24 pm, eugene_stefanov...@usa.net wrote:
> > They won't, Eugene. We've been over this before.
> > You start your argument by using a Newtonian potential in your
> > Hamiltonian (eq 8).>From (8) you get equation of motion (11) that you later on find to
>
> > "contradict" PoE (eq 26). Surprise! Surprise!
>
> 1) My version of Eugene preprint contains not equation (26).
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612019v5.pdf
Still have difficulties reading? Get new glasses.
>
> 2) Does Newtonian potential contains a c^2 component? That is new.
Still have difficulties in comprehending? Get a new brain.
What is the term GMm/r, clown?
You can't read and what you read you don't understand. Go back to your
blogs, physics is too tough for a brainless mollusk like you.
Shubee
> You can't read and what you read you don't understand. Go back to your
> blogs, physics is too tough for a brainless mollusk like you.
That amazing, coming from a fanatic that followed me around for months
on every thread I posted to, telling me that nonlinear functions are
not invertible. You are an idiot!
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Would it be clearer if I chanced the heading
> to say, "Flat Spacetime Theories that are Consistent with all
> Empirical Evidence"?
I think that would be better. Right now it sounds like you're saying that no
feasible experiment could distinguish them from general relativity. I think
finding correlated circles in the Planck Surveyor data would falsify these
theories, and that's a test that almost certainly will happen in the next
few years.
(I'm assuming, by the way, that they are consistent with the evidence so
far. I don't know whether that's true.)
> I can't imagine why a simple study of this spacetime is not included
> in elementary textbooks.
I think it should be. I'm not sure it isn't. I haven't read any elementary
SR textbooks in a while.
> I also can't imagine why physicists are
> generally so confused about the childishly simple implications of
> nonstandard clock synchronization schemes.
I'm not sure they are, but certainly many people are confused. It's hard to
tell the difference between a confused physicist and a physicist trying to
use language that they hope their audience will understand.
It does bother me that Penrose includes a physically nonsensical
synchronization example in at least one of his Emperor's New Mind books (the
Andromedan invasion fleet). I can't believe that Penrose, the geometer's
geometer, the first person to point out that you can't see the Lorentz
contraction, is genuinely confused about this. So I hope he just didn't
think it through very carefully.
> I look forward to the day
> when all these simple things that physicists now obfuscate or
> misunderstand will be taught at the high school level.
And so do I. But I'm not sure you can teach Minkowski geometry to students
who don't know calculus or linear algebra.
-- Ben
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> To disprove the myth that gravity must be spacetime curvature and that
> this curvature has been measured directly, it suffices to construct a
> consistent flat-spacetime theory that passes all the tests that have
> been applied to general relativity.
What *is* curvature? It's a mathematical term with a technical meaning. It
resembles its vernacular meaning more than a field resembles a field, but
it's not the same thing. I'd say that these flat-background theories are as
much about curved space as general relativity is. The only way you can
falsify gravity-as-curvature is by empirically falsifying the equivalence
principle.
-- Ben
Dono
No, I ASKED you to prove that they are invertible (I ended proving
that myself since you are clearly unable to perform any math).
As I have been asking you for 3 weeks now to show that the Shitbert
tranforms:
1. preserve the invariance of x^2-t^2 and of the Maxwell equations
2. can be used for something as simple as deriving dx'/dt' from dx/dt
Now, crawl back to the shithole you came from, Shitbert.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> The abstract of that second paper that is so terribly wrong can be
> split in two parts. The first half is correct and nicely stated:
>
> "We consider the twin paradox of special relativity in a universe with
> a compact spatial dimension. Such topology allows two twin observers
> to remain inertial yet meet periodically. The paradox is resolved by
> considering the relationship of each twin to a preferred inertial
> reference frame which exists in such a universe because global Lorentz
> invariance is broken. The twins can perform "global" experiments to
> determine their velocities with respect to the preferred reference
> frame (by sending light signals around the cylinder, for instance)."
Well, this is fine except for the sentence that starts "The paradox is
resolved by considering...". They've specified the geometry a priori, and
the relativistic prediction in such cases is clear: the elapsed time is the
integral of ds along the worldline. There are no cases to consider "from the
perspectives of the two twins" (scare quotes), unless you think that every
integral ought to be evaluated under several changes of variable just to
make sure that calculus is consistent. The only way you can get a paradox
here is by introducing a broken analogy that suggests a wrong answer, and
the resolution is to discard that analogy in favor of the actual theory. It
doesn't matter why it's wrong; in general it doesn't even make sense to ask.
-- Ben
Daryl McCullough
>The second paper in the first section is basically nonsense, as I've said
>before:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6833b8bb46304f6e
I don't know why you would call it *nonsense*. What they say about
the implications of a cylindrical universe is true. I don't see the
paper as a *research* paper so much as it is a pedagogical paper,
along the lines of papers in the American Journal of Physics.
You're certainly right, that the result they calculate for the static
electric field due to a point charge in a cylindrical universe can't
*actually* be used to locally test the topology of the universe. Not
only would experimenters have to wait arbitrarily long for the electric
field to settle down into its static state, there is no way to produce a
charge in the first place. We never produce charges, we only produce
charge *separations*. So if we need a large positive charge for some
experiment, we'll need to produce an equal size negative charge
somewhere else. So the very long-term field is not that of a point
particle, but that of a dipole, which falls off much faster with
distance. So the experiment described could only use some *primordial*
charge that had existed forever (in which case, the problem of waiting
for the electric field to settle into its static state would disappear).
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Garyl
> On Aug 8, 6:35 am, Garyl <garylr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 9:21 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 12:07 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 7, 10:24 pm, eugene_stefanov...@usa.net wrote:
> > > > > Hi Eric,
>
> > > > > thank you for the references. These seems to be high quality works.
> > > > > However, you would possibly agree with me that they do not offer 100%
> > > > > proofs. So, there still remains some room for scepticism. On the other
> > > > > hand, there is no proof that non-geometrical theories of gravity
> > > > > cannot explain properties of black holes, should they be firmly
> > > > > established. So, they are not ruled out yet.
>
> > > > Well, when the non-geometrical theories of gravitation make a
> > > > prediction that a) differs from GR and b) can be tested, we will talk
> > > > about them. Until then, they can sit in the corner.
>
> > > Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
> > > that curved spacetime theories of gravity are better than Lorentz
> > > invariant theories of gravity, they should put on dunce hats and sit
> > > in the corner.
>
> > I thought curved spacetime theories are already lorentz invariant
> > theories of gravity. No? Isn't it General Covariance (or Invariance)
> > is GR nature?
>
> > gar
>
>
> Curved spacetime theories are only locally approximately Lorentz
> invariant as in a very small freely falling elevator in a very small
> interval of time.
What is more important is that the laws of physics must be
the same for all observers (accelerated or not). In everyday
world. Seldom do we have constant motion, SR is not practical.
GR is more routine. Wikipedia says.
"General relativity is predicated upon several underlying
assumptions.
The general principle of relativity states that the laws of physics
must be the same for all observers (accelerated or not). The
principle of general covariance states the laws of physics must
take the same form in all coordinate systems. General
relativity also requires equivalence between inertial and
geodesic motion because the world lines of particles
unaffected by physical forces are timelike or null geodesics
of spacetime. The local Lorentz invariance requires that
the laws of special relativity apply locally for all inertial
observers."
gar
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm- Hide quoted text -
tommy1729
> Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 11:41 pm, "Juan R."
> <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>An elementary proof of how relativists spreaded
> myths: just count how
> >>many diagrams where a 'space' is drawn curved
> around Sun appears in
> >>laymen books about relativity or history or
> strings, and count how
> >>many torsion diagrams or AAAD diagrams.
> >
> > "laymen books". Imagine that.
> >
> > You discredited your own idiocy. Handy.
> >
> >>Or just count how many times you read "Gravity is
> curvature not a
> >>force" in academic textbooks (e.g. Wald).
> >>
> >>Fortunately those myths will be corrected during
> next decade.
> >
> > Fortunately your spew will be confined to your
> worthless blogging and
> > USENET postings while real physicists get stuff
> done. Enjoy a life of
> > being not noticed.
>
> Uhm. Is it true that gravity is a force which causes
> space to be curved?
> Or is it true that gravity is curvature of space
> which appears to us as
> a force? Or none of both?
>
> Han de Bruijn
>
the second...
under the assumption of truth of relativity ...
which is debateble since on small scale and large scale other laws seem to rule ...
like quantum effects , evaporation , accelerated expansion of the universe etc...
( also under the assumptions that these counterforces/models/arguments are valid )
most notable is the big questions remain :
1) why
2) how
3) E -> M ?
4) M -> E ?
5) wave or particle ?
6) what 'is' light
7) what happens in a black hole
etc...
and most frustrating about physics is i often feel like we can explain bondaries , rather then to cross them ...
which kind a feels like math model and philosofy
rather than power , understanding and mastering of the surrounding universe ...
the limit of light speed and the non-existance of perp mobile are splended examples of an (apparant)
" powerless science "
tommy1729
Tom Roberts
> Remember that GR, as well as SR, are _hardly_ real, when compared with
> the technological impact of e.g. quantum mechanics.
I have no idea what you mean by that. No theory of physics can be called
"real", because they are THEORIES. But SR and GR are accurate and valid
models of the world we inhabit, within their respective domains of
applicability, as is quantum mechanics. Sure, QM has had much more
technological impact on our everyday lives, but that is no measure of
scientific validity or worth. Indeed, such comparisons are utterly
useless, because _both_ SR and QM are required to describe high energy
particle interactions.
> Also remember that
> the differences between GR (/ SR) and Newtonian mechanics are marginal
> and difficult to establish empirically, most of the time.
You merely display your ignorance and/or parochialism. Here at Fermilab
and at other accelerators around the world, the difference between SR
and Newtonian mechanics is MANY orders of magnitude. And this is not at
all "difficult to establish empirically" -- it is so blatant it cannot
possibly be missed. There is just no doubt whatsoever that NM does not
describe the behavior of high energy particles. And SR/GR does.
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
Sorry shooby, this is physics. Theories that make predictions that are
validated by experiment _are_ better than theories that do not.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/general.htm
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:24 am, eugene_stefanov...@usa.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 9:32 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If it is not much trouble for you, I would appreciate one or two
> > > > recent references on black hole observations. Hopefully, I would be
> > > > able to find earlier references by looking at the literature section.
>
> > >http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
>
> > Hi Eric,
>
> > thank you for the references. These seems to be high quality works.
> > However, you would possibly agree with me that they do not offer 100%
> > proofs. So, there still remains some room for scepticism. On the other
> > hand, there is no proof that non-geometrical theories of gravity
> > cannot explain properties of black holes, should they be firmly
> > established. So, they are not ruled out yet.
>
>
> There is not black hole known. All past claimed candidates were
> eliminated after further observation.
Since the astrophysical community does not agree, I can't help but
wonder which oriface you pulled this pronouncement from this time.
>
> Recent example of doubts about object labelled blackholes in the
> recent past
>
> http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060811_quasar.htm
Um, no. This does not say what you claim it says.
It is crap, anyway. They rightfully point out that that the black hole
itself cannot have a magnetic field and won't retain an electric
field. However, they _COMPLETELY_ ignore the fact that accretion disks
are composed of fast moving plasmas which generate powerful electric
and magnetic fields. Instead of discussing those effects, they
postulate [without a supporting theory] a kind of object that would
replace the black hole but would retain electric and magnetic fields.
They do not, however, explain away the fact that quantum theory places
a hard limit on how much pressure neutron degeneracy can exert and the
fact that general relativity also places a hard limit on properties of
such objects.
>
> Because the indirect data collected by astronomers and astrophysicists
> can be interpreted using other models.
So you assume those models are right because....because...they aren't
GR?
These are models pulled out of someone's ass. They have no established
validity, and they have nothing going for them other than a mechanism
to sidestep general relativity which pleases anti-relativity cranks to
no end.
>
> The empirical 'proofs' of existence of black holes have same validity
> that decades of claims that clasical tests of gravity proved the
> curvature of spacetime. That is *none* because the same tests are
> passed by other theories (without curvature).
Misconceptions ahoy. The observational evidence for black holes is
quite consistent with properties predicted by general relativity.
Coupled with the direct observation of frame dragging with Gravity
Probe B as well as the observation of effects due to /spinning/ black
holes means you can't just dismiss GR because you don't like it.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/brief/65488.abstract.html
I am yet to hear of any curvature free theory that matches every GR
prediction. If you wish to argue the point, you are encouraged to
provide some literature references which contain explicit
calculations.
>
> But the most interesting part is that the concept of black hole arises
> when you apply general relativity to gravitational strenght far beyond
> that of validity for a classical theory.
A valid point of view that is unfortunately unsupported by anything
observed. Sure, we all know that GR will break down at some length/
energy scale but /we don't know where that is/. Anything we say now is
a GUESS at best.
The black hole at the center of the galaxy is ~3 million solar masses.
The Schwarzschild radius is about 15 light seconds wide. The sun, for
reference, is about 5 light seconds wide. At what point inside that
HUGE object do quantum effects come into play? Nobody knows!
>
> I see interesting that if a student were to apply EM equations to
> field strengs corresponding to the Bohr radius scale, we would warn
> (s)he about how unphysical that is.
That's because we have good theoretical reasons [classical atom will
collapse in short order] and observational reasons [quantum mechanical
effects] to know otherwise. There is no such situation in gravitation.
>
> I see interesting that if a student were to apply GR equations to
> field strengs corresponding to infinite or cuasinfinite strengs, (s)he
> is thought how magical and interesting GR is.
>
> For a very recent work on why black holes cannot form see
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070620115358.htm
Yawn. "Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by
Case Western Reserve University."
The hole forms, regardless. It takes infinite observer time for stuff
to reach the event horizon, but in reality it gets "close enough"
rather fast. Think about when you learned....oh that's right you
didn't. A damped harmonic oscillator will have an exponential decay
time, but reaches a small amplitude of oscillation /really fast/. Same
idea.
>
> http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5715
>
> " 'Nothing there,' is what Case Western Reserve University physicists
> concluded about black holes after spending a year working on complex
> formulas to calculate the formation of new black holes."
Do you have something OTHER than talk about the information loss
paradox?
Christ.
>
> They argue there is not horizons not Hawking radiation (never observed
> indeed) because there is no dinamical process which the black hole
> would form in this universe in any finite time. They show that the
> object completely evaporates ***before*** the event horizon is able to
> form.
In whose reference frame?
>
> "An outside observer will never lose an object down a black hole,"
>
> "If you are sitting outside and throwing something into the black
> hole, it will never pass over but will stay outside the event horizon
> even if one considers the effects of quantum mechanics."
>
> Unfortunately for relativists and believers, the article was published
> two months ago here
>
> http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.024005
Unfortunately for you this does not in any way diminish the standing
of black holes in the astrophysical community. I know you have a real
hardon for anything that possibly dents general relativity, but try
reading for comprehension. It is argued that an object tossed towards
the event horizon will never properly reach it before the hole
evaporates relative to an external observer. Since the object will
_NEVER_ reach the hole according to external observers in classical
GR, this isn't terribly surprising.
That black holes exist and obey certain properties has not been under
serious debate for a long, long time now. You need to get with the
times, and get over your hated of general relativity. I don't know why
you hate it so much...maybe you couldn't hack the math, or someone hit
you with MTW when you were little but you really, really need to get
over it.
Eric Gisse
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > * Agreement with observation consistent with a near-maximal spin Kerr
> > black hole. I can find a bunch more of these, this is just my personal
> > favorite.http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/...
>
> If black holes contain actual infinities, then they cannot exist.
The theory contains the infinities, the actual object shouldn't.
Black holes are observed. The sooner some of you guys figure this out
and learn to cope, the better off you'll be.
[...]
>
> General Relativity is a splendid piece of mathematics, built on
> quicksand (: Leon Brillouin in "Relativity Reexamined", Academic
> Press, 1970).
>
> http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9780121349455/Leon_Brillouin/Relati...
>
> Just sceptic.
>
> Han de Bruijn
Comments on the book:
It is old. It predates much of the best experimental evidence for both
special ['restricted'] and general relativity. It will be dated, at
best.
He observed that we assume v_gravitation = c. The problem remains to
this day. We are /sure/ that information propagates at c, as well as /
changes/ in gravitation. Gravitation itself is up for grabs, partly
because defining the speed of gravity is hard.
He writes the equation E_total = mc^2 + U, where U is potential
energy. This has zero support within SR itself as it is a kinematical
theory of free particles. Since he discusses electromagnetic theory
exclusively, it is OK because it all works out anyway. It is slightly
distressing that he either doesn't understand this or doesn't discuss
it. He later introduces moving particles but neglects the energy
obtained from that - remember, E^2 = [mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2.
"Any arbitrary change of coordinates can be applied and an infinite
number of solutions obtained! Eisntein's methods are much too general
and do not yield any precise answer."
This guy does not understand the principle of covariance and the
nature of the metric tensor. This is unfortunate because he was a good
solid-state physicist. He notes that a change of coordinates gives you
a different metric tensor, but fails to realize that the physics
hasn't changed simply because you change coordinates. Seeing him say
this honestly is surprising.
"There is no experimental check to support the very heavy mathematical
structure of Einstein. All we find is another heavy structure of
purely mathematical extensions, complements, or modifications without
any more experimental evidence. To put it candidly, science fiction
about cosmology - very interesting but hypothetical"
He cites the 3 results [at the time] of GR: Light deflection,
Mercury's perihelion advance, and gravitational redshift of solar
spectral lines as not being conclusive enough. I find that curious,
but I don't really care because observation has significantly advanced
in the intervening decades. I find it even more curious that he
doesn't mention the Pound & Rebka and later the Pound & Snider
experiments as experimental support for GR, but sees fit to reference
them in his discussion of quantum theory.
What bullshit is this? "A physical frame of reference must be very
heavy."?! Urgh. He confuses his approximations with actual
requirements on what defines an inertial frame. Why have I not yet
once seen the full energy-momentum relation E^2 = [mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2?
Lovely, twins paradox. Skip a few pages...
Great. He is whining about the speed of gravitation again. Focus on
something else, goddamnit!
NO - locality and boundary conditions are NOT interconnected. Ugh.
Fun, he is 'analyzing' general relativity by using Newtonian
gravitation and Newtonian kinematics, while tossing in E=mc^2 when he
sees fit. My amount of caring is approaching an end, but fortunately
so is the book. Why did I bother going to the library for you?
What the FUCK? "Later in the discussion it is assumed that at large
distances the metric tensor should correspond to /Euclidean
vacuum/..." NO! THIS IS WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG! The discussion of
the Schwarzschild solution is already off to a horrible start.
Lovely. He assumes that because the metric tensor is not a function of
time, he can create a preferred frame of reference. Once again, the
principle of covariance flies right over his head.
Cute, he is talking about the field created by a mass and he wants to
preserve E = mc^2. If he were posting today about relativity, I would
rip him to shreds.
Why is he bringing up Maxwell's equations? He started off the chapter
with Schwarzschild, and has completely diverged. He has not *once*
used general relativity in this chapter.
Fuck it, I'm not reading chapter 8. This book is shit, I would throw
it away if the library would let me get away with it. Why we have
*two* copies of this shitheap is beyond my mortal understanding. I
don't care how good of a solid state physicist this guy was, because
he doesn't know /shit/ about relativity. He obviously loves his
classical mechanics and classical electromagnetic theory because he
uses both more than he uses actual relativity.
Why did you have me read this book? This was an hour wasted that I
will never get back.
Eric Gisse
> Garyl wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 4:49 pm, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
> >>Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >>>* Agreement with observation consistent with a near-maximal spin Kerr
> >>>black hole. I can find a bunch more of these, this is just my personal
> >>>favorite.http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/...
>
> >>If black holes contain actual infinities, then they cannot exist.
>
> >>>need to cover.
>
> >>>* Frame dragging & geodetic effect
> >>>* Gravitational time dilation
> >>>* Precession of perihelion
> >>>* Shapiro delay
> >>>* Gravitational lensing
> >>>* Gravitational redshift
>
> >>>You see, I have been studying cosmology for quite awhile now. All that
> >>>I have listed has been pulled off the top of my head or from a handy
> >>>bookmarks folder. Finding a flat space theory that matches a few of
> >>>what is listed isn't terribly difficult. However, to my knowledge,
> >>>there is not one flat space theory that matches /all/ of them.
>
> >>General Relativity is a splendid piece of mathematics, built on
> >>quicksand (: Leon Brillouin in "Relativity Reexamined", Academic
> >>Press, 1970).
>
> >>http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9780121349455/Leon_Brillouin/Relati...
>
> >>Just sceptic.
>
> > very accurate the behavior of gravity? It's as if nature designs
> > reality to be in such a way that GR is just a cover for something
> > else... to hide something else... perhaps the real force of gravity.
> > What mathematical coincidence can explain it?
>
> Seriously. Haven't you noticed that Einstein adapted his equations, in
> order to obtain Newton's gravitation law in the non-relativistic limit?
Correspondence.
GR has to reduce to Newton at some limit.
>
> And BTW, I didn't say General Relativity is false. I've only suggested
> it's overkill.
Not in strong field situations or where your equipment is rather
precise.
If your only understanding of GR is from this book, I would encourage
you to never talk about GR again.
>
> Han de Bruijn
Eric Gisse
>
> > >>Garyl wrote:
>
> > [ I give you the last word on most issues ]
>
> If there is no SR and GR just came out of nowhether.
> Then I'd doubt it very much. But in light of SR, GR is
> very natural, almost like a common sense. I guess
> I'm still hypnotised by relativists if that's the case.
> Hope Shubee can convince us because I want to
> see greener pasteur. SR and GR is just pretty boring
> and simple.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>The book
> > >>>you mentioned "Relativity ReExamined" is not available
> > >>>anywhere. Do you have a copy? Can you summarize its
> > >>>main points?
>
> > >>A good book (and this IS one) can not be summarized without danger. I'm
> > >>very proud to have it in my personal library (among other works, such as
> > >>"The Theory of Heat Radiation" by Max Planck). I would like to publish
> > >>such things on the Internet, but CopyRight issues are still prohibiting,
> > >>I think ..
> > >>BTW. How long does it take before you can republish a book from 1970, if
> > >>the author has died in 1969 ? In general: when do CopyRights expire ?
>
> > > and Bush. I hereby declare it decopyrighted. So you can post the
> > > contents to a web site now so we can scrutinize it.
>
> > > :)
>
> > Serious:
>
> >http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html
>
> Just how good the book is. Summarize the major points.
> If it's good enough. I could get a second hand copy even
> if it costs marginally high.
Don't bother.
It is CRAP. This guy doesn't know anything about relativity - special
or general. It was a hundred pages of wasted time. I wish to punish it
for wasting my time because the guy who wrote it is dead and can't
suffer my wrath.
>
> gar
>
>
>
> > Han de Bruijn- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
If the theory is wrong, it must be discarded. Keeping garbage theories
isn't physics.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> (Section 2)http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
Garyl
You just read the 110 page book in one hour? You must be
a speed reader. You should have savored every page of it, lol.
I feel these folks who hate Einstein and relativity (SR/GR)
are God fearing if not consciously then unconsciously.
Prior to Einstein in the newtonian worldview. God sits
in the universe and have accessed to all points at once.
The occultists also believe in the ether and it is interconnected.
Einstein annihilate their worlds in one blow. So these anti-
relativists
are unconsciously religious and just can't accept that their God
and ether is no more.
But despair not anti-relativists religious crowd. We can still
say the universe is a simulation to develope souls and God
indeed sit behind spacetime and can freeze everything at
once (by nulling HUP) and then go to any point in time.
We can't tell if it freezes (or paused) because our clock
measures the movement of things (and hence relativie). And
if all things freeze from time to time. Then we can't tell the
difference. So I hope anti-relativists and the religious crowd
like Shubee can give more convincing arguments against
relativity. If you can't fight it, then embrace and just treat
the world as a simulation to train souls. That way. You
can embrance both GR and your God and be at peace.
gar