info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How Einstein's General Relativity Predicts
41 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 23, 2017, 3:17:37 AM8/23/17
to
The "prediction" of the Mercury anomaly is paradigmatic - it was the result of endlessly adjusting and amending the model until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."
https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss011/home%20page/EBms.pdf
Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not deduced from postulates. It is a non-deductive empirical compilation - a malleable combination of ad hoc equations and fudge factors allowing Einsteinians to predict anything they want. Non-deductive models in physics are essentially equivalent to the "empirical models" defined here:
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
The primary tumor, general relativity, has many metastases nowadays:
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with the lack of empirical support."
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html
Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
Pentcho Valev
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."
https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss011/home%20page/EBms.pdf
Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not deduced from postulates. It is a non-deductive empirical compilation - a malleable combination of ad hoc equations and fudge factors allowing Einsteinians to predict anything they want. Non-deductive models in physics are essentially equivalent to the "empirical models" defined here:
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
The primary tumor, general relativity, has many metastases nowadays:
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with the lack of empirical support."
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html
Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
Pentcho Valev
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 23, 2017, 3:40:32 AM8/23/17
to
W dniu środa, 23 sierpnia 2017 09:17:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> The "prediction" of the Mercury anomaly is paradigmatic - it was the result of endlessly adjusting and amending the model until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:
What's wrong about that?
> The "prediction" of the Mercury anomaly is paradigmatic - it was the result of endlessly adjusting and amending the model until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:
Pentcho Valev
Aug 23, 2017, 4:02:50 AM8/23/17
to
Pentcho Valev
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 23, 2017, 4:20:35 AM8/23/17
to
for me. We, professionals, want our models to be adjustable.
We surely don't want them to be ruined by the firsr detail
we didn't predict.
Séverin Thibault
Aug 23, 2017, 5:02:11 AM8/23/17
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The "prediction" of the Mercury anomaly is paradigmatic - it was the
> result of endlessly adjusting and amending the model until "excellent
> agreement with observation" was reached:
>
> Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad
> Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set
> himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it
> might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed
> motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted
> on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...]
Excellent observation, my Dr. I always said that "adjusted" observation
> The "prediction" of the Mercury anomaly is paradigmatic - it was the
> result of endlessly adjusting and amending the model until "excellent
> agreement with observation" was reached:
>
> Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad
> Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set
> himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it
> might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed
> motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted
> on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...]
was in fact impossible to perform at that time, since you had to follow
the motion in time, then plot the data in PARALLEL and SYNCHRONOUS. Just
in order to be able to arrive at a such conclusion so very fast, as
demanded by the Scientific Method at that time.
Pentcho Valev
Aug 23, 2017, 7:41:07 AM8/23/17
to
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:20:35 AM UTC+3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> We, professionals, want our models to be adjustable.
> We surely don't want them to be ruined by the firsr detail
> we didn't predict.
You don't want them to be falsifiable? Down with Popper? String theorists see much wisdom in your words.
> We, professionals, want our models to be adjustable.
> We surely don't want them to be ruined by the firsr detail
> we didn't predict.
Pentcho Valev
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 23, 2017, 8:15:49 AM8/23/17
to
W dniu środa, 23 sierpnia 2017 13:41:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:20:35 AM UTC+3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > We, professionals, want our models to be adjustable.
> > We surely don't want them to be ruined by the firsr detail
> > we didn't predict.
>
> You don't want them to be falsifiable?
Some minor details can be, but it is optional.
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:20:35 AM UTC+3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > We, professionals, want our models to be adjustable.
> > We surely don't want them to be ruined by the firsr detail
> > we didn't predict.
>
> You don't want them to be falsifiable?
Take a look at Newton's dynamics. Or Euclidean
geometry. Well crafted theories are unfalsifiable.
They always were.
> Down with Popper?
He never understood much. Poincare was much smarter.
> String theorists see much wisdom in your words.
There are some of them around. They don't like me.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 23, 2017, 10:05:06 AM8/23/17
to
empirical data. It ALWAYS HAS HAD that.
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
Aug 23, 2017, 10:05:49 AM8/23/17
to
Pentcho Valev
Aug 23, 2017, 2:08:19 PM8/23/17
to
Even a single fudge factor (not deduced from postulates) is enough to show that the "theory" is a not-even-wrong empirical concoction:
"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
"In 1916 Einstein found what he considered a glitch in his new theory of general relativity. His equations showed that the contents of the universe should be moving - either expanding or contracting. But at the time, the universe seemed the very definition of stasis. All the data, facts, and phenomena known in the early 1900s said that the Milky Way was the cosmos itself and that its stars moved slowly, if at all. Einstein had presented the definitive version of the general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences the previous year, and he was not inclined to retract it. So he invented a fudge factor, called lambda, that could function mathematically to hold the universe at a standstill. [...] Lambda, also known as the cosmological constant, has come in handy of late."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes/
Ken Croswell, Magnificent Universe, p. 179: "Ever since, the cosmological constant has lived in infamy, a fudge factor concocted merely to make theory agree with observation." http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Universe-Ken-Croswell/dp/0684845946
In order to be consistent with dark matter, general relativity needs four fudge factors:
"Verlinde's calculations fit the new study's observations without resorting to free parameters – essentially values that can be tweaked at will to make theory and observation match. By contrast, says Brouwer, conventional dark matter models need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/
How many fudge factors LIGO conspirators needed in order to model the nonexistent gravitational waves is a deep mystery:
"Cornell professors Saul Teukolsky, astrophysics, and Larry Kidder, astronomy, played an instrumental role in the first detection of gravitational waves, a century after Albert Einstein predicted their existence in his theory of general relativity. [...] The LIGO and Virgo group confirmed that these gravitational waves had come from the collision of black holes by comparing their data with a theoretical model developed at Cornell. Teukolsky and the Cornell-founded Simulation of eXtreme Spacetimes collaboration group have been developing this model since 2000, according to the University." http://cornellsun.com/2016/02/10/cornell-scientists-validate-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/
Pentcho Valev
"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
"In 1916 Einstein found what he considered a glitch in his new theory of general relativity. His equations showed that the contents of the universe should be moving - either expanding or contracting. But at the time, the universe seemed the very definition of stasis. All the data, facts, and phenomena known in the early 1900s said that the Milky Way was the cosmos itself and that its stars moved slowly, if at all. Einstein had presented the definitive version of the general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences the previous year, and he was not inclined to retract it. So he invented a fudge factor, called lambda, that could function mathematically to hold the universe at a standstill. [...] Lambda, also known as the cosmological constant, has come in handy of late."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes/
Ken Croswell, Magnificent Universe, p. 179: "Ever since, the cosmological constant has lived in infamy, a fudge factor concocted merely to make theory agree with observation." http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Universe-Ken-Croswell/dp/0684845946
In order to be consistent with dark matter, general relativity needs four fudge factors:
"Verlinde's calculations fit the new study's observations without resorting to free parameters – essentially values that can be tweaked at will to make theory and observation match. By contrast, says Brouwer, conventional dark matter models need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/
How many fudge factors LIGO conspirators needed in order to model the nonexistent gravitational waves is a deep mystery:
"Cornell professors Saul Teukolsky, astrophysics, and Larry Kidder, astronomy, played an instrumental role in the first detection of gravitational waves, a century after Albert Einstein predicted their existence in his theory of general relativity. [...] The LIGO and Virgo group confirmed that these gravitational waves had come from the collision of black holes by comparing their data with a theoretical model developed at Cornell. Teukolsky and the Cornell-founded Simulation of eXtreme Spacetimes collaboration group have been developing this model since 2000, according to the University." http://cornellsun.com/2016/02/10/cornell-scientists-validate-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/
Pentcho Valev
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 23, 2017, 3:18:14 PM8/23/17
to
W dniu środa, 23 sierpnia 2017 16:05:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 8/23/17 6:41 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:20:35 AM UTC+3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >> We, professionals, want our models to be adjustable.
> >> We surely don't want them to be ruined by the firsr detail
> >> we didn't predict.
> >
> > You don't want them to be falsifiable? Down with Popper? String theorists see much wisdom in your words.
>
> And indeed, Wozniak has little regard for the scientific method.
Or rather, for so called "scientific method".
> On 8/23/17 6:41 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:20:35 AM UTC+3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >> We, professionals, want our models to be adjustable.
> >> We surely don't want them to be ruined by the firsr detail
> >> we didn't predict.
> >
> > You don't want them to be falsifiable? Down with Popper? String theorists see much wisdom in your words.
>
> And indeed, Wozniak has little regard for the scientific method.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Aug 23, 2017, 3:58:42 PM8/23/17
to
0 new messages