DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[W.D.Clinger]

In philippeb8's unique world things that are different can have no relationship. Relationships can only exist between things that are exactly the same.

Let's not understate the hilarity of philippeb8's latest howlers.

c, G and c^2/G are 3 different things. The 1st is the speed of light, the 2nd is Newton's gravitational constant and the 3rd is the ambient gravitational potential in the solar system. Thus they have no relation.

Gravitational potentials are negative except at infinity (where they are zero), and the units of a gravitational potential are work per unit mass, e.g. Joules per kilogram, which is m²/s² when reduced to base SI units.

c²/G is positive and has units of mass per meter, e.g. kg/m.

It is therefore impossible for c²/G to be a gravitational potential of any kind.

Ok then, show the derivation of c^2/G. Thanks.

Hint: constants do not have derivations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations#Mathematical_form

Maybe that's why GR is not scalable, what do you think?

philippeb8's "hint" links to a statement of Einstein's field equations, which are (with the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler sign and subscript conventions)

R_μν - ½ R g_μν + Λ g_μν = κ T_μν​

where the constant κ is

κ = 8 π G / (c⁴)​

With Einstein's original formulation of those equations, a constant was introduced in equations (49) and (50), which express the solution of a differential equation. (philippeb8, of course, may not be aware that solving an indefinite integral introduces an unknown constant or parameter.) In Einstein's 1916 paper, the units of that parameter are length per mass, e.g. m/kg, which is the inverse of the kg/m units of philippeb8's c²/G. It is therefore possible that philippeb8 got his c²/G by combining a misreading of Einstein's 1916 paper with a misreading of the Wikipedia article he/she cited; in what follows, however, I will consider another possible source of philippeb8's confusion.

At any rate, Einstein's solution of the differential equations derived within his paper led to the introduction of an unknown parameter. To fix the value of that parameter, Einstein used the technique engineers, scientists, and mathematicians throughout the world use to solve boundary value problems: set the parameter equal to the value that makes the parameterized general solution match a known real-world value at the boundary. In Einstein's paper, that meant the parameter must have the unique value that made Einstein's general theory of relativity coincide with Newton's theory of gravitation in the Newtonian limit. Hence Einstein's equation (69).

That explains how Einstein derived the value of his constant, and it explains how the corresponding constant κ was derived in the modern formulation philippeb8 challenged us to explain.

All that is left to explain is philippeb8's bizarre infatuation with c²/G and his/her belief that it could have anything to do with a gravitational potential. In the above, I mentioned one possible source of that confusion. Another possible source is the so-called Schwarzschild radius

r_s = 2 G M / c²​

Once again, however, we see G/c² rather than c²/G. Perhaps philippeb8 just reads these things upside down.

 

[philippeb8]

Let's not understate the hilarity of philippeb8's latest howlers.




Gravitational potentials are negative except at infinity (where they are zero), and the units of a gravitational potential are work per unit mass, e.g. Joules per kilogram, which is m²/s² when reduced to base SI units.

c²/G is positive and has units of mass per meter, e.g. kg/m.

It is therefore impossible for c²/G to be a gravitational potential of any kind.

It's a "relative" gravitational potential of the observed object and observer ratio where G is taken simplified. I explain all this in my paper.

philippeb8's "hint" links to a statement of Einstein's field equations, which are (with the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler sign and subscript conventions)

R_μν - ½ R g_μν + Λ g_μν = κ T_μν​

where the constant κ is

κ = 8 π G / (c⁴)​

With Einstein's original formulation of those equations, a constant was introduced in equations (49) and (50), which express the solution of a differential equation. (philippeb8, of course, may not be aware that solving an indefinite integral introduces an unknown constant or parameter.) In Einstein's 1916 paper, the units of that parameter are length per mass, e.g. m/kg, which is the inverse of the kg/m units of philippeb8's c²/G. It is therefore possible that philippeb8 got his c²/G by combining a misreading of Einstein's 1916 paper with a misreading of the Wikipedia article he/she cited; in what follows, however, I will consider another possible source of philippeb8's confusion.

At any rate, Einstein's solution of the differential equations derived within his paper led to the introduction of an unknown parameter. To fix the value of that parameter, Einstein used the technique engineers, scientists, and mathematicians throughout the world use to solve boundary value problems: set the parameter equal to the value that makes the parameterized general solution match a known real-world value at the boundary. In Einstein's paper, that meant the parameter must have the unique value that made Einstein's general theory of relativity coincide with Newton's theory of gravitation in the Newtonian limit. Hence Einstein's equation (69).

That explains how Einstein derived the value of his constant, and it explains how the corresponding constant κ was derived in the modern formulation philippeb8 challenged us to explain.

All that is left to explain is philippeb8's bizarre infatuation with c²/G and his/her belief that it could have anything to do with a gravitational potential. In the above, I mentioned one possible source of that confusion. Another possible source is the so-called Schwarzschild radius

r_s = 2 G M / c²​

Once again, however, we see G/c² rather than c²/G. Perhaps philippeb8 just reads these things upside down.

That is what I am saying, Einstein needed a constant to "coincide" or adjust his EFE with Newton's relative gravitational potential of the solar system.

Apparently Dr. Clinger is a public figure and he thinks calling me a "she" will intimidate me, just like teenagers do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Clinger_(computer_scientist)

I don't know why you would defend with sweat and tears the disinformation agenda the scientific community has but either way I am very disappointed.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Gravitational potentials are negative except at infinity (where they are zero), and the units of a gravitational potential are work per unit mass, e.g. Joules per kilogram, which is m²/s² when reduced to base SI units.

c²/G is positive and has units of mass per meter, e.g. kg/m.

It is therefore impossible for c²/G to be a gravitational potential of any kind.

It's a "relative" gravitational potential of the observed object and observer ratio where G is taken simplified. I explain all this in my paper.

Does your paper explain all that as clearly as you explained, five days ago, how any one of us could conduct a Do-It-Yourself experiment "that would put the nail in the spacetime curvature coffin once and for all"?

Today you challenged us to explain the derivation of that very same c²/G in Einstein's field equations, where that expression doesn't even appear as such. Were you under the impression Einstein, Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, and the Wikipedia authors and editors had read your paper and then chose to use your very own special personal idiosyncratic aberrant nonstandard peculiar deviant meaning?

I'm sorry, philippeb8, but describing c²/G as a gravitational potential and then trying to explain away that hilarity by saying you were using the phrase "gravitational potential" with the thoroughly nonstandard meaning you attach to c²/G in one of your unpublished blog articles is, well, hilarious.

That is what I am saying, Einstein needed a constant to "coincide" or adjust his EFE with Newton's relative gravitational potential of the solar system.

We call it calculus. You should try it sometime.

Apparently Dr. Clinger is a public figure and he thinks calling me a "she" will intimidate me, just like teenagers do:

Some months ago, this forum established a policy of requiring members to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to other members, or else to use pronouns that match the specific gender identity professed by the member. There are still a lot of members here, I know the professed gender identity of only a few, and it would take a lot of work to discover and then to remember everyone's professed gender identity, so I try to remember to use the gender-neutral "he/she" construction when referring to members whose professed gender identity is unknown to me. From what you wrote above, I assume your professed gender identity is compatible with the pronoun "he", and will try to remember that.

Please note, however, that "she" is just as honorable a pronoun as "he", as exemplified by its use in the story I cited about someone whose knowledge of calculus exceeds yours and was therefore able to surprise a couple of arrogant mathematicians who thought they'd have a laugh at her expense.

 

[philippeb8]

Does your paper explain all that as clearly as you explained, five days ago, how any one of us could conduct a Do-It-Yourself experiment "that would put the nail in the spacetime curvature coffin once and for all"?

For the experiment I was rushing it as I explained it multiple times. The bottom line is I have 3 majors experiments ready to disprove GR which were never done before and you guys still have none. And yes I explain all that very clearly. Hyperlinks is a simple concept as we, computer scientists, invented that:
https://www.fornux.com/files/pdf/Finite_Theory.pdf

Today you challenged us to explain the derivation of that very same c²/G in Einstein's field equations, where that expression doesn't even appear as such. Were you under the impression Einstein, Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, and the Wikipedia authors and editors had read your paper and then chose to use your very own special personal idiosyncratic aberrant nonstandard peculiar deviant meaning?

I'm sorry, philippeb8, but describing c²/G as a gravitational potential and then trying to explain away that hilarity by saying you were using the phrase "gravitational potential" with the thoroughly nonstandard meaning you attach to c²/G in one of your unpublished blog articles is, well, hilarious.

You're pretending not to understand anything I say for some reason.

Some months ago, this forum established a policy of requiring members to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to other members, or else to use pronouns that match the specific gender identity professed by the member. There are still a lot of members here, I know the professed gender identity of only a few, and it would take a lot of work to discover and then to remember everyone's professed gender identity, so I try to remember to use the gender-neutral "he/she" construction when referring to members whose professed gender identity is unknown to me. From what you wrote above, I assume your professed gender identity is compatible with the pronoun "he", and will try to remember that.

Thanks for the explanation but again if we use simple probability and statistics then the chances all Latin variations of Philippe, Phillip, Phil, or Felipe refers to a male are exactly 1.

 

[hecd2]

Thanks for the explanation but again if we use simple probability and statistics then the chances all Latin variations of Philippe, Phillip, Phil, or Felipe refers to a male are exactly 1.

Wrong yet again.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Does your paper explain all that as clearly as you explained, five days ago, how any one of us could conduct a Do-It-Yourself experiment "that would put the nail in the spacetime curvature coffin once and for all"?

For the experiment I was rushing it as I explained it multiple times. The bottom line is I have 3 majors experiments ready to disprove GR which were never done before and you guys still have none. And yes I explain all that very clearly. Hyperlinks is a simple concept as we, computer scientists, invented that:
https://www.fornux.com/files/pdf/Finite_Theory.pdf

Okay, I spent a few minutes looking at your paper. In equations (5) and (6), it looks as though m is a mass and r a radius. The rest of your paper confirms that impression.

In my experience, the mass m and radius r should be real numbers.

Are you aware that your equations (5) and (6), combined with the assumption that m and r are real numbers, imply m=0?

Let ξ be an abbreviation for m/(rh). Then equation (6) tells us equation (5) can be rewritten as

(1 + ξ)^-2 = 1 - 2ξ​

If we assume (1 + ξ) is nonzero, which seems reasonable because ξ=m/(rh) shouldn't be negative, then a bit of high school algebra allows us to derive

0 = - ξ² (3 - 2 ξ)​

which implies ξ=0 or ξ=3/2. If ξ=0, then m=0. If ξ=3/2, then the right hand side of equation (5) is negative, but the left hand side is the square of (1+ξ)^-1, implying (1+ξ) is an imaginary number.

 

[philippeb8]

Okay, I spent a few minutes looking at your paper. In equations (5) and (6), it looks as though m is a mass and r a radius. The rest of your paper confirms that impression.

In my experience, the mass m and radius r should be real numbers.

Are you aware that your equations (5) and (6), combined with the assumption that m and r are real numbers, imply m=0?

Let ξ be an abbreviation for m/(rh). Then equation (6) tells us equation (5) can be rewritten as

(1 + ξ)^-2 = 1 - 2ξ​

If we assume (1 + ξ) is nonzero, which seems reasonable because ξ=m/(rh) shouldn't be negative, then a bit of high school algebra allows us to derive

0 = - ξ² (3 - 2 ξ)​

which implies ξ=0 or ξ=3/2. If ξ=0, then m=0. If ξ=3/2, then the right hand side of equation (5) is negative, but the left hand side is the square of (1+ξ)^-1, implying (1+ξ) is an imaginary number.

Yeah indeed, thanks. I don't remember why I wrote that and I think another way to disprove it is by plugging in the event horizon of a black hole.

But I don't use [5] anywhere in the manuscript so I'll just strip it out.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yeah indeed, thanks. I don't remember why I wrote that and I think another way to disprove it is by plugging in the event horizon of a black hole.

But I don't use [5] anywhere in the manuscript so I'll just strip it out.

Equation (5) is an immediate consequence of equation (3), which is preceded by prose indicating your belief that equation (3) is obtained by combining special cases of equations (1) and (2). Equation (4) is an approximation to equation (5). I suggest you delete equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and so on until you have eliminated from the paper all ideas that depend upon or were inspired by equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and so on.

 

[philippeb8]

Equation (5) is an immediate consequence of equation (3), which is preceded by prose indicating your belief that equation (3) is obtained by combining special cases of equations (1) and (2). Equation (4) is an approximation to equation (5). I suggest you delete equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and so on until you have eliminated from the paper all ideas that depend upon or were inspired by equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and so on.

Oh yeah I remember. [5] is just [3] squared. Those are just identities. So it's fine.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh yeah I remember. [5] is just [3] squared. Those are just identities. So it's fine.

You're just fine with the fact that, starting with your alleged derivation of equation (3) from equations (1) and (2), your entire paper/proposal is limited to the special case of m=0?

 

[philippeb8]

You're just fine with the fact that, starting with your alleged derivation of equation (3) from equations (1) and (2), your entire paper/proposal is limited to the special case of m=0?

I'm still working right now so I'll review that within the next hour.

 

[philippeb8]

You're just fine with the fact that, starting with your alleged derivation of equation (3) from equations (1) and (2), your entire paper/proposal is limited to the special case of m=0?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[philippeb8]

You're just fine with the fact that, starting with your alleged derivation of equation (3) from equations (1) and (2), your entire paper/proposal is limited to the special case of m=0?

How do you explain I get exactly the same graphs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[W.D.Clinger]

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220201/8c5dd61aec46123ff13f7e13cdb59dd7.jpg[/qimg]

How do you explain I get exactly the same graphs?

The most likely explanation is cluelessness, although deceit has not been ruled out. You don't seem to understand the irrelevance of your graphs to your m=0 problem.

According to what you wrote in your paper, a special case of your equations (1) and (2) implies equation (3). Equation (3) implies equation (5) via high school algebra. When combined with those equations, your equation (6) implies m=0.

Your equation (4) is an approximation to equation (5), so the same proof that equations (5) and (6) imply m=0 carries over into a proof that equations (4) and (6) imply m≈0.

Here is what your paper says immediately after your equation (6), with my highlighting:

1.3 Kinetic time dilation factor

From the aforementioned definitions, it is implied the kinetic time dilation of a clock located between 2 comoving frameworks will be proportional to the ratio of the gravitational acceleration of each individual comoving framework with the total gravitational acceleration.

The "aforementioned definitions" are equations (1) through (6), which imply m=0, so that sentence is also limited to the special case of m=0.

You follow that sentence with equation (7), said to be an example. That alleged example has nonzero masses, however, so it cannot possibly be an example of whatever you think you're saying in the first sentence of section 1.3—because regardless of whatever that sentence might be saying, it is saying it only for the special case of m=0.

Immediately following that broken example, you write:

1.4 Gravitational time contraction

Since in the candidate theory the acceleration is de􏰅fined by gravitons pulling the body in the opposite direction of their velocity, the net eff􏰄ect of the gravitational acceleration already de􏰅fines the 􏰆flux. Unlike kinetic time dilation this is not an incident event but the residuum of the modus operandi by the acceleration vector magnitude.

In contrast to kinetic time dilation, gravitational time contraction will be used interdependently with the non-trivial ambient gravity 􏰅field of the observer, or fractionalized.

That word salad is even funnier when the reader is aware that everything you think you're saying there is limited to the special case of m=0.

And so on for pretty much everything you've written on pages 4 through 26 of your paper. There might be a few things in your paper that aren't contaminated by your reliance on equations that imply m=0, but that's not the way a sane reader would bet.

 

[philippeb8]

The most likely explanation is cluelessness, although deceit has not been ruled out. You don't seem to understand the irrelevance of your graphs to your m=0 problem.

According to what you wrote in your paper, a special case of your equations (1) and (2) implies equation (3). Equation (3) implies equation (5) via high school algebra. When combined with those equations, your equation (6) implies m=0.

Ok whatever, you discovered I need to change a = for a ≈ and I thank you for that but you keep capitalizing on that same relation in the hopes to silently dismiss everything else and in the hopes to restore the reputation of mainstream scientists and their dark matter, dark energy, wormholes and paradoxes.

Finally I'm not the only one who figured out that mainstream science is a proven fraud:

"Here on Curiosmos, we have discussed the problems in science on numerous occasions, and one of the main issues in modern days is reputation. Scientists fear the backlash of taking a risk and putting your head out for something that exists only in the realms of science fiction."

https://curiosmos.com/nasa-darpa-an...rldly-anti-gravity-tech-10-key-taking-points/

That should put the nail in the coffin.

 

[theprestige]

Ok whatever, you discovered I need to change a = for a ≈ and I thank you for that but you keep capitalizing on that same relation in the hopes to silently dismiss everything else and in the hopes to restore the reputation of mainstream scientists and their dark matter, dark energy, wormholes and paradoxes.

Finally I'm not the only one who figured out that mainstream science is a proven fraud:

"Here on Curiosmos, we have discussed the problems in science on numerous occasions, and one of the main issues in modern days is reputation. Scientists fear the backlash of taking a risk and putting your head out for something that exists only in the realms of science fiction."

https://curiosmos.com/nasa-darpa-an...rldly-anti-gravity-tech-10-key-taking-points/

That should put the nail in the coffin.

I know your hypothesis is wrong, because if it were right, low earth orbits would be unstable and satellites would be falling out of the sky as quickly as we put them up there.

 

[philippeb8]

I know your hypothesis is wrong, because if it were right, low earth orbits would be unstable and satellites would be falling out of the sky as quickly as we put them up there.

The hypotheses have nothing to do with v << c.

 

[theprestige]

The hypotheses have nothing to do with v << c.

You really haven't thought this through, have you? Your hypothesis is explicitly that gravitational influence is reduced by intervening masses. If your hypothesis were correct, low earth orbits would have to be unstable. They're observably not. So your hypothesis is wrong.

 

[philippeb8]

You really haven't thought this through, have you? Your hypothesis is explicitly that gravitational influence is reduced by intervening masses. If your hypothesis were correct, low earth orbits would have to be unstable. They're observably not. So your hypothesis is wrong.

I never say that.

 

[theprestige]

I never say that.

Sure you do. Your proposed experiment depends entirely on that claim. You really haven't thought this through, have you?