Universe's expansion may be understood without dark energy

[Perpetual Student]

If he predicts lensing is 5x greater than GR, he's ruled out. Newtonian gravity (treating light as a very fast particle) gives a factor of 2 different from GR, and that's easily ruled out.
...

When your theory affects the way objects or light propagate through gravity fields, as his evidently does, the first thing to do is test it against physics we understand much better, like the solar system or ground-based gravity experiments.

Actually, he does explain why we do not see a deflection of 5x near the sun on pages 4 and 5. LINK

 

[Vorticity]

via a comment on the physorg link - http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2629v1 - the guy claims to have solved Riemann's Hypothesis (page 12). And he does it in less than half a page.

His "result" is based on a typo in Equation 7.2.3:

He omitted a factor of r in the exponent when going from the left-hand side to the right-hand side of the second equality.

Even if that r could be omitted, his condition would imply sigma = 0, not sigma = 1/2.

 

[Dumb All Over]

oh, pish-posh!

What are numbers, anyway? Just letters you can't spell things with.

3722145

 

[Cheetah]

Don't dismiss this as "crackpot" on the say-so of some anonymous guy on the internet. ......
And don't let other people do your thinking for you.

Ha, ha, ha.....how I would LOVE to always think for myself, but as someone who struggled to pass 1st year courses in Maths/Chem/Physics back in the 80's I'm frankly incapable at this moment (I mostly managed by having a tremendous short-term memory and most of that has long since seeped out into the aether).

I have also been reading these forums for many years before finally joining and 'know' most of the regular anonymous posters, sol invictus has always come across as very knowledgeable on these types of matters.

 

[Vorticity]

His "result" is based on a typo in Equation 7.2.3:

He omitted a factor of r in the exponent when going from the left-hand side to the right-hand side of the second equality.

Even if that r could be omitted, his condition would imply sigma = 0, not sigma = 1/2.

Also, and more importantly, his expression 7.2.1 for the RZ function is valid only for Re(s) > 1, which excludes the region of interest.

(You have to use various forms of analytical continuation to evaluate Zeta(s) for the entire complex plane.)

 

[bjornart]

oh, pish-posh!

What are numbers, anyway? Just letters you can't spell things with.

3722145

5318008

 

[sol invictus]

Actually, he does explain why we do not see a deflection of 5x near the sun on pages 4 and 5. LINK

I saw that before. He gives a vague argument (that sounds wrong for several reasons) that the measured angle should be less than 5x, but he doesn't compare it to data and doesn't do any sort of careful job with it.

Moreover, that's only one of many observations of gravitational lensing, and then there's such things as the orbits of the planets (which are probably significantly perturbed compared to both Newton and Einstein), etc.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I saw that before. He gives a vague argument (that sounds wrong for several reasons) that the measured angle should be less than 5x, but he doesn't compare it to data and doesn't do any sort of careful job with it.

Moreover, that's only one of many observations of gravitational lensing, and then there's such things as the orbits of the planets (which are probably significantly perturbed compared to both Newton and Einstein), etc.

Sadly, I'm unable to follow the argument in his paper -- even though you make it sound so simple. It's very strange. Would he not have had this stuff reviewed by colleagues before publishing it?

 

[sol invictus]

Sadly, I'm unable to follow the argument in his paper -- even though you make it sound so simple. It's very strange. Would he not have had this stuff reviewed by colleagues before publishing it?

He put out a paper in which he claims to have solved the Riemann conjecture in half a page. If his proof were correct (which of course it isn't), he would be the most famous mathematician in the world. So clearly there's something wrong with him.

As for how he got those papers published, that's a good question.

 

[Perpetual Student]

He put out a paper in which he claims to have solved the Riemann conjecture in half a page. If his proof were correct (which of course it isn't), he would be the most famous mathematician in the world. So clearly there's something wrong with him.

Yes.

 

[Farsight]

That quote of Einstein is about the propagation of light through a gravity field in Einstein's own theory, namely general relativity. This paper contradicts general relativity. So why is Einstein's quote relevant?

Because Annila says "when light passes by a local energy-dense area, such as a star, the speed of light will change and its direction of propagation will change". Einstein said this: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis". To back that up, Einstein also said this: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position".

The latter is from section 22 of the 1920 translation of Relativity: The Special and General Theory. In the original German version in 1916 she actually said "die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert" which translates to the speed of light varies with the locality. So there is some common ground between Annila and Einstein. I don't think Annila is wholly right, but it isn't a black-and-white world, nobody gets everything right, and he doesn't deserve epithets like crazy and crackpot.

I have also been reading these forums for many years before finally joining and 'know' most of the regular anonymous posters, sol invictus has always come across as very knowledgeable on these types of matters.

OK noted. You might have a read back through the thread.

 

[sol invictus]

Because Annila says "when light passes by a local energy-dense area, such as a star, the speed of light will change and its direction of propagation will change". Einstein said this: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis". To back that up, Einstein also said this: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position".

The latter is from section 22 of the 1920 translation of Relativity: The Special and General Theory. In the original German version in 1916 she actually said "die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert" which translates to the speed of light varies with the locality. So there is some common ground between Annila and Einstein. I don't think Annila is wholly right, but it isn't a black-and-white world, nobody gets everything right, and he doesn't deserve epithets like crazy and crackpot.

I don't care what Anila says in words, I care that his mathematical results contradict those derived from Einstein's theory.

As for his crackpot score, he claims to have solved the Riemann hypothesis in half a page. As I said, that makes him either the greatest mathematical genius of our time or a crackpot (because any sensible person would have checked the proof and found the error before publishing it). And I have a strong suspicion that his physics is just as bad as his math, but I confess to not bothering to check carefully.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I don't think Annila is wholly right, but it isn't a black-and-white world, nobody gets everything right, and he doesn't deserve epithets like crazy and crackpot.

If he did indeed prove the Riemann hypothesis, it would have made headlines in the world of mathematics -- maybe even a little write up in the NY Times. As Vorticity already pointed out, he seems to have omitted a factor of r in an exponent -- take a look at that page. As sol invictus points out, it makes his physics very suspect.

 

[Vorpal]

According to Annila, around a massive body (Φ = -GM/rc²) light has a squared refractive index
[1] n² = c²/v² = 1/(1+Φ) ~ 1-Φ,
which is a factor of 4 in magnitude and opposite sign of GTR's prediction. So I gather his weak-field prediction for the metric is
[2] ds² = -(1+2Φ+Φ²)(cdt)² + (1+Φ)dS², dS² = dx²+dy²+dz²,
and that's falsified in a half-dozen different ways in addition to the solar-system light deflection: Shapiro delay, precession of Mercury (about 1/6 of the true over-Newtonian correction), etc.

You can't mess about with light propagation in this way without also messing up, well... just about everything, because the 1+2Φ leading term must be there to reproduce Newtonian orbits.

 

[Rascal_Sage]

The numbers are: M, R, LD, k & H

What are numbers, anyway?

The numbers are provided in the Duality DE thesis, 3rd post.

That link again: www.dark-energy.org

 

[Farsight]

If he did indeed prove the Riemann hypothesis, it would have made headlines in the world of mathematics -- maybe even a little write up in the NY Times. As Vorticity already pointed out, he seems to have omitted a factor of r in an exponent -- take a look at that page. As sol invictus points out, it makes his physics very suspect.

There's a bit of a catch-22 in your first statement. I know of physicists who have come up with some pretty good stuff but it gets no publicity at all. Ergo they must be wrong? As for the general picture, the situation is something like the modern equivalent of a heretic. The guy is saying something interesting, but others urge you to dismiss everything he says because he made a mistake in a Latin transcript. Sadly you are unable to follow the Latin in his transcript, so you can't properly judge for yourself. When you press them on what the guy is saying and some other guy shows an important link to Einstein's GR which he allegedly contradicts, what you then get is essentially I don't care what he says, followed by Latin, followed by burn him.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The guy is saying something interesting, but others urge you to dismiss everything he says because he made a mistake in a Latin transcript. Sadly you are unable to follow the Latin in his transcript, so you can't properly judge for yourself. When you press them on what the guy is saying and some other guy shows an important link to Einstein's GR which he allegedly contradicts, what you then get is essentially I don't care what he says, followed by Latin, followed by burn him.

The mistakes are in his mathematics, not his Latin:

His "result" is based on a typo in Equation 7.2.3:

He omitted a factor of r in the exponent when going from the left-hand side to the right-hand side of the second equality.

Even if that r could be omitted, his condition would imply sigma = 0, not sigma = 1/2.

Also, and more importantly, his expression 7.2.1 for the RZ function is valid only for Re(s) > 1, which excludes the region of interest.

According to Annila, around a massive body (Φ = -GM/rc²) light has a squared refractive index
[1] n² = c²/v² = 1/(1+Φ) ~ 1-Φ,
which is a factor of 4 in magnitude and opposite sign of GTR's prediction. So I gather his weak-field prediction for the metric is
[2] ds² = -(1+2Φ+Φ²)(cdt)² + (1+Φ)dS², dS² = dx²+dy²+dz²,
and that's falsified in a half-dozen different ways in addition to the solar-system light deflection: Shapiro delay, precession of Mercury (about 1/6 of the true over-Newtonian correction), etc.

You can't mess about with light propagation in this way without also messing up, well... just about everything, because the 1+2Φ leading term must be there to reproduce Newtonian orbits.

 

[Dancing David]

As for the general picture, the situation is something like the modern equivalent of a heretic. The guy is saying something interesting, but others urge you to dismiss everything he says because he made a mistake in a Latin transcript.

Nope, the conclusions as pointed out by Vorpal are wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

As for the general picture, the situation is something like the modern equivalent of a heretic. The guy is saying something interesting, but others urge you to dismiss everything he says because he made a mistake in a Latin transcript. Sadly you are unable to follow the Latin in his transcript, so you can't properly judge for yourself. When you press them on what the guy is saying and some other guy shows an important link to Einstein's GR which he allegedly contradicts, what you then get is essentially I don't care what he says, followed by Latin, followed by burn him.

I always find it interesting how people's brains manage to maintain a fantasy in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The idea that physics crackpots are treated like "heretics" is one such fantasy.

Heretics were burned at the stake, or at least suffered grave consequences for their beliefs. Physics crackpots are ignored. There is a massive gulf between these two outcomes - in fact, it's hard to imagine anything further from "burned at the stake" than "ignored".

The reason is quite simple. Heretics challenged a faith-based belief system that relied precisely on viciously suppressing alternative ideas, since it had nothing going for it besides that. Physics, and science in general, relies on just the opposite - it relies on continual self-checking, continual attacks and attempted falsifications originating from its own practitioners. It has nothing to fear from such attacks, because it is those attacks. Attacks (at least rational ones) can only make it bigger and stronger.

When someone comes along and says "I have a brilliant theory that does such and such", their theory is subjected to exactly the same kind of scrutiny that all scientific ideas are. And if it fails in some obvious way that they clearly should have recognized themselves, well, they lose a big chunk of credibility and run the risk of being ignored from then on as not worth the time.

 

[Vorpal]

Because Annila says "when light passes by a local energy-dense area, such as a star, the speed of light will change and its direction of propagation will change". Einstein said this: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis". To back that up, Einstein also said this: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position".

Uh... yes? You place too much importance on a very vague similarity.

When you press them on what the guy is saying and some other guy shows an important link to Einstein's GR which he allegedly contradicts, what you then get is essentially I don't care what he says, followed by Latin, followed by burn him.

The important link is, what, that light bends because the gravitational potential acts somewhat analogously to a variable index of refraction? Take a look at this wikipedia page. All those theories of gravity for which γ is not -1? The exact same thing happens in all of them. It is not some deep link between Einstein and Annila; it's a basic feature of theories of gravity which couple to light. For Φ = -GM/rc², just as for Annila's massive body case he discusses at the beginning,
[latex]$ds^2 = -(1+2\Phi+2\beta\Phi^2+\ldots)(c\,dt)^2 + (1-2\gamma\Phi+\ldots)dS^2$[/latex]
Therefore for light, ds = 0 gives:
[latex]$n^{-2} = (dS^2/dt^2)/c^2 = 1 + 2(\gamma+1)\Phi + 2(\beta+2\gamma(\gamma+1))\Phi^2 + \ldots$[/latex]
So Annila's theory forces γ = -1/2 and, which is ruled out in several ways: angular deflection of light discussed previously, Shapiro delay (e.g., Cassini), and gyroscopic precession (e.g., Gravity Probe B), and probably some other ways I'm ignorant of. GTR requires this to be 1.

In other words: even if one were to take Annila's handwaving of why we don't see a corresponding increase of deflection for the Sun as a given, it still just doesn't work, because the angular deflection if not the only thing this change affects. There's a potential loophole as to whether Annila's theory predicts β = 1/2, but if it does, the number of types of observations that contradict it becomes 'just about everything'.