• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017 - Part IV

Reality Check

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
28,521
Location
New Zealand
Abysmal "first order in G" in equation 3 ignorance from Michel H

This is a continuation thread from here. As usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous parts of the thread.
Posted By: Agatha







In the "Strong field tests" section, wikipedia says:..
Repeats
8 June 2021: Michel H persists with "first order in G" ignorance about perihelion precession.
8 June 2021: Abysmal "it has not been quantitatively proved" ignorance from Michel H when he knows about Tests of general relativity - Strong field tests.
And adds
8 June 2021: Abysmal "first order in G" in Equation 3 ignorance from Michel H.
Gravitational Radiation from Point Masses in a Keplerian Orbit (PDF) by Peters and Mathews (1963) has Equation 3 which is a solution from linearized GR with only the "quadrupole approximation" (source dimension is small compared to the wavelength). G only appearing once in Equation 3 is not an ignorant fantasy of dropping higher terms. Multipole expansion is the next page and does explicitly drop J > 3 terms of the Fourier components of the radiation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rather off-topic but whenever I'm reminded of Eddington's verification of relativity's predictions in 1919 I have a moment of nostalgia for the Good Old Days of science when verifying laboratory theories involved trekking to the back of beyond with delicate brass and oak instruments and setting them up in places that made the observatory on Ben Nevis seem hospitable. Kids these days.....
BTW I recommend the BBC's Einstein and Eddington.

It's also a reminder of the time in 1932 when the US Navy, attempting to set up a similar test, discovered that One of Our Islands Is Missing....

I now return you to your normal channel of cranks people attempting to avoid accepting that their theories are wrong.
 
Rather off-topic but whenever I'm reminded of Eddington's verification of relativity's predictions in 1919 I have a moment of nostalgia for the Good Old Days of science when verifying laboratory theories involved trekking to the back of beyond with delicate brass and oak instruments and setting them up in places that made the observatory on Ben Nevis seem hospitable. Kids these days.....
BTW I recommend the BBC's Einstein and Eddington.

It's also a reminder of the time in 1932 when the US Navy, attempting to set up a similar test, discovered that One of Our Islands Is Missing....

I now return you to your normal channel of cranks people attempting to avoid accepting that their theories are wrong.

Nit pick: hypotheses, maybe, or ideas. None of these thoughts are consistent or coherent enough to rise to the level of theories.
 
Michel H said:
and then they give the expression for the gravitational power radiated in their equation (3), which is (only) first order in G (like the famous perihelion precession).
What makes you think that there are higher order terms in G in eqn 3?
 
Give sources for your "proved quantitatively only to first order in G" assertion

1 June 2021: Give sources for our "proved quantitatively only to first order in G" assertion about the Schwarzschild metric tensor.
That will not be cherry picking arbitrary equations from papers that just have G in them. Next we will have Newton and his gravitational law with a single G in it :p! You need the sources that you have read where higher order terms in G are explicitly discarded. You need to cite the papers applying that approximation to observations. For example, where in Two-body problem in general relativity - Precession of elliptical orbits are higher terms in G discarded? The answer is nowhere! This has an exact solution which is expanded by the binomial theorem in orders of 3rs2/a2. It is these terms that are truncated. Presumably because rs/a (where a is a length scale) is small so higher powers of it can be ignored.
 
What makes you think that there are higher order terms in G in eqn 3?
I believe it is likely. Imagine some masses emit some gravitational waves. General relativity is a nonlinear theory, so these waves are going to interact with the Newtonian gravitational field, and produce some very complicated waves, of orders G², G³ and so on (one can imagine Feynman diagrams).

These authors are using the linearized version of general relativity (only, look at the simple expression for the quadrupole moment in equation (4) of http://gravity.psu.edu/numrel/jclub/jc/Peters_Mathews_PR_131_435_1963.pdf), so they are not probing and testing the whole theory. Yet, this seems sufficient for analyzing the Hulse-Taylor pulsar.
 
This has an exact solution which is expanded by the binomial theorem in orders of 3rs2/a2. It is these terms that are truncated. Presumably because rs/a (where a is a length scale) is small so higher powers of it can be ignored.
I suggest you do a little exercise: calculate the next term of ωr²=ωφ²(1-3rS²/a²)1/2in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity#Precession_of_elliptical_orbits, making a Taylor expansion, and use this to calculate the precession angle δφ to order G² (according to the wikipedia calculation). I think this might help you to understand better that general relativity is quantitatively verified to first order in G only.
 
I suggest you do a little exercise: ...
Ignorant nonsense in reply to my post. There is no expansion in G as I explained and as is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia article.
My full poist:
1 June 2021: Give sources for our "proved quantitatively only to first order in G" assertion about the Schwarzschild metric tensor.
That will not be cherry picking arbitrary equations from papers that just have G in them. Next we will have Newton and his gravitational law with a single G in it :p! You need the sources that you have read where higher order terms in G are explicitly discarded. You need to cite the papers applying that approximation to observations. For example, where in Two-body problem in general relativity - Precession of elliptical orbits are higher terms in G discarded? The answer is nowhere! This has an exact solution which is expanded by the binomial theorem in orders of 3rs2/a2. It is these terms that are truncated. Presumably because rs/a (where a is a length scale) is small so higher powers of it can be ignored.
Cherry picking the G in rs as what is being expanded is as ignorant as cherry picking the 2, M or c in rs.
 
There is no expansion in G as I explained and as is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia article.
My full poist:

Cherry picking the G in rs as what is being expanded is as ignorant as cherry picking the 2, M or c in rs.
There is no need to expand specifically in terms of G; you can expand ωr²=ωφ²(1-3rS²/a²)1/2in terms of rS²/a². Just keep the quadratic term in the expansion of (1-x)1/2. I expect you'll end up with a term proportional to G², in the final expression for the precession angle.
 
There is no need to expand specifically in terms of G; ...
Repeating that 3rs2/a2 is only G when it is also 2, M, c, 3 and a is just emphasizing your ignorance. Cherry picking the G in rs is as abysmally ignorant as cherry picking the 2, M or c in rs or the 3 or a.
1 June 2021: Give sources for our "proved quantitatively only to first order in G" assertion about the Schwarzschild metric tensor.
8 June 2021: Michel H persists with "first order in G" ignorance about perihelion precession.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
hecd2 said:
What makes you think that there are higher order terms in G in eqn 3?
I believe it is likely. Imagine some masses emit some gravitational waves. General relativity is a nonlinear theory, so these waves are going to interact with the Newtonian gravitational field, and produce some very complicated waves, of orders G², G³ and so on (one can imagine Feynman diagrams).
Gravitational waves observed far from the source are modelled as a perturbation on the Minkowski metric. It seems perfectly rational to me to use the linearised theory in the transverse gauge to do so. Eqn 3 then falls out of the theory with no higher terms in G. Furthermore the simplification by linearising the theory affects the forms of the Ricci tensor and scalar, so it's not clear to me that generalising the theory of gravitational waves will result in expressions with higher tems in G. If you think using the general form of the theory will make different predictions, then it is for you to derive a theory of gravitational waves based on the unlinearised form and show where the higher terms in G appear and that they result in significantly different predictions for the stress energy tensor and, for example, radiated energy per unit solid angle of rotating binaries, the separation distance versus time of rotating binaries and their time to coalescence. I don't think any such significant difference will arise, even if such an analytical solution is possible.

I will agree with you on one thing though - quantitative tests of GR in the strong field regime are not yet definitive - but neither are there any tests which are incompatible with GR in this regime.
 
Wow!

It has now been at least four years and four parts of this this thread, and yet the Theory of Relativity still has not fallen apart.

In fact, in the last few years have only served to show just continued validation of the Theory of Relativity.
 
Wow!

It has now been at least four years and four parts of this this thread, and yet the Theory of Relativity still has not fallen apart.

In fact, in the last few years have only served to show just continued validation of the Theory of Relativity.
Indeed. Though we're seeing more relativity-denying cranks here.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Infinite redshift is of course unobservable, but the predicted redshift has been observed for Sagittarius A* (https://www.mpe.mpg.de/6930756/news20180726).
(link of W.D.Clinger's post in the previous sub-thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13499531#post13499531)

I have read the page by the Max Planck Institute you posted, and I couldn't find any quantitative agreement with General Relativity for gravitational redshift in strong field there.

Besides, an infinite redshift would of course be observable, by continuity (at least in principle: one would observe very large redshifts near the event horizon). But of course an infinite redshift which exists only in the minds of deluded astrophysicists will never be observed in the real world.

As stated by Hawking and Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time, Cambridge University Press, 1973, §5.5, page 149:
It can be seen that this space-time is static, i.e. ∂/∂t is a timelike Killing vector which is a gradient, and is spherically symmetric, i.e. is invariant under the group of isometries SO(3) operating on the spacelike two-spheres {t, r constant} (cf. appendix B). The coordinate r in this metric form is intrinsically defined by the requirement that 4πr is the area of these surfaces of transitivity.
The title of this book is already absurd, in my opinion. How could "space-time" have a structure? (I would understand that a spiral galaxy has a structure, but not space-time). If you tell an experimentalist:
The coordinate r in this metric form is intrinsically defined by the requirement that 4πr is the area of these surfaces of transitivity.
I don't think this is going to help him/her much.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Infinite redshift is of course unobservable, but the predicted redshift has been observed for Sagittarius A* (https://www.mpe.mpg.de/6930756/news20180726).
(link of W.D.Clinger's post in the previous sub-thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13499531#post13499531)

I have read the page by the Max Planck Institute you posted, and I couldn't find any quantitative agreement with General Relativity for gravitational redshift in strong field there.
ETA: That web page links to the PDF for the scientific paper, which tells the quantitative story.

Quoted from that page (titled "First Successful Test of Einstein’s General Relativity Near Supermassive Black Hole"), with added highlighting (boldface is in the original):
Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics said:
Observations of the Galactic Centre team at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (MPE) have for the first time revealed the effects predicted by Einstein’s general relativity on the motion of a star passing through the extreme gravitational field near the supermassive black hole in the centre of the Milky Way.

...snip...

The new measurements clearly reveal an effect called gravitational redshift. Light from the star is stretched to longer wavelengths by the very strong gravitational field of the black hole. And the change in the wavelength of light from S2 agrees precisely with that predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This is the first time that this deviation from the predictions of the simpler Newtonian theory of gravity has been observed in the motion of a star around a supermassive black hole.
As I wrote, this observation is generally regarded as a strong-field test of general relativity. The gravitational field at "20 billion kilometres from the black hole" at the center of our galaxy is certainly one of the strongest fields for which we have precise observations.

I quoted from The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis. I guess Michel H found it easier to read the cover of that book than its contents:
The title of this book is already absurd, in my opinion. How could "space-time" have a structure? (I would understand that a spiral galaxy has a structure, but not space-time).
To understand how space-time could have a structure, you would first need to acquire some rudimentary knowledge of topology. Before you express an opinion about it in some public forum, you ought also to acquire some rudimentary acquaintance with differential geometry.
 
Last edited:
Besides, an infinite redshift would of course be observable, by continuity (at least in principle: one would observe very large redshifts near the event horizon).

Only in principle, not in practice. Matter actually falling into a black hole will not be visible over the glow from the accretion disk, and the inner edge of the accretion disk is actually a significant distance away from the event horizon. Gravitational redshift is not infinite at this inner edge.
 
Abysmal ignorance of physics (spacetime has a mathematical structure) from Michel H

The title of this book is already absurd, in my opinion. How could "space-time" have a structure? (I would understand that a spiral galaxy has a structure, but not space-time).
More evidence against the Ph.D. in By the way, I have a Ph.D. degree in Physics (which does not necessarily mean I am always right)
11 June 2021: Abysmal ignorance of physics (spacetime has a mathematical structure) from Michel H
W.D.Clinger suggests that Michel H gain some rudimentary knowledge of topology and differential geometry before making uninformed opinions. Michel H's post suggests ignorance of even more fundamental mathematical physics. Modern physics textbooks explain that "Euclidean" spacetime and Minkowski spacetime have structures that are written with the basic operations of addition, subtraction, and multiplication with the occasional square root! Euclidean in quotes because it is usually stated as Euclidean space + time. Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" book has a Spacetime chapter starting with an E1 X E3 spacetime for Aristotelian physics.

The rest of the post is Michel H's lack of reading comprehension and what "strong field" means in the tests of general relativity
In the 1970s, scientists began to make additional tests, starting with Irwin Shapiro's measurement of the relativistic time delay in radar signal travel time near the sun. Beginning in 1974, Hulse, Taylor and others studied the behaviour of binary pulsars experiencing much stronger gravitational fields than those found in the Solar System. Both in the weak field limit (as in the Solar System) and with the stronger fields present in systems of binary pulsars the predictions of general relativity have been extremely well tested.

In February 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had directly detected gravitational waves from a black hole merger.[1] This discovery, along with additional detections announced in June 2016 and June 2017,[2] tested general relativity in the very strong field limit, observing to date no deviations from theory.
This is simply gravitational fields so strong that the weak field limit is not applicable. For example, a very hypothetical "Mercury" planet orbiting close to a supermassive black hole could not be treated to first order in 3rs2/a2 as in Two-body problem in general relativity - Precession of elliptical orbits. The exact solution or more terms or numerical relativity are needed. Numerical relativity is used to successfully model the merging of black holes in the very strong field limit.

1 June 2021: Give sources for our "proved quantitatively only to first order in G" assertion about the Schwarzschild metric tensor.
8 June 2021: Michel H persists with "first order in G" ignorance about perihelion precession.
 
Last edited:
ETA: That web page links to the PDF for the scientific paper, which tells the quantitative story.

Quoted from that page (titled "First Successful Test of Einstein’s General Relativity Near Supermassive Black Hole"), with added highlighting (boldface is in the original):

As I wrote, this observation is generally regarded as a strong-field test of general relativity. The gravitational field at "20 billion kilometres from the black hole" at the center of our galaxy is certainly one of the strongest fields for which we have precise observations.

I quoted from The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis. I guess Michel H found it easier to read the cover of that book than its contents:

To understand how space-time could have a structure, you would first need to acquire some rudimentary knowledge of topology. Before you express an opinion about it in some public forum, you ought also to acquire some rudimentary acquaintance with differential geometry.
Are you saying this about me, or about you ?
I studied General Relativity with prof. Yutaka Hosotani (who is now emeritus at Osaka University: http://kabuto.phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp/~hosotani/hosotani-eng.html) around 1984 at the University of Minnesota. He taught us about differential forms and vierbeins, and how how it is possible to simplify general relativity derivations using these techniques.

ETA: That web page links to the PDF for the scientific paper (https://www.mpe.mpg.de/6931886/view.pdf), which tells the quantitative story.

... this observation is generally regarded as a strong-field test of general relativity. The gravitational field at "20 billion kilometres from the black hole" at the center of our galaxy is certainly one of the strongest fields for which we have precise observations.
The formula for the gravitational redshift is:
1+z=(1-rs/r)-1/2(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Spherically_symmetric_gravitational_field).

The paper you mention is about a star, called S2, orbiting the assumed "black hole" (sic) in the center of our galaxy. The authors write, in the abstract:
Near pericentre at 120 AU ≈ 1400 Schwarzschild radii, the star has an orbital speed of ≈ 7650 km/s, such that the first-order effects of Special and General Relativity have now become detectable with current capabilities.
They make it clear themselves they study only lowest order relativistic corrections. And this is not surprising because their ratio rs/r is equal to only 6.5 x 10-4 (see above their equation 1, see also the blue circle in figure A.2 on the last page). So this is your "strong field": a field which is actually smaller than 10-3 ! Even our neutron star expert Reality Check can figure out that this leads to second order corrections which are (approximately) smaller than 10-6 .

The title of this paper "Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole" is also somewhat misleading, because, to calculate a real redshit Δλ/λ, you need a spectral line (of iron, for example), which these authors don't have. All they do is a post-Newtonian calculation (which, by the way, seems serious).
 
Last edited:
Are you saying this about me, or about you ?
I studied General Relativity with prof. Yutaka Hosotani (who is now emeritus at Osaka University: http://kabuto.phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp/~hosotani/hosotani-eng.html) around 1984 at the University of Minnesota. He taught us about differential forms and vierbeins, and how how it is possible to simplify general relativity derivations using these techniques.
And yet, despite that training, you wrote:
The title of this book is already absurd, in my opinion. How could "space-time" have a structure? (I would understand that a spiral galaxy has a structure, but not space-time).
Hawking and Ellis's The large scale structure of space-time is hardly an obscure book, and the first three sentences of its preface explain why "structure" appears in its title.

You have also expressed your belief that the Schwarzschild coordinate singularity at the event horizon of a black hole is not just a coordinate singularity. Are you trying to blame your professor for that blunder?

They make it clear themselves they study only lowest order relativistic corrections. And this is not surprising because their ratio rs/r is equal to only 6.5 x 10-4 (see above their equation 1, see also the blue circle in figure A.2 on the last page). So this is your "strong field": a field which is actually smaller than 10-3 !
As can be seen in their Figure A.2, their S2 data involve a field that is weaker than the LIGO detections and the fluorescent iron line visible in Kα-band observations from what are presumed to be accretion disks surrounding black holes at galactic centers, but orders of magnitude stronger than the Pound-Rebka, Mercury precession, Shapiro delay, and Hulse-Taylor observations, and slightly stronger than the field giving rise to redshift seen in Sirius B.

The title of this paper "Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole" is also somewhat misleading, because, to calculate a real redshit Δλ/λ, you need a spectral line (of iron, for example), which these authors don't have.
They rely upon spectral data from SHARP/NACO, GRAVITY, and SINFONI. See sections 2, 3.2, 3.3, and Figure 4.

All they do is a post-Newtonian calculation (which, by the way, seems serious).
Yes, they have based their serious calculation on the best available orbital and spectroscopic data. Their use of a "first-order parameterised post-Newtonian" calculation seems justified by the resolution of their data, which is adequate to favor GR "over pure Newtonian physics (f = 0) at the ≈10σ level."
 
I studied General Relativity with prof. Yutaka Hosotani (who is now emeritus at Osaka University: http://kabuto.phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp/~hosotani/hosotani-eng.html) around 1984 at the University of Minnesota.
All this shows is that you started with GR knowledge 37 years ago and have forgotten so much that your posts are mostly deeply ignorant. Ignorance about the meaning of the word "structure" in the title of The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis is inexcusable given that you learned the structure of spacetime in your GR study.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying this about me, or about you ?
I studied General Relativity with prof. Yutaka Hosotani (who is now emeritus at Osaka University: http://kabuto.phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp/~hosotani/hosotani-eng.html) around 1984 at the University of Minnesota. He taught us about differential forms and vierbeins, and how how it is possible to simplify general relativity derivations using these techniques.


The formula for the gravitational redshift is:
1+z=(1-rs/r)-1/2(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Spherically_symmetric_gravitational_field).

The paper you mention is about a star, called S2, orbiting the assumed "black hole" (sic) in the center of our galaxy. The authors write, in the abstract:

They make it clear themselves they study only lowest order relativistic corrections. And this is not surprising because their ratio rs/r is equal to only 6.5 x 10-4 (see above their equation 1, see also the blue circle in figure A.2 on the last page). So this is your "strong field": a field which is actually smaller than 10-3 ! Even our neutron star expert Reality Check can figure out that this leads to second order corrections which are (approximately) smaller than 10-6 .

The title of this paper "Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole" is also somewhat misleading, because, to calculate a real redshit Δλ/λ, you need a spectral line (of iron, for example), which these authors don't have. All they do is a post-Newtonian calculation (which, by the way, seems serious).

Assuming your stated credentials are correct, you must know how the world of science works. You must know that the sellable "product" of scientists is either new discoveries or amendments to existing discoveries. This is simply how to make a career in science (although you obviously didn't do that).

One of the holy grails in physics and cosmology is the Theory of Relativity (TR). So the wet dream of any ambitious physicist or cosmologist is to modify or add to the TR. This will be the path to fame and hence fortune.

This is one of the reasons for the continuous research into TR effects.

This means that thousands of well-educated physicists, for more than a century, have scrutinized TR, to find some slight crack that might at least merit a more or less sensational article, even if not practical results followed.

So, if you think you have found a fault with TR, practically or theoretically, you would be a great fool to discuss it on some internet forum like this one. Instead you would publish your thesis on a recognized peer-reviewed channel, in order to possibly, reap the job offers, research grants, etc. that even a sound, but failed attack on TR could bring.

SO, Bjarne, Michel H, and a few others: The fact that you are discussing this with unknown patrons of a supposedly sceptic, public forum like this one, means that ... you really know you haven't got a point. All you seek is some, any, attention.

Basically, you either haven't got a point, or you haven't got a clue. Or, possibly, both.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Assuming your stated credentials are correct, you must know how the world of science works. You must know that the sellable "product" of scientists is either new discoveries or amendments to existing discoveries. This is simply how to make a career in science (although you obviously didn't do that).

One of the holy grails in physics and cosmology is the Theory of Relativity (TR). So the wet dream of any ambitious physicist or cosmologist is to modify or add to the TR. This will be the path to fame and hence fortune.

This is one of the reasons for the continuous research into TR effects.

This means that thousands of well-educated physicists, for more than a century, have scrutinized TR, to find some slight crack that might at least merit a more or less sensational article, even if not practical results followed.

So, if you think you have found a fault with TR, practically or theoretically, you would be a great fool to discuss it on some internet forum like this one. Instead you would publish your thesis on a recognized peer-reviewed channel, in order to possibly, reap the job offers, research grants, etc. that even a sound, but failed attack on TR could bring.

SO, Bjarne, Michel H, and a few others: The fact that you are discussing this with unknown patrons of a supposedly sceptic, public forum like this one, means that ... you really know you haven't got a point. All you seek is some, any, attention.

Basically, you either haven't got a point, or you haven't got a clue. Or, possibly, both.

Hans


The usual load of BS.
TR must be disproved.
It is already (Greenland 2017) and it will be again, again and again ..
Until repeated counter-evidence has shaken the world, concrete will be concrete. Most of all in the minds of the saved .

fig10.png


http://pubs.sciepub.com/FAAC/4/1/5/index.html
 
Last edited:
So how much did you pay to get your article published in that “journal”?

Wouldn’t it be more relevant to ask how much I paid to manipulate the measurement result?
Because it's probably the only foolish attack you can theoretically have. (?)
 
The usual load of BS.
TR must be disproved.

Actually not. A new theory must be proven. This will, of course imply a fault with TR, but the important part is that you must prove your claim.

It is already (Greenland 2017) and it will be again, again and again ..
Until repeated counter-evidence has shaken the world, concrete will be concrete. Most of all in the minds of the saved .

No, the Greenland measurement neither proves nor disproves anything. It is just some measurement. As long as the measuring conditions are not specified, it is basically nothing.

[qimg]http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/4/1/5/bigimage/fig10.png[/qimg]

Where is the original measurement report?

Hans
 
Dark Matter findings suggest Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong” - BBC News - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyzuQb8ViE

Every time some news channel reports "TR may be wrong" (which is several times a year), you grasp at that straw to claim you are right. But first of all, it always turns that it isn't wrong after all, and secondly, the day somebody really does find a flaw with it, it won't prove your claims.

Hans
 
Actually not. A new theory must be proven. This will, of course imply a fault with TR, but the important part is that you must prove your claim.
Anyone can measure, its irrelevant who.

No, the Greenland measurement neither proves nor disproves anything.
It proves 2 different kind of gravimeter disagree, and it was predicted here at this forrum

It is just some measurement. As long as the measuring conditions are not specified, it is basically nothing.
Its all very specified.
Predictions are enough to demonstrate where MTR will succeed and TR fail
http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/4/1/5/bigimage/fig10.png
Repeated similar results must be expected, and serveral more quite unique prediction will also be proven.
 
Last edited:
Every time some news channel reports "TR may be wrong" (which is several times a year), you grasp at that straw to claim you are right.
I am just trying to show you that TR is being attacked on many fronts
The DES collaboration consists of over 400 scientists from 25 institutions in seven countries.

But first of all, it always turns that it isn't wrong after all, and secondly, the day somebody really does find a flaw with it, it won't prove your claims.
I am sure Donald Trump would agree with you, its all fake news, - and RC would certainly also agree, because all those that doesn't agree with his opinion are insane deluded idiotic liars.
 
Last edited:
I am just trying to show you that TR is being attacked on many fronts


I am sure Donald Trump would agree with you, its all fake news, - and RC would certainly also agree, because all those that doesn't agree with his opinion are insane deluded idiotiv liars.

Physicists working toward better knowledge of the less clearly understood aspects of relativity can hardly be called “attacking” it. There are however a few cranks on the internet that do try to attack it. But they are severely hampered by their lack of understanding.

I think you can be comforted that “RC” is really not calling you a liar. It is quite clear from your posts that you do not understand any aspects of relativity well enough to intentionally lie about it.
 
I am just trying to show you that TR is being attacked on many fronts
The DES collaboration consists of over 400 scientists from 25 institutions in seven countries.

Riiight. So, you need to make up your mind now: Is TR constantly challenged, or are all people concrete-minded?. Think carefully, 'cause you can't have both.

... Yes, as i keep saying, thousands of scientists dream of changing TR. None have succeeded so far. As for you, you don't even have a theory.

Hans
 
I am sure Donald Trump would agree with you, its all fake news, - and RC would certainly also agree, because all those that doesn't agree with his opinion are insane deluded idiotic liars.

Bjarne, next time you compare me with T****, I'll report you for insults.

Hans
 
Predictions are enough to demonstrate where MTR will succeed and TR fail
One of your many problems here is that you had no predictions - just a vague “something unexpected will turn up” - and you have not been able to show that there was in fact anything unexpected in the graphs, because you have not ruled out any other disturbances that could occur. And in any case, that which you call an anomaly did not happen at the time you expected, so in fact, you succeeded in disproving your own theory.
 
Riiight. So, you need to make up your mind now: Is TR constantly challenged, or are all people concrete-minded?. Think carefully, 'cause you can't have both.

... Yes, as i keep saying, thousands of scientists dream of changing TR. None have succeeded so far. As for you, you don't even have a theory.

Hans

Even though TR conflict with QM
Even though Flyby anomalies suggest TR to be wrong.
Even though If we can add Oumuamua to the same list of kinematic phenomena anomalies and even also Allais Effect.
Even though so-called Dark Matter also is evidence that TR cannot explain.
Even though if so, called Dark Energy, is an accelerating phenomenon that contradict TR
Even though if several Thought Experiment contradict TR.
Even though if dark flow contradict TR
Even though if the latest WMAP shows missing signals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3CRT8qRwrA and therefore that the singularity before BB is BS
Even though the latest discovery: Maybe Einstein was wrong' Dark matter map hints at 'broken physics' in major shake up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyzuQb8ViE
Even though all this, and even much more, and much more to come, and even if the Moon would fall down on Earth, - still there will be to overwhelming many concrete heads, not finding anything wrong with TR, and still nit not able to adjust the brain damage deluded idiotic insane brainwashed image of the universe.

You see it is almost like Donald Trump brainwash, - 9/11 conspiracy / socialist communist propaganda, - or - climate change brainwash .
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/GEP_2019072315411350.pdf

Chose what you like best.
I don't like any of of such brainwash at all, - also not the TR brainwash.
 
Standard modus for you, Bjarne: List up a number of more or less real "mysteries" (i.e. observations for which a fully satisfactory explanation has yet to be found), and claim that your pet idea can solve them all. Unfortunately, you always forget to explain exactly how.

Even though TR conflict with QM

Commonly known that TR and QM do not connect well. It is recognized doctrine that one or both theories may need some amendment due to this. One of the reasons both theories are still being tested extensively.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Even though Flyby anomalies suggest TR to be wrong.

No, they don't, in particular. Most likely explanation is variations in gravity fields.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Even though If we can add Oumuamua to the same list of kinematic phenomena anomalies

No, this is a different phenomenon. There are several plausible explanations, but since our data for Oumuamua are incomplete, we may never solve this one.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

and even also Allais Effect.

The Allais Effect has not been consistently observed. It may not exist.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Even though so-called Dark Matter also is evidence that TR cannot explain.
Even though if so, called Dark Energy, is an accelerating phenomenon that contradict TR

Has nothing to do with TR as such.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Even though if several Thought Experiment contradict TR.

You can conjure up thought experiments for anything. Practical verivication is what counts.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Even though if dark flow contradict TR

No, it doesn't, and you obviously have no idea what it is about.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Even though if the latest WMAP shows missing signals

Has nothing to do with TR.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3CRT8qRwrA and therefore that the singularity before BB is BS

Nobody claims to really know what was "before" BB. Nobody even claims that the current laws of physics apply to "before" BB.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Even though the latest discovery: Maybe Einstein was wrong' Dark matter map hints at 'broken physics' in major shake up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyzuQb8ViE

Sensational youtube headlines is not science.

"MTR" á la Bjarne offers no explanation for the problem.

Y climate change brainwash .
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/GEP_2019072315411350.pdf

Chose what you like best.
I don't like any of of such brainwash at all, - also not the TR brainwash.

Your article is pure nonsense. Again, you have not understood what you are talking about.

Hans
 
Standard modus for you, Bjarne: List up a number of more or less real "mysteries" (i.e. observations for which a fully satisfactory explanation has yet to be found), and claim that your pet idea can solve them all. Unfortunately, you always forget to explain exactly how.

https://m.facebook.com/home.php
Hans

More importantly, Bjarne neglects to use his pet ideas to actually solve anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom