I showed that General Relativity is constrained by design to be able to model only a single body problem (with a probe particle with zero or very small mass relative to the main mass).
You might quibble that GR doesn't have mass... GR has metrics which are modified by masses, blah, blah, blah... but I made the point clear in the attached PDF.
I provided my precession prediction for Planets and Binary Pulsars.
I also created the modeling for GW231123 Binary Black Hole.
If you have objections, please make sure you understand the problem and have your own predictions.
Here is the Black Hole Merger modeling
https://youtube.com/shorts/rU9XTq4fXsY?feature=share
The answer is yes.
The author proved in 1923 [1] that Einstein's special theory is nothing other than the universal Lorentz law of physics in x-t space.
Once again, Einstein's general theory of relativity is nothing other than the universal Lorentz law of physics in the four-dimensional unitary space x, y, z-t.
Both of these theories are simply expressions of the conservation or constancy of spacetime in free fall.
It should be noted that this particular question and its answer should not overshadow the achievements of our giant professor; the most important and rarely mentioned is his prediction of the laser equation in 1917, fifty years before its realization.
1-I. Abbas, Reformulation of Einstein special theory of relativity, ResearchGate and IJISRT journal, 1923.
Is gravity a force or not?
Contrary to Einstein's conclusion that gravity is a curvature in four-dimensional unit space, the statistical theory of Cairo techniques shows that gravity is a true force (like the famous Cavendish experiment) causing a curvature of space and not the other way around.
There are two theories of general relativity:
1- A. Einstein's classical theory of general relativity.
2- The modern theory of general relativity, derived from the statistical theory of Cairo techniques.
The statistical theory of Cairo techniques shows that the symmetric stress tensor in free space is given by:
∇^2 xx ∇^2 xy ∇^2 xz ∇^2 xt
∇^2 yx ∇^2 yy ∇^2 yz ∇^2 yt
. . .
etc.
For the special case of the gravity tensor, it is straightforward to show that the factor (8πG/c^4) must be introduced to obtain Einstein's classical expression:
G_μν = (8πG/c^4) T_μν.
We again have two distinct theories of general relativity.
1- A. Einstein's classical theory of general relativity.
2- The modern theory of general relativity is derived from the statistical theory of Cairo techniques.
Everyone knows that Einstein's Special Relativity is just the Universal Lorentz.
That said, I. Abbas's work was wrong despite "correcting" Relativity.
We are past those squabbles.
I showed that both are wrong.
I also heard attribution to Einstein of "prediction of laser".
I don't know who predicted what with respect to lasers.
I know that I. Abbas and Einstein were wrong about Relativity.
"I showed that General Relativity is constrained by design to be able to model only a single body problem (with a probe particle with zero or very small mass relative to the main mass)."
You are correctly addressing a major fallacy of general relativity. But the problem is located much deeper. It is in general the inconsistent definition of forces in standard physics. This inconsistency is drastically visible if we consider the gravitational force.
The linked article below shows how an elementary and universally valid definition of force drastically changes the conceptual world of standard physics in many respects including general relativity and how it avoids many of the dead ends into which standard physics has run precisely because of the inconsistent definition of force.
Preprint On fundamental problems and their solution in the structure ...
You can teach your deeper understanding of General Relativity after you apply your deeper knowledge to the binary pulsar problem. I did.
In other words, if you didn't do even this, you don't really know what you are talking about.
Wolfgang Kohle,
Your paper doesn't have a single equation or application. In other words, it is not supported by anything.
By the way, I did my work using the standard definition of force - from Newton's Second Law F=m*a
Why are you telling me about it?
@ Marco Prereira "Why are you telling me about it?"
Because you are correctly addressing a fallacy in general relativity, but about the background of this fallacy, you do not tell anything.
As a background information you should take into account that fundamental mechanics leads to the differential equation dW/ds=dP/dt. With W=mc² and P=mv this leads to m=mₒ/√(1-v²/c²). The relativistic mass formula is a direct mathematical derivation of the mechanical force equation dW/ds=dP/dt.
This shows us that F=dW/ds is an important and fundamental relation in physics, even with a direct meaning for relativity theory.
Read my rebuttal.
You redefinition of force based on work is unnecessary and it shouldn't be used. It is based on Relativity Postulates.
@ Marco Pereira "You redefinition of force based on work is unnecessary and it shouldn't be used. It is based on Relativity Postulates."
Sorry, but this is blatantly wrong. Relativity is a physics domain far beyond basic mechanics. A basic mechanic entity like force of course must be derived in mechanics and not via a high sophisticated far fetched discipline.
"The so called relativistic mass is not fundamental in modern treatment."
dW/ds=dP/dt with W=mc² and P=mv leads to m=mₒ/√(1-v²/c²) via pure mathematics. But here c is an arbitrary constant and not fixed to the speed of light. Only fixing c to the speed of light is due to higher physical domains beyond basic mechanics.
Your proposal of using relativity as the base of elementary definitions simply means that the tail wags the dog.
@ Marco Pereira
The following three claims of your rebuttal are wrong:
(1) "F=dE/ds is a clean mechanical relation that works in flat space and is the starting point in relativistic mechanics."
This relation has nothing to do with flat or non-flat space. It is simply correct in Newtonian and relativistic mechanics.
(2) "The step E=mc² and the relation between E and P already assume Lorentz invariance."
No, in the derivation of the relativistic mass via dE/ds=dP/dt the only assumption is that there is only one force. Because both derivatives describe the force, they must be equal. E=mc² in this derivation only assumes that the energy is proportional to the mass m.
(3) "In GR however the concept of force is replaced by geodesic deviation and curvature - so F=dE/ds is no longer a universal guiding principle"
GR cannot override basic mechanic definitions. The alleged "replacement" of the mechanic force definition is just the root of the problem why general relativity implies a wrong understanding of gravity.
@ Wolfgang Kohle
I consider ChatGPT to be an impartial observer. You, on the other hand, I consider to be partial to your own argument.
As I said, my definition of Force is just Newton's Second Law and the Geometry of my theory. I believe it is cleaner. It doesn't involve dW (work) and ds(some element in space, which has to be defined by a metric).
So, it is cleaner. Your definition might be good for you. It is not good enough for me.
PS- My theory explains why E= mc**2 instead of mc**2/2
Everyone else assumes that to be the case. That is why your idea is bad. It is based on Relativity.
Wolfgang Kohle,
You said: dW/ds=dP/dt with W=mc² and P=mv leads to m=mₒ/√(1-v²/c²) via pure mathematics. But here c is an arbitrary constant and not fixed to the speed of light. Only fixing c to the speed of light is due to higher physical domains beyond basic mechanics.
Your proposal of using relativity as the base of elementary definitions simply means that the tail wags the dog.
My theory derives E=mc**2
That comes from Relativity, and you cannot derive work as such.
Yep. You don't know what you are talking about.
saying that : But here c is an arbitrary constant and not fixed to the speed of light.
is laughable.
Why don't you rewrite your model without using the letter c. Who are you trying to fool?
@ Marco Pereira "Why don't you rewrite your model without using the letter c. Who are you trying to fool?"
Does using W=mc² instead of W=mx with x being a constant with the units "velocity squared" really overcharge your abstraction capability?
F=dW/ds is not my invention. It is basic mechanics. I am only using it consequently.
"But here c is an arbitrary constant and not fixed to the speed of light.
is laughable."
Do you explicitly need the formal mathematical solution of the differential equation d/ds(mc²)=d/dt(mv)? Of course v=ds/dt and the rules of calculus then lead to m=m(v) if c is an arbitrary constant.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
Is your work such a P.O.S. that you need to pigback on someone else's discussions?
Why don't you propose your own question and use it to present your work?
In this discussion, I presented:
- laws of nature
- their derivation
- their application to some 10 binary pulsars and one binary black hole
and you want me to discuss with you (a partial fellow) some irrelevant details on the definition of Force...:)
How stupid can you be, Wolfgang?
@ Marco Pereira "How stupid can you be"?
You are asking the general question "Is General Relativity Einstein's biggest Blunder", and now you explain that you only want to discuss this question applied to some 10 binary pulsars and one binary black hole.
Who the hell except yourself can contribute then to this question?
No, general relativity blunders because it does not consider the energy density in gravitational fields.
If you want to restrict the discussion to just your approach, then you should not ask a general question.
@ Wolfgang
The reasoning goes like this.
If you have a crackpot argument that is narrow and irrelevant.
I used F m.a.
You are proposing F = dp/dt, etc, or something equivalent.
In my theory, it is F = m.a.
If you have a theory, use whatever you want.
Invite me to criticize it, and I will be happy to do it. In fact, I think I already did it.
Unless you are saying that F=m.a is not correct, you don't have a point.
I showed that F=m.a is good enough for explaining all physics (planets' precession,. binary pulsars' and binary black holes' dynamics).
If you could challenge that, I would listen to your argument. You don't because you don't know how to model Black Holes or Binary Pulsars.
In other words, my theory is consistent and successful, and you are not challenging it.
If you want to tell me your opinion, I have already done so. I discarded it because it doesn't have weight and because it is crap.
You have a point when you said: If you want to restrict the discussion to just your approach, then you should not ask a general question.
You asked: Who the hell except yourself can contribute then to this question?
Anyone who writes metrics and uses General Reality can contribute (challenge my assertion). Everyone who understands the Binary Pulsars' role in General Relativity tests. Do you understand that role?
You said: No, general relativity blunders because it does not consider the energy density in gravitational fields
Well. That is something that you might want to defend. The way to defend that argument is to derive new Einstein's equations and apply them to Mercury Perihelion Precession, Gravitational Light Deflection, Time Dilation..e.tc
DID YOU DO THAT? If not, you don't have a point.
Here is what ChatGPT told me. It is correct.
That said, since you didn't do your homework, that is irrelevant.
The concept of general relativity was arguably Einstein's greatest success (at least in the top three or four, along with E=mc^2 and gravitational time dilation).
The attempted SR-centric implementation of general relativity was his greatest failure. After publishing the (bad) 1916 general theory, he wasted another 30+years of his life trying to find some way of changing the theory to get it to work without losing special relativity ... and this was impossible, because it was special relativity that was the problem, all along.
- Special relativity lets us prove, geometrically, that if the SR relationships are correct for velocity, the physics of a a forcibly accelerated body is a flat-spacetime problem (MTW, chapter 6), and the forced body cannot possibly warp spacetime.
- Unfortunately, a general theory requires accelerative gravitomagnetism to work, so it needs a forcibly-accelerated body to always warp spacetime.
- The natural logical conclusion is then that if we wish to have a general theory of relaitvity, it cannot possibly be based on the SR equations of motion. For a general theory to be valid, the SR equaitons need to be wrong.
So Einstein's attempt at a general theory, which defined the GPoR as being correct, and also defined the SR equations as being already known to be correct, was never a valid theory, because it incorporated two fundamentally-contradicting assumptions into its definitions.
General relativity is wonderful.
But Einstein's attempt at general relativity is poop.
I showed that General Relativity is a piece of crap.
By the way, General Relativity is the same as Special Relativity. Don't you know that Childzschild Metric is just Lorentz Transformation in Spherical Coordinates, using Energy conservation for the probe body - the one that will follow the geodesic.
It is a Contrived model.
For example, you cannot provide me a reason why the energy of a particle is mc**2.
My theory can.
Einstein's formula for precession only depends upon a single M, while the Angular Momentum of the system depends upon both m1 and m2.
Hence, it is clear that Einstein's precession formula cannot explain the binary pulsars, binary black holes, or black anything because those systems' precessions depend upon angular momentum.
It doesn't seem you know how GR is applied to Binary Pulsars.
If you knew, you wouldn't be talking about some imaginary great new General Relativity.
You said: General Relativity is wonderful...:)
It is debunked by everything we see. The Supernova Observations required a patch with magical Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
It is an unstable formulation where somehow, by magic, we have exactly the critical mass...:)
It is a joke.
By the way, everyone talks about Gravitomagnetism. It is easy talking about it. People forget that they don't know the formula for magnetism. The one they have is empirical.
I derived the formulas and no - there is nothing to save in General Relativity. Time Dilation is an artifact. Lorentz Transformations should use Absolute Velocity and not relative velocity...
If you disagree, show me your use of GR for these Binary Pulsars.
I am providing the orbital parameters and my answers.
If you cannot do that...:) At least have the humility to learn from me instead of pontificating nonsense.
@ Marco Pereira "Unless you are saying that F=m.a is not correct, you don't have a point."
F=m*a is only an approximation. Exactly correct is F=dP/dt and F=dW/ds.
I proved it to be the case by recovering the precession of all planets.
I shouldn't have to remind you that in my theory, the universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface (locus of matter) and all particles surf a hyperspherical metric wave called the Inner Dilation Layer.
If you are not familiar with theories other than the one you are proselytizing, then you shouldn't make any claims.
How did you prove the opposite? What observation did you use?
You said: Exactly correct is F=dP/dt and F=dW/ds
That is idiotic. The reason is simple. I use a 4D spatial manifold. Are you telling me with certainty that that is the correct formula for my model or are you telling me that you only know the little you know but you still want to have an opinion.
@ Marco,Pereira "Exactly correct is F=dP/dt and F=dW/ds
That is idiotic"
It seems you got lost in the higher domains of physics and have lost the connection to the basics.
"F=dP/dt" and "F=dW/ds, the directional derivative of the energy W in respect to the position s" are the basics.
Konle,
Where are your precision predictions?
Where is your formula in 4D space? What is the force that works in that 4D Spatial Manifold?
If you're talking about your model only, don't bother other people.
Especially if your model cannot do the basics: Mercury Perihelion!!
@ Marco Pereira "Especially if your model cannot do the basics: Mercury Perihelion!!"
Mercury Perihelion rotation is not the basics. Elementary mechanics with the definition of energy as force times path length, W=F*s, is the basics.
F=dW/ds, a directional derivative, is an infinitesimal version of W=F*s.
With this definition of force F we can explain all forces in our world including the gravitational force.
F=dW/ds tells us: The force F on an object is caused by an amount W of energy, which depends on the position s of the object.
Applied to the gravitational force, the equation tells us:
The force F on an object which contributes with its own gravitational field g(object) to the gravitational field of earth g(earth) is caused by the amount of energy W contained in the combined gravitational field g, which depends on the position s (the height) of the object.
We have g=g(earth)+g(object). The energy density E in the combined field is E=constant*g². The energy W in the combined field is W=∫EdV. V is the volume filled with the combined field.
The general problem in basic physics and all higher disciplines is that this energetic cause for all forces is not applied at all.
In fact this is an embarrassing problem because it is elementary and straight forward understandable.
Anyone can say anything. Quantitative Evidence is what separates Science from bullshit.
If you cannot show a single piece of quantitative confirmation of your idiotic idea, why would anyone pay attention to you, Wolfgang Kolne?
You seem like an idiotic fellow spamming someone else's discussion.
Don't you have your mother or family? They might have the patience to listen to you.
I am sure some of you might consider my calling Wolfgang Kolne an idiot, harsh.
You shouldn't. He is not sensitive to shame; otherwise, he wouldn't continue spamming my discussion. It is a superpower. To continue without shame, self-awareness... I admire that...
I reported him to ResearchGate. With any luck, he will be barred from trying to pigback on my theory and ideas.
So, if you feel you have a question or something to contribute to the discussion, remember, it is about a FORCE that I derived and that replicates the results of General Relativity.
I am sure some of you might consider my calling Wolfgang Kolne an idiot harsh.
You shouldn't. He is not sensitive to shame; otherwise, he wouldn't continue spamming my discussion. It is a superpower. To continue without shame, self-awareness... I admire that...
I reported him to ResearchGate. With any luck, he will be barred from trying to pigback on my theory and ideas.
So, if you feel you have a question or something to contribute to the discussion, remember, it is about a FORCE that I derived and that replicates the results of General Relativity.
@ Marco Pereira "The Hu gravitational force"
Do you really think anybody could understand and follow your HU Gravitation?
The field energy based formula for the gravitational force F=dW/ds is easily understandable. Your problem is that this basic and obvious relation clearly shows that your "HU" work is pointless.
You can violently rant and condemn that basic formula, but nothing can invalidate it.
"So, if you feel you have a question or something to contribute to the discussion, remember, it is about a FORCE that I derived and that replicates the results of General Relativity."
F=dW/ds also is about a FORCE and based on W=F*s. Therefore everybody easily can follow this formula, while following your HU formula is useless because it is wrong.
@ Wolfgang
Of course, people can understand my ideas. You might not be able to, but you shouldn't judge everyone according to your own limitations.
https://youtu.be/gtss7HkVwo0
In this 17-minute video, I explained why General Relativity cannot describe even a two-body problem.
The reason is simple, orbits (and precession) depend upon the Angular Momentum of the system. That depends upon both m1 and m2 and not just on M.
Einstein's precession formula only depends upon M.
This means that Einstein's precession formula is for a central body with mass M and a probe with zero or very, very small mass.
In other words, what you heard that Massive Bodies obey General Relativity and follow geodesics in Spacetime is WRONG.
This is a simple argument written in two paragraphs.
I feed people with bite-sized information. The first thing to understand is that everything you think you know is wrong.
That is the beginning. Once you do that, you will have a better attitude than you currently have.
@ Marco Pereira "Einstein's precession formula only depends upon M".
Yes, this is indeed the problem. But the problem of a pure M dependency is solved with the energy content of gravitational fields.
The energy content of the combined field of sun and mercury is given by:
g=g(sun)+g(mercury). The field energy E is given by E=constant*g²=constant*(g(sun)²+2g(sun)g(mercury)+g(mercury)²)
The energy content W of the combined field is given by W=∫EdV. The force F is F=dW/ds. s ist the distance mercury sun.
But in this derivative in respect to s the terms g(sun)² and g(mercury)² disappear because they do not depend on s.
This just confirms Newtons claim that the gravitational force depends on both masses. Of course this is not a surprise at all. But seemingly it is a surprise that the field energy concept just leads to that result.
But the fact that the perihelion effect is derived from the sun mass alone, only shows us that this effect does not depend on the mass of mercury. If mercury would be replaced by a 1kg weight, this weight on that path around the sun would show the same perihelion rotation.
This consideration shows us two things. Your critics that general relativity does not consider the dual nature of gravitation is justified.
But your claim that this fallacy in general relativity is related to the derivation of perihelion rotation is wrong.
@ Wolfgang
You said: Yes, this is indeed the problem. But the problem of a pure M dependency is solved with the energy content of gravitational fields.
Well... tell the astrophysicists. They don't use that when they model binary pulsars or black holes.
Are you smart enough to teach them some physics?
By the way, what you just said is nonsense. The energy content (irradiated gravitational field) is already taken care of as a minute effect on da/dt (orbital decay). That is modeled by Peter-Mathews equation.
That doesn't change the precession!
SO, you are wrong again. If you disagree. Here is the data on the planets and binary pulsars. Show me how precession varies as you change r (r = m1/M)
If you cannot show me that, just keep your advice to yourself.
@ Wolfgang:)
So, the model cannot even be called simplistic...:) Simplistic is way too kind for it.
@ Wolfgang
You said: But the fact that the perihelion effect is derived from the sun mass alone, only shows us that this effect does not depend on the mass of mercury.
NO. It only shows that if the mass of the companion is 6E-7 the mass of the sun, the value of r will be so small that the effect will not be detected.
It seems that you have never worked in Physics and cannot understand what I wrote. I said exactly that.
@ Marco Pereira "The gravitational energy comes from the quadrupole tensor. There is no individual field energy..>:)"
What quadrupole tensor? Does this enigmatic quadrupole tensor also lead to the energy density E=-g²/(8πG)?
@ Wolfgang
Energy density is not measured. What is measured is orbital decay or gravitational irradiation.
Do you have any binary pulsar measurements of energy density, Wolfgang?
This is Peters-Mathews formula (from the quadrupole tensor) for irradiated power. Google Peter-Mathews and look for quadrupole-tensor. It is easy.
Let me know if you can derive that formula from your energy density, Wolfgang?
@ Marco Pereira "Energy density is not measured. What is measured is orbital decay or gravitational irradiation."
The gravitational energy density easily can be derived from the Poisson equation.
To prove this we only need to know that the binding energy W of a mass density ρ in its own potential ɸ is given by W=1/2*∫ρɸ.
Replacing ρ=∇²ɸ/(4πG) from the poisson equation and the partial integration which transforms the integrand ɸ∇²ɸ to (∇ɸ)² leads to
W=- 1/(8πG)*∫(∇ɸ)². Please note ∇ɸ=-g. g is the gravitational acceleration, the field strength of the gravitational field. This integral relation holds for all configurations of mass where the potential vanishes in infinity.
This is an incontrovertible mathematically proven fact, which shows that all potential energy of a mass assembly in its own field is contained in the field energy.
But how do you think you can get information about that field energy by considering gravitational radiation?
You asked: But how do you think you can get information about that field energy by considering gravitational radiation?
I don't. I am just telling you that Potential Energy is not an observable. It cannot be observed and thus whatever you say is useless - not falsifiable.
#################################
Irradiation depends upon the third derivative of the quadrupole tensor....a.k.a. Jerk
Just consider the equivalent problem in electrodynamics. One can always calculate potential energy.
Can you go from potential energy to an irradiated field? Certainly not in a model that doesn't have a force and dynamics.
In other words, you don't understand what is measurable.
The binary pulsars are tens of thousands of light-years away....:)
The problem you are trying to get me to solve for you has been solved a long time ago by other people. I mentioned their names (Peters-Mathews) many times....
This is a solved problem in General Relativity.
I checked their values using my dynamical model, and they match, so I don't have any complaints about Peters-Mathews.
If you knew what you were doing, you would be reinventing the wheel.
Since you don't....
Marco Pereira ... Marco, if We're really serious about bringing down Einstein's GR in the eyes of the public and forcing academia to accept that the work is as bad as it really is, then we have to do Something Different, that the dissident community has been failing to do for the last sixty years. We have to learn how to do the one thing that academia is betting that we would never ever, EVER do.
We have to find a way to work together.
Even if we all think that we are geniuses and that our own way is necessarily the best way, we need to map out our areas of agreement, however small they may be, and find a way to unite behind those fact principles and arguments.
We have to meet their army of indifference with at least ... if not an army of our own ... at least a disciplined group that can continually push and prod at them in areas where they have no answers.
Alone, any one of us can be ignored or written off as a crackpot. But if five people start saying roughly the same thing, in different ways, and citing each other, then what you have is a MOVEMENT.
If journalists and online commentators feel that here is "something in the air", and that THIS time the fringe criticisms are taking on a different charaacter, then that gives them something to write about, and think about, and produce YouTube videos about. They'll then start asking mainstream influencers whether there might be something in these criticisms, and the influencers will try to hedge their bets, and say ... maybe. And then the mainstream sees the influencers being perhaps not as certain as they expected, and their nerve starts to go, too.
And then some of them start thinking that perhaps if a revolution MIGHT be coming, it might be sensible to learn more about it, and perhaps jump onto the bandwagon at some point rather then be squashed by it.
And then the mainstream changes the rules so that these sorts of papers can be published, so that they can try to steal some of the glory. But our work is already part of the historical record.
We're talking here about the overthrow of perhaps half of Twentieth Century Physics. we can argue about ownership later, but if we win, there's more than enough "sugar" for everyone. If we don't, we all get nothing.
Eric Baird
I’m always happy to have people help spread the word about my research.
If you’d like to be part of the movement, the best way is to promote my website and articles — that way, people can go directly to the source material. The more consistent the message, the more impact we’ll have.
Here is the YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/@TheNewPhysics
SSRN Abstracts
# HU-The Big Pop Cosmogenesis
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012159
# The Hypergeometrical Universe
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012064
# Debunking NASA
# Reevaluating_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Constraints_on_Epoch_Nature.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188030
https://zenodo.org/records/15399641
Docker Images
docker pull ny2292000/hu_galaxy_package
Repositories
https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU
https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage
https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_Papers
https://github.com/ny2292000/DataSupernovaLBLgov
@ Marco Pereira "Can you go from potential energy to an irradiated field? Certainly not in a model that doesn't have a force and dynamics."
You really seem to think that force fields get permanently radiated from their sources. This is also why you think that force fields don't contain an energy density. With an energy density a field source could not afford to radiate the field because that would exhaust it.
But in fact force fields contain an energy density and simply co-move with the field source. Therefore a field source does exactly nothing to keep its field in its inertial reference system.
But if the field source gets accelerated it actually emits radiation in order to adapt its field to the new inertial reference system.
@ Wolfgang,
I don't think about this problem. This problem has been solved already. I don't discuss things that are known for 80 years.
It seems that you are reinventing the wheel...
That said, I don't see formulas. Where are the formulas, Wolfgang... so much bullshit ...so few (none) equations.
Why are you talking about energy density if that is not an observable? Is that a misdirection in your self-delusional scam...
What is the observable, and where is the formula, Wolfgang?
@ Marco Pereira "What is the observable, and where is the formula, Wolfgang?"
I already presented and derived the formula for the energy density of the gravitational field:
The gravitational energy density easily can be derived from the Poisson equation.
To prove this we only need to know that the binding energy W of a mass density ρ in its own potential ɸ is given by W=1/2*∫ρɸ.
Replacing ρ=∇²ɸ/(4πG) from the poisson equation and the partial integration which transforms the integrand ɸ∇²ɸ to (∇ɸ)² leads to
W=- 1/(8πG)*∫(∇ɸ)². Please note ∇ɸ=-g. g is the gravitational acceleration, the field strength of the gravitational field. This integral relation holds for all configurations of mass where the potential vanishes in infinity.
This is an incontrovertible mathematically proven fact, which shows that all potential energy of a mass assembly in its own field is contained in the field energy.
@ Wolfgang,
I know you are playing "Moron" to escape answering a simple question: What is the observable"?
You cannot observe "energy density" in a binary pulsar 10,000 years away.
In other words, if you calculate crap that cannot be measured, your ideas are crap--worthless.
I am sure you have enough intelligence to understand the issue. Don't make a fool of yourself for no reason.
for the last few years Ive been trying to set aside a proportion of my time to ... not developing my own system further, but creating resources that hopefully anyone can use, which demonstrate that Einstein's system simply isn't a logical option. People have been mis-educated to believe that Einstein's system is proven to be fault-free, and has no problems whatsoever. We can destroy these arguments, fairly simply.
While they believe this, the community have no need for a better theory. Because they think they already have a perfect theory, and because the public has been told this, too, and seem to largely accept it, the community have no incentive to even look at alternative theories, let alone discuss them. They are happy with things the way they are.
Ralph Waldo Emerson argued that "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door".
But the world won't do that if they think that their existing mousetrap is "good enough". There's the problem of consumer inertia inertia: we know that the QWERTY keyboard layout is not just bad but deliberately bad ... and yet we're still using it, because it's standardised, and the cost of learning a different keyboard, even if we believe it to be inherently better, doesn't motivate people enough to change things.
So I think that your approach, of pointing out that aspects of GR are absurdly unsupportable, and franky embarrassing to any self-respecting scientist, is probably the right approach. It's only by proving to the GR community that what they currently have is laughably bad ... and dangling the implication that this is so easy to see that even the general public will soon start realising that GR1916 is an embarrassment ... that they'll start casting around for alternative options to use as a "lifeboat".
As general-purpose resources for some of the things that are "off" with GR1916, I've produced this:
Preprint Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity
... and to address arguments from people who've been taken in by the supposed SR testing proofs, there's this:
Preprint Ten Proofs of Special Relativity
----
"Problems with Einstein's GTR" was a Wikipedia page for a couple of months (until it got voted off), long enough for some AI systems to read and internalise the arguments. Ai now understands these issues well enough that it can describe them at length, and answer questions on them. So an extra piece of leverage we have now is that now AI knows what's wrong with GR1916, even if our huiman experts pretend not to.
The community have been continuously blocking human advances and solutions and replacement models to Einstein's since the early 1960s, because they hate the idea of some upstart outsiders getting praise and credit (for actually doing the work!) rather than them and theirs. But now the alternative to allowing us to participate and succeed is that, instead of havign to tolerate US, they are facing being completely wiped out by AI.
Which'll be all worse for them.
Marco Pereira " I showed that General Relativity is a piece of crap.
By the way, General Relativity is the same as Special Relativity. "
Ummmm .... yes and no. Literally yes and no.
Yes, we can prove that Einstein's 1916 theory cannot be anything more than SR. But we can also prove the opposite. And both proofs are valid in their own contexts.
See, Einstein's system is paradoxical. It's self-contradictory. Its problem is not that it doesn't lets us prove anything. The problem is that it lets us prove too much. It lets us prove everything, and also prove the opposite of everything.
A system that has this characteristic is referred to as being pathological.
And the characteristic of pathological systems is that they are literally insane. They make proofs meaningless, because they let is both prove X and NOT-X. And then we can construct chains of logic based on X and NOT-X, and "prove" and "disprove" pretty much anything else.
So GR1916 is not just a bad theory.
It is not even a bad theory. It is, like the Trump healthcare plan that never materialsed, not a theory, but the concept of a theory. And a concept that's impossible to implement.
It's a bluff. It's a thing that Einstein threw together and finalised prematurely, because he thought that otherwise he was going to be beaten to the finish line by Hilbert. From 1916 onwards he initially thought he could still fix it, but in the end gave up. In 1924 he sounded like he'd basically thrown in the towel, and in 1950 appeared to have disavowed the SR-centric 1916 architecture altogether.
Eric Baird
You don't have a good grasp of what I created. I created the theory of everything.
I also explained that GR Precession depends upon only a single mass M. Orbits depend on both masses. Hence, GR cannot replicate, predict reality.
This is a simple and clear argument, and yet nobody ever presented it.
In addition, I derived the laws of nature and applied them to Binary Pulsars and Binary Black Holes.
I showed that GR cannot describe those systems.
So, there is no extra argument required. If you prove that all binary pulsars and binary black holes cannot be explained by GR, there is no need for GR.
IN SUMMARY
If you are interested in the advancement of science, the correct protocol is not pushing OUR solution. I only see crackpots around.
If you want to support the advancement of science, you should support my theory.
We are not in this together. I spent 20 years developing the theory. Applied it to everything.
There is nothing (no other model) that points even in the correct direction.
Marco, we do not have a working general theory of relaitvity. We've never had one. Einstein never produced a framework based on the GPoR that had internal logical consistency. Consequently, the only consistency that GR1916 appears to have is what the users project onto the theory themselves. What "the theory" predicts depends on the user, and their own personal preconceptions.
- A CERN physicist will argue for the SR clock hypothesis, and say that it's not a hypothesis any more but a fact: we "know" that particles whizzing around a circular particle storage ring at 0.99...c create zero distortion. They'll seize on the SR side and ignore the GPoR side that contradicts it.
- On the other hand, the gravitational phsicists will pick up on the GR1916 gravitomagnetic prediction that a rotating mass does distort spacetime, and will argue that the success of Gravity Probe B proves that rotational gravitomagnetism is real.
We can't have it both ways. Either theory and experiment prove that gravitomagnetism MUST be real, or proves that it MUST NOT. The difficulty with GR1916 is that it provides a "smorgasbord" of mathematical tools for the theorist to choose from, not all of which work together, and which allow the theorist to get the result they want by their tool-selection.
From the GPoR side, a forcibly-accelerated body must generate a gravitomagnetic drag, and a gravitational wave.
Headline: " LIGO proves Einstein right! "
But from the SR side, a forcibly-accelrated body must remain completely describable by SR in flat spacetime, and the Doppler-shifted wavelengths of its light, used as rulers to map space, prove that the region is still intrinsically flat. So if we start with the SR equaitons and assume that they are right, then there is provably no such thing as gravitomagnetism, and therefore no such thing as a general theory of relativity.
Also, since g-waves carry energy out of a system in forward time and add energy to a system in reversed time, g-waves only work if our basic equations of motion are time-asymetrical, and "lossy" - losing energy in forward time. Special relativity's equations are prefectly balanced and work identically in forward and reversed time. So if the SR equations are correct, there is probably no such thing as an energy-carrying gravitational, wave, because there's nowhere for the energy to come from!
Headline: " LIGO proves Einstein wrong! "
So ... SR-based physics is incompatible with gravitomagnetism, and with the GPoR, and with g-waves. And after the 1959-1960 crisis, we also realised that it's incompatible with the PoE, which we depend on for geometricalsiation.
Thanks to the SR component, pretty much nothing else in GR1916 actually works, unless we deliberately fudge the system to ignore the SR content whenever it's inconvenient.
----
If you're saying that the predictions of Einstein's general theory aren't compatible with reality, then that's kinda right ... but the deeper truth is that its predictions aren't even compatible with each other. Before you are going to compare GR1916's predictions with experimental data, you first have to choose which predictions to use for the comparison.
According to the guidelines laid down in MTW for the testing of experimental competitors to Einstein's GR, any theory that contradicts itself is automatically ruled out. Self-consitency is MTW's requirement #1, and if a system fails this test, then it's automatically considered junk, a theory in name only, and not even worth testing.
If you try to compare GR1916's predictions for double-stars with real data, in a sense you are paying the "theory" a compliment it doesn't deserve: You can try to use parts of GR1916 to solve real-world problems, but any success that might have is partly down to your skill in selecting the appropriate components that you want to use.
So there's room for disagreement over what GR1916 "really" predicts here.
Hopefully, you'll have done the GR1916 calculations using the best possible selection of tools, and will have shown that even in a best-case scenario , the theory still fails.
Marco Pereira " There is nothing (no other model) that points even in the correct direction. "
Nothing mainstream. Except acoustic metrics. To be considered credible according to Clifford M. Will's criteria, a system has to incorporate special relativity, and it's special relativity that's the root of the problem.
So thanks to Will, we know for a fact that every theory assessed by the mainstream as potentially viable, using the standard assessment criteria, also doesn't work (for the same reasons). All the main GR competitors are "GR with extra stuff", and there's nothing that we can add to "textbook GR" to fix it ... we have to start ripping stuff out.
Acoustic metrics and "analogue gravity" only managed to sneak past peer review because the reseachers kept their mouths shut about the fact that AM's only work if SR has the wrong basic equations. :) :) :) And the reviewers were either too dumb to realise it, or chose to play along ...
Marco Pereira : " If you’d like to be part of the movement, the best way is to promote my website and articles "
Um, Marco ... I've been pushing this "movement" since the 1980s. The idea that you can invite me to "join", and suggest that the best way to to exclusively promote your research rather than my own ... suggests some sort of mental disconnect somewhere.
Marco Pereira : " ... that way, people can go directly to the source material. The more consistent the message, the more impact we’ll have. "
erm ...
The other guy who appears to have some grasp of some of these problems is Peter Jackson . Peter is also theoretically amenable to joint initiatives ... but like you, tends to feel that collaborations should involve the other folks agreeing with and promoting HIS theory.
That's not how this stuff works.
I'm happy to set up joint resources to promote all three of us, and perhaps cooperate on very limited joint papers, on issues that pairs of us can agree on. If we have a degree of success, maybe we can be joined by others.
If you look at the early days of quantum mechanics, or French Impressionist painting, these movements didn't succeed by appointing a leader and having everyone else then abandon their own styles and copy their leader (although some do seem to have been swayed by Monet).
The painters exhibiting at the Salon des Refusés maintained their independence and continued to explore different paths forward. What gave the group credibility was not their conformity, but the fact that these different personalities, trying dfferent things, all agreed that certain themes were emerging that were worth exploring and pursuing, and that diverse approval went a long way to legitimise the movement. It also gave journalists ad art dealers something interesting to talk about.
Similarly with quantum mechanics. There were emerging schools, but the subject gained part of its legitimacy from that fact that these different methods were converging on the same mathematical solutions. It suggested that regardless of the different observers' distinct biases and convictions, there was something real underlying all the work.
Marco Pereira : " You don't have a good grasp of what I created. I created the theory of everything. "
Okay then, I'll give you the same test I gave to Peter.
It's about as simple a piece of physics that its possible to describe.
Suppose that a star is moving directly away from you at velocity v. Supposed that v is half lightspeed.
To make it as simple as possible, let's suppsoe that the star is surrounded by 100 lightyears of otherwise completely empty space (other than the star itself). No additional lumps or bumps in the vicinity. You are in a lightweight spaceship 50 lightyears away. Neither you nor the star have undergone any detectable acceleration in the previous hundred years. The region seems to be "effectively flat" apart from the curvatures of yourself and the star. If you like, distances, times and velocities can be defined according to how they appear in the surrounding flattish region (flat projection).
Absolute minimal configuration. Everything moving in effectively straight lines at effectively constant velocity, no obvious complicating factors.
What does your "theory of everything" predict for the frequency shift that you see on light coming from the star, as a function of its relative velocity?
- According to Einstein's special and general theories, the energy of the signal changes with velocity according to E'/E = SQRT[ (c-v) / (c+v) ]
For half lightspeed recession, that gives a ratio of E'/E = ~0.577.. (exactly one over root three)
- According to my replacement gravitomagnetic system, the energy of the signal changes with velocity according to E'/E = (c-v) / c
For half lightspeed recession, that gives a ratio of exactly E'/E = 0.5 . That leads to testable differences w.r.t. SR/GR1916.
- According to your "theory of everything", the energy of the signal changes with velocity according to E'/E = ????
Your move.
@ Marco Pereira "I know you are playing "Moron" to escape answering a simple question: What is the observable"? You cannot observe "energy density" in a binary pulsar 10,000 years away."
The issue is gravity, and the observable is the energy density in gravitational fields. Observing gravity 10000 light years away is bullshit. We live in a strong gravitational field, we can observe closely.
The basic mechanic force formula F=dW/ds allows to identify the energy density of the gravitational field as the root cause of the gravitational force.