According to Weyl and Chandrasekhar, general relativity (GR) is a triumph of speculative thought. But it is a well-known fact that GR is initiated by two analogies. Analogy is known to be a weak reasoning in science and philosophy. To redress the case this type of reasoning is renamed as Equivalence Principle (EP) in relativistic physics. The renaming, however, could not hide the fact that the presented analogy was not flawless. Irrefutable disproves were side-stepped and the analogy was instated to be the seed of new kind of physics. EP was defended by reducing the size of the lab and the duration of the experiment. This type of defending is like the proponents of flat-earth idea defend their case by reducing the patch of the land for examination until their pseudo-science theory is proven.
The attached document is a short description of EP analogies and its well-known critics. The document also introduces a new EP based on Uniform Deceleration of a spaceship in open space. This new analogy results in a different curvature of light in comparison to what original EP has established using uniform acceleration. The author believes that none of the conclusions from EPs should be allowed in science as they are based on inconclusive comparison/analogy and they ignore glaring flaws in the argument.
The author would like to present this new EP for discussion and criticism.
Preprint A New Equivalence Principle with a Different Curvature of Light
I agree with all your criticism.
JES
p.s.
It would be interesting to see a new theory evolve from your insight.
I agree with all your criticism.
JES
p.s.
It would be interesting to see a new theory evolve from your insight.
(Reply no 2!) Also agreed. The points I make about GR are;
- 1) putting someone in a closed space-box with no windows does NOT enable him to draw conclusion about the overall universe. It goes back to Einstein's nonsensical 1st postulate that all inertial observers' views are valid.
- 2) the photon-in-an-accelerating-lift thought exercise would show massless particles also to be subject to gravity, contradicting Newton. Whether photons are gravitational or not is a question for experiment, not abstract geometry.
- 3) the constantly repeated heavy-ball-on-a-trampline analogy for curved spacetime, to represent reality requires a downward force on the small object. In other words, needs gravity as a force between objects to show that gravity is not a force between objects!
- 4) a man falling off a roof does not feel the force of gravity. But he is still subject to it. Otherwise he wouldn't be falling!
- 5) Einstein's "we assume complete physical equivalence of an accelerated reference frame and a gravitational field" would mean that I and my antipodean twin are both accelerating in opposite directions away from the earth, and have been doing so since we were conceived.
GR is just as screwed up, if not more so, than SR. In spite of Nobel prizes for its adherents! My theory - which I have never had confirmed, but also never have had refuted - is that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained via 1) Newton, 2) the aether, and 3) gravitational clock-slowing. Solar photon deflection is doubled due to its slower speed in the Sun's gravitational field. What do you think?
According to the daon theory; both the photon and the neutrino are doubled deviated since they have no centrifugal force. They are also not a source of gravitation.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson
Could you explain in more detail?
By the way, my GR objections are on my Article EINSTEIN'S TERRIBLE TWINS and Other Tales of Relativistic Woe
p.30 ...
Dear Jeremy Check Dr. Ed Dowdye on youtube.
He was working for NASA for same phenomenon 20yrs , bending light by gravity.
regards
Dear Javad Fardaei
Thanks for sharing the work by Ed Dowdye. His work is highly valuable as it requires sophesticate equipment for measurements, which is not generally available to non-mainstream physicists. Unfortunately, this type of genuine science is ignored despite the pretence of science being open to negative feedbacks.
Regarding EP, I would appreciate it if you, and other followers, could let me know if my analysis has any flaws. If everything is right then there is an undisputable counter example in direct challenge to the original EP proposed by Einstein.
Jeremy Fiennes
Particles are in general made up by electrons and positrons, these have a specific radial equilibrium which produces an inherent force. This can be seen for example in the Induction phenomenon, where you have a resistance to any change of speed.
This inherent force obtains an angle in the radial direction (due to the limited signal velocity c) when the trajectory is curved, this is the reason for the centrifugal force. The photon and the neutrino have completely different geometries and have no inherent force.
They have also different equilibrium so that they do not attract other masses.
There might be a (minor) attraction since there are two different sources of gravitation. I still have to make a closer analysis of this phenomenon later next year, when (I have some time).
JES
p.s. If you are really interested, take a look at "daontheory.com"
It is analogous to the flight of other neutral elementary particles.@
Valentyn Nastasenko
No, "particles" can be defined as lumps of electrons and positrons, they all follow the mass formula E=mc^2 and they all have a centrifugal force. Only the photon and neutrino are excluded.
JES
I have my own thoughts on this topic. But I'll be ready to talk about them in six months.
As you know Zia, as a simple now retired engineer this topic is outside my field of expertise, however as a dilettante I have recently read around the subject and in my current state of ignorance, I would answer the central point of your paper as follows:
The validity of the General Theory of Relativity (GR) has nothing to do with the fact that it was motivated by Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP). The EEP is merely an explanation of what motivated Einstein to think up his theory, and also because it is the core of his theory, it is also the clearest way to understand the meaning of the theory. However, it could never be its justification.
The validation of any physical theory must be based on the principles of
1/ it’s ability to make novel predictions outside existing fields of knowledge
2/ the agreement of its predictions with physical experiment
3/ it’s consistency with other prior known experimentally confirmed knowledge
4/ whether it is somehow the simplest explanation (Occam’s Razor)
The only way that GR can be validated is by principles such as 1 to 4 above. It is however claimed that has so been validated according to
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
1/ accurately predicted the gravitational redshift in 1954
2/ both in the weak and stronger fields present in solar system and systems of binary pulsars resp. the predictions of general relativity have been extremely well tested.
3/ in 2016, the LIGO team directly observed gravitational waves from a black hole merger, which along with additional detections announced in June 2016 and June 2017 tested general relativity in the very strong field limit, observing to date no deviations from theory.
I would make two further points. Firstly, I have read that Einstein was always uncomfortable with the fact that the EEP only applied to translational movements and did not apply to rotations, ie angular momentum. Lastly there is what looks like a beautiful alternative theory of gravity due to Chris Doran and Anthony Lasenby, and Stephen Gull:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geometric-algebra-for-physicists/gravitation/A7E0AFAFD467DDFA3DBBC63D7A456FBD
Their theory avoids all the usual horrible paraphernalia of charts bundles etc and explains gravity as ‘a gauge theory’ (not that I understand it all yet !!). But it gives the SAME predictions as GR but for a FLAT space.
Valentyn Nastasenko
May I suggest a little time dilation to speed things up?
Ziaedin Shafiei
I watched Ed Dowdye's video. And came out of it hardly skeptical. Principally because plasmas don't deflect photons; they block them. That is why our earliest view of the Big Bang is the CMB, the point where the primordial plasma collapsed. An this it would mean that photons grazing the Sun would be highly deflected, and those slightly further away from it not at all. With all the work that being done on gravitational lensing, this would surely have emerged by now.
Ziaedin Shafiei
I looked at your paper. Nicely laid out. Comments:
– 1) GR is nonsensical (below). And if something is a nonsense (non-sense), it will appear everywhere.
– 2) as Einstein to truly said (but spectacularly failed to apply to his own case), no theory can ever be proved right, but one contrary case (experimental or theoretical) can prove it wrong. Like the clock that struck thirteen, casting doubt on all that went before.
– 3) GR is based on Einstein's "insight" that a falling man doesn't feel his own weight. True, he doesn't. But that doesn't mean he isn't still subject to gravity. He demonstrably is, because otherwise he wouldn't be falling.
– 4) the nonsense goes back to Einstein's 1st SR postulate that all inertial observers' views are equally valid. None is "preferred". Einstein locks someone up in a windowless space capsule. And then declares his view of the universe to be as valid as anyone else's. That's obviously rubbish. The guy in the capsule fondly imagines he is free-floating in outer space. But anyone outside the capsule can see he is really free-falling towards a massive object, and that very shortly there will no longer be any 'him' to realize he isn't free-floating in outer space.
– 6) SR is already ludicrous. GR even more so. The principal question is not whether Reliably is correct, which it demonstrably isn't. But rather: how someone with such a totally ludicrous theory can have gotten himself crowned one of the most brilliant scientists of all time. That is what needs explaining.
Dear Tom
In line with your comments, in my final conclusion I deliberately focused on EP and left out any connection with GR. When I tried to point out the connection between GR and EP in the document it was with reference. Moreover, I tried to moderate the connection by using the word cornerstone in place of base used by Chandrasekhar.
However, it is not good for special and general relativity to be associated with incorrect analysis, erroneous and unproven claims, imaginary test equipment and sloppy imaginative deliberations. If the new EP described in the document is right then it is another blow to the integrity of relativity. In that case, relativity reminds me of a story: a strong man, Bob, asked for a picture of the lion to be tattooed on his back. When the tattooist, Alice, started the work Bob screamed in pain and asked Alice which part of the lion she was doing. She replied it was the tail. Bob said, do not bother with the tail. She agreed and tried the mane but the same happened. She tried to do the belly and again Bob asked not to tattoo that too. Alice eventually gave up protesting what is a lion without tail, mane and belly.
Please note that Newton's law of universal gravitation has/had much more success story. Therefore, whatever the success story of relativity, I give myself the right to question these unscientific statements and flat-earth-type arguments as I have done so in this forum and in other questions asked in RG. Physicists have the duty of either respond or follow up.
The first concern is the wrong analysis of Michelson-Morley experiment which has initiated the bandwagon of relativity. What is the point of following right principles but making a false analysis and wrong conclusion?
Preprint Michelson and Morley Experiment Does not Validate Length Con...
Jeremy Fiennes added a reply 9 hours ago
May I suggest a little time dilation to speed things up?
In theory, you can do anything you want. What is the real physical basis of this process?
Valentyn Nastasenko
No more television, and lots of cups of coffee to keep your mind alert late into the night.
Don't dwell on the problem. She will not go anywhere from you. Go to bed and get up at a convenient time for you. I personally always do this.
Dear Zia,
You have the right to question anything and everything. Exercising such rights is one of the greatest joys in life. Keep doing it as will I!
So although n that spirit I would respond to your latest comments as follows:
You have now introduced your paper on the MM experiment which is a new argument brought to the discussion, and on which I am unable to instantly comment because I have not studied it and I am sure that would take me some time. Similarly I have also not thought in detail about or yet understood your version of an EP or even your criticisms of Einstein’s EP (EEP). So forgive me if I restrict my comments to other points and form of argument within your paper and reply.
I am not sure whether you have understood my point on the validation of GR. Forgive me if I repeat myself on this. I am claiming that it simply doesn’t matter if anybody’s thought experiments are nonsense or not, in respect that this does not affect the validity of any theory. Of course it may be good for other reasons, but it doesn’t matter in the sense that thought-experiments cannot validate any physical theory. The validity of any physical theory is determined by what in my previous post I called principle 2, ie the experimental predictive power of its equations and my other principles 1, 3 and 4. The equations of GR are claimed to predict falsifiable experiments with very great accuracy.
It may not be ‘good’ for SR and GR to be ‘associated’ with incorrect analysis, erroneous and unproven claims, imaginary test equipment and sloppy imaginative deliberations, but that association has nothing to do with the predictive power of the theory. The ‘negative goodness’ is only associated with the ‘why’ explanation which explanations are purely a psychological crutch, ie emotional aids to acceptance, and have nothing to do with the scientific validity, which fundamentally can only be about ‘how’ things are not ‘why’ things are. GR and SR aside, it nevertheless seems to me that the Physics community in other areas, is very guilty of publishing nonsensense ‘why’ arguments such as the ‘Many Worlds Hypothesis’, which are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable.
So in the sense that you have not claimed GR is inaccurate or countered the claims for its test in the Wikipedia article, when you say that because EEP is wrong or non-unique or whatever, this (if true) would be ‘another blow to the integrity of relativity’, I do not see what is either the first or second or any other blow to Relativity. Perhaps it’s a blow to Physics education and understanding, but it is no more than that. It doesn’t invalidate the mathematical theory.
Perhaps I will have time and be able to develop the capacity to think about your other points given time.
Best Regards
Tom
It is difficult to talk about the problem without knowing the parameters of the ether.
I found a CV of Dr Dowdye on a website called ‘scienceinthebible’:
http://www.scienceinthebible.net/author.
Dr. Dowdye is an independent researcher and is Founder of Pure Classical Physics Researchwhere he focuses in depth on the Truth and the Profound Fundamentals and Pure Laws of Nature, all first set in motion by the Devine Creator, the Almighty Lord God. Dr. Dowdye is a recognized and leading expert on the theories of both General and Special Relativity, Electromagnetism and Gravitation.
I am not aware of any science in the bible, nor whom recognise this man as a ‘leading expert‘ on the above topics. Perhaps he’s recognised as such by his pastor?
Dear Tom
There are two known issues in relativity which I think are blows to the integrity of relativity.
Relativistic mass: This idea found to be problematic and has been dropped from many text books. Though many physicists have abandoned the idea it still has not completely rejected.
Invariance of electromagnetic force calculated in two inertial frames: This is the failure to prove invariance of electromagnetic force claimed by Einstein in his 1905 paper. However, Feynman’s incorrect attempt is reproduced as teaching materials in top universities.
Three more issues, which I claim I have found are as follows. Please note I do not claim my findings are correct beyond doubt. That is why I have presented them to RG members for criticism.
Length contraction: This is based on incorrect analysis of and conclusion from M&M experiment. SR subsequently adopted the idea by a thought experiment with M&M apparatus.
Time dilation: The idea was mathematically developed by Lorentz. The dominant concept of time dilation was introduced by Einstein. I have tried to show that the concept is based on length contraction and special positioning of the imaginative light clock, with no proven characteristics. If the orientation of the clock changes it goes slower and ticks become irregular.
physical laws are binding in all inertial reference frames (IRF). One counterexample rejects this idea. That is the angle of reflection is not the same as the angle of incidence in an IRF which is moving relative to the observer.
If we add the weak foundation of equivalence principle and the presented counterexample to it, the list is increased to four.
Dear Jeremy Fiennes
As you know the atmosphere of the sun has few layers. One has a thickness of 500 km and temperature of only 4100K. Apparently, there is no plasma in this layer and they have found water and carbon monoxide within it. Thus, the issue is not that clear cut.
As there are so many unknown, maybe we should leave Ed Dowdye study out of this discussion as the issue raised in this forum is self-contained. What I want to find out in near future is the source and integrity of Ed Dowdye data, whatever his motive might be.
Ziaedin Shafiei
Your reply to Tom. On the principle of the "clock that struck thirteen, thereby placing doubt on all tha went before", one needs only ONE demonstration of Relativity's logical incoherence to refute it. For me the simplest is the clock absurdity:
Article Special Relativity: the Clock Absurdity (6 pages)
Summarized in the diagram.
Dear Tom
ATS “The equations of GR are claimed to predict falsifiable experiments with very great accuracy.”
As we have no access to equipment and facilities available to top physicists, there is no option available to us but to accept their findings and test results based on trust. However, scientists can make a mistake or two. If they so easily accept equivalence principle (EP), relativistic mass and the steady state model of the universe how reliable are their experiments with those false assumptions. For example, we know Einstein initially assumed the steady state model of the universe thus he simply added a term to his equations to behave as such. When big bang cosmology gained popularity, the term was easily dropped to comply with the new theory. Physicists later on brought the term back after accepting an acceleratingly expanding universe. How then can we trust the predictive power of the equations? Don’t you think this example clearly shows the opposite of the correct principles and contrary to the predictive power of the equations? Which equations was used for any experiment prior to 1998? Whatever they did I am sure they could not get a great accuracy with the missing term. What did they use to accurately test GR prior to the discovery of dark matter and afterwards? Why and how did every test accurately prove GR?
Going back to EP, apparently all reported GR tests are related to checking the correctness of EP conclusions such as testing gravitational redshift and lensing. These tests are the undeniable evidences for the impact and importance of EP in GR.
Everything is relative.
And "hard evidence" too.
They will soon be challenged, with after new level of scientific knowledge.
The aqua circle is the light source as it would be seen if there were no lens, while white spots are the multiple images of the source. A light source passes behind a gravitational lens (point mass placed in the center of the image). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
Light travels through spacetime, which can be warped and curved—so light should dip and curve in the presence of massive objects. This effect is known as gravitational lensing GLOSSARY gravitational lensingThe bending of light caused by gravity https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity
The shape of the space time continuum is bent and distorted by the presence of matter, and according to Einstein it is these deformations that cause the "force" of gravity, bend beams of light, and deflect moving objects from straight line trajectories. ... This is Einstein's model for the force of gravity. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/continuum-the-cause-when-gravity-bends-light-1.36214?mode=amp
The theory of gravity based on the curvature of space is highly questionable.
How to cite this paper: Nastasenko, V. (2020) Analysis of the Processes of Gravity in the Framework of Curvature of Space and the Substantiation of the New Model. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 8, 2732-2743. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2020.812202
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics