Is gravitational waves really exist ? This is a humble declaration of Einstein that GTR is a wrong theory, then why should we blame him. It is human nature every one wants show that they are intelligent and make the best effort to impress the scientific community and the society. The same thing he also did. It is a survival tactics but when they have reached the goal usually they try to correct their wrong by some way or other to remove their guilt. So it is high time that we should forgive Einstein by declaring that his theory was wrong and that there is no gravitational waves by agreeing with his later results. We should council (both Scientifically and Psychologically ) the people who detected the gravitational waves, that they are merely weak radio waves. All students from the school level itself, should be asked to take oath that they should fall into this black hole since we need give Einstein's soul a rest.
Gravitational waves or a wave of force of attraction only really exist. Gravitational waves are unipolar whereas radio waves are bipolar.
Einstein was also a joker. He made lots of funny quotes like: "Make you theory as simple as possible but not simpler." GTR is a great theory. It may not have covered all the basis IMO but it still stands firm more than 100 years later.
“Spacetime”, which forms the fundamental constituent of GR; is an abstract geometrical construct that can have no basis in objective reality. The claim that this artificial construct can have tangible physical. mechanical. metrical etc., attribute has no scientific and philosophical foundation. Endless “proofs” of this and other esoteric theories of modern physics are contrived and motivated; inspired by the lure of fame, fortune and funds.
Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?
After reading the responses, I find someone who wants to destroy the basis of Einstein’s general theory of relativity and who wants to make him a GOD, The truth, gentlemen, is that Einstein and Newton like him are not wrong. The error comes when we want to generalize their theory as a general case, but it is, as in my paper on the theory of infinite, that they are Special cases in a general case and from here the division ends, greetings
Mr. Mohamed, I don't know what you have written in your paper, "theory of infinity", but physics is not a mathematical abstract. The term infinity is a mathematical term, which we physicist uses for the non existence. But here we talk about the reality which are observable scientifically. And I understand the theory of differential geometry and both Newtonian and Non Newtonian and the quantum Mechanics. I taught these subject and I teach Mathematical Physics consciously and also I request you not to drag GOD here. If you have doubt regarding GTR or quantum mechanics, you can ask and I will answer to your questions. We all work for the development of the society but many research are on wrong track which is a waste of huge human energy. This question is posted for re-directing wrong research in to the right track and for the productive work. Any thank you for commenting, since you already mentioned GOD here, May God bless you with rational knowledge for understanding a better science
Antony Soosaleon, Modern cosmology is based on a wrong foundation of geometrical and mathematical idealism with the notion that the heavenly bodies move in perfectly circular orbits as the perfect creations of theological God. Ptolemy’s Epicycles were based on this principle. The Copernican revolution overthrew the medieval geocentric cosmology and Kepler, (based on the (tedious) empirical observation of Tycho Brahe) gave quantitative relations of the planetary motion in the solar system and showed that the planets move in elliptical orbits and not circular ones.
Newton distorted Kepler’s laws to bring back the idea of circular orbits and mathematical perfectness in God’s kingdom; to form his law of universal gravitational attraction, which denied any imperfection and contradiction in the motion of the heavenly bodies. But Newton was fundamentally wrong and in spite of opposition from others, particularly Leibniz, could impose his faulty theory on natural science and cosmology; with the help of dominant political powers of Europe, the British imperial authority and theology. Please see: Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...
The inexorable fact is that reality, whether it is cosmic or terrestrial; is never ideal; but is full of contradictions. Newton’s theory of extraterrestrial gravitation, which ruled for centuries without any question; faced conflict with more refined observations of modern times. Even if unconsciously, Albert Einstein revived the geometrical and mathematical idealism of the early Greeks to refine the “perfectness” of Newtonian cosmology, at the behest of modern dominant ruling order, i.e., monopoly capitalism and theology represented by among others, the Vatican, the Templeton foundation of USA, the Wilton Park Group of UK, please see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Influence_of_Big_Money_and_Theology_on_Big_Science_Worrisome
Dear Abdul, you are correct in many senses, there is always certain factors of monopoly everywhere. But here I want to bring some scientific conscience that all the observable are temporal and if it is temporal then it electromagnetic. This is the reason why Minkowski declared unconditionally, it should based on the observations. As you said, the space time geometry is a mathematical entity which is chosen as Euclidian or Non Euclidian according to the problem we wish to solve, and quantising the geometry, which is a mathematical choice, is an absolute nonsense. Again proving that such perturbation travels with the velocity of light is another nonsense. Since in the start of the derivation while considering the action integral itself it is normalised with velocity light and again it is renormalised when the curvature tensor is equated with energy momentum tensor (energy momentum tensor also carry the velocity of light). In both the time the equation are normalise with light then it deduced for perturbation to bring the gravitational waves and to prove that it travels with the velocity of light.
Who will correct these people, I don't know.
Dear Antony
In fact I fond your answer take us away from scientific discussion, I said some try to prove Ernestine was wrong and other see him as a God, then I did not mansion God in physics, and when I publish paper I do not need to name it as your believes but I name as I want, then more useful if you read the paper maybe you will find something useful in it, Greeting
Thank you Mohamed, yes I read your paper, the assumption is good try in mathematical sense
Einstein himself in a August 10, letter to his friend Besso (1954): “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,
17 June MMXXI
Please read attached article, WHY I AM MORE INTELLIGENT THAN EINSTEIN.
Cordially...
ASJ
Dear Corda, I can understand your disturbances, and I have gone through some your paper. But I will request you to learn some fundamentals of differential geometry and deduce the Einstein field equations and then you will understand why it is wrong, Even after that you could not understand I will explain you why it is wrong. I taught it and I found it as an absolute nonsense. Please understand this, you cannot quantise the Hilbert space. Anyway, thank you for your participation, we all want to learn the right thing.
The main mistake of Einstein is the rejection from his idea that space-time contains gravtation as force linked with \lambla-term. But Einstein rejected from this idea, because was agree with Friedman idea, that the Universe is non-stationary. The origin idea of Einstein was founded on idea that all Universe can possess gravitational forces as attraction sorefusion. In this case scientists could study new aspects of R: nature of gravitation as the universal force in the Universe; scitists could study the physical nature of the time which is linked with gravitation action: they could study the cause of grab=vitational aves which are caused by changes of the temp of tje time depending from the rotation and gravitation (non deformation!!!) but we have now Friedman theory of non-stationary Universe where the time flos uniformly as in classic physics/ ravitation and physical nature of the Time must be the most important themes of initial model of the Universe proposed by Einstein. We could study the rple of the curvature (positive or negative)? the direct and reverse direction of the tie and its stopping. But from the mistake of Einstein by the choise of mathematical base we possess theory of Friedman which was created more 100 years ago.
Dear Larissa, My point is that the fundamental formulation itself is wrong, because the theory started from the action integral which is normalised with c which is the velocity of light, and it leads to gaussian integral which connects curvature tensor and again that is equated with energy momentum tensor, which is also normalised to c. In all the deduction you carry the velocity of light and then deduce for the space time perturbation tells that it travels with c. Any measurement is temporal which surely electromagnetic and nothing goes beyond.
There are several situations, Einstein was unfaithful.
We should not burn Einstein's theory, since it is a guide to the world in which Time is the main character. Einstein's main mistake was that he abandoned his original idea that the universe: 1) is stationary; 2) potentially contains gravitational forces of both attraction and repulsion. However, the meteorologist A. Friedman intervened, who, unlike Einstein, was well able to solve differential equations. Solving the system of the field equations of general relativity (Einstein's equations), Friedman proposed a series of non-stationary models of the Universe, both empty and filled with a liquid medium described by the energy-momentum tensor of an ideal liquid. Friedman's models are built on the assumption that the space of the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic (all points and directions that there are equal). The nonstationarity of the models is covered exclusively by the deformation of the 3-space. This nearly 100-year-old model is still dominant in explaining the accelerated motion of distant galaxies.
However, for further progress in understanding space-time, it is necessary to throw off this hypnosis and turn to the origins of general relativity, namely, to special relativity. It is there that the instantaneous transition of the space of the future into the space of the past through the moment of the present is shown in a very visual form. We live only in a sequence of moments between the future and the past, representing the transition of the future into the past through the moment of the present.
The same picture exists in general relativity, only the cone can rotate and gravitate. The upper and lower parts of the cone can be considered as 3-spaces with the opposite direction of the flow of time. The wprld behind the mirroris a world with a reverse flow of time (a world ofnegative energies). In other words, getting off the path laid by Friedman, we can again returnonto the wide road that Einstein pawed.
Dear Antony. Take my apology. I did not read your topic. Now, once read your speculations on the energy-monentum tensor, integrity in a Riemannian space and others, I found that you merely do not know the basics of Riemannian geometry that is the ground of the theory of relativity (both STR and GTR). For me, who authored three research monographs on the theory of relativity would not be good to enter to a non-professional discussion among amateurs. I therefore do reture from this branch.
Once someone likes to enter into a field of science, at lest the basics shuld be learnt before. This this case, the basics are Pauli' bok, then -- Eddington's book and Landau-Lifschitz' book. Otherwise the talk becomes blabling about nothing but only with "scientifically sounding" words as now.
Dear Antony Soosaleon
Pretension to authority, claim to mathematical prowess and the dismissal of anybody who do not agree with their version of the theories of relativity are the astounding defense mechanisms and characteristics of the dwindling number of hardcore relativists in modern times! The more rapid the shrinking of their number, the shriller become their voice, as representatives of Evangelicalism!
But what remains to be defended of the theories of relativity when the biggest promoter and propagandist of GR, Arthur Eddington dismissed the possibilities of gravitational waves as “traveling at the speed of thought”? And when its main proponent Einstein himself not only dismissed gravitational waves early on in support of Eddington, but dismissed “spacetime” as his “castle in the air”; a year before his death and in addition made an exclusive publication concluding that the existence of “black hole” (the back-bone of the relativists) is impossible even as a theoretical concept!:
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf
So, it can now be safely asserted that these theories of Einstein are nothing but metaphysics and mathematical “jugglery” (a term borrowed from Hegel). It is because unlike the theories of classical physics, the theories of relativity did not have roots in historical/social practice, tangible relevance to life, technologies etc. nor led to any of those, not even a single technology; in more than a hundred years of their existence. These are the only criteria that qualifies a theory as positive knowledge, as opposed to mysticism. Hence the theories of relativity do not qualify as positive or scientific knowledge. This is the very reason why unlike the theories of classical physics, the theories of relativity are subjects of centuries long contrived "proofs" and scholastic debates, without any end in sight!
Dear Abdul Malek, You have well said, actually dumped everything about GTR after finding this as non sense, since I am teacher, my students come with the idea of this fantasy, and I get annoyed and tell them the truth. That is the reason for this question to put up. If a theory does gives a solid proof or its usefulness with in 10 or 20 or 30 or even after 50 and 100 years, then why should we carry this dead dog for these many years and wasting huge amount of money and man power when people are dying without food and shelter in this world. Why should we take this burden even after the creator (Einstein) himself dumped the theory.
His teacher Minkowski was more realistic in his argument, may Einstein wanted to prove that he was more intelligent than his teacher. Any way my pain nowadays
the scientists (so called ) at least do not hold a value of minimum human dignity.
Declaring the truth is a courageous act and removing the darkness in human mind is act of charity. Even when no one supports the truth stands by itself. Thank you very much Malek your explanation with Schwarzschild metric is absolute, if we analyse we understand that Universal singularity does not exists. You are very rational human, God bless you.
Antony Soosaleon
The following is an attempt at a dialectical deconstruction of the theories of relativity, ironically, through a reconstruction of Lorentz Transformation! This is similar to the deconstruction made earlier of Newton's theories of universal gravitation. Both are shown in the following links"
Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...
Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
Abdul Malek “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” He is saying that if his theory is wrong then so is all of physics. It isn't the most humble boast he could have uttered and not a very unbiased view on his achievements.
Antony Soosaleon Gravity waves are not unique to General Relativity, in fact they make an appearance in an earlier attempt to explain the Perihelion of Mercury, several decades prior to Einstein formulating his theory. It was explained by Paul Gerber who concluded that gravity travelled at the speed of light.
Christopher C. O'Neill You, young people are so much saturated with official propaganda about Einstein and his theories that it is more or less impossible and a thankless task to try to debrief people. I have been involved in discussion on these issues in RG for the last few years, and I am in no mood to go back to these again; you can search those out if you wish. I can assure you that Einstein’s theories have not led even to a single technological use. It has been shown clearly in various RG forums that all claims to technological relevance like in GPS are shameless lies. You would get some sense of such naked propaganda even from some “respectable” physicists in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc
I also can assure you that Einstein was totally serious and honest in his comment that I quoted above. All of modern theoretical physics and cosmology is indeed a castle in the air as Einstein admitted just less than year of his death. Please read my article linked in my comment above. Or better still my recent comment in the following forum; before you claim other things
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019
And if you wish to bring up the case of Paul Gerber you would (as the saying goes) dig up snakes while digging just for earth worms! Since you brought out this issue, I have to make a somewhat long debriefing. This issue has been the subject of years-long RG forum debates, initiated by (now my friend) Wolfgang W. Engelhardt. He showed that Gerber’s expression cannot be derived from Einstein’s GR. Engelhardt claimed that instead of GR, Einstein used a modified Newtonian theory to derive only 1/3 of Gerber’s value! Ref.:Engelhardt, W.W., “Free Fall in Gravitational Theory”, ResearchGate, January, 2017
In the case of Mercury’ perihelion advance, a mountain was made out of a mole-hill by official physics just to big-up GR!. The perihelion precession of Mercury is 5,600 arcseconds (1.5556°) per century relative to the Earth. Newtonian mechanics, taking into account all the effects from the other planets, predicts a precession of 5,557 arcseconds (1.5436°) per century, but the rest 43 arcseconds remained un-explained; which is less than 0.8%! If you consider the fact (as I have shown) that Newton’s theory is wrong, then 43 arcseconds is not an issue at all!
But this purported “achievement” by Einstein was declared by Steven Weinberg as “a poetic marvel in modern physics” and the strongest “proof” of GR. (Ref. Weinberg, S., “Dreams of a Final Theory”, Random House, Toronto, (1992)
In 1898 a German school teacher Paul Gerber wrote a paper in which he proposed a velocity-dependent propagation of gravity that predicted non-Newtonian 43 arcseconds advance of orbital perihelia per revolution given by the expression kpM/(Lc2); where c is the posited speed of propagation of gravity, M is the sun's mass, L is the semi-latus-rectum of the orbit, and k is a constant depending on the precise form of the assumed potential. Although there are controversies about this formulation, Gerber showed successfully that a value of the constant k = 6 gave the correct additional 43 arcseconds of Mercury’s perihelion advance.
Albert Einstein in his 1915 - 1916 publications claimed to have given a precise account of the discrepancy of precession of Mercury, and deduced Garber’s above relation based on his newly proposed theory of general relativity (GR). But when reminded of Gerber; Einstein retroactively admitted (after questions were raised) that Gerber obtained the correct expression for Mercury’s perihelion advance before him. But Einstein dismissed any possibility that someone could explain the additional 43 arcseconds precession of Mercury or that Gerber’s expression for it could be obtained, without using his theory of general relativity. According to Einstein, “Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that the Perihelion shift of mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity. So there are two possibilities. Either you invent special interplanetary masses. [...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of mercury before me. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I have not mentioned the work by Gerber originally, because I did not know it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it.” (Ref. Einstein, A., "Meine Antwort - Über die anti-relativitätstheoretische G.m b.H". Berliner Tageblatt. 402 (1920).
(The bold print highlighted by me). Just see how much arrogance Einstein showed even when he was in the defensive!
I have been asked to clarify my "Recommend" practice as instantiated on this ResearchGate discussion thread. Please skip this post as a public 'apology' in the English sense of the term.
[Quote of my response to an inquiry in my RG message box. My Response when I was asked why I recommended the interlocutor, who said "...nonsense" which was perceived as a ruling :"against" the inquirer, as follows:
"Dear Prof. C. Corda, Your reply is helpful as is your explanation and provision of the context pertinent to the dispute that emerged from scientific research findings reaching polar opposite conclusions. One of the wonderful aspects of Albert Einstein's scientific and mathematical theories is that they can also serve to catalyze and generate new avenues of exploration, debate, and discovery. With regard to the sociolinguistics facet of the present concern. Both of the discussants engage in nonscientific discourse which veers into the domain of socializing, but, unfortunately, in a negative sense. More specifically, I am trying to answer your initial inquiry accurately, in saying that the word "nonsense" is less socially offensive because it is used to describe the content of the assertions of the interlocutor. In marked contrast, the word "crackpot" is more socially offensive because it is used to score a 'direct hit' against the interlocutor himself. This is my evaluative interpretation of the specific instance which you have brought to my attention. I am sorry to have caused discomfort and I am glad that you have taken time and patience to express your opinions to try to resolve a troubling issue by addressing me directly and cooperatively. I should add that in the contemporary societal climate where illegal drug trafficking is a growing problem because of a new philosophy of "a world without borders," I should point out that the word you use may carry connotative referential meanings you unknowingly and unintentionally hurled at your adversarial interlocutor. This downside aspect of your intentional personal insult contributed to what you have experienced as the 'weight of judgement' which, in this instantaneous decision of mine, fell most heavily upon your reply, and tipped the scales slightly in favor of your interlocutor's utterance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely. Do let me know should you have any concerns in the future.-Dr. Nancy Ann Watanabe, Ph.D., Professor of Comparative Literature and Research Professor of Literature, Film, and Science.
[End of my message box reply to Prof. C. Corda]
Transcript of the excerpted exchange involving nonscientific vocabulary words:
"
Unedited Copy-and-Paste Transcript excerpt of dialogical exchange in question:
📷
Larissa Borissova added an answer
4 days ago
Dear Antony. Take my apology. I did not read your topic. Now, once read your speculations on the energy-monentum tensor, integrity in a Riemannian space and others, I found that you merely do not know the basics of Riemannian geometry that is the ground of the theory of relativity (both STR and GTR). For me, who authored three research monographs on the theory of relativity would not be good to enter to a non-professional discussion among amateurs. I therefore do reture from this branch.
Once someone likes to enter into a field of science, at lest the basics shuld be learnt before. This this case, the basics are Pauli' bok, then -- Eddington's book and Landau-Lifschitz' book. Otherwise the talk becomes blabling about nothing but only with "scientifically sounding" words as now.
Recommend
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Christian Corda added an answer
4 days ago
Mr. Soosaleon dos not know the basics of Riemannian geometry and of a lot of other things. The same happens for Mr. Ruster.....
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Stefan Rüster added an answer
4 days ago
Dear Christian,
no more comment from my side to your nonsense.
… Read more
Recommended
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Antony Soosaleon added an answer
4 days ago
Dear Larissa, Your apology is accepted.
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Christian Corda added an answer
4 days ago
Mr. Ruster, that is a good thing. In fact your comments are an enormous number of idiocies, nonsense and absurdities without any scientific meaning, pure ridiculous crackpottery.
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Abdul Malek added an answer
4 days ago
Dear Antony Soosaleon
Pretension to authority, claim to mathematical prowess and the dismissal of anybody who do not agree with their version of the theories of relativity are the astounding defense mechanisms and characteristics of the dwindling number of hardc
… Read more
Recommend
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Christian Corda added an answer
3 days ago
Mr. Malek,
Please kindly stop to troll
… Read more
Recommend
Share
📷
Antony Soosaleon added an answer
3 days ago
Dear Abdul Malek, You have well said, actually dumped everything about GTR after finding this as non sense, since I am teacher, my students come with the idea of this fantasy, and I get annoyed and tell them the truth. That is the reason for this question to put up. If a theory does gives a solid proof or its usefulness with in 10 or 20 or 30 or even after 50 and 100 years, then why should we carry this dead dog for these m
… Read more
Recommend
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Christian Corda added an answer
3 days ago
Dears Mr. Soosaleon and Mr. Malek,
Your bla bla bla is ridicuolous crackpottery. The issue that Einstein did not accept the presence of singularities in nature has nothing to do with the validity of general relativity in a classical framework. In a couple of recent papers, together with collab
… Read more
Recommend
Share
Transcript of dialogical exchange regarding disputed recommendation I made:
[Unedited Copy-and-Paste Quoted material follows]
"Notifications
Updates
Messages
Requests
Compose message
CrackpotteryReport message · Block user
- 📷Christian Cordato you22 hours agoDear Miss Watanabe, I do not know you. Thus, can you kindly clarify why did you recommend the crackpottery of Mr. Stefan Ruster against me? Regards, Prof. C. Corda
- 📷Nancy Ann Watanabe11 hours agoChristian Corda, I would like to answer your inquiry; however, I have to ask that you clarify the dialogical exchange to which you refer. A cut-and-paste will suffice. In general, I agree with the ResearchGate rule with respect to the use of polite, proper, and scientifically referential language. Your diction in the subject heading to your inquiry suggests a breach of social propriety because it looks just like name-calling. ResearchGate is a platform designed and intended to provide scientists with different opportunities and venues for social networking. Dr. Nancy Ann Watanabe, Ph.D. June 22, 2021, reply to inquiry of C. Corda
- 📷Christian Cordato you2 hours agoDear Nancy Ann Watanabe, You recommended the statement of Mr. Ruster: "Dear Christian, no more comment from my side to your nonsense." Which was a reply to my previous comment: "Mr. Soosaleon dos not know the basics of Riemannian geometry and of a lot of other things. The same happens for Mr. Ruster....." Notice that both Mr. Ruster and Mr. Soosaleon are two crackpots who claim that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong (sic) while I am a known expert of that theory. Respecting the use of polite, proper, and scientifically referential language is different than endorsing crackpottery. Best wishes, Prof. C. Corda
- 📷Nancy Ann Watanabe26 minutes agoDear Prof. C. Corda, Your reply is helpful as is your explanation and provision of the context pertinent to the dispute that emerged from scientific research findings reaching polar opposite conclusions. One of the wonderful aspects of Albert Einstein's scientific and mathematical theories is that they can also serve to catalyze and generate new avenues of exploration, debate, and discovery. With regard to the sociolinguistics facet of the present concern. Both of the discussants engage in nonscientific discourse which veers into the domain of socializing, but, unfortunately, in a negative sense. More specifically, I am trying to answer your initial inquiry accurately, in saying that the word "nonsense" is less socially offensive because it is used to describe the content of the assertions of the interlocutor. In marked contrast, the word "crackpot" is more socially offensive because it is used to score a 'direct hit' against the interlocutor himself. This is my evaluative interpretation of the specific instance which you have brought to my attention. I am sorry to have caused discomfort and I am glad that you have taken time and patience to express your opinions to try to resolve a troubling issue by addressing me directly and cooperatively. I should add that in the contemporary societal climate where illegal drug trafficking is a growing problem because of a new philosophy of "a world without borders," I should point out that the word you use may carry connotative referential meanings you unknowingly and unintentionally hurled at your adversarial interlocutor. This downside aspect of your intentional personal insult contributed to what you have experienced as the 'weight of judgement' which, in this instantaneous decision of mine, fell most heavily upon your reply, and tipped the scales slightly in favor of your interlocutor's utterance. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely. Do let me know should you have any concerns in the future.-Dr. Nancy Ann Watanabe, Ph.D., Professor of Comparative Literature and Research Professor of Literature, Film, and Science.
Reply Mark as unread
More
Dear researcher
May I know the purpose of the question?
Why are you asking this question here? Is there any benefit from the scientific side?
Greetings to you
Christian Corda
With your contributions to this thread, you have criticized many posts. May be rightly or not, but without an own academic position.
An important point, which needs an academic position, is the negative energy density of the gravitational field. What is your position about wave propagation properties of a gravitational field with a negative energy density X?
Does the resulting negative inertia X/c² lead to an instable behaviour?
Christian Corda
I mean "wave propagation properties of gravitational fields", how gravitational fields with a negative energy density support wave propagation.
The field has a negative energy density, but the wave energy density is positive.
Christian Corda
"This means that the gravitational energy is higher than the mass-energy of the source(s)"Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense and much worse than all that you have criticised in that tread up to now. Gravitational energy quadratically depends on the strength of the gravitational field. This means that around small masses with their weak gravitational field the energy E=mc² extremely outnumbers the energy in the gravitational field. Apart from that, the energy in the gravitational field is negative and E=mc² always is positive. This means that the gravitational energy never can be higher than the mass-energy of the sources.
With this statement you absolutely disqualify yourself as a serious contributor to this thread. Your intense criticism of other contributions is revealed as a pompous bla bla. It sems that you simply imply that others must have like you difficulties in understanding the differential geometric background of general relativity.
Christian Corda
"That bound systems have negative total energy is well known even by high school students."This is nonsese. Bound systems only contain less energy compared with the total energy contained in its unbound components.
If you would focus on science instead of impertinently critisize others, your contributions would be much more serious.
Dear Mr. Corda
Please be factual and abstain from impertinences. Only ranting without a statement is like the barking of an unhappy dog.
You could comment the two statements:
(1) Bound systems contain less energy compared with the total energy contained in its unbound components. This does not include a statement about the total energy of the bound system.
(2) A black hole merger also affects space outside the intrinsic no-escape zone. Therefor we can detect gravitational signals from such an event.
Dear Mr. Corda
I already have a PhD. My PhD thesis has the title "Numerical solution of the Vlasov-Maxwell equation in electrostatic approximation as a spatial initial value problem"
What is the title of your PhD thesis?
Concerning "Mea Culpa"
We can blame Albert Einstein and his colleagues that they did not consequently consider all properties of gravitational fields.
A gravitational field has an energy density. This makes it to a medium for the propagation of waves. The energy density of a static field can be compressed and expanded by a passing gravitational field, which belongs to a passing object.
We know that in any medium the propagation velocity of compressional waves is given by the square root of the relation between pressure and density of matter. In the gravitational field the pressure is given by the energy density and the density of matter is energy density divided by c².
We see the propagation velocity of waves in the medium “gravitational field” is the speed of light.
Albert Einstein and his colleagues surely had known everything about wave theory, but they did not publish an analysis of the consequences, because they had no answer concerning the negative energy density of the gravitational field around matter.
As Universe is not empty, You can get effects from spinning masses etc.
Dear Edgars, Your are correct, off course the Universe in not empty, and every point in space time is unique then why GTR and gravitational waves...
Sir Einstein was not mistaken because he said that his theory is a special case and that he is waiting for someone to come up with a general theory, which is the mistake of those who want to make Einstein's theory a general theory and that Lorentz's equation likes science to stop there and we lie in its name, I made the fifth dimension and the general theory, but you can look at them from this Link: Article INFINITY THEORY T H E F I F T H D I M E N S I O N S P A C E -T I M E
Dear Mohamed, I just read the abstract of your paper, that you deal with the particles which travel more than the speed of light, the theory Sudarsan proposed as tachyons in 1962, but every one should understand this, any theory can be tested with observations which is possible only by electromagnetic waves, we have no other means of measurements since God has given all our senses (ear, eyes skin, brain) function on electromagnetic waves, not by any means. Even the brain store the information in terms of emf, so we are confined in electromagnetic world. What is the meaning of something which cannot observe it by our devise and you do not require a big theory to understand that no material particle travel than the velocity flight, but even if anything travel we have no use because it is cannot give any information. If we develop a theory which reduce a its speed which is less than light then it will fall back to thermal particles. Please understand this is pure rational, there is no meaning when it cannot be tested which will give desperations in the end, which was the state of Einstein when he realised or wanted to correct his mistake, may be he might have done it knowingly or wanted to keep his fame as it is.
Albert Einstein and his colleagues had no answer concerning wave theory applied to the negative energy density of the gravitational field around matter. But there is a possible answer, the negative energy density is overcompensated by a positive energy density contribution of the universe.
In physics speculations, a negative energy density is associated to superluminal velocity of massive objects, wormhole generation, or even time travel. But all those speculations are not substantial. We therefor must assume that a negative energy density, corresponding to a negative mass density is not possible. The most basic physical law for inertial mass m, F=m*a, predicts a catastrophic behaviour for a negative mass. A self-amplifying acceleration force in the direction of the (initial) acceleration. This means that every infinitesimally small amount of free negative mass would run away from its current location and would endlessly gain negative kinetic energy.
If it would be possible to fix a certain amount of negative mass to a positive mass, we have a perpetuum mobile.
All this points indicate that a negative mass, or a negative energy density cannot exist.
Dear Antony Soosaleon
Thank you for your valuable response, but sir, if I went back to the beginning of the first model of the atom, it would not have been applicable in any way to the current model after more than 100 years, and despite that it was useful in the process of understanding science for that state and science is in development,,, Now to solve the problems of particles in the universe it does not matter To be observed or not, and it does not matter that we measure it with our senses, but it is important that we develop the optimal perception to explain the phenomena of the visible universe and hidden universes.
Dear Antony-Soosaleon
Thank you for your valuable response, but sir, if I went back to the beginning of the first model of the atom, it would not have been applicable in any way to the current model after more than 100 years, and despite that it was useful in the process of understanding science for that state and science is in development,,, Now to solve the problems of bodies in the universe it does not matter To be observed or not, and it does not matter that we measure it with our senses, but it is important that we develop the optimal perception to explain the phenomena of the visible universe and hidden universes.
Dear Mohammed, Bohr model is not complete, we need a new inclusive model based on fields associated with nucleus and electrons which is under formulation. Bohr model is particle model but interaction between the particles are field oriented. we need to account the magnetic and electric fields associated with both nucleus and electrons, and also electrons must be treated with different degrees on freedom since the field distribution very unique for electrons. Hope we would bring some results soon.