Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community. In 2020, Penrose was awarded one half of the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity.
This year Novel Prize in Physics show that the general theory of relativity is ok.
While the Mach-Einstein concept of a general theory of relativity was beautiful, Einstein's attempted 1916 implementation is pretty bloody awful. It's not "the genuine article", it's riddled with geometrical and definitional contradictions.
It doesn't work properly with QM, it doesn't work properly with modern cosmology (it was designed around the idea of a fixed-size universe), it doesn't work properly with gravitomagnetism. The system is actually pathological in that it lets us definitively prove that some things are true ... and then it also lets us prove that they are false.
Pretty much anything that GR requires to be correct can also be disproved from other parts of the system.
Here's how the exterior geometry of a GR1916 black hole proves that the SR shift equations don't work for gravity, so that the 1916 theory and the event horizon idea are both self-invalidating:
Preprint Gravitomagnetic horizons and the comprehensive failure of Ei...
We can also point out that Einstein's definition of the general principle in terms of frames was "unfortunate", as accelerated frame arguments give a different physics to arguments involving accelerated masses. An accelerated observer-mass is required by GR to physically warp spacetime and exert a gravitomagnetic dragging effect on nearby matter (Einstein 1921). But an accelerated frame is simply a geometrical remapping that leaves the underlying geometry entirely unchanged.
Preprint Problems with the frame approach under general relativity
So we can use the 1916 theory both to prove that gravitomagnetism is essential and unavoidable (Einstein 1921), and also to prove that it's impossible and illegal (frame arguments, condition of SR-compliance).
The system is an incoherent mess that doesn't work properly either as logic or as geometry. Einstein wrote in 1950 that he no longer believed in the SR+GR architecture of the existing general theory, so we've really been needing a replacement theory for around seventy years.
But the community keeps saying, "No, no, the theory's absolutely fine, is has no known problems ... "
Dear Eric Baird
I read your comment because I saw the word “gravitomagnetism” in the 6th line.
I have never spend much attention on gravitomagnetism because the term is related in cosmology with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In my opinion curved spacetime is a model, and more worse, Einstein’s model is not about gravitation but about the resultant geometrics of the electric field – a topological field – under influence of matter and plain mass (mass without rest mass).
But if we implement the gravitational constant in the GR equations we get Newtonian gravity because at the macroscopic scale the electric field is a push force and Newtonian gravity too. Thus the only difference between Einstein’s model of curved spacetime and Newtonian gravity is the velocity of the influence of the gravitational field. In general relativity it is the speed of light (because it is the electric field) and in Newtonian gravity it is an instantaneous influence. The latter is correct because Newtonian gravity is a vector field and its push characteristics are confirmed for example by the experiments of Louis Rancourt (http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p4).
The term “gravitomagnetism” is really amazing because Newtonian gravity is a vector field and the medium is the flat Higgs field in vacuum space. But not only Newtonian gravity is a vector field, the magnetic field is also a vector field (actually the scalar vectors within the flat Higgs field) and corresponds with the local amplitudes of the electric field. Thus the vectors of Newtonian gravity are super positioned on the vectors of the magnetic field (only in vacuum space).
The electric and corresponding magnetic field exist only as a duality in vacuum space (flat Higgs field). Thus within the boundary of a black hole all the scalars of the Higgs field are decreased and don’t function as a medium for the magnetic field and the super positioned Newtonian gravity. The consequence is that electromagnetic radiation cannot be created within the boundary of a black hole. So there is no need for a gravitational force to create the “black” of a black hole (I read the introduction of your paper about Gravitomagnetic horizons ;-). Does it fit a bit your objections against GR?
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm : " I have never spend much attention on gravitomagnetism because the term is related in cosmology with Einstein’s theory of general relativity "
An interesting thing about gravitomagnetism (and the reason why the GR community still can't produce a consistent review of the subject) is that general relativity absolutely requires gravitomagnetism to be fundamental, and special relativity absolutely requires it to be absent.
Since Einstein's 1916 general theory tries to incorporate both GR arguments and SR physics ... which is geometrically impossible, because they mutually contradict ... any proper academic study of gravitomagnetism has to conclude that:
- Einstein's general theory is wrong, and in fact pathological. We can still have a general theory of relativity, just not Einstein's. SR-based concepts of causality have to be ditched, along with the absolute event horizons that result from plugging the SR Doppler shift equations into gravitational theory.
- Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on simplified geometrical assumptions that are wrong in a GR universe. For a workable general theory to be possible, Special relativity has to be wrong physics. A lot of SR results will carry over into an alternative relativistic math, but some won't. Certain critical SR equations actually have to be wrong.
In other words, a geometrical study of gravitomagnetism forces us to conclude that we have to dismiss BOTH of Einstein's theories of relativity, in favour of a self-contained replacement general theory that does not include SR as a limiting case.
To mainstream GR people, the idea that Einstein;s 1916 theory coul;d be not just incomplete but actually wrong, is unthinkable. They've grown up being told that it's a perfect theory, and one of the most beautiful theories every created. Convincing these guys that the theory could be bad is like trying to tell an evangelical christian that perhaps if Jesus heard some of the terrible things they said, Jesus wouldn't love them.
General relativity has the problem that (unlike QM) it doesn't obviously generate technology that generates money. You don;t need GR1916 to calculate gravity-shifts or time dilation or the Shapiro effect. This makes the GR community acutely dependent on grants, and when a research community is entirely dependent on grants, the truth can sometimes go out of the window (look at the tokamak fusion guys, everyone involved knew that their timescales for commercial futsion were fiction). To publicly point out a fault with the theory risks being seen as disloyalty to the profession, because undermining faith in the theory may undermine funding and lead to projects being cancelled and some of your friends and colleagues and students missing out on jobs.
So the GR community "hypes" their theory, and impressionable students believe the hype, and can;t bring themselves to believe that their beloved role models were lying to them.
Bu the case with gravitomagnetism is actually worse then this: not only do we lose the 1916 theory, we also lose special relativity, meaning that we lose BOTH classical models that much of Twentieth Century physics is based on.
In theory, theoretical physicists love being proved wrong, and love scientific revolutions, the bigger the better. In practice, research is an industry, and industries act to head off disruptive change wherever possible. If you could produce a replacement theory for SR and GR1916 tomorrow, many in the physics community simply wouldn't want it, and would prefer that it not exist. Rtaher than embrace the improvements in the new theory, many woudl rather that you fell into a hole and were never heard from again.
So the community has all sort of mechanisms for deterring research into non-SR-based theory, while apparently doing no research themselves. Everyone associated with the idea gets added to "crackpot" blacklists, and can no longer have a career in physics unless its private-sector-based, while the mainstream reviews that demonstrate why non-SR solutions can't work, are conspicuously absent.
It's pretty much impossible to do a geometrical review of gravitomagnetism without destroying the entire SR+GR1916 structure, and that's why there's hardly any serious exploratory work on it, apart from a little bit on rotational gm.Even then, they try not to generalise their results too much.
Dear Eric Baird
Thank you for the extensive description in your comment! In the mean time I have searched for a brief description of gravitomagnetism and I found one in Wikipedia. Now I understand that my personal idea didn’t fit the concept (I thought that gravitomagnetism was at the level of the quantum “back ground” fields).
I have download your papers – mentioned in your first comment – to better understand your argumentation.
With kind regards, Sydney
The Wikipedia page isn't a bad characterisation of the standard view. It mentions the analogous fluid-dragging effect in fluid mechanics (and old-fashioned aether theories!), which I was expecting them not to mention. So well done them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
See also the WP page on frame-dragging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/19apr_gravitomagnetism.html
https://web.stanford.edu/~oas/SI/SRGR/notes/Gravitomagnetism.pdf
Rotational gravitomagnetism is necessary to explain the relativity of rotation.
Accelerational gravitomagnetism, is necessary to explain the relativity of acceleration, and usually gets ignored. This is partly because it conflicts with the extension of special relativity to cover accelerated observers, but also (to be fair) because it's easy to find rotating stars, but not so easy for find stars that are undergoing forced physical acceleration!
Einstein mentions the accelerational effect (the dragging effect of a forcibly-accelerated mass on nearby matter) in his 1921 Princeton lectures, published in 1922 as The Meaning of Relativity. He argues that both classes of gravitomagnetic effect can be considered consequences of Mach's principle.
Essentially, if you sit in the seat of a racing car, and hit the accelerator pedal with your foot, the general principle of relativity lets you explain the geeforces pushing you back into your seat, either as the result of your inertial mass (which is resisting the attempt to accelerate it), or as the result of your gravitational mass. The idea is that if we regard all the masses in the outside universe as forming a hollow shell, then if that shell is given a relative acceleration to the car, the effect of its relatively accelerating mass creates a real gravitational field that pushes you back into your seat. Geeforces are considered "fictitious forces" in C19th textbook theory, under general relativity, the observer is entitled to consider them perfectly real.
Einstein's 1921 argument is that if there's nothing "special" about the matter in those stars, then the physical acceleration of the racing car's mass must also create the same sort of dragging effect on nearby matter. So the distortion caused by the relative acceleration of masses is an intrinsic distortion, that exists for all observers.
This is where some of the GR texbooks get a bit wobbly. Some textbook writers (eg Moller) don't seem to know about the 1921 argument, and say that the distortion exists for the accelerated observer, but NOT for bystanders, and that the effect does NOT exist for everyone, is an artifact of the observer's motion, and that the underlying spacetime of the region remains undistorted (no gravitomagnetic induction effect). Moller says that there is a real difference between "real" gravitational fields (which exist for everyone) and geeforces, which he says can be made to go away with a coordinate transform. So Moller's description of general relativity violates the general principle of relativity (because he is prioritising ""not contradicting SR").
Because Moller either doesn't know about or doesn't accept the gravitomagnetic induction effect, he doesn't accept the principle that acceleration and rotation are associated with real gravitational fields, and doesn't accept the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational explanations as being fundamental.
Other GR textbooks writers don't go quite as far as Moller, but still include some troublingly non-GR characterisations, in order to continue supporting SR.
Misner Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation" (MTW) says that everyday bodies are free to move along any noninertial path they like, and spacetime will not distort, and the situation will still be describable using SR.
Well, no, not according to the GPoR and Einstein's 1921 argument -- forcibly accelerated bodies must always distort spacetime, or else we're breaking the general principle of relativity. But if we accept that these distortions are real, then this leads to a chain of logic that says that there should also be distortions when bodies only have constant relative motion, and that would wreck special relativity.
Dear Eric Baird
Thanks again for the clear explanation! Now I understand that my first comment was indeed about the underlying causation of all these effects. Unfortunately, I am doing research in field theories (today termed “discrete space”) for nearly 50 years so phenomenological physics is for me like a text book from ancient times. The used terminology and the distinct points of view are a bit weird after all those years (sometimes even “esoterically mysterious” ;-).
That is why your clear explanation of the G-forces with the help of inertial mass or with the help with gravitational mass – because both are equivalent – is for me like reading science fiction. I never assumed that Einstein was a gravity mystic too…
Anyway, the links you provided are really useful for me because I am writing a paper about the causation of all these kind of effects at the quantum level. But nobody likes the mathematical aspects of a hypothesis if there are hardly direct relations with known theories and experiments. So I read everything you wrote in your comments and the links with great attention.
My personal “experience” with Einstein’s theory of special and general relativity is simple. If I assume that curvature is a main property of the structure of space itself it is impossible to construct a model that elucidate the existence of the universal constants and conservation laws. These constants and conservation laws are valid everywhere in the universe so it is the “ultimate” prove for every theoretical hypothesis that envelopes a wide range of the known phenomena. I have spoiled a lot of years trying to construct a model of space that showed curvature as a basic property of the structure. Refuting Einstein’s theory of curved spacetime “clears the sky”. However, spacetime was really useful as a new concept because the idea of aether corpuscles seems only related to the blue sky.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Eric Baird
If I describe inertial mass with the help of the idea of discrete space the mass itself is a local concentration of energy – forced by the electromagnetic field – that was exceeding a certain threshold during the process of concentration. It forced local scalars of the Higgs field to decrease their magnitude and the released energy became part of the local electric field (termed “rest mass”).
The decrease of one or more local scalars within vacuum space – the flat Higgs field – influences the mutual equilibrium of the local scalars within the flat Higgs field around the created matter. That means that the flat Higgs field around the created matter gets vectorized. All the scalar vectors are pointing towards the “hole” that is created by every decreased scalar.
Vectors – like the vectors of the magnetic field – determine the direction of the motion of energy. Thus in vacuum space the magnetic field represents all the vectors that are created by the continuous transfer of quanta, the fixed amount of transferred energy of the electric field. The electric and magnetic field are corresponding fields thus the transfer of a quantum generates a vector – the magnetic field – and the vector determines in which direction the next quantum of the electric field will be transferred.
Vectors need a “solid” medium otherwise a vector cannot exist. The solid medium is the “lattice” of the scalars of the flat Higgs field in vacuum space. In other words, the creation of matter by the electromagnetic field – the local concentration of energy – generates scalar vectors that are super positioned on the vectors of the magnetic field.
Scalar vectors determine the direction of the motion of energy and, of course, the direction of the motion of concentrations of energy, like the rest mass carrying particles that form objects.
The scalar vectors that are induced by the creation of matter represent a push force, if our point of view is space itself. It is the opposite of Newtonian gravity – an attracting force – but Newton knew about the “equivalence” of both concepts. In other words, gravitation – as a reaction on the creation of matter within the flat Higgs field of vacuum space around – is described by Isaac Newton. Vectors don’t transfer energy thus Newtons reasoning that the influence of the force of gravity isn’t limited by the speed of light is 100% correct.
The text above is another conceptual framework to analyse the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass (in relation to discrete space itself, described with the help of known field concepts). I hope it is a bit conceivable.
Now I have to think about the problem how to explain the equivalence without relying on the easy statement that the conditions of the “inertial mass” and the “gravitational mass” are exactly the same.
With kind regards, Sydney
Three articles on Einstein, simplified without the math.
https://sidiropoulos.medium.com/a-perfect-mind-bd94c7a888b1
https://sidiropoulos.medium.com/einsteins-special-relativity-749bd2cda886
https://sidiropoulos.medium.com/the-most-beautiful-physical-theory-ever-invented-3a435587b8ab
Dear Eric Baird
I am sorry but I couldn’t explain the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass with the help of the conceptual framework in my previous post in a brief but understandable way. Anyway I give it a start because the explanation of Einstein and Mach is really awkward. And it is on topic.
In discrete space – space with a uniform structure – an object is a local concentration of energy. Once it was an amount of “free” quanta in vacuum space – part of the amplitudes of the electric field – but the quanta are concentrated by the basic properties of the electric field, the creation of a rest mass carrying particle. The consequence is that the local concentration of energy – the particle – is a surplus of energy in relation to the average amplitudes of the electric field in vacuum space. But around the particle is a large volume that has a deficit of energy that is equal to the surplus of energy of the particle (a local electromagnetically duality in line with the law of conservation of energy).
Einstein described this redistribution of energy with the help of the formula E = m c2. To transform the concentrated quanta of the mass (m) into “free” quanta in vacuum space (E) we have to restore the surface area (c2) to the concentrated quanta of the mass. Because energy is the local topological deformation of the invariant volume of the structure of space itself (the variable is surface area, known as the amplitudes of the electric field).
To move a mass in discrete space all the concentrated quanta of the mass must be transferred from one position within the structure of discrete space to another position. However the universal velocity of a quantum is the constant speed of light. That means that the linear transfer of a quantum from one unit to an adjacent unit of the structure of discrete space has always the speed of light. Thus the speed of light is the only velocity in our universe if we accept that velocity is the transfer of energy (our universe is non-local thus there is also an instantaneous transfer of mutual influence by the scalar vectors of the flat Higgs field).
Suppose a mass has an energy concentration of 1 million quanta (fixed amounts of topological deformation). The transfer of this amount of quanta from one unit in space to an adjacent unit in space has a duration of 1 million x the time it takes to transfer 1 quantum between the 2 adjacent units. Thus an observer will conclude that the mass has a low velocity. However, a mass don’t “occupy” the volume of only 1 unit of discrete space (a spatial structure hypothesized by e.g. Werner Heisenberg in the first half of the 20th century and it is now termed “the minimal length scale”). In other words, the volume of the mass determines the number of “enclosed” units and this determines how many quanta of the mass can be transferred synchronously. That means that the velocity of a mass is determined by the total amount of concentrated energy in relation the actual size of the volume of the energy concentration.
Unfortunately, the electric field cannot concentrate quanta if there is no simultaneous creation of a “closed loop” of quanta transfer – actually topological deformation – in the centre of the concentration. “Closed loops” are well known in particle physics because it is termed “spin” and it seems to be a quite mysterious phenomenon in high-energy theoretical physics because recently Nature published the paper “Angular momentum generation in nuclear fission” (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03304-w#citeas). The abstract tells the whole story.
The result of the existence of “closed loops” is the camouflage of the total amount of quanta transfer of the mass in relation to the velocity of the mass. Because if I accelerate the mass the velocity of the mass in relation to the structure of discrete space increases. If the velocity of the mass nears the speed of light the “closed loop” of the internal quanta transfer of the mass has nearly stopped because nearly all the involved quanta are forced to move in the direction of the motion of the mass.
If the mass is a clock the observer will notice that the clock hands are slowed down. That’s why Einstein concluded that time must be relative. But he was wrong because the observable changes of an object are not equal to the concept of universal time. The linear transfer of 1 quantum from one unit of discrete space to an adjacent unit is the building block of “time” and it is a universal constant (because c and h are universal constants). In quantum field theory and in discrete space time is a constant.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm : " If the mass is a clock the observer will notice that the clock hands are slowed down. "
Under special relativity, if there are no complicating accelerations or gravitational fields, and we stay within strict SR, then although SR makes physical testable predictions, the theory's time dilation effects are not "physical" -- they're purely interpretative, and cannot be isolated on principle.
1: THE "UNINTERPRETED" SR EXERCISE:
Imagine a clock coming towards you at v=0.8c (recession velocity vR= - 0.8c).
According to special relativity, you should see the clock's hands to be moving more quickly than usual, by a factor of
freq'/freq = SQRT[ (c-vR) / (c+vR) ]
= SQRT[ (1-(-0.8)) / (1+(-0.8)) ]]
= SQRT[ 1.8 / 0.2 ] = SQRT[9] = 3
So the clock hands should appear to be rotating three times faster than normal
This is the actual physical prediction for SR for this situation.
We can now consider interpretations:
2: LIGHTSPEED FIXED IN THE OBSERVER'S FRAME:
If we choose to believe that the speed of light is fixed in our own frame, then the "simple" Doppler propagation shift for a receding body is freq'/freq = c/(c+vR).
Since recession velocity is vR= -0.8c, the propagation-based blueshift component is calculated as being freq'/freq=1/(1-0.8) = 1/0.2 = 5
So we might expect to see the clock to be running five times as fast. However, since this is SR, we also have the Lorentz time dilation effect, of SQRT[1- v2/c2] = SQRT[ 1-0.64] = SQRT[ 0.36 ] = 0.6
Multiply the propagation blueshift by the Lorentz time dilation effect and we get
freq'/freq = 5 * 0.6 = 3
, as before.
Does this mean that, if SR's prediction is correct, we've proved that the object is "really" time-dilated?
No, because if we could prove that it was "really" running slow, we could use this to prove that the speed of light was "really" fixed (preferentially) in our global frame, and being able to prove this would break the principle of relativity.
3: LIGHTSPEED FIXED IN THE EMITTER'S FRAME:
If we choose instead (as we're entitled to under SR) to believe that the speed of light is fixed in the other guy's frame, then the "simple" Doppler propagation shift for a receding body becomes instead freq'/freq = (c -vR)/c .
Since recession velocity is vR= -0.8c, the propagation-based blueshift component is now calculated as being freq'/freq = (1+0.8)/1 = 1.8
This is a much weaker propagation shift than in the previous example.
Being SR, we still have to take into account the effects of Lorentz time dilation. But this time, because it's US that's said to be "moving" wrt the chosen frame for light-propagation, we say that it's OUR clocks that are running slow, leading us to expect to see a Lorentz speed-up in physical behaviours.
The inverted Lorenz time-dilation prediction is
freq'/freq = 1 / SQRT[ 0.36 ] = 1/0.6 = 1.666'
Multiply 0.666' by 1.8, and we get 3
, as before.
4: WHICH INTERPRETATION IS RIGHT?
So, suppose that we take a video recording of this approaching clock, obeying SR and being seen to tick three times faster than normal.
We can claim that the agreement with SR is due to the clock "really" being time-dilated, and ticking more slowly than us ... or we can claim that the agreement with SR is due to the clock ticking more quickly than us, due to our own time-dilation.
As far as the final predicted physics is concerned, IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE .
Time dilation within "strict" SR is 100% interpretational, the theory gives us no way IN PRINCIPLE of testing whether the clock is "really" ageing more slowly or more quickly than we are. The final predictions come out precisely the same either way.
We can even choose to believe that the speed of light is really globally fixed in the intermediate frame, that we and the clock have precisely the same underlying rate of timeflow, and when we calculate the combination of Doppler shifts, still end up with freq'/freq = 3 .
Dear Eric Baird
As I wrote before – now 4 days ago – I have always done field theory so for me all those reference frames and other “relative conditions” are outdated. There are no reference frames in field theory, there is only a large volume and the spatial configuration of this volume – together vacuum space and all the observable phenomena – is changing synchronously everywhere within the volume in a continuous way. So I need some time to interpret your last comment. But in the meantime I will try to amuse you with Einstein’s gravitation, so I am really on topic! ;-)
Recent astronomical observations have shown that there existed very active “full grown” galaxies nearly 13 billion light years in the past. And more worse, these galaxies have a really big black hole in the centre. The observations are impossible if the Standard cosmological model – “once upon a time there was a big-bang” – is correct. But that is hard to believe because Hydrogen atoms are thought to cluster together in clouds, the swirling contracting clouds will give birth to stars and at the end of the line a really big star creates a super nova and the result is the birth of a relative small black hole.
The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation shows very large regions of nearly circular polarization (BICEP2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05976.pdf). There is only one conclusion possible – the polarization is caused by gravitation. That is why cosmologists have termed the black holes in the centre of these early galaxies “primordial black holes”.
If we forget phenomenological physics all the mass in the universe is created by the continuous redistribution of energy in space. Actually, the energy of all matter originates from vacuum space. Thus if there is no matter in the universe the amplitudes of the electromagnetic field are maximal and the force of gravitation is totally absent.
The CMB radiation originates from the exchange of electromagnetic waves between Hydrogen atoms. The nucleus of a Hydrogen atom – a proton – is a rest mass carrying particle and rest mass is created by the decrease of the magnitude of local scalars of the flat Higgs field (vacuum space). The cause behind the decrease of the scalar is the local concentration of energy by the electromagnetic field. The “used” energy was part of the amplitudes of the electromagnetic field around the decreased scalar (actually the rest mass carrying particle).
But the polarization of the radiation of the Hydrogen atoms in the early universe proves that the primordial black holes already existed before the Hydrogen atoms emerged from local concentrations of the electromagnetic field. Otherwise there are no large regions of strong gravitational fields observable. There is only one conclusion possible: if the amplitudes of the electromagnetic field are maximal the concentration of energy is enormous. Not only in relation to the amount of energy but also in relation to the size of the involved volume of vacuum space.
During the creation of the primordial black holes the decreasing amplitudes of the electromagnetic field passed a certain threshold and from that moment there was only enough energy available in vacuum space to create Hydrogen atoms.
The creation of rest mass – the cause behind the emerge of gravitation – is the result of the concentration of energy that forces a local scalar of the flat Higgs field in the centre of the concentration to decrease its magnitude (termed “Higgs mechanism”). Primordial black holes have rest mass too.
The outcome is twofold:
Newton argued that gravitation is an attracting force between objects and the mutual influence acts instantaneously. Experiments showed that gravitation cannot be an attracting force because it can be shielded by light. Therefore gravitation is the opposite, a push force from the vectorized flat Higgs field around the object (http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p4). Vectors act instantaneously because vectors don’t transfer energy so vectors are not limited by the speed of light (the limitation of the range of the influence of vectors is the interruption of the flat Higgs field by decreased scalars of the Higgs field). So I can conclude that Newtonian gravitation is in line with point 1.
Einstein proposed that gravitation is the curvature of the geometrical nature of space itself under influence of the existence of matter. The velocity of the influence of curved spacetime is restricted to the speed of light. In other words, it seems that Einstein described the changes within the electromagnetic field (2).
But the transfer of energy from the reduced scalar(s) to the volume of the electric field doesn’t affect the geometrical shape of the structure of space itself. It is only an exchange of energy within an invariant volume. And – more worse – the electric field cannot curve the flat structure of the scalars of the Higgs field in vacuum space. The electric field and the Higgs field exchange energy so both fields represent different spatial properties of the same underlying structure (discrete space itself).
In other words, GR proposes that the structure of space itself creates matter and the effect of this creation is that matter forces the structure of space itself to curve… To paraphrase Peter Woit: “not even wrong!”.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Eric Baird
Figure 2 and figure 3 show 2 phenomena that exchange an electromagnetic wave (Special Relativity). The cubes represent in a schematic way the structure of discrete space. There is only one property important in this topic and that’s the units of the structure can only pass on - in a synchronized way with all the other units - 1 quantum during 1 tq (constant of quantum time). A quantum is a fixed amount of topological deformation of the electric field and the cross section in figure 1 shows that we can deform the joint face if both volumes I and II have an identical invariant volume that can deform. That’s the topological principle how the 3D wave pattern in QM and QFT are build up.
In figure 2 an incoming electromagnetic wave (f = x) is absorbed by the emitter and immediately released in the direction of the receiver. In phenomenological physics we ignore that space itself is in rest and all the phenomena change their position continuously. Thus in SR we ignore the absolute velocity of Vr and the absolute velocity of Ve. We also ignore in SR that the power to change the shape of each unit – observable as energy – is a property of the unit itself.
The observable velocity of the emitter (Ve) is ½ c thus the frequency (f) of the emitted electromagnetic wave has doubled in relation to the frequency of the incoming electromagnetic wave, thus f = 2x.
I have drawn the internal clock of the emitter and receiver and an arrow to indicate roughly the amount of internal rotation in relation to the velocity of the emitter and receiver in discrete space. It is a loop of internal quanta transfer that shows the evolution of the object during a period of time. Einstein termed the velocity of the evolution “relative time”.
In figure 3 the receiver is also absorbing an electromagnetic wave of the original wave length (f = x) of the light that hit the emitter before. Thus the blue shift by the velocity of the emitter itself (½ c) of the received electromagnetic wave suggests that Vr is moving in the opposite direction with a velocity of ½ c.
The change of the frequency of the emitted electromagnetic wave in discrete space (vacuum space) by the velocity of the emitter of the wave itself is real (figure 2). But the velocity of the receiver of the wave changes the detection of the original frequency in vacuum space (figure 3). If Ve and Vr are identical we can increase the velocity without detecting with the help of the exchange of the electromagnetic wave that the internal loop has changed.
If the emitter and receiver have nearly the speed of light (e.g. 0,999 c) we must conclude that the mass of the objects is vanished because all the energy of the objects is transformed into free quanta. Unfortunately that isn’t reality. If we speed up the objects we are changing vacuum space around the objects (applying more energy = more topological deformation by the units around). The result is a relative decrease of the concentrations of topological deformation (the objects) in relation to the topological deformation of vacuum space around. That’s what we are doing in particle accelerators, creating a circular trajectory of high topological deformation with the help of the electromagnetic field.
I hope I didn’t make mistakes this time. Anyway there remains a question: “Is the velocity of objects a really accurate detection of the local topological deformation of discrete space?” That’s not a question I can answer without a careful examination.
With kind regards, Sydney
"Why you think that general theory of relativity is wrong or incomplete?"
Let me first ask a question:
Since general relativity is a theory about the behavior of mass it should be able to say something about mass, but it doesn't, in fact it can't... why not ??!
Nobody is thinking about this question and nobody seems to ask the question, except me...
You are all still sailing in Einstein's soup....
The answer to this question lies in the following words of Albert Einstein himself; “Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?” A. Einstein, in "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" (Three Rivers Press, NewYork, 1961).
https://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
How insightful that great man was! He knew exactly, what a cruel fate he bestowed on his posterity of physicists, with his theories of relativity - endless scholasticism, continuing for more than a century and counting!
https://www.muzsik.org/blog/2020/11/physics-cooked-up-in-ones-brain/
The problem dear Abdul Malek is that you think you can solve the problem verbal... that is with a lot of words... but sorry, you {like nobody else} can or did do that ! Newton is the guy of interest, not Einstein ! Scholasticism is presented by you, because your ability to listen to others is unfortunately very much limited...
Sydney Ernest Grimm " Newton argued that gravitation is an attracting force between objects and the mutual influence acts instantaneously. "
Actually, in Opticks, Newton argued that gravitation was the end-result of aether-density variations associated with variations in mass-density. The aether density-variations were associated with variations in the speed of light, and these variations deflected light and matter towards the region of greatest mass-density, in a manner directly analogous to the way that light was deflected at an air/glass boundary. Gravity was a refraction of light and matter by a density-variation of space.
In modern language, we'd call this a curved-space model of gravity.
According to the system in Opticks, Light and matter were deflected by local gradients in their vicinity, which didn't care about the exact nature of the more distant distribution of matter that originally created those gradients. If bodies moved, then the aether-density gradients would need to move with them, but there was no particular reason to assume that the signal caused by a moving gravitational body would have an infinite speed. In an aether model, the default behaviour is that signals have a finite speed.
So (by default) the distant body's gravitational effect seems to act instantaneously, because its influence is already acting on the region surrounding the body, but a change in the body's properties does not propagate instantaneously, because of the finite speed of density-waves in the medium (yes, the system in Opticks generates gravitational waves by default),
Dear Eric Baird
At bests the text books give a short resume about the origin of classic physics. So don't be surprised if my knowledge about Newton's books is very limited. ;-))
Thanks for all the information/explanation!
With kind regards, Sydney
It is not only the fact that GR is an unscientific and a rotten mental fabrication leading to Fairy Tales; the rot already started with Newton’s distortion of Kepler’s scientific laws.
Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...
Albert Einstein himself dismissed the idea of "black hole", even as a theoretical possibility:
"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." A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
As a theory that is supposed to describe the behavior of mass... what can GR tell us about mass... apart from nothing ?! And you call that gnawed off skeleton a theory... there is no "meat" left on it ?!
Regarding unicorns, dark matter and dark energy... no theory will ever be able to say anything about those items of a flowering fantasy !
Abdul Malek
You try to save the world from a pathological science and that is commendable, but not by leading us back to a medieval illogical and non causal world that doesn't exist ! And I have to say again: You never proved Newton wrong, but your ridicules denial of causality proves you wrong !! Newton is merely incomplete and even confirms your dialectical universe... but you are too stubborn to listen to others than yourself. And NO I am not trying to stop you, as you once claimed, I am trying to make you reconsider some of your claims.
Berndt Barkholz
Who do you think you are? Do you read any published scientific papers? This would be my first and last response to you Sir, in this form. Why you do not show any temerity to challenge me in the following forum, where lot more people are involved?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019
Who do you think YOU are Abdul... a friend of the late Halton Arp and that makes your claims valid ? I reacted to your comment HERE and not on the other thread ! For your purpose you are cherry picking... you reject Einstein, but you hold on to the believe that no mass can reach the speed of light... bravo ! You lock the door to knowledge and then throw the key away... smart !
And to your information... like you, I stopped reading nonsense based on Einstein's SR & GR...
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
Dear Stefan,
I think it is possible to adjust, or correct the field theory of gravity (GR), but I have my doubts that such a correction will make it possible to connect GR-gravity with quantum physics. This corrected field theory would have a very limited expressiveness (Aussagekraft). The problem is that mass is defined as a product of density and volume... this is not wrong, but sets a limit to the expressiveness (Aussagekraft) of the theory. In any case, gravity is (for Gods sake) NOT caused by a warped space, but by the time gradient that surrounds every mass from atom to star. This is clearly shown in my article... but reading 125 pages of heresy makes people sleepy... not to speak of a change of opinion...
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
Respectfully, no Stefan... the space that is affected by the gravity of the mass is the mass-volume and the time-gradient surrounding the mass... space and time as such are untouched, but the time-gradient is reaching out into space, following the square law. You don't even give it a thought, or ask why I say that mass is defined wrong !! But that is the key to a theory of gravity that also can show the straight connection to Niels Bohr's basic equations of the hydrogen atom. Can you do that with your corrected general relativity joke ? I can do that and much more...
However... I will leave you with your beliefs as well as this forum... it's depressing to witness the obviously missing communication-standard at Research-gate.
You know Stefan... I told you a few things about the definition of mass being wrong... and the connection to Niels Bohr resulting from a true definition of mass... it's almost insulting that you don't react... do you really think that I just invent my arguments... or that I don't know what I am talking about ? I can present you results that would make you shut up, but your pride forbids you to change your naive belief in Einsteinian nonsense...
Have a nice day though...
Your arrogance is without limit... I am electronic engineer a specialized kind of physics and you think that your "You are no physicist" is an argument ? You just shamelessly display quite a dogmatized personality and something I better don't say loud... may Albert be with you... you deserve it !
And I, my dear dear Stefan have knowledge about something that would make you change both your skin-color to a shameful red and your profession... provided that you could understand it, because my experience tells me that guys that claim to "understands" GR have severe problems acknowledging reality... kind regards, also to Alice...
Stefan Bernhard Rüster : "GR has to be interpreted correctly (as I did), then everything is fine."
Einstein's general theory doesn't work, as the "flat" SR component is fundamentally irreconcilable as geometry with the curved-spacetime consequences of Mach's principle, the principles of the relativity or acceleration and rotation, and the principle of equivalence.
Many people have tried to "reinterpret" GR1916 over the years in order to get it to work. However, unless one's "interpretation" involves "ignoring most or all of the the parts that relate to special relativity", the exercise is not going to be successful.
Does your interpretation retain SR?
Stefan Bernhard Rüster : " GR becomes SR for vanishing masses, i.e. total emptiness, so that also the cosmological constant vanishes. Therefore we have the Minkowski metric in SR. You see with my interpretation of GR, SR can be retrieved as the special case of flat space-time within the framework of GR. "
Okay, that's fair enough ... but in your interpretation, what's the Doppler relationship for two masses with relative motion?
In a working general theory (unlike Einstein's), we only obtain the SR solution when the number of masses is zero, and this is a special-case unphysical solution (a proper general theory does not reduce to SR physics). When the number of masses is two or more (at least one physical observer watching one physical object), the relative velocity of the two field-sources creates velocity-dependent curvature, the Minkowski geometry no longer applies, neither do the SR Doppler equations, and we no longer have Einstein's theory, either 1916 or 1917.
If special relativity has the wrong Doppler equations for "real" inertial physics, then since gravitational theory inherits those equations and applies them to gravitational shifts, the current general theory must have gravity-shifts wrong, too. Alter the gravity-shift behaviour to work with "curved-spacetime"-compatible Doppler equations, and you lose the absolute Wheeler horizon, gravitational horizons become relative, effective horizons, the system then meshes nicely with quantum mechanics, and most of the last half-century of research into black holes turns out to be wrong (as physics).
If that's your system, then well done. But since some of the physical predictions are then different, I'd tend to consider it not so much an "interpretation" of Einstein's general theory, as a serious redesign.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster : " we know that SR is a special case of flat space-time in GR."
Yes
Stefan Bernhard Rüster : " Any mass will curve space-time. "
Yes again.
The logical conclusion being that SR's "special case" is only valid in the absence of masses. In other words, it's a very very special case, that's violated whenever matter is present.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster : " However, SR can be applied by having masses, which do not curve space-time so much. "
At this point a scientist will say, okay, quantify. If special relativity is an approximation, then how much is it off by? How much is SR's Doppler relationship "off" by for the extremal case of a black hole, and how much is it "off" by for a single hydrogen atom?
What is the shape of the curve of the necessary deviation from SR, as a function of gravitational field strength and relative velocity? These things can be worked out. But they do not appear to be in the textbooks.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster : " But in case the masses are small one can do this. "
Unfortunately, we can''t, because relativity does not allow us to distinguish between the equations of motion of a "large" mass and a "small" mass. The equations of motion for a moving atom must be precisely the same as for a moving black hole. And the equations of motion for a moving black hole seem to come out significantly non-SR.
The principle of relativity requires that when an extremal neutron star and a hydrogen atom with a relative velocity v exchange signals, the result must be the same regardless of which one of them is said to be "moving".
So if we say that the extremal neutron star moving at v is allowed to show a deviation from SR's Doppler relationship, because its moving "strong" field generates non-SR gravitomagnetic effects, then we must be able to describe exactly the same outcome by saying that the star is stationary, and that the atom is moving at v, and that the moving atom (somehow) shows precisely the same strength of gravitomagnetic effect that the star did.
Relativistically, an atom's associated curvature and gravitomagnetism cannot be any less strong that that of the most "extreme" body that it can exchange signals with. So:
- In a universe that allows at least some bodies to exist that have gravitational horizons (and 100% surface lightdragging), every fundamental massed particle must be treatable as having a gravitational horizon (and 100% surface light-dragging). If all masses show 100% surface light-dragging then not only do we have the maximum possible relativistic deviation from the SR equations, applying to all masses, we've also made SR redundant, because 100% gravitational surface-dragging already gives us local c-constancy for every mass, without our having to come up with a separate theory to explain it. A working general theory has no need for SR.
- Alternatively, in a universe that allows atoms' curvature and deviations from SR to be identically "insignificant", all masses' curvatures are required to be exactly zero. Otherwise, with some atoms immersed in background fields and others not, different particles would have different gravitational properties at their surfaces, and therefore different gravitomagnetic behaviours. For any massed particle to have an "insignificant" deviation from SR, every massed particle (in the universe) must be in exact agreement with SR, and there must also be no gravitational fields (in the universe).
Wave theory and metric theory agree with the principle of relativity that there is no allowable distinction between "weak-gravity" and "strong-gravity" inertial physics. If we watch a distant patch of galaxy, then change our own relative velocity along the viewing path and look again, we require all signal sources in that patch to appear to change frequency by precisely the same ratio, the changed shift for a neutron star due to the change in relative velocity is required to be precisely the same as that for an individual hydrogen atom.
Two paths to relativity:
This means that we cannot compartmentalise the physics of a single universe into "strong-gravity" and "weak-gravity" regions and particles. There is either non-gravity relativity (SR, and no such thing as gravitational fields or curvature, for any object), or there is extremal gravity relativity (all objects are either horizon-bounded themselves, or are made of smaller particles that are horizon-bounded).
There are no intermediate solutions.
Regards,
Eric
Stefan Bernhard Rüster " GR can distinguish between small and heavy masses. It is true, that the geodesic equations are only valid for test masses ... "
Hi Stefan, I wasn't so much thinking about how strongly gravitational bodies alter their region's spacetime and therefore potentially also their own geodesics ... I was thinking of how strong-gravity bodies force the Doppler relationships to be something other than the "flat" SR version.
- We seem to be able to derive the Minkowski geometry from the combination of the relativistic angle-change formula (which alters the angles of rays) and the SR Doppler relationships (which alter the length/wavelength of rays. If we're assuming that the principle of relativity is still correct, then for the geometry to be non-Minkowski, the Doppler relationships have to be different.
- Alternatively, we can use gravitomagnetic arguments to arrive at the same general conclusion. A moving gravitational body interacts with nearby masses, causing momentum exchange. The effect can be thought of as a partial "collision by proxy" of the moving gravitational field and the other masses. If the effect works the same for all masses, regardless of their constitution, and of how much of their structure is electromagnetic energy, then a moving gravity-source must also exchange momentum with nearby light. If the source and the affected light move towards us, we expect the light to have additional momentum donated by the mass and to be blueshifted, if the gravitational source movesd away, we expect it to decrease the momentum of the light in our direction, causing us to detect the light with a reduced momentum and a redshift.
So special relativity doesn't hold for any moving masses that have associated curvature. And according to the principle of equivalence, that's all of them.
To study this we can assign the undefined value {g} to the curvature associated with an idealised fundamental massed particle.
- If {g}= zero, we have flat spacetime, no gravitomagnetic dragging effects, Minkowski spacetime and special relativity.
- If {g}= one, we have maximally-curved spacetime, a curvature horizon, 100% light-dragging and the maximum possible relativistic disagreement with special relativity.
- For intermediate values, 0 < {{g}} < 1 , we might then expect intermediate physics.
It's very tempting to say that small masses have insignificant curvature and assign values of {g} to them that are arbitrarily close to zero. But this doesn't work. Because the value of {g} dictates the form of the Doppler relationships, and relativity requires that all massed particles have identical Doppler relationships, and therefore identical values of {g}. We also have the problem that when particles are moved closer together, so that their fields overlay and reinforce, we expect those particles ot sho an increased value of {g}.
The only ways we can have a single, universal value for {g} that applies to everything is either by setting {g} to exactly zero for everything, declaring special relativity correct, and agreeing that our universe contains no gravitational fields or curvature effects ... or by setting {g} to exactly one, so that the field intensity at the surface of every massed particle is already at maximum (we then associate the particle surface with its horizon, so increasing local field-density just results in the horizon extending).
Classical relativistic gravitation does not allow any intermediate solutions between zero and one. If gravity exists, then all masses behave as if they are horizon-bounded (or made up of smaller particles, and these are horizon bounded), and there is no such thing as a valid weak-gravity derivation of inertial physics.
I understand why Einstein wanted his general theory to incorporate SR physics, and I understand why the wider community wanted to believe him. But logic and geometry do not allow the possibility of an SR-centric general theory.
Einstein cut a corner when he assumed that a general theory would have to reduce to the known behaviour of his earlier special theory. In fact, it can't -- it has to be a discretely different solution. In the context of a workable general theory, we have to reinvent inertial physics from scratch, discarding SR and making use of the new vocabulary and mechanisms of a dynamic curved spacetime.
It's up to us to do the work that Einstein skipped over.
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster ... Well, that's a shame.
For the benefit of everyone else, we can take the three standard recession Doppler relationships, E'/E = ...
CT SR NO
c/(c+v) , sqrt[ (c-v) / (c+v) ] , (c-v)/c
and notice that each of the three solutions differs from its neighbour(s) by a full Lorentz factor. The left-hand equation corresponds to what textbooks call Classical Theory ("CT"), which assumes fixed global c for the observer, the central one corresponds to SR, and the right-hand one corresponds to an abstract Newtonian optics ("NO"), or to ballistic emission theory, or to a lightspeed fixed for the emitter.
We can then construct a continuum of solutions, including all the intermediate solutions, where each solution differs from its neighbours by a "Lorentzlike" factor, [ 1 - v2/c2 ]^[?] , and ask which position along this continuum has the best chance of being right. (The principle of relativity requires that any valid relativistic solution be somewhere on this continuum)
The range we normally test experimentally is the left-hand side, SR-CT. The range actually of interest is the right-hand side, SR-NO, since this tells us how SR compares to the previous (Newtonian) mainstream theory. The left-hand range, SR-CT is simply the right-hand range SR-NO under the condition of time-reversal.
SR always corresponds to flat spacetime and the absence of gravitational or gravitomagnetic fields. When we have a mass with the strongest possible gravitational field, it "limits" at the field strength at the horizon, stronger values being censored. When a horizon moves, it drags light 100%, so when light is passed between two 100%-dragging bodies, with relative velocity v, the light changes velocity by v. This suggest a gravitomagnetic Doppler shift, of E'/E = (c-v)/c , or [SR] * LorentzRed
Having established some context, we can now see a pattern emerging:
If we say that a fundamental massed particle has an associated curvature of {g}, which has possible values between zero (for SR and no gravitational or gravitomagnetic fields) and one (for a horizon, maximum gravitomagnetism and full light-dragging), then the associated Doppler recession relationship is then
[SR] × ( 1 - v2/c2 )^ 0.5 {g}
So as we nominally fade the field strength of a particle from zero to maximum, and {g} from zero to one, the associated Doppler relationship moves towards the right of the range, fading from SR to NO.
Our job is now to work towards an exact answer, for what the real-life Doppler equation has to be, by narrowing the possible range of values for {g} by a process of elimination.
We know that {g} can't be exactly zero (leaving 0 < {g} ≤ 1), because the principle of equivalence requires that a massed particle has some sort of gravitational field, and therefore also some sort of gravitomagnetic field when it moves.
The conventional view would be to compartmentalise physics into strong-gravity and weak-gravity situations, and to say that in the weak-gravity range {g} must be really, really close to zero, in order for SR to be "near-as-dammit" correct, but that it's allowed to have greater values where gravity is important.
But allowing different values for {g} for different masses results in different masses having different Doppler relationships, which is forbidden. We require a single Doppler relationship to apply everywhere, which means that we need all fundamental massed particles to have the same value of {g}.
Relativity requires that if an idealised, abstract "atom" exchanges signals with a body, it cannot have a value of {g} any less than that of that other body, and if black-hole-like bodies are allowed to exist, with curvature horizons, this means that the value of {g} required for fundamental massed particles cannot be any less than one.
Values greater than one don't matter, because horizon censorship puts an upper limit on observable physics of {g}=1.
This leaves us with an exact answer, for all fundamental massed particles, of {g}=1.
SR is therefore not just "nominally" or "infinitesimally" wrong, in a properly consistent general theory it has to be missing a whole additional Lorentz factor. For general relativity to work, and be a theory of relativistic gravitation, and a consistent theory of gravitomagnestism, the Doppler equations need to be reddened away from the SR relationships, by a extra gamma factor.
Coincidentally, this change turns GR1916's absolute event horizons into softer "effective" horizons that fluctuate ans emit classical Hawking radiation, bringing GR back into line with QM.
Preprint The Doppler equations of Newtonian optics as a unique soluti...
It also resolves a normally-ignored incompatibility with modern cosmology.
Preprint Cosmological redshifts vs. gravitational redshifts
So making this one correction to GR solves three different outstanding problems with the theory, in one fell swoop. We make GR free-standing, eliminate the unecessary SR layer as redundant, create a three-way duality between motion shifts, gravitational shifts and cosmological shifts (making the theory more compact and giving it greater connectivity), we seem to make classical theory dual with quantum theory after quantisation, and by introducing classical Hawking radiation, which then generates an outward radiation pressure inside a horizon that goes to infinity as radius goes to zero, we might even have a mechanism for avoiding total collapse to a singularity.
This change (moving us from Minkowski spacetime to a relativistic acoustic metric) might not solve every criticism of general relativity, but it sure solves a heck of a lot of them.
:)
Yes. Analyses of the philosophical and mathematical basis of relativity show that it is a weak theory. Hence, Einstein Never did win a Nobel prize for relativity. History also shows that there has been strong confirmation bias in the scientific community operating in favour of relativity beginning with Max Planck and Arthur Eddington that has continued in academia today. Confirmation bias shows a lack of objectivity in science and this must be condemned.
Stefan,
Thanks for your research papers, that I will study in due course.
I am not sure that GRT does work? There is also a conflict/contradiction between particle physics and GRT space/time as gravitation. Particle physics has the exchange particle of the graviton that is the force mediating gravitation, while, GRT has space-time curvature that does not require a force or exchange particle. For instance, the tides acting upon the oceans of the Earth perfectly follow Newtonian physics (and the particle physics model) however GRT space-time curvature has difficulty explaining this phenomenon.
Stefan,
GRT was derived from Newtonian physics, as you well know. Space-time curvature replaces the force concept and particle physics model. Was this conceptual revision of GRT a step too far, when considered against the revision of the ideal gas to the real gas law of chemistry?
Kind Regards,
Graeme
Stefan,
No, GRT appears to have made unnecessary mathematical elaborations and ignored scientific parsimony. Parsimony, is an important principle of scientific advance, that is also termed 'Occam's razor', please see Wikipedia at:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#:~:text=Occam's%20razor%2C%20Ockham's%20razor%2C%20Ocham's,is%20usually%20the%20right%20one.
An example of parsimony from the history of chemistry:
The ideal gas law: PV = nRT
Real gas law: RT = (P +a/V^2)(V - b)
For chemistry, the basic equation of the gas law was retained and expanded.
However for GRT, do assumptions or postulates regarding curved space-time need to be elaborated when amended gravitational forces could be considered?
The energy density of Newtonian gravity is contained within the gravitational field surrounding the mass. Curved space-time need not be assumed.
Regards,
Graeme
Quantum spookiness is a reality that modern theoretical physicists find it hard to accept, and not to speak of even the will to deal with it, because it does not conform to their age-old and trusted causality. But this was the case with philosophy also, long before the recognition of the “evil quanta”. The breakdown of causality as an epistemology made Immanuel Kant (one of the greatest thinkers of all times) so perturbed that to save causality he rejected objective reality as an unknowable thing-in-itself and imposed on the unruly reality the “logical categories” that he cooked up in his brain. After the recognition of the “evil quanta” and the breakdown of causality in physics, Albert Einstein (like Kant) imposed his “mathematical categories” on poor objective reality (the universe) and led physics on the narrow path of scholasticism that continues till now, for more than hundred years. Unfortunately, "objective reality" never did, nor will ever care for, what humans expect of her, through their wishful thinking!
But this intense scholasticism never led to any positive knowledge for humanity, on the contrary to the Fairy Tales of dark/black cosmic monsters! The great Einstein himself said, “Probleme kann man niemals mit derselben Denkweise lösen, durch die sie entstanden sind”. Translation: “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”! Or, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
Only the rival epistemology, namely dialectics (which incubated in the womb of the human society since Heraclitus (544 – 483 B.C.) and produced a healthy child in the person of G.W.F. Hegel (1770 – 1831)), can direct physics to positive knowledge again. But the old edifice of causality-based epistemology of physics and philosophy have to be demolished first, before a new structure can be built in its place. I have fabricated two cannons to bombard the Head Quarters of official astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology and its virtual edifices:
Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
Article QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE
If the first cannon contained virtual munitions from ancients Heraclitus, Epicurus et al. and also from good-old Leibniz and Hegel; to target the foundation of Newtonian cosmology; the second one has added physical munitions from my friend Chip Arp (The Galileo of the Modern Times) to target the virtual edifice of Einsteinian cosmology!
Stefan,
I hate to tell you that the physical world is modelled very closely by Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics has enabled much of the advance of science and technology. Communication satellites are based upon Newtonian physics. Space travel, that is NASA, employs Newtonian physics to get spacecraft to the Moon, Mars and beyond. How can science so efficacious and accurate be wrong?
The variations from Newtonian physics including the precession of Mercury and deflection of Sun glancing were miniscule and approximate, as discussed. The predictions of GRT for these phenomena remains controversial. Even 'black holes', originally termed 'dark stars', were discovered by Laplace in 1796, based upon Newtonian physics, for which he deserves a Nobel prize. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(Newtonian_mechanics)
Regards,
Graeme
Stefan,
The ideal gas law just provided a basis for chemistry, as Newtonian physics provides the basis for physics.
FYI, you may be interested in my ICACMS 2021 conference presentation of the GPS frequency correction paper.
The on-line conference was in Venice recently and you are welcome to view my You tube presentation at:
https://youtu.be/ijjioGHQn-0
Regards,
Graeme
The idea that the theories of relativity or even Newton;s faulty theory of extraterrestrial gravity (as discussed in the reference above) are essential) for GPS is pure propaganda. It is the same propaganda regarding the navigation of other space exploration vehicles; which use onboard intelligent and/or remote control systems, without any systematic use of theories of gravity (GR included), like modern self-driving cars on earth.. Everything is done by the brilliant engineers, but theoretical physicists insist on their relevance and get engaged unnecessarily for scholastic exercise to big-up the theories of relativity.
The following reference shows a publication (as far back as 1997), by two engineers, who were involved in the early development of GPS.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1997ptti.conf..189F
H.F. Fliegel and R. S. DiEsposti of the GPS Joint Program Office of the Aerospace Corporation conclude:
“Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no ‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed."
And the following is what our shameless mega-propagandist theoretical physicists spout out:
Einstein's Relativity - YouTube
Sorry, the second link does not seem to work. It was a YouTube lecture by British theoretical physicist and a BBC propagandist Brian Cox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc
There are several reasons commonly mentioned in the literature to indicate GR might be wrong or incomplete, including problems with dark energy or cosmic acceleration, dark matter or the galactic rotation curve, energy conservation, the speed of gravity, and the singularity problem. For a broader review, please see my paper "Current conflicts in general relativity: Is Einstein's theory incomplete?" at the link:
Preprint Current conflicts in general relativity: Is Einstein's theor...
Hello Kathleen,
Thank you for your review of GRT that I downloaded.
I am beginning to wonder after so many refutations of relativity over a century:
Is GRT a pseudoscience, that is, it cannot be falsified because it is an assumption about a causal relationship between matter and space and time?
Regards,
Graeme Heald
Hello Graeme ( https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Graeme-Heald)
Thank you for your interest in my paper. Your question involves several aspects, and could be worth a paper of its own.
GR is falsifiable in the solar system, where calculations depend on the Schwarzschild metric. This metric gives observable predictions regarding the bending of light, time dilation, the advance of perihelion, and so forth. At present, according to the general consensus, none of these observables contradict GR. However, a number of alternate gravity theories mimic GR at solar system scales (through what are called "screening mechanisms"). So such observations do not prove GR either.
At cosmic scales, falsifiability is more complex. To describe the expanding universe, physicists generally assume the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. Using this, with reasonable assumptions about the equation of state for matter in the cosmos, Einstein's field equations predict the expansion of the universe should decelerate. However observations, particularly relating to Supernovae Type Ia, seem to indicate the expansion is accelerating. To account for this discrepancy, many astrophysicists postulate an as yet unobserved substance called "Dark Energy" that obeys an exotic equation of state.
Given the freedom to invent any kind of exotic substance with any equation of state, GR is therefore not falsifiable at cosmological scales. One can always finagle the parameters to match any observation, and this is constantly being done. Thus today, a significant number of theoretical physicists challenge GR, as is evident in peer-reviewed journals such as Physical Review D.
GR does assume a causal relationship between matter and spacetime. But I do not think this aspect prevents its being falsified. What may eventually "falsify" GR, in the sense of being discarded, is Occam's razor. But first, a better theory must be found.
Best wishes,
Kate
Hello Kate,
Thanks again for your comments. Your research paper on GRT conflicts was learned and insightful, in my opinion.
Yes, I agree that the Schwarzschild solution is a solid theoretical model that has been tested. I recently devoted a paper to this topic on RG:Preprint Amendments to GPS Satellite Frequency Corrections
You may be interested in the historical facts regarding the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury and solar glancing photon that DID NOT confirm relativity's predictions. This is due to confirmation bias by Eddington who cherry picked observations. Also, the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury is not 43 arc seconds as often touted, but somewhere in the range 5 to 55 arcseconds/century, due to the 8 body problem of the solar system. Please see attached research papers.
In SRT, there is the troubling and counter-intuitive relativistic mass, whereby mass increases to infinity as the velocity increases:
Mr = gamma.M
SRT is full of conceptual absurdities. Furthermore, Einstein never explained why the Lorentz factor (gamma) is so prevalent in Relativity? He apparently borrowed it from Lorentz without reference. What does it mean and why doesn't it show up in the Schwarzschild solution?
Similarly, my view of GRT is that the black hole singularity having infinite density and zero volume is an absurdity. This would not require empirical support.
As an aside, why was Schwarzschild not awarded a Nobel prize (or equivalent recognition) for confirmation of his solution in relation to the M87 event horizon?
I will examine the causal relationship between matter and spacetime to see if there can be a validation of this model or conversely falsification.
Kind Regards,
Graeme
Dear Kathleen Rosser
I am afraid that Occam's razor will be quite dull after cutting away the useless part of contemporary physics.
Billions of dollars are spent worldwide on building experiments and machines (CERN, LIGO etc) that are supposed to give us insight, (but unfortunately don't really like to do so) and that alone requires results, otherwise the money stream is lost, because what government likes to give financial support for testing useless theories ? Seen from this angle, it is almost too late to ever reach a consensus that confirms that official physics has been derailed for years, because too many celebrities suddenly want to hide a pair of shameful red ears...
Some of the real Problems are:
1. instead of using the original equations of Newton's theory of gravity, the Gaussian equations are used. Mass is thus represented as a continuum.... but consists of atoms !
2. Gravity is thus seen as a field theory, but such a field theory can only deliver true and useful results of minor importance. It is impossible, for example, that this theory, which is supposed to describe the behavior of mass in relation to each other, can say anything about this mass. What a poor theory !!
One tries in vain to connect gravitation with the exotic quantum mechanics... but how should that be possible if mass is represented as an informative dull continuum and not as an atom? A change of this mass definition in Newton's gravitation can show the "true face" of gravity. But unfortunately my suggestion (I have no name worth mentioning) is not accepted. However... when I look at the results of such a definition change, it becomes clear to me "where the shoe pinches"...
Just to mention the most important result of such a changed definition... against all mainstreaming odds... it becomes possible to define the constant of gravity G !!
Dear Kathleen Rosser
I agree with your opinion (last comment). Nevertheless, maybe it isn’t necessary to “find” a better theory about gravitation.
There are 4 interesting publications about the force of gravitation.
Paper 3 and 4 are about the screening of the force of gravitation. Paper 3 is about the screening with the help of a “sheet” of light and paper 4 is about the screening of the gravitational force of the sun by the moon.
However, we can only screen a force field if it is a vector field. Paper 3 shows that the origin of the gravitational force is vacuum space around the object (gravitation as a push force). In other words, gravity as a response of vacuum space because of the creation of matter (paper 1). The difference between a vector force and a topological force (GR) is the velocity of the influence. A topological force is limited by the speed of light and a vector force acts instantaneous (Newtonian gravity).
If Newtonian gravity is still alive we have to understand why the predictions of GR are in line with the observations/measurements. Personally I think that the main cause is the incorporation of the gravitational constant in the theory of general relativity. Because it is impossible to distinguish between the properties of the electric field at the cosmological scale and “the properties” of spacetime.
(Paper 2 shows that the influence of light on the gravitational constant – paper 3 – is correct.)
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear all,
The so called “Feynman rules” can be obtained from the conservation laws that govern the scattering process between bosons and fermions. They were described by Arthur Compton and Peter Debye in 1923. These laws are one of the cornerstones of quantum electrodynamics (QED).
I have made an analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, basing it on the said laws. The calculation is peer reviewed and published, and its conclusion is this:
4. Conclusion
The Theories of Relativity are based on false foundation. The use of the plural form is justified. Albert Einstein wrote an article about his theories, titled “What Is The Theory Of Relativity?” (November 28, 1919):
“... In order to grasp its nature, one needs first of all to become acquainted with the principles on which it is based. Before I go into these, however, I must observe that the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate stories, the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation; the general theory provides the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature.” (Boldface added.)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347975401_QED-based_analysis_of_the_Michelson-Morley_experiment.
In many of his articles that preceded the creation of general relativity, Einstein stressed the importance of Mach's principle for all physics. He tried to construct a theory in which Mach's principle would be fulfilled, but he failed.
Later, Einstein attempted to create a unified field theory in which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects of a single fundamental field. “We seek a mathematically unified field theory in which the gravitational field and electromagnetic field are interpreted only as different components or manifestations of the same uniform field.”
Einstein’s program was described by his co-worker C. Lanczos as follows:
“... quantum mechanics would cease to be an independent discipline. It would melt into a deepened ‘theory of matter’ which would have to be built up from regular solutions of non-linear differential equations, — in an ultimate relation-ship it would dissolve in the ‘world equations’ of the Universe. Then, the dualism ‘matter-field’ would have been overcome as well as the dualism ‘corpuscle-wave’.”
I have revived this program under the general title EMO (electromagnetic ontology). The latest article in the EMO series describes and outlines the electromagnetic substitution for general relativity, and it can be said to be based solely on Mach’s principle.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350314443_Variability_of_decay_rates_points_to_a_new_theory_of_particles_and_gravity.
Thank you for the links, Sydney. This article might be interesting at least to you, because it introduces not only more gravity anomalies, but also their explanations.
Best regards, Jouko
Dear Jouko A. Rautio
First of all, thanks for the papers. I will read both (and the paper of Kathleen Rosser).
You cited Einstein: “We seek a mathematically unified field theory in which the gravitational field and electromagnetic field are interpreted only as different components or manifestations of the same uniform field.”
Einstein’s “confession” is a bit awkward for me because the consequence is that space itself cannot curve. The “opposite” consequence is that the electromagnetic field is also a property of space itself… And if the electromagnetic field is a property of space itself we have to change our method of theoretical research. Because it is impossible to solve these inconsistencies with the help of top-down research (phenomenological physics). If the electromagnetic field is a property of space itself we have to do research in the field of (the properties of) discrete space.
The last sentence in the comment of Eric Baird to Stefan Rüster on 1 April – it wasn’t a joke – was: “It's up to us to do the work that Einstein skipped over.” I fully agree with his opinion.
Unfortunately, if I search the discussions at ResearchGate about theoretical problems in physics it shows that there are no successful discussions because there are no problems solved. And the reason is obvious: the competition between some of the participants dominates the discussions.
Thus if we want to solve the inconsistenties of SR and/or GR we have to make up our mind. The idea that everything "will go fine" is not for granted if we are gazing to each other.
With kind regards, Sydney
According to Yangton and Yington Theory, "Space" and "Time" doesn't change at all, only the "Dimension" (Length) and "Duration" of an object or event can change with "Wu's Unit Length" and Wu's "Unit Time" (Wu's Pairs are the building blocks of all matter in the universe) of a reference object or event (a standard) dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. Both gravitational field and aging of the universe are absolute values (meaning absolutely bigger or smaller in comparison), there is no "Relativity" conflicts such as that in speed and acceleration. For example, the twin brother on Saturn will be taller and younger simply because of the massive gravitational field on Saturn.
Einstein created SR by assuming that light speed is constant, to ignore the non-existence of aether based on the failure of MM experiment. In addition, because in lack of the mechanism of gravitational force, Einstein created GR by assuming acceleration caused by spacetime continuum to replace gravitation.
According to Yangton and Yington Theory, when photon emitted from a light source, it undergoes a two stage separation process which gives two speeds: Absolute Light Speed and Inertia Light Speed. In other words, light speed is not constant. This defeats SR.
In addition, based on a proposed string structure built on Wu's Pairs - the building blocks of the universe, gravitational force can be generated between two gravitons. Also, Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction can be used to explain Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Furthermore, the distribution of graviton vectors can be used to represent gravitational field and interpret Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Gravity Theory. As a result, GR is only partially correct as gravitational acceleration.
Although Space and Time don’t change, the dimension and duration of an object or event can change with local gravitational field and aging of the universe of the object or event (This is called Corresponding Identical Object or Event). Also subject to the unit quantities used for the measurements, which are dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe of the reference point, the amounts of unit quantities can vary with measurements. This opposes to Einstein's spacetime which can change with acceleration. In fact, Einstein's sapcetime is nothing more than the curvature of an energy function as a solution of Einstein's Field Equation (the curvature of the energy function equals to the distribution of mass, momentum and energy) based on a transformation from a non-linear system to Cartesian system on earth.
Both Wu's Unit Length (diameter of orbit) and Wu's Unit Time (period of circulation) are reduced with aging of the universe which can be proved by Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The photon (free Wu's Pair) travels from the star more than 5 billion light years away, has much bigger Wu's Unit Length than earth, therefore, its wavelength is longer than that on earth (Wavelength is proportional to Wu's Unit Length), which causes cosmological redshift. On the other hand, the distance between the star and earth is getting bigger because of the shrinking scales on earth. With "Wu's Spacetime Shrinkage Theory" or "Earth Shrinkage Theory", no dark energy is required, simply because that the potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy in Wu's Pair without adding any external energy.
Furthermore, the photon escaped from a massive star also has a bigger Wu’s Unit Length (also wavelength) than earth, therefore, Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory can also be used to interpret gravitational redshift.
Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space
Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter
Increase in kinetic energy does not necessarily increase motion. You may be wittingly/non-wittingly passing it on to space-orbital grooves where it gets into interspliced pathway(s) as angular distances between an orbital plane and the femto- OR atto-structuration of its primary locale of energy reception. Increase in kinetic energy does NOT change into mass. We have gotten to make mention of the fact that Kepler's second law of planetary motion must, of course, hold true for orbitals , too.
Dear all,
All,
Einstein believed that both the length and time of an object or event can change because the Spacetime itself changes and twists when an object is moving under acceleration. As a result, Einstein derived his theories including Special Relativity, General Relativity, Spacetime, Field Equations and Mass and Energy Conservation, based on two wrong assumptions: (a) Light speed is always constant no matter the light source and observer (reference point), and (b) Acceleration is the principle factor of Spacetime.
In contrast, according to Yangton and Yington Theory, it is realized that (a) Light speed is not constant, instead, it is the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed C and Inertia Light Speed, and (b) Acceleration is not a principle factor, instead, gravitational field and aging of the universe are the principle factors of Wu’s Spacetime. In other words, the time and length of an object or event are a function of Wu’s Unit Time (tyy) and Wu’s Unit Length (lyy) of a reference corresponding identical subatomic particle depending on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe no matter of the acceleration.
Velocity is relative. In Twin Paradox, the observation of speed by one twin brother is totally identical to that of the other twin brother except in opposite directions. In addition, acceleration is also relative. Just like velocity to Special Relativity, acceleration can also be reversed in General Relativity. For example, a spaceship in a massive star is bigger and moves slower when observed on earth (compare to the same spaceship located and observed on earth). This observation agrees to both Einstein's General Relativity and Wu's Yangton and Yington Theory. However, when the observation is reversed, Einstein from the massive star will also see a bigger and slower spaceship on earth, but Wu will see a smaller and faster spaceship on earth due to less gravity. It is obvious there is a self conflict in Einstein’s general relativity. In fact, both space (dimensions) and time (duration) of an object or event change only with gravitational field (also aging of the universe) instead of acceleration. Yangton and Yington Theory makes much better sence than Einstein’s General Relativity.
The field equation dE/dr = A is an equation between potential energy and acceleration of an object or event at a point in space. It involves the curvature of the potential energy. I believe that Einstein got his spacetime and field equation ideas based on this simple two dimension case. In fact, Einstein's spacetime is nothing but a solution of Einstein’s Field Equation, which is a function (such as the potential energy) in a Normal Spacetime System.
According to Yangton and Yington Theory, space and time are absolute quantities and they don't change with anything at all. However, the dimensions and duration of a corresponding identical object or event can be different subject to the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. This is because that Wu’s Pairs, the building blocks of the object or event, are dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. It is obvious that Einstein has messed up all these concepts in his relativity theories. He claimed that space and time can change with acceleration. He also gave a fancy name “Spacetime” to his space and time.
With all respects, based on Yangton and Yington Theory, I believe that Einstein is totally wrong with his special relativity, also at least partially wrong with his general relativity.
All,
What is Einstein's Spacetime? Here is my opinion about Spacetime:
In Einstein’s General Relativity, both space and time are not absolute quantities. They can change with local gravity and become bigger at a massive gravitational field. In addition, Einstein's spacetime (such as potential energy) is a solution of Einstein’s Field Equation, which is also a function of local gravity according to Principle of Equilibrium based on Yangton and Yington Theory.
In comparison, based on Principle of Equilibrium, both space (dimension) and time (duration) as the properties of an object or event, are dependent on the local gravitational field at constant aging of the universe. In addition, according to Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, both space (dimension) and time (duration) of a corresponding identical object or event can become bigger in a larger gravitational field at constant aging of the universe. This is because that large gravitational field implies heavy bombardment of gravitons which can cause the slowdown of Yangton and Yington circulation and increase Wu’s Unit Time tyy the period of Wu’s Pair, while increasing Wu’s Unit Length lyy the diameter of the circulation (Wu’s Spacetime Equation tyy = γlyy3/2) of all subatomic particles in the corresponding identical object or event. Also, because the amounts of all subatomic particles remain unchanged, therefore both space (dimension) and time (duration) of the corresponding identical object or event also become bigger in a larger gravitational field at constant aging of the universe.
Furthermore, in compliance with Principle of Correspondence, spacetime in Einstein’s General Relativity as a property of a corresponding identical object or event is related to the local gravitational field in the same way as that of the space and time of a reference corresponding identical object or event. Therefore, the unit length (centimeter) and unit time (second) of the reference corresponding identical object or event can be used to reflect the local gravitational field as well as the spacetime in Einstein’s General Relativity.
As a result, Einstein's Spacetime is nothing but the unit length (centimeter) and unit time (second) of a reference corresponding identical object or event at the local gravitational field and aging of the universe.
Guoxu Feng
Only if unseen and unknown dark matter particles exist to communicate gravity transfer in later frames does Einstein's present theory function. Verlinde's new hypothesis, on the other hand, is not dependent on dark matter to function. It calculates the amount of gravity that must exist based only on the mass of observable stuff. The difficulty is that this statement mixes an extremely simplified form of a late-20th century concept of where masses of different particles originate from with a 17th century notion of gravity that has long been updated.
Particles with mass can travel at speeds below or beyond the speed of light. In either case , particles charged fall off the intended frame due to a concrete or abstract entity which represents some of the structure of general relativity, or structures related to general relativity’s concepts and applications in a simplified way. It has recently been shown within a formal axiomatic framework using a definition of four-momentum based on Feynman-Sudarshan-Recami ''switching principle'' that Einstein's relativistic dynamics is logically consistent with the existence of interacting faster-than-light inertial particles (only) if the frames offering their calculations exist as two possible definitions of the stress-energy tensor: one defined by a variation of the action with the co-manifolds at fixed connection, and the other at fixed torsion. These two stress-energy tensors do not necessarily coincide , of course.
For the theoretical Penrose/Hawking gravitational singularity at the centre of a black hole, empirical observation and therefore confirmation is impossible. The event horizon prevents the visual observation and confirmation of this proposed singularity. It is clear that by the empirical scientific method, the nobel prize for Penrose was and is in error. Furthermore, the credibility of the nobel prize has been damaged by such cronyism.
Graeme Heald
I firmly believe your last post is a wondrous analysis of the wretched state modern physics is in NOW . There was a time {{ I suppose up to 1890’s }} when physics was done by intelligent people with the minimal amount of maths necessary .
There was something of a cycle of doing an objective experiment , searching for the minimal amount of maths to formulate it , putting the obtained formulation down to the touchstone of another round of objective experimentation , attaining results , comparing them with the previous cycle , and either rejecting , then , or probably amending the theories .
Till Prof. Einstein arrived on the scene . With all his partial genius and partial plagiarism :
Physics started to be pestered with lots of simulatory work , maximal amounts of unwarranted maths , algorithmic work handed over to complicated computers , and many Gedankenexperiments . Such a party feast by the Establishment Hegemony of Peer-Reviewizm , appears NOT to have ceased down till today .
respectfully
REZA
Space and Time are continuous absolute quantities. They don’t change with anything at all. However, the dimension and duration of an object or event can change with the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. This is because that Wu’s Unit Length (diameter) and Wu’s Unit Time (period) of Wu’s Pairs (building blocks of the universe) in an object or event can be affected by the bombardment of gravitons complying with gravitational field in accordance to Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction Theory, and also the shrinkage of Wu’s Pairs due to aging of the universe in compliance with Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB). Because of the intrinsic atomic and subatomic structures of a corresponding identical object or event, the correlations between two corresponding identical objects or events should remain unchanged no matter of gravitational field and aging of the universe. In addition, under Thermodynamic Equilibrium and local Subatomic Equilibrium, three fundamental principles: Principle of Equilibrium, Principle of Parallelism and Principle of Correspondence are derived, such that the correlations of the quantities of the properties between two objects or events at the same location and time (same gravitational field and aging of the universe) can be established. Furthermore, based on Wu’s Spacetime Equation tyy= γlyy3/2, Wu’s Unit Length and Wu’s Unit Time of Wu’s Pair are correlated to each other. As a result, the correlations of the simple properties such as dimension and duration, or the composite properties such as velocity and acceleration of an object or event, with respect to the gravitational field and aging of the universe, or further to Wu’s Unit Length of a reference corresponding identical subatomic particle at the same location and time (same gravitational field and aging of the universe) can be established. This can be used successfully to interpret many important physical phenomena, such as Deflection of Light, Perihelion Precession of Mercury, Cosmological Redshift, Gravitational Redshift, Hubble’s Law, Einstein’s General Relativity, Spacetime and Field Equations.
Preston Guynn
you are a TRUE thinker ... .. ..
I have learned from you considerably ................................
Md. Tarek Hossain : Einstein’s theories of relativity are virtual edifices built on ethereal bricks that have no physical existence! These theories are only good for endless and meaningless scholasticism for theoretical physicists or anybody else, to spend their idle time!
The fundamental basis of these theories and the rest of “New Physics” is based on only one axiom, i.e., the absolute constancy of the speed of light in any reference frame; which is assumed to be the ultimate truth of the world. With this truth, space and time were made to be the elements of geometry and the flights of fancy took off!
Lorentz Transforms (LTs) were then fabricated in a totally contrived, artificial and arbitrary way, with the sole aim to make the speed of light to be an absolute constant in any reference frame! Then the Lorentz transform were made into mysterious magic carpets, on which the theoretical physicists could take a joy-ride to anywhere in the universe they wanted to go (even to the core of a so called “black hole”) or to fulfill any of their fantasy; to fuel their centuries long and endless scholasticism.
In my April 7, 2021 comment above in this forum, I talked about demolishing Newton’s theory of extraterrestrial gravitational theory of one-sided universal attraction. The following article now is a one megaton ammunition for Einstein’s theories (SR and GR) and the rest of “continuous field”-based “New physics”! These humble tasks (based on dialectics) cleans the "Augean Stable" of causality and formal logic-based theoretical physics and cosmology since Isaac Newton! The big mystery is now fully exposed and the virtual edifice and the magic carpets (LTs) are now burnt into "virtual ashes"!
This also fulfills Einstein’s prophecy about modern theoretical physics; which he expressed to his life-long friend Michelle Besso, in 1954, about a year before his death: “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,
"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology":
Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...
Now, before the usual suspects or anybody else turns up here to denounce me with foul words; he or she must prove this article wrong, first. Einstein’s own mathematics were used to show the mystery and the tricks involved in the formulation of the Lorentz Transforms! A note of caution to every one –a number of well known theoretical physicists including a Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics took my challenge to read this article; but did not show the temerity to prove it wrong or to say anything at all!
There is absolutely NOTHING taking place in the physicalistic world around us by the contrived name of Lorentz Transforms (LTs).
Prof Malek is 100% true when he says :
" Lorentz Transforms (LTs) were then fabricated in a totally contrived, artificial and arbitrary way, with the sole aim to make the speed of light to be an absolute constant in any reference frame! "
I recently asked a similar question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_does_really_stimulate_some_people_to_oddly_believe_in_special_relativity_as_a_self-contradictory_theory
I also believe that there is a problem with relativity regarding the force transformation:
Article The Mechanical Behavior of a Multispring System Revealing Ab...
Space and Time are absolute nature quantities. They don't change with anything at all. However, according to Yangton and Yington Theory, all properties such as dimension, duration, velocity and acceleration of an object or event, including Absolute Light Speed (observed at light source) are dependent on Wu's Unit Length (diameter) and Wu's Unit Time (period) of Wu's Pairs (building blocks of the universe) which are functions of local gravitational field and aging of the universe.
It is proposed that graviton is composed of Wu’s Pairs, a Yangton and Yington circulating particle pairs with build-in attractive Force of Creation (Building Blocks of the universe). Gravitational force is generated by string force between two gravitons and the propagation of gravitational force is explained by graviton radiation and contact interaction. In addition, the dimension and duration of an object or event can change with the local gravitational field due to the bombardment of gravitons and aging of the universe in compliance with CMB radiation.
Because of the same intrinsic structures, the amount of unit quantity in a corresponding identical objects or events should remain unchanged, except the unit quantity and Wu's Unit Length, no matter of gravitational field and aging of the universe. Furthermore, Principle of Equilibrium, Principle of Parallelism and Principle of Correspondence can be used to establish the correlations between the quantities of the same properties of different objects and events.
In fact, Einstein’s Spacetime is nothing but a specific property of an object or event which likes the potential energy and acceleration of the object or event which can reflect the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. As a result, Wu’s Spacetime Graviton Concentration Field Equation can be derived which can serve as the Backbone of Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Gravity Theory and Unified Field Theory.
Einstein accepted a model of empty space with discrete particels. Obtaining proper results in such a model, needed many mathematical tricks which were necessary though uncomprehensible from point of view of physics.
On the other hand if we assume model of reality as a four dimensional Euclidean reality where particels are waves in 4-dimensional space, then the description becomes simple and the same results can be described in a simple and comprehensible way.
I'll give you a following example - if we described the theory of electricity with the help of Einstein's logic, then we should start from the postulate that pressing the switch turns the lights on and next with the help of tensors, we should connect the state of the swithes with the states of bulbs. It would describe the acting of lights perfectly but it does not explain the idea of electricity.
And in my model I describe WHY the speed of light is constatn and I found the mechanism responsible for this phenomenon. It is at my publicatins (ORCID https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-8687-2066) and YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfvEaVOrFpuHRxPnkQlkokQ
There is no doubt that Special Relativity is wrong, but the questions are how to prove it by both theory and experiment.
Einstein’s Special Relativity is based on a postulation that the light speed in vacuum is constant no matter the light sources and observers. To prove this postulation is wrong, we need to prove that light speed observed at the light source is different from that observed at a moving reference point.
Light speed can be measured and calculated based on the following theories: (1) Vision Of Light, which defines the meaning of light speed, (2) Photon Inertia Transformation, which defines Absolute Light Speed and Inertia Light Speed, and (3) Equation of Light Speed, which is a vector summation C’ = C + V, where C’ is the Normal light speed observed at the reference point. C is the Absolute Light Speed observed at the light source (3x108 m/s on earth) and V is the speed of the light source observed at the reference point.
If the light source is moving away from the reference point at a speed V observed at the reference point (/V/ > 0), then C' ≠ C.
Although it is almost impossible to measure accurately the light speed at either the light source C or the reference point C' by experiments, the following two cosmic phenomena: (1) Doppler Redshift explained by Acceleration Doppler Effect (dV/dt > 0), and (2) Event Horizon interpreted by the competition between Absolute Light Speed and star acceleration speed (C = - V), can be considered as the nature proofs of that light speed is not constant.
The speed of light and the relative velocity of bodies are different phenomena that are perceived by us as if they were the same phenomenon. I explain it with the help of a model of particle treated as three dimensional wave in four dimensional Euclidean reality. It is explained in my publications and at my YouTube channel in the presentation - https://youtu.be/fvzzzwGNId8. Current model assuming that the speed of light and the realtive speed of objects are the same phenomenon is errourness and based on 19-the century naive model of space therefore it must sooner or later drive to the conclusions that something with the speed of light is wrong. So I agree with you.
Light consists of quantum particles (photons) and always remains as quantum particles with the smallest possible masses - from the microwave to the gamma-ray range. Its nature is different from other massive quantum particles and very different from other tangible objects; because photons cannot form larger collection of aggregates. Its motion is mediated by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum and is a constant in vacuum. Light photons can uniformly propagate in all direction in 3-dimensinal space through the exchange with the virtual photons without the loss of speed in vacuum.
Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?
Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...
Question : "Are You Certain Mr. Heisenberg?" and the references therein:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_You_Certain_Mr_Heisenberg
According to my model quantum is not a particle but it is a disturbance of a particle treated as a wave. Due to a construction of the wave (unpublished yet - I need to describe it with equations in E4) the disturbance propagates along the wave's ridge (perpendiculary to the direction of its motion) with the same velocity as the wave - particle - propagates in E4. Therefore while the wave travels a distance of 1 in E4, the disrutbance also travels the distance of 1 but along the ridge of the wave - sender. Then the disturbance is received by another particle- receiver - and now it travels along the ridge of the wave - the receiver. Eventually the disturbance travels at time of 1, the distance in space equal to 1, independently on the angle between propagation of these waves - the sine of this angle ithe relative velocity of the receiver in relation to the sender. According to my model a quantum does not exist as a single particle but it is onlny the disturbance of chosen waves. This allows to connect the constant velocity of light with the relative velocity of sender and receiver. It is explained (I hope that it should be comprehensible - if not - please let me know) at https://youtu.be/fvzzzwGNId8
Abdul Malek
I am surprise you firmly believe in what have come to be named "virtual photons" .............
We have nothing in the Mother Nature called virtual photons ,,,,,,,,,,,
Totally disparages even your own rigorous school of Materialism ::::::::::::::
Witold Nawrot
" According to my model quantum is not a particle but it is a disturbance of a particle treated as a wave. Due to a construction of the wave (unpublished yet - I need to describe it with equations in E4) the disturbance propagates along the wave's ridge (perpendiculary to the direction of its motion) with the same velocity as the wave - particle - propagates in E4. Therefore while the wave travels a distance of 1 in E4, the disrutbance also travels the distance of 1 but along the ridge of the wave - sender. Then the disturbance is received by another particle- receiver - and now it travels along the ridge of the wave - the receiver. Eventually the disturbance travels at time of 1, the distance in space equal to 1, independently on the angle between propagation of these waves - the sine of this angle ithe relative velocity of the receiver in relation to the sender. According to my model a quantum does not exist as a single particle but it is onlny the disturbance of chosen waves. This allows to connect the constant velocity of light with the relative velocity of sender and receiver. "
A really tall story .
I am glad that you yourself call it no more than a "Model" .....................
Sincerely Yours
REZA
Reza Sanaye> "I am surprise you firmly believe in what have come to be named "virtual photons ...Totally disparages even your own rigorous school of Materialism "
Yes, I do and for very good scientific and philosophical reasons! I belong to the school of dialectical materialism, which is very different, nay, the opposite of classical/mechanical materialism. In response to your significant question, I reproduce below a comment I made on this issue recently in another forum. For more of my view on this issue please see the following link:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now
[Abdul Malek added an answer
5 days ago
Jaroslav Patúc > “I do not rule out the existence of virtual particles”.
I am not a philosopher in the conventional meaning of the term as you seem to presume and neither am I a theoretical physicist by formal education. My formal education was rather specialized in physical chemistry and spectroscopy. Most of what I write or say about physics comes from self-study and self-learning; so, I do not carry a heavy baggage of prejudice that goes with formal education. And I think philosophy in the formal sense of the term came to an end with Hegel’s dialectics. Because, if the aim of philosophy (and also of physics) was to know the final, ultimate truth (the Mind of God) of the world; Hegel’s idealist dialectics (in spite of his so-called “Absolute Idea”) showed that mankind can/will never achieve that goal; it is an impossible enterprise that theoretical physics also is pursuing – the idea of a ("theory of everything” is a still-born baby; it is a partial masquerading as the complete! To quote my mentor Engels, “Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker”. Please see; "The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science":
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...
So, for me, Philosophy + Physics = Materialist Dialectics! I have attempted a "virtual particles" and QED-based new interpretation of Hegel’s ontological ideas and his philosophy of space and time; in contrast and in opposition to Minkowski-Einstein abstract “spacetime” 4-D geometrical construct. In my view, Hegel, in a very obscure and highly speculative way anticipated the virtual particles of QED and the quantum phenomena itself, through his philosophy of space and time. I have used the notion of virtual particle in my research works from the quantum to the cosmic, as the basis of a materialist dialectical world view of the universe. In modern times (and to my knowledge), only Hermann Weyl in his book ―RAUM—ZEIT—MATERIE‖ discloses a philosophical position of the dynamical relation of space, time matter and motion, which is very close to that of Hegel. Please see:
Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?
"Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena":
Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...
"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies":
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf
"The Cosmic Gamma-Ray Halo - New Imperative for a Dialectical Perspective of the Universe" :
Article The Cosmic Gamma-Ray Halo - New Imperative for a Dialectical...
The quantum vacuum containing transient “virtual particle” is VERY REAL indeed! As I said above, "Lamb Shift" and the Lande factor of magnetic moment of electrons, the Casimir force, the permittivity and the permeability of the classical vacuum can be attributed to collective effect of the momentary existence of infinite number of virtual particles of the quantum vacuum.
Creation “ex nihilo” from the virtual particles is practically feasible!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
https://www.accessscience.com/content/electron-positron-pair-production-and-annihilation/224710
Even your “thunderclouds” generate matter-antimatter pairs from virtual particles. A simulation of this phenomena in laboratory scale has also been claimed:
https://www.cwi.nl/news/2014/creation-of-antimatter-lightning-simulated-first-time
Md. Tarek Hossain > "In 2020, Penrose was awarded one half of the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".
"...a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity"? I don.t think so! Albert Einstein, who gave the theory of general relativity (GR) wrote the following about "Black Hole": : "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
According to my model the reality should be described with the help of an Euclidean model. The Minkowski space time it is an observed shape of the "true" Euclidean reality. Where in Minkowski space time the singularities occure, in the Euclidean space the trajectory change its direction to the straight angle in relation to the trajectory (not the world line) of an observer in E4. A short introduction to the philosophy of the model can be found at https://youtu.be/1GrE5zyd7wc and more detail descriptions are presented at 10.5923/j.ijtmp.20211101.01 and 10.5923/j.ijtmp.20170705.01
Any theory is incomplete because no theory is perfect. But I don't think it is wrong, it is a good theory that has passed all the tests to date.
Rigoberto Carbajal-Valdez My papers present a complete theory
. Article Double-Slit Experiment Solved
Article Universal Time
and so on