Is GR a wrong apparoach to gravitation?

In summary, Daniel states that his research shows that "gravitation is not correct after all". He provides a criticism of standard gravity, and suggests an alternate theory of gravity that fits with experimental data. He also discusses the possible failure of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
  • #1
Juan R.
416
1
Some time ago I began my research in gravitation.

Now I am actively working in GR and quantum gravity. I am sorry to say this but when I more study it, more I think that GR is not correct after all.

For some criticism to GR, you can see the last part of my "paper" on string theory sited in www.canonicalscience.com.

I would aknowledge debate. I will attempt for solve your doubts, questions, etc. in this hot topic :biggrin:.

Please note that canonical gravitodynamics (it is finally correct one) fit also with experimental data, but corrects some flaws of Einstein GR. PLease, note that contrary to usual belief in GR, the speed of gravitational interactions is not bounde by c, like a series of recent experiments proved. That and the recent LIGO failure for see gravitational waves would open our minds to posible failure of GR.

Note that i am not talking about posible Planck scale correction terms to classical action. I am talking of new approach in the macroscopic, classical regime.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm not familiar with your theory at all, and am not sure at this point how seriously to take it. What does it (your theory) predict for gravity probe B results?

Also, has this theory been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or is it your personal theory that has only been published on the web?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I think that an "alternate theory of gravity" might receive more serious attention if the PPN parameters are worked out for it and compare well with experimental evidence.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node9.html
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/expgravpage/expgravnew.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
What are those "some flaws of Einstein GR"...?At classical level,of course.

Daniel.
 
  • #5
dextercioby said:
What are those "some flaws of Einstein GR"...?At classical level,of course.

Daniel.

He lists one of the flaws as: GR is different than Newton's equations.

He also criticizes string theory for failing to deliver any practical benefits. But after patting himself on the back for the wonders of his new theory, he admits that he doesn't have anything specific yet either as the theory is still in its infancy.

'Nuff said.
 
  • #6
if my work is interesting help me, if it is not ignore it!

pervect

It is still in development. I have still some problem of interpretation of a factor that arise in the equation (possibly it will be related to the Q of cosmological models), but at least one can obtain new interesting ideas.

When finished, it will be not published in a usual peer-reviewed journal. It will be published in a new form. See our proposals for changing usual system of scientific publication on (http://www.electrochemist2.narod.ru/index.html). You can see I prefer review process.


Dear “DrChinese”

Even in its infancy stage, it is sufficiently developed like for solving some of problems of quantum gravity like the problem of time of Hamiltonian gravity or for showing us that string or M theory does not work and they will do not work. Please read again my criticism to string theory. My emphasis is not in the obvious failure of string as a practical (working) theory, my emphasis is in the it is wrong even if some new "stringy revolution" solves the current problem with compactification and landscapes and all that uggly stuff. Perhaps you would prefer now my own speculation about a future full theory to quantum gravity and SM, why there are 3 families (it is not related to CY), etc. but I prefer to wait...

If my theory is not interesting for you (or irritate to you). Simply ignore it. It is very easy!


Daniel

There are many criticisms to usual GR. I am not sure of several of those criticisms. E.g. in some part I read that some people sure that GR does not explain Mercury perihelion, since that a special symmetry for the Sun is involved in the fit. However, I has quoted some flaws of Einstein GR that I think (of course I can be wrong) are true.

I reintroduce them here (from the above pdf manuscript) for your valuation and criticism. Please read the manuscript for more information. E.g. the fact of that recent experimental work suggests that gravitation interaction is not bounded by c. This is easily explained in our approach (in fact it is predicted).

- The first point is that Einstein field equations were not rigorously derived. Whereas the geometric part is “ constructed in fine marble” (here and
below on own words by Albert Einstein), the material part (the energymomentum tensor) relies on many assumptions, like the strong equivalence principle, and is, therefore, “ low quality wood”. Of course, the true proof for the gravitational field equations does not rely on the original derivation by Einstein, but we would open the mind to a possible failure of the equations.

- The second is that attempts to derivate Einstein field equations from canonical science rely on certain additional hypothesis (basically those used by Einstein) that break the beautiful mathematical structure of canonical science and contradict some of its basic principles: principles well proved in experiments and mathematically consistent. Of course, one could claim that Universe is mainly described by two theories: at one hand, Einstein gravitation and, at the other, canonical science. However, a dual structure is so strange as the current incompatibility between quantum mechanics and Einstein gravitation. The author’s idea is that canonical science would be also applicable to gravitational phenomena.

- The third is that Einstein GR is not fully compatible with Newtonian theory. It is usually claimed that one recovers Newtonian theory in the linear regime, but one really obtains a non-flat geometry contradicting basic Newtonian
principles. For example, time is not absolute in the linear Einstein regime since
its variation is related to the time-time component of the perturbative
component of the full metric. The situation is traditionally saved using a
double approach. At one hand, it is officially assumed that Newtonian
mechanics is the c infinite limit of special relativity but, at the other hand,
Newtonian gravity is formally modeled from GR only when c is finite. This
double criterion is inadmissible in science: either Newtonian theory is the c
infinite limit of Einstein relativistic theory or is not.

Note that the usual relativists’ argumentation on the small (unobservable)
character of curved spacetime in linearized gravity does not invalidate this
mathematical-epistemological argument here introduced. E.g. one cannot take
the mathematical limit c -> infinite on a “kinetic term” and ignore it in a
“potential term”. See the next point for further epistemological discussion.

- The fourth point, and very important, is that spacetime curvature is never
measured. The semi intuitive idea (the popular model of the elastic surface
uses the concept of extrinsic curvature that is not Einstein curvature) of that
gravitation is curvature is not convincing after all. For example, some authors
attempt to convince us that curvature of spacetime explains by itself the
deflection of light; since that spacetime around Sun is assumed to be curved,
you would naturally think that ray lights move on a “geodesic manner”.
It is just ignored that deflection is also predicted by Newtonian theory in flat
space; deflection calculated by Soldner as early as 1803. The real problem with Newton approach is that predicts approximately the half of experimental value, but a new force that arises naturally from canonical science, exactly from the relativistic thermomaster equation (named super-thermomaster by Patricia Iglesias Pérez), permits us to compute the correct deflection (remember that this research is still on a first stage).

What is more, a well-known epistemological principle says that if A is the
cause of B, then the elimination of A eliminates also B (the effect). Imagine a
hypothetical travel to other universe where the velocity of light is infinite: i.e. a Newtonian Universe. The standard linearized Einstein equations state that the curvature of the spacetime would be zero, whereas the Newtonian potential computed from relativistic gravitational potentials clearly is not. This
mathematical limit indicates that curvature is not the cause of gravitation as
officially assumed, since that elimination of curvature ( cause) does not
eliminate gravitation ( effect). However, canonical terms –relying on the nature of time– disappear when one takes the limit of infinite light velocity and then one recovers the satisfactory Newtonian model exactly. Therefore, canonical science is backward full compatible with the nonrelativistic Newtonian theory.

- The fifth point is that this canonical force can be unified with electrodynamic phenomena and permit us rethink (the always inconsistent!) Maxwell field electrodynamics. We obtain the so desired Einstein dream of unified electrogravitational field just when abandon the field theoretic approach and its divergent self-energies, unobservable fields, and inconsistent retarded fourpotentials!

- A sixth point relies in an epistemological analysis of Einstein gravitation. From basic epistemology, one knows that a theory explains other when there are less principles and unexplained assumptions than in the original theory.
General relativity is not clearly better than Newtonian gravitation from a
conceptual point of view because the number of whys to be answered is the
same in both cases.

Newton equation permits us to calculate the gravitatory force but says us
nothing about the underlying mechanism for the attraction between material
bodies. Almost all popular books and specialized manuals leading with
relativistic gravitation state that Einstein theory explains the mechanism: the
curvature of the own spacetime. This argument is not solid.

Of course, the mystery of a force-at-a-distance is eliminated but at price of
substituting it by a new mystery: what is the mechanism of the curvature of
spacetime? Centuries ago, Newtonian theorists asked, how does Moon know
what is the force generated by Earth on it? In Einstein terms, the question may be reformulated as follow, how does spacetime around Moon know what is the curvature generated by Earth on it?

Newton equation permits us only compute the force. In the same way, Einstein field equations permit just compute the curvature without an underlying mechanism for this curvature effect, and therefore, you are just substituting a mystery by other: force by curvature.

Moreover, it appears that one can quantize gravitation directly.
 
  • #7
If Newton's theory was superior to Einstein's, why was Einstein's developed in the first place...?
 
  • #8
I am not saying that

russ_watters said:
If Newton's theory was superior to Einstein's, why was Einstein's developed in the first place...?

I am sorry, perhaps i explained bad, but i am not saying that Newton theory is best that Einstein one, but my recent post-Newtonian approach appears to be very effective. I am sure many relativistic expertise agree with me that initial acceptation of Einstein GR was favoured by the technology of the epoque o:) .

Today, it would be more difficult to accept Einstein GR since that experiments that validated GR now are below intense research. If i am not wrong my theory predicts all of classical effects usually atributed to curved spacetime and offers good answers to questions that GR do not. Examples:

- Recent high precision tests of redshifts (limbo) contradices classical GR prediction.

- Some extragalactic data does not fit adequately to GR. It is curious that MOND-type theories and similar ones arise naturally in my approach.

- There are convincing proofs of that gravitation is not delayed by c. Especialists can offer us lot of papers and experimental data: absence of aberration, instability in binary stelar systems, etc.

- Very recent work shows that usual field theoretic approach in electrodynamics is not correct. Maxwell field theory do not work. This is also predicted by my new theory, etc. It appears natural that GR (inspired in Maxwell) may be "wrong" or "almost wrong".

- Posibly my approach can solve some of most difficult open question iun cosmology. E.g. there is not necesity for "dark matter" in my approach.

- The square of Planck scale arises directly without additional asumptions. Note that the Planck scale is introduced by hand in suposed elegant TOEs like string theory.

- My theory shows why one cannot wait for a quantum field approach in the ipirit of QED.

- Etc.


Moreover, even ignoring all of this (perhaps all of this is only "concidence" caused by a cosmic fluctuation ), what is the flaw in my reasoning?

1) does curvature explain gravity?

2) is Newtonian gravitation contained in GR?

3) is there real gravitational waves?


Etc.
 
  • #9
Juan R. said:
I am sorry, perhaps i explained bad, but i am not saying that Newton theory is best that Einstein one, but my recent post-Newtonian approach appears to be very effective.
That doesn't explain why it is a bad thing that GR is not completely consistent with Newton's Gravity.
If i am not wrong my theory predicts all of classical effects usually atributed to curved spacetime...
In that case, your approach would not be consistent with Newtonian gravity either.
 
  • #10
Maybe you already addressed these points Juan R., but I didn't see them (apologies if I read too quickly):
pervect said:
What does it (your theory) predict for gravity probe B results?
robphy said:
I think that an "alternate theory of gravity" might receive more serious attention if the PPN parameters are worked out for it and compare well with experimental evidence.
And if I may add a couple of (observationally-based) questions of my own ...
- "Recent high precision tests of redshifts (limbo) contradices classical GR prediction" - would you be so kind as to provide a reference to these tests?
- "There are convincing proofs of that gravitation is not delayed by c. Especialists can offer us lot of papers and experimental data: absence of aberration, instability in binary stelar systems, etc." - ditto; where is this experimental data published?
 
  • #11
There is strong observational evidence showing decay of orbits in binary neutrons star systems [e.g., PSR 1913+16, PSR B1534+12 and PSR J0737-3039]. The explanation for this behavior is provided by GR: loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. In field theory, radiation is a consequence of the finite velocity of field propagation, so orbital changes via gravitational radiation are a damping effect due to its finite propagation speed. The calculation for the rate of damping is heavily dependent on the speed of gravity. In the case of PSR 1913+16, measurements indicate the speed of gravity is within 1% of the speed of light. Any candidate theory to replace GR must not only make new or different predictions than GR, it must also be consistent with the large number of observations that support GR. Some references to consider:

Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16: Thirty Years of Observations and Analysis
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149

Studies of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR B1534+12: I. Timing Analysis
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208357

Binary-pulsar tests of strong-field gravity and gravitational radiation damping
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0402007

The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103036

Was Einstein Right? Testing Relativity at the Centenary
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504086
 
  • #12
Is GR wrong but computationally useful?

I thought that in this forum I would receive a hard criticism. This is not a problem for me, since that each new idea may be tested. Perhaps I am correct, perhaps I am completely wrong, but without debate I cannot be sure. My research appears consistent. Debate is not a problem. When Einstein published his relativistic ideas many “respected physicists” did joke of him. Somewhat like highly “respected physicists and mathematicians” claimed that Newton was completely wrong. Somewhat like recently “expertises” did joke in recent approach to adsorption kinetics. Moreover, I simply ignore jokes because jokes are a symptom of no serious arguments against my own ideas :approve: .

I thought sincerely I could open a serious debate in this forum, but several you misguided the point and posted many irrelevant comments (even infantile ones). I am perplexed. I am open to debate, to explain my ideas and to correct my possible errors. Fortunately, other members appear to be interested in a review of basic postulates of GR. Thanks!

Collective answer (including serious and joke posts)

There is a basic principle of epistemology that says that a new theory may always explain previous theories. GR is not 100% compatible with Newtonian theory. Therefore, GR cannot be completely true and that is a bad thing.

You are wrong, my approach is totally consistent with Newtonian gravity since one can derive exactly Newtonian gravity in the appropiate limit of c --> infinite. GR cannot. In fact, in the limit of instantaneous interaction, GR predicts flat spacetime and therefore (according to usual belief) no gravitation, since gravity is assumed to be curvature... Still one may obtain the correct limit of nonzero gravitational field on that limit. Conclusion: GR is wrong in its rejecting of gravitation like force.

I am not a specialist on gravitation ( I began my research on this topic some month ago), but I can offer you some data. I plan to write a first manuscript in the last part of this year.

GR predicts a constant redshift of 2.12 10^-8. However there are experiments demostrating variation in function of center to limb distance to the Sun.

At the projected distance of 3 solar radii, the redshift is approximately the double of predicted by GR (Merat, P., et al 1974a. Astron. Astrophys., 30, 167.). See also Sadeh, D., et al 1968. Science, 159, 307 or Marmet, P. 1989, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 17, 238 for further discussion.

From J.H. Taylor et al Nature 355 (1992) 132. One can observe disagreement between predicted and observed period changes for PSR1913+16 and 1534+12. PSR1534+12 indicates a lower limit to the speed of gravity of order of 10^3c.

I am sorry, on gravity probe B results and PPN parameters I cannot say nothing serious still. As said I am still on a preliminary step of the research. However, redshifts, perihelion, time-delay, and deflection appear to be explained in this work.

I can explain some things: exactly those I have worked out these days.

Let me remark that my theory appears compatible with MOND (that is with departures from GR in galactic scales) and with the characteristic (1/r) behavior.

Of corse it is necessary more work still. I have not a final theory but it is very interesting that if even it is only approximated (e.g. valid just to c^-2 order, etc.) it has been already cuantized and open a new interesting alternative to usual QG approaches, specially ST that is a waste of time.

The quote on PPN is interesting but I believe that PPN research is more focused to generalization of GR, obtaining GR by taking the appropriate limits for the parameters (I suspect you may know this topic very well). I am asking if usual GR is wrong in the basis. I cannot sure it, but by this reason I opened this post days ago with a question: is GR wrong?

Note that I am not saying that GR can be useful or not like a computational device. Somewhat like Dirac hole theory is still used in atomic physics and quantum chemistry like a “computational model” when all of us know (I wait!) that the hole theory is completely wrong.

Of course, any theory to supplant GR may explain experiments. I am focusing this basic epistemological principle since the beginning. My work is not "ELEGANT" (i.e. based in supposed elegance and beatiful "math" but with none or wrong links with reality) like ST is. If my theory cannot explain all of experimental data (just the classical tests), i wait can be useful like a first step in other better theory by my own or others.

Let me say that I am not saying that we cannot see retardation effects. In fact, like say in some part I obtain a simulation of fields and the retardation of the effects of those fields on the masses is of course bounded by c, but there are also direct instantaneous interaction and this violates basic Einstein thinking.

My theory “predicts” (really postdict because is newer) also as recent result regarding electromagnetism (PRE 1996, 53, 5, 53-57). It is usually asumed that the field theoretic approach based in retarded action is full compatible with experimental data. Canonical approach suggests that the field approach is not fundamental in electromagnetism and gravitation and therefore GR has already failed in its basic principles of overemphasize the field theoretic approach like Maxwell did on EM.
 
  • #13
Juan R. said:
Let me remark that my theory appears compatible with MOND (that is with departures from GR in galactic scales) and with the characteristic (1/r) behavior.

It reads ambigous. I mean the (1/r) galactic force not explained (into the limits of my knowledge) by GR.
 
  • #14
Juan R. said:
There is a basic principle of epistemology that says that a new theory may always explain previous theories. GR is not 100% compatible with Newtonian theory. Therefore, GR cannot be completely true and that is a bad thing.
You misunderstand that basic principle of epistemiology: new theories must always explain phenomena better than previous theories (otherwise, why bother?). GR was first conceived because Newtonian gravity is wrong. Newtonian gravity works in some cases, but fails to work in others. GR (so far) works in every case where gravitational interactions are important. Therefore if GR were completely consistent with Newtonian gravity, it would not represent a step forward in our understanding, it would represent a step backwards.
 
  • #15
Whow!

russ_watters said:
You misunderstand that basic principle of epistemiology: new theories must always explain phenomena better than previous theories (otherwise, why bother?). GR was first conceived because Newtonian gravity is wrong. Newtonian gravity works in some cases, but fails to work in others. GR (so far) works in every case where gravitational interactions are important. Therefore if GR were completely consistent with Newtonian gravity, it would not represent a step forward in our understanding, it would represent a step backwards.

You have misguided the point.

If you say that Newtonian gravity is "wrong" is that you are newer studied epistemology. Theories (i am talking about verified theories nor about hypotesis) are not correct or wrong, are applicable or inapplicable. Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to high velocities, but it is physically applicable at low velocities (and mases of course) and exact in the limit c--> 0.

Each new theory may coincide exactly with previous theories in the limit where the previous theory work perfectly. This is the reason of that taking the limit c --> infinite in the relativistic mass one obtains the Newtonian mass exactly.

The same may be true for gravitation or for any other theory of nature. For this reason in the limit of alpha --> 0 one obtains the action for GR from the superstring action, if one obtained another thing, ST newer had been even studied like a candidate to quantize gravitation. Precisely the problem of ST is compatification or the failure to obtain a macroscopic 4D from the 10D. Or said in another form one cannot obtain exactly 4D-GR in that limit.

It is more, there is another principle of epistemology of physics that says that in the mathematical limit where one obtains the special theory from the general theory, at least one constant of universe may disappear. I leave to you to discover what constant may disappear in the limit to Newtonian physics.

All of that does not imply steps backwards, simply imply that the new theory may contain to previous theory like a special case valid in a determined limit. Somewhat like a circle is a special limit of an ellipse. Take a book in geometry!

Moreover, my theory fits perfectly with Newtonian gravity in the limit of c--> infinite and explain (at least many) relativistic effects in the full regime. Sorry! :devil:

Precisely the main criticism of Einstein to QM was that it is not full backward complatible with classical mechanics because in the limit of h --> 0 one does not obtain exactly classical mechanics.

Guy, have you heard about proposed modifications of QM for explaining correctly the classical word? Do you know the work of Penrose, Gell-Mann, Ownes, etc.? Has you heard about cats or about diagonal matrices?

Moreover, your emphasis on that GR works perfectly contrast a bit (only a bit of course :biggrin:) with the current status of many specialists that attemtp to explain experimental data and GR does not work adequately.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Juan R. said:
Each new theory may coincide exactly with previous theories in the limit where the previous theory work perfectly.
That is not what you said before - you did not include the caveat about coinciding only where the previous theory works. Thanks for clarifying.

However, that doesn't jive with your previous statement about GR not being fully compatible with Newtonian gravity. Where Newtonian gravity is correct, they do coincide - you can even derive Newton's laws from GR with the appropriate simplifying assumptions. But in the many cases where Newton's laws don't work, GR does work - so they quite naturally don't coincide. So quite, the flaw is in Newton's gravity, not in GR.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
GR does not contain to NG

russ_watters said:
That is not what you said before - you did not include the caveat about coinciding only where the previous theory works. Thanks for clarifying.

However, that doesn't jive with your previous statement about GR not being fully compatible with Newtonian gravity. Where Newtonian gravity is correct, they do coincide - you can even derive Newton's laws from GR with the appropriate simplifying assumptions. But in the many cases where Newton's laws don't work, GR does work - so they quite naturally don't coincide. So quite, the flaw is in Newton's gravity, not in GR.

After your first post i said clearly (Wednesday) that was a post-Newtonian approach. It is obious that I was referring to the derivation of NG in the limit of c--> infinite.

Even ignoring now that GR does not explain all gravitational data exactly or that Einstein based his reasoning in Maxwell ideas -recently shows to be wrong in both physical and mathematical grouds (this indicated at least to me that GR cannot be correct)- GR explains very well many data: e.g. classical tests in solar sytem. My theory appears to obtain the same values that GR, but using flat spacetime, etc.

Moreover I obtain exactly Newtonian gravity in the limit c--> infinite. From GR one cannot. One obtain in the linearized regime the correct poisson equation, etc. but one obtains:

- c finite.
- Curved spacetime.
- A direct potential suposedly mediated by a retarded field!

Both of three points are incompatible with Newton gravity (NG). Taking exactly the correct limit of c--> on GR one obtains:

- c infinite. (compatible with NG and classical nonrelativistic mechanic)
- Flat spacetime. (compatible with NG and classical nonrelativistic mechanic)
- The paradox of that one may obtain still -GMm/r with flat spacetime. Therefore curvature in not the source of gravitation.
 
  • #18
GR predicts a constant redshift of 2.12 10^-8. However there are experiments demostrating variation in function of center to limb distance to the Sun.

At the projected distance of 3 solar radii, the redshift is approximately the double of predicted by GR (Merat, P., et al 1974a. Astron. Astrophys., 30, 167.). See also Sadeh, D., et al 1968. Science, 159, 307 or Marmet, P. 1989, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 17, 238 for further discussion.
Thanks. I'll certainly check these out. In the meantime, I note that they are all rather old, and if - as you claim - the report inconsistencies with GR, I'd be astonished if they weren't followed up, and the observations repeated. Today, of course, much greater sensitivity is obtainable, so if you have more recent confirmatory observations, that'd be much appreciated.
From J.H. Taylor et al Nature 355 (1992) 132. One can observe disagreement between predicted and observed period changes for PSR1913+16 and 1534+12. PSR1534+12 indicates a lower limit to the speed of gravity of order of 10^3c.
This too is 'old' (in the world of binary pulsar research), but nonetheless well worth looking into; thanks!

BTW, do you know if more recent observations of binary pulsars reveal similar inconsistencies? I note that the papers Chronos cites are all much more recent than the one you cite.
 
  • #19
Juan R. said:
Some time ago I began my research in gravitation.

Now I am actively working in GR and quantum gravity. I am sorry to say this but when I more study it, more I think that GR is not correct after all.

For some criticism to GR, you can see the last part of my "paper" on string theory sited in www.canonicalscience.com

I read your newsletter. It jumps around the topics a bit. However, I like that you show the problems with mathematical concepts, especially of the infinitesimal, dx. You bring some very good points. We must start to expand our understanding of the infinitesimal and the infinite series of the calculus to generally to exactly match our requirements in physical theory. I would say that Dirac already introduces the problem with his delta function and in general his bra-ket notation starts to distinguish the difference between c-numbers and q-numbers which is what I guess that Connes is trying to expand upon from your comments. Can you give me a reference for Connes work that you are reading.

I am currently working on the same mathematical problem. C. Flyte says that we simply can not view the transforms of the calculus as transforms from one c-number to another. We must expand our definition of the calculus transforms (integral and derivative) to be rotations to new types of numbers which are an expansion of the complex system and the entire theory of differential methods. These new numbers are just expansion of Dirac's definition of q-numbers and explains why the delta function can induct improper functions as 'proper'.
 
  • #20
This is just to tie the above post to the rest of the discussion: It is not Einstein's mathematics that is incorrect, because at the logic level of classical mathematics he is correct (the Lorentz transform). It is in the expansion of this idea that requires adjustment. Einstein makes his conclusion with SR that a fixed mass will rise to infinite energy as it approaches the speed of light. However, this lacks the detail analysis we require...For this is true of every mass and we can not start to use his idea in the specific. Instead we are interested in a corrollary to his conclusion:
What average velocity do 'real' objects of the same mass possess? And we start by saying that all photons have the average velocity of c and assign the entire mass of the universe as zero. This only means that we assume the universe is the maximum mass and has a constant center (center of mass) that does not move.

In this way we have to eliminate the 'unreal' situation of infinite mass; and for that matter we are forced to also assign a mass to the photon, such that the zero of mass will only arise when there is no energy within a space at all.
 
  • #21
Infinities are obviously nonphysical. Just because math [a human construct] infers they might exist, does not mean they do, or that nature must bow to such absurdities. It appears to me the observable universe is not a singularity.
 
  • #22
I am not a librarian

Thanks by your replies. Note this is a forum. It is not a peer review journal!. Therefore I cannot are replying at each step with “the papers that I am reading”. Many people is soliciting to me references and more references. I am not soliciting you the papers that you are reading or the books in GR that you are read when reply to me. The list of papers that I have read is near 3000. More lots of monographs, textbooks, handbooks, etc. See my previous webpage (time ago it included downloable pdf papers in nanothermodynamics, chemistry, etc.) www.canonical.chemicalforums.com[/url] for a idea of I am doing or wait to the final version of [url]www.canonicalscience.com[/URL].

I just want discuss some topics here. Use arguments! Owns or from others!

[b]Nereid [/b]

I am not a specialist on gravitation. Therefore, I cannot offer you mountains of reports and data. Specialists on relativity can write here and post for you dozens of reports. The inconsistencies are not due to sensitivity, since the failure on redshift is near the double and, moreover, it is not a random error. There is a clear tendency in many data: redshif is not constant. I quote only some report. I will cite all data, including more recent experimental data in the paper. Let me ignore now this data I am discussing just about the above points 1, 2, and 3. Still you have no critiqued my main idea of thinking.

I already known several of Chronos’ quoted papers, and in limbo-Redsift or in (1/r) they say nothing real. The recent “experimental confirmations of GR” that I know focus just in those themes where GR work well but ignore the flaws (somewhat like Dirac hole worked acceptably well for electrons, but Dirac simply ignored recent data on non-fermions...

[b]nickdanger[/b]

I arrived to my work in calculus from nanothermodynamics.

I think that there are good motives for understanding that non-commutative geometry is not the so desired solution to the old problems of standard calculus. Please, I wait that nobody reply my saying: what? Calculus outdated? But it work perfectly in physics! That is the first notice that I have! Please introduce modern reports in the topic…

Moreover, I am very skeptic that Connes’ approach was the key for our understanding of quantum spacetime. Precisely from my own approach to quantum spacetime I found a E-p relation akin to that found by LQG theorists.

You can see that I do not use the unconceivable (really unphysical) Dirac delta function. My work in math is not at level of mathematicians, of course. I follow Feynman philosophy. My epsilon calculus permited to me understand epsilon thermal structures, obtain an R <--> (1/R) smmetry (it is not ST duality) and derive Hamiltonian equations of classical dynamics (and generalizations of them) from the thermomaster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
nickdanger said:
This is just to tie the above post to the rest of the discussion: It is not Einstein's mathematics that is incorrect, because at the logic level of classical mathematics he is correct (the Lorentz transform). It is in the expansion of this idea that requires adjustment.

Really, GR relies on usual calculus, and since this is not totally convincing. We may admit that GR is not convincing. For skeptics, simply to say that I am not insane! In fact, there is a school of mathematicians improving GR in a sound mathematical basis. They do not use complex number nor the usual logic. There are several links between recent mathematicians work and my.
 
  • #24
Chronos said:
Infinities are obviously nonphysical. Just because math [a human construct] infers they might exist, does not mean they do, or that nature must bow to such absurdities. It appears to me the observable universe is not a singularity.

There is not infinites in my canonical gravitodynamics. Even if finally my approach is wrong in some detail and it is valid only like a first approach to a full understanding of gravitation. The could be a first step on our elimination of the infinites. Weinberg appears rather confortable with them, but infinites are only on our (really your :biggrin: ) papers.
 
  • #25
Yes or no?

Still nobody has done absolutely none comments on my questions. There are several important questions around the validity of GR like a good theory of gravitation. Even ignoring recent data of deviations from GR predictions:

- Absence of aberration.

- "Dark matter".

- Non-constant solar redshift.

- Velocity of gravity in binary pulsars (the famous problem of conservation of angular momentum).

- Absence of any proof for gravitational waves. There are many confusions in literature regarding this topic and some papers mix certain gravitational effects with supposed radiation effects.

- Violations of GR outside of the solar system. The force (1/r). PLease note that the inelegant string theory is just a proposal for the modificiation of GR at Planck scale. We do not need the recent M-theory "r7" modifications of potential, we need explain the anomalous (1/r) behavior of the force in extragalactic regimes. Regime where string theory "predicts" just GR.

- Etc.


There are sound mathematical and conceptual flaws in Einstein approach to GR.

1) does curvature explain gravity?

2) is Newtonian gravitation contained in GR?

3) is there real gravitational waves?

My replies are NO, NO, NO. Still nobody has here proposed good arguments against me.
 
  • #26
I'm not sure why your answer to 3) is so confidently NO, since we're spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on the LIGO experiment to find gravitational waves. You cannot know, a priori, that they do not exist.

I'm curious. Have you studied GR? If I were to pick, say, 10 random problems from a basic GR textbook, would you be able to solve most if not all of them using the techniques of GR?
 
  • #27
Still nobody has done absolutely none comments on my questions. There are several important questions around the validity of GR like a good theory of gravitation. Even ignoring recent data of deviations from GR predictions:
- Absence of aberration.
I missed this one! What do you mean?
- "Dark matter".
This is a favourite of may 'anti-' folk. Let's be clear here; are you referring to
a) 'missing mass' in spiral galaxies?
b) 'missing mass' in rich galaxy clusters?
c) analyses of the CMBR (and other, observational cosmology)?
d) something else?
e) some combination of the above??

My reason for asking is that the observational evidence for each is quite different, and the extent to which GR is (or is not) involved in analyses of the observations to yield DM, quite varied.
- Non-constant solar redshift.
- Velocity of gravity in binary pulsars (the famous problem of conservation of angular momentum).
I challenged you for papers, you provided them; I'm looking into this ... but I'll do it in my own good time (and get back to this thread when I'm done). For now, mark this as 'under investigation, Juan's case hasn't been made - yet - to Nereid (at least)'.
- Absence of any proof for gravitational waves. There are many confusions in literature regarding this topic and some papers mix certain gravitational effects with supposed radiation effects.
Well, if you use the word 'proof', then our discussion will reach a quick end - no such thing is possible in science. Perhaps you addressed the many, many papers on binary pulsars (esp those to which Chronos provided links), but I'm sorry to say I didn't see your view (the only thing you said, that I found is: "I already known several of Chronos’ quoted papers, and in limbo-Redsift or in (1/r) they say nothing real. The recent “experimental confirmations of GR” that I know focus just in those themes where GR work well but ignore the flaws (somewhat like Dirac hole worked acceptably well for electrons, but Dirac simply ignored recent data on non-fermions...")
- Violations of GR outside of the solar system. The force (1/r). PLease note that the inelegant string theory is just a proposal for the modificiation of GR at Planck scale. We do not need the recent M-theory "r7" modifications of potential, we need explain the anomalous (1/r) behavior of the force in extragalactic regimes. Regime where string theory "predicts" just GR.
Er, this seems to be a reference to the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, or do you have something else in mind?

In any case, it's very, very easy to provide lots of examples of 'conformity with GR outside the solar system' - take a look at the MACHO and OGLE results, for example, or the gravitational redshift observed in white dwarf spectra.
- Etc.
Sorry, you're not going to get away with this ... if you have more good observational or experimental results which are inconsistent with GR, please list them.
There are sound mathematical and conceptual flaws in Einstein approach to GR.

1) does curvature explain gravity?
2) is Newtonian gravitation contained in GR?
3) is there real gravitational waves?
My replies are NO, NO, NO. Still nobody has here proposed good arguments against me.
This is such a mish-mash!

I'll leave the 'mathematical and conceptual flaws' to others; for now I propose the following 'good arguments' against you:
2) in the sense that all good observational and experimental results which are consistent with 'Newtonian gravitation' are also consistent with GR, then 'Newtonian gravitation IS contained in GR' (this 'operational' consistency is the one which trumps all others, IMHO)
3) until I've had a chance to check the papers you cited (and others), I will give only two things:
a) what is 'real'? how do you assess what's real and what's not? Without the reader knowing this, your question is impossible to address
b) binary pulsars.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Juan R. said:
Still nobody has done absolutely none comments on my questions.

Lots of people have commented extensively on your posts - I haven't taken the time to do so until now, but I'll remedy that.

When I realized that your theory (whatever it is) didn't actually make any testable predictions about the near-term future results of the current gravity probe B experiments, (and that it had apparently never been peer reviewed), I basically lost interest in what you had to say.

It appears to me that you argue by selectively picking experimental results that favor your pre-conceived notions, and ignoring those that don't. That's no way to do science, and a peer-reviewed journal wouldn't let you get away with it. PF aparrently wouldn't either, that's why this post is in theory development.

It also appears to me that you don't really understand what you are talking about - at one point you appear to praise MOND-like theories, then at another point you loudly proclaim that your theory gives Newtonian theory in some sort of limit.

Well, the big problem with this is that any theory that reduces to Newtonian theory is not going to explain the observations that require one to modify Newtonian gravity (MOND stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics - you apparently didn't/ don't realize this).

I'm fairly sure you'll come up with a lot of BS in response to my post, if I get bored I may even stop by again and read some of it.
 
  • #29
juvenal said:
I'm not sure why your answer to 3) is so confidently NO, since we're spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on the LIGO experiment to find gravitational waves. You cannot know, a priori, that they do not exist.

I'm curious. Have you studied GR? If I were to pick, say, 10 random problems from a basic GR textbook, would you be able to solve most if not all of them using the techniques of GR?

I newer imagined that the correctness of a scientific theory or concept was directly proportional to the money devoted to research. In fact, it is rather interesting your philosophy. If you are sure of the existence, why spent that money in the search of a direct confirmation?

Still I find that some people of this forum read not adequately and often misunderstand my own words. Please relead again my point 3). I said real gravitational waves not gravitational waves.
 
  • #30
juvenal said:
I'm curious. Have you studied GR? If I were to pick, say, 10 random problems from a basic GR textbook, would you be able to solve most if not all of them using the techniques of GR?


GR? What is that?

Great Reply?
 
Last edited:
  • #31
I think that you are focusing in finding some failure on my interpretation of experimental data for saving GR from failure. It is improbable that you find some error. Still that does not invalidate my theory. As said, my preliminary theory is compatible with classical test of GR like Mercury, radar delay, etc. I did not say that my theory cannot do predictions for Prove B or others, I said that I am beginning and still did not calculation on that. Moreover, my theory is full backward compatible with NG (GR is not) and compatible (the electrodynamic + gravitodynamic) with recent data in magnetic interactions in clusters, data in Hg, and anomalous behavior of tomahawks where, of course, GR said nothing but the underlying Einstein field approach is wrong.

I have studied more aspects and, also, have in my mind the difficulties with Tidal theory in Moon orbit, retardation of Phobos, the failure of Nebular hypothesis, etc.

Moreover, remember the failure of the concept of field (recently found in classical Maxwell EM, I cited the paper in another post) but perfectly explained by canonical EM. I could cite experiments regarding failure of the WEP, etc. I would say you that your attempts to find a failure on my interpretation of fields and GR are advocated to failure.

But when there are not arguments...


Nereid

Precisely, I mean absence of aberration in gravitation. Have you heard about Poynting-Robertson?

I was talking about missing mass in galaxies and clusters.

My point about gravitational waves is as follow.

1) There is some confusion in the literature on this topic I revised. I think that many physicists consider that changes in gravitational fields are gravitational waves. This cannot be true. Therefore, I am very skeptic of some of the claims that I have heard of that PSR1913+16 is a proof of usual interpretation of GR and its waves.

2) I said real gravitational waves. That is, I doubt the existence of real classical waves and real gravitons. I propose that there are not both in nature.

I was talking of the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies. I have in my mind the related TF law.

I have said that “conformity with GR outside the solar system” could be interpreted in a computational scheme, somewhat like there are examples of “conformity with Dirac hole theory” (even a Nobel prize for the discovering of antiparticles) still we know today that Hole theory is simply wrong like a real consistent theory. Could it be possible that GR was a useful computational scheme being a historical curiosity?

Phlogiston theory is wrong still was compatible with many experimental data of the epoque. The last decade a chemist said that one could today gave a general course on chemistry using phlogiston theory (i.e. it is still very useful like a computational scheme being wrong). Do you see the link with GR...

"2) in the sense that all good observational and experimental results which are consistent with 'Newtonian gravitation' are also consistent with GR, then 'Newtonian gravitation IS contained in GR' (this 'operational' consistency is the one which trumps all others, IMHO)"

This is not completely true. Each experiment has down a theoretical interpretation. A theory is not done of numbers alone, it is the sum numbers more consistent interpretation. GR is not full consistent with NG (and does not reduce to). In NG, gravitation is instantaneous, still GR says that there is delay, the only form for obtaining rigorously NG would be the taking the nonrelativistic limit c--> infinite (this is true in canonical gravitodynamics), but then there is no curvature in GR and the whole formalism collapse.

I wonder as anyone can claim for the derivation of instantaneous NG from GR leaving c finite. Remember also, that astronomers calculate orbits using instantaneous forces and introducing the delay for the apparent position of the body only! If gravitation is curvature and the propagation is delayed, why is it computed (in laboratories of the real world) without delay, violating GR?

A question for the celebrated specialist in GR (juvenal). You appear an authentic specialist in the solving of really difficult textbook problems (perhaps at level of Wald!). Have you computed real data using an orbit computer or some numerical integration software or only passed an exam in the Uni?

Let me remark that in the supposed success of GR in the computation of many gravitatory phenomena, the delay of interaction is NOT used. This is one ofthe true causes of the experimental success of GR. If one models the solar system with time delay of gravitation the result is a disaster. Therefore many of the supposed successes of GR in experiments… are based in ignoring one of main lessons of GR. Fascinating!

Of course, there is no absolute concept of “real”. “Real” is the most simple and consistent explanation of nature we have got in any instant of history. Continuum matter was real before our discovering of atoms. Light was only a real wave before our discovering of photons, etc.

The status of gravitational waves is still poor since there is not proof of them. By this reason there are so many attempts to finding them!

pervect

you said:

“It appears to me that you argue by selectively picking experimental results that favor your pre-conceived notions, and ignoring those that don't.”

I am sorry to say this but those words are not very honest.

Always, in alternative points of view, each member argues with proper arguments and data. Remember Bohr-Einstein. Finally, the theory with best experimental support and consistent interpretation wins and the other is ignored.

I am ignoring nothing, neither I am claiming that the final theory of gravitation may ignore experimental data. I said that I am beginning, did some computations, but still did not others. I cannot say anything still on Probe B. I am not saying that I will ignore it.

Still I may remark that there is experimental data contradicting GR that you are ignoring when it is available in literature.

Currently, the situation is as follow, GR can explain some experimental data but no others and is internally inconsistent (arguments in rest of posts), whereas canonical gravitodynamics can explain some data violating GR more the classical tests of GR like said today above and is internally consistent and agree with very recent EM studies violating Einstein's thinking about fields. I wait that canonical gravitodynamics in its actual form (or any future generalization) can explain all of data.

I think that you are misunderstanding the point. I do not praise MOND-like theories, since you possibly know that are more a computational scheme that a proper theory. I said that one can obtain a MOND type approach in certain limits and Newtonian theory in other limit.

Of course, I newer said that I could obtain at the same limit MOND and Newton. You probably know that Newtonian gravity is a special case of MOND theory (let me ignore now the fact of that MOND is not really a theory or if you prefer add “numerical” to “special case” above).

From your emphasis in that I would be wrong in my thinking of that GR is not the last true in classical gravitation, I am obliged to suspect that either you are not a specialist in the topic or carefully select literature supporting your own point of view.

I read from a very, very recent Physical Review, “may reflect departures from both Newtonian gravity and GR on galactic and larger scales. Now alternatives to GR are traditionally required to possesses an Newtonian limit for small velocities and potentials... also raises the possibility that the correct relativistic gravitational theory may be of a kind not considered hitherto.”

I would remark that after several days of replies and re-replies still nobody has consistently shown that my main line of thinking is completely wrong and all of my theory is garbage. Many people is desperatedly focusing in showing that GR is marvellous and fit all data perfectly.

I ask again. What is the reply to my already famous 1), 2), and 3) questions?

For the lovers of GR I am doing an effort for posting in www.canonicalscience.com an experimental figure on the marvelous “success” of GR in fit solar system data. I will put the figure without additional explaining nor data. Since people here is extremely interested in knowing what is my literature basis but few (very little) interested in the discussion of my underlying reasoning (often rejected per se without rigorous analysis) I will put no references, since references would be posted only on the manuscript (in preparation) to be submited.
 
  • #32
What you are saying contradicts http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/download/lrr-2001-4.pdf which assumes the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Juan R. said:
A question for the celebrated specialist in GR (juvenal). You appear an authentic specialist in the solving of really difficult textbook problems (perhaps at level of Wald!). Have you computed real data using an orbit computer or some numerical integration software or only passed an exam in the Uni?

Nice response. You didn't answer my question. Can you or not?

It's irrelevant whether I can or not, because I'M not the one trying to come up with a new theory to replace GR.

You do understand that 100% of the cranks who come in here do not know the basics of the theories they have problems with right? What makes you different from them?
 
  • #34
Precisely, I mean absence of aberration in gravitation. Have you heard about Poynting-Robertson?
Please say more (at face value what you wrote is gibberish, but perhaps that's a problem with my comprehension).
I was talking about missing mass in galaxies and clusters.
Thank you.

So, I assume you are familiar with the types of observations that establish value of DM for rich clusters?
1) the virial theorem applied to galaxy motions (of course we can 'see' only the line of sight ones)
2) hydrodynamic equilibrium for the IGM (per X-ray data)
3) gravitational lensing (a GR effect)
4) the SZE.

Now here's the curious thing: they all give approx the same value for the total mass of the rich clusters! Yet, when you estimate the baryonic content (several methods), you get a value that is ~1 OOM too small.

So, if GR is 'off' (#3 above), then so is NG, hydrodynamics, and (probably) the Standard Model in particle physics. MOND and similar modifications of NG are no help - from Day One, the MONDians acknowledged that rich clusters were way, way outside their predictions (and they had no quibbles with the data - do you?)
1) There is some confusion in the literature on this topic I revised. I think that many physicists consider that changes in gravitational fields are gravitational waves. This cannot be true. Therefore, I am very skeptic of some of the claims that I have heard of that PSR1913+16 is a proof of usual interpretation of GR and its waves.
Interesting ... but also irrelevant.

The question is: do the excellent, decades-long observations of binary neutron stars accord with the predictions of GR or not? In an earlier post you said "NO!", and cited one paper. Chronos gave you links to many, many others, where consistency is claimed. Who is right? Each reader must make up their own mind (hopefully, by reading the relevant papers, as a start).
2) I said real gravitational waves. That is, I doubt the existence of real classical waves and real gravitons. I propose that there are not both in nature.
Also interesting, but surely even you recognise that it's almost a classic 'non-answer'?

GR predicts gravitational radiation ('waves' in your terminology, I guess), Hulse and Taylor observed a binary pulsar and showed that what they observed is consistent with GR's predicted loss of energy in the system, due to gravitational radiation, to something like 1% (I'm going from memory). Since then, the baseline has been extended, and other binary pulsars have been observed ... no inconsistency with GR predictions.

Whether you choose to interpret this as 'real gravitational waves', or 'a mathematical construct that helps to the 'the right answer' (according to observations), or something else entirely is, surely, a question of your philosophy of science (and NOT a question of the match between observation and theory).
I have said that “conformity with GR outside the solar system” could be interpreted in a computational scheme, somewhat like there are examples of “conformity with Dirac hole theory” (even a Nobel prize for the discovering of antiparticles) still we know today that Hole theory is simply wrong like a real consistent theory. Could it be possible that GR was a useful computational scheme being a historical curiosity?
If I may say so, another classic 'non-answer'. So let me ask you straight: to what extent do you regard good observational data showing a 'gravitational redshift' in the spectra of white dwarfs as a match to the predictions of GR 'outside the solar system'?
This is not completely true. Each experiment has down a theoretical interpretation. A theory is not done of numbers alone, it is the sum numbers more consistent interpretation. GR is not full consistent with NG (and does not reduce to). In NG, gravitation is instantaneous, still GR says that there is delay, the only form for obtaining rigorously NG would be the taking the nonrelativistic limit c--> infinite (this is true in canonical gravitodynamics), but then there is no curvature in GR and the whole formalism collapse.
I point my telescope at Mercury, I record its apparent position; I do this thousands of times, over many years. I crunch Newton, and find that there's a residual in the orbit I can't account for. I crunch Einstein, and find that the residual is well accounted for (within the observational errors). I repeat for Neptune and Pluto; within the observational errors, Newton and Einstein are in agreement. I repeat this for dozens and dozens of other sets of observations; in every case I find that where Newton accords with my observations, so does Einstein; and where Newton does not accord, then Einstein does.

What am I missing? (For the avoidance of doubt, I don't give a **** about the intricacies of either Newton's or Einstein's equations; all I care about is the match to good experimental and observational results).
I would remark that after several days of replies and re-replies still nobody has consistently shown that my main line of thinking is completely wrong and all of my theory is garbage. Many people is desperatedly focusing in showing that GR is marvellous and fit all data perfectly.
The only way that has any lasting significance of showing your 'my main line of thinking is completely wrong and all of my theory is garbage' is strong inconsistency with good observational results.

To this end, unless I missed it, you have not made any testable predictions, where your idea yields a result significantly different from that of GR - despite having been asked to provide such many, many times!

Do you now understand the frustration of posters to this thread?

Give us a prediction on what GPB will find, before the official results are announced! Note that I'm not married to GPB, you could also say what the second year of WMAP will show, or the cross-correlation statistics from SDSS's final data release, or the consolidated results from two years of Swift, or ...
 
  • #35
From his website:

Canonical science emerges from an elegant combination of physical, chemical, mathematical, biological, and philosophical theories.

If that doesn't set off your crank detector, I don't know what will.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
991
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
963
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
29K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
701
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top