Are those who study the theory of relativity crazy?

[TonyYuan]

What are the consequences of saying that relativity is wrong

The West in the traditional sense refers to West Asia and Europe, which is a term that existed in ancient China. At that time America and Oceania were not known to exist. (Maybe the Chinese have reached there, I'm not sure)
What are they afraid of? Just like I am afraid of being blocked by James R, haha, but I have to admit that here is the most open. In some other forums, as long as there are any comments that challenge or doubt the theory of relativity, they will be blocked! James R, you should know what we are afraid of!

 

[TonyYuan]

I have shared my views very clearly, and I have shared the relativists' views very clearly. All my words can be made public, James R. If you have any words that are not allowed to be made public or forwarded, please tell me in advance, otherwise I may forward your words.

 

[TonyYuan]

James R, you should know that I came here to learn the theory of relativity. Because of the epidemic, I had nothing to do, so I participated in the research of the theory of relativity. You gave me a lot of useful information and gave me a preliminary understanding of the theory of relativity. But the more important thing to learn is to be able to think for yourself. I found that the theory of relativity is a fallacy. I came up with my own theory of gravity and applied it to the calculation of planetary orbits, and luckily I got the right answer.
I am just a programmer who loves physics, but what I can tell you is that both physics and mathematics problems can be easily solved in front of computer programs.

 

[James R]

Tony:

James R, you should know that I came here to learn the theory of relativity.

This is not the place to learn relativity.

If you want to learn relativity, I would recommend getting yourself a good textbook on relativity and reading it, first. If you really want to learn it, you will need to work through some problems yourself - again, a good textbook will include plenty of those. Start with Special Relativity - especially if your tensor calculus is not up to scratch - because General Relativity is a much more difficult theory to understand and to work with.

If you have questions about what you read in the textbooks, or other questions about relativity, then here is a good place to try to get some answers and to learn more.

It's totally fine if you go into the learning process hoping you will be able to disprove the theory of relativity. But before you can even start to try disproving it, you need to understand what the theory itself actually says and how it works. Otherwise, you have no hope of picking holes in it. I warn you, also: people have been trying very hard to disprove the theory of relativity for over 100 years. Nobody has succeeded, so far. Who knows? Maybe you'll be able to do what nobody else - not even highly qualified physicists - has done.

Because of the epidemic, I had nothing to do, so I participated in the research of the theory of relativity.

What did you do?

You gave me a lot of useful information and gave me a preliminary understanding of the theory of relativity.

If I was going to teach you relativity from scratch, I would go about it very differently to how I approach our conversations here. I assume that if somebody arrives here claiming that relativity is flawed or incorrect, they already have some understanding of the theory, and I proceed on that basis. If it turns out, after some discussion, that they lack even a basic understanding of the relevant mathematics or principles, then this is clearly not the ideal place to try to teach a beginner's course in special relativity. Besides, I would ordinarily be paid for the time and effort I would have to put into that kind of private tutoring. I come to sciforums primarily for fun, not to do unpaid work (although there is also a bit of that involved).

But the more important thing to learn is to be able to think for yourself. I found that the theory of relativity is a fallacy.

What is fallacious in the theory? Can you point out any specific flaws or errors? If not, what are your "findings" based on?

I came up with my own theory of gravity and applied it to the calculation of planetary orbits, and luckily I got the right answer.

No. You didn't get the right answer. Your theory doesn't work and its premises are nonsensical. We looked at your theory when you first came here.

I am just a programmer who loves physics, but what I can tell you is that both physics and mathematics problems can be easily solved in front of computer programs.

I am familiar with programming and how it can solve certain types of problems in physics and mathematics.

If you're a programmer, why don't you understand what Chat GPT does?

 

[TonyYuan]

Please read my paper carefully, I also provide a video explanation.
I have to admit the fact that my theory is surprisingly similar to GR. I made it clear what Einstein wanted to say, but he never made it clear. GR gives some original ideas, but GR is logically confusing.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves

You are lucky and unlucky to meet me.

 

[James R]

Please read my paper carefully, I also provide a video explanation.

I read your stuff on your Doppler theory of gravitational waves etc. when you first came here. It doesn't work.

I have to admit the fact that my theory is surprisingly similar to GR.

It's not similar. GR is formulated in terms of tensors, in a coordinate-independent way. It describes gravity as an effect to do with frames of reference on a curved spacetime manifold. Your theory is not a theory of spacetime. It does not use tensors. It does not concern itself with frames of reference. It just tries to shoehorn the idea of a Doppler shift into a Newtonian theory, in a place where it doesn't belong.

I made it clear what Einstein wanted to say, but he never made it clear.

You're no Einstein, Tony. You have not revealed to the world what Einstein really wanted to say but couldn't because he couldn't express himself as well as you can. That's delusional, Tony.

GR gives some original ideas, but GR is logically confusing.

GR is not illogical. Many people find it confusing. It has a very high "entry level" for actually understanding it a more that superficial, conceptual way. The same is true for many other areas of modern physics. There's a mathematical prerequisite which prevents the vast majority of the population from understanding the theory properly, just for starters.

 

[billvon]

Don't doubt what I say, and I will not make this physicist public. There is by no means just one physicist who opposes the theory of relativity.

I am sure there are people who call themselves physicists who oppose the theory. I would not take them very seriously.

I found that the theory of relativity is a fallacy.

No you didn't. You have to understand the theory of relativity to be able to claim it's a fallacy. And, as you admit, you do not understand it.

Some people wanted me to join them in opposing the theory of relativity, but I refused without hesitation.

I don't think that happened, nor do I think your "conversations" happened. I think you are here for the drama, and enjoy the attention. Right now you are trying out different approaches to see which gets you the most attention. You tried "we should leave relativity alone" and you tried "the theory is a fallacy." Neither seems to be working.

Perhaps you could use this forum to ask specific questions about things you don't understand, rather than use it for the attention you seem to crave.

 

[TonyYuan]

I read your stuff on your Doppler theory of gravitational waves etc. when you first came here. It doesn't work.

When my theory was first proposed, it was negated by a physics professor who provided detailed mathematical derivations. I failed, but his mathematical derivations helped me find the correct direction, and his derivations became part of my paper. This professor reviewed my paper and allowed me to proceed.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364262469_Exploring_the_Accelerating_Expansion_of_the_Universe

After half a year, I began thinking again and finally understood the gravitational model affected by gravitational waves. Thank you James R. Your comment gave me inspiration.

I derived the dynamic gravitational equation and applied it to the calculation of planetary orbits, and the data were basically consistent with the astronomical observation data released by NASA.

I wrote a paper and shared it on ResearchGate and Academia. I received a lot of attention and many people asked me questions. With everyone's help, my paper was modified and supplemented for over a year. Until I met a Dutch physicist whose question put me in a difficult position. But I finally provided an answer and made the final modification to my paper. Without the help of these "troublemakers," my theory became more perfect.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves

I will not allow any logical errors in my paper, I must be the biggest "opponent" of my own theory until I completely defeat this opponent.

I came prepared to tell the world that we have corrected Newton's gravitational equation. Relativity is a logically confused fallacy.

我的理论第一次提出的时候就被一位物理学教授否定了，他给出了详细的数学推导。我失败了，但是他的数学推导帮助我找到了正确的方向，他的推导也成为了我的论文中的内容。这位教授看过我的这篇论文，他允许我这么做。
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ng_the_Accelerating_Expansion_of_the_Universe

一直在半年后，我重新开始思考，我终于想明白了引力波影响下的引力模型。这要感谢James R，你的一个回帖给了我灵感。
我推导出了动态引力方程，并将它应用到行星轨道计算上，数据和NASA发布的天文观测数据基本一致。
我写了论文，并分享在researchgate和academia上，我得到了很多的关注，也有很多人向我提问。在大家的帮助下，我的论文做了持续1年多的修改和补充。直到我遇到一位荷兰的物理学家，他的提问让我陷入困境。但是我最后给出了回答，并对我的论文做了最后的修改。如果没有这些“找麻烦”的人的帮助，我的理论变的完善。
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves

我不允许我的论文出现逻辑上的任何错误，我一定是我自己理论的最大的“反对者”，直到我彻底击败这个“反对者”。
我是有准备而来，我要告诉世界的就是我们修正了牛顿引力方程。相对论是一种逻辑混乱的谬论。

 

[TonyYuan]

Einstein was an opportunist who was good at proposing bold ideas based on other people's research. This is how he won the Nobel Prize. His work at Princeton University was a great failure. His colleague, Academician Chen Shengshen, believed that Einstein's theory was completely wrong and that Einstein's mathematics was extremely poor.
General relativity wants to explain gravity through the curvature of space and time, which is a bold and innovative thinking. But this idea cannot withstand logical scrutiny. Of course, now relativistic theorists will tell you that GR is approximately Newtonian gravity in a weak field, which is very shameless. Newton believed that the gravitational speed was much greater than the speed of light, while GR believed that the gravitational speed was equal to the speed of light, which was incompatible. Gravitational speed is a problem that GR cannot overcome.
A very simple question: Does the gravitational pull on the earth come from the real position of the sun or the position we see?

 

[origin]

Einstein was an opportunist who was good at proposing bold ideas based on other people's research. This is how he won the Nobel Prize. His work at Princeton University was a great failure. His colleague, Academician Chen Shengshen, believed that Einstein's theory was completely wrong and that Einstein's mathematics was extremely poor.
General relativity wants to explain gravity through the curvature of space and time, which is a bold and innovative thinking. But this idea cannot withstand logical scrutiny. Of course, now relativistic theorists will tell you that GR is approximately Newtonian gravity in a weak field, which is very shameless. Newton believed that the gravitational speed was much greater than the speed of light, while GR believed that the gravitational speed was equal to the speed of light, which was incompatible. Gravitational speed is a problem that GR cannot overcome.

Just another anti-science troll, trying to get attention.

 

[Pinball1970]

Professor Richard is my friend and he strongly supports the theory of relativity. Don't guess who said what I posted. What you have to think about is whether the words are correct. If you think the words are wrong, then please give me the correct answer.

I have read a few of your threads and I will repeat the same points I have made previously with a couple of additions.
Scientists were skeptical of Einstein's work from 1905 onwards, even when his received his Nobel in the 1920s.
Tests from then until the present day are still verifying aspects of his work. A PhD student who can truly find a flaw today in the theory would win the Nobel.
That is the the reality.

 

[TonyYuan]

I have read a few of your threads and I will repeat the same points I have made previously with a couple of additions.
Scientists were skeptical of Einstein's work from 1905 onwards, even when his received his Nobel in the 1920s.
Tests from then until the present day are still verifying aspects of his work. A PhD student who can truly find a flaw today in the theory would win the Nobel. That is the the reality.

What do you think of Relativistic theorist's answer. If you think what he said is wrong, please point it out directly and give the answer you think is correct.

Relativistic theorist: The space around the Sun is not curved symmetrically like a sphere, but rather curved asymmetrically due to the influence of the distribution of solar mass and energy.

Tony:If the mass of the Sun is absolutely symmetric around its center, then according to your statement, the space around the Sun will not curve, correct?
Relativistic theorist: Yes, if the mass of the Sun is absolutely symmetric around its center, then according to the principles of general relativity, the space around the Sun will not curve.
In general relativity, the distribution of mass and energy determines the curvature of space-time. If the mass of the Sun is completely symmetric around its center, it will generate a uniformly distributed gravitational field that will not curve space-time, as the gravitational effects in all directions will cancel each other out.
Therefore, if the mass of the Sun is absolutely symmetric around its center, then according to the viewpoint of general relativity, the space around the Sun will be flat and have no curvature effect. This means that other objects moving around the Sun will follow the description of Newtonian mechanics rather than being influenced by the curvature of space-time in general relativity.

Tony: According to your analysis, the curvature of space-time around the Sun is not only determined by the total mass of the Sun but also by the distribution of mass in the Sun, correct?
Relativistic theorist: Yes, your understanding is correct. The curvature of space-time around the Sun is influenced not only by the total mass of the Sun but also by the distribution of its mass.
In general relativity, the mass and energy of an object curved space-time. The distribution of mass in the Sun is crucial for the curvature of space-time around it. If the mass of the Sun is unevenly distributed, i.e., the mass is asymmetrically distributed in space, it will cause non-symmetric curvature of space-time around it.
This is because the uneven distribution of mass in the Sun will produce a non-uniform gravitational field in space, which will cause uneven curvature effects in space-time due to the strength and direction of this field. Therefore, the distribution of mass in the Sun has a significant impact on the degree and shape of curvature in space-time around it.
In summary, both the total mass of the Sun and its mass distribution influence the curvature of space-time around it. An asymmetric distribution of mass in the Sun will cause non-symmetric curvature in space-time.

Tony: “The distribution of solar mass has an important impact on the curvature degree and shape of surrounding space-time”, then may I ask which direction is space-time curved around the Sun currently?
Relativistic theorist: Unfortunately, I cannot determine specifically which direction space-time around the Sun is curved at present. The curvature direction and amount are very complex and require using complex mathematical tools and physical theories for calculation and research.
Currently, our understanding of the curvature degree and direction of space-time around the Sun is still limited, and more in-depth research and observation are needed to obtain accurate conclusions. At the same time, as the Sun is a complex natural object, its mass distribution and movement status may both change over time, so studying its curvature also needs to consider these factors.

Tony's comment: Einstein knew "which direction space-time around the Sun curves towards and how much it curves" 100 years ago! But currently, this Relativistic Theorist seems unaware. If you still have any sense of duty as a physicist, please step forward and align with truth!

 

[James R]

Einstein was an opportunist who was good at proposing bold ideas based on other people's research. This is how he won the Nobel Prize. His work at Princeton University was a great failure. His colleague, Academician Chen Shengshen, believed that Einstein's theory was completely wrong and that Einstein's mathematics was extremely poor.

Let's assume that all this is true, for the sake of argument. So what?

The only relevant thing for science is whether Einstein's theory of relativity is right or wrong. If Einstein was right and also an opportunist, the science doesn't care. If he was right, he was right, and that's it.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if some other guy firmly believed that the theory is wrong. Did that guy prove that the theory is wrong? No, he didn't. So his beliefs are irrelevant. Science doesn't care what he believes, unless he can show that his beliefs are correct.

General relativity wants to explain gravity through the curvature of space and time, which is a bold and innovative thinking. But this idea cannot withstand logical scrutiny.

It's done that just fine for over 100 years. Nobody has found any flaws in the explanation.

Of course, now relativistic theorists will tell you that GR is approximately Newtonian gravity in a weak field, which is very shameless.

Can you show that GR is not approximately Newtonian in a weak field approximation? If you can't, then science doesn't care what you believe.

Newton believed that the gravitational speed was much greater than the speed of light, while GR believed that the gravitational speed was equal to the speed of light, which was incompatible. Gravitational speed is a problem that GR cannot overcome.

Newton was wrong. (Actually, I doubt that Newton actually considered the matter of the "speed of gravity". Can you show me where he wrote about that?)

Also, the term "gravitational speed" doesn't even really make sense, anyway. What do you mean by it?

A very simple question: Does the gravitational pull on the earth come from the real position of the sun or the position we see?

What do you mean by the "real position of the sun"?

 

[James R]

What do you think of Relativistic theorist's answer. If you think what he said is wrong, please point it out directly and give the answer you think is correct.

I already replied to you about this.

You go first, then I'll tell you whether I agree with your analysis.

Do you think there's something wrong? If you do, please point it out directly and give the answer you think is correct. Then we can discuss.

 

[Pinball1970]

What do you think of Relativistic theorist's answer. If you think what he said is wrong, please point it out directly and give the answer you think is correct.

Relativistic theorist: The space around the Sun is not curved symmetrically like a sphere, but rather curved asymmetrically due to the influence of the distribution of solar mass and energy.

Tony:If the mass of the Sun is absolutely symmetric around its center, then according to your statement, the space around the Sun will not curve, correct?
Relativistic theorist: Yes, if the mass of the Sun is absolutely symmetric around its center, then according to the principles of general relativity, the space around the Sun will not curve.
In general relativity, the distribution of mass and energy determines the curvature of space-time. If the mass of the Sun is completely symmetric around its center, it will generate a uniformly distributed gravitational field that will not curve space-time, as the gravitational effects in all directions will cancel each other out.
Therefore, if the mass of the Sun is absolutely symmetric around its center, then according to the viewpoint of general relativity, the space around the Sun will be flat and have no curvature effect. This means that other objects moving around the Sun will follow the description of Newtonian mechanics rather than being influenced by the curvature of space-time in general relativity.

Tony: According to your analysis, the curvature of space-time around the Sun is not only determined by the total mass of the Sun but also by the distribution of mass in the Sun, correct?
Relativistic theorist: Yes, your understanding is correct. The curvature of space-time around the Sun is influenced not only by the total mass of the Sun but also by the distribution of its mass.
In general relativity, the mass and energy of an object curved space-time. The distribution of mass in the Sun is crucial for the curvature of space-time around it. If the mass of the Sun is unevenly distributed, i.e., the mass is asymmetrically distributed in space, it will cause non-symmetric curvature of space-time around it.
This is because the uneven distribution of mass in the Sun will produce a non-uniform gravitational field in space, which will cause uneven curvature effects in space-time due to the strength and direction of this field. Therefore, the distribution of mass in the Sun has a significant impact on the degree and shape of curvature in space-time around it.
In summary, both the total mass of the Sun and its mass distribution influence the curvature of space-time around it. An asymmetric distribution of mass in the Sun will cause non-symmetric curvature in space-time.

Tony: “The distribution of solar mass has an important impact on the curvature degree and shape of surrounding space-time”, then may I ask which direction is space-time curved around the Sun currently?
Relativistic theorist: Unfortunately, I cannot determine specifically which direction space-time around the Sun is curved at present. The curvature direction and amount are very complex and require using complex mathematical tools and physical theories for calculation and research.
Currently, our understanding of the curvature degree and direction of space-time around the Sun is still limited, and more in-depth research and observation are needed to obtain accurate conclusions. At the same time, as the Sun is a complex natural object, its mass distribution and movement status may both change over time, so studying its curvature also needs to consider these factors.

Tony's comment: Einstein knew "which direction space-time around the Sun curves towards and how much it curves" 100 years ago! But currently, this Relativistic Theorist seems unaware. If you still have any sense of duty as a physicist, please step forward and align with truth!

Eclipses were used to prove GR over 100 years ago yes. Is that your point?

 

[TonyYuan]

What do you mean by the "real position of the sun"?

It’s hard to imagine that this is the question James R asked. Oh my god.

You should know how Newton's gravity equation is written. It is only related to the mass of objects and the distance between them. This is a force acting at a distance. Laplace did calculations and found that the gravitational speed was 7 million times the speed of light.

Do you want to see what Academician Shiing-Shen Chern said about Einstein and his theories? He is Chinese, but he is also one of the greatest American mathematicians.
https://www.zhihu.com/zvideo/1522529795673473024

 

[TonyYuan]

Eclipses were used to prove GR over 100 years ago yes. Is that your point?

Are you talking about Eddington Observation?
We cannot use the particle plane throwing theory to explain the bending of light. The correct way should be that light will be refracted in an uneven gravitational field, which will result in a different angle of light bending.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_Observe_the_Movement_of_Interference_Fringe
This is a paper I wrote a long time ago, which explains it clearly.

"Is that your point?", what do you mean?

 

[Pinball1970]

Are you talking about Eddington Observation?
We cannot use the particle plane throwing theory to explain the bending of light. The correct way should be that light will be refracted in an uneven gravitational field, which will result in a different angle of light bending.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_Observe_the_Movement_of_Interference_Fringe
This is a paper I wrote a long time ago, which explains it clearly.

"Is that your point?", what do you mean?

Researchers confirmed the 1919 results over the decades since. Are you saying they are all wrong?

 

[TonyYuan]

Researchers confirmed the 1919 results over the decades since. Are you saying they are all wrong?

To answer this question, you need to first answer the following question: In which direction is the space-time around the sun curved? I can give you some reminder: the space around the sun is 3D.

 

[Pinball1970]

The West in the traditional sense refers to West Asia and Europe, which is a term that existed in ancient China. At that time America and Oceania were not known to exist. (Maybe the Chinese have reached there, I'm not sure)
What are they afraid of? Just like I am afraid of being blocked by James R, haha, but I have to admit that here is the most open. In some other forums, as long as there are any comments that challenge or doubt the theory of relativity, they will be blocked! James R, you should know what we are afraid of!

You have actually got this very wrong. There is something wrong with GR, QM and/ or the SM.
They all work very well within their own domains but there are things missing.
There is no theory yet of quantum gravity, there is no particle for dark matter (if that what it is) the SM does not include DM.
The SM also gives a prediction for the Muon that is at odds with experimental data and the Hubble constant is also at odds with observations.
Why is the universe accelerating in its expansion? They do not know.
Plenty to aim at and GR may be at the heart of it all.