Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible
- Thread starter Q-reeus
- Start date
Interpreted your (still, as of this writing) #159 as a final realization of what I tried, for the umpteenth time, to convey, in (still, as of this writing) #156. With certain words deliberately in bold emphasis. Seems now there was no such realization. Well I'm the one at a loss for words. Except to ask - are you capable of doing as asked last time? Can you interpret and apply the field expressions for a linear quadrupole radiator? If not, just say so.
See my last post.
I am....thats why I am asking you that how a perfect solution of a consistent theory is shrouded with inconsistencies. The solution may be unreal but cannot be inconsistent. You are not answering this. This is the first step, ignore it today, tmro you have to take it.
PS : you just say that GR GW solution is bad or inconsistent. Thats first step.
Then take up my repeated suggestion and DO IT! Once you attempt to get *global* consistency, and fail for what should be then obvious reasons, there should be no more such questions as below and going way back the same!
Who said the theory was consistent? Who? Can you not understand my words here in (still, as of this writing) #156?:
Formally correct is NOT necessarily the same as self-consistent.
What does that even mean? Don't bother trying to explain - just attempt your own implementation of scenario laid out in #1. Yes - give it a try NOW!
Not interested in interpreting riddles. I have laid out a simple, decisive path to follow. You state being up to doing it. So - do it!
I believe that much is now clear. Must fly.
black mask
Registered Member
What r we trying to determine here?
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
The God:
As Q-reeus has pointed out, a theory may look 'consistent' if it is domain-limited to some region where the math works according to assumptions built into the formulation of the equations. But the 'inconsistencies' may show up when one extrapolates to higher or lower scale scenarios.
A proof of GR inconsistency is its failure going from the global scale domain to the extreme local scale domain when one inputs "r = 0" to the equations.
An example of SR inconsistency arises when the local 'small region" of spacetime is treated as essentially "flat"; but extrapolating SR to global scale immediately demonstrates the inconsistency of that local SR treatment, as GR factors such as acceleration and path history is needed to make sense of the SR view and conclusions (such as in the 'twin paradox' explanation).
So, as Q-reeus points out, the formulaic math consistency doesn't guarantee the actual physical consistency extrapolating up and down the physical spatial and temporal scales application.
That is why it is critical to address Q-reeus's example as stated by him, before one can arrive at the answer to your question. We can assume beforehand one way or the other, sure, but only the actual discussion of the subtleties involved and highlighted by Q-reeus's OP challenge can tell if he has something or not to answer your question definitively instead of just assuming one way or the other before exhaustive discussion of his OP is properly concluded.
That is my observation of what is required to satisfy your clarification request to Q-reeus, The God.
Best to you both.
As Q-reeus has pointed out, a theory may look 'consistent' if it is domain-limited to some region where the math works according to assumptions built into the formulation of the equations. But the 'inconsistencies' may show up when one extrapolates to higher or lower scale scenarios.
A proof of GR inconsistency is its failure going from the global scale domain to the extreme local scale domain when one inputs "r = 0" to the equations.
An example of SR inconsistency arises when the local 'small region" of spacetime is treated as essentially "flat"; but extrapolating SR to global scale immediately demonstrates the inconsistency of that local SR treatment, as GR factors such as acceleration and path history is needed to make sense of the SR view and conclusions (such as in the 'twin paradox' explanation).
So, as Q-reeus points out, the formulaic math consistency doesn't guarantee the actual physical consistency extrapolating up and down the physical spatial and temporal scales application.
That is why it is critical to address Q-reeus's example as stated by him, before one can arrive at the answer to your question. We can assume beforehand one way or the other, sure, but only the actual discussion of the subtleties involved and highlighted by Q-reeus's OP challenge can tell if he has something or not to answer your question definitively instead of just assuming one way or the other before exhaustive discussion of his OP is properly concluded.
That is my observation of what is required to satisfy your clarification request to Q-reeus, The God.
Best to you both.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The whole problem is that what means "inconsistent" is and remains completely unclear. I have tried to find it out, with some questions, but q-reeus does not answer. I think because he does not know how to answer, because this "inconsistent" is nothing more than an imprecise feeling.
There is a metric field, $g_{mn}(x,t)$, defined for all x and t, and it is, say, everywhere a spacetime metric with signature (1,3). And it is, let's assume, an exact solution of the Einstein field equation. This is all what one can ask for in GR. For some unknown reason, some of these solutions are named inconsistent. How to distinguish inconsistent gravitational fields from consistent ones? Nobody knows.
There is a metric field, $g_{mn}(x,t)$, defined for all x and t, and it is, say, everywhere a spacetime metric with signature (1,3). And it is, let's assume, an exact solution of the Einstein field equation. This is all what one can ask for in GR. For some unknown reason, some of these solutions are named inconsistent. How to distinguish inconsistent gravitational fields from consistent ones? Nobody knows.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
Schmelzer:
Please see my above post to The God. It points out that inconsistencies are to be decided upon one way or the other only after the OP by Q-reeus is addressed as stated and the definitive outcome of said discussion actually says anything one way or the other about the inconsistencies which his OP was designed to check for via the logics and the physis he uses in argument and that used by counter arguments. So demanding a prejudicial apriori clarification of perceived inconsistencies is begging the question that the OP is obviously there to discuss and determine. May I suggest you go along with what Q-reeus has asked you to address in the quotes he pointed to for your attention without any prior prejudicial attempt to pre-conclude what inconsistencies there are (or not, as discussion may decide)? That is my observation and suggestion as to how best to proceed addressing Q-reeus's OP etc. Best to you both.
Please see my above post to The God. It points out that inconsistencies are to be decided upon one way or the other only after the OP by Q-reeus is addressed as stated and the definitive outcome of said discussion actually says anything one way or the other about the inconsistencies which his OP was designed to check for via the logics and the physis he uses in argument and that used by counter arguments. So demanding a prejudicial apriori clarification of perceived inconsistencies is begging the question that the OP is obviously there to discuss and determine. May I suggest you go along with what Q-reeus has asked you to address in the quotes he pointed to for your attention without any prior prejudicial attempt to pre-conclude what inconsistencies there are (or not, as discussion may decide)? That is my observation and suggestion as to how best to proceed addressing Q-reeus's OP etc. Best to you both.
Nup, not in the least. The inconsistencies are addressing the "hypothetical"nature of the OP and its claim directly.
All you are attempting to do is as you have done in the past...ask for explanations of your own hypotheticals, but asking them in such a way and then demanding that it be answered with both hands tied behind one back.
Sorry, as much as you like to pretend, science does not work that way, and you are in no position to demand/ask anything.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
Please post on topic. Personal discussions are better carried on by Private Conversation.
paddoboy:
Why do you insist on intruding into a discussion when you have the wrong understanding of it?
The "inconsistencies" being spoken of are relating to GR GW theory and claims, not in Q-reeus's OP itself.
And any questions of inconsistencies in OP itself are to be resolved via discussion of the OP as stated.
Do you understand the subtle difference and which comes before which? Try not to jump in obsessively on every thread even when you have nothing germain to add to the discussion.
Don't keep kneejerking and derailing others discussions like that due to your own misunderstandings.
Thankyou, paddoboy.
ON EDIT:
paddoboy, have you never learned the great wisdom of staying silent long enough to properly understand what's going on before speaking? It's a great habit to cultivate. Best.
Why do you insist on intruding into a discussion when you have the wrong understanding of it?
The "inconsistencies" being spoken of are relating to GR GW theory and claims, not in Q-reeus's OP itself.
And any questions of inconsistencies in OP itself are to be resolved via discussion of the OP as stated.
Do you understand the subtle difference and which comes before which? Try not to jump in obsessively on every thread even when you have nothing germain to add to the discussion.
Don't keep kneejerking and derailing others discussions like that due to your own misunderstandings.
Thankyou, paddoboy.
ON EDIT:
paddoboy, have you never learned the great wisdom of staying silent long enough to properly understand what's going on before speaking? It's a great habit to cultivate. Best.
Last edited:
Expletive Deleted,
You wanted to know which should come first. My question to Q-reeus can be taken in general without reference to OP..
1. Your reference to r = 0 is not relevant here.
2. Q-reeus acknowledges that GR GW solution is ok.
3. GR GW solution indicates proper displacement between test particles and same is detected at aLIGO.
So, I fail to understand how the author can claim that a perfectly valid solution, giving rise to observations as per solution, be inconsistent.
I cannot define inconsistent in science terms but true meaning is ' inaccurate or having logical contradictions'.
So, if the solution is inconsistent then Q-reeus must pinpoint the inaccuracy in the solution. Which he is not doing, on the contrary he is saying solution is fine.....Mere statement that something is inconsistent will not suffice, without precise pin pointing in the existing solution.
You wanted to know which should come first. My question to Q-reeus can be taken in general without reference to OP..
1. Your reference to r = 0 is not relevant here.
2. Q-reeus acknowledges that GR GW solution is ok.
3. GR GW solution indicates proper displacement between test particles and same is detected at aLIGO.
So, I fail to understand how the author can claim that a perfectly valid solution, giving rise to observations as per solution, be inconsistent.
I cannot define inconsistent in science terms but true meaning is ' inaccurate or having logical contradictions'.
So, if the solution is inconsistent then Q-reeus must pinpoint the inaccuracy in the solution. Which he is not doing, on the contrary he is saying solution is fine.....Mere statement that something is inconsistent will not suffice, without precise pin pointing in the existing solution.
Another Question :
How does it matter if beads do not have relative motion with hoop, its I think known under certain symmetrical conditions... But in aLIGO set up proper motion as per GR GW solution is claimed and detected.
Q-reeus is trying to qualitatively prove that TT quadrupole GW cannot produce relative motion between hoop and beads....so can I extend that statement to aLIGO that there will not be any displacement between test mirrors under such waves ?
How does it matter if beads do not have relative motion with hoop, its I think known under certain symmetrical conditions... But in aLIGO set up proper motion as per GR GW solution is claimed and detected.
Q-reeus is trying to qualitatively prove that TT quadrupole GW cannot produce relative motion between hoop and beads....so can I extend that statement to aLIGO that there will not be any displacement between test mirrors under such waves ?
That is NOT what I said, most recently among NUMEROUS previous occasions, in #185. Itself a reference to #156, and so on back etc. etc.
Expletives deleted keeps getting it right as per his #188 and following here. Somehow you have a looping-tape style conceptual block issue. Which I find extremely annoying.
The prediction of TRANSVERSE SHEAR STRAINS ACTING OVER A LOCAL PATCH is supposedly consistent with aLIGO detections. Does GLOBAL issues ring a bell?
You keep failing to understand I NEVER STATED the GR GW solutions are 'perfectly valid'. They are FORMALLY correct within that theory's framework. Which is a pure rank-2 metric tensor theory. Those 'correct solutions' fail as set out - get this - way back in #1! Well, duh, moral is, start looking around for a theory with a different framework. Something like G4v.
And after all this wasted time and effort going round and round in circles, that the clearly demonstrated logical contradictions as per #1 still evades you?!
If I didn't know better, my suspicion would be you are a malicious sock-puppet of one of those other two posters who DO know better.
How about, because of what is CLEARLY SET OUT IN #1?
Known? This issue was already known?! Please quote the relevant literature, that I may give to whoever, due acknowledgement of precedence.
'Claimed' the key word. Suppose, as per - yes way back in #1 - one considers the possibility GW's owing to some other theory actually trigger aLIGO detections. Gee, was that ever suggested by me before? Less than say, several dozen times by now?!
Well if, despite everything I have made plain many many times this tortured and frequently dismembered thread, you still keep insisting GR is the only game in town, I abandon any further attempt to get through. It becomes a hopeless task.
AND I NOTE YOU KEEP FAILING TO TAKE UP SIMPLE EXERCISE OF #62.
Q-reeus
First few clarifications regarding my in general position....
1. Your insinuation that I may be a sock of two malicious posters here on thread, whever they are, is bad. You should withdraw because I am being very respectful towards you, and you will know in #2 below that I like critical thinking.
2. I very well know, but cannot prove as of now, that GR is bad in present form. I am also of the opinion that GR GW 'claimed' success at aLIGO will be bumped sooner or later. To me it appears to be a justification or face saving for the huge investment made.
3. I do not dispute your insistence for G4v, may be that can explain aLIGO observation better, but first bar is to prove that GR interpretation of the observation is bad.
You are not crossing that bar rather you are creating tough situation for you by...
With above admittance, do you think you will succeed ? That too when wind favoring GR is so strong, despite tremendous issues.
PS: I will search that symmetry issue and get back.
First few clarifications regarding my in general position....
1. Your insinuation that I may be a sock of two malicious posters here on thread, whever they are, is bad. You should withdraw because I am being very respectful towards you, and you will know in #2 below that I like critical thinking.
2. I very well know, but cannot prove as of now, that GR is bad in present form. I am also of the opinion that GR GW 'claimed' success at aLIGO will be bumped sooner or later. To me it appears to be a justification or face saving for the huge investment made.
3. I do not dispute your insistence for G4v, may be that can explain aLIGO observation better, but first bar is to prove that GR interpretation of the observation is bad.
You are not crossing that bar rather you are creating tough situation for you by...
Q-reeus said:
With above admittance, do you think you will succeed ? That too when wind favoring GR is so strong, despite tremendous issues.
PS: I will search that symmetry issue and get back.
There is nothing needing withdrawing, but sorry that you took offense. I was careful to start with "If I didn't know better...". Fact is it has been YOU continually suggesting I have no legitimate case to offer that is truly offensive to me. BUT, unlike with two other posters who know better, I do not attribute that to any malevolence on your part. Just a profound conceptual block issue that appears to be incurable.
I truly hope so. Truly.
Q-reeus,
I am not saying you do not have legitimate case. I made it clear that you know what you are talking about, but it is not necessary that others understand your point of view in toto. Your assertion as taken in quote by me in #197 makes your position tougher.
There is no doubt that a solution, if applicable, should be globally and locally, consistent. Rather any acceptable solution should be consitent viewed from all perspectives. So you should first claim that GR GW solution for TT shear strains acting over a local patch is incorrect as viewed globally. So it is incorrect in totality and thus inadmisible.
Then we proceed.
I am not saying you do not have legitimate case. I made it clear that you know what you are talking about, but it is not necessary that others understand your point of view in toto. Your assertion as taken in quote by me in #197 makes your position tougher.
There is no doubt that a solution, if applicable, should be globally and locally, consistent. Rather any acceptable solution should be consitent viewed from all perspectives. So you should first claim that GR GW solution for TT shear strains acting over a local patch is incorrect as viewed globally. So it is incorrect in totality and thus inadmisible.
Then we proceed.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
How can the text be addressed if it is not clear what it means? The OP uses phrases like "logical absurdities", "self-contradictory", "logically impossible GW's of GR". As long as it remains unclear what is the meaning of these phrases, the OP cannot be "addressed", because this is what the OP is claimed to have shown. In itself they make no sense, simply because a solution $g_{mn}(x,t)$ of the Einstein equations is not a logical statement, thus, cannot be self-contradictory or a logical absurdity.
The only reasonable interpretation is that it is in contradiction with some hypothetical properties every metric is obliged to have. One plausible idea is that this hypothetical property is that curvature has to be zero. But it was impossible to find this out. If you think it would make sense to answer some questions, please provide a link to these questions, I have no time to look for 10 pages of mostly uninteresting namecalling to guess which questions you have in mind.