Uffs, missed the signigicance of this post.
You are out of TT gauge now. You are claiming no local perturbations in GR, in fact you are claiming no GW in GR?
Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible
- Thread starter Q-reeus
- Start date
Uffs, missed the signigicance of this post.
You are out of TT gauge now. You are claiming no local perturbations in GR, in fact you are claiming no GW in GR?
Far stiffer then yours my arrogant friend!
Like I said, you have failed totally in getting anyone, even the other trolls with their own specific agendas to agree with you. The last time I looked GR still stands, unmoved by your insight.
When that changes, if it changes, I will also have the balls to recognise and acknowledge that fact.
I doubt strongly though if you ever will.
Wow! You sure have got it bad!Let me remind you again. This is a public science forum, and as such will most certainly not resolve anything other then a boost to personal egos etc.
If you have the balls, or the nouse, or the gumption, you'll be on that stage in Stockholm in November: But obviously you havn't and you won't.
PS: I must though offer you sympathy on the fact that you have had a previously anti GR thread "unjustly" moved to the fringes, and those same "unjust" forces have seen the need to have you banned elsewhere. [I blame the incalcitrant nature of mainstream physics, despite the evidence that supports the opposite view to be true].
But let's not concern ourselves too much with that bit in brackets...it will undoubtedly spoil your charade.
Last edited:
And will you have the balls to post all replies you receive in full [just as I have] no matter how they invalidate or otherwise your hypothetical?
That's the important question, considering your apparent obvious anti GR stance.
The latest paper by Professor Maximiliano Isi
(Submitted on 3 Aug 2016)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01284v1.pdf
Modeling the Dispersion and Polarization Content of Gravitational Waves for Tests of General Relativity:
Abstract:
We propose a generic, phenomenological approach to modifying the dispersion of gravitational waves, independent of corrections to the generation mechanism. This model-independent approach encapsulates all previously proposed parametrizations, including Lorentz violation in the Standard-Model Extension, and provides a roadmap for additional theories. Furthermore, we present a general approach to include modulations to the gravitational-wave polarization content. The framework developed here can be implemented in existing data analysis pipelines for future gravitational-wave observation runs.
(Submitted on 3 Aug 2016)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01284v1.pdf
Modeling the Dispersion and Polarization Content of Gravitational Waves for Tests of General Relativity:
Abstract:
We propose a generic, phenomenological approach to modifying the dispersion of gravitational waves, independent of corrections to the generation mechanism. This model-independent approach encapsulates all previously proposed parametrizations, including Lorentz violation in the Standard-Model Extension, and provides a roadmap for additional theories. Furthermore, we present a general approach to include modulations to the gravitational-wave polarization content. The framework developed here can be implemented in existing data analysis pipelines for future gravitational-wave observation runs.
You never once twigged to the need to respect a simple hierarchy. Global restraints trump and constrain the possibilities for any seemingly locally allowable metric fields.
From the very first post #1, it was made crystal clear, the supposed physically real far-field transverse shear waves of GR - which is according to all mainstream authorities all that GR as a pure rank 2 metric tensor theory can allow - are absolutely ruled out by the need for global self-consistency.
The one conceivable purely metric perturbation based GW form not violating global self-consistency restraints would be longitudinal waves. I'm aware of only one attempt to derive such within what appears to be an attempt at reformulating GR as a scalar-vector theory: http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0258v3.pdf
Predictions are way too small to accord with data from various binary pulsar systems. G4v has no such issues bedeviling it. Which does not guarantee it's ultimate correctness, but gives it a flying chance.
But don't let any of above stop you from continuing to chorus along with paddoboy for a banishment of this thread!
False. Failed the simple acid test. An unequivocal yes or no to 'will the beads move' as per OP scenario.Far stiffer then yours my arrogant friend!
Not a question of 'balls'. Personal email correspondence is by default confidential unless mutually agreed otherwise. A point I mostly remember to make in such mailings.
What I can reveal in general terms is that out of currently twelve approaches to various authorities, seven have not replied so far and probably never will. Of the remainder, one was somewhat sympathetic but would not carry it further than that sentiment. Another excused engagement on specifics owing to 'declining health issues' which I had to take on face value. Another initially committed to coming back with particular questions but seems to have since dropped out. The remaining two engaged several times but always with the refrain - 'don't be silly, we know GR is perfectly self-consistent and passes all observational tests with flying colours'. In other words - to even look at a straight forward consistency check as per my OP is in their learned opinions ab initio a waste of time. That's it to date.
Cool down...
You know very well that G4v and GR based GWs are different conceptually in the very sense you are talking about. So pre GW detection early this year, it was a case that either GR would go or G4v would go or both would go (G4v did not have much at stake any way), but somehow things were managed in favor of GR, how ? The source is back calculated from the detection assuming GR to be true !!
Now, if somehow Mead works out something (He will surely have access to aLIGO data), then the foremost thing which would get changed will be source data (mass, distance and spin orientation)....you know why because templates for both GR or G4v will be different....
So in my opinion..
a. Somehow you are pushing an idea which can find its origin in G4v, its quite likely that you developed it independently.
b. Till the time source is not identified first, till the time partially acceptable back calculations based on templates survive, this argument may not succeed.
I'll stick to the Professor's summary rather than your own less then credible, mostly over the top arrogance attack on anyone that dares oppose you...which is the only acid test in this debacle of yours.
Another cop out!I've already got you a reply, right from the horse's mouth.
Along with the other two replies, I predict that I certainly will not see you in Stockholm in November, unless they have a Booby prize!
You still though have my sympathy re the whole world being against you, forums unjustly banning you, a previous anti GR rant thread moved to the fringes in this forum, and of course myself as a lay person, daring to take on the might of yourself whatever that may be,
I keep looking and checking, and GR still stands as firm as ever.
Wrong. My claimed finding cannot be derived from G4v. It's simply a case of that theory not being in conflict with it.
Moreover, that finding provably dates to 2012. G4v was not aired publicly till 2015, and still not in any fine detail now. Do the arithmetic.
An update. Within a short while of posting #307, got an email reply from an aLIGO collaboration member. Who had been forwarded my email sent to one of those seven non-responders. Not confident it will go far, but at least there was some sincere feedback attempting to address one aspect of the issues raised. As I DO respect confidentiality, anything of significance may or may not get to be aired here in detail.
In short, de facto confirmation of lacking the spine to offer a definitive yes or no to that simple question.
Really? The default position of confidentiality doesn't inhibit you one bit then? Implying your posting of replies here has been a unilateral decision to publicly air whatever feedback comes your way. Doesn't surprise.
As I said, the only acid test has nothing to do with me, rather you getting anyone, [even other trolls] to agree with you, and then achieving Stockholm in November.
The only implication obvious is the less then credible one, of you posting anything that did invalidate your claim and that of the thread title.
The God said:
Well I am not saying that you got it from there, I have clearly stated that you may have developed it independently. But the point is: It is either GR type GW or G4v type GW. Who knows Mead took some cues from your other forum debacle and published G4v as inspired by his earlier EM success ?
You got such an idea, 4 years ago but you remained silent? Now showing impatience ?
Q-reeus,
Understand the bigger scene, G4v is pushed by a guy, who is brilliant, extra ordinarily straightforward and brilliant, he does not give any crap to those full-of-ego-asses occupying the top slots in mainstream, because he does not belong to mainstream cosmology, and these guys cannot harm him in his field, he is "The Boss" there. He knows that either G4v or GR as far as Gravitational Waves are concerend, almost all the mainstream guys know this too. Still GR is there. What I am saying is that even if ED, Schmelzer, and yours truly, we all say, that look you got a fantastic thing, we are all with you...still you wont be able to cross the hurdle. Hurry up man, you wont get any open support from any of the mainstream guys, emails will be responded to deride, discourage not to support. Publish it !! Let it be on formal record.
And there's a legitimate reason why it's still there.
The same reason why Newtonian remains with us, and the same reason both will still be with us in 2025, 3025 and far beyond.......with or without the advent of a validated observable QGT.
The OP has been totally rejected and the reasons given by a reputable expert...Sorry, GR stands as before and was never really challenged, except in the eyes of a few who inhabit science forums and have "tall poppy syndrome" problems. And that don't count.
Rather than make multiple postings containing verbatim accounts of correspondence with 'X', the aLIGO collaboration member mentioned in #310, I'll just briefly summarize.
X's position re Feynman's beads on a stick/hoop is that in the hoop case, there is indeed no relative motions, and the hoop simply undergoes cyclic stressing such that the coordinate circumference is unvarying. Hence no radial breathing issue. In the beads on a stick case, X has it that the beads undergo no proper motions i.e. a sensitive accelerometer would detect nothing. Instead, space expands/contracts between the beads. The stick 'is the key'. It initially 'follows the expanding/contracting space', but inter-atomic forces bring it back to it's proper length. That is, stick stress resists metric perturbation - but on a lagging basis! It's that 'lag' that allows relative motion between stick and beads. A different take to what Feynman gave, but not one that impresses me.
For a start, the notion of 'lag' implies a 'stick' made of some gooey viscoelastic putty, not the default assumed highly elastic rigid rod. In the latter case, there is no sensible reason for any appreciable phase lag between any 'stress' induced by periodic 'space motion through the stick' and subsequent stick strain. Which in turn means stresses maintain proper length at all times. Hence no room for relative bead/stick motion! Just why and how 'stresses' arise is another matter.
That 'moving space' induces 'stresses' in the stick has no rational basis imo. I tried to get X to think about standard polar form Schwarzschild exterior metric, where coordinate value of g_rr is subject to gravitational influence. But at least in a small spacetime patch, proper value of g_rr = 1 i.e. is unaltered from the flat spacetime value by definition. All of which goes out the window when it comes to GR GW's it seems.
X focused on free-fall geodesics which missed the main point I tried to drive home. Given local metric values, everything within scales precisely the same. Atoms, quarks, spaces between any such, space itself. Which if consistently applied, means in OP scenario, invariant proper spacing between a swarm of static test particles distributed around an equator line, combined with conservation of particle number, automatically implies a passing GR GW either has to induce radial breathing, or is sterile i.e. absence of radial motion means absence of any metric perturbation.
For X it does not matter, or maybe X cannot see, the strange and inconsistent inverted interpretations of what metric means and implies. Between application in Schwarzschild vs GR GW case. In the former, sans tidal stresses etc., proper distances are invariant (static, not free-fall case) but coordinate (radial) scale is not. Whereas in the standard GR interpretation I assume X has given, strictly transverse GW metric perturbations (as X acknowledged is the case), it's proper distances that somehow can and have to vary. While coordinate distances do not!
I have concluded further correspondence, while still open at this stage, will get nowhere useful. X has been sincere and thinks I have it all wrong, and vice versa.
X's position re Feynman's beads on a stick/hoop is that in the hoop case, there is indeed no relative motions, and the hoop simply undergoes cyclic stressing such that the coordinate circumference is unvarying. Hence no radial breathing issue. In the beads on a stick case, X has it that the beads undergo no proper motions i.e. a sensitive accelerometer would detect nothing. Instead, space expands/contracts between the beads. The stick 'is the key'. It initially 'follows the expanding/contracting space', but inter-atomic forces bring it back to it's proper length. That is, stick stress resists metric perturbation - but on a lagging basis! It's that 'lag' that allows relative motion between stick and beads. A different take to what Feynman gave, but not one that impresses me.
For a start, the notion of 'lag' implies a 'stick' made of some gooey viscoelastic putty, not the default assumed highly elastic rigid rod. In the latter case, there is no sensible reason for any appreciable phase lag between any 'stress' induced by periodic 'space motion through the stick' and subsequent stick strain. Which in turn means stresses maintain proper length at all times. Hence no room for relative bead/stick motion! Just why and how 'stresses' arise is another matter.
That 'moving space' induces 'stresses' in the stick has no rational basis imo. I tried to get X to think about standard polar form Schwarzschild exterior metric, where coordinate value of g_rr is subject to gravitational influence. But at least in a small spacetime patch, proper value of g_rr = 1 i.e. is unaltered from the flat spacetime value by definition. All of which goes out the window when it comes to GR GW's it seems.
X focused on free-fall geodesics which missed the main point I tried to drive home. Given local metric values, everything within scales precisely the same. Atoms, quarks, spaces between any such, space itself. Which if consistently applied, means in OP scenario, invariant proper spacing between a swarm of static test particles distributed around an equator line, combined with conservation of particle number, automatically implies a passing GR GW either has to induce radial breathing, or is sterile i.e. absence of radial motion means absence of any metric perturbation.
For X it does not matter, or maybe X cannot see, the strange and inconsistent inverted interpretations of what metric means and implies. Between application in Schwarzschild vs GR GW case. In the former, sans tidal stresses etc., proper distances are invariant (static, not free-fall case) but coordinate (radial) scale is not. Whereas in the standard GR interpretation I assume X has given, strictly transverse GW metric perturbations (as X acknowledged is the case), it's proper distances that somehow can and have to vary. While coordinate distances do not!
I have concluded further correspondence, while still open at this stage, will get nowhere useful. X has been sincere and thinks I have it all wrong, and vice versa.
Not as far as I can see. The experts seem to be keeping an open mind regarding whether Carver Mead's theory works or not. The evidence isn't in yet, so it's an open question.
Dr Isi's email bears careful reading:
http://sciforums.com/threads/simple...ws-are-impossible.157012/page-14#post-3397097
Not true. Carver Mead's theory directly challenges GR, and has not been ruled out as a possibility.
Perhaps then you need to ask qu-reeus as to why he took the Professor's E-Mail apart and his usual "violent" reaction and coupled with the Professor's latest paper at post 304 just this month.
Obviously GR still stands as unchallenged at this time and again I'm confident that if anything was to come from this, it would be far bigger news that that being aired and confined to this forum.
The evidence isn't in yet?
Perhaps you need to read his E-Mail again then....
"It is absolutely true that our observations do not allow us to fully rule out the existence of non-GR physics. This is just a consequence of the fact that experimental observations have the power to disprove theories, but not to prove them: scientific theories are falsifiable, but not demonstrable. The best we can do is to say that our measurements agree with GR up to some (high) confidence level.
We have several methods to make quantitative statements about the agreement between the GR prediction and the signals we measure, but I won't describe them here in detail".