What is the use of General Relativity

[Schmelzer]

1. Einstein added a freaky constant in his equations.

It is not at all freaky, but, instead, a quite natural one. There is, simply, a quite natural mathematical postulate - that the GR Lagrangian has to be covariant. This gives an infinity of terms, but only the first, lowest order ones from this series may be relevant at all. GR itself (the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian) is the second term, the cosmological constant the first one.

So let's add a freaky term in Newtonian, if we do that we can solve deflection of light around massive object, precession of mercury and of course GPS.
At least this way, we do not need to worry about singularities.

Newtonian gravity starts with a singular potential 1/r. So, no, in NT you have to care about singularities too. There exist even freaky solutions with four or so point particles which in finite time reach infinity.

 

[The God]

It is not at all freaky, but, instead, a quite natural one. There is, simply, a quite natural mathematical postulate - that the GR Lagrangian has to be covariant. This gives an infinity of terms, but only the first, lowest order ones from this series may be relevant at all. GR itself (the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian) is the second term, the cosmological constant the first one.

Newtonian gravity starts with a singular potential 1/r. So, no, in NT you have to care about singularities too. There exist even freaky solutions with four or so point particles which in finite time reach infinity.

In case of Newtonian r = 0 can be excluded but in case of GR it is deliberately taken in and acquired a cult status.

Except probably development of tensor maths, GR contribution to science is fake, rather it has stunted the growth of science.

 

[The God]

As a phenomenally successful scientific theory, that has let to innumerable topics of active research? As a piece of quite beautiful mathematics, that has led to areas of active research in mathematics? As the product of the brilliant mind of a celebrated scientist?

Yeah, I think it deserves some level of appreciation.

Actually the dark truth is hidden in your statement...."inumerable topics of active research"....funds?!

 

[Schmelzer]

In case of Newtonian r = 0 can be excluded but in case of GR it is deliberately taken in and acquired a cult status.

Whatever, my point was that a true theory will not have any singularities, and this holds for NT and Maxwell too.

Except probably development of tensor maths, GR contribution to science is fake, rather it has stunted the growth of science.

Stunted is nonsense. The region where it is physically important is too far away from applications in everyday life, so quantum theory has had a much greater impact. The influence on mathematics was also not that extremely big, but there was some in differential geometry. But this is, anyway, not a criterion of importance for science, but a nice side effect of research.

Perhaps any "true" theory as you imply is unobtainable...perhaps even a validated QGT may not be a fundamental theory...and of course I don't believe anyone has ever claimed GR is a fundamental true theory.

QGT is not really a candidate for a true fundamental theory - it is simply the obvious next step. The number of people who think not about GR itself being the true fundamental theory, but at least of GR having given some really fundamental insights, is quite big, I would say this is almost consent in the GR community.

 

[paddoboy]

QGT is not really a candidate for a true fundamental theory - it is simply the obvious next step.

Possibly true, but my point is we really do not know that either way as yet.

The number of people who think not about GR itself being the true fundamental theory, but at least of GR having given some really fundamental insights, is quite big, I would say this is almost consent in the GR community.

GR certainly gave science and the world real fundamental insights! as did SR.

But as I suggested, perhaps this "true" theory you are on about, does not really exist, or is unobtainable.

 

[Schmelzer]

GR certainly gave science and the world real fundamental insights! as did SR.

At best possibly.

As I have explained many times, my ether theories are completely compatible with the GR equations. Once against such a "certainty" a single theoretically possible counterexample is already sufficient, you have one: Whatever mainstream GR proponents like to list as "real fundamental insights!" does not survive in my ether theory. And what from GR remains valid in my ether theory will not be listed among the "real fundamental insights!".

 

[paddoboy]

At best possibly.

As I have explained many times, my ether theories are completely compatible with the GR equations. Once against such a "certainty" a single theoretically possible counterexample is already sufficient, you have one: Whatever mainstream GR proponents like to list as "real fundamental insights!" does not survive in my ether theory. And what from GR remains valid in my ether theory will not be listed among the "real fundamental insights!".

Yeah well history and your peers will judge that.

 

[James R]

1. Einstein added a freaky constant in his equations. So let's add a freaky term in Newtonian, if we do that we can solve deflection of light around massive object, precession of mercury and of course GPS.

Some people have already tried doing that, without much success.

 

[The God]

The region where it is physically important is too far away from applications in everyday life,

So that again begs the question, what is the use? See its more of a rhetoric question implying uselessness of GR in general and an unnecessary adulation given. To me it has become a milking cow. Keep milking, if anyone objects he becomes crank or crackpot.

 

[paddoboy]

So that again begs the question, what is the use? See its more of a rhetoric question implying uselessness of GR in general and an unnecessary adulation given. To me it has become a milking cow. Keep milking, if anyone objects he becomes crank or crackpot.

In actual fact it appears that its just you and your "brothers in arms" that are doing your fanatical best to somehow deride probably the greatest validated theory of the 20th century, having of course failed to invalidate it.
It's reasons are many and varied, including religious baggage, tall poppy syndrome and of course delusions of grandeur.

 

[paddoboy]

To me it has become a milking cow. Keep milking, if anyone objects he becomes crank or crackpot.

Afraid the continued milking, will eventually eliminate the "god of the gaps"?

 

[Schmelzer]

So that again begs the question, what is the use?

To quote Goethe: "Daß ich erkenne, was die Welt Im Innersten zusammenhält ....". Google online translation gives "That I may know what the world holds together in its innermost being", I doubt it is optimal, but I think it gives you at least the idea that the technical applications like in GPS are not what really matters.

That the answers given by GR to these questions, in particular the very concept of spacetime, are not what I think will survive, does not change this aim, it is simply an illustration that this is what really matters. Because the technological applicability would be the same in spacetime interpretation of GR and in my ether interpretation of the GR equations, because the equations are the same.

But not only most GR proponents, but even laymen like paddoboy react extremely negative to an ether interpretation of the same mathematics. This is obviously because the metaphysical interpretation is what really matters. The answer to "was die Welt Im Innersten zusammenhält" is a very different one in the ether interpretation.

 

[The God]

That the answers given by GR to these questions, in particular the very concept of spacetime, are not what I think will survive, does not change this aim, it is simply an illustration that this is what really matters. Because the technological applicability would be the same in spacetime interpretation of GR and in my ether interpretation of the GR equations, because the equations are the same.

Bold is mine.
So, the conclusion is that you do not support GR but you support GR maths!

The concept of Spacetime goes to the root of GR, if this concept fails then GR fails.

you want to tag along with GR because you have borrowed its maths, but intrinsically you are not with GR. Quite sticky position you are in.

 

[The God]

Afraid the continued milking, will eventually eliminate the "god of the gaps"?

Nope, continued milking will kill it. You cannot fool all the people all the time.

For you even if GR is debunked, it won't matter, you will always be with mainstream, GR or no GR, because you follow mainstream religiously.

 

[rpenner]

For you even if GR is debunked, it won't matter, you will always be with mainstream, GR or no GR, because you follow mainstream religiously.

That's because there is but one universe so there is no natural way for schisms in scientific theory to be maintained. Unlike religion, the search for the most parsimonious and precise description of the behavior of observed phenomena requires adoption of the mainstream theories of the day until (at a minimum) data points at a successor theory doing all the jobe of the mainstream theories, but better. The part of GR that Einstein fell in love with was its "beauty" which includes a heaping dose of parsimony, but what caused its adoption was bettering the predictions of Newton's Universal Gravitation, just as Special Relativity beat out Newtonian definitions of time and momentum (and energy).

Failing to understand what the goal of science is will only leave you as a physics outsider and irrelevant to the progress of science. Whining about a mainstream theory you don't understand in detail leaves you ill-equipped to even know how high you have to reach to better it.

 

[The God]

That's because there is but one universe so there is no natural way for schisms in scientific theory to be maintained. Unlike religion, the search for the most parsimonious and precise description of the behavior of observed phenomena requires adoption of the mainstream theories of the day until (at a minimum) data points at a successor theory doing all the jobe of the mainstream theories, but better. The part of GR that Einstein fell in love with was its "beauty" which includes a heaping dose of parsimony, but what caused its adoption was bettering the predictions of Newton's Universal Gravitation, just as Special Relativity beat out Newtonian definitions of time and momentum (and energy).

Failing to understand what the goal of science is will only leave you as a physics outsider and irrelevant to the progress of science. Whining about a mainstream theory you don't understand in detail leaves you ill-equipped to even know how high you have to reach to better it.

Personal comments without understanding the intent of the quoted post by me.

If you or any mainstream insider likes paddoboyish moblike support, then be happy.

It took GR 100 years to reach here, it will take just few more years, single digit, for its demise. Only one universe, then both you and paddoboy will change the tune. He will surely, will you not?

 

[Schmelzer]

Bold is mine.
So, the conclusion is that you do not support GR but you support GR maths!
The concept of Spacetime goes to the root of GR, if this concept fails then GR fails.
you want to tag along with GR because you have borrowed its maths, but intrinsically you are not with GR. Quite sticky position you are in.

Have I ever said I support GR? I support my own ether theory of gravity. Which gives, in some limit, the Einstein equations of GR. Only if I'm extremely tired and sloppy I would write, instead, that it gives in some limit GR. See for example http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether/

But I support also a little bit more than only the math. But also how this math is connected with what experimenters measure. The most important example is the formula how to compute, from the solution of the gravitational field $g_{mn}(x,t)$ and a trajectory of a clock $x(t)$ the clock time shown by the clock. So, I support also some predictions about what real clocks will measure as their clock time. Which is obviously more than math alone, it has some well-defined connection with reality.

And, even more, if one takes some part of the mainstream (positivist) ideology seriously, and ignores all the metaphysics of GR, restricting oneself to claims about observable, physical facts, then the part which I share is essentially all what GR tells. All this spacetime talk is essentially metaphysics, not testable in any experiment.

So, if one takes this anti-metaphysical position seriously, "[t]he concept of Spacetime goes to the root of GR, if this concept fails then GR fails" should be rejected as wrong. You would be obliged, instead, to ignore it as metaphysical.

Fortunately for you, this does not mean that you are really wrong about this. Because this anti-metaphysical philosophy is wrong, in conflict with the established mainstream philosophy (which is Popper's methodology) and is so influential only based on tradition (positivism was the leading philosophy during the time of the relativistic as well as quantum revolution, Popper came only 1935, the English translation much later). That positivism remains powerful has, unfortunately for science, the fatal consequence that a serious scientific discussion about the metaphysics of the leading theories does not exist. So, every scientist is doing his own metaphysics. And the GR mainstream is doing spacetime metaphysics, and if spacetime metaphysics would fail, this would be fatal for them, and they would consider this as a failure of GR too.

The situation may be sticky for them, but certainly not for me. Because I'm open to a rational discussion as of the spacetime metaphysics itself, as of the scientific methodology which shows that physical theories contain (and have to contain) metaphysical parts, and the only problem I'm faced with is ignorance of these questions and refusal to discuss them.

 

[rpenner]

Personal comments without understanding the intent of the quoted post by me.

The assertion that you fail to understand the goal of science or the details of General Relativity seem like legitimate, on-topic and factual criticism. For you to dismiss them as "personal comments" indicate that you aren't making a good faith effort for a meeting of minds in this conversation.

If you or any mainstream insider likes paddoboyish moblike support, then be happy.

I agree that paddoboy is boorish, comes across as being undereducated relative to some of the positions he takes and acts like an self-appointed enforcer of ideology. Please demonstrate those are violations of the forum rules, if that is your assertion. While paddoboy may be irrelevant to the progress of science and sometimes does nothing more than science cheerleading on this forum, that doesn't make you more right that he is. paddoboy just puts high weight on information supplied to him by those with empirical histories of being reliable. That's not really "religious" especially since you provide him with nothing better.

It took GR 100 years to reach here, it will take just few more years, single digit, for its demise.

Firstly, you are under the misconception that you are skilled at predicting the future of science. Secondly, it takes empirical validation for one theory to supplant another as the best description of the behavior of phenomena and right now you have pointed at no phenomenon within its sphere not well modeled by General Relativity, which suggests that the successor theory will be one that has a larger domain like a quantum gravity theory that also gave insight into particle physics phenomena that we have observed. Finally, historically good physics theories don't die — they live on as the low-energy approximation to the successor theory. Newton's p = mv becomes the low-velocity approximation to special relativity's $$p =mv + \frac{m v^3}{2 c^2} + \frac{ 3 m v^5}{8 c^4} + \frac{5 m v^7}{16 c^6} + \dots = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{(2k)!}{2^{2k} (k!)^2} \frac{m v^{2k+1}}{c^{2k}} = mv \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right)^{-1/2}$$. Kepler's ellipses with the sun at the focus become Newton's perturbed ellipses with the focii at barycenters become Einstein's precessing, inspiraling, radiating, perturbed ellipses. There are many situations where the full theory is not needed and unless you dig very deep into the data the old theories are precise enough. That's why Kepler's laws are still taught in the age of GR.

Only one universe, then both you and paddoboy will change the tune. He will surely, will you not?

Even if you (at some future date) turn out to correct on this one prediction (even stopped clocks are correct twice a day), since you have not documented how you reached your position by persuasive reasoned argument, you are still not engaged in legitimate criticism of the mainstream acceptance of GR as the current best description of the behavior of observable phenomena.

// Edit removed double factorial with easier to understand expression in terms of factorial $$\frac{(2k-1)!!}{(2k)!!} = \frac{(2k-1)!!}{2^k k!} = \frac{(2k)!}{2^{2k} (k!)^2} = 2^{-2k} { 2k \choose k } $$

 

[Schmelzer]

Unlike religion, the search for the most parsimonious and precise description of the behavior of observed phenomena requires adoption of the mainstream theories of the day until (at a minimum) data points at a successor theory doing all the job of the mainstream theories, but better.

No. It would be completely reasonable to support an alternative if it succeeds to do the same as the mainstream theory. The requirement that it has to be better is already a compromise with all those paddoboys, which support the old mainstream theory because it is the mainstream theory.

You also completely ignore that alternative theories may be better in questions beyond the reach of experiments and observations. We are quite sure that there has to be a quantum theory of gravity, without a single observation of quantum gravity effects, and without any hope to see them. The claim to give a theory of quantum gravity was, btw, the claim (which was unfortunately never supported by more than plausible reasoning) which made string theory that important.

 

[paddoboy]

Nope, continued milking will kill it. You cannot fool all the people all the time.

Agreed about the fooling all the people. You and your brother's in arms" certainly have not fooled me.

It took GR 100 years to reach here, it will take just few more years, single digit, for its demise. Only one universe, then both you and paddoboy will change the tune. He will surely, will you not?

You sound like the story tellers, soothsayers, and mythical deities that you so religiously and fanatically support. See? you have not fooled me on that one either.