Nobel Laureates talking nonsense

[Stephen J. Crothers]

Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense, 10 July 2015,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

Crothers, S. J., A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study, 16 July, 2015,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0130v1.pdf

[Maximilian]

Thanks, looks very interesting.

Excellent formatting, by the way. Both in the layout and in the editing of the material, you have made these difficult topics very accessible.

[james03]

I'm glad Crothers is back posting.  We have this paper posted by Q. that would make for an educational discussion:

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf, specifically Section 6.  Hopefully without ad hominem attacks.

I sent him a message and asked him to comment.

[jeffreyw]

Thank you Mr. Crothers. I'm just glad I won't be wasting any more time on trying to make sense of General Relativity. It was a huge time sink. 

[Stephen J. Crothers]

Along with a request for a fuller analysis, the question put to me is, more or less, this: does the paper by Tolish cited on this forum describe two (or more) masses in Einstein's universe? The short answer is, No!

The paper by Tolish is nothing but a regurgitation of the usual quite false cosmologist dogmas, and so it offers nothing new. It was, it appears, offered by somebody on this forum as a 'proof' that General Relativity can account for two or more masses. It also appears that whoever offered the 'proof' failed to offer any self-determined arguments to support this contention about the paper by Tolish. In any event, the paper by Tolish does not contain any proof that General Relativity can accommodate two or more masses.

In Section 1 of his paper Tolish says:

"Gravity is somehow unique amongst the physical forces. This distinction prompted Einstein to make the hypothesis that lies at the heart of general relativity: gravity is not simply a phenomenon that takes place in spacetime; rather, gravity is spacetime, warped by the presence of mass and energy."

In the usual fashion of cosmologists, Tolish thoroughly confounds Newtonian gravitational forces with Einstein's warped spacetime, by means of his analogy with the former up to his equation (1-2). In General Relativity gravity is NOT a force, because it is spacetime curvature. One cannot invoke the notion of the force of gravity in the context of General Relativity. Nonetheless, cosmologists always do, by a false analogy with Newton's theory in the same fashion as Tolish.

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Tolish's paper deal with  purely mathematical issues of tensors and manifolds, although his equation (4.21), the geodesic equation, is worthy of note:

(4.21)      d²x^?/d?² + ?^?_?? dx^?/d? dx^?/d? = 0

Equation (4.21) is relevant to the question of the motion of bodies in Einstein's gravitational field, to which I will later return.

In Section 5 Tolish remarks:

"The stress-energy tensor serves a role in general relativity similar to that of mass distribution in Newtonian physics; it tells space how to deform, creating what we observe as gravity."

Thus, the stress-energy tensor (also called the energy-momentum tensor), denoted by T_uv, describes the material sources of Einstein's gravitational field, which induce spacetime curvature by their presence. It is this spacetime curvature that is Einstein's gravitational field. There are no gravitational forces of attraction involved. According to Einstein everything except his gravitational field is matter, and matter is the source of his gravitational field (i.e. spacetime curvature).

"We make the distinction hereafter between 'gravitational field' and 'matter' in this way, that we denote everything but the gravitational field as 'matter'." Einstein, A., The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916

In Section 5 of his paper Tolish gives Einstein's field equations (without the 'cosmological constant') at equation (5-8), in the following form:

(5-8)           R_?? = ?(T_?? - ½Tg_??)

Then Tolish says about (5-8):

"Although the Einstein equation is slightly more complicated than (5.6), it satisfies the conservation of momentum and any other such tests applied to it."

However, this is a rather obscure statement. Equation (5-8) is not Einstein's equation for the conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system.  The energy-momentum tensor T_?? describes only the material sources of Einstein's supposed gravitational field. Equation (5-8) does not contain Einstein's term for the energy and momentum of his gravitational field. Any of my critics here who thinks otherwise is invited to identify the term in equation (5-8) that they maintain is Einstein's for the energy-momentum of his gravitational field.  According to Einstein:

"It must be remembered that besides the energy density of the matter there must also be given an energy density of the gravitational field, so that there can be no talk of principles of conservation of energy and momentum of matter alone." Einstein, A., The Meaning of Relativity, expanded Princeton Science Library Edition, 2005
Einstein's conservation law is in fact given by him as follows:

?(t^?_? + T^?_? )/?x_? = 0
Einstein, A., The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916.

In the above equation t^?_? is Einstein's pseudotensor for the energy-momentum of his gravitational field alone. It is not a tensor. According to Einstein and his followers it acts 'like a tensor' under linear transformations of coordinates. That still does not make it a tensor, so it therefore violates Einstein's basic tenet that all the equations of physics be covariant under tensor transformations. Moreover, it is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols because (by contraction) it implies a first-order intrinsic differential invariant. But the pure mathematicians proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudotensor is gibberish, and along with it his 'conservation' laws.

There is nothing in Tolish's equation  (5-8) that describes two or more masses, other than wishful thinking or hallucination. Since T_?? denotes generally the material sources of Einstein's gravitational field, it must in some specific form present two or more masses for spacetime curvature coupling. There are no known T_?? for two or more masses. Any of my critics here who thinks otherwise is invited to present a T_?? for two or more masses. Neither Einstein nor his followers have ever produced the required energy-momentum tensor for two or more masses.

Tolish argues the usual cosmologist linearised form of Einstein's nonlinear field equations, described by the metric-tensor equation (6-4):

(6-4)         g_?? = ?_?? + h_??,      |h_??| << 1               

In relation to this equation Tolish says:

"If the gravitational field is weak enough, then spacetime will be only slightly deformed from the gravity-free Minkowski space of special relativity (see 4.16), and we can consider the spacetime metric as a small perturbation from the Minkowski metric:"

Thus, Tolish works within the context of a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum, as is the standard practice of cosmologists. In the absence of gravity empty Minkowski spacetime is alleged, and that is a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum too, which has zero curvature (i.e. it is flat). And "a small perturbation from the Minkowski metric", which must be produced by the presence of matter, is still a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum. Tolish artificially achieves a separation of Einstein's 4-dimensional spacetime continuum into Newtonian space and time in the usual way of cosmologists, by means of his equations (6-4) to (6-7) inclusive. He says that by them:

"We have seen how, in classical conditions, a particle's relativistic worldline through a gravitational field looks like the trajectory plotted by Newton's second law of motion, or that (4.21) contains (6.1)."

However, this is not a Newtonian universe because the context is still supposed to be a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum, linearised and perturbed from Minkowski spacetime by means of Tolish's equation (6-4), in the usual cosmological fashion. Tolish's allegation that "(4.21) contains (6.1)", although standard, is deceptive because equation (6.4) alters the theory from a nonlinear theory to a linear theory for the specific purpose of obtaining what looks like Newton's theory, with disregard for the fact that Newton's theory does not pertain to a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum, and without proof that linearisation of Einstein's nonlinear field equations is anything other than ad hoc fancy. Furthermore, since General Relativity is a nonlinear theory the Principle of Superposition does not hold. In other words one cannot superpose masses to get multiple masses related to any given solution to Einstein's field equations for some supposed mass m. For instance, let A be a so-called black hole solution (and hence a black hole universe) and let B be some other black hole solution (the same as A or not does not matter). Then the superposition A + B is not a solution and hence not a universe.  In order to have a solution for a universe containing two or more masses in General Relativity one must first write a set of Einstein field equations for two or more masses as the case may be, and then solve those field equations. Alternatively, one must first write a metric containing two or more masses, as the case may be, and then find the Einstein field equations that it is a solution for, to prove that it is a solution to a set of Einstein field equations. In any event, one cannot simply take two solutions to some set or sets of field equations and merely add them together. Another example: let A be some alleged black hole solution and B some Big Bang solution. Then A + B is not a solution and hence not a universe. Indeed, A and B in this example pertain to completely different sets of Einstein field equations and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Nonetheless, Einstein and the cosmologists superpose everything.

Now consider Tolish's equation (4-21), the geodesic equation. By means of the linearised Einstein field equations according to equation (6-4), Tolish goes on to say of (4-21) that,

"The second term hides a sum in and over all indices. Because the particle in question is moving slowly, every term containing one or two spatial four-velocity components will be dwarfed by the term containing two time components."

However, the geodesic equation does not describe the motion of a mass in either the nonlinear Einstein field equations or its supposed linearised form. It describes only the motion or locus of a point within a geometric framework.  The geodesic equation only describes a geodetic line, just as y = ax + b merely describes a straight line in the Cartesian plane. Concerning the geodesic equation Einstein remarked that it,

"... defines the motion of the point in the gravitational field in the case where there is no system of reference Ko, with respect to which the special theory of relativity holds good in a finite region. ... If the ? ^?_?? vanish, then the point moves uniformly in a straight line." Einstein, A., The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916.

Karl Schwarzschild remarked on the geodesic equation,

"According to Einstein's theory, this is the motion of a massless point in the gravitational field of a mass...".  Schwarzschild, K., On the Gravitational Field of a Point Mass According to Einstein's Theory, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys. Math. Kl: 189, (1916)

Before a point can be associated with the centre of mass of a body moving along a geodetic line it must first be demonstrated that two bodies are present in accordance with a set of related Einstein field equations, so that the one body is moving in the gravitational field of the other. Tolish's assumption of the presence of two masses as a minimum, although standard cosmologist fare,  has no support in any set of Einstein field equations, including the linearised form of Einstein's nonlinear field equations via Tolish's equation (6-4).  Any of my critics here who thinks otherwise is invited to present a set of Einstein field equations for two or more masses. Neither Einstein nor his followers have ever adduced such a set of field equations let alone a solution thereto.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

According to the cosmologists their black holes have and do not have an escape speed simultaneously at the same place. However, nothing can have and not have an escape speed simultaneously at the same place. Therefore the black hole is nonsense. Therefore the mathematics of black holes is also nonsense. The cosmologists also claim that the escape speed at their black hole event horizon is the speed of light, and so light cannot escape! But light travels at the speed of light, and so if the escape speed at their event horizon is the speed of light, then by the very definition of escape speed light must escape. Once again the cosmologists are talking nonsense.

As already explained above, and by Tolish, the material sources of Einstein's gravitational field are contained in his energy-momentum tensor T_??. According to Einstein and his followers, the 'Schwarzschild solution' contains a material source, and it is from this solution that the cosmologists first conjured their black hole universe. The Schwarzschild solution pertains to a universe where  T_?? = 0. Now de Sitter's empty universe is totally empty since it contains no material sources, because T_?? = 0.  Thus, according to Einstein and his followers material sources for his gravitational field are both present and absent by the very same mathematical constraint: T_?? = 0.  However, in a mathematical theory, nothing can be both present and absent by means of the very same mathematical constraint. Since de Sitter's universe contains no material sources because T_?? = 0, the Schwarzschild universe also contains no material sources because  T_?? = 0. Consequently, the black hole is nonsense. It immediately follows that all the mathematical mumb-jumbo associated with black holes is also nonsense.

Consider now Tolish's equations (5-7) and (5-8) in the following form:

(5-7a)              T_?? = (R_?? – ½Rg_??)/?

(5-8a)              R_?? = ?(T_?? – ½Tg_??)

According to (5-7a) when R_??= 0, T_?? = 0.  According to (5-8a) when  T_?? = 0, R_?? = 0. In other words, when either is zero so is the other, producing the identity 0 = 0. Thus, the  R?? and T?? must vanish identically. Thus, when there is no matter present (T_?? = 0) there is not only no gravitational field, there is no set of Einstein field equations, and so there is no universe.

For the layman I have recently written a series of five short and simple articles which explain why black holes are figments of irrational imagination. Anybody how knows that the square of a real number cannot ever take values less than zero has enough mathematics to understand the mathematics in these little articles.

[1] Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense, 10 July 2015,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

[2] Crothers, S. J., A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study, 16 July, 2015,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0130v1.pdf

[3] Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Mathematical Physicist is Talking Nonsense: the Black Hole - a Case Study, 29 July, 2015,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0007v1.pdf

[4] Crothers, S. J., Black Hole Escape Velocity - a Case Study in the Decay of Physics and Astronomy,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0066v1.pdf

[5] Crothers, S. J., To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass,  12 August, 2015,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0106v1.pdf

For readers of a mathematical bent, here is a full mathematical treatment, not just of the black hole fallacies, but also of the Big Bang fallacies and the invalidity of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity:

[6] Crothers, S. J., General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate, 4 August, 2014, http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v6.pdf

[james03]

Quaremerepulisti, why don't you take the lead in a rebuttal (assuming you disagree with Crothers) since you posted the Tosh paper.   This should make for an interesting discussion, so no ad hominems.  You've been reasonable in the past, it was Gloria Patri that went with the ad hominem attacks, so I'm not accusing you of that.

[james03]

Bump.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Along with a request for a fuller analysis, the question put to me is, more or less, this: does the paper by Tolish cited on this forum describe two (or more) masses in Einstein's universe? The short answer is, No!

It was never claimed to.  It was claimed to show that general relativity reduced to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of weak gravitational fields.

There are no known T_?? for two or more masses. Any of my critics here who thinks otherwise is invited to present a T_?? for two or more masses. Neither Einstein nor his followers have ever produced the required energy-momentum tensor for two or more masses.

Maybe not, but this doesn't prove it doesn't exist, only that it doesn't have a nice analytic form.  It's also the case that no one has produced an analytic solution for the N-body problem in Newtonian mechanics. 

The rest of this post (regarding black holes, etc.) isn't relevant.

[Stephen J. Crothers]

Dear Viewers,

You see in glorious technicolour how a cosmologist (Quaremerepulisti here) ignores the scientific facts and clings steadfastly to demonstrable nonsense. A few token nonsensical words is all a cosmologist can ever muster.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Dear Viewers,

You see in glorious technicolour how a cosmologist (Quaremerepulisti here) ignores the scientific facts and clings steadfastly to demonstrable nonsense. A few token nonsensical words is all a cosmologist can ever muster.

I'm not a cosmologist.  But you are obviously just a crank.  You just expect to bamboozle everyone with lots of words.  I'm not going to waste any more time.  Despite your tons of verbiage, you didn't actually refute the Tolish paper showing general relativity reduced to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of weak gravitational forces.  In fact you didn't even try to.

[Stephen J. Crothers]

Quaremerepulisti,

First, I was requested by James, not you, to provide an analysis of the Tolish paper, and to include whether or not Tolish's paper proves that General Relativity can accommodate two or more masses. I did so.

Subsequently you chimed in about reduction to Newton's theory. Nonetheless, if you read my analysis I have in fact answered your claim.

I note that in the usual fashion of those thoughtlessly wedded to idolatry (Einstein) you resort to calling me names in place of scientific argument. However, no matter how vehemently you do so and no matter how often you invoke your derision and abuse, it will never count as science. Your behaviour is all too common nowadays, lost in angry fantasy and hostile to reality.

The paper by Tolish contains nothing but regurgitation of the usual cosmologist dogmatic fallacies.

The absurdity of cosmologists knows no bounds. Now they are on a mission looking for aliens!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/scientist-warns-world-to-think-twice-before-replying-to-alien-signals-from-outer-space-10408201.html

[Stephen J. Crothers]

I said: "There are no known T?? for two or more masses. Any of my critics here who thinks otherwise is invited to present a T?? for two or more masses. Neither Einstein nor his followers have ever produced the required energy-momentum tensor for two or more masses."

Quaremerepulisti replied: "Maybe not, but this doesn't prove it doesn't exist, only that it doesn't have a nice analytic form.  It's also the case that no one has produced an analytic solution for the N-body problem in Newtonian mechanics."

You don't even understand the fundamental issues Quaremerepulisti. The N-body Newtonian problem, although not solved, exists. The two or more body General Relativity problem is not only unsolved, it is not even known to exist. If you think otherwise, then provide an existence theorem. You didn't provide a T_?? for two or more bodies either.

[james03]

I want to concentrate on 3 main points from the Crothers critique:

It is not a tensor. According to Einstein and his followers it acts 'like a tensor' under linear transformations of coordinates. That still does not make it a tensor, so it therefore violates Einstein's basic tenet that all the equations of physics be covariant under tensor transformations.

Moreover, it is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols because (by contraction) it implies a first-order intrinsic differential invariant. But the pure mathematicians proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudotensor is gibberish, and along with it his 'conservation' laws.

There is nothing in Tolish's equation  (5-8) that describes two or more masses, other than wishful thinking or hallucination. Since T?? denotes generally the material sources of Einstein's gravitational field, it must in some specific form present two or more masses for spacetime curvature coupling. There are no known T?? for two or more masses.

Bonus:  Is there an existence theorem for a 2 body GR solution?

[james03]

In summary, GR can not handle the gravitational attraction between two bodies with initial relative velocity of zero.  The Tolish paper does not do this.

Edit:  original quote that introduced the Tolish paper.  At this point it must be retracted by Q.

Er well, actually, GR does predict the attraction of the two objects toward each other as they each affect the geodesic of the other but never mind.

We don't even have an existence theorem for it.

[james03]

It's also the case that no one has produced an analytic solution for the N-body problem in Newtonian mechanics."

You don't even understand the fundamental issues Quaremerepulisti. The N-body Newtonian problem, although not solved, exists.

I can comment on this.  We have the classic 3-body problem.  Earth/Moon/Spaceship.  This was solved by numerical methods, however part of the numerical routine (actually the main part in numerical routines) is to return the error estimate for the solution.  They relied on the solution to send men to the moon and back, and it worked, so the underlying physics was correct.