General Relativity challenged

[ts aquinas]

I listened to and awhile back and forgot to ask then, but has anyone else heard this? I am no physicist but the interview/presentation was able to explain the problems and challenge in laymen terms, still I sought the paper he published about this. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF and his website http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html How he, Stephen J. Crothers, was explaining it sounded convincing but since I'm unlearned in the field, I don't know if his math and formulas are sound. Anyone want to take a stab at it?

[GloriaPatri]

I would be wary of non-experts commenting on something as abstract as physics, general relativity no less.

Here's a good list of some of his errors and a link to a paper refuting his claims: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html

As a physics major, I can assure you that GR is true. It works. Any attempt for one man to overturn the work of dozens, if not hundreds, of physicists with actual PhDs who have spent their careers working with GRE is ludicrous. If there was any major mathematical error that would've invalidated the theory it would have already been rejected by the scientific community already.

[Oldavid]

That's very curious, GP.

I would be very wary "experts" warning people away from "abstract" physics. What are you hiding?

Now, I'm not convinced that GR is "true".  To me it seems a rather fantastical proposition that could be better explained if the "Big Bang" was not an assumed "fact" that had to be supported by any means, fair or foul.

[james03]

GR is equivalent to Newtonian physics.  It is mapped into non-euclidean space, otherwise known as warped space.  Basically it holds light speed constant and allows time and length to change.  It is very silly, but it will come up with the correct answer.

For example, you can solve the sagnac effect with straight-forward newtonian physics, or GR.  Both give you the same answer.  However, you use different assumptions with the different models.

And of course it is the assumptions that GR must use that disprove it.  For example "nothing" gets warped.

Now of course since GR will give you the same answers as Newtonian physics, it can't be disproven.  However, it HAS been disproven.  So if you fix velocity and allow space to warp, then it follows if the velocity goes to zero, then space must be infinitely curved so no light can get out.  The geometric object that has infinite curvature is of course the point.  And thus you can now understand what is meant by the "singularity problem" with black holes.  And now we hear even more rubbish that besides being warped, "nothing" is now torn.

Start at 3 minutes:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mjoI7bgXM[/yt]

[GloriaPatri]

Oldavid, experts do not warn people away from physics. But a person who has spent 10+ years of their life studying a subject holds far more weight than some amateur who makes elementary mathematical errors in his "papers." Literally hundreds of physicists have checked to see if GR is both mathematically self-consistent, and if it is empirically true. Every time the answer has come out to be a resounding YES. 1 crack's outlandish and false claims will do nothing to change the fact that GR is true.

And James, we already went over how space is not nothing, but is in fact something, at Fisheaters. I won't bother to rehash that whole argument here. It is sufficient to say that just as the consensus of the Fathers is enough to settle a doctrinal point, so then is the consensus of professional scientists enough to assure that such-and-such physical theory is true, given the confines in which the theory operates.

And final point: Newtonian Physics =/= GR. Newtonian Physics is an excellent approximation of GR at non-relativistic speeds. But at relativistic speeds Newtonian physics fails. And that is experimentally verifiable. 

[james03]

New forum.  Space, which in nothing, can't warp or expand.   You don't understand the argument of the GR theorists, hence your need to insist space is filled with something.  They aren't claiming that.  They are claiming that nothing is expanding, nothing is warped, and nothing is torn.  That is most certainly their claim, though they seem to have a problem doing a three dimensional warp.

Newtonian physics handles light very well.  In this case, the sagnac effect.  It is dealing with the speed of light, and gives the proper answer.

[Maximilian]

Literally hundreds of physicists have checked to see if GR is both mathematically self-consistent, and if it is empirically true. Every time the answer has come out to be a resounding YES.

Wait a second. I just watched that video which features some very famous physicists, and they say that physics is undergoing a schizo breakdown. Kaku says that the equations for GR don't work when it comes to black holes. They produce nonsense. And when you combine it with quantum theory, it gets even worse and produces nonsense squared.

[james03]

Yep.  To be clear, GR works.  The math is fine.  The problem is with the assumptions.  And that is what finally nailed it.  You can either assume that light is not constant (sagnac is the perfect example), or you can assume light IS constant, but time and length vary, and that space (nothing) warps.  IF you assume the latter, then GR will solve perfectly.

But they ran into a problem.  For if the observed speed of light goes to zero, then curvature becomes infinite (light has to travel an infinite path and thus never reach the observer), and the only thing that has this characteristic is the point, which occupies zero space.  Hence the term "singularity" which means GR is false.

But they don't give up easily, and now we have "torn" nothing and "worm holes" in nothing.

[GloriaPatri]

Literally hundreds of physicists have checked to see if GR is both mathematically self-consistent, and if it is empirically true. Every time the answer has come out to be a resounding YES.

Wait a second. I just watched that video which features some very famous physicists, and they say that physics is undergoing a schizo breakdown. Kaku says that the equations for GR don't work when it comes to black holes. They produce nonsense. And when you combine it with quantum theory, it gets even worse and produces nonsense squared.

Well none of the equations of physics really works at a black hole's singularity. And QM and GR don't work well together, that's true. But they also operate on different fields. GR works on cosmic scales, while QM works on subatomic scales. The question is whether or not a single theory could be devised combing the two and working on all size scales. As of right now there is not one, and there may never be one.

And James, Max von Laue already showed in 1911 that Sagnac's result was consistent with SR. There are plenty of scientific papers out there showing how Sagnac's experiment can be explained by Relativity, without having to resort to some unverifiable aether.

[james03]

I never said that GR couldn't explain sagnac.  SR does not apply since it is an inertial reference frame.

GR works mathematically.  My problem is with the assumptions used.

An example.  We are all familiar with the fact that a straight line between New York and London in cartesian coordinates is not the shortest route.  I believe it is correct to say that the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean 2 dimensional system, maybe you could call it a 2 dimensional manifold.  Or in other words, spherical coordinates with constant "r".

So continuing with this analogy, I have no dispute with Einsteinians who propose that the universe actually occupies a three dimensional (spatially) manifold and is non-Euclidean.  I disagree, but it is a rational proposition.  Now imagine if on top of insisting that the shortest route between New York and London was a great arc, I also said that the mere action of traveling between New York and London expands the coordinate system, even though New York and London don't move.  And if I travel faster, the great arc expands farther, even though these cities don't move.  You'd lock me up as a nut case.  And yet, that is precisely what GR claims.  It is insane.

Someone described the error of GR as being "lost in the math", and that is a great explanation. 

[GloriaPatri]

I never said that GR couldn't explain sagnac.  SR does not apply since it is an inertial reference frame.

GR works mathematically.  My problem is with the assumptions used.

An example.  We are all familiar with the fact that a straight line between New York and London in cartesian coordinates is not the shortest route.  I believe it is correct to say that the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean 2 dimensional system, maybe you could call it a 2 dimensional manifold.  Or in other words, spherical coordinates with constant "r".

So continuing with this analogy, I have no dispute with Einsteinians who propose that the universe actually occupies a three dimensional (spatially) manifold and is non-Euclidean.  I disagree, but it is a rational proposition.  Now imagine if on top of insisting that the shortest route between New York and London was a great arc, I also said that the mere action of traveling between New York and London expands the coordinate system, even though New York and London don't move.  And if I travel faster, the great arc expands farther, even though these cities don't move.  You'd lock me up as a nut case.  And yet, that is precisely what GR claims.  It is insane.

Someone described the error of GR as being "lost in the math", and that is a great explanation.

Except that his math is wrong, and he makes several elementary errors that show he has no knowledge on the topic he's speaking on.

And as far as GR being counter intuitive: So? Many of the concepts in our own faith are counterintuitive. Are we going to throw them away because of that? No. No one said nature was easy to understand, or that it would make sense. But it works as modern physics describes it. And just because YOU find it counterintuitive doesn't make it any less true. I suggest you actually read the rebuttals to this anti-relativity nonsense. You'll find that the physics community has the upper hand.

[james03]

And as far as GR being counter intuitive: So? ..........And just because YOU find it counterintuitive doesn't make it any less true.

Actually I used pure intuition to arrive at the same answer that this Crothers and the jap in the video arrived at doing the math.  Nowhere do I claim it is counterintutive.  Instead I claim it is wrong because it is undefined, which means wrong in math.

I described my route, using intuition, but you missed it.  So here it is again:  Einstein is forced to curve space to adjust the apparent speed of light because he is stuck with "C".  So if we use an object that the apparent speed of light is zero, then curvature must be infinite.  In geometry, that is a point.  Coincidently, the black hole is called a singularity.  Now a point has zero volume.  The density of a black hole is then some mass divided by zero, or undefined.  GR therefore blows up.  The approach using math ends up at the same answer, division by zero.

However with Newtownian physics, you avoid the singularity., since you are not married to "C".  Instead of C being a constant, it is instead considered a maximum.  Therefore it is entirely possible to have a black dense star that light can't escape, but with a finite density.

[RobertJS]

Someone described the error of GR as being "lost in the math", and that is a great explanation.

"Lost in Math" sounds about right. Numbers themselves don't mean anything unless they are given a unit of measurement. For instance, 32 means nothing by itself, and can mean different things if we are referring to 32 Fahrenheit, 32 Celsius or 32 Kelvin.

Mathematics is only good if you remember that is needs to reflect reality. If reality proves it wrong, it is wrong. For instance, one of the big blunders of geometry is in the fundamental definition of a "point". They try to teach that a point "has no size", and then they proceed to define a "line" saying these points are side--by-side. This fundamentally contradicts the obvious, that zero plus zero cannot add to anything other than zero. A point should be defined as the "smallest possible distance".

As well, things like "asymptotes" cannot really reflect reality because the "infinite" is not part of the created material world. Nor are there really such thing as "irrational" numbers existing in any unit of measurement. The material world is rational.

The value of PI is in fact rational when given any unit of measurement. We know this because from a starting point on a circle if we go around, we do finally meet the other point. If there were infinitely divisible space, we would never reach the other point. In fact, if there were infinitely indivisible space, as speculative mathematics suggests, there would be no such thing as movement. But gratefully we can prove that wrong by moving, or by reaching the point we started. However, at the other end of the spectrum, when dealing with largest extremes beyond our touch, such as velocity, we are bound to theorize some wild things if we ignore that there is a limit. Max Planck comes to mind right about here.

[GloriaPatri]

Someone described the error of GR as being "lost in the math", and that is a great explanation.

"Lost in Math" sounds about right. Numbers themselves don't mean anything unless they are given a unit of measurement. For instance, 32 means nothing by itself, and can mean different things if we are referring to 32 Fahrenheit, 32 Celsius or 32 Kelvin.

Mathematics is only good if you remember that is needs to reflect reality. If reality proves it wrong, it is wrong. For instance, one of the big blunders of geometry is in the fundamental definition of a "point". They try to teach that a point "has no size", and then they proceed to define a "line" saying these points are side--by-side. This fundamentally contradicts the obvious, that zero plus zero cannot add to anything other than zero. A point should be defined as the "smallest possible distance".

As well, things like "asymptotes" cannot really reflect reality because the "infinite" is not part of the created material world. Nor are there really such thing as "irrational" numbers existing in any unit of measurement. The material world is rational.

The value of PI is in fact rational when given any unit of measurement. We know this because from a starting point on a circle if we go around, we do finally meet the other point. If there were infinitely divisible space, we would never reach the other point. In fact, if there were infinitely indivisible space, as speculative mathematics suggests, there would be no such thing as movement. But gratefully we can prove that wrong by moving, or by reaching the point we started. However, at the other end of the spectrum, when dealing with largest extremes beyond our touch, such as velocity, we are bound to theorize some wild things if we ignore that there is a limit. Max Planck comes to mind right about here.

Calculus has shown that it is possible to sum a set of infinitesimally small points and end up with a finite value. That we are able to move does not refute that. And pi is irrational. It is not possible to express it as the quotient of two natural numbers. There are proofs for this as well. And irrational numbers do exist. Give me a length of 6 inches. Somewhere in that length there is pi inches, and pi is irrational.

Edit: Pi also features in plenty of physics equations and definitions for constants.

[RobertJS]

Someone described the error of GR as being "lost in the math", and that is a great explanation.

"Lost in Math" sounds about right. Numbers themselves don't mean anything unless they are given a unit of measurement. For instance, 32 means nothing by itself, and can mean different things if we are referring to 32 Fahrenheit, 32 Celsius or 32 Kelvin.

Mathematics is only good if you remember that is needs to reflect reality. If reality proves it wrong, it is wrong. For instance, one of the big blunders of geometry is in the fundamental definition of a "point". They try to teach that a point "has no size", and then they proceed to define a "line" saying these points are side--by-side. This fundamentally contradicts the obvious, that zero plus zero cannot add to anything other than zero. A point should be defined as the "smallest possible distance".

As well, things like "asymptotes" cannot really reflect reality because the "infinite" is not part of the created material world. Nor are there really such thing as "irrational" numbers existing in any unit of measurement. The material world is rational.

The value of PI is in fact rational when given any unit of measurement. We know this because from a starting point on a circle if we go around, we do finally meet the other point. If there were infinitely divisible space, we would never reach the other point. In fact, if there were infinitely indivisible space, as speculative mathematics suggests, there would be no such thing as movement. But gratefully we can prove that wrong by moving, or by reaching the point we started. However, at the other end of the spectrum, when dealing with largest extremes beyond our touch, such as velocity, we are bound to theorize some wild things if we ignore that there is a limit. Max Planck comes to mind right about here.

Calculus has shown that it is possible to sum a set of infinitesimally small points and end up with a finite value. That we are able to move does not refute that. And pi is irrational. It is not possible to express it as the quotient of two natural numbers. There are proofs for this as well. And irrational numbers do exist. Give me a length of 6 inches. Somewhere in that length there is pi inches, and pi is irrational.

Edit: Pi also features in plenty of physics equations and definitions for constants.

I am talking about "when given any unit of measurement". That is, numbers are only worth something if they reflect reality. Irrational values don't exist when applied to reality. For instance, PI always has an ending in reality. Reality is rational. The concept of infinite shows we have a spiritual soul to be able to somewhat grasp the concept, but it is a divine attribute alone, and does not apply to the material world. To ascribe it to the material world would be straying into pantheism.

Infinitesimal is not zero, so that is neither here nor there. In reality, space cannot be infinitely divided, so there is a shortest possible distance, and a smallest possible size. Points in geometry should be defined thusly.