1 al...@interia.pl | the GR is self-contraditory | Thursday 9 January 2020 |

2 tjrob137 | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Friday 10 January 2020 |

3 al...@interia.pl | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Saturday 11 January 2020 |

4 tjrob137 | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Sunday 12 January 2020 |

5 tjrob137 | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Monday 13 January 2020 |

6 tjrob137 | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Wednesday 15 January 2020 |

7 tjrob137 | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Thursday 16 January 2020 |

8 tjrob137 | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Friday 17 January 2020 |

9 tjrob137 | Re :the GR is self-contraditory | Monday 20 January 2020 |

the GR is self-contraditory

110 posts by 18 authors

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/yKEfsAaIOlw

The proof is simple:

1. the gravitational redshift (of radiation) shows the energy of any body is reduced in gravity:

E = E0*sqrt(1+2U/c^2) =~ E0 * (1 - GM/c^2) < E

2. therefore any clock must slow-down in gravity field: less energy -> slower

T' = T sqrt(1+2U/c^2) -> the same... .............

Note: 1 and 2 have been confirmed successfully already.

but:

3. the light speed is not constant in a gravity field, because the GR metric provides:

c_r(r) = c * (1-2GM/c^2r) < c

hence these GR's claims: leads directly to contradiction, so, the GR selffalsifies itself - mathematically!

On 1/9/20 1:39 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:

> | [...] |

You cannot possibly "prove" that GR is self-contradictory without CORRECTLY knowing what GR predicts. You got just about everything you wrote FLAT-OUT WRONG. In particular you clearly do not understand the difference between local and non-local measurements, and how they apply to basic principles in GR.

All you showed is that your personal misconceptions are self-contradictory. There's nothing new, surprising, or unusual in that.

I'll merely point out your first error:

> | 1. the gravitational redshift (of radiation) shows the energy of any body is reduced in gravity |

This is OBVIOUSLY FALSE, and redshift shows no such thing. What gravitational redshift ACTUALLY shows is that light emitted by an object at a lower gravitational potential from the observer is observed to be shifted to longer wavelength (and lower frequency). This OUGHT to be obvious.

- [Please note the distinction between "is shifted" (which I did NOT say), and "is observed to be shifted" (which I did say). GR is subtle and complicated, and requires precision in thought and word. And reading.]

I remark that in GR the calculation of redshift involves no such thing as "changing" the energy of an object, or "changing" the wavelength or frequency of light it emits. In GR, all Doppler shifts are GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIPS among the emitter, the light, and the observer. Neither the emitter, the light, nor the observer, nor any clocks, are affected in any way, it's just that the emitter and observer make different geometrical projections to measure the light's wavelength (or frequency).

Your misconceptions are so profound and pervasive that there's no point in trying to discuss them individually. You need to get a good textbook on GR and STUDY. There is no shortcut, and wasting your time posting nonsense to the net is HOPELESS.

Tom Roberts

- show quoted text - Simple experimental procedure to self-coontradiction of GR:

1. the total energy of any mass is: mc^2

2. in gravity field this energy is reduced to: mc^2 sqrt(1-2GM/c^2r) = ...

hence any emission and the full annihilation energy is reduced accordingly.

3. thus the gravitational 'time dilation' is a direct consequence of the reduced mass/energy: this is just explicitly give, visible - by the gravitational redshift.

4. unfortunately in the GR the light speed is steel reduced!

and this is just a self-contradiction of GR!

The light cannot slow its speed in gravity, because this is contradictory to the factual data: 1. the redshift and clocks effects are consistent and measured 2. but: the light speed has been never measured in the gravity!

Final consequence:

1. the Shapiro effect - light delay, 2. and bending of light

these effects are probably simple refraction in a medium - atmosphere near the sun/star.

On 1/11/20 4:18 PM, Ned Latham wrote:

> | Physicists *still* have not recognised that the result of Thomas Young's experiment of 1801 was invalidly interpreted. |

Rather, Ned Latham *still* has not recognized that interpretations made in the early 1800s are irrelevant today, and that TODAY'S interpretation of that experiment is viable, applies to many other experiments, is solidly supported experimentally, and has never been refuted.

Hint: Quantum Electrodynamics, the standard model.

Tom Roberts

On 1/11/20 7:38 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:

> | W dniu czwartek, 9 stycznia 2020 20:39:12 UTC+1 uzytkownik al...@interia.pl napisal: |

>> | The proof is simple: |

No. As I said before you do not understand GR and cannot possibly "prove" it to be self-contradictory without understanding it. All you have done is show that your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS are self-contradictory.

> | Simple experimental procedure to self-coontradiction of GR: |

Again, no. You merely show that your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS are self-contradictory.

> | 1. the Shapiro effect - light delay, 2. and bending of light these effects are probably simple refraction in a medium - atmosphere near the sun/star. |

Nope. Stellar atmospheres behave QUITE differently than observations of these effects. In particular, these would be strongly wavelength-dependent if they were due to stellar atmospheres, but observations show them to be independent of wavelength, as predicted by the curvature of spacetime in GR. Also, #2 is observed for the sun at angles to the sun greater than 90 degrees, so the line-of-sight comes nowhere near the sun, and is in a region without significant solar atmosphere; but the curvature of spacetime remains large enough for this to be measurable.

Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- that's HOPELESS. And why do you attempt to write about stuff of which you are OBVIOUSLY IGNORANT?

Tom Roberts

On 1/13/20 4:01 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:

> | W dniu poniedzialek, 13 stycznia 2020 22:25:04 UTC+1 uzytkownik tjrob137 napisal: |

>> | On 1/11/20 7:38 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote: |

>>> | W dniu czwartek, 9 stycznia 2020 20:39:12 UTC+1 uzytkownik al...@interia.pl napisal: |

>>>> | The proof is simple: |

>> |
No. |

> |
what No? |

No, you have no such proof, simple or otherwise.

>>> | Simple experimental procedure to self-coontradiction of GR: |

>> |
Again, no. You merely show that your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS are self-contradictory. |

> |
what is a 'personal misconception' confronted with the factual - objective data? |

Your misconceptions are related to what you falsely claim is the GR prediction. GR does NOT predict what you claim, and the GR prediction is consistent with the measurements.

Tom Roberts

On 1/15/20 12:04 AM, Ned Latham wrote:

> | Both refractive and gravitational lensing show dispersion, and the relationship between "wavelength" and angle of refraction is the same in both. |

This is just plain wrong. In GR, gravitational lensing is completely independent of the light's wavelength. For the simple reason that light rays follow null geodesics, and there is no wavelength in geodesics.

More importantly, gravitational lensing is OBSERVED to be independent of wavelength.

Tom Roberts

On 1/13/20 3:17 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:

> | QM-fallacy has been falsified too. |

Hmmm. If something is a fallacy, then I suppose it has been falsified. Of Course QM itself is not a fallacy, and within its domain has not been falsified.

> | The standard model is just a numerology, nothing more. |

Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS. This is just plain not true, and the standard model predicts rates and constraints on literally thousands of particle interactions. At present the standard model has not been refuted, though there are some puzzles....

> | 1. light speed is reduced in gravity or not? 2. the energy is reduced or not? |

This depends on what you mean. Measured locally, neither light speed nor the energy of any object is "reduced in gravity". From far away neither light speed nor the energy of an object is directly measurable, and indirect measurements are affected by the geometrical relationships that affect how signals are measured.

Gravitational redshift: An atomic line of a given atom has a known frequency, which is always the same when measured locally. But when the atom is located lower in a gravitational potential than the measuring instrument, the frequency is observed to be reduced by a factor that depends on the potential difference. This is modeled as due to the geometrical projections involved in the measurements, not any sort of "slowed light speed" or "reduced energy of the atom".

Shapiro time delay: The round-trip speed of light can be measured by sending radar or laser pulses from earth to a planet and back. When the sun is close to the line-of-sight, the measured value is reduced (i.e. the pulses are delayed from what is calculated using the planetary ephemeris and light speed of c). This is modeled as due to spacetime curvature, not any local "slowing of light speed" -- the path traveled by the light is longer due to the sun's proximity, but at every point the LOCAL speed of light is c (this is in vacuum).

> | the same applies to QM: 1. which experimenter showed his data, which can break the Bell theorem - EPR. ect. 2. which experimenter showed his procedures to compute correlations in the context of EPR experiments? |

You need to say what you mean, rather than just posing snarky questions.

> | the mainstream is still a parody, not any real science. |

YOU don't have a clue.

We have yet to see any "real science" from YOU. For instance, in the post to which I am responding, you just make stuff up and pretend it is true, make ambiguous and unsubstantiated assertions, and pose snarky questions -- no science at all.

Tom Roberts

On 1/18/20 6:42 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:

> | The Bell's theorem destroyed completely QM, nothing more. |

You CLEARLY do not understand this. Independent of your missing words: Bell's theorem is not "destroyed" by QM QM is not "destroyed" by Bell's theorem Rather, Bell's theorem shows that no local realistic theory with hidden variables can reproduce the correlations among entangled particles in QM.

Tom Roberts

Back to USENET overview USENET

*Back to my home page *Contents of This Document