Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"

On Nov 27, 9:27 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

There are no experiments out there that completely
support SR.

You are wrong. Look it up. <shrug>

Show me an experiment that support the Lorentz transform and its
inverse at the same time.

However, there are plenty of experiments out there which
agree with the Lorentz transform but not its immediate reciprocal form
which is also the Lorentz transform. To agree with SR, you need an
experiment that show both the Lorentz transform is true as well as its
reciprocal form. <shrug>

You clearly do not know how theories are tested in physics.

The Lorentz transform is not complete if you ignore the result of its
reciprocal transform. <shrug>

Most of all these [GR] experiments are faulty. For examples,

** The eclipse expeditions of 1919 by Sir Eddington was a total joke.
The current assumption that the geodesic follows the path with the
maximal accumulated spacetime predicts photons cannot move through
space. Dr. Taylor's derivation of photon deflection assumed the
geodesic following the path of least accumulated time which is in
direct violation of the current assumption.

** Shapiro effect and its later derivatives involves with accuracy
without interference of the observed signal and the reference signal.
It cannot be seriously considered as any scholarly work.

** Assuming the geodesic follows the path of maximal accumulated
spacetime comes close to the actual observation. However, if geodesic
follows the path of minimal accumulated time, the prediction becomes
way out in the ball park.

Your first two "examples" are the earliest tests, which have since been
repeated with vastly better resolutions and/or accuracy. Your statements
about geodesics are complete and utter nonsense.

The actual eclipse experiment has never been done after 1919. Shapiro
effect still need a reference signal in any more sophisticated
experiment. My third example addresses Mercury's orbital anomaly.

The Einstein field equations only allow one to solve what the metric
is. These equations do not deal with the geodesics directly.

You CLEARLY do not understand this. For starters, the geodesic equation
follows directly from the field equation, when applied to test particles
(the only particles for which the geodesic equation is valid). In any
case, the field equation determines BOTH the metric and the
energy-momentum tensor, and the latter includes how all objects and
fields in the manifold move and interact.

The field equations do not determine the energy-momentum tensor. The
field equations are the brainchild of Hilbert. Without Hilbert's
Lagrangian, there would be no field equations. The field equations are
a set of 16 differential equations. Solving them, they yield a set of
solutions with 16 elements to the metric tensor. You need to study
what the field equations are. <shrug>

> [... further outrageous nonsense, such as claiming the Riemann
> tensor was "designed by Ricci"...]

It is completely true. Riemann curvature tensor was not a brainchild
of Riemann, for tensors did not exist at that time. Ricci designed it
to measure the curvature in space which is dependent on one's choice
of coordinate system. Einstein/Grossmann adopted it as if this tensor
is a real thing (the best thing after sliced cheese). <shrug>

The absurdity runs very, very deep in GR.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"
    ... |>> agree with the Lorentz transform but not its immediate reciprocal form ... These equations do not deal with the geodesics directly. ... | The field equations do not determine the energy-momentum tensor. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
    ... negative signature on a spacelike surface (one or three eigenvalues ... negative) that the field equations will preserve this negative ... equations of the Lorentz transform into one single equation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
    ... negative signature on a spacelike surface (one or three eigenvalues ... negative) that the field equations will preserve this negative ... equations of the Lorentz transform into one single equation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
    ... negative signature on a spacelike surface (one or three eigenvalues ... negative) that the field equations will preserve this negative ... equations of the Lorentz transform into one single equation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are There Unresolver Foundational Issues With GR
    ... Don't blame me on your failure in mathematics. ... student Levi-Civita from the Riemann curvature tensor. ... there is only one solid way to derive the field equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)