Re: New knock to geometrical view of gravity

On Nov 23, 10:44 am, mluttg...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 21 nov, 13:12, "Juan R." González-Álvarez



<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I want perturb the existence of uncritical GR students and geometrically
oriented guys with this provocative post :-)

The analysis on the geometrical formulation of gravity done in recent
years by several groups in the world has demonstrated that General
Relativity lacks a Newtonian limit, cannot be quantized, cannot provide a
many-body theory and cannot explain many experimental and observational
data.

GR wave theory predicts waves never observed and even then the spin-2
waves cannot explain 3% excess energy lost in binary pulsars revealed in
recent high precision tests.

Dark matter models cannot explain observed data as velocity profiles,
cluster mass limits, velocity in bullet cluster...

The Sch black hole model cannot explain recently observed mass
distributions R < R_Sch, neither the observed intrinsic magnetic fields on
condensed objects (so-called black hole *candidates*).

All problems are always located in the same place: the geometrical
interpretation of gravity.

When geometric model is abandoned all observations are naturally explained
in excellent agreement, with a precision do not matched by any geometric
model. Does this convince geometric zealots? Evidently no.

Another problem of the geometric approach ot gravity is the cosmological
constant.

We start from geometrical equations (incorrectly named "field equations")

G_ab = - T_ab^matter

Relating geometry to matter. Does this work for galaxies? *No*

Then either one modifies the geometric part or the material part. It is
evident what was the choice of geometers :-)

G_ab = - (T_ab^matter + T_ab^darkmatter)

All the supposed evidence of dark matter is based in the asumption of
existence of an invisible unknown matter which is adjusted /ad hoc/ from
the *asumption* of the validity of above equation.

Evidently the theory is not predictive (T_ab^darkmatter is not obtained
from GR but obtained after observation from data fitting)

Moreover, all the so-called indirect 'evidence' of existence of dark
matter arises from this posterior fit of data.

You obtain G_ab and (T_ab^matter) and the discrepancy is then interpreted
as (T_ab^darkmatter) but it is never directly observed.

The other possibility is to modify the equation

G_ab + non-geometric terms = - T_ab^matter

This kind of theory is predictive and has given many predictions after
confirmed by astronomers. Moreover, a theory of this kind fit observed
data with precision cannot be matched by dark matter models. But geometers
reject it because do not fit into his idealized vision of the world.

Situation is similar to Vulcan planet in Newtonian gravity. Newtonian
theory could not explain Mercury perihelion anomaly, and Newtonian zealots
modified the content of matter /a posteriori/ adding the mass from a new
hypotetical planet

mass-observed --> mass-observed + mass-supposed

The belief that Newtonian equation was applicable everywhere -therefore,
it was the mass which was wrong- was so high that the new planet was
presumed to exist and named Vulcan. It was searched for decades and some
astronomers even claimed to observe it!! Somewhat as some misguided groups
claim today in the news they have observed dark matter :-)

Did Vulcan exist? *No*

Were the indirect 'evidences' of its existence correct? *No*

Were the claims of observation of the new planet right? *No*

Was needed to modify Newtonian gravity? *Yes*

Did geometers learn something from this lesson from history? *No*

But let me ignore all the difficulties of the dark matter model. Does this
modified GR equation works for Universe? Again *No*

Geometry may be admended to new geometry

G_ab - Gamma g_ab = - (T_ab^matter + T_ab^darkmatter)

where Gamma is the cosmological constant.

Geometers then find this modification of geometric tensor G_ab disturbs
the purity of their idealized geometric vision of the world and the
cosmological term is moved

G_ab = - (T_ab^matter + T_ab^darkmatter - Gamma g_ab)

and reinterpretted in matterial fashion like

G_ab = - (T_ab^matter + T_ab^darkmatter + T_ab^darkenergy)

And then geometers finish with an idealized vision of universe where about
96% of matter is something unknown!!!

But the problem is still poor. If we eliminate the matter of universe the
result is

G_ab = - T_ab^darkenergy

Therefore dark energy (and thus Gamma) are related to the energy content
of the vaccum. Then we take particle physics models and try to compute the
value of Gamma becoming from vacuum.

The result is the bisgest mistake in theoreticla physics. The difference
between the computed value and the observed value is about 120 orders of
magnitude!!!

Error = 10^120

Is this a problem for geometers? Yes and no. "Yes" because the error is
very huge. "No" because that big hole do not obligate to them to abandon
the geometric dogma which continue to pursue.

Just as in the case of dark matter, the modification of the law of gravity
solves the problems. Also here the new theory is predictive

The value computed for Gamma is of 10^-54, which is in excellent agreement
with observed value.

Will this change geometrers thinking? Evidently *No*.

Will the geometric approach to gravity be promoted? *Yes*

The huge error between theory and experiment will be minimized as
unimportant? *Yes*. We can see that already in talks.

We will read news about new supossed 'proofs' of black holes, dark matter,
dark energy, and all that hypotetical stuff? *Of course*, just as happened
for Vulcan.

Will Eric and Dono will resist the temptation to reply this with
misconceptions about lensing and insults? Probably both cannot.

--http://www.canonicalscience.org/

Eric & Dono are obviously brainwashed.


Welcome back ,Marcel Lattkes!

Did you learn some physics ? No? Just came back to eat some more ***?




.

Quantcast