Re: The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity

Yes GR seems to be invalid. Many things withspeak it.
Maybe a simple SR cosmology just defined by the Hubble law is the true
answer which indeed would be in accordance with QED.
This simple cosmology is only an asymptotic solution of some GR space
models. Main feature: Mass does not curve space. Space is flowing time.

There are just two proves of GR.
1. Light attraction by the sun
2. Mercury movement

1. The attraction of light by masses also can be described by a photon mass
h v = m c^^2 , the mass directly dependent from the frequency v.
This would result in similar trajectories than in GR.
2. Black holes as a singularity in space time do not exist but from 1 can be
concluded, that heavy masses behave also like black holes in the sense
that no radiation coming from them.
3. The mercury perihelion up to now can only be explained by GR. But there
might be an forgotten force term in SR which solves that problem.
I read a news on an electrodynamic derive of the force law done by a
russian in the beginning 80s. Besides the known Lorentz force and the SR
force
of acceleration another force takes place. A gradient on an energy
density which is electrodynamic in nature.
The new model is: The gravity field formally is defined by a similar set
of equations like in electrodynamics (i.e. with a gravitomagnetic field,
where equal poles
attract !). Then the gravity field has an energy density everywhere with
a gradient force not considered in the SR Theory and also not in GR.
This gradient force could explain the perihelion of mercury.
4. The gravitomagnetic field would be the reason for ring structres like for
example the rings of saturn.


What do you think upon that ?

Josef


"Einsteinhoax" <einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8191b$424c2bf5$d8080e22$8637@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
> minds." - A. Einstein
>
> The General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are two fundamental
> theories accepted by modern physics. The former theory deals with the very
> large while the latter deals with the very small. A problem arises when
> attempts are made to merge them at an intermediate scale. The two theories
> just don't mesh well. The former theory seems very well verified by
> astronomical observations while the latter theory has provided predictions
> of incredible precision at the scale of atomic particles. Of the two, the
> validity of Quantum theory seems beyond question due to the accuracy of
its
> predictions. Combining the theories produces the conclusion that, at the
> subatomic scale, space is violently curved to the point that it is more
akin
> to a foam than to what we normally consider as space.
>
> Attempts to reconcile the two theories have led to the development of
> superstring theory which, as made obvious by a recent program on NOVA, can
> lead a reasonable man to question whether a fundamental error has been in
> one or both of the theories. Of the two, the accuracy and precision of the
> predictions of Quantum Theory lead to point the finger of suspicion at
> General Relativity. The observations which are alleged to proven General
> Relativity have only been made using the effects of the Sun's
gravitational
> field or observations made on distant objects which are made without the
> ability to measure the orbital parameters (necessary if a meaningful
> conclusion is to be drawn). Unfortunately, the Sun's field is about a
> million times too weak to reveal second order effects which, if present,
can
> become predominant at high field strengths. The same is true of the
> astronomical observations of massive objects. Without the ability to
obtain
> precision orbital data, observations made of the effects occurring around
a
> neutron star, for example, cannot be used to determine the existence of
such
> second order effects. Since General Relativity requires that space be
> "curved" by the presence of matter, a requirement of no other theory
> (cosmological observation has reveals that our universe as w whole is not
> curved), it would seem that it is General Relativity which should be
> suspect. Accordingly, efforts should be made to find whether and where its
> derivation is either in error or non rigorous.
>
> If one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and compares
> those conclusions with those of a similar theory which is not under
> suspicion, Special Relativity which was used in its derivation, one finds
an
> interesting disparity. This disparity can be seen by comparing the
> relativistic transformations attributable to each theory. In an FLT system
> of units one finds the transformations:
>
> Dimensional Content Special relativity General Relativity
>
> Force 1 1
> Length 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1
> Time (1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 (1-$)
> Space 1 (1-$)
>
> Note 1 - The term "$" represent the combined terms in the time
> transformation expression provided by General Relativity. This
> transformations represents a time contraction so as to be compatible with
> the definitions of Special Relativity. It is the reciprocal of General
> Relativity's Time Dilation.
>
> Note 2 - General Relativity requires an additional term to account for the
> curvature of space. This term is provided as the "Space Transformation".
> Until this degree of freedom re3presented by "curved space" was added, Dr.
> Einstein found it impossible to solve the mathematical equations involved.
>
> If General Relativity contains an error, it should be possible to
find
> the source of that error in its derivation. Once one takes the trouble to
> look, it is easily found. The derivation solves the second derivative
> expression:
>
> (dS)^2 = (dX)^2 + (dY)^2 + (dZ)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2
>
> It will be noted that the term involving C includes a constant term,
> Kt. The terms involving X, Y, and Z do not have such a term. The effect of
> the omission is to force the mathematics to assert that the required
> coefficient is equal to unity, an assumption of a fact not in evidence. If
a
> term, Kl, were provided along with the "length" terms, no error would
since
> the solution would provide the value of unity for Kl, but a potential
error
> exists if it is omitted. Solving this equations requires a mathematical
> process called integration and in that process the omitted term would be
> forced to have a value of unity. Mathematically, this is a NO NO as every
> undergraduate student of Calculus knows. As a result of this erroneous
> omission, Dr. Einstein labored unsuccessfully to solve the equations of
> General Relativity for 18 months until he resorted to the non-Euclidean of
> Riemann (fakery borne of desperation?). The use of this geometry led to a
> solution by providing an additional degree of freedom to the mathematics,
> but the mathematical error remains to compromise work using General
> relativity as a base.
>
> The correct solution for the gravitational field yields a space
> transformation for length which, like the Lorentz Transformation for
Length,
> is the reciprocal of the Time Transformation (the reciprocal of General
> Relativity's Time Dilation.
> We may then write:
>
> Dimensional Content Special Relativity General Relativity
>
> Force 1 1
> Length 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1(1-$)
> Time (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 (1-$)
> Space 1 1
>
> With this revision, space is no longer required to be curved. The
> revision would not be viable if it were not consistent with the results of
> observation and if it were not consistent with other means of derivation.
> (http://members.isp.com/einstinhoax#isp.com/einsteinhoax/gravity/htm. One
> must recognize that the observations made which allegedly verified General
> Relativity were made in the Sun's gravitational field which is about a
> million times too weak to make a determination. Observationally, either
> interpretation is valid, but the revised theory does not require that
space
> be curved, reveals the source of gravitational energy, and even shows how
> universes are created! (I was surprised too!). Isn't time that Dr.
> Einstein's screw up was repaired?
>
> The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity"
(1987),
> "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
> Relativity (1999) located at
> http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
> EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
> WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
> IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET
THIS
> REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
FROM
> THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
>
> All Newsposts by this Website are available at
> http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx/einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
>
> Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
on
> a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
courtesy
> as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
parts,
> please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
> have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
>
> E-mail:- einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx
>
> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
> years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
> questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
> objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
> exception for which a correction was provided.
>
>


.

Quantcast