Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: eugene_stefanovich on 22 Aug 2007 15:17 On Aug 22, 12:02 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > But , you didn't construct anything valid , Eugene. Your starting > premise is a fake (the Hamiltonian that mixes in Newtonian > potential) , so the conclusion of your paper follows the principle > GiGo ("Garbage in, Garbage out"). I haven't "mixed in" the Newtonian potential. The original Hamiltonian in eq. (8) and (9) is relativistically invariant. This means that there exist interacting boost operators, so that the full set of Poincare group generators satisfy necessary commutation relations. This fact has been proven by Kita in refs. [5,6]. The Newtonian potential is obtained from the full Hamiltonian in the non-relativistic approximation c -> infinity, as it should be. Eugene.
From: Tom Roberts on 22 Aug 2007 21:38 eugene_stefanovich(a)usa.net wrote: > On Aug 22, 11:00 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> What really matters is that the predictions of GR agree with all those experiments. > > But one can construct an alternative theory > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019 > in which gravity propagates instantaneously, and still all classical > gravitational observations (precession of the Mercury's perihelion, > light bending, Shapiro time delay, gravitational time diolation and > red shift) are well reproduced. Certainly. This, of course, does not affect the agreement between GR and experiments -- and THAT is the touchstone for the validity of a theory in science. > So, the agreement of GR with > experiment (which is, undeniably, a remarkable achievement) is not a > proof of the retarded character of gravity. Sure. _I_ never said it did. It is only van Flandern who makes claims about how "fast" gravity propagates. I merely point out that in GR nothing propagates faster than c, and that GR accurately predicts the results of the experiments he seems to think "prove" otherwise. > I think that the > inconsistency between GR and QM is a serious warning sign. Well, it is almost certainly an indication that GR is not the last word. But it is no indication at all that GR is wrong, merely that there is likely a larger theory yet to be discovered. Tom Roberts
From: Josef Matz on 23 Aug 2007 04:36 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Gy5zi.29080$RX.13502(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > eugene_stefanovich(a)usa.net wrote: > > On Aug 22, 11:00 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> What really matters is that the predictions of GR agree with all those experiments. > > > > But one can construct an alternative theory > > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019 > > in which gravity propagates instantaneously, and still all classical > > gravitational observations (precession of the Mercury's perihelion, > > light bending, Shapiro time delay, gravitational time diolation and > > red shift) are well reproduced. > > Certainly. This, of course, does not affect the agreement between GR and > experiments -- and THAT is the touchstone for the validity of a theory > in science. > > > > So, the agreement of GR with > > experiment (which is, undeniably, a remarkable achievement) is not a > > proof of the retarded character of gravity. > > Sure. _I_ never said it did. It is only van Flandern who makes claims > about how "fast" gravity propagates. I merely point out that in GR > nothing propagates faster than c, and that GR accurately predicts the > results of the experiments he seems to think "prove" otherwise. > > > > I think that the > > inconsistency between GR and QM is a serious warning sign. > > Well, it is almost certainly an indication that GR is not the last word. > But it is no indication at all that GR is wrong, merely that there is > likely a larger theory yet to be discovered. > How large ? Very large or a bit larger ? 5,11 or another higher number of dimensions ? In december we will know if there exist frame dynamics or not. Ligo also will again show that there are no gravity waves. So for those who doubt that GR is wrong: It soon will be experimental proofed. Josef Matz > > Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 23 Aug 2007 09:31 Josef Matz wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:Gy5zi.29080$RX.13502(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> eugene_stefanovich(a)usa.net wrote: >>> I think that the >>> inconsistency between GR and QM is a serious warning sign. >> Well, it is almost certainly an indication that GR is not the last word. >> But it is no indication at all that GR is wrong, merely that there is >> likely a larger theory yet to be discovered. > > How large ? Very large or a bit larger ? > 5,11 or another higher number of dimensions ? I meant "larger" in the sense of valid over a larger domain (i.e. including quantum phenomena as well as the complete domain of GR). This does not necessarily mean a larger number of dimensions. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Van Flandern on 25 Aug 2007 13:14
Tom Roberts writes: > [Roberts]: It is not at all obvious that Lorentzian relativity has no > speed limit. Certainly Lorentz himself did not think so (c.f. the title of > his 1904 paper that is the cornerstone of this theory). Lorentzian relativity (LR) is the modern updating of the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) to which you refer. There can be no speed limit because in LR, nothing happens to time. The changes happen only to clocks, much the way a pendulum clock changes rate when temperature changes. Specifically, with "elysium" defined as the locally entrained light-carrying medium, elysium is denser near masses for the same reason planetary atmospheres are -- compression by the force of gravity. And electromagnetic waves propagate more slowly in a denser medium. Speed relative to the entrained elysium also causes the same kind of slowing because a wave encountering more elysium constituents (elysons) per unit time is physically equivalent to being at rest in denser elysium. Special relativity (SR) gets its speed limit from time dilation. Because time stops for objects moving at the speed of light, they cannot be accelerated further. No such phenomenon occurs in LR because its universal time is unaffected by motion or potential. > [Roberts]: But yes, Lorentz's theory is experimentally indistinguishable > from SR, because they use the same transforms and math; only the > interpretation of quantities differs, and that is not involved in > comparing theory to experiments. There is one kind of experiment able to distinguish LR from SR. In SR, going faster than light in forward time is forbidden, whereas in LR it is allowed. In SR, FTL speeds can exist only for imaginary-mass tachyons propagating backwards in time. In LR, a clock using electromagnetic processes would cease to function as a clock at the speed of light, just as a clock using sound waves would break down at the speed of sound. However, clocks using FTL phenomena would be unaffected. I (and many others now) have analyzed all six experiments sensitive to the speed of gravity and concluded that gravitational force is an example of a phenomenon propagating FTL. That means LR is a better description of nature than SR. It also means that clocks based on gravitational force propagation would show no change in behavior with speed, even through many multiples of the speed of light. >> [tvf]: It is also the prevailing opinion at present that gravitational >> force propagates faster than light in forward time because all six >> experiments sensitive to that speed agree that it propagates faster than >> c. > [Roberts]: This is a gross, self-serving statement not supported by the > facts. This may "prevail" in the circles you frequent, but it is most > definitely not the case for the physics community at large. I chose my wording carefully. The relativity community, like so many human institutions, has chosen to ignore new results rather than to change. However, they stopped protesting and attempting to counter the experiments and their apparent implications when JP Vigier and I published our comprehensive 2002 "Foundations of Physics" review paper. We covered every counter-argument made to date and showed why each was invalid. There is simply nothing left for relativists (who bothered to read the paper) to argue. Moreover, among physicists outside the relativity community who have learned of these results, this finding has proved very popular, even exciting, because it opens so many doors to advancement that have been blocked a long time now. For example, several paradoxes in quantum physics and in cosmology vanish. Most such physicists are finding a little re-learning well worth the effort. For both these reasons, my word "prevailed" (meaning "proved stronger" or "proved effective") is a correct expression, even though the results are not yet adopted by the relativity community. Tom, it seems you frequently correct other people's ideas in these discussion groups. That is admirable. But how many of them are already experts in the field they are writing about (gravitational dynamics and celestial mechanics in this case), and go to the trouble of getting their work peer-reviewed and published repeatedly in major physics journals, of successfully defending it against all challenges, and of gaining numerous allies? Yet all that has happened for the "speed of gravity" issue. >> [tvf]: Several early challenges to that conclusion between 1998 and 2001 >> were answered to the satisfaction of neutral parties, and no further >> challenges have appeared since the 2002 comprehensive review paper on >> this subject. > [Roberts]: What really matters is that the predictions of GR agree with > all those experiments. And they do. I think you must be confusing me with some of your other correspondents. I have no beef with GR. My research simply favors the field interpretation of GR (also favored by Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman), which uses forces, over the geometric interpretation, which uses "spacetime geometry". Both interpretations use the same math and agree with the same experiments. But just as is the case for LR vs. SR, it makes a difference to the physics which interpretation of the math is correct. And the failure of the geometric interpretation to provide a cause to initiate 3-space motion or a source for the new 3-space momentum constantly acquired by orbiting bodies is sufficient grounds for discarding the geometric interpretation in favor of the field interpretation. Remember, Feynman said the geometric interpretation "is not really necessary or essential to physics." That has never been claimed for the field interpretation; indeed, the whole field of celestial mechanics is based on it. And all the experimental tests of GR so far have come from celestial mechanics using the field interpretation with classical forces in a Euclidean 3-space. > [Roberts]: a) no energy or signal can propagate with a local speed > c. Gravitational forces propagate much faster than c according to all experiments sensitive to their speed. In GR, when converting the field equations into 3-space equations of motion *before* comparing the theory with observations, instantaneous gradients of the potential are used instead of retarded gradients. You call that an "approximation", but that step is essential for GR to agree with observations. > [Roberts]: b) there is no "gravitational force", that appears only in an > APPROXIMATION to GR. That claim assumes the geometric interpretation. The field interpretation is the only one tested by experiments, and uses 3-space forces because orbiting bodies accelerate through 3-space, and force is defined as "the time rate of change of (3-space) momentum". Claiming that the geometric interpretation is the only valid interpretation of the GR field equations reflects negatively on your own teachers because we can now see that it is the less viable interpretation. Go back to the Euclidean 3-space that astronomers use for relativistic dynamics, and you will be amazed to see that the same good old GR equations work just as well, if not better, without "curvature" per se. One simply needs proper time affected by motion and potential, coordinate time unaffected by either, and a light-carrying medium whose density is affected by gravitational forces. Moreover, there is very little new about this view. Einstein and Eddington discussed it early on. > [Roberts]: c) the mathematics of that approximation makes it clear how > "gravitational force" propagates essentially instantaneously while still > obeying the local speed limit of c: no energy or signal is "propagated >> > c from the source's current position to the detector", but rather, it > propagated with speed c from a previous position of the source. In essence > the equations for "gravitational force" depend not only on the position of > the source, but also on its velocity and acceleration -- they in effect > _extrapolate_ the position of the source and make the detected "force" > point right to the position of the source right now So it looks like instantaneous propagation, and acts like instantaneous propagation, and probably even quacks like instantaneous propagation; but by a conspiracy of nature to hide the truth, it is really a cleverly disguised retarded propagation? I don't think so. A gravitational force has no way to know if it will encounter a moving target, or the speed or direction of that motion. So the force has no choice but to propagate isotropically from the source mass. Anything propagating isotropically to a moving target will appear to the target to come from the retarded direction of the source -- contrary to observation unless the propagation speed is much faster than light speed. This should be self-evident if we consider two targets at nearly the same place, one moving and one at rest. Only a force propagating >> c can apply the same impulse in the same direction to both. To claim otherwise would be to postulate that the 3-space momentum imparted by a force carrier was different from its own 3-space momentum, which would be a form of magic. > [Roberts]: [BTW this is no different from Coulomb force in classical > electrodynamics, except that depends only on position and velocity, not > acceleration.] And BTW, classical electrodynamic forces propagate >> c also by the same argument just raised. Moreover, they also do not see retardation even for accelerated sources, according to the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment. > [Roberts]: This has been shown in several peer-reviewed papers (by Carlip > and by Low). Carlip's argument, which you faithfully recited except for his "velocity dependent cancelation force", was refuted in our "Foundations" review paper. We also showed there how nature could not distinguish a light-time-retarded force from a tidal force, because both look like a displacement of the source center of mass to a moving target body. So nature would have no way to know which forces to cancel and which to allow. The last time I checked, Low had still not distinguished gravitational forces from gravitational potential changes. The latter are gravitational waves, propagate at speed c, and have nothing to do with gravitational force -- as should be evident from the fact that we have not yet detected one in the solar system. >> [tvf]: Here are the citations:[...] > [Roberts]: Note he omits references that show agreement with GR; his basic > claim is merely playing with the meanings of words and does not refute GR > as he seems to think. All relevant papers are cited in the citations I provided. Again, this has nothing to do with refuting GR. Saying that it does is "refutation by association", which I am confident you would never do intentionally. If you are unfamiliar with the field interpretation of GR (lots of relativists these days are), pick up a celestial mechanics (CM) book and read how it handles relativity and sets up the experimental tests. Without CM, GR would still be an untested theory. > [Roberts]: The papers by Low and Carlip show this is all consistent with > GR. Until and unless you can impeach them, there is no need for further > papers. We did refute them, and GR is still GR. You have a few serious misimpressions about what the "speed of gravity" issue entails. Be so kind as to read what we wrote in our "Foundations" paper. It might change your whole career (in a favorable way). Or you could be the first to find a fallacy in our reasoning. > [tvf]: This means that propagation and communication at unlimited speeds > in forward time (no causality violations) is not just possible, but an > inevitable development in our future. > [Roberts]: Nonsense. You consider your personal hopes, dreams, and > INTERPRETATIONS OF WORDS to be some sort of binding contract on the world > we inhabit. That is not how science works. Sir, it is you who has the more limited education, apparently never having been taught the field interpretation of GR or any celestial mechanics. So from my viewpoint, you are the one doing the wishful thinking here, as in "If I was taught something by smart people, it must be correct and complete." > [Roberts]: The fact that in GR no energy or signal can travel with local > speed > c puts a strong limit on this: one must either impeach that > conclusion of GR, or show that GR is not valid here. Both of those appear > HUGELY unlikely. My co-author and I have met our responsibility to impeach geometric GR in favor of field GR, the latter of which allows FTL propagation and communication in forward time. What will it take to get you to read what we have written, published, and defended against all challenges? >> [tvf]: It also means SETI is a waste of time because no technologically >> advanced civilization would communicate over interstellar distances using >> electromagnetic waves when they could use classical gravitons instead and >> communicate in seconds instead of centuries. > [Roberts]: That's a conclusion that is completely and utterly unwarranted > by current knowledge or experiments. It's also self-contradictory > ("classical gravitons" (:-)). You indicated at the beginning that you did not understand why LR has no speed limit, so I'll overlook your first unbacked assertion until you've had time to get up to speed on LR. (See, e.g., our LR primer at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp.) As for your "classical gravitons" quip, that expression refers to the force carriers in the very successful Le Sage model to explain the physics of gravity classically without "curved spacetime". ["Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation", M. Edwards, ed., Apeiron Press, Montreal (2002).] Le Sage force carriers are called "classical" to distinguish them from the spin-2 gravitons of QM, with which they have nothing in common. QM's "gravitons" are roughly equivalent to elysons (units of elysium) in the modern Le Sage model, except that the former are spin-2 and the latter are spin-1. > [Roberts]: James ("The Amazing") Randi said "Extraordinary claims require > extraordinary proof." That applies here: any experiment that claims to > overthrow the foundations of modern physics MUST be bulletproof or nobody > will believe it. And attempts to discredit a simple idea by claiming that it "claims to overthrow the foundations of modern physics" are entirely disingenuous. There is still life and a career after one switches to field GR. Very little of importance changes with that switch, and there are even new avenues to explore and a comforting return to classical common sense. Or are you allied with the "witch doctor" philosophy of keeping things obscure so not just anyone can understand their field and practice it? :-) For these new ideas to be acceptable, what more would you like to see happen that has not already happened? Is the relativity community so fossilized that it is incapable of considering new ways of interpreting experiments that leave the familiar math intact but open new doors in physics and advance our understanding of nature? Must it be ever true, as Max Planck opined, that science progresses one funeral at a time? -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org |