Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / February 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Invalidity of General Theory of Relativity

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
GSS - 30 Dec 2005 19:06 GMT
      In the General Theory of Relativity, the mathematical notion of
space-time continuum is implied to be an entity that can get physically
deformed and curved under the influence of gravitational field.  Let us
first examine the notion of space-time continuum.

Space-Time Continuum
--------------------
       Consider a very simple example of a particle motion along
X-coordinate. This motion can be represented through a distance-time
curve or trace on an X-T coordinate plane.  The velocity and
acceleration of the particle at any point along the X-axis will be
represented by the slope and curvature of the trace at that point. Let
us now consider a particle moving in a circular orbit in XY plane.  The
motion of this particle can be represented as a helical trace in a XY-T
coordinate space or manifold.  The velocity and acceleration
characteristics of this particle will be represented by the geometry of
helical trace in the XY-T manifold.  An important point to be noted
here is that the helical trace does not physically exist anywhere at
any time; it is just a mathematical or graphical representation of the
motion of a particle over a period of time.

       Similarly the motion of various particles in three-dimensional
physical space can be represented through suitable traces in a
four-dimensional XYZ-T space-time manifold.  An important point to be
noted here too is that four-dimensional traces of particles do not
physically exist anywhere at any time; these are just mathematical
representations of the motion of particles in three dimensional space
over a period of time. The 4-D geometry of the particle traces is just
a mathematical representation.  In the same way, a four-dimensional
space-time manifold XYZ-T does not physically exist anywhere at any
time; it is just a mathematical notion even if a logically convenient
one.  However, due to the logical convenience and common usage, the
mathematical notion of space-time manifold got assigned a more
sophisticated name of space-time continuum.  In geometrical terms of
course we may regard the space-time continuum as composed of a
continuum of 3-D space points and an orthogonal fourth dimension of
time continuum.  Whenever certain phenomenon is not varying with time,
we can study that phenomenon in 3-D space continuum independently.

Main Postulate of General Relativity
------------------------------------
       The main postulate of General Relativity is that the
gravitational phenomenon can be satisfactorily represented by 'suitably
adjusting' the metric properties of the space-time manifold.   For this
the metric coefficients of the space time manifold are required to
satisfy a set of partial differential equations (EFE) involving
energy-momentum tensor, whereby the non-rectilinear trajectories of
mass particles will transform into geodesics. Thus the study of
dynamical trajectories of mass particles in a gravitational field will
reduce to the study of geodesics in the space time manifold defined by
specified metric coefficients. After doing so, the main postulate could
be extended to imply that the gravitational field itself 'somehow'
modifies the metric coefficients of space-time manifold such that the
trajectories of mass particles 'naturally' turn out to be geodesics.

Line element 'ds' and the Space Metric
--------------------------------------
        The most fundamental concept underlying all the basic notions
of space is that of the absolute invariance of space points.  Say, in
any particular coordinate system X with origin at point O, let us
consider a particular space point P with coordinates (x^i).  If Q is
another space point in the neighborhood of P, then an infinitesimal
separation distance  ds  between the points  P  and  Q  is  given  by:

(ds)^2 = g_ij dx^i dx^j
..................... (1)

where g_ij are the metric coefficients in coordinate system x^i.  The
invariance of space points P, Q etc. implies that ds will remain
constant, even when the coordinate system is transformed from X to say
Y.  Such transformations that ensure the invariance of the line element
ds and hence the invariance of space points in general, are said to be
admissible transformations.  Obviously, if the coefficients g_ij
constitute the metric of Euclidean space, then all other coefficients
obtained through any admissible transformation of coordinates will also
represent the metric of same Euclidean space.

       On the other hand let us consider an arbitrary change in metric
coefficients   g_ij(x) in equation (1) to h_ij(x).   Here, by an
arbitrary change we mean a change that is brought about on any
considerations other than through an admissible transformation of
coordinates.  From equation (1), it can be easily seen that an
arbitrary change in metric coefficients  g_ij(x)  to say  h_ij(x),
without any corresponding admissible transformation of coordinate
parameters x^i, will lead to a change in separation distance ds between
points P  and Q  to say  ds'.  Therefore,

(ds')^2 = h_ij dx^i dx^j         ....... (2)

Obviously, whenever the separation distance between neighboring points
P and Q changes from ds to ds' it implies a relative shift in the
original positions of P and Q to the changed positions say P' and Q'
such that arc element P'Q' = ds'.  This relative shift in positions of
P and Q to the changed positions P' and Q' may be referred as the
relative displacement of these points. Specifically, the vector PP' may
be defined as the displacement vector U. The arbitrarily changed
coefficients h_ij(x) can be associated with the metric of a Riemannian
space, whereas the original coefficients g_ij(x) represented the metric
of Euclidean space.  Hence, whenever the metric [g_ij(x)] of Euclidean
space is changed to the metric [h_ij(x)] of Riemannian space, the
separation distance ds between two neighboring points P and Q will
change to the separation distance ds' as given by equations (1) and (2)
with the associated displacement vector field U defined at all points P
of the space continuum.    The displacement vector field U will fully
determine the deformed or strained state of the continuum as already
discussed in the previous article titled 'Infinitesimal Strain in
Continuous Media'.

Deformed State of the Space Continuum
-------------------------------------
       However, as per the fundamental postulate of General
Relativity, gravitational field of a gravitating body changes the
metric [g_ij(x)] of the surrounding  Euclidean space to the metric
[h_ij(x)] of Riemannian space in accordance with Einstein's Field
Equations.  With this change in the metric of space continuum, the
separation distance ds between any pair of neighboring space points P
and Q will also change to ds' as given by equations (1) and (2).   That
means all space points within the region of gravitational field will
experience relative displacements with the displacement vector field U
producing the strained state of the space in that region.  The strained
state is fully represented by the strain tensor E with its mixed
components e^i_j given by the covariant derivatives of the displacement
vector U as,

e^i_j  = (u^i_j +u^j_i)/2        .......(3)

In fact, subtracting (1) from (2)  we get an important relation between
the covariant components of the strain tensor e_ij and the metric
coefficients as,

(ds')^2 - (ds)^2 = {h_ij - g_ij} dx^i dx^j = 2.e_ij dx^i dx^j   ....
(4)

with   2.e_ij =  h_ij - g_ij      .....  (5)

where e_ij represent the covariant components of strain tensor E
expressed as functions of coordinate parameters x^i.

Gravitation Induced Metric and Associated Strain Tensor
-------------------------------------------------------
       Let us consider a spherical polar coordinate system with origin
at point O and the coordinate parameters r, theta and phi. Further for
the sake of convenience let us represent theta by letter q and phi by
letter p. The metric coefficients for this coordinate system in the
un-deformed or gravitation free space continuum are given as,

 g_rr = 1  ;  g_qq = r^2 ;  g_pp= r^2.Sin^2 (q)  ..... (6)

The arc element or the separation distance ds between two neighboring
space points P and Q in this region will be given by:

(ds)^2 =  g_rr (dr)^2 + g_qq (dq)^2 + g_pp (dp)^2
       = 1.(dr)^2 + r^2.(dq)^2 + r^2.Sin^2(q).(dp)^2    ..... (7)

Now let us assume that a spherically symmetric body of mass M and
radius r0, is located at the origin O of this coordinate system.  Due
to the gravitational field in its vicinity (i.e. r > r0 > 0), the
modified metric coefficients h_ij are given by the Schwarzschild
solution as:

h_rr = 1/(1 - 2GM/c^2r) ; h_qq = r^2 ;  h_pp= r^2.Sin^2 (q)  .... (8)

Thus the modified radial metric coefficient h_rr at any particular
space point P(r, q, p) can be taken as a function of M and its value in
the region under consideration is always greater than unity for M>0.
The arc element or the modified separation distance ds' between two
neighboring space point positions P' and Q' in this region will be
given by:

(ds')^2 = h_rr (dr)^2 + h_qq (dq)^2 + h_pp (dp)^2
       = (1/(1 - 2GM/c^2 r)).(dr)^2 + r^2.(dq)^2 + r^2.Sin^2
(q).(dp)^2   .... (9)

Therefore, using equation (5) we can compute the induced strain tensor
components e_ij from the modified metric coefficients h_ij as,
2 e_rr = h_rr - g_rr = (1/(1 - 2GM/c^2 r)) - 1     ...... (10)

with the factor 2GM/c^2 r <<1, equation (10) will get simplified to,

e_rr  =  GM/c^2 r           .......  (11)
and   e_qq = h_qq - g_qq = 0  ;  e_pp = h_pp - g_pp = 0   .....  (12)
and   e_qp =  e_pq = e_rq = e_qr = e_rp = e_pr = 0       ......  (13)

This set of strain tensor components constitutes the strain field
induced in the region of space continuum where the gravitational field
of M has modified the metric coefficients to h_ij.

Incompatibility of the Induced Strain Components
------------------------------------------------
        As discussed earlier, for complete description of the strained
state of the space continuum, we must be able to uniquely determine the
displacement vector field U from the specified strain tensor
components. For this the strain tensor components are required to
satisfy Saint Venant's integrability or compatibility conditions. The
displacement vector components obtained from the integration of partial
differential equations of the type (3), must be single valued, finite
and continuous functions of coordinates and must satisfy physical
constraints over the boundary of the region of space under
consideration.

       It can be easily seen that the radial strain components e_rr
given by equation (11), with all other components being zero, cannot
satisfy the required compatibility conditions.  In order to illustrate
and highlight this problem, let us consider the relative displacement
vector U that gives rise to the strain components  e_rr, e_qq and e_pp
.   If u^r is the only non-zero component of the displacement vector U,
then the strain components dependent on u^r are given by,

e_rr =  Du^r/Dr   ;   e_qq = u^r/r  and  e_pp = u^r/r    ....  (14)

Obviously, if the radial strain component e_rr is non-zero, the radial
displacement component u^r must be non-zero.  But once the radial
displacement component u^r is non-zero, the tangential strain
components e_qq and e_pp  cannot be zero. This precisely is the
incompatibility of the strain components  e_rr, e_qq and e_pp induced
by the static gravitational field of a spherically symmetric
gravitating body of mass M.  This incompatibility is not limited to the
strain components induced by the Schwarzschild metric of spherically
symmetric, static gravitational fields but is applicable to all strain
components induced by the Riemannian metric obtained from EFE.  In fact
one of the essential requirements imposed by the standard compatibility
conditions on strain components e_ij is that  the Riemann tensor
composed from e_ij must be a zero tensor.  This can be true only if
both metrics of equation (5), namely g_ij  and h_ij are Euclidean which
however contradicts the basic postulate of General Relativity.
Therefore, the specification of metric coefficients (8) as per the
Schwarzschild solution is physically invalid and unacceptable.

Further, even if we overlook the compatibility conditions for a while,
from equations (11) and (14) we get,

 e_rr = du^r/dr =  GM/c^2 r     ....... (15)

which appears to be easily integrable.   A simple integration of
equation (15) yields,

 u^r = (GM/c^2).Ln(r/r0)     .......... (16)

Apparently we seem to have obtained a nice looking solution for the
radial displacement component u^r in spite of the fact that the
compatibility conditions were not satisfied by the strain components.
Well, a closer look at equation (16) will show that this finite value
of u^r will give rise to a finite value of tangential strain components
e_qq and e_pp? (equation (14)) whereas these components are required
to be zero as per the modified metric h_ij (equation (12)) of the space
continuum. This accounts for the incompatibility.  Further the radial
displacement u^r given by equation (16) tends to infinity as r tends to
infinity.  This is invalid since as per physical constraints, u^r must
tend to zero when the gravitational field tends to zero at infinitely
large r.

Physical Invalidity of General Theory of Relativity
---------------------------------------------------
       In our sincere and most revolutionary attempt to represent the
gravitational phenomenon through geodesic equations in four dimensional
space-time manifold, we mainly focused on the geometry of particle
traces in the space-time continuum.  In the process we lost focus on
the geometry of space continuum itself which by definition consists of
a continuum of points.

        In GR, the 'structure' of physical space continuum has been
tampered with imprudently by hypothesizing that the metric coefficients
of space are affected by the presence of gravitational field as per the
Einstein's Field Equations. The Einstein's Field Equations require
the metric of space under gravitational influence to be inherently
Riemannian. However, as seen above, when the metric of space is
'changed' from Euclidean to Riemannian, the 'induced' deformation of
the space continuum gives rise to a mutually incompatible set of strain
components leading to discontinuities and voids in the locations of
neighboring space points. Hence the induced Riemannian metric
transforms the space continuum to space dis-continuum that is
physically invalid and unacceptable. The compatibility conditions of
strain components require the metric of space to be Euclidean even
under the influence of a gravitational field.

      Therefore, the main postulate of General Theory of Relativity is
found to be logically invalid, mainly on account of the 'incompatible
deformation of space' induced by the Riemannian metric associated with
gravitational field.  Secondly on account of the violation of the
essential compatibility conditions for the induced strain components,
the space continuum is implied to deform in to a dis-continuum of
points.  The General Theory of Relativity is thus physically invalid,
null and void, irrespective of any claimed utility, application or
validation of this 'theory'.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
Sam Wormley - 30 Dec 2005 19:19 GMT
>        In the General Theory of Relativity, the mathematical notion of
> space-time continuum is implied to be an entity that can get physically
> deformed and curved under the influence of gravitational field.  Let us
> first examine the notion of space-time continuum.

  There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
  contradicted by an observation. NEVER!

  Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
srp - 30 Dec 2005 20:09 GMT
Sam Wormley a écrit :

>>        In the General Theory of Relativity, the mathematical notion of
>> space-time continuum is implied to be an entity that can get physically
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>   There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
>   contradicted by an observation. NEVER!

This is simply not true. For one, GTR's prediction of the trajectories
of Pioneer 10 and 11 is directly contradicted by observation.

André Michaud
Sam Wormley - 30 Dec 2005 21:52 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> André Michaud

  How can you come to that conclusion? Do you see the same phenomena in
  all probes and planets?
srp - 30 Dec 2005 22:50 GMT
Sam Wormley a écrit :

>> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>   How can you come to that conclusion?

It is not my conclusion. It is Anderson et al.'s conclusion.

Is it possible that you would have heard of the case ?

> Do you see the same phenomena in all probes

For other probes, hints but insufficient data to be thoroughly
conclusive, of course, as you probably know.

> and planets?

Well, I know of no planet set on a hyperbolic escape trajectory
from the Solar system available to be studied. The only type of
inertial trajectories for which Einstein passed away too soon
to have data about, particularly with bodies whose mass was
measured at the surface of the Earth before launch.

André Michaud
Sam Wormley - 30 Dec 2005 23:46 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> It is not my conclusion. It is Anderson et al.'s conclusion.

  No it's not Anderson et al.'s conclusion--Read the papers!
srp - 31 Dec 2005 04:18 GMT
Sam Wormley a écrit :

>> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>   No it's not Anderson et al.'s conclusion--Read the papers!

Sure it is Anderson et al.'s conclusion.

Right from in his first paper ont he matter, he stated "...it is
logically clear that either 1) general relativity, or 2) quantum
mechanics, or 3) both theories, have to be modified to obtrain a
better theory of the universe"

Ref: hep-ph/9412234 5 Dec 94 page 2

The Pioneer 10-11 file is one of the thickest in recent physics
history, open to all who care for analysis.

I have become familiar with the fact that physicists not directly
involved in a specific research tend to publicly display an
apparent inability in trusting their own judgment on formally
unresolved issues.

Whether that inability is faked or real is moot point. Physical
reality is what it is. Opinions do not matter.

End of discussion, I guess. But the point of GR not covering
all angles for inertial hyperbolic trajectories is made and
can be verified by anyonw who does trust his own judgment.

André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 31 Dec 2005 08:07 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Ref: hep-ph/9412234 5 Dec 94 page 2

A common crank tactic is context shifting and you are up their with the
worst.  All physicists know that and it has nothing to do with the Pioneer
anomaly.  He stated:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf.
'Until more is known, we must admit that the most likely cause of this
effect is an unknown systematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether
"gas leaks" or "heat" is this "most likely cause.")'

You are either mentally deficient or deliberately malicious.  I go for a
combination of the two.  Either way you have over a year rot correct your
stupidity - and failed.  But then again what can one say about a poster that
makes it to Dirk's immortal fumbles list other than what Dirk himself says:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Sucking Logic, Sucking Algebra, Sucking Attitude, Sucking Thumbs, the deadly
combination of  IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE, topped with a coulis of
SELF-RESPECT as from now known under the name ARROGNORANCE

Bill

> The Pioneer 10-11 file is one of the thickest in recent physics
> history, open to all who care for analysis.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> André Michaud
FrediFizzx - 31 Dec 2005 08:42 GMT
| > Sam Wormley a écrit :
| >>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
|
| Bill

Bill, get a proper education.  You are lagging behind.  Most people
now-a-days figure that Super-GR is needed. ;-)  GR only goes to the
tensor level.  Super-GR is needed to go to the spinor level.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Bill Hobba - 31 Dec 2005 12:41 GMT
> | > Sam Wormley a écrit :
> | >>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
> Bill, get a proper education.  You are lagging behind.

Errrrrrr - note I replied to the statement 'Right from in his first paper
ont he matter, he stated "...it is logically clear that either 1) general
relativity, or 2) quantum mechanics, or 3) both theories, have to be
modified to obtrain a better theory of the universe" - All physicists know
that and it has nothing to do with the Pioneer anomaly.  The issue is if the
pioneer anomaly is proof of this - it isn't because it is consistent with
systemic errors like gas leaks.

Bill

> Most people
> now-a-days figure that Super-GR is needed. ;-)  GR only goes to the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Ken S. Tucker - 01 Jan 2006 06:08 GMT
> > | > Sam Wormley a écrit :
> > | >>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> systemic errors like gas leaks.
> Bill

Fredi is right, Dr. John Moffat recently attended a symposium
in Geneva, his recent articles on the Pioneer Anomally are in
the ArXiv. Charles Francis, another respected GR researcher
has also theorized on gravitational theory as being incomplete,
as have numerous others.

Bill is certainly wrong, there is no consensus of "gas leaks"
or RTG thermal radiation etc being the cause.

> > Most people
> > now-a-days figure that Super-GR is needed. ;-)  GR only goes to the
> > tensor level.  Super-GR is needed to go to the spinor level.
> > FrediFizzx

Regards
Ken
glbrad01 - 02 Jan 2006 07:48 GMT
(snip)

> Errrrrrr - note I replied to the statement 'Right from in his first paper
> ont he matter, he stated "...it is logically clear that either 1) general
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Bill

 The only thing that needs to be modified is to realize that 'Relativity'
is strictly "relative" (strictly local). Far, far more dynamic physics
("quanta dynamic," or 'quanta complex', physics) will eventually be realized
and visualized as doing for all the rest. That "eventually" means when Man
is finally, physically, truly up and well out of its physically and all
otherwise restrictive, constricted cave; truly reaching out in a growing
expansion into an open, a then very real, Frontier Universe at large.

GLB
Bill Hobba - 02 Jan 2006 08:29 GMT
> (snip)
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> ("quanta dynamic," or 'quanta complex', physics) will eventually be
> realized and visualized as doing for all the rest.

QM is just as local as relativity.

> That "eventually" means when Man is finally, physically, truly up and well
> out of its physically and all otherwise restrictive, constricted cave;
> truly reaching out in a growing expansion into an open, a then very real,
> Frontier Universe at large.

Got any actual physics?

Bill

> GLB
srp - 31 Dec 2005 14:39 GMT
Bill Hobba a écrit :

>>Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Bill

Woah Bill ! You definitely don't like either me or having facts
thrown at you.

I have a quote here from James D. Watson, Nobel prize winner and
author of "The Double Helix". I suggest you read that book for
education purposes.

Page 14

"One could not be a successful scientist withoug realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and
mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only
narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid"

Now, dont shoot the messenger, but I happen to share his views on
the issue.

This is why I tend not to exchange much with your kind. Real
scientists don't insult people over such trivial issues as
opinions.

André Michaud
Der alte Hexenmeister - 31 Dec 2005 14:46 GMT
> Bill Hobba a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>
> André Michaud

"Never insult anyone by accident." -- Robert Heinlein.
Dirk Van de moortel - 31 Dec 2005 14:46 GMT
> Bill Hobba a écrit :

[snip]

> > A common crank tactic is context shifting and you are up their with the
> > worst.  All physicists know that and it has nothing to do with the Pioneer
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Now, dont shoot the messenger, but I happen to share his views on
> the issue.

So do I, but in contrast to the popular conception supported by
most of the knowledgeable posters on Usenet, you are not only
narrow-minded, dull and stupid, but also maliciously obnoxious.

> This is why I tend not to exchange much with your kind. Real
> scientists don't insult people over such trivial issues as
> opinions.

You confuse opinions with farting in public.

Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba - 01 Jan 2006 03:54 GMT
> Bill Hobba a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> Woah Bill ! You definitely don't like either me or having facts
> thrown at you.

Had a few minutes to kill so I thought I would add a few comments even
though Dirk did an admirable job.  It is not the facts I have an issue
with - it is your inability to comprehend simple English.  In fact what is
said is so plain your inability to comprehend it leads to only one
conclusion - as Dirk says you are maliciously obnoxious.

> I have a quote here from James D. Watson, Nobel prize winner and
> author of "The Double Helix". I suggest you read that book for
> education purposes.

Standard crank tactic - misdirection.  Stick to the issue.

> Page 14
>
> "One could not be a successful scientist withoug realizing that,
> in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and
> mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only
> narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid"

And posters like you do not wish to discuss physics but simply be
'maliciously obnoxious'.

> Now, dont shoot the messenger, but I happen to share his views on
> the issue.
>
> This is why I tend not to exchange much with your kind. Real
> scientists don't insult people over such trivial issues as
> opinions.

Real scientists are able to think and not confuse an inability to comprehend
with a difference of opinion.

Bill

> André Michaud
srp - 01 Jan 2006 22:05 GMT
Bill Hobba a écrit :

>>Bill Hobba a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>>>himself says:
>>>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

Hey Bill, you really are on the retard list for hits on proper
references, the only ref on me here is one in which I take
Einstein's defense.

That conclusively explains why you haven't gotten about yet to
really understand the link between the Pioneer so-called anomaly
and GR. You first have to understand GR, which includes understanding
inertial trajectories.

André Michaud
glbrad01 - 02 Jan 2006 08:11 GMT
(snip)

> Real scientists are able to think and not confuse an inability to
> comprehend with a difference of opinion.
>
> Bill

 Leaves you out. Doesn't matter though, you're dead wrong anyway in
shooting such a [perfect absolute] from the hip. The number then of "real
scientists" there are wherever situate throughout the entire whole of an
infinity of Universe is exactly zero.

GLB
Sam Wormley - 31 Dec 2005 09:29 GMT
Ref: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/516.htm

[45.09] Effect of the Pioneer Anomaly on Long-Period Comet Orbits

J. D. Anderson, S. Turyshev (Jet Propulsion Laboratory),
M. M. Nieto (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

"In the absence of any physical theory that predicts such an
acceleration, the *primary candidate remains* systematic error
generated by spacecraft systems". However, neither we nor anyone
else has been able to find a viable spacecraft systematic that
is both large enough and constant enough to explain the anomaly".

emphasis is mine
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 31 Dec 2005 10:22 GMT
In the absence of any physical theory that predicts such an
acceleration, the *primary candidate remains* systematic error
generated by space........

*****************************

Probably just one of those Kranzian "funnies".
brian a m stuckless - 31 Dec 2005 11:47 GMT
$          "Systemic" ERROR (..NOT "systematic" ERROR).!!
A "PEGGED c" used on RAW data ..instead of a SCiENTiFiC average.
This "systemic ERROR" is the ROOT CAUSE of many nee "anomalies".
Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < My BiGGER bang.!! > dooOP. ```Brian.

So, VERiLY, i re-reiterate NOW, so you will know THEN.

CLOSE:                     Brian A M Stuckless ..over & OUT.
                                 ^
GUESS RESTmass*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter.
                       My GUESS iSS STANDARD
                     <   The STANDARD set.   >
                    /\
               __  _\/_  __
               \_\/_/\_\/_/
                 /\_\/_/\               ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
                _\/_/\_\/_               \. . `; -._    )-;-, `)
               /_/\_\/_/\_\     \ /       (v_,)  _  )`-.\  ``-'
                    /\         - O -   _ .- _..-_/ / ((.'
                    \/          / \  ((,.-'    ((,/ By: Toe.!
$$                 By deeds you know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!!
$         :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
$                  ____    _                   _          _   _
$                 |  _ \  | |   ___    _ __   | | __     | | | |
$                 | |_) | | |  / _ \  | '_ \  | |/ /     | | | |
$  My _ENORMOUS_  |  __/  | | | (_) | | | | | |   <   _  |_| |_|
$                 |_|     |_|  \___/  |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
$
$         :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and no more is more.!!

Sam Wormley wrote: > >
> [45.09] Effect of the Pioneer Anomaly on Long-Period Comet
> Orbits
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> emphasis is mine
Re: Invalidity of General Theory of Relativity.
Bill Hobba - 31 Dec 2005 12:54 GMT
> Ref: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/516.htm
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> emphasis is mine

Sam well over a year ago myself and others (probably including you) pointed
this out.  André Michaud's continued failure to acknowledge what anyone with
even rudimentary comprehension ability understands labels him for what he
is.

Thanks
Bill
Sam Wormley - 31 Dec 2005 20:37 GMT
>>Ref: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/516.htm
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Thanks
> Bill

  Probably at least two years ago, Bill! André Michaud is one of
  those people that is incapable of learning relativity... so try
  to discredit what they can't learn. Pity about André and those
  like him.
brian a m stuckless - 31 Dec 2005 22:44 GMT
$$         GR "systemic" ERROR (..NOT "systematic" ERROR).!!
   A "PEGGED c" used on RAW data ..instead of a SCiENTiFiC average.
   This "systemic ERROR" is the ROOT CAUSE of many nee "anomalies".
   There is a DENSiTY GRADiENT between EARth & Pioneer to be rated.

$$                   Ambient PAULi exclusion.
Ambient inter-stellar DENSiTY GRADiENTs are caused by PAULi EXCLUSiON.
[Note that phoTons & phoNons are ..arithmetically, indistinguishable].

Pauli EXCLUSiON doN'T apply elsewhere; ABSORBED photons areN'T bosons.

Yeah.!! Yeah, VERiLY, VERiLY, i re-reiterate NOW so ye will know THEN.

$$    Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < My BiGGER bang.!! > dooOP. ```Brian.

CLOSE:                     Brian A M Stuckless           ..over & OUT.
                                 ^
GUESS (RESTmass)*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter.
                       My GUESS iSS STANDARD
                     <   The STANDARD set.   >
                    /\
               __  _\/_  __
               \_\/_/\_\/_/
                 /\_\/_/\               ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
                _\/_/\_\/_               \. . `; -._    )-;-, `)
               /_/\_\/_/\_\     \ /       (v_,)  _  )`-.\  ``-'
                    /\         - O -   _ .- _..-_/ / ((.'
                    \/          / \  ((,.-'    ((,/ By: Toe.!
$$                 By deeds you know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!!
$$        :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
$                  ____    _                   _          _   _
$                 |  _ \  | |   ___    _ __   | | __     | | | |
$                 | |_) | | |  / _ \  | '_ \  | |/ /     | | | |
$  My _ENORMOUS_  |  __/  | | | (_) | | | | | |   <   _  |_| |_|
$                 |_|     |_|  \___/  |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
$
$$        :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and no more is more.!!

Sam Wormley wrote: > -=-
> [45.09] Effect of the Pioneer Anomaly on Long-Period Comet Orbits
> J. D. Anderson, S. Turyshev (Jet Propulsion Laboratory),
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> else has been able to find a viable spacecraft systematic that
> is both large enough and constant enough to explain the anomaly".
Re: Invalidity of General Theory of Relativity.
glbrad01 - 04 Jan 2006 15:09 GMT
> Ref: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/516.htm
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> emphasis is mine

 Pardon me but there is such a "physical theory" in existence: Special
Relativity. It just wasn't taken far enough to see that information however
transmitted through space and time to any distant observer, or receiver,
whatsoever cannot possibly keep up with an object in constant travel at all
times without any regard at all for the time of transmission of information.
The object, in going away from the observer or receiver will gain increasing
ground on any observed position and velocity. Any redshift, if there is
such, will increase for it due to that increased stretch between light given
position and velocity at any distance, and actual position and velocity, so
to speak. I've drawn scenarios many, many, many times to illustrate how this
works. The object does not have to accelerate to appear to accelerate. The
speed of light is one light per second and all other means of communicating
some position and velocity is just as constant. Therefore all the object has
do is increase distance in space and time from anywhere, including its own
apparent position as detected from any distance, to stretch out whatever the
"constant" and thus appear to be accelerating.

 For example, there is a three cornered triangle attached to the above
where 'xt' is the observer's corner, 'yt' is the "traveler's" [apparent]
position (corner) as observed by the observer or receiver 'xt', and 'zt' is
the true position (or corner of this triangle) of the traveler at all times
absolutely unobservable by the observer or any information receiver at any
distance due to the fact that information transmission takes time to time
cross any distance, and an increasing amount time to cross that distance
with all increase in distance (therefore stretching out). Like a triangular
section the preverbal balloon skin, the triangle expands itself ceaselessly
in increasing lengthening in every line of the triangle equally, increasing
the distance between EVERY single corner of the triangle (xt, yt, zt) just
as ceaselessly. The balloon is ceaselessly ballooning all corner points'
distances from all other corner points in space and time and the more it
does so between 'yt' and 'zt'.....(the greater grows the lengthening
distance between [apparent] 'yt' and [actual] 'zt') the increasingly redder
grows the shift of light traveling in the line from [apparent] 'yt' toward
[observer or other receiver] 'xt' and, as you know, the redder the shift the
greater the [appearance] of acceleration occurring in the picture).

 What has always been missing from special relativity is the sheer
existence of 'zt' above. The 'yt' and 'zt' above have always been
inseparably merged into one and only one point, 'yt'. No allowance has been
made for a growing split between apparent image position at ever constant
velocity ceaselessly de-positioning the image, and actual object position at
ever constant velocity ceaselessly de-positioning the actual object
regarding an observer who, because the of time it takes for even light to
travel from image 'yt' to that observer 'xt' can never observe object 'zt'
which uses every single micro-second extant of the intervening time of
information transmission travel to just keep on going on its way so that by
the time information coordinate point 'yt' arrives to the observer, 'zt' is
somewhere far in advance -- in continuing ceaselessly on -- of that
information point 'yt' arrived to 'xt'. As (once more) distance increases
between 'xt' and 'yt', so (once more) does distance increase between 'yt'
and 'zt'. As good physicists, hopefully you can just imagine -- hopefully
you can visualize and realize -- what that means regarding
the....hyper-dimension....between 'zt' and 'xt' as reflected solely in
light's "shift" 'yt' to 'xt'.

 Here, "t" equals three different "clock" times, one each localized within
x, within y, and within z, respectively. The [actual] local clock time of x.
The [false] local clock time of y. And the [actual] local clock time of z.

 By "hyper-dimension" I mean the traveler can never observe 'yt' as defined
above. It is redefined for the traveler's viewpoint to the observer. The
traveler at any distance from 'xt' can never observe true 'xt' for the same
reason the observer ('xt') at any distance can never observe  the traveler's
true position ('zt' in space [and in time]) and his immediate velocity.
Therefore, for the traveler, 'yt' translates to light information
transmission of position-corner actual 'xt' having traveled as a different
apparent entity (herein, now 'home') 'yt' to actual 'zt'. "xt' now equals
observer's true position in space -- and in time (same as before but now
become the unobservable), 'yt' now equals the observer's false image
position in space -- and in time (the sole observed or observable by the
traveler), and 'zt' now equals the traveler's true position in space -- and
in time (same as before). The space-time triangle as balloon [skin]
ballooning still works the same as before for the same reasons.

 The Pioneer spacecraft now is, here above, the relevant object "traveler"
zt.

 Special Relativity works as theorized exquisitely well regarding 'xt' and
'yt' in the first expanding triangular scenario, and the same regarding 'zt'
and replacement 'yt' in the second. But there is no such thing as 'zt'
(first scenario) or 'xt' (second scenario) anywhere in any way, shape or
form in the Special Theory of Relativity's realm of physics. There being no
such thing as a split between distant 'actual' and distant 'image' in SR is
why there is confusion concerning Pioneer. Realizing there is doesn't
immediately solve the problem but reveals where the problem resides (SR) and
why.

 SR needs to be extended to realize the split existing between 'actuality'
and 'image'. Doing so, though, would radically alter -- beyond all
recognition -- so many assumptions made from the old [far less dimensioned]
version. "Far less" because splitting the actuality and the false image
hyper-dimensionalizes the whole picture; taking SR magnitudes of order up
from its present simpler, more elegant, dimensionality into the realm of far
more complex, far less elegant, dimensionality putting it right up there
with other far more involved, far more complex, theories needing far greater
powers of concentration to keep all in mind all at once.

 You do see, don't you (?), that in splitting up the actuality and the
image in the triangular way I did above, I placed Einstein's "traveler" on
the "train," and the train itself, somewhere ("zt") offset out front out in
advance of the place ("yt") of the transmitted image instead of having them
singularly merged together within the placement accorded to the light
transmitted image received by the observer (with just a difference in the
look -- accorded physicality -- with regard to a moving "onsite" reference
frame and the fixed-unmoving observer's grounded frame). Now there would be
two moving reference frames (as there should be, and are, in reality), one
(the actuality and its separate clock time) 'invisibly' somewhere offset out
front in advance of the 'visibly' observable other behind [in both space and
in time] (the false image and its separate clock time forever [behind the
times] of the actuality), rather than just the one (and only one) having
simply a split personality (having but one, single, traveler's clock time
observed thus factored).

 The "Pioneer" spacecraft is relentlessly proving me right in what I've
been trying to get across to everyone for years via so many example [vast
cosmic distance] scenarios with integrally specifically space and time
framed observers and travelers involved (being the best of all possible
scenarios to really expand and stretch out things vastly so to try to make
things even more blatantly obvious than any smaller spaces and shorter times
might (but obviously without any success in doing so)). But the confusion
regarding "Pioneer" is working out for me perfectly. I do enjoy
understanding the what, how, where and why.

 There is nothing like having real hard physical-case proof in clear being
for an all otherwise viciously ridiculed and dismissed realization regarding
'relativity'.

GLB
Joe Fischer - 04 Jan 2006 16:55 GMT
>  Pardon me but there is such a "physical theory" in existence: Special
>Relativity. It just wasn't taken far enough to see that information however
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>to speak. I've drawn scenarios many, many, many times to illustrate how this
>works. The object does not have to accelerate to appear to accelerate.
       
        Isn't it "de-celerating?      "accelerating toward the sun"?

Joe Fischer
glbrad01 - 04 Jan 2006 21:12 GMT
>>  Pardon me but there is such a "physical theory" in existence: Special
>>Relativity. It just wasn't taken far enough to see that information
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Joe Fischer

 Remember that though my triangle is made static deliberately, in actuality
Earth is in orbit of the Sun. Remember that back in October, I think it was,
Mars appeared to reverse direction in its orbit of the Sun for a time then
reverse its direction yet again back to normalcy.

GLB
brian a m stuckless - 04 Jan 2006 17:37 GMT
$ Yes Daniel, an EXCELLENT ANALOGY of the "PEGGED" VELOCiTY c.!!
 For the Pioneer anomaly, you TiLT the floor ..just a little.!!
 [Just enough to cause a SMALL increase in the mouse-velocity].
 This will help you SiMULATE the AMBiENT GRADiENT of DENSiTY.!!
 [There's an AMBiENT DENSiTY GRADiENT between EARth & Pioneer].

$ You can ELiMiNATE your GOLF-cart scenario, altogether, Daniel.
 NOW you drop the mouse ("PEGGED" at 3 mph), at the START LiNE.
 [Of course, the mouse will "actually" accelerate, DOWN-grade].
 [Of course, the mouse ACCELERATEs, _AWAY FROM_ the OBSERVERs].

$ But, the OBSERVERs have DECLARED the 3 mph to be a CONSTANT.!!
 [ Having DECLARED the "CONSTANCY-of-the-VELOCiTY-of-MiCE".!! ]

So, ALL the GR OBSERVERs must agree (..especially Ph.Tivitists):

1. The VELOCiTY of the MOUSE has NOT been ALTERED in the TEST.!!
The mouse's velocity, in fact, REMAiNED _iNCREDiBLY_ CONSTANT.!!
[And, has _REMAiNED_ iNCREDiBLY CONSTANT, since the BiG BANG].!!

2. SCiENTiST measure _ABSOLUTELY_ NO TiLT in gym floor at all.!!
[i.e. SCiENTiSTs CONFiRM there is NO SLOPE DiSTANCE to MEASURE].

Note, HORiZONTAL DiSTANCE times 3 mph = SLOPE DiSTANCE times X.

CONCLUSiON: This _VERY MUCH_ ..._QUiTE like_ the PiONEER ANOMALY.!!

Yeah.!! Yeah, VERiLY, VERiLY, i re-reiterate NOW so ye will know THEN.

$$    Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < My BiGGER bang.!! > dooOP. ```Brian.

CLOSE:                     Brian A M Stuckless           ..over & OUT.
                                 ^
GUESS (RESTmass)*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter.
                       My GUESS iSS STANDARD
                     <   The STANDARD set.   >
                    /\
               __  _\/_  __
               \_\/_/\_\/_/
                 /\_\/_/\               ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
                _\/_/\_\/_               \. . `; -._    )-;-, `)
               /_/\_\/_/\_\     \ /       (v_,)  _  )`-.\  ``-'
                    /\         - O -   _ .- _..-_/ / ((.'
                    \/          / \  ((,.-'    ((,/ By: Toe.!
$$                 By deeds you know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!!
$$        :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
$                  ____    _                   _          _   _
$                 |  _ \  | |   ___    _ __   | | __     | | | |
$                 | |_) | | |  / _ \  | '_ \  | |/ /     | | | |
$  My _ENORMOUS_  |  __/  | | | (_) | | | | | |   <   _  |_| |_|
$                 |_|     |_|  \___/  |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
$
$$        :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and no more is more.!!

Daniel Weston wrote: >
> There is this sticky problem in SR of the SOL being constant wrt
> the observer, and independent of the speed of the emitter.  After
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> preceding analogy have any possible connection to the constancy
> of the SOL irrespective of the speed of its source.
Re: A mechanical way to obtain source independence re SOL.

glbrad01 wrote: >
> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message [45.09]
> > Effect of the Pioneer Anomaly on Long-Period Comet Orbits
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > else has been able to find a viable spacecraft systematic that
> > is both large enough and constant enough to explain the anomaly".

>   Pardon me but there is such a "physical theory" in existence: Special
> Relativity.
-=-
>   For example, there is a three cornered triangle attached to the above
> where 'xt' is the observer's corner,
-=-
>   The Pioneer spacecraft now is, here above, the relevant object
> "traveler" zt.
-=-
>   You do see, don't you (?), that in splitting up the actuality and the
> image in the triangular way I did above, I placed Einstein's "traveler" on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> look -- accorded physicality -- with regard to a moving "onsite" reference
> frame and the fixed-unmoving observer's grounded frame).
-=- [ Don't you see (?) ..the preceding was ONE sentence. ```Brian. ]
>   The "Pioneer" spacecraft is relentlessly proving me right in what I've
> been trying to get across to everyone for years via so many example [vast
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> things even more blatantly obvious than any smaller spaces and shorter times
> might (but obviously without any success in doing so)).
-=-
> But the confusion regarding "Pioneer" is working out for me perfectly.
> I do enjoy understanding the what, how, where and why.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> GLB
Re: Invalidity of General Theory of Relativity.
zzbunker@netscape.net - 31 Dec 2005 01:27 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> to have data about, particularly with bodies whose mass was
> measured at the surface of the Earth before launch.

  Einstone passed away about the right time.
  Since his only future predictions about
  mathematicians and their physics shitheads,
  was that the quantum pi w.nks
  of blank hole religous idiots will inherent
  the c regardless of relativity.

> André Michaud
Henry Haapalainen - 31 Dec 2005 01:46 GMT
In falling space pages all the mistakes of relativity theory are indicated
and proved.

Falling space:  http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen
Bill Hobba - 31 Dec 2005 01:57 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This is simply not true. For one, GTR's prediction of the trajectories
> of Pioneer 10 and 11 is directly contradicted by observation.

Wrong.  They are fully explainable by for example gas leaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
You have been posting misconceptions for at least 8 years yet seem never to
actually learn.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4fe87a548ad7ef8f

Bill

> André Michaud
srp - 31 Dec 2005 04:34 GMT
Bill Hobba a écrit :

>>Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Bill

Sorry to disappoint you, but I started posting on sci.physics only in
1998. This was by a different andre michaud. And I never signed andre,
but always andré (with the accent)

You are barking up the wrong tree.

By the way, wikipedia is not the reference on fundamental research,
the formally published papers are. I suggest that you have a look
at the proper sources if the matter is of interest to you.

André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 31 Dec 2005 07:20 GMT
> Bill Hobba a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Sorry to disappoint you, but I started posting on sci.physics only in
> 1998.

Wow I was one year out.  However I still suspect you will be posting the
same misconceptions in a years time.

> This was by a different andre michaud. And I never signed andre,
> but always andré (with the accent)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the formally published papers are. I suggest that you have a look
> at the proper sources if the matter is of interest to you.

I have.  They say the same thing as Wikipedia which is exactly what you
would expect since it is based on those sources eg from the John D Anderson
you seem interested in:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C041213/presents/0310_TLK.PDF
Note the statement it is consistent with gas leaks.

You posted the same rot nearly 18 months ago and I see nothing has changed:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/43eba7c2
3422acee/24f8ef9a2b982214#24f8ef9a2b982214What
 I said then applies equally as well now as it did then:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/93e71e288c621c72> GR being directly falsified by experimental data is a major crisis inphysics.Not when it is explainable in terms of other theories that incorporate GR inits framework and when the effect can also be explained by more mundanecauses such gas leaks. A very careful analysis concluded 'Until more isknown, we must admit that the most likely cause of this effect is an unknownsystematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether "gas leaks" or "heat" isthis "most likely cause.")' seehttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf.> ... except for irrational believers in GR, of course.> Rationalizing a problem away never caused it to disappear.Correct - which is why beating up a problem when none exists should not bedone either.That is why I believe the extra year will do no good.  You already have hadover a year to correct your wooly thinking and failed.Bill>> André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 31 Dec 2005 07:33 GMT
>> Bill Hobba a écrit :
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C041213/presents/0310_TLK.PDF
> Note the statement it is consistent with gas leaks.

I see the post was mucked up - here is the corrected version.

Thanks
Bill

You posted the same rot nearly 18 months ago and I see nothing has changed:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/43eba7c2
3422acee/24f8ef9a2b982214#24f8ef9a2b982214


What I said then applies equally as well now as it did then
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/93e71e288c621c72

> > - the point is simply the Pioneer effect is not a major crisis in
> > physics.

> GR's equations being unable to deal with the data from the first
> hyperbolic trajectories out of the solar system IS a major crisis in
> physics.

Are you claiming the paper I linked to that explains it as a result of the
existence of a 5th dimension - something many modern theories such as string
theory and STM have is a crisis?  If so I suggest your definition of crisis
is not what most would accept.

> GR being directly falsified by experimental data is a major crisis in
> physics.

Not when it is explainable in terms of other theories that incorporate GR in
its framework and when the effect can also be explained by more mundane
causes such gas leaks. A very careful analysis concluded 'Until more is
known, we must admit that the most likely cause of this effect is an unknown
systematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether "gas leaks" or "heat" is
this "most likely cause.")' see
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf.

> ... except for irrational believers in GR, of course.

> Rationalizing a problem away never caused it to disappear.

Correct - which is why beating up a problem when none exists should not be
done either.

You already have had over a year to correct your wooly thinking and failed.

Bill
srp - 31 Dec 2005 14:49 GMT
Bill Hobba a écrit :

>>>Bill Hobba a écrit :
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> Thanks
> Bill

You should not have bothered, your corrected version is just as
hysterical as the first.

> You posted the same rot nearly 18 months ago and I see nothing has changed:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/43eba7c2
3422acee/24f8ef9a2b982214#24f8ef9a2b982214

[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> Bill

You obviously are growing pimples over this issue.

How much time do you have to waste really, going back in archives to
rehash my old "misconceptions". Why not find a job and do some useful
work.

What I said here is simply my opinion. And whether you like it or not,
I have been injecting it right into physics departments all over the
planet for years.

http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/

There are no two ways to inject new ideas into the collective
consciousness, and the physics community at large is simply going
to be the last to learn about them.

André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 01 Jan 2006 01:12 GMT
> Bill Hobba a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
> rehash my old "misconceptions". Why not find a job and do some useful
> work.

For the same reason you keep reposting the same rot over and over people
like me will always be there to highlight your stupidity.

> What I said here is simply my opinion.

An opinion based on the inability to comprehend simple English.

> And whether you like it or not,
> I have been injecting it right into physics departments all over the
> planet for years.

And undoubtably been getting the same response - which to be blunt would
translate to get lost crank.

Bill

> http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> André Michaud
Eric Gisse - 31 Dec 2005 07:28 GMT
> Bill Hobba a écrit :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> the formally published papers are. I suggest that you have a look
> at the proper sources if the matter is of interest to you.

You didn't even look.

> André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 31 Dec 2005 07:38 GMT
srp wrote:
> Bill Hobba a écrit :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> the formally published papers are. I suggest that you have a look
> at the proper sources if the matter is of interest to you.

Eric Gisse
You didn't even look.

Either that or he has severe comprehension problems.  But as usual with
cranks they simply wait a while then post the same rubbish again and again
ignoring everything that was said before.

Thanks
Bill

> André Michaud
jgreenfield@seol.net.au - 01 Jan 2006 04:29 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This is simply not true. For one, GTR's prediction of the trajectories
> of Pioneer 10 and 11 is directly contradicted by observation.

In 1960's, radar ranging of venus, simultaneously from USA and Russia,
returned significantly different values (distance from earth), using
einsteinia.
Could it be that the relative velocity of Russia and USA was different
ref venus, and THAT proved c'=c+v  ??

(For the thick: AE measured (per his radar explanation), that venus was
in two positions at the SAME time)

Jim G
c'=c+v

> André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 01 Jan 2006 12:57 GMT
jgreenfield@seol.net.au
Could it be that the relative velocity of Russia and USA was different
ref venus, and THAT proved c'=c+v  ??

No.

Bill
Eric Gisse - 01 Jan 2006 19:13 GMT
> > Sam Wormley a écrit :
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> returned significantly different values (distance from earth), using
> einsteinia.

"einsteinia". What an infuriating word, its right up there with
"Darwinians". It is only used by those who oppose science.

> Could it be that the relative velocity of Russia and USA was different
> ref venus, and THAT proved c'=c+v  ??

Could it be that you are simply an idiot who cannot understand that
your theory is falsified?

> (For the thick: AE measured (per his radar explanation), that venus was
> in two positions at the SAME time)

Einstein did nothing in the 1960s because he was DEAD.

> Jim G
> c'=c+v
> >
> > André Michaud
Sam Wormley - 01 Jan 2006 20:17 GMT
> In 1960's, radar ranging of venus, simultaneously from USA and Russia,
> returned significantly different values (distance from earth), using
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Jim G
> c'=c+v

  I seriously doubt you understand what you are attempting to talk
  about, most likely because you are uneducated. I strongly suspect
  you don't want to learn physics... it is a lot of work and you are
  probably not up to it.

  There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
  contradicted by an observation. NEVER! That's why these theories
  are still alive and fruitful.
srp - 01 Jan 2006 21:48 GMT
Sam Wormley a écrit :

>   There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
>   contradicted by an observation. NEVER!

This is totally false. GR has been falsified.

hep-ph/9412234 on Gravitational Anomalies
http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/hep-ph/9412#hep-ph/9412234

Citations
http://arxiv.org/cits/hep-ph/9412234?host=lanl.arXiv.org

gr-qc/9808081 on Anomalous Acceleration
http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/gr-qc/9808#gr-qc/9808081

Citations
http://arxiv.org/cits/gr-qc/9808081?host=lanl.arXiv.org

For all other papers by Anderson et al. on the Pioneer anomaly
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:
+AND+pioneer+anderson/0/1/0/all/0/1


André Michaud
The Ghost In The Machine - 01 Jan 2006 23:00 GMT
In sci.physics.relativity, srp
<srp2@globetrotter.net>
wrote
on Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:48:44 GMT
<43B84E57.7010801@globetrotter.net>:
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> André Michaud

Ah!  So....what theory is replacing it this week?

It's certainly not c'=c+v.

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

FrediFizzx - 01 Jan 2006 23:46 GMT
| In sci.physics.relativity, srp
| <srp2@globetrotter.net>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
| >
| > For all other papers by Anderson et al. on the Pioneer anomaly

http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:
+AND+pioneer+anderson/0/1/0/all/0/1


| > André Michaud
|
| Ah!  So....what theory is replacing it this week?
|
| It's certainly not c'=c+v.

Certainly not.  No need to replace GR.  But extend it to Super-GR. ;-)
Most good theories are found to be a certain "limit" of a more extensive
theory.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Der alte Hexenmeister - 01 Jan 2006 23:52 GMT
> | In sci.physics.relativity, srp
> | <srp2@globetrotter.net>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com

  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac.JPG

Everything should be as complicated as possible, and not simpler.
Der alte Hexenmeister.
The Ghost In The Machine - 02 Jan 2006 02:00 GMT
In sci.physics.relativity, Der alte Hexenmeister
<vanquish@broom.Mickey>
wrote
on Sun, 01 Jan 2006 23:52:23 GMT
<XWZtf.72658$vl2.70597@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>> | In sci.physics.relativity, srp
>> | <srp2@globetrotter.net>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> Everything should be as complicated as possible, and not simpler.
> Der alte Hexenmeister.

You're welcome to propose an alternate theory, if you have one, Merlin.
:-P

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

jgreenfield@seol.net.au - 02 Jan 2006 09:26 GMT
> In sci.physics.relativity, srp
> <srp2@globetrotter.net>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> It's certainly not c'=c+v.

It should be.
Then a REAL understanding of what the telescopes "see" would emerge,
and analysis of the data would give TRUE velocities and distances.
Note well, that I have never suggested that gravity or other
particle/field
interactions do not effect c, or that there may be group velocity
equalisers
applying to photons.

Jim G
c'=c+v
The Ghost In The Machine - 02 Jan 2006 15:00 GMT
In sci.physics.relativity, jgreenfield@seol.net.au
<jgreen@seol.net.au>
wrote
on 2 Jan 2006 01:26:15 -0800
<1136193975.469851.220090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>> In sci.physics.relativity, srp
>> <srp2@globetrotter.net>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> particle/field interactions do not effect c, or that there may
> be group velocity equalisers applying to photons.

Let's not get all ad hoc on me here.  Here's a calculation for you,
though.

A beam of light is fired towards the ground.  The light
travels through a height h.  The gravitational acceleration
is taken to be a constant g.  What is the predicted energy
gain in Newtonian theory for each light quanta as it falls
through the Earth's gravitational field?

Obviously, at the top, E_0 = KE(0) = 1/2 m c^2, where m is some value.
For now, set m = 2*KE(0)/c^2.  (Yes, this is circular.)

The light is accelerating (in Newtonian theory) as it falls
through the field.  The light's propagation can be expressed
as h(t) = h-ct-1/2gt^2.  The energy KE(t) = 1/2 m (c+gt)^2
at any point in this path.

If 0 = h - ct - 1/2gt^2, then t = (c-sqrt(c^2+2gh))/(2 * (-g/2))
= (sqrt(c^2+2gh)-c)/g = (c/g) * (sqrt(1+2gh/c^2)-1).

Therefore KE(t) = 1/2*m*(c + c*(sqrt(1+2gh/c^2) - 1))^2
= 1/2*m*(c-c+c*sqrt(1+2gh/c^2))^2
= 1/2*m*(c*sqrt(1+2gh/c^2))^2
= 1/2*m*c^2*(1+2gh/c^2)
= E_0*(1+2gh/c^2)

Since the GTR predicted value is E_0*(1+gh/c^2) (no, I don't have
the machinery handy to calculate it), there's obviously
a discrepancy here, and it's a fairly big one from a theoretical
standpoint, although the measurement of either one would pose some
difficulties; for h = 100 meters gh/c^2 is on the order of 1 * 10^-14.

If GTR *has* been falsified, don't expect c'=c+v to step into the
breach.

> Jim G
> c'=c+v

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

jgreenfield@seol.net.au - 05 Jan 2006 04:48 GMT
> In sci.physics.relativity, jgreenfield@seol.net.au
> <jgreen@seol.net.au>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> If GTR *has* been falsified, don't expect c'=c+v to step into the
> breach.

Proved beyond reasonable doubt per Bryan Wallace et al  !960  -> 1995
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
(also 1 ->9,  especially7,8)

Jim G
c'=c+v
Bill Hobba - 02 Jan 2006 00:32 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>
>>   There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
>>   contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
>
> This is totally false. GR has been falsified.

You have no idea what falsified means.  I does not mean observations that
have a possible interpretation GR could be lacking - it means unequivocal
evidence whose only reasonable interpretation is it is false.  But that you
are an idiot who can not understand simple English, does not understand the
basics, and is a malicious one to boot, is hardly news, Dirk has already
documented that;
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlonkOffer.html

Bill

> hep-ph/9412234 on Gravitational Anomalies
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/hep-ph/9412#hep-ph/9412234
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> André Michaud
srp - 02 Jan 2006 01:07 GMT
Bill Hobba a écrit :

>>Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> You have no idea what falsified means.  

Just pick a Webster's (if you know what this means). I used it
in precisely the sense it is defined for in context. GR has been
proven unfounded.

> I does not mean observations that
> have a possible interpretation GR could be lacking - it means unequivocal
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> documented that;
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlonkOffer.html

You really are thick: 0 out of 3.

>>hep-ph/9412234 on Gravitational Anomalies
>>http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/hep-ph/9412#hep-ph/9412234
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>For all other papers by Anderson et al. on the Pioneer anomaly
>>http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:
+AND+pioneer+anderson/0/1/0/all/0/1

André Michaud
Sam Wormley - 02 Jan 2006 01:20 GMT
> Just pick a Webster's (if you know what this means). I used it
> in precisely the sense it is defined for in context. GR has been
> proven unfounded.

  Unlike mathematical theorems, physical theories aren't proved, but
  can be falsified. To date, GTR has not been falsified theoretically
  or empirically.
srp - 02 Jan 2006 01:32 GMT
Sam Wormley a écrit :

>> Just pick a Webster's (if you know what this means). I used it
>> in precisely the sense it is defined for in context. GR has been
>> proven unfounded.
>
>   Unlike mathematical theorems, physical theories aren't proved, but
>   can be falsified.

I know. Ridiculous double standard. Ideal for mutual a.s covering
I suppose. But I disagree and will never comply.

> To date, GTR has not been falsified theoretically
> or empirically.

It has been on the Pioneer issue. A single case that a theory is
unable to account for when it is supposed to is sufficient to prove
any theory wrong.

Playing on words is only an excuse to argue on words instead of
arguing on real issues.

André Michaud
Sam Wormley - 02 Jan 2006 02:38 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I know. Ridiculous double standard. Ideal for mutual a.s covering
> I suppose. But I disagree and will never comply.

  Then you don't understand physical theory, André.

>> To date, GTR has not been falsified theoretically
>> or empirically.
>
> It has been on the Pioneer issue. A single case that a theory is
> unable to account for when it is supposed to is sufficient to prove
> any theory wrong.

  As has been pointed out to you, the papers of Anderson, et al
  do not claim that GTR is wrong. You don't understand what was
  written in those papers.
srp - 02 Jan 2006 05:08 GMT
Sam Wormley a écrit :

>> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>   Then you don't understand physical theory, André.

I do understand.

I simply reject the self indulgent, self defeating, hermetic
shop talk that has been developping in the community to attempt
hiding from the world at large the inability of the physics
community to make any progress for the past 30 years.

>>> To date, GTR has not been falsified theoretically
>>> or empirically.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>   do not claim that GTR is wrong. You don't understand what was
>   written in those papers.

I perfectly understand what the papers reveal. But what but
a bold face door opener to possible further research can possibly
be made to counter such a bold face door closer to any research
such as your:

"There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
 contradicted by an observation. NEVER!"

Young ones are reading your stuff, some no doubt promising, that
could be fooled at critical moments in their search. I will not
let such assertions go unchallenged when I take notice.

André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 02 Jan 2006 08:39 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I do understand.

The relevant quotes from the papers have been posted.  The inference is
obvious - you are unable to comprehend the simplest English.

> I simply reject the self indulgent, self defeating, hermetic
> shop talk that has been developping in the community to attempt
> hiding from the world at large the inability of the physics
> community to make any progress for the past 30 years.

What you reject is clear concisely written English and instead post quotes
on tangents that most scientists are stupid.  Regardless of what you think
of your moronic posts they are preserved for all to see who is stupid.

Bill

>>>> To date, GTR has not been falsified theoretically
>>>> or empirically.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> André Michaud
Eric Gisse - 02 Jan 2006 02:27 GMT
> Sam Wormley a écrit :
>
> >   There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
> >   contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
>
> This is totally false. GR has been falsified.

None of these "falsify" GR.

> hep-ph/9412234 on Gravitational Anomalies
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/hep-ph/9412#hep-ph/9412234

Interesting. No solid facts, but lots of mabeys. Nothing here disproves
GR.

> Citations
> http://arxiv.org/cits/hep-ph/9412234?host=lanl.arXiv.org
>
> gr-qc/9808081 on Anomalous Acceleration
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/gr-qc/9808#gr-qc/9808081

This one is even more interesting because it actually has numbers to
chew on.

So, we have a sunward acceleration from two spacecraft that is about
8x10^-8 cm/s^2. The authors only seem confident about Pioneer 11 as far
as having no explanation is concerned.

How does this disprove GR? It certaintly is interesting but it seems
more like you, like every other crank in this newsgroup, desperately
want to see GR falsified by any means necessary.

> Citations
> http://arxiv.org/cits/gr-qc/9808081?host=lanl.arXiv.org
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> André Michaud
Bill Hobba - 02 Jan 2006 08:42 GMT
Eric Gisse
How does this disprove GR? It certaintly is interesting but it seems
more like you, like every other crank in this newsgroup, desperately
want to see GR falsified by any means necessary.

That pretty much sums it up.  His approach is to confidently assert obvious
rubbish and the hope reader will be swayed by the confidence rather than the
substance.  I can think of quite a few cranks who use exactly the same
tactics.

Thanks
Bill
Tom Roberts - 02 Jan 2006 04:32 GMT
> GR has been falsified. [... refs to Pioneer anomaly]

I would not put it that forcefully.

The Pioneer anomaly could simply be due to dark matter within the solar
system. And I believe it is not fully accepted that this is not an
instrumentation or spacecraft effect.

Tom Roberts    tjroberts@lucent.com
Tom Roberts - 02 Jan 2006 04:28 GMT
>   There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
>   contradicted by an observation. NEVER! That's why these theories
>   are still alive and fruitful.

Well, I would not put it that forcefully.

For SR and QM, there are no experiments that disagree with their
predictions within their domains of applicability.

For GR, that is almost the case, but there are puzzles related to "dark
matter", "dark energy", and the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer
spacecraft. So at solar-system levels GR is unrefuted, but at larger
scales it's not yet clear whether there is a problem with GR or some new
physics is involved. Many physicists are guessing the latter, and are
searching for dark matter here on earth, etc. If there is a problem with
GR itself, it is probably not going to be resolved as GR is quite
"rigid" (in that there is no flexibility in its postulates at all).

These three theories are, of course, still very much alive and fruitful.

Tom Roberts    tjroberts@lucent.com
srp - 02 Jan 2006 04:55 GMT
Tom Roberts a écrit :

>>   There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
>>   contradicted by an observation. NEVER! That's why these theories
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Tom Roberts    tjroberts@lucent.com

This is a much more realistic attitude than what is generally
aired by typical self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy here
(some self-righteously and unwarrantedly aggressive at that)

I concur on all points.<