The false god(s) of physics

I want to know if you really believe Einstienism is a religion and if you really believe Einstein is a False God, it is big news that the forums most infamous agnostic has become an atheist. Either that or your entire thread is a loud of rubbish that should not be in the religious section! Which is it, Atheist or rubbish?!

 

Absolutely! Einstienism has been identified as 'philisophical' metaphysics and a religion to its staunch believers from its very inception. Are you ignoring the citation provided way back from the 30's provided in the OP?

Despite full knowledge to the contrary, this metaphysical Einstienist religion has been repackaged, coined and sold as a law of 'physical' science, which continues (for the moment) to shape peoples 'worldviews', scientific rigor of falsibility not required.

Einstienism as believed by members here, and we have seen in this thread and others it is rooted far more in folklore than fact, a metaphysical religious culture based in easily provable fallacies.

This thread isnt about your atheist religion Ron its about the religion of Einstienism.

In so far as comparing your declared atheist religion to my agnostic religion is concerned, atheism is based in faith, the faith the fallacy that absence of evidence is proof of no G/god, which is a foolish position to take that is untenable for any true agnostic since we true agnostics demand proof from BOTH sides of the argument which includes your side. Youve proven you have none for atheism in other threads, and it appears the Einstienism believers have none in this thread.

Your worldview is shaped upon faith in your speculative beliefs, by whatever name you wish to attach that to, (atheism?), mine is not.

Does that help you understand why I am not an atheist by any stretch of the imagination?......and why Einstienism is just another run of the mill religion that cant stand up to scrutiny where in this case he even admitted he made it all up!

Where else can we find people who strongly believe unproven theoretical models that wreak of defects worse believe abstract metaphysical concepts are a physical reality? A complete failure of critical thinking.

The most glaring example is rahls belief that Einstienism's relativity reflects all of physics when it was not used to align the gps system, was not used to develop the A bomb

Albert Einstein proposed that massive objects warp and curve the universe, resulting in other objects moving on or orbiting along those curves—and that this is what we experience as gravity

Amazing that anyone would be so arrogant to presume a model dictates physical reality!

So much for rahls "all of physics" heckling comedy posts:

No doubt the average citizen assumes that relativity theory is vital to our modern society. In truth it has almost no role to play, except in a few narrow branches of science.

For example, the Apollo program to land a man on the moon was a complete success as a result of the physics of Sir Isaac Newton—relativity theory did not play a role. Einstein’s work on Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect was far more important than relativity.

This may come as a shock, but Einstein’s theory of relativity is not part of the design of nuclear weapons! As proof, here is an excerpt from The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How To Build an Atomic Bomb, "Section 2. Energy of Fission Process," page 7:

The theory of fission is called a nonrelativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process significantly. Einstein’s famous equation is not involved.

Einstein rejected the next revolution that was quantum physics. This worked against him later in life, as all of his attempts failed to discover a unified field theory.

Relativity theory cannot be proven false on strictly theoretical grounds because it is inadvertently protected from refutation by its own circular logic.

All sources of oscillation in nature are influenced by a change in gravitational potential. To build a clock, we have no choice but to exploit oscillator sources. Unfortunately we cannot construct an ideal clock even if we use cesium atoms by definition. This was aptly demonstrated by the famous Häfele-Keating experiment11,12 in which cesium clocks were flown around the world.

The atomic clock transported eastward lost 59 ns, while the atomic clock transported westward gained 273 ns, compared to the stationary laboratory standard. http://www.infinite-energy.com

.....and of course hard core believers dont see any problems with any of that, which is only the tip of the iceberg. All they need is their belief, thats good enough for them, and many as you can see from this and other threads continue to argue their einsteinist beliefs despite they are shown to be incorrect, inconclusive, not falsifiable, and in many cases just plain wrong, bad physics.


Do you somehow think such beliefs and attitudes are not a religion? What facts can you present to prove einsteinism is 'not' a religion, or at a minimum philosophical metaphysics?

 

Do you need more explanation?



We all know, I think, that gravity elsewhere affects our gravity here on earth. I had a pic, damned if I can remember what I did with it, that demonstrated not only the moons effect on tides but at the same time the suns effect, this will have to do.

The reason ligos proved no such thing as a gravity wave as hatch predicted is as you can see the source of the gravity changed position.



I presume you understand the effects of the above would produce a sign wave as the source changes position, (validating newton btw) however it is not by any sretch of he imagination a 'gravity wave' as gravity is for the most part a steady state condition.



"gravity wave" is false advertising.

All they needed was to look at the response of the moon. The only thing I can see proven by this is to correct the weineristic model for calculating a workaround of the effects of gravity at great distances.

The religion you now know as Einsteinism has been and continues to be used to sell wooden nickels to the gp. The steady state of gravity is not a wave but a flat line!

 

Excellent just checking you are now an atheist, welcome.

 

False I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of G/god, you have shown nothing to the contrary!

Maybe you are having a failure to understand conjunctions attack again?

 

lol 5 pages now and koko still thinks he's disproven Einstein and all of modern physics.

 

The best way for posters to avoid looking like fools or trolls is to at least read previous posts. I almost forgot to read that!

 

You seem to think because you posted something, that anyone at all should take you seriously. You've claimed to have disproven Einstein. That is a hilariously moronic statement to make.

 

No, you do not believe Einstein is a god, welcome atheist. I have not shown anything, you are quite correct, you have! And none of your little smileys will help you!

 

I wouldn't say space is defined by X*Y*Z. X*Y*Z are cartesian coordinates, which are only one way of describing Euclidian space, which is a model of the physical universe (and a classical one at that).

Euclidean space is the fundamental space of classical geometry.
[...]
Ancient Greek geometers introduced Euclidean space for modeling the physical universe.
(source)​

X, Y, Z is not proven or defined into being any more than the relativistic one is. However, the relativistic one has tended to come out better when compared to experiment, such as the gravitational waves.

Seems to me magnets show magnet fields, which corresponds to forces. Checks out.

The obligation, as far as I have taken it upon myself, is fulfilled by the observation of gravitational waves.

 

It should be apparent you havent taken it far enough, since you dont recognize the difference between a 'disturbance' and a wave. Gravity does not exist as a wave. Gravitational disturbance exists. See the moon orbiting the earth. For all you know newtons speed of gravity was correct since we were not around to record the event when it actually happened. Photons, sound, functional existence is a wave gravity is not. Gravity is best described as a steady state force.

and gravity is different how?

So if I use xyz to create a box I wont be able to fit product that requires that much space into that box? Are you serious?

Nothing 'exists' outside your imagination as 2D.

 

"first he claimed the aether did not exist, then when he discovered he could not reconcile it with Newton claimed it did exist creating his 'shape-shifting' ---you believe me dont you?---relativity"


Albert Einstein did not claim that the aether existed when he presented the general theory of relativity, after doing away with the aether when presenting the special theory of relativity.

The general theory of relativity consists of an equation that equates how all sources of energy and momentum curve spacetime. The theory says nothing about the existence of a medium

permeating space. The "shape-shifting" or changes in spacetime propagate at the speed of light and are transmitted by the hypothetical particle, the graviton.



"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed... About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids... Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness..." Robert B. Laughlin

Just because space is sometimes conceptualized as a medium when thinking about the general theory of relativity, that doesn't mean that the general theory of relativity in any way

relies on space being a medium. It is true that mass/energy acts on spacetime and can modify spacetime and even the "empty" vacuum of space is composed of virtual particles which

can modify spacetime, but this has nothing to do with Einstein' discarding of the lumineferous aether in the special theory of relativity.

I found this explanation at: https://einstein.stanford.edu/conte... incorrect to think,so since the 19th century.

What happens to the fabric of space-time when an object moves through it near the speed of light?
First of all, space-time is not a fabric. Space and time are not tangible 'things' in the same way that water and air are. It is incorrect to think of them as a 'medium' at all. No physicist or astronomer versed in these issues considers space-time to be a truly physical medium, however, that is the way in which our minds prefer to conceptualize this concept, and has done so since the 19th century. Back then physicists talked of an ether. Today we know that ethers of the kind that behave like a physical medium are simply not present.

 

"Finally my favorite, NASA hired Ron Hatch because they were unable to get accurate clocks using Einsteins relativity, and neither could Ron Hatch get reasonable accuracy from the GPS system using einsteins relativity. He fixed both NASA's problem and the GPS problems by not using either SR or GR as worshiped by religious Einstinian fanatics."

What is your source for the above claim? Modern day GPS systems use both the general theory and special theories of relativity to achieve accurate results. Maybe Ron Hatch was incorrectly

applying those theories. This seems to be the only evidence that you have presented in the OP to invalidate Einstein's theories. Are you aware of the evidence in support of both theories

and do you understand that both relativity theories rely on a minimum of assumptions?


All of the conclusions of the special theory of relativity rely on just 2 postulates: 1) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference systems and 2) the speed of light is a

constant in all inertial frames. The first postulate is merely an extension of Galilean relativity to all of the laws of physics but the second postulate was a bombshell.


The general theory of relativity is based on 3 principles: 1) the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass, 2) the principle of covariance -the form of the laws of physics are the same

in all reference frames, including accelerating reference frames (all physical phenomena should not depend on the choice of coordinate system used to describe them), 3) the principle of

consistency - a new scientific theory must be able to account for the predictions of the old theories it seeks to replace.


Since inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent it is impossible to differentiate between laboratory experiments in a uniformly accelerating reference frame from a local area

of a gravitational field that produces the same acceleration. Gravity does not depend on the composition or other properties of objects and this is what led Einstein to conclude that

gravity is an aspect of the geometry of spacetime. It is only the geometry of spacetime that warps when matter/energy/momentum/pressure is present.

 

In physics, mathematics, and related fields, a wave is a propagating dynamic disturbance (change from equilibrium) of one or more quantities
(Source)​

What differences did you have in mind?

You seem to have conflated some of what general relativity is suggesting here. General relativity doesn't suggest that all gravity is a wave, just that gravitational waves are. As for your statement that gravity is "best" described as a steady state force, that seems just to be the latest in a long range of unfounded and unjustified statements you blurt out.

What event are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge, the Newtonian idea of instantaneous gravity is not based on any observation of any particular event. Other than maybe Newton's inability to see any delay with the naked eye.

I mean, fundamentally, they're not that different. I don't think we know enough about magnetism to say whether it is some aspect of spacetime etc., but I don't see that your argument here rules anything out.

You're answering a different question here though. Yes, under normal circumstances, you will be able to fit your product in your box, but that does not "prove" that xyz is true or that it is complete description/definition of the physical universe.

Euclidian space (as described by xyz) relies on postulates, one of which (the parallel postulate) cannot be proven and may very well be false (and only approximately true in the low-speed limit). Your assertion of xyz is no more proven than relativity is. I'd challenge you to prove it, but people like Bolyai have already shown that it cannot be proved.

And it just so turns out that LIGO made a "box" around 4km long, and found that the number of ~280THz wavelengths that fit into it changed in response to gravitational changes.

I don't see what that has to do with the statement you quoted. Space isn't defined in terms of xyz, xyz are just a convenient way to describe space (at least in the low-speed limit). It is no less of a model than the models in relativity.

 

Agreed those are merely jingo words that were made up.

Doesn't change the fact that people here will claim they took physics to attempt to qualify their alleged 104 claims lol

No that is not the way our mind looks at it because it's a fantasy world, it's the way Albert looked at it.

AFAIK no one to date has determined the exact physical property of the whatever it is we call the ether. There are several theories and we know there has to be something out there are we have no working determination of what it actually is. Replacing ether with the word fabric or dark matter is merely stacking BS on BS.

it's assumed to be true not proven to be true, nothing about weeneestein's relativity is 'proven' simply because its metaphysics and can't be proven.

Well if space isn't some kind of a medium then they have to come up with something that has resistance same as water has resistance to anything that pushes its way through the water, and the only way that is possible is if there is some kind of a medium or Force in play and it does not have to be matter to cause that effect.




Passing 'through' matter not required, dang sounds like a tesla theory again!

well that's because weiner changed his mind when he discovered the 'OOPS'

Right, they made it up, it doesn't exist in the real world.

Are you saying that space-time is restricted to a model, not reality, just a way of looking at things different from the previous way of looking at things? IOW Metaphysics?

Gravity depends on Mass which is a property therefore can only react with other objects that have Mass.

yes

Sure it'll get you sort of in the ballpark but the ballpark isnt close enough, setting up the gps to centimeter resolution is not horseshoes.

So then you believe that NASA would hire Ron hatch to fix NASA's relativity problems because hatch didn't know what he was doing? Seriously? why would NASA hire someone that doesn't know what they are doing to fix problems that NASA was incapable of fixing if hats did not understand relativity, not to mention cosmological physics at Large? Even I give the guv more credit than that.

Did you look through the thread?

Using weener before Ron hatch wrote his algorithms they were lucky to get accuracy within 10 ft now they get within a centimeter accuracy which I'm sure will be improved upon in the future

Sorry but the XYZ definition that I posted comes right out of the dictionary, so I think I defined space just fine which doesn't necessarily include the way you would like to 'think' of it. lol

And that is relevant how?

sure and when it comes to absolute proofs for all you know this is all a dream since in the final analysis your life can't be proven either. on the other hand it's a fully realizable mathematical construct that works 100% of the time without modification compared to weiners theory that requires the use of everyone elses theorems on the planet to actually solve and work out problems and falsely accrediting Einstein for it.

And I've shown that your life can't be proved if you want to go down that extreme crazy path. IOW nothing can be proven absolutely.

Well since you don't need everybody and their brother to add a plethora of theorems I would say that it's complete for its intended use unlike wieners metaphysics.

Yep they both exhibit a steady State Force with no detectable waves unless the quiescent state is disturbed.

However the comparison that I made within the context that I made it still stands strong.

Gravity is not defined as a wave.

I don't recall Newton ever claiming instantaneous got some kind of citation on that?

that doesn't even make sense because if gravity was instant ,the instant he released a rock it would have been sitting on the ground, he would not have been able to see the descent, and we know that's not the case, your argument pure nonsense since his mathematical constructs show no such thing.

What's that?

LIGOS is suggesting gravity is not a wave, that it's not detectable as a wave exactly as weiner predicted incidentally. ironically. it his worshipers that got it wrong.

Nice contradiction! It either is or it isnt make up your mind.

I dont see you bouncing up and down off the ground as your alleged version of gravity makes the waves, another wooden nickel you are trying to sell.

Gravity is simply the word we use to identify the force of attraction that pulls and or holds you to the ground that keeps you from flying off into space, can't wait to hear this if since you think it's not a force!

Why cant anyone see this on an o.scope? Just checked, nope no gravity waves.

That doesn't mean we define it as 'gravity waves' as this carries the association that gravity is composed of waves and we know gravity is not composed of a waves any more than water is composted of waves or the force produced by a magnet is composed of waves and variance in the magnitude of its applied force can only be seen when its quiescent state is disturbed. That in itself makes the LIGOS wave claims bullshit without a specific stipulation that its a nothing more than disturbance no different than that the changes seen by water shifting to fill in a gap when an object is removed from a pond.

 

General relativity presupposes no medium. It is strictly about the geometry of spacetime being modified by all forms of energy, mass being one form. This was assumed

because mass and energy are equivalent as a consequence of the special theory of relativity.

Your insistence that there has to be something that has resistance, something for gravity to act on other than spacetime, is not part of the general theory of relativity.

Once you understand the idea of the equivalence of gravitational fields with accelerating reference frames, this will make sense. It is impossible to distinguish between

the two with any kind of experiment if the accelerations are identical. Gravitational time dilation as well as the gravitational red shift, can be derived from the

equivalence principle. Einstein derived a local version of time dilation in 1907, 8 years before his full formulation of the general theory of relativity was published.

So the equivalence principle alone is enough to tell us that gravity and all types of accelerating reference frames will affect the passage of time and no medium

is needed for this to happen.


All physical theories are models of reality and are subject to future modification. They are approximations of reality..


There is much evidence supporting both theories of relativity.

 

In addition to the experimental evidence for special relativity which can be found on the internet, there is the fact that the Dirac equation also derives from special relativity plus quantum mechanics. Read about the Dirac equation at Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

n particle physics, the Dirac equation is a relativistic wave equation derived by British physicist Paul Dirac in 1928. In its free form, or including electromagnetic interactions, it describes all spin-½ massive particles such as electrons and quarks for which parity is a symmetry. It is consistent with both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity,[1] and was the first theory to account fully for special relativity in the context of quantum mechanics. It was validated by accounting for the fine details of the hydrogen spectrum in a completely rigorous way.

The equation also implied the existence of a new form of matter, antimatter, previously unsuspected and unobserved and which was experimentally confirmed several years later. It also provided a theoretical justification for the introduction of several component wave functions in Pauli's phenomenological theory of spin. The wave functions in the Dirac theory are vectors of four complex numbers (known as bispinors), two of which resemble the Pauli wavefunction in the non-relativistic limit, in contrast to the Schrödinger equation which described wave functions of only one complex value. Moreover, in the limit of zero mass, the Dirac equation reduces to the Weyl equation.

Also, from Wikipedia, Special theory of Relativity

Theories of relativity and quantum mechanics
Special relativity can be combined with quantum mechanics to form relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. How general relativity and quantum mechanics can be unified is one of the unsolved problems in physics; quantum gravity and a "theory of everything", which require a unification including general relativity too, are active and ongoing areas in theoretical research.

The early Bohr–Sommerfeld atomic model explained the fine structure of alkali metal atoms using both special relativity and the preliminary knowledge on quantum mechanics of the time.[61]

In 1928, Paul Dirac constructed an influential relativistic wave equation, now known as the Dirac equation in his honour,[p 24] that is fully compatible both with special relativity and with the final version of quantum theory existing after 1926. This equation not only describe the intrinsic angular momentum of the electrons called spin, it also led to the prediction of the antiparticle of the electron (the positron),[p 24][p 25] and fine structure could only be fully explained with special relativity. It was the first foundation of relativistic quantum mechanics.

 

Huh? How did you figure that? How you plan on proving it?

Since:

In other words: Special relativity and the Lorentz theory are identical theories about space and time in all sense of the words.

Dont believe me?

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-7091-0177-3_9

......and of course Lorentz got there first.

 

Well, physical space isn't beholden to your dictionary. General Relativity is a theory about how reality works. If you can't shoehorn your dictionary into it, that's not General Relativity's fault.

You asked about making a box and fitting "product" in it, seemingly disparaging the idea that would wouldn't fit something specific in it. The LIGO example shows that in fact, you might not be able to fit "product" in a pre-made box (if you measured it precisely enough, and pick a "product" that doesn't also change its dimensions).

In any situation where Euclidian space works, General Relativity would work too, it has no lower working rate than xyz. However, on several occasions, such as all the tests of General Relativity, xyz fails, and General Relativity survives.

I'm not going for some meaningless solipsism of arguing that nothing is provable. I'm going after the parallel theorem in particular because Special and General Relativity don't accept it, and at the end of the day, theories that don't accept it have shown more consistent with reality.

That's making a lot of assumptions of what its "intended" use is.

More or less yes. If you think General Relativity says something different, then you haven't understood General Relativity. Gravitational waves, as detected by LIGO, are not all that gravity is, it is merely a travelling disturbance in it, just like light (electromagnetic waves) are disturbances in the electromagnetic field.

Not sure exactly which comparison you're referring to, but sure, the electromagnetic field and space time are both covered in General Relativity, and have some common features accordingly. That's not a problem for General Relativity.

True, the existence of gravitational waves are inferred from experiment and observation, not as a direct consequence of the definition. Gravity may be defined as a force or an acceleration etc., but definitions of that sort do not demand that the forces and accelerations seen can't be consequences of underlying phenomena (such as curvature of space time).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
The speed of gravity is normally used to denote the speed with which gravity is mediated, not the speed that the acted-upon object gets. When we say Newtonian gravity is instant, we mean that objects with mass respond instantaneously to other objects with mass irrespective of the distance between them (source), whereas in general relativity, gravitational changes travel at the same speed as light (and indeed, in the LIGO experiment, it was measured consistent with the speed of light).

Sure. Newton proposes the inverse square law which uses distance between two bodies, the distance being dependent on the location of the distant body. The claim that this is the case in the physical world is in Principia, proposition 75 if you need a quotation, although proposition 58 is perhaps a clearer example of him applying the instantaneous distance derived from the inverse square law even when the location of the distant body changes.

If this was indeed the case, then the gravitational disturbances would have happened when the collision took place, however experiment confirmed that they took time to arrive, consistent with the GR prediction of propagating at the speed of light.

It seems to me General Relativity predicts one thing, experiment confirms it, and most people see the match between those two. It seems to me it is your careless interpretations that introduce the errors.

In General Relativity, gravity is curvature of space time. You can get waves in this curvature, but that is not to say that the concept is fundamentally a wave.

You're just not looking close enough. The LIGO setup has sensitivity on those scales, and they see it.

Even if gravity was defined as that force (I'm not convinced that you could say that such a definition would actually be in effect, but I think that may be beside the point), that doesn't mean it can't be the result of something like curved space time. Just like centrifugal forces are the result of a rotating frame of refence.

You can, if your oscilloscope is sensitive enough, and connected right. That's what LIGO did.

As mentioned before, true, we didn't define gravity waves into being. We defined gravity, found an explanation for it, and found that with that explanation we would expect propagating disturbances, i.e. waves, and then we looked for and found those.

The idea that therefore, gravity is composed of waves seems like a Kokomojojo TM assumption that was never asserted by Einstein or anyone else. (There are a bunch of caveats here though, it's possible that reality includes some gravitons, by which even the steady state is a constant bombardment of waves, but to the best of my knowledge, any such ideas are still very out-there. On a different note, it wouldn't surprise me if there are individuals with various misconceptions about relativity who do claim the things you debunk, they just don't have anything to do with Einstein).

All in all, it seems you set out to disprove Einstein, but only ended up disproving your misconceptions of Einstein, without addressing very much of Einstein at all.

 

Lol koko still thinks he’s disproven Einstein and all of modern physics.

 

Einstein brilliantly and accurately modeled and predicted the curvature of spacetime, black holes and other revolutionary ideas that have since been confirmed through observation and testing.

Meanwhile, all we've got from the Bible are absurd creation fables that fly in the face of science, claims of miraculous events and global catastrophes that fly in the face of physics as well as archaeological and other evidence, and apocalyptic prophecies that also make no sense in any context but the time, place and ignorance in which they were written.

 

As far as your concerned it's beholden to your fantasy. It most certainly is beholden to the dictionary definition.

If you have a citation demonstrating that XYZ no longer applies by all means enlighten us!

No it's not, that really is a nutty thing to say since there is absolutely no difference between Sr and the Lorentz theorem

To the contrary it's you can't shoe horn your relativity into reality, which is really laughable because you people seem to think that the model is physical

No that's false I did not ask about it I told you about it.

And now you're suggesting that I measure too much flour to put in the box so it don't fit, no **** that's your argument?

Until you try to apply it to the real world, you got some explaining to do why the GPS system couldn't track closer than 10 to 30 ft using wienertivity, and now using MLET serum it tracks to within a centimeter.

Why don't you explain that to us.

Oh what tests I don't see any failed tests where are they?

Sure looks like you are

What are you talking about a parallel theorem?

It goes without saying.

I accept traveling disturbance I do not accept 'gravity waves' as that is identifying gravity as being a wave when you say gravity disturbance then you are CLEARLY identifying a single event as a 'gravity disturbance' seen only events like two neutron stars combine which is no different than magnets passing a wire, as long as the distance between the source of gravity and the receiver changes you will see a difference of gravity same thing with a magnet as the magnet distance changes as it runs across the wire you will see the same identical thing and we don't call that magnet waves, or do you?

I would have thought the moon around the earth example would have been obvious to demonstrate the effects of gravity as distance changes, but then we do have big problems with the school systems today.

So the best that you can do to prove that Sr and GR in fact are accurate enough to do a GPS system within a centimeter is to tell us that electromagnetic fields and SpaceTime are covered spare us the flim flam please

Gravity is not defined as a wave, it's steady state force and the only time gravity differs between planets in the solar system is when the planets themselves change position and that is not cause a wave with the exception of the joining of two neutron stars as I already explained above.

Right, gravity is defined as a force its does not oscillate and no, the curvature of space-time does not cause gravity.

Care to quote what you think you see in that link that supposedly supports what you're trying to pedal out here

I don't see anywhere where Newton says a static gravity calculation is instant, how about citing that it's instant according to Newton or is that it going to be another minor oversight

You're kidding me, so in Newton says gravity is dependent on the placement of the planets and not SpaceTime?

Yes make sure you use a quote to cite what you think is going to support your claims.

How do you know what we saw was only a secondary event since we weren't here when the actual event took place.

However general reality points out that Sr and LR simply doesn't work if it doesn't work the theory is close but incorrect

So you think that because gravity is modeled as the curvature of SpaceTime that's SpaceTime therefore is the curvature of gravity, please

Little bit of double think there huh

And you're not looking at all

Doesn't mean 'gravity waves' exist

What do you mean 'if', ah so now you are back to claiming gravity is the result of curved SpaceTime, next you'll be telling me that we've got rotating time as the fifth dimension

LoL

Yes you did gravity waves are caused by curving space time according to you

While a propagating wave is the result of a disturbance it doesn't mean that gravity waves exist that's all in your imagination since gravity is not a wave it's a steady state for all intents of measurable purposes

The idea that gravity waves which defines gravity as being a wave rather than a gravity disturbance which is reality the wiener worshipers all claim wiener said it would exist when in fact weiner said it can't exist way back in 1929, oops! Gravity waves is a production of weiner worshipers not weiner himself.

So where's all those atheist drum pounding facts? You're going to venture even farther out there than they do with their gravitons.

Not at all there's nothing I can do about your understanding of the world around you, therefore nothing I can do to stop you from buying into every wooden nickel that comes around.
Fact of the matter is 1 cm resolution for our GPS system did not use Einstein SR or GR to accomplish it

Great then why didn't it work for the GPS system?

yeah but this isn't about the Bible

 

Nope, physical space was working just fine before there were dictionaries.

Sure. It depends on exactly what it is you want a quote for.

[...] it is not possible to decide through mathematical reasoning alone if the geometry of the physical universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean; this is a task for the physical sciences.(source)
​

This quote shows that we were to begin with not justified in assuming that xyz was true, other than experiment. Of course, for a long time, experiment was not sensitive enough to tell the difference, but that too came with time:

In the 19th and 20th centuries mathematicians began to examine geometries that are non-Euclidean, in which space is conceived as curved, rather than flat. According to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, space around gravitational fields deviates from Euclidean space.[4] Experimental tests of general relativity have confirmed that non-Euclidean geometries provide a better model for the shape of space.(source)​

Of course, xyz is a convenient and often immensely successful approximation of reality, but that is not the same as saying that it is true. At the end of the day, we have no indications of xyz being true other than approximately.

My statement was about General Relativity, not Special relativity.

It is a model which in experiment seems to correspond to how reality works (better than for instance Euclidian space).

I don't know what you mean by "the model being physical". It seems to me, we argue that the physical world behaves as the model does (and that the model is built to resemble reality). Whether you count that as the model being physical, I don't know.

This is the bit I was referring to:

So if I use xyz to create a box I wont be able to fit product that requires that much space into that box? Are you serious? (source)​

Seems like only questions to me. If you want something to be taken as a statement, write it as a statement.

I don't think so. I'm suggesting your measurement is not precise enough to tell the difference.

The "weinertivity" you refer to here is not Einstein's, it is Hatch's misunderstanding of it. Unless you can show that Hatch used Relativity correctly (which he has conveniently made unavailable), it doesn't count for much. Two wrongs don't make a right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Maybe you're not looking hard enough. Xyz (or Euclidian space) is a model of space, which assumes that the parallel postulate is true. Relativity replaces that assumption with the assumption that there is a limit to how fast things can travel in any frames. We then use experiment, like LIGO, to tell the difference.

Nope. We have to be very clear about it, or we end up making mistakes, like you do.

The idea that there being gravity in waves means that we have identified gravity as a wave seems to be an assumption on your part. The people you accuse didn't actually make that.

Sure we do, well, we call them electromagnetic waves, or electromagnetic radiation (or, more colloquially, "light"). https://science.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy

What exactly are you proposing that it demonstrates?

That's hardly the best we can do, predictions like those tested at LIGO are more sensitive. Really, the way to sort this out would be for Hatch to show what it was that didn't work out for him in his calculations. He never did that in enough detail to actually tell whether it was General Relativity that was the problem, or if it was Hatch who had simply misunderstood it. That being said, in the other paper I provided, Hatch was shown to have made mistakes in his understanding of General Relativity, so his word doesn't count for much unless the details are examined.

Gravity is a force of nature. We have invented words to describe it, but our words are nothing but models of the physical world.

That being said, General Relativity does not suggest that all gravity is waves, it suggests that gravity is a product of the curvature of spacetime, and that there can be waves in spacetime (including waves of the curvature of space time). I don't think General Relativity predicts any gravitational waves in the steady state.

As for your statements like curvature of space time not causing gravity, I see a lot of claims, but you provide no evidence.

Sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Isaac Newton's formulation of a gravitational force law requires that each particle with mass respond instantaneously to every other particle with mass irrespective of the distance between them. [...] Therefore, the theory assumes the speed of gravity to be infinite. This assumption was adequate to account for all phenomena with the observational accuracy of that time.​

Same answer as above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Isaac Newton's formulation of a gravitational force law requires that each particle with mass respond instantaneously to every other particle with mass irrespective of the distance between them. [...] Therefore, the theory assumes the speed of gravity to be infinite. This assumption was adequate to account for all phenomena with the observational accuracy of that time.​

Well, in particular, he says gravity is dependent on the placement of the planets at the time that the gravity takes effect. I.e., if the distant body moves, Newton's law suggests that the gravity on the near body would change instantly. General Relativity and LIGO's confirmation thereof however suggests that the information of the distant body moving would only travel at the speed of light.

They're in the links I provided:

If to the several points of a given sphere there tend equal centripetal forces decreasing in a duplicate ratio of the distances from the points; I say, that another similar sphere will be attracted by it with a force reciprocally proportional to the square of the distance of the centres.​

As you can see, he refers to the distance of the centres, no mention of any delays or rates of propagation.

The paper includes a calculation of false alarm rates, given at one ~0.1s event in 203000 years.

Not sure what you're referring to.

That doesn't seem to be at all what I have said.

Nope. You have to be precise in the wordings, or you end up making assumptions that aren't true. You can get waves in this curvature, but that is not to say that the concept is fundamentally a wave.

Kinda does, though.

Yep.

Nope.

That's different from the claim you commented on. General Relativity claims that gravity is caused by curved space time and that there can be waves in it. However, this is not a necessary truth based only on the definition, it is something we had to go find in the real world.

Your lack of punctuation is making it hard to see what you're saying.

If gravity is the curvature of spacetime, as suggested by General Relativity, then the steady state is merely an emergent property, not the underlying truth.

Again, it seems to me, the problem is actually you, introducing ideas like "gravity waves which defines gravity as being a wave". To the best of my knowledge, neither Einstein nor any prominent followers got to that conclusion. It seems that once again, it's your ad hoc assertions that breaks the model.

Couldn't say. It wouldn't surprise me if they existed, but I don't know where. Then again, they might not exist, doesn't really matter to me.

Sure there is, you could present Hatch's calculations. Except he hid them, didn't he... Or do you have them?

I'm willing to agree that Hatch was able to use some other theory to get an accurate result. It is however not clear to me that that was a problem with General Relativity. We know that Lorentz' theory is similar to some of Einstein's, it sounds to me more like that the main difference is that Hatch was able to implement one but not the other.

 

You are having trouble with the concept of theory. Einsteins theories of relativity didn't begin with observations. They began with mathematical predictions. They are theories because they haven't been proven or, as you say correctly, observed. What evidence has been collected over the years haven't disproved the theories or the mathematics behind them. Nature continues to be mostly a mystery.

Science never stops questioning itself. It has been questioning Einstein for over a century and his theories have never been proven nor disproven. They are a mathematical model that provides some reasonable explanations. Einstein's math, for instance, predicted the existence of black holes and, at least one has been observed. The effects of many others have been observed. Astronomers uniformly consider that every galaxy has a black hole at its center based on the behavior of galaxies. Science continues to do what it does. Everything is subject to review and questioning.

 

[

little late for that post like about 5 pages lol
sure and thats all it does is 'question'.
Once money and egos are involved itsall over but the crying for science