# Thread: A Flaw of General Relativity, a Fix, and Cosmological...

1. Originally Posted by Guitarist
What is rigourously meant by the "tidal force"?
I don’t know how rigorous it is, but a complete definition is given in the paper as “the relative gravitational acceleration of two test particles in free fall.” (I didn’t make up that definition.)

But this seems unsatisfactory. If it is a property of the field, which surely it is(?), then it should be possible to explain it with reference to a single particle. For surely, any force that requires two bodies to detect it (cf. Coulomb), implies an interaction between the bodies, which clearly is not intended in the case of tidal force?
I think you need two test particles. Let them float in close proximity to each other, initially at rest with respect to each other. If they stay in lockstep (or negligibly move relative to each other), then the gravitational field is uniform in that region. If they don’t, it’s nonuniform, and the particles are accelerating relative to each other. The degree of their relative acceleration indicates the degree of the tidal force there.

I can see, intuitively, that it has something to do with the "shape" of the gravitational field, but that's already given by the curvature tensor in the general theory.
The degree of tidal force at any point (small region) is the curvature of spacetime at that point. Those are synonymous. Fig. 4 in the paper shows the theorized curvature of spacetime (degree of tidal force) along a segment of a radius.

2. Originally Posted by Zanket
I think you need two test particles.
Ha! Now this is ironic! To my shame, my question about tidal forces was a trap. I had expected this answer from you, and was going then to say it proved an inconsistency on your part.
But geuss what? I'm caught in my own trap! Why? Because the answer you gave is wrong. For, the tidal force arises as a result of the properties of the field, and is not dependent on the number of particles by which it can most easily be measured.
So, without rehearsing the argument, we may say that, to an approximation, it is justified to represent a body in free-fall as the sum of infinitely small, infinitely many inertial frames with constant velocity. Ha!

So, does that mean the general theory is violated? Happily, the answer is no. First, we agreed that the mass of a body is independent of its "shape", so we can leave mass out of the discussion.

Second, and most important, I have a copy of Einstein's 1916 synopsis on the subject (it's in Hawking's On the Shoulders of Giants). I quote from section 22:

"From these two relations it follows, correct to a first order of small quantities, {formula} the unit measuring-rod thus appears a little shortened .......by the presence of the gravitational field, if the rod is laid along the radius."

And then goes on to show this not true if the rod is tangential to the field.

Oh well. Thanks for the fun.

3. I can barely grasp your post. A lot of it doesn’t make sense to me. How could you have expected my answer, yet get caught in your own trap because the answer I gave is wrong (so you think)? How did you get caught when I did what you expected? And if the tidal force can most easily be measured by a number of particles, as you say, then why do you disagree that the tidal force is indicated by those particles? And I don’t see how you have tied a discussion of the tidal force to gravitational length contraction, which the quote from your book mentions.

The definition for the tidal force in the paper is the same as that in the book Exploring Black Holes by Taylor and Wheeler. I think they can be trusted for what GR says.

4. Originally Posted by Zanket
I can barely grasp your post.
This comes as no shock.

Originally Posted by Zanket
A lot of it doesn’t make sense to me.
Again, see what I just said.

Originally Posted by Zanket
How could you have expected my answer,
He thought he knew what your misconception was.

Originally Posted by Zanket
yet get caught in your own trap because the answer I gave is wrong (so you think)?
It turns out you have many misconceptions - far worse than what he anticipated (I have this problem with you as well - you continuously prove to not know anything about everything).

Originally Posted by Zanket
How did you get caught when I did what you expected?
You made a mistake he didn't anticipate you making! - Which is underestimating your ability to error in everything if you ask me.

I'll leave it to Guitarist to try to explain any science to you. This is a task I am not going to take up anymore because you never learn.

5. Originally Posted by Zanket
I can barely grasp your post. A lot of it doesn’t make sense to me. How could you have expected my answer, yet get caught in your own trap because the answer I gave is wrong (so you think)? How did you get caught when I did what you expected?
My, my! You are an ungenerous soul! Zanket, I was conceding all your arguments save one, that contraction is not indicated in the general theory.

And if the tidal force can most easily be measured by a number of particles, as you say, then why do you disagree that the tidal force is indicated by those particles?
Dear boy, I don't. OK, the argument isn't interesting or profound, but you seem to want it. Right.
For two or more particles radially seperated in a gravitational field, their relative movement toward the source is independent of their joint distance from the source. It depends only on their radial seperation. Agreed?
Let's have two test particles in a gravitational field, abitrarily radially seperated (bad grammar!) Call the test particles A and B, with A being the more disatnt from the centre of the source. At some instant in time A will "be" where B "was". We might therefore just as easily consider A alone. That is where you answer was wrong. You don't need two test particles.
In which case all the objections I raised earlier about comparing different instantaneous velocities become invalid. I retract! Get it?
The definition for the tidal force in the paper is the same as that in the book Exploring Black Holes by Taylor and Wheeler. I think they can be trusted for what GR says.
For pity's sake! What more must I do? I don't disagree with with the definition of the tidal force! I only say that, while it's easy to illustrate it in the case of a multi-particle scenario, it's not necessary, and, by the logic I outlined above, we can consider an accelerating body to be in intantaneous uniform motion rlative to itself at different times.

But it remains a fact that Einstein clearly stated, as I quoted to you (you call it "my book"! It's his original paper for Pete's sake!) length contraction most emphatically is part of the gerneral theory.

6. Originally Posted by Guitarist
My, my! You are an ungenerous soul!
I meant no disrespect by that.

For two or more particles radially seperated in a gravitational field, their relative movement toward the source is independent of their joint distance from the source. It depends only on their radial seperation. Agreed?
Agreed.

Let's have two test particles in a gravitational field, abitrarily radially seperated (bad grammar!) Call the test particles A and B, with A being the more disatnt from the centre of the source. At some instant in time A will "be" where B "was". We might therefore just as easily consider A alone. That is where you answer was wrong. You don't need two test particles.
OK, I see what you’re getting at now. Yes, that would work, but your way requires both a test particle and the massive object that is the source of gravity. My way requires only the two test particles--that seems simpler.

But it remains a fact that Einstein clearly stated, as I quoted to you (you call it "my book"! It's his original paper for Pete's sake!) length contraction most emphatically is part of the gerneral theory.
Agreed, but I don’t see how that relates to your point about the tidal force. Can you elaborate as to why you mention that?

7. Originally Posted by Aer
I'll leave it to Guitarist to try to explain any science to you. This is a task I am not going to take up anymore because you never learn.
Your input so far has been greatly appreciated. As far as I know, all the issues you have raised that have been closed have not passed muster, which were mostly about the units. (However, in the next version of the paper I’ll make it clearer that geometric units are used.) I’m still waiting for superluminal’s (or anyone else’s) input on your claim that I’ve invalidly mixed Newtonian mechanics and relativity—that’s the only unresolved non-formatting issue by you that I know about. You also mentioned that the paper has no experimental confirmation, but there’s a section on that in it.

8. Originally Posted by Zanket
As far as I know, all the issues you have raised that have been closed have not passed muster, which were mostly about the units.
I do not doubt that is your personal opinion - but your opinion happens to be incorrect. I've never said that your equations were wrong because of the units you are using! Yes, I have said that your units are retarded as you have them in your equations, especially in regard to calling them unitless! Just a hint for you - unitless units are commonly used in engineering so that one engineer can measure quanitites in whatever units he prefers and divide all of his quauntities by a reference quantity and another engineer can measure quantites in whatever units he prefers and divide his quantites by a reference quantity to make them "unitless". What you are doing is measuring velocities, accelerations, and the such in units where c=1 and making this a strict requirement. That is, I cannot measure velocities in m/s and then plug them into your equation. Also, when I say "divide by a reference quantity - the reference quantity is left in the equations, not taken out. So in effect, your reference quantitiy could be c, but as I've pointed out, you've taken c out of your equations. And then you have instances in your equations when a quantity isn't even divided by the reference quantity (i.e. c). So to say that your equations are "unitless" is very incorrect indeed. Note, I don't expect you to understand any of this.

Originally Posted by Zanket
I’m still waiting for superluminal’s (or anyone else’s) input on your claim that I’ve invalidly mixed Newtonian mechanics and relativity—that’s the only unresolved non-formatting issue by you that I know about.
This is not a so-called "non-formatting issue"! It is a simple use of an invalid equation. I challenge you to derive v=sqrt(R/r) as a Newton equation - what is R in a Newton universe. It seems to me that R is the result of General Relativity, so to say that v=sqrt(R/r) is a Newton equation isn't acceptable.

Originally Posted by Zanket
You also mentioned that the paper has no experimental confirmation, but there’s a section on that in it.
"The paper" - no, I only wanted experimental proof on your claim that v=sqrt(R/r) deviates from the predicted result of Relativity. You should be able to link to an experiment that says this.

9. [quote="Zanket"]

but your way requires both a test particle and the massive object that is the source of gravity. My way requires only the two test particles--that seems simpler.
Hmm. Are you saying there is a tidal force in the absence of a source? (note the poetry!) I don't think that's right.

Can you elaborate as to why you mention {Einstein's general theory synopsis}?
Er...wasn't your whole point that the scenario you were describing originally was a "refutation of General Relativity"? And, as I read it, that required that length contraction not be part of that theory.

Was I wrong?

10. Originally Posted by Aer
I've never said that your equations were wrong because of the units you are using! ... So to say that your equations are "unitless" is very incorrect indeed. Note, I don't expect you to understand any of this.
You contradicted yourself right in the same paragraph. That’s a good example of why I don’t understand you much of the time. You are the only one who still has an issue in any way related to the units. I was well established above that the geometric units used in the paper, including v being unitless, is not only fine but is also common in general relativity work, for the express reason that it makes the equations simpler while still being unambiguous. It has been established here that, among the readers of this thread at least, geometric units are not commonly used, which was unexpected by me, but that is a formatting issue and I can’t please everyone.

Originally Posted by Aer
Originally Posted by Zanket
I’m still waiting for superluminal’s (or anyone else’s) input on your claim that I’ve invalidly mixed Newtonian mechanics and relativity—that’s the only unresolved non-formatting issue by you that I know about.
This is not a so-called "non-formatting issue"! It is a simple use of an invalid equation.
Use of an invalid equation is a non-formatting issue. It doesn’t have to do with formatting, does it? A formatting issue is like the one where you think I should not put the derivations in the appendices.

Originally Posted by Aer
I challenge you to derive v=sqrt(R/r) as a Newton equation - what is R in a Newton universe. It seems to me that R is the result of General Relativity, so to say that v=sqrt(R/r) is a Newton equation isn't acceptable.
I need not derive it to prove that it’s a Newtonian equation. That info comes right from Taylor and Wheeler, and you can google for it. Newtonian mechanics and GR share the same equation for escape velocity. Only the interpretations differ. R is 2 * M (as defined at the top of the paper) in either theory.

Originally Posted by Aer
Originally Posted by Zanket
You also mentioned that the paper has no experimental confirmation, but there’s a section on that in it.
"The paper" - no, I only wanted experimental proof on your claim that v=sqrt(R/r) deviates from the predicted result of Relativity. You should be able to link to an experiment that says this.
There are two ways to invalidate a theory. By experiment, and by disproving the theory intrinsically, by, for example, showing a math error. The paper does the latter, showing that GR is inconsistent with its own equivalence principle. If that claim is valid then no experiment is necessary to seal GR’s fate. The paper shows that a new equation for escape velocity is required to fix the inconsistency. If the paper cannot be refuted intrinsically, then the validity of the fix would need to be tested by experiment. GR has not been comprehensively tested. It has been tested only in the weakest of gravity, relatively speaking. The paper shows that the fix predicts differently than GR does in gravity stronger than that in which GR has been tested to date.

11. Originally Posted by Zanket
Originally Posted by Aer
I've never said that your equations were wrong because of the units you are using! ... So to say that your equations are "unitless" is very incorrect indeed. Note, I don't expect you to understand any of this.
You contradicted yourself right in the same paragraph.
Ah ha! Just goes to show that you didn't understand ANYTHING I just said! the equations are not wrong because of your "unitless" label. But to label them "unitless" is an incorrect use of the term "unitless" - get it? I don't think you do.

I'll read the rest of your horseshit later - I have other business, important business, to attend to right now. Moron.

12. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Hmm. Are you saying there is a tidal force in the absence of a source?
No, I’m saying the source isn’t necessary to include in a measure of the tidal force. The two test particles will show the tidal effect that the source has on the field in the region bordered by the test particles. And consider, if you use one test particle, you need to include all sources in the vicinity that significantly contribute to the tidal force in the region of the test particle. That would be complicated as compared to just looking at how two test particles move relative to each other.

Er...wasn't your whole point that the scenario you were describing originally was a "refutation of General Relativity"? And, as I read it, that required that length contraction not be part of that theory.

Was I wrong?
Technically, that was a different thread (“A refutation of general relativity”). While GR does have length contraction, it is inconsistent with that predicted by SR. That’s why I drew the star for GR as not length-contracted in that thread. That turned out to be an invalid way to describe it. I dropped the “refutation of GR” section from the paper (the whole point of the thread was to test that section, which I was unsure I could support), but the paper still shows the inconsistency from a different angle.

13. Fair enough, all is well. I enjoyed that chat.

14. Originally Posted by Aer
the equations are not wrong because of your "unitless" label. But to label them "unitless" is an incorrect use of the term "unitless" - get it? I don't think you do.
No equations are labeled as unitless in the paper. Only variables are defined as such, and only variables that are unitless in the system of geometric units. Then the “unitless” label is not incorrectly used for them.

15. Originally Posted by Zanket
No equations are labeled as unitless in the paper. Only variables are defined as such, and only variables that are unitless in the system of geometric units. Then the “unitless” label is not incorrectly used for them.
An equation is unitless, when it uses non-dimensional values. Regardless of whether you think your geometric units are truely non-dimensional is not the issue. Other people have assumed your equations to be unitless because of your use of the word "unitless" in describing your variables - I have repeatedly told you that I understand the difference and the confusion will come up with other people. But you keep wanting to say that -I- am the one that is in fact confused. You are such an idiot!

And as such, I am not going to waste any more time reading your blather.

16. Originally Posted by Aer
An equation is unitless, when it uses non-dimensional values.
Nevertheless, no equations are labeled as unitless in the paper.

Other people have assumed your equations to be unitless because of your use of the word "unitless" in describing your variables ...
As they should, for equations like eq. 2.3. That is a correct assumption, and the equation is valid that way.

... - I have repeatedly told you that I understand the difference and the confusion will come up with other people. But you keep wanting to say that -I- am the one that is in fact confused. You are such an idiot!
The difference between what? And why repeatedly bring up the topic of units, when it has been established that they are valid in the paper? I’ve already acknowledged potential confusion, saying that I can't please everyone.

17. All your comments above are as stupid as the one below, I need not waste my time commenting on all of them.

Originally Posted by Zanket
And why repeatedly bring up the topic of units, when it has been established that they are valid in the paper?
I never do! I haven't brought up the issue for several weeks! You always say "I resolved all your units questions, blah blah blah" when I am never even talking about units! Moron. Add to the fact that whenever someone else jumps into the conversion, all they talk about are your units! Perhaps you should be excused from science for creating this units mess in the first place.

18. Originally Posted by Aer
Originally Posted by Zanket
And why repeatedly bring up the topic of units, when it has been established that they are valid in the paper?
I never do!
You clearly did bring it up again yesterday, for the umpteenth time, saying:

Originally Posted by Aer
So to say that your equations are "unitless" is very incorrect indeed.
Originally Posted by Aer
Add to the fact that whenever someone else jumps into the conversion, all they talk about are your units!
Not since the issue was resolved.

19. Originally Posted by Zanket
You clearly did bring it up again yesterday, for the umpteenth time, saying:

Originally Posted by Aer
So to say that your equations are "unitless" is very incorrect indeed.
You must have forgotten that you brought up the unitless issue first!

Originally Posted by Zanket
Originally Posted by Aer
Add to the fact that whenever someone else jumps into the conversion, all they talk about are your units!
Not since the issue was resolved.
Oh yeah, most of this thread dealt with your stupid units yet I had resolved your dumb units issue way back when on sciforums - note that you didn't resolve anything, you still thought there was an issue when I told you everything was resolved 15 times!

My God, are you really this stupid?

20. Originally Posted by Aer
You must have forgotten that you brought up the unitless issue first!
Only to say that it didn't pass muster ("As far as I know, all the issues you have raised that have been closed have not passed muster, which were mostly about the units."). Then, as above, you claimed that there's still something incorrect about it. You brought it up again as an open issue.

21. Originally Posted by Zanket
Only to say that it didn't pass muster ("As far as I know, all the issues you have raised that have been closed have not passed muster, which were mostly about the units.").
None of the issues regarding your derivation that I've brought up have anything to do with your units. The fact that you say that, shows you don't understand anything.

Originally Posted by Zanket
Then, as above, you claimed that there's still something incorrect about it. You brought it up again as an open issue.
I was just pointing out that I still take the position that your units and equations are stupid, even though they technically are correct in regards to units. You seem to be dumb and not comprehend this issue.

22. Originally Posted by Aer
None of the issues regarding your derivation that I've brought up have anything to do with your units.
I did not say or imply otherwise.

Originally Posted by Aer
I was just pointing out that I still take the position that your units and equations are stupid, even though they technically are correct in regards to units. You seem to be dumb and not comprehend this issue.
No reasonable person would comprehend that "very incorrect indeed" means "technically are correct".

23. Well, well! Are you two still slugging it out? I, for one, can't see why.

24. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Well, well! Are you two still slugging it out? I, for one, can't see why.
Agreed. False claims normally should be challenged but this is ridiculous. I'll have to let others decide for themselves (probably none besides you anyway).

25. Originally Posted by Zanket
No reasonable person would comprehend that "very incorrect indeed" means "technically are correct".
It is very incorrect for your equations to be labeled unitless! (I am not talking about the variables inside - which is still an issue you do not comprehend, but it's not important) This is a fact you testified to yourself (besides pointing out a COUPLE that were unitless by definition). Come on - the horseshit is just oozing out of your mouth.

26. FYI - I’ve updated the paper to include experimental confirmation for the fourth classical test of general relativity. Related to this, a section (on a weak field approximation of light deflection) was removed as unnecessary. The rest of the changes were cosmetic.

Page 3 of 3 First 123
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement