Notices
Results 1 to 77 of 77
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By JoshuaL
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: Ruggero Santilli

  1. #1 Ruggero Santilli 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    There is also the theory that the universe has stopped expanding. The redshift we observe is equal for galaxies that are the same distance away from us.

    I understand that Hubble, De Broglie, and Enrico Fermi, passed away without believing in the expansion of the universe because this does imply earth would be at the center of the universe.

    There are experimental measurements of light losing energy to the medium through which it propagates.

    R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...soredshift.pdf


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    There is also the theory that the universe has stopped expanding.
    I don't think there is any theory that the universe has stopped expanding. There might be all sorts of baseless speculation, though...

    I understand that Hubble, De Broglie, and Enrico Fermi, passed away without believing in the expansion of the universe because this does imply earth would be at the center of the universe.
    I don't know why that would be relevant.

    There are experimental measurements of light losing energy to the medium through which it propagates.
    "Tired light" was one of the earliest hypotheses to explain red shift. And, for fairly obvious reasons, one of the first to be dropped.

    Tired light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Thank you for the response.

    There are experimental measurements which imply the universe has stopped expanding. Care to verify them?

    R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...soredshift.pdf

    R. M. Santilli, G. West and G. Amato. "Experimental Confirmation of the IsoRedShift at Sun at Sunset and Sunrise with Consequential Absence of Universe Expansion and Related Conjectures, " Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 165-188 (2012).http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...on-sun-IRS.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    There is a reason that Santilli's work is ignored, and this thread is not the place to debate his ideas. Rather than highjacking this thread any further, it might make sense to start a thread about Santilli. Ruggero Santilli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    Two journals with questionable standards or none at all? Not very convincing. Let Mr Santilli publish in a respected journal and then come back to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce
    I understand that Hubble, De Broglie, and Enrico Fermi, passed away without believing in the expansion of the universe because this does imply earth would be at the center of the universe.
    Did you not read posts #5 and #6 in this thread?

    Edit: Agreed SpeedFreek. Splitting off to the Pseudo section with a Thread entitled: Ruggero Santilli.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Whatever the issue with Santilli is, the real scientific issue is wether the measurements he made on light losing energy when passing through a gas are correct or false.

    We should all be aware of the bias on wikipedia.

    I have no interest in discussing Santilli - only his work.

    P.S. I have heard just recently that Santilli's measurements have been confirmed a second time by independent scientists. Will provide the pdf when they post it.

    Dismissal of confirmed experimental measurements without counter experiments is not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    Whatever the issue with Santilli is, the real scientific issue is wether the measurements he made on light losing energy when passing through a gas are correct or false.
    Again, this is a thread highjack, it has nothing to do with the nature of an expanding universe as described by General Relativity (a theory well established and repeatedly tested experimentally, but which Santilli thinks is incorrect) and why cosmologists invoke the cosmological principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    P.S. I have heard just recently that Santilli's measurements have been confirmed a second time by independent scientists. Will provide the pdf when they post it.

    Looking forward to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    Sorry Speedfreek, I moved your post over here. I will move any further posts he makes in the main sections to here, until my patience runs dry.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Will make future posts about Santilli in this thread.

    Not trying to cause the mods and admins any stress. I believe his work is directly related to the expansion/non-expansion of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Ok, so the question is, why does mainstream science ignore Santilli? Why can't he get any of his work published in a reputable journal? Why does he claim that Steve Weinberg conspired to silence his anti-relativistic views? Why is he suing reputable journals that refuse to publish his papers?

    And why is the Open Astronomy Journal full of psuedo-science and plasma-universe nonsense?
    (There is a paper in Volume 4 about Black holes and cold dark matter that acknowledges the help of John Duffield - a.k.a. our very own Farsight!)
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; October 1st, 2012 at 02:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    We don't have all the answers. Some will tell you that they do.

    Exploring outside of the box should be encouraged. It's the only way we will progress into richer discoveries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    True, but all future discoveries will still have to conform to a theory that reproduces the results of experiments we have already made. This is known as the correspondence principle.

    Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, he just showed how Newtonian gravity is an approximation that is inaccurate in certain circumstances. Santilli, on the other hand, seems to think that scientists have been using and positively testing a theory for the past 90+ years that is completely wrong. The man is a crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    No, Santilli acknowledges that Einstein's theories are applicable and beautifully done to his specifications. In a vacuum and at high speeds.

    Leave out the insults, they don't help you.

    It should be noted that Santilli is the only scientist that I know of who really honors Albert Einstein. Because he maintains his axioms and introduces a new broader realization for interior dynamics.

    As opposed to Einstein's followers who abuse his name by applying his theories under conditions that he never intended for and have been experimentally dismissed in various ways.
    Last edited by goldberg lettuce; October 1st, 2012 at 02:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    We don't have all the answers. Some will tell you that they do.
    My impression is that the only people who tell you they have all the answers are the various crackpots who post their personal theories on Internet forums. No scientist claims to have all the answers.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    So, let's examine the claim that the universe is not expanding, and that cosmological redshifts are some form of energy loss of light, due to the medium the photons are passing through.

    How does that light manage not be scattered at all by the medium it is passing through? (The highest redshift galaxies are clearly defined)
    How does that medium manage to "stretch" a stream of photons from a distant supernovae such that they are detected over a much longer period than they were emitted? (Cosmological time-dilation observed in supernova light-curves - a prediction of the current GR based cosmology)

    How can a stream of light passing through a medium be "stretched" such that the last photon passing through that medium is delayed by a much longer time than the first?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    No, Santilli acknowledges that Einstein's theories are applicable and beautifully done to his specifications. In a vacuum and at low speeds.
    General Relativity correctly predicts the deflection of light around the Sun. That's hardly a low speed we are talking about, is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    self-styled "Nobel Prize nominee
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    No, Santilli acknowledges that Einstein's theories are applicable and beautifully done to his specifications. In a vacuum and at high speeds.
    The Einstein equations are not limited to any particular speed, nor are they only valid in vacuum.

    It should be noted that Santilli is the only scientist that I know of who really honors Albert Einstein. Because he maintains his axioms and introduces a new broader realization for interior dynamics.
    I don't know what that means, since all scientists use the same set of field- and geodesic equations for GR. I am also not clear what "interior dynamics" is supposed to mean in the context of GR.

    As opposed to Einstein's followers who abuse his name by applying his theories under conditions that he never intended for
    Can you provide the following :
    1. A concrete mathematical example of conditions for which the Einstein field equations were not "intended"
    2. A precise description what distinguishes "intended conditions" from those not "intended for"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    So, let's examine the claim that the universe is not expanding, and that cosmological redshifts are some form of energy loss of light, due to the medium the photons are passing through.

    How does that light manage not be scattered at all by the medium it is passing through? (The highest redshift galaxies are clearly defined)
    I appreciate your questions as they are serious scientific questions.

    The scientific value of your question queries the visibility of galaxies in the event of a loss of energy of the entire spectrum of light to the intergalactic medium. In the event that Santilli’s IsoRedShift (IRS) is confirmed, all current astrophysical data must be revised. This would include the fact that the original luminosity of the galaxies is actually much bigger than what we interpret today.

    The most qualified person to answer these questions is Dr. Santilli because my knowledge in the field is limited. His email is available on his CV if my answers are not sufficient.

    Santilli stresses the need to consider this as electromagnetic waves rather than photons because the effect holds for all frequencies including infrared and smaller frequencies for which photons have no practical sense of propagation.

    His main point is geometrical and based on the hypothesis that the presence of matter changes the geometry of Minkowski space time into a covering space which is generally inhomogeneous and anisotropic for which he has developed an entirely new mathematics known as iso-mathematics.

    If you accept this view, then the energy needed for the interaction of electromagnetic waves with a cold gaseous medium can only originate from the waves themselves without any dominant scattering.

    To my understanding, in Santilli’s IRS paper ( http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...on-sun-IRS.pdf ), he presents systematic measurements showing that the entire spectrum of sunlight shifts progressively for about 200 nm during the transition of the sun from zenith to the horizon.

    Such a frequency shift is predicted by the iso-Minkowskian geometry that Santilli has developed. Essentially the same way as the Minkowskian geometry predicts the doppler effect. There is indeed a corresponding decrease of the intensity of sunlight that is accurately described by Rayleigh scattering.

    In summary, it appears that the behavior that we see for the sun at sunset is fully equivalent to what we see in the cosmological redshift - a decrease of the frequency without relative motion joined with a decrease of the intensity (luminosity) while the source remains fully visible.

    Scattering is mainly responsible for the decrease of the intensity but not of the frequency shift.

    I have heard that the above measurements of IRS have been independently confirmed in various countries and as soon as I am aware of another paper available I will report back in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    How does that medium manage to "stretch" a stream of photons from a distant supernovae such that they are detected over a much longer period than they were emitted? (Cosmological time-dilation observed in supernova light-curves - a prediction of the current GR based cosmology)
    This question is also very valid but unfortunately beyond my technical knowledge in astrophysics. I can only mention here that Santilli’s IsoBlueShift (IBS) which has been experimentally confirmed has been independently verified by numerous measurements. (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...on-IRS-IBS.pdf)

    In this case, light, as well as photons acquire energy from a hot medium, such as the gas surrounding a supernova explosion. In this case I would not be surprised if iso-minkowskian geometry and IRS provide a numerical representation of all available measurements, but again, this will require a revision of the numerical data we currently believe to occur in supernovae.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    How can a stream of light passing through a medium be "stretched" such that the last photon passing through that medium is delayed by a much longer time than the first?
    To my understanding if you describe the event in terms of “electromagnetic waves”, thus reducing photons themselves to wave packets then your important question can be resolved.

    It appears to me that the most important message conveyed by Santilli is the lack of plausibility of all the chains of the interconnected conjectures on the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion, the big bang, the expansion of space itself, etc.

    All require a return to the middle ages with earth at the center of the universe caused by the acceleration of the expansion rather than the expansion itself, as well as from Hubble’s law establishing that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from earth in ALL directions from earth. As the British philosopher Karl Popper stated in the preface of his last book, “Santilli represents a return to sanity in Physics”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    self-styled "Nobel Prize nominee
    Be careful with the info you repeat that is found on wikipedia. Santilli has not submitted his own nominations to the Nobel prize. The Nobel Committee does not release these details for 50 years. However, the people who submit the nominations are free to notify others about who has been nominated.

    How does this make Santilli a self-styled Nobel prize nominee?

    In any case, if you go to the page of Santilli’s prizes and nominations page you will see the names of several physicists who have nominated him since 1987.

    It appears to me that a copy of the nominations themselves were released intentionally for public disclosure. The label of “self-styled nominee” seems to be a part of the active campaign to smear him. The campaigns against his character have also have tried labeling him antisemitic for pointing out conflicts of interest in academia. It couldn't be further from the truth if you actually knew the man and what he did in Italy as a young boy during WW2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No, Santilli acknowledges that Einstein's theories are applicable and beautifully done to his specifications. In a vacuum and at high speeds.
    The Einstein equations are not limited to any particular speed, nor are they only valid in vacuum.

    It should be noted that Santilli is the only scientist that I know of who really honors Albert Einstein. Because he maintains his axioms and introduces a new broader realization for interior dynamics.
    I don't know what that means, since all scientists use the same set of field- and geodesic equations for GR. I am also not clear what "interior dynamics" is supposed to mean in the context of GR.

    As opposed to Einstein's followers who abuse his name by applying his theories under conditions that he never intended for
    Can you provide the following :
    1. A concrete mathematical example of conditions for which the Einstein field equations were not "intended"
    2. A precise description what distinguishes "intended conditions" from those not "intended for"
    I really do appreciate these questions. Thank you.

    Let me clarify that when I said Einstein’s theories I was referring to Special Relativity while you are referring to GR.

    Again, Santilli is more qualified than I to answer these questions.

    To my understanding, Einstein gravitation as conventionally described refers to isotropic gravitational fields which are inherent when a massive body is reduced to a massive point as done by Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.

    However, physical bodies are extended, generally non-spherical, and spinning as it is the case for instance with a nuetron star.

    In this case, the Riemannian geometry can only be approximately valid due to the fact that the spinning object is highly prolated and has an axial symettry caused by rotation. As I said before, Santilli has developed a new mathematics called iso-mathematics that includes the isotopies of the rheimmanian geometry which is the only one that I know of that is capable of providing a geometric representation of the uni-isotopy of a highly spinning and prolated nuetron star or of earth to a much lesser extent.

    I believe this is a concrete mathematical example of conditions for which the Einstein field equations were not "intended."

    Your next important question refers to interior gravitational problems.

    Prior to Einstein, all dynamical problems were classified by LaGrange, Hamilton, Jacobi, and other masters into exterior and interior problems.

    The exterior problems are characterized by point particles in vacuum. Interior problems are characterized by extended particles moving within a physical medium. As an example the jovian system is an exterior problem in which Jupiter and all planets are approximated as massive points. By contrast the structure of Jupiter itself is an interior problem. You should be aware that Santilli has proved various so called “no reductions theorems” NRT preventing the inconsistency of the reduction of interior problems to exterior forms e.g. because of violation of thermodynamical laws and other large inconsistencies.

    Back to your question, the description of the gravitational field of Jupiter can be done as according to Einstein with the implicit assumption that Jupiter is a massive point, in which case, no interior problem exists. However, a more realistic representation is that for which Jupiter is assumed as it is in the physical reality - an extended object with an internal structure. In this case you must have two descriptions.

    The conventional description in the exterior of jupiter and a new description for its interior gravitational problem. You should be aware that the Riemann-Santilli iso-geometry provides a description of interior gravitational fields due to the arbitrary functional dependence of the iso-metric on coordinate, velocity, temperature, entropy, etc.

    In closing you should be aware of a paper that was published in 1981 at MIT Annals of Physics, Santilli proved the necessity for a first order source tensor on the right hand side of Einstein’s field equations which is necessary for nuetral bodies. ( http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf )

    This source tensor which is first order in magnitude originates from the electromagnetic origin of the mass of all bodies. This physical derivation is confirmed geometrically by the freud identity of the riemmanian geometry and implies a structural revision of the entire gravitational theory as adopted throughout the 20th Century.

    More details at http://www.santilli-foundation.org/i...ravitation.php

    I’m not a historian of science so please correct me if I’m wrong, but Einstein attempted a complete geometric reduction of gravitation to curvature which follows from an absence of a source for a neutral gravitational body.

    To my understanding, Santilli has proved the above view as incomplete on various grounds. Such as...

    The necessity of a first order source for neutral bodies prevents the complete reduction of gravitation to curvature.

    A second revision of Einstein gravitation achieved by Santilli is a quantitative geometric representation of the uni-isotropy of the gravitational field of spinning bodies.

    The interior gravitational problem requires a structural revision of Einstein’s field equations due to the need of a large dependence on interior local quantities (coordinates, velocity, acceleration, temperature, entropy, etc) which is also achieved via the Reimman-Santilli iso-geometry.

    The original derivation of the Riemann-Santilli iso-geometry can be found here:

    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf

    Time for a brew.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    To my understanding, Einstein gravitation as conventionally described refers to isotropic gravitational fields which are inherent when a massive body is reduced to a massive point as done by Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.
    GR does not require the sources of the gravitational field to be considered point sources. Consider the field equations



    These equations are valid both inside and outside the field source; outside the source it is a simple case of . Any symmetry assumptions ( like isotropy etc ) are not inherent in the field equations, but are introduced later as a matter of convenience to simplify the process of solving them. See here for a basic example :

    Solving the Einstein Field Equations

    However, physical bodies are extended, generally non-spherical, and spinning as it is the case for instance with a nuetron star.
    All of which can be easily accounted for in the stress-energy-momentum tensor T. It is already "built into" the field equations.

    Back to your question, the description of the gravitational field of Jupiter can be done as according to Einstein with the implicit assumption that Jupiter is a massive point,
    No, this is not correct. See above.

    I’m not a historian of science so please correct me if I’m wrong, but Einstein attempted a complete geometric reduction of gravitation to curvature which follows from an absence of a source for a neutral gravitational body.
    In GR space-time and the gravitational field are one and the same thing. In addition, all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass or EM fields, so it is irrelevant whether a body is neutral or not - both cases are easily accounted for via the stress-energy tensor.

    The interior gravitational problem requires a structural revision of Einstein’s field equations due to the need of a large dependence on interior local quantities (coordinates, velocity, acceleration, temperature, entropy, etc) which is also achieved via the Reimman-Santilli iso-geometry.
    All of this is already accounted for in the energy-stress-momentum tensor, and there are exact solutions to the field equations for various "interior" and "exterior" conditions. A few examples :

    Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Kerr metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reissner
    Kerr

    and many others. No revisions are required or indeed called for, as the equations just as they are in perfect accordance to observational data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To my understanding, Einstein gravitation as conventionally described refers to isotropic gravitational fields which are inherent when a massive body is reduced to a massive point as done by Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.
    GR does not require the sources of the gravitational field to be considered point sources. Consider the field equations



    These equations are valid both inside and outside the field source; outside the source it is a simple case of . Any symmetry assumptions ( like isotropy etc ) are not inherent in the field equations, but are introduced later as a matter of convenience to simplify the process of solving them. See here for a basic example :

    Solving the Einstein Field Equations
    I appreciate your outline which must be respected because it favors the collegial acceptance in gravitation.

    However, I attempted to bring to your attention a new view in gravitation. To cover all of your bases, you should be aware of the following, since research shall be intended to pursue “new” scientific knowledge.

    The above quoted Einstein field equation in your interpretation for both interior and exterior problems are indeed valid, of course, in first approximation.

    However that assumption as being the final description of gravitation until the end of time is considered political by a growing number of physicists. The lack of exact validity of the above equation for the exterior problem (T= 0) has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by Dr. Santilli in 1974 with his paper in MIT’s Annals of Physics.

    This is the MIT paper you should study. I failed to include this paper in my previous posts when I thought I had, sorry about that. I also previously said it was published in 1981, but it is 1974.

    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf
    (Press ctrl+r to or apple sign+r to rotate the page orientation properly.)

    In fact, this paper establishes the need for a first order elm source in the exterior problem of a neutral body of such a magnitude to represent the gravitational mass of the body. In it’s absence quantum electrodynamics must be structurally revised.

    As an incidental remark, the Schwarzschild solution is not an exact solution under severe scrutiny because it is no longer a solution in the presence of a large source term in vacuum.

    The lack of exact character of the above quoted field equation for the interior problem has also been proven by Santilli and others beyond a credible doubt. I can only quote here that your reduction of interior problems to the T-tensor is known to violate the No Reduction Theorems (NRT), assumes lack of existence of internal non-local interactions not representable with an energy momentum or stress tensor in a conventional Riemannian space, and above all has been proven to imply lack of existence of the entropy in the universe, let alone the irreconcilable violations of thermodynamical laws.

    I brought to your attention Riemman-Santilli iso-geometry because it at least initiates an investigation towards more realistic representations of interior and exterior gravitational problems, that goes without admitting its intriguing grand unification and an axiomatically consistent operator formulation. (Technically realized by embedding gravitation in the unit of gauge theory and quantum mechanics - thus assuring invariance and axiomatic consistency.) Since these specific papers have been published in refereed journals they can solely be dismissed by a publication also referenced in a refereed journal.

    Allow me also to bring to your attention most respectfully that the continued ignorance of this refereed publication can be potentially damaging to our development of the sciences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    However, physical bodies are extended, generally non-spherical, and spinning as it is the case for instance with a nuetron star.
    All of which can be easily accounted for in the stress-energy-momentum tensor T. It is already "built into" the field equations.
    Again, your position is definitely plausible, supported by the great majority of physicists in gravitation, and valid in first approximation.

    However, it is my understanding that your position is the same as that of many physicists who continue to represent the structure of the hydrogen atom with Newtonian mechanics and do not accept it’s representation via quantum mechanics.

    In fact the anisotropy that I refer to you is a structural characteristic of the space itself that by central conception can not be represented with a stress energy tensor. ( http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf ) It mandates the conception of a covering of the Riemannian geometry which is structurally anisotropic. I brought to your attention the riemman-santilli iso geomentry paper because it is the only one I know capable of a geomtric representation of the aniisotropy of spinning body without denying the use of the stress energy tensor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I’m not a historian of science so please correct me if I’m wrong, but Einstein attempted a complete geometric reduction of gravitation to curvature which follows from an absence of a source for a neutral gravitational body.
    In GR space-time and the gravitational field are one and the same thing. In addition, all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass or EM fields, so it is irrelevant whether a body is neutral or not - both cases are easily accounted for via the stress-energy tensor.
    We are in full agreement with the above statement under the clarification above of the lack of exact character of the field equation for both interior and exterior problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The interior gravitational problem requires a structural revision of Einstein’s field equations due to the need of a large dependence on interior local quantities (coordinates, velocity, acceleration, temperature, entropy, etc) which is also achieved via the Reimman-Santilli iso-geometry.
    All of this is already accounted for in the energy-stress-momentum tensor, and there are exact solutions to the field equations for various "interior" and "exterior" conditions. A few examples :

    Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Kerr metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reissner
    Kerr

    and many others. No revisions are required or indeed called for, as the equations just as they are in perfect accordance to observational data.
    Unfortunately, none of the metrics that you indicate are compatible with the freud identity of the riemannian geometry and they are not solutions of the field equation under the electromagnetic represention of the gravitational mass indicated above.

    As a final point, mandating the surpassing of the field equation for the interior problem, recent studies in astrophysics on the structure of quasars, blackholes, and supernova explosions have established beyond doubt the impossibility of reducing this system to isolated points in vacuum as mandated by GR due to the extreme internal density and wave overlapping of the constituents. The same studies have established the presence of interactions that are highly non-linear, non-local, and not representable with Lagrangian.

    In conclusion, Einstein represents a magnificent episode in the history of gravitation but he is only the beginning of the geometric study of gravitation and positively not the end. I hope you can see this point so that you can potentially make a historical contribution in this field, because I truly believe that in any case they will be made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    However that assumption as being the final description of gravitation until the end of time is considered political by a growing number of physicists.
    No one considers GR the final description of gravity. However, any new theory must make all the same predictions, and improve on them some how.

    However, it is my understanding that your position is the same as that of many physicists who continue to represent the structure of the hydrogen atom with Newtonian mechanics and do not accept it’s representation via quantum mechanics.
    No one uses Newtonian mechanics to model the behaviour of a hydrogen atom. Do they?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    However that assumption as being the final description of gravitation until the end of time
    I make no such assumption - it is clearly understood that GR's domain of applicability is limited, and that it is not the final theory of gravity.

    I have had a read through this paper; his basic premise is that the source terms from matter and electromagnetic fields are somehow separate entities :



    I do not agree with this, and it is contradiction to the commonly understood notion of the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Both matter and fields are just forms of energy, and cannot be separated in this manner.
    However, to the author's credit he does himself realize that this is a critical assumption on which the entire model hinges, by stating



    which is precisely correct of course. In the end I feel that there is nothing in this paper which is in any way new, or would necessitate a revision of the gravitational field equations.

    The lack of exact character of the above quoted field equation for the interior problem has also been proven by Santilli and others beyond a credible doubt. I can only quote here that your reduction of interior problems to the T-tensor is known to violate the No Reduction Theorems (NRT), assumes lack of existence of internal non-local interactions not representable with an energy momentum or stress tensor in a conventional Riemannian space, and above all has been proven to imply lack of existence of the entropy in the universe, let alone the irreconcilable violations of thermodynamical laws.
    I have no idea what you are talking about here. All energy and thermodynamic laws are trivially upheld in GR simply because .
    Also, what is the "non-reduction theorem" ? Do you have a reference ?

    Since these specific papers have been published in refereed journals they can solely be dismissed by a publication also referenced in a refereed journal.
    Then why are you presenting this here ? This is a forum for amateur scientists, not a peer-review site.

    In fact the anisotropy that I refer to you is a structural characteristic of the space itself that by central conception can not be represented with a stress energy tensor.
    That makes no sense. Can you explain this in more detail.

    Unfortunately, none of the metrics that you indicate are compatible with the freud identity of the riemannian geometry
    What is the "Freud identity of Riemann geometry" ? Do you have a reference here ?
    Are you saying that these metrics are not valid solutions to the field equations ?

    impossibility of reducing this system to isolated points in vacuum as mandated by GR
    GR does not reduce anything to points. I have already explained this to you.

    and positively not the end.
    Yes, we all agree on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I have had a read through this paper; his basic premise is that the source terms from matter and electromagnetic fields are somehow separate entities :



    I do not agree with this, and it is contradiction to the commonly understood notion of the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Both matter and fields are just forms of energy, and cannot be separated in this manner.
    No, not separate, they are identical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    However, to the author's credit he does himself realize that this is a critical assumption on which the entire model hinges, by stating



    which is precisely correct of course. In the end I feel that there is nothing in this paper which is in any way new, or would necessitate a revision of the gravitational field equations.

    The lack of exact character of the above quoted field equation for the interior problem has also been proven by Santilli and others beyond a credible doubt. I can only quote here that your reduction of interior problems to the T-tensor is known to violate the No Reduction Theorems (NRT), assumes lack of existence of internal non-local interactions not representable with an energy momentum or stress tensor in a conventional Riemannian space, and above all has been proven to imply lack of existence of the entropy in the universe, let alone the irreconcilable violations of thermodynamical laws.
    I have no idea what you are talking about here. All energy and thermodynamic laws are trivially upheld in GR simply because .
    Also, what is the "non-reduction theorem" ? Do you have a reference ?



    In fact the anisotropy that I refer to you is a structural characteristic of the space itself that by central conception can not be represented with a stress energy tensor.
    That makes no sense. Can you explain this in more detail.

    Unfortunately, none of the metrics that you indicate are compatible with the freud identity of the riemannian geometry
    What is the "Freud identity of Riemann geometry" ? Do you have a reference here ?
    Are you saying that these metrics are not valid solutions to the field equations ?

    impossibility of reducing this system to isolated points in vacuum as mandated by GR
    GR does not reduce anything to points. I have already explained this to you.

    All your comments preceeding this last post were quite valuable and fully scientific in my view. Unfortunately, your above comments have traversed the boundaries of quantitative science into personal views disproved by very solid scientific evidence.

    Albert Einstein in the formulation of his field equation made a mistake of historical proportions because he ignored the electromagnetic origin of the mass of nuetral bodies in vacuum - since all bodies are made by charges in very high dynamical conditions.

    Santilli's 1974 paper at MIT Annals of Physics (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf) has historical value because he established via the use of the most advanced possible quantum electrodynamics that the field equations in vacuum for massive but neutral bodies must be completed with an electromagnetic tensor T of such a first order in magnitude to represent the entire gravitational mass of the neutral body.

    This result is simply incontrovertible.

    Again, the only scientifically acceptable criticism are those published in refereed journals as it is the case for Santilli's original paper and at this moment there are none that exist to my knowledge and therefore Santilli's results stand.

    Since these specific papers have been published in refereed journals they can solely be dismissed by a publication also referenced in a refereed journal.
    Then why are you presenting this here ? This is a forum for amateur scientists, not a peer-review site.
    I was hoping you and others would see like me that no one, to my knowledge, has sufficiently countered Santilli's paper.

    It then follows that on serious scientific grounds, solely based on said refereed papers, that the schwarzschild and other metrics are grossly violated for the exterior problem in vacuum because of their solutions of the erroneous Einstein equations with T=0 on the right hand side.

    Similarly, the Riemmanian representation of the bending of light has no serious scientific value, again, because it is invalid under a large electromagnetic source T.

    Your comments on Santilli's two tensors on the right hand side is a confirmation that you still have difficulty in understanding the difference between exterior and interior gravitational problems.

    In fact as stated very clearly by Santilli in his '74 MIT paper (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf), when you move from the exterior long distance to the interior short distance problem, you must add weak and strong interactions to the exterior electromagnetic tensor T.

    This results in the addition of a second source term S solely valid for the interior problem because it is null at long distances. In particular T is traceless while S is not in full conformity with the freud identity of reimmanian geometry.

    The distinction between the long range tensor T and the necessary short range tensor S also establishes very clearly Santilli's point, namely that interior problems can not be consistently reduced to the T tensor because that would be in blatant violation with the existence of weak and strong internal interactions.

    Finally, I must respectfully disagree again with your view that the anisotropy of highly rotating neutron stars can be represented with the stress energy tensor because that is in violation of your own stated main principle - namely that geometry and the gravitational field coincide.

    In any case, denying the historical validity of the covering anisotropic Riemman-Santilli iso-geometry (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf) is not scientific because the representation occurs geometrically, as it should be. In particular, your concept of stress energy tensor is completely eliminated from gravitation by Santill TN and S tensors due to the direct physical meaning of the latter.

    Regrettably, I believe I must close this exchange with you because I've expressed all I know. I warmly recommend hereon that you contact Professor Santilli via email or you could try by phone. (Check his CV: Ruggero Maria Santilli) Since he is of Italian birth and education, you should find him very inviting.

    He can provide you with in-depth references on the freud identity of the riemmanian geometry, no reduction theorems, and other structural advances of 21st century gravitation that you are not yet aware. The Santilli Foundation provides research grants on these advances, check the SF website for details.

    Thank you for your time and best wishes!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    The scientific value of your question queries the visibility of galaxies in the event of a loss of energy of the entire spectrum of light to the intergalactic medium. In the event that Santilli’s IsoRedShift (IRS) is confirmed, all current astrophysical data must be revised. This would include the fact that the original luminosity of the galaxies is actually much bigger than what we interpret today.
    It is not so much about visibility as it is a matter of a loss of coherence. And if the original luminosity of the galaxies was much bigger in the past, than we see for the local galaxies around us today, this raises the question of why galaxies are becoming less luminous, over time, in a non expanding universe. Or did you not mean the "original" luminosity? Are you talking about an apparent effect caused by a difference in geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    It appears to me that the most important message conveyed by Santilli is the lack of plausibility of all the chains of the interconnected conjectures on the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion, the big bang, the expansion of space itself, etc.

    All require a return to the middle ages with earth at the center of the universe caused by the acceleration of the expansion rather than the expansion itself, as well as from Hubble’s law establishing that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from earth in ALL directions from earth. As the British philosopher Karl Popper stated in the preface of his last book, “Santilli represents a return to sanity in Physics”
    I do not understand why any of the above leads to having the Earth at the centre of the universe.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; October 6th, 2012 at 04:22 AM. Reason: typo!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    No, not separate, they are identical.
    That's not what the equation says.

    Unfortunately, your above comments have traversed the boundaries of quantitative science into personal views disproved by very solid scientific evidence.
    If that's what you wish to believe, then please be my guest.

    Albert Einstein in the formulation of his field equation made a mistake of historical proportions because he ignored the electromagnetic origin of the mass of nuetral bodies in vacuum - since all bodies are made by charges in very high dynamical conditions.
    Mass is the result of the Higgs mechanism, and is not electromagnetic in origin.

    via the use of the most advanced possible quantum electrodynamics that the field equations in vacuum for massive but neutral bodies must be completed with an electromagnetic tensor T of such a first order in magnitude to represent the entire gravitational mass of the neutral body
    That is not what QED says. There is either an electromagnetic field present, or there isn't. It is that simple.

    Again, the only scientifically acceptable criticism are those published in refereed journals as it is the case for Santilli's original paper and at this moment there are none that exist to my knowledge and therefore Santilli's results stand.
    That's not quite how the scientific method works - can you reference a testable prediction from any of his theories, peer-reviewed experimental observations, and independent verification of the results ?

    that the schwarzschild and other metrics are grossly violated for the exterior problem in vacuum because of their solutions of the erroneous Einstein equations with T=0 on the right hand side
    It is interesting to note though how "crossly violated" solutions to "erroneous" equations yield results which are in perfect accordance to experiment and observation :

    Derivation of General Relativity
    Solving the Einstein Field Equations
    Modern Tests of Relativity

    In fact as stated very clearly by Santilli in his '74 MIT paper (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf), when you move from the exterior long distance to the interior short distance problem, you must add weak and strong interactions to the exterior electromagnetic tensor T.
    I quote from page 143 of this very document :

    "We must, however, emphasize that at this point in time there is no ultimate theoretical or experimental evidence substantiating the assumption that short range interactions act as a source of the gravitational field. "

    Finally, I must respectfully disagree again with your view that the anisotropy of highly rotating neutron stars can be represented with the stress energy tensor because that is in violation of your own stated main principle - namely that geometry and the gravitational field coincide.
    And why, exactly, would rotating neutron stars be in violation of the field equations ? Look up Kerr-Newman metric, which I had already referenced in my last post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    By the way, coming back to the questions raised about electromagnetism - what exactly are your contentions about the statements that



    and



    Would you agree with those or not ? If not, how do you propose to amend them ?
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; October 6th, 2012 at 04:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Again, this is a thread highjack, it has nothing to do with the nature of an expanding universe as described by General Relativity (a theory well established and repeatedly tested experimentally, but which Santilli thinks is incorrect) and why cosmologists invoke the cosmological principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    No, Santilli acknowledges that Einstein's theories are applicable and beautifully done to his specifications. In a vacuum and at high speeds.

    It should be noted that Santilli is the only scientist that I know of who really honors Albert Einstein. Because he maintains his axioms and introduces a new broader realization for interior dynamics.

    As opposed to Einstein's followers who abuse his name by applying his theories under conditions that he never intended for and have been experimentally dismissed in various ways.
    Ok. so Santilli does not disagree with Einsteins equations, but you think scientists have subsequently been misapplying them.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    Let me clarify that when I said Einstein’s theories I was referring to Special Relativity while you are referring to GR.
    Excuse me? Why would we be talking about Special Relativity? Cosmology is based in General Relativity, after all.

    But both Special and General Relativity have been repeatedly tested and found to be accurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    Albert Einstein in the formulation of his field equation made a mistake of historical proportions because he ignored the electromagnetic origin of the mass of nuetral bodies in vacuum - since all bodies are made by charges in very high dynamical conditions.
    Mass is the result of the Higgs mechanism, and is not electromagnetic in origin.

    via the use of the most advanced possible quantum electrodynamics that the field equations in vacuum for massive but neutral bodies must be completed with an electromagnetic tensor T of such a first order in magnitude to represent the entire gravitational mass of the neutral body
    That is not what QED says. There is either an electromagnetic field present, or there isn't. It is that simple.

    Again, the only scientifically acceptable criticism are those published in refereed journals as it is the case for Santilli's original paper and at this moment there are none that exist to my knowledge and therefore Santilli's results stand.
    That's not quite how the scientific method works - can you reference a testable prediction from any of his theories, peer-reviewed experimental observations, and independent verification of the results ?

    that the schwarzschild and other metrics are grossly violated for the exterior problem in vacuum because of their solutions of the erroneous Einstein equations with T=0 on the right hand side
    It is interesting to note though how "crossly violated" solutions to "erroneous" equations yield results which are in perfect accordance to experiment and observation :

    Derivation of General Relativity
    Solving the Einstein Field Equations
    Modern Tests of Relativity

    Finally, I must respectfully disagree again with your view that the anisotropy of highly rotating neutron stars can be represented with the stress energy tensor because that is in violation of your own stated main principle - namely that geometry and the gravitational field coincide.
    And why, exactly, would rotating neutron stars be in violation of the field equations ? Look up Kerr-Newman metric, which I had already referenced in my last post.
    I have followed this exchange as an outsider and I must confess to have been shocked by the twisting of clear evidence into scientific jargon, clearly intended for political support of interests surrounding Einstein’s gravitation.

    The replacement of the fully established QED with a hypothetical higgs mechanism based on hypothetical particles has to be denounced as a political stand. The electromagnetic origin of mass is set in history by QED. Higgs games are simply distractions from true progress.

    Santilli’s clear identification of the need for a large T source tensor on the right hand side for a nuetral body is simply beyond any credible doubt. Your dismissal is political because it does not have any technical content.

    This is another clear political scheme because Schwarzchild and other metrics are a solution for T=0 and therefore they are useful to derive GR but this does not mean that GR is correct.

    The claim of solving Einstein Field Equations is also a political twist for the same reason.

    The compatibility of said metric with the so called experimental verification of GR is perhaps the most political point. In fact this “verification” is achieved by selecting one linearization of the field equation amongst many.

    Then selecting one expansion among many, and then selecting one truncation among many possibilities. Any serious scientist in good faith can produce any desired experimental verifications under the manipulations of so many alternatives. In any case, by the very definition of covariance any number predicted by GR can not remain invariant in time. Therefore for this and many other reasons, such as the violation of freud identity, the experimental verification of GR, are the most political episodes in the history of science.

    santilli-foundation.org/inconsistencies-gravitation.php

    Numerous Santilli discoveries have been confirmed, look at Magnegas which is produced by a company listed on nasdaq and other companies throughout the world; the noted isoredshift of the sun and the consequential lack of expansion of the universe has now been experimentally confirmed by various independent scientists around the world and been discussed in a number of international meetings; the intermediate controlled nuclear fusion experiments which have received large funds from china; the new chemical species of magnecules also independently confirmed to such an extent that it is now in industrial production and supported by large industrial funds, shall I continue?

    The gravitational field of rapidly spinning neutron stars is structurally anisotropic and therefore it is outside the representational capability of the ricci tensor as well as of the reimannian geometery at large. Therefore the mentioning of the kerr-newman metric is clearly an intentional derailing of the truely basic physical need, a geometry which is itself anisotropic. As a necessary premise for field equations.

    The denial of this additional incontrovertible evidence identified by Santilli establishes the political intent by you and your organization in denying all evidence that allows the advances of Einstein’s theories.

    In any case, Einstein dreamed of reducing gravitation to pure curvature due to the absence of a source for nuetral bodies in vacuum as it has been proven to yield an incomplete theory.

    Einstein himself admitted this situation by stating that the l.h.s of his equation are like “a house made of marble” while stating that the r.h.s is “a house made of wood” which for European standards means a completed construction of low quality.

    Santilli has stated many times that in the event Einstein had been alive today, he would have immediately have admitted his historical mistake of ignoring the complete electromagnetic origin of the mass.

    The problem exists with Einstein followers that studiously intend to preserve a conception of gravity which is admitted to be incomplete by Einstein himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    By the way, coming back to the questions raised about electromagnetism - what exactly are your contentions about the statements that



    and



    Would you agree with those or not ? If not, how do you propose to amend them ?
    The above request has nothing to do with the entire electromagnetic origin of the gravitational mass according to established QED.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    the noted isoredshift of the sun and the consequential lack of expansion of the universe has now been experimentally confirmed by various independent scientists around the world and been discussed in a number of international meetings
    What is your source for this assertion? I am interested to know which experiments confirm the lack of expansion of the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    The replacement of the fully established QED with a hypothetical higgs mechanism based on hypothetical particles has to be denounced as a political stand. The electromagnetic origin of mass is set in history by QED. Higgs games are simply distractions from true progress.
    The prediction of the Higgs is part of the standard model of particle physics. How is this politically linked to Einstein?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    The above request has nothing to do with the entire electromagnetic origin of the gravitational mass according to established QED.
    Would you care to explain in detail why not ?

    As a necessary premise for field equations.
    So how do you propose to amend the field equations ? Please write down your version of those equations.

    The denial of this additional incontrovertible evidence identified by Santilli establishes the political intent by you and your organization in denying all evidence that allows the advances of Einstein’s theories.
    And what organization would that be, exactly ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    I have followed this exchange as an outsider
    Interesting, considering you have only joined this site today...
    But never mind. Perhaps just explain to us what exactly your agenda is. Just another relativity denier, most likely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    Since I had never even heard of Ruggero Santilli before this thread was published, I did some research myself to get a better idea what exactly that gentleman and his ideas are about. I must say I find it rather difficult to even think of an appropriate adjective to describe the man and his ideas, thus I shall not attempt it. Instead I would urge the interested reader to have a quick look through here :

    http://www.ime.unicamp.br/~walrod/A%20SAD%20STORY.pdf

    This just for the casual readers of this thread who aren't quite sure what to think about all this.
    Enough said
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Indeed. And thus I stand behind all the comments I have made about Santilli in this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Since I had never even heard of Ruggero Santilli before this thread was published, I did some research myself to get a better idea what exactly that gentleman and his ideas are about. I must say I find it rather difficult to even think of an appropriate adjective to describe the man and his ideas, thus I shall not attempt it. Instead I would urge the interested reader to have a quick look through here :

    http://www.ime.unicamp.br/~walrod/A SAD STORY.pdf

    This just for the casual readers of this thread who aren't quite sure what to think about all this.
    Enough said
    Can anybody explain to me the connection between the firing of an edit because of scientific misconduct and the electromagnetic origin of the mass according to QED? This type of bypassing undesired technical issues via the illusion of character assassination do not belong to serious science. May be this unknown man belongs to my group, and clearly does not realize the damage he is causing to us. That's reason I have selected the name for me of WorriedLad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I have followed this exchange as an outsider
    Interesting, considering you have only joined this site today...
    But never mind. Perhaps just explain to us what exactly your agenda is. Just another relativity denier, most likely.
    I believe that most of the questions raised above in this thread on Santilli's studies in gravitation are legitimate, thus deserving attention and proper technical debate. Additionally, the topic is very interesting, particularly for geometers in gravitation who want to give a meaning to their research life which can only be done via basic advances, with all due respect to Einstein who will remain the colossal scientist for ever (and who would be very pleased to see advances over his views if alive today....)

    However, I have the impression that Santilli's studies in gravitation i(which he initiated at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University in the late 1970s) are inspected, in full good faith, small piece by small piece with consequential lack of the big picture. Irrespective of whether correct or wrong, serious visitors of this thread should see this overall picture precisely to have the necessary technical elements for judgment.

    Therefore, I am spending some time to put together a an outline of the mathematical and geometrical foundation of Santilli's view on gravitation that I hope to present in this thread as soon as I can. This will allow serious visitors to see, for instance, for is the use of a certain assumption in the field the equations for other basic aspects, such as a consistent operator formulation of gravitation or the future eventual achievement of a consistent grand unification. Chopping out the issue at the first step without knowing the use can be potentially misleading as I home most of you may agree.

    I also hope that nonscientific "whaakos" such as the one below, are ignored and the comments will be restricted to technical arguments because, no matter how wrong a given theory may be, its debunking can stimulate ideas and advances to open scientific minds. WorriedLad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    Whatever the issue with Santilli is, the real scientific issue is wether the measurements he made on light losing energy when passing through a gas are correct or false.

    We should all be aware of the bias on wikipedia.

    I have no interest in discussing Santilli - only his work.

    P.S. I have heard just recently that Santilli's measurements have been confirmed a second time by independent scientists. Will provide the pdf when they post it.

    Dismissal of confirmed experimental measurements without counter experiments is not science.
    I share your interest in having more experimental data on the propagation of light within a gas, although the topic is very complex. Santilli measurements of IsoRedShift (IRS) have been subjected to severe scrutiny in various blogs in more than one language. The best discussion in English I know of is that in the forum
    Open-mindedness vs being too skeptical - Page 6 - JREF Forum

    I did follow the discussions and my "feeling" is that we got something new here with direct implications for cosmology. At the moment, there have been three sets of measurements over several years all showing that light loses energy to a cold medium, with consequential redshift, without any relative motion (which is the definition of Santilli's isoredshift. I understand that one series of ne additional independent verification for sunset has been done in Europe and I managed to get a few scans. They do confirm that the entire spectrum of visible light is shifted from the zenith to the horizon for at least 100 nm to the right, with the appearance of 100 additional nm in the infrared. Additional verifications are under way, to my understanding, in the USA and abroad, Dismissing these measurement with the illusion of attacking the refereed journals is self-disqualifying.

    Note in the above quoted debates the rebuttal of all criticisms I know. For instance, the usual objection that blue light at the horizon is scattered and the red remains is clearly dismissed by the scans since the entire sector of the red light is shifted for over 100 nm to the infrared. The objection with Rayleigh scattering has also bee dismissed because in astrophysics we have the basic laws of the Doppler effect plus the additional, complementary law on intensity (or luminosity). For Santilli IRS it appears we have the same situation. First the basic physical laws explaining the actual mechanism is the Doppler-0Santilli IRS which is completed by the Rayleigh scattering for the behavior of the intensity, the being a mere phenomenological representation without any explanation for the redshift. Etc.

    If confirmed, I have no doubt that Santilli IRS for the sun will inevitably be assumed as evidence e on Earth on the lack of expansion of the universe because Santilli has essentially proved Zwicky's hypothesis of Tired Light as being correct, although due to a mechanism different than scattering. In view of this complementarity, I have started seeing in the literature the mention of the "Zwicky-Santilli effect."

    Since the number of physicists believe on Earth at the center of the universe is dwindling rapidly, the lack of expansion of the universe has received a major technical support (independent from Santilli IRS) by a number of papers, such as

    LaViolette, Paul A. "Is the universe really expanding?" The
    Astrophysical Journal 301 (1986): 544-553.

    which proved that Zwicky hypothesis of light losing energy to intergalactic media fits the experimental data on cosmological redshift better that the expansion of the universe (I am NOT saying this, The above paper at the authoritative APJ did... So,m since most will not agree, the APJ is no longer good? Perhaps? or facts have nothing to do with the journal in which they appear?).

    In the event I manage to secure copy of expected papers in the field, I shall list them in this thread. As for the other aspects dealing with Santilli's research, I hope the moderator deletes political attacks and restricts the discussion in this Science forum to technical issues because this forum is visited by sxcientists the world over and our image is at stake here. WorriedLad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    I believe that most of the questions raised above in this thread on Santilli's studies in gravitation are legitimate, thus deserving attention and proper technical debate.
    Then why are you here on this site, which is a forum for amateurs interested in science ? Very few if any of us are scientists by trade, so if you are really interested in a professional debate then this is the wrong platform for you. Go through the proper channels.

    Can anybody explain to me the connection between the firing of an edit because of scientific misconduct and the electromagnetic origin of the mass according to QED?
    His "improper conduct" consisted of pointing out errors in Santilli's work. Now see his reaction.
    As for QED - it is a theory about interactions between matter and EM fields, it says nothing about origins of mass.

    Irrespective of whether correct or wrong, serious visitors of this thread should see this overall picture precisely to have the necessary technical elements for judgment.
    Once again, this is the wrong platform. Few people here are scientists, and fewer still will understand Santilli's papers due to the level of maths he uses.

    And why did you not answer any of my questions in post 33 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    I share your interest in having more experimental data on the propagation of light within a gas, although the topic is very complex. Santilli measurements of IsoRedShift (IRS) have been subjected to severe scrutiny in various blogs in more than one language. The best discussion in English I know of is that in the forum
    As you claim to be more interested in the science, can you provide references to where these results have been published (i.e. not blogs or forums)?

    At the moment, there have been three sets of measurements over several years all showing that light loses energy to a cold medium, with consequential redshift, without any relative motion (which is the definition of Santilli's isoredshift. I understand that one series of ne additional independent verification for sunset has been done in Europe and I managed to get a few scans. They do confirm that the entire spectrum of visible light is shifted from the zenith to the horizon for at least 100 nm to the right, with the appearance of 100 additional nm in the infrared. Additional verifications are under way, to my understanding, in the USA and abroad, Dismissing these measurement with the illusion of attacking the refereed journals is self-disqualifying.
    It is hard to make any comment on these results when you don't provide any citations as to where they have been published.

    In view of this complementarity, I have started seeing in the literature the mention of the "Zwicky-Santilli effect."
    "The literature"? Again, do you have any citations for scientific papers where this effect is described?

    Since the number of physicists believe on Earth at the center of the universe is dwindling rapidly
    What an odd comment. I would imagine that has been approximately zero for several hundred years.

    restricts the discussion in this Science forum to technical issues
    Quite ironic for a completely content-free post.

    because this forum is visited by sxcientists the world over and our image is at stake here.
    I doubt that many scientists visit this forum (with no disrespect to the members who are scientists ). And if they do, the "image" will be of a forum populated by cranks and crackpots!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Part 1/4

    THE NEED TO INSPECT SANTILLI'S REFORMULATION OF EINSTEIN GRAVITATION AND CONFIRM OR DISPROVE ITS VALUE

    I will also attempt to upload this article at SciRen - The Front Page

    Please note that only serious science is admitted and manipulations of science via character assassinations, offensive names, and the like are prohibited.

    I continue to see character assassination on the site thescienceforum(dot)com/pseudoscience/30752-ruggero-santilli.html#post356818 as a clear way to bypass the advancements of GR discovered by Santilli. I would like to make one final attempt to steer the discussions to true science, by asking the moderator to delete all character assassinations because they call for evident responses damaging our group. Let us not forget that the image of our science throughout the world is at stake here and the recent perception abroad is rather bleak.

    What is particularly damaging to us is that Santilli achieved full education in Italy and left a wealthy family (his father was an MD) to immigrate to and serve America where he has achieved a rather good record (see the DVD in his CV www(dot)world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv).

    If we treat qualified immigrant scientist the way we have been treating Santilli just for his pursuing of research beyond Einstein, then how do we expect other foreign scientists to view this country?

    As a final comment, I discourage the usual snide comments with no technical knowledge of the field which merely yield the illusion of science. Santilli's studies are based on a new mathematics underlying his new geometries specifically built for the solution of now vexing problems in gravitation, whose construction was initiated by Santilli when he was at MIT and at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University in the late 1970s. Any venturing of judgment without a technical knowledge of the applicable mathematics should be avoided.


    1. THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ORIGIN OF THE GRAVITATIONAL MASS

    I have studied Santilli's 1974 paper at MIT Annals of Physics [1] and consulted serious colleagues in this field, outside the usual box, and must agree with his conclusion.

    Specifically, either we accept Einstein field equations

    (1) G = 0.

    in which case QED has to be revised from its foundation to prevent any primary electromagnetic origin of the mass,

    Or we accept QED and use the ensuing Einstein-Santilli field equations

    (2) G = k T

    where the volume integral of T_{00} represents the entire gravitational mass of the body considered, in which case, GR needs to be reformulated from its foundation.

    To be serious, objections to Santilli's work ref. [1], should be established in a refereed journal, namely, that the gravitational mass of the pi^o meson is entirely of electromagnetic origin whenever said particle is assumed as a bound state of an elementary point-like charged constituents and its antiparticle.  The result is then easily extended to full neutral massive bodies.

    I am writing this message because I tried to disprove Santilli's results and failed. Maybe I am wrong.

    Since we do not have such a published disproof, Santilli's statements that have been published stands on standard science.

    We have a need to identify it as valid or invalid, as well as its consequences.

    Our group has to eventually understand that denying physical reality via derailments of topics, character assassination, and other similar tactics has stimulated all sort of attacks, including that of the misuse of public funds.  Unless we address these issues technically, the long term damage we suffer will be much larger than the temporary and myopic gains we may derive from political maneuverings.

    2. DRAMATIC CONSEQUENCES

    Under the admission of the electromagnetic origin of the gravitational mass of neutral bodies, there is no part of GR as studies in the past century that can be salvaged, to my knowledge. If we can salvage GR, please do let me know if you can provide a worthy argument. Here is a short list of problems:

    1) Bending of light. All current representations of the bending of light with curvature become inapplicable for field equations (2), to my knowledge, for the very simple reason that gravitation is represented by dynamical equations and is no longer entirely represented by curvature of space. In this case, the bending of light remains fully Newtonian according to Santilli's reformulation of Newton's equations into a universal form, that is, including mass and light. (See, Chapter 3 of [Ref. 2] that includes historical references)

     (3) F = g' E_1 E_2/r^2, g' = g/c^4.

    2) Black holes. The Schwarzchild's and other known metrics are no longer a solution of field equations (2) under the electromagnetic origin of the gravitational mass. It is possible so see that the absence of singularities for Eq. (2) (e,g,, from the inability to cross the volume of integration of T_{00} and other reasons) and the consequential absence of "black holes" as conventionally understood. However, "brown holes" are expected for Eqs. (2) even from mere Newtonian arguments. Consequently, astrophysical evidence on black holes to dismiss the Einstein-Santilli equations has no scientific value since these data do not exclude the possibility that they are in reality black holes. At any rate, logic indicates the absence of infinities in the universe.

    3) Equivalence principle and all that. To my understanding, all these formulations have to be reformulated from their structure. In the event I am mistaken, please indicate a scientific paper (PLEASE for the sake of our scientific image in the world as well as in history, avoid unnecessary comments.)


    3. DRAMATIC POSSIBILITIES

    I disagree with my colleagues that the above revisions should be overlooked. I see instead dramatic possibilities for truly new advances by our group. We have to face the fact that the reformation of gravitation for field equations (2) has to be done.  Whether we like it or not, it will be done sooner or later. This is inevitable for scientific curiosity alone. In the event we do not do it, others will do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Part 2/4

    4. THE EMOTIONAL DRAMA CAUSED BY THE DISCOVERY OF THE FREUD IDENTITY OF THE RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY

    In his 1974 paper, Santilli assumed the historical distinction of exterior and interior gravitational problem as clearly
    used by Schwarzchild in his celebrated two papers carrying such a distinction in the titles.

    Therefore, Santilli presented Eqs. (2) solely for the exterior gravitational field, namely for any test mass placed outside the volume encompassing a given body, as it should be (can you test Eqs. (1) inside Earth perhaps? of course not. But then denying the distinction of exterior and interior problems is descriptiveness). For the interior gravitational problem, that inside said all encompassing volume, Santilli introduced the broader equations

    (4) G = k_1 T + k_2 S

    where SD_{\mu\nu} is generated, according to Santilli, by short range interactions but it evidently admits any other desired representation, e.g... by the stress-energy tensor.

    The interpretation of the S-tensor is not relevant here.  You may assume what you wish.  However, the really important features identified by Santilli in ref. [1] are that the T-tensor must be traceless, while the S-tensor should not.

    When at the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University under DOE support in the late 1970's, Santilli conducted systematic searches in the library of the Cantabrigian area to see whether Eqs. (4) had any geometric support from the Riemannian geometry.

    After a decade or so of search, Santilli discovered the Freud identity of the Riemannian geometry [3] that requires two tensors on the r.h.s. of the field equations that, following due arrangements, are given by one traceless tensor and one not.

    I have been told by Santilli's associates that, prior to assuming this identity, Santilli sent Freud's paper to various mathematicians for appraisal. I have been told that some geometers reacted quite emotionally, evidently because the Freud identity prohibits Einstein's reduction of gravitation to pure geometry, Eqs. (2), in clear support of Eqs. (2) or, more technically, Eqs. (4).

    Other mathematicians behaved scientifically, such as H. Rund [4] and they confirmed that the Freud identity is indeed fully legitimate and independent from other identities, thus being indeed the fifth identity of the Riemannian geometry.

    It is very unfortunate for our group that Freud's beautiful and remarkable intuition continues to be the subject of clear political maneuverings. One of them is that the true Einstein equations are given by Eqs. (2) and not (1). Therefore, Einstein gravitation verifies the Freud identity. Unfortunately, this is very damaging to the current standard because:

    1) The Freud identity requires source terms in the r.h.s. that are "first order in magnitude," while Einstein's equations do admit a source tensor in the r.h.s., but unfortunately it is not of first order in magnitude.   The total charge and magnetic field of a body, solely admitted by Einstein field equations, actually contributes to the gravitational field for 10^{-49} or so.

    2) For the case of neutral bodies Einstein's equations are Eqs. (1) and not (2), while the Freud identity requires two first order tensors irrespective of whether for charged or neutral bodies.

    3) Even assuming that the Freud identity can be somehow manipulated so as to salvage Einstein's equations (1), criticisms of the Freud identity are easily identified as fraudulent or incompetence, unless someone ends up disproving Santilli's dynamical derivation of the same identity.

    In short, colleagues in gravitation should take the situation seriously for their own sake because we are facing a fully integrated dynamical setting (the actual origin of the mass) with a purely geometric confirmation - each one independently supporting the other.

    These are the foundations that allowed Santilli to achieve the first serious unification of electromagnetism and gravitation, that via their "identification" for the case of the exterior problems.

    Santilli's grand unification with the inclusion of electroweak interactions will be outlined below.

    5. THE GR INSUFFICIENCIES DUE TO COVARIANCE
    I am in full agreement, of course, with the historical meaning of covariance in GR. However, Santilli has identified rather serious insufficiencies of a merely 'covariant" gravitation and has achieved the universal invariance of all Riemannian line elements in a 1993 paper [5]. In actuality, Santilli has dedicated decades to the universal invariance of Riemannian line elements via the so-called axiom-preserving isotopies of each and every part of the Lorentz and Poincare' symmetry as well as of the spinorial coverings of the latter (to avoid a prohibitive list of references, one may see the post with references all available in free pdf download.)

    We are talking about serious results here.

    If we keep ignoring them just for political preference on covariance, I am afraid our group will have its condemnation sealed in history because covariance has serious problems that require they be addressed.

    Santilli's main argument, to my understanding, is based on what he calls "the majestic axiomatic consistency of special relativity" (ref. [2]).  This is due to invariance over time he specifies as "the prediction of the same numerical values under the same conditions at different times." As it is well known, such an invariance is guaranteed in SR by the Lorentz and Poincare' "symmetries" (certainly not covariance.)

    When passing to GR, Santilli has shown, again to my understanding, that covariance implies the impossibility of predicting the same numerical values under the same conditions at different times. As a result, it appears that GR can only produce a "polaroid picture" of gravity, namely, derive numerical values solely valid at one given "fixed" time. You move forward in time and you get basically different numerical values under the same conditions, thus causing structural inconsistencies of the theory.

    Clearly, a gravitational theory with an "invariance" is more relevant than one based on "covariance." Since the former exists in publicly accessible refereed journal, by ignoring it we just damage ourselves.  Do you think that we can manage to have Santilli's invariant formulation of gravity ignored forever via character assassination and the like?   Think again.

    6. INSUFFICIENCIES FOR THE GRAVITY OF ANTIMATTER
    The above aspects are only a small part of Santilli's studies in gravitation. The remaining aspects are perhaps the most intriguing.

    We should analyze these new ideas and either prove them or disprove them with serious scientific works.

    The next major insufficiency of GR identified by Santilli is its inability to represent the gravitation of antimatter bodies, evidently because they must be assumed as being "neutral," while GR solely admits the charge for matter-antimatter conjugation [7]

    Alternatively, Santilli has identified the fact that the mere use of the charge for the conjugation from matter to antimatter is basically insufficient for the characterization of the gravitational field of antimatter bodies because, even assuming that the antimatter body has a "total" charge, its contribution to the gravitational field is excessively small to allow a consistent matter-antimatter conjugation.

    To solve this problem, Santilli has constructed a new mathematics called "isodual" for certain technical reasons that he initiated when he was at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University in the late 1970s. Isodual mathematics is based on the assumption of the "negative" left and right unit [7]

    (5) 1^* = -1

    at all levels, from numbers to geometry. This mathematics can be constructed via a simple anti-Hermitean map of the entire Riemannian formalism, thus implying the conjugation of all physical and mathematical quantities as well as their operations and their units.

    Santilli's isodual mathematics and its isodual theory of antimatter has produced the first, that I am aware of, known geometric representation of the gravitational field of antimatter bodies (irrespective of whether neutral or charged) [7] 

    In the event there are other representations, please let me know.

    The implications of Santilli's isodual theory of antimatter are substantial and we can ignore them only to our peril.   By denoting the isodual map with the upper symbol d. Then Santilli has achieved the first known Newton's equation for antiparticles

    (6) m^d x^d d^dv^d/^d d^d t^d = f^s(t^d, r^d, v^d);

    the truly "universal" formulation of newton's gravitation with the inclusion of antimatter bodies and light

    (7)F = g' E_1 E^d_2/r^2;

    the prediction that light emitted by antimatter is physically different than light emitted by matter, and it is actually repelled by matter gravitational fields as evident in the preceding equation since E^d = - E; the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter for which new experiments are being proposed and funded outside our group. If we keep ignoring these studies, again, we only damage ourselves and let basic discoveries be made by others.

    To understand fully the attacks our group is suffering. One should know that there are serious reasons to suspect the impossibility of detecting antimatter asteroids with Sun light [9]. hence we are accused of pushing the politics on Einstein's theories to such an extreme of potentially endangering our planet. The serious issue is that these aspects have to be studied in refereed publications and resolved experimentally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Part 3/4

    7. SANTILLI GRAVITATION FOR MATTER AND ANTIMATTER
    In order to achieve a consistent grand unification discussed below, Santilli does not formulate equations (2) or (4) via the conventional Riemannian geometry, because such a geometry has precluded any serious grand unification beginning with Einstein.

    By recalling his love for the "majestic beauty" of SR, Santilli formulates fields equations (2) and (4) via an axiom-preserving broadening of the "Minkowski" geometry he calls iso-Minkowskian [9], where the prefix "iso" stands to indicate the elaboration via his isomathematics identified below.

    Santilli's iso-Minkowskian geometry is basically a new geometry on several counts.

    Since the metric is dependent on local variables, the isogeometry admits all the machinery of the Riemann geometry (Christoffell's symbols, etc.), yet it is locally isomorphic to the Minkowski geometry, thus having no curvature.

    The new geometry permits novel formulations of interior gravitational problems thanks to an unrestricted functional dependence of the metric which are impossible for the Riemannian geometry.

    The iso-Minkowski geometry is the only one I know permitting a geometry representation of the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of the gravitational field of highly rotating bodies, such as neutron stars; etc. [9].

    I have to admit that Santilli's procedure for the iso-Minkowskian reformulation of the Riemannian geometry (presented for the first time at the Marcel Grossmann Meeting in Gravitation held at SLAC [10]) is quite simple and elegant, with rather vast implications,

    Let g(r) be an arbitrary (non-singular) Riemannian metric, and let m = Diag. (1, 1, 1, -1) be the Minkowski metric. Then, Santilli iso-Minkowskian reformulation of the Riemannian geometry is based on the following simple steps [10]:

    A) The factorization of m out of g(r)

    (8) g(r) = T(r) m,

    resulting in a 4 x 4 matrix T(r) which contains all gravitational information, and which is necessarily positive-definite, thus invertible (due to the locally Minkowskian character of Riemann),

    B) The assumption of the "inverse" of T(r)

    (9) I*(r) = 1 / T(r) > 0

    as the basic unit of the geometry at all levels;

    C) The reformulation of the entire mathematics used in gravitation, from numbers to geometry, in such a way to admit I*, rather than 1, as the correct left and right unit, This resulted in another new mathematics developed by Santilli at MIT and at Harvard University in the 1970s and today known as "Santilli isomathematics" (see monographs [11] on the studies of this period and pleasant Lectures [12] on the recollection of his status at MIT and Harvard).

    The main step is the assumption of the following generalized product between two generic quantities (n um,bees, matrices, etc.)

    (10) A x B = A T(r) B

    for which I*(r) is indeed the left and right unit, with consequential reformulation of numbers, metric spaces, functional;l analysis, differential calculus, etc. Note that new product (10) is still associative, thus called by Santilli "isoassociative."

    A segment of these studies particularly important for advances in gravitation is given by the axiom preserving isotopies of the various branches of Lie's theory (enveloping algebras, Lie al;algebras, Lie groups, etc.) initiated by Santilli in 1978 (see Refs. [11] and original papers quoted therein) with Lie-Santilli isoalgebras

    (11) X_i T X_j - X_j T X_i = C_{ij}^k X_k

    and Lie-Santilli isogroups, e.g., for the time evolution

    (12) A(t) = [Exp(H T t i)] A(0) [Exp(- i t T H)]

    The resulting covering of Lie's theory has been studied by several mathematicians (see, e.g., monograph [13]) and it is today known as the "Lie-Santilli isotheory."

    The implications of Santilli iso-Minkowskian procedure are far reaching because the Einstein-Santilli field equation (2) or (4) remain unchanged and so are the line elements and the usual machinery of the Riemannian geometry. However, instead of being referred to the unit I = Diag. (1, 1, 1, 1), the equations are referred to the unit I*(r) = 1/T (called "gravitational isounit"). Riemannian line elements are then reformulated as follows

    (13) [ x^2 = (x^\mu g_{\mu\nu} x^\nu) I* = [x^\mu (T_\mu^\rho (r) m_{\rho\nu} x^\nu ] 1/T(r)

    The important result is the disappearance of curvature because the new space is isomorphic to the Minkowski space despite the dependence of the metric from the coordinates [9]. To my understanding, Santilli's procedure causes the deformation (called "mutation" to avoid confusions with ordinary deformations) of the Minkowski metric via the gravitational factor T(r)

    (14) m => T(r) m = g(r);

    but jointly, Santilli mutates the unit I = Diag. (1, 1,l 1,. 1) by the inverse amount

    (15) I => I*(r) = 1 / T(r);

    thus eliminating curvature because the line element must be an element of the isofield (isoscalar in Santilli's language), with structure

    (16) Invariant = [length] x [unit]

    Therefore, any change of length combined with the inverse change of the unit leaves the invariant unchanged for constant matrix T, while maintaining the original topology for a coordinate dependent matrix T(r).

    Note that Santilli achieved the universal invariance of Riemannian line elements (13) in one page of the 1983 letter [9], but this results was only possible following a decade of prior studies in the isotopies of Lie's theory [11]. In fact, the universal invariance of all [possible line elements (13) is uniquely constructed by the Lie-Santilli isotheory via the sole knowledge of the gravitational element T(r), e.g., as in Eqs. (11), (12).

    To understand this scientific edifice, the reader should know that the elimination of curvature was necessary for Santilli to achieve the universal invariance of Lie elements (13). In fact, the impossibility to achieve a universal invariance under curvature is the very origin of the sole remaining g alternative, that of covariance.

    The main question our group has to answer without politics (in order not to risk a historical condemnation) is the following: is Santilli isogravitation verified in nature or not? For minimal dignity, we have to admit that the advantages of Santilli isogravitation over Einstein gravitation are rather substantial and can only be denied to our peril, as identified in part below. If we deny this reality because of the politics surrounding Einstein's theories, we will be only damaged.

    8. INCOMPATIBILITY OF GR WITH SR AND SANTILLI RESOLUTION
    At this point we have to be honest with ourselves. Despite a century of efforts, we have been unable to achieve a clear proof of compatibility between GR and SR.

    Santilli assumes one argument as dominant, namely, the impossibility for the total conservation laws of SR to be compatible with corresponding laws of GR due to covariance. In fact, the former are invariant over time, while the latter are not.

    The compatibility of Santilli IsoGravitation (IG) with SR has been proven beyond scientific doubts, because:

    1) The representation space in the transition from SR to IG remains topologically the same;

    2) The generators of the Poincare' symmetry (that sets the conserved quantities) remain the same in the transition to Santilli's universal symmetry of the Riemann line element [9]; and

    3) The reduction of IG to SR is simple and unambiguously done by the limit

    (17) I*(r) => I.

    Can someone please deny scientifically the advantage of IG over GR?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Part 4/4

    9. INCOMPATIBILITY OF GR WITH QM AND SANTILLI'S RESOLUTION

    We also have to be honest with ourselves on this additional point - Einstein's gravitation is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Of course we have quantum gravity. However, Santilli has established that, since Einstein gravitation is a noncanonical theory, its operator image must be non-unitary. At this point I have to recall the well known fact that nonunitary broadening of quantum mechanics violates causality and many other laws.

    Should we keep silent on the evident need to seek alternative quantum formulations of gravitation? I firmly believe that our group is best served by scientific honesty, that requires studying Santilli's arguments in refereed publications with clear quotations of his papers in chronological order. Again, Santilli's resolution is so simple, so elegant and, therefore, so appealing that our continued oblivion for decades only causes increasing damage to those of us who identify ourselves as scientists or mathematicians.

    Santilli achieves an operator formulation of gravitation via the mere embedding of the gravitation in the unit of relativistic quantum mechanics, that is, via the replacement of Plank's constant with the gravitational isounit

    (18) h => I*(r) = 1 / T(r), T(r) m = g(r) = Riemann metric

    and then reformulating all aspects of QM via the isomathematics, so that I*(r) is indeed the correct left and right unit at all levels of the operator theory. This assured the verification of causality and the preservation at the abstract level of the "majestic consistency" of QM (see Lectures [12) a nice review of the decades of his solitary efforts to achieve such results.)

    The above operator image of IG was first proposed by Santilli at the Marcel Grossman Meeting in Gravitation held at SLAC [10] and then subjected to rather vast studies summarized in monographs [14]. As an illustration, by recalling the isoproduct (10), the conventional eigenvalue equation is lifted by Santilli in the gravitational form

    (19) H x | > = H T(r) | > = E } >

    by therefore representing gravitation as a form of "
    hidden variables" of the quantum formalism, again, due to the fact that the isoproduct H x |> remain as associative as the con conventional quantum form.

    The same holds for all other aspects. For instance, Santilli's isotopic lifting of Dirac's equation characterizes new forms of the gamma matrices whose anticommutators relations are characterized precisely by the Riemannian metric, thus confirming the presence of gravitation of the operator level.

    It is fairly well established that there have been those who have vigorously opposed Santilli's operator formulation of gravitation, and continue to do so to this day, because Santilli has called Hadronic Mechanics (HM) the emerging covering of QM [14], thus giving the impression of damaging our interests. In reality I believe the opposite is true because the historical values remain in the "axioms" and, by conception and construction, the axioms of HM are those of QM. So, are our scientific leaders perhaps afraid of a broader realization of the axioms of QM and want our group to remain outside of the various new technologies that it has already permitted? I hope not.

    10. INCOMPATIBILITY OF GR WITH GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES AND SANTILLI ISO-GRAND-UNIFICATION

    We now provide a conceptual outline of the biggest achievement by Santilli in gravitation, a grand unification of gravitation and electroweak interactions for matter as well as for antimatter, first presented at the Marcel Grossmann Meeting in Gravitation held in Jerusalem [15], and then studied in great details in monograph [7]. In my view, this achievement constitutes one of the most important achievements of theoretical physics during the second half of the 20th century whose dismissal via character assassination and other schemes can only damage us.

    First, Santilli conducted an in depth analysis of most of the grand unifications attempted during the past century, and concluded that their failure is primarily due to the following problems:

    I) Electroplate interactions constitute "invariant" theories, while Einstein gravitation is "covariant," a feature that, under grand unification, destroys the beautiful physical consistency of the former theories.

    II) Electroweak theories constitute "unitary" theories, thus enjoying their known physical consistencies, while Einstein gravitation is "noncanonical" at the classical level with ensuing "non-unitary" character under operator unification with electroweak interactions, resulting in the loss of physical consistency of the former theories.

    III) Electroweak interactions contains a beautiful democracy in the representation of matter and antimatter, while Einstein gravitation solely represent matter. Therefore, no grand unification is expected to be physically consistent without first achieving a representation of the gravitational field of antimatter.

    Santilli isogravitation does indeed solve Problems I, II and III above. As a matter of fact, all preceding studies were intended precisely for their resolution. The formulation of gravitation in the iso-Minkowskian geometry allows the solution of problems I and II, while the isodual map solves problem III. The resulting Iso-Grand-Unification (IGU) is then merely achieved by embedding gravitatation in the unit of gauge theories [7].


    11. EPILOGUE
    It is clear that, in the event Santilli had been one of the "in crowd," he would have received a Nobel prize in physics a long time ago. That's most damaging to us because history teaches that, sooner or later, physics always admits realities. The current electronic era allows the recording of all events for posterity to judge. The main issue is can Einstein gravitation achieve the results presented in sections 8, 9, and 10 with the same clarity and consistency achieved by Santilli isogravitation.

    Of course, I expect all kind of hysteria in seeing the Einstein's theories advanced by the unknown Santilli who is not part of said "in crowd."

    But that's the very reason for my name.

    Please leave out any self damaging insults or ridicule.

    Thanks,

    WorriedLad


    REFERENCES

    [1] R. M. Santilli, "Partons and Gravitation: some Puzzling Questions,"
    (MIT) Annals of Physics, Vol. 83, 108-157 (1974),
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf.

    [2]I. Gandzha and J Kadeisvili, New Sciences for a New Era:Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Discoveries of Ruggero Maria Santilli Sankata Printing Press, Nepal (2011),
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf

    [3] P. Freud, Ann. Math. 40 (2), 417 (1939)

    [4] H. Rund, Algebras, Groups and Geometries 8, 267 (1991).

    [4] R. M. Santilli, "Nine Theorems of inconsistencies in General Relativity
    and their possible resolution via Isogravitation,
    Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol 17 No. 3, page 43 (2006_
    www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Incons.GravFinalGED-I.pdf

    [5] R. M. Santilli, "Lie-isotopic Lifting of Special Relativity for Extended Deformable Particles," Lettere Nuovo Cimento, 545 (1983),
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-50.pdf
    and "Nonlinear, Nonlocal and Noncanonical isotopies of the Poincare' Symmetry," Moscow Phys. Soc. Vol. 3, 255 (1993),
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-40.pdf

    [6] R. Anderson, "Main references on the Lorentz-Poincare;-Santilli isosymmetry"
    Isoredshift Testing Station | The R.M. Santilli Foundation

    [7] R. M. Santilli, Isodual Theory of Antimatter with Application to Antigravity,Grand Unification and the Spacetime Machine, Springer 2001

    [8] R. M. Santilli, "The Mystery of Detecting Antimatter Asteroids, Stars and Galaxies,"
    American Institute of Physics Proceedings Vol. 1479, page 1028 (2012)
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...-asteroids.pdf

    [9] R. M. Santilli, "Isominkowskian Geometry for the Gravitational Treatment of Matter and its Isodual for Antimatter," Intern. J. Modern Phys. D {\bf 7}, 351 (1998),
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf

    [10] R. M. Santilli, "Isotopic quantization of gravity and its universal isopoincare' symmetry" in the {\it Proceedings of "The Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting in Gravitation,} SLAC 1992, R. T. Jantzen, G. M. Keiser and R. Ruffini, Editors, World Scientific Publishers pages 500-505(1994),
    http://www.santilli-foundation.orgdocs/Santilli-120.pdf

    [11] R. M. Santilli, Foundation of Theoretical Mechanics,
    Volume I (1978), and Volume II (1982),
    Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany,
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ntilli-209.pdf
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-69.pdf

    [12] R. M. santilli, Lectures IIA and IIB of the World Lecture Series
    Level II | World Lecture Series

    [13] D. S. Sourlas. and Gr. T. Tsagas, Mathematical Foundation of the Lie-Santilli Theory.
    Ukraine Academy of Sciences 1993,
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-70.pdf

    [14] R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics.Volumes I and II
    Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev, 1995,
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ntilli-300.pdf
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ntilli-301.pdf

    [15] R. M. Santilli, "Unification of gravitation and electroweak interactions" in the proceedings of the of the Eight Marcel Grossmann Meeting in Gravitation, Israel 1997, T. Piran and R. Ruffini, Editors, World Scientific, pages 473-475 (1999),
    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ntilli-137.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    1) Bending of light. All current representations of the bending of light with curvature become inapplicable for field equations (2), to my knowledge, for the very simple reason that gravitation is represented by dynamical equations and is no longer entirely represented by curvature of space. In this case, the bending of light remains fully Newtonian according to Santilli's reformulation of Newton's equations into a universal form, that is, including mass and light. (See, Chapter 3 of [Ref. 2] that includes historical references)
    Does Santilli's reformulation of Newton's equations result in a doubling of the amount of bending predicted by Newtonian Gravity? I only ask because General Relativity accurately predicts the amount that light is bent around the Sun, whilst Newtonian Gravity does not.

    So, does Santilli's prediction match the prediction of General Relativity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    (note: as you seem a bit hypersensitive about negative comments, I should perhaps say that none of the following is intended as criticism; just curiosity)

    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    I will also attempt to upload this article at SciRen - The Front Page
    Yep, should look good next to Man Steals Pigs on Motorcycle

    What is particularly damaging to us is that Santilli achieved full education in Italy and left a wealthy family (his father was an MD) to immigrate to and serve America where he has achieved a rather good record
    Just so we know the rules, ad-hominem arguments are banned but argument from authority is OK? Just checking.

    And who is the "us" that it is damaging to?

    If we treat qualified immigrant scientist the way we have been treating Santilli just for his pursuing of research beyond Einstein, then how do we expect other foreign scientists to view this country?
    "This country"? You mean the USA, presumably? I doubt any non-American scientists will be checking this forum to understand the USA. Many posters (possibly the majority) are not American.

    I see instead dramatic possibilities for truly new advances by our group.
    What group is that?

    You still haven't told who did these experiments:
    there have been three sets of measurements over several years all showing that light loses energy to a cold medium, with consequential redshift, without any relative motion
    Last edited by Strange; October 15th, 2012 at 05:14 PM.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    Specifically, either we accept Einstein field equations

    (1) G = 0.

    in which case QED has to be revised from its foundation to prevent any primary electromagnetic origin of the mass,

    Or we accept QED and use the ensuing Einstein-Santilli field equations

    (2) G = k T

    where the volume integral of T_{00} represents the entire gravitational mass of the body considered, in which case, GR needs to be reformulated from its foundation.
    Ok then, let's start with the basics. Would you explain to us in detail how the above given "Einstein-Santilli field equations" differ from the "normal" Einstein field equations, which are



    Also - do you understand the difference between



    and



    Next then, because no one here has time to wade through Santilli's rather voluminous publications, I need you to explain to us how



    is possibly in contradiction to any of the above.

    Lastly, I am quite disappointed that I have not received any answers to my questions in posts 28 and 33 - after all it is you who keeps demanding a technical discussion, so please answer my technical questions, and answer them properly.

    EDIT : Congratulations ! You have just been appointed the official representative of Santilli here, so I will have a lot of very technical questions for you. Hope your differential geometry skills are up to scratch
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,666
    Moderator Intervention:
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    [As for the other aspects dealing with Santilli's research, I hope the moderator deletes political attacks and restricts the discussion in this Science forum to technical issues because this forum is visited by sxcientists the world over and our image is at stake here. WorriedLad
    Thus far the only politics in this thread are arising from your own posts. In your first post you make allegations of polticial intent on eight occassions. In this forum we prefer discussions to centre around the facts, not an individual's arrogant and unsupported assertions of political motive. I ask that you keep this in mind in future.

    I am also disturbed by this remark
    The denial of this additional incontrovertible evidence identified by Santilli establishes the political intent by you and your organization in denying all evidence that allows the advances of Einstein’s theories.
    1. Clearly the evidence is not incontrovertible, since some persons contest that evidence.
    2. Which organisation are you referring to? This forum has a diverse membership with many varied views. The only 'political' intent is an implicit one to encourage discussion of scientific matters while broadly following the principles of scientific methodology. Your assertion that there is an orchestrated attempt to supress views or evidence is unwelcome and unfounded.

    Your scientific contributions to the thread and the forum are most welcome. (Personally I long for a dismantling of BBT, but I currently see no prospect of that.) However, your unfounded allegations of political intent, which I am tempted to characterise as assinine, are not welcome. You will cease these at once, or face suspension. If you have issues with this please contact and Admin or report this post or pm me. Do not raise the matter in this thread. Thank you.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The above request has nothing to do with the entire electromagnetic origin of the gravitational mass according to established QED.
    Would you care to explain in detail why not ?

    As a necessary premise for field equations.
    So how do you propose to amend the field equations ? Please write down your version of those equations.
    G = k T

    Where G represents Einstein's tensor and T represents electromagnetic origin of the mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Specifically, either we accept Einstein field equations

    (1) G = 0.

    in which case QED has to be revised from its foundation to prevent any primary electromagnetic origin of the mass,

    Or we accept QED and use the ensuing Einstein-Santilli field equations

    (2) G = k T

    where the volume integral of T_{00} represents the entire gravitational mass of the body considered, in which case, GR needs to be reformulated from its foundation.
    Ok then, let's start with the basics. Would you explain to us in detail how the above given "Einstein-Santilli field equations" differ from the "normal" Einstein field equations, which are



    Also - do you understand the difference between



    and



    Next then, because no one here has time to wade through Santilli's rather voluminous publications, I need you to explain to us how



    is possibly in contradiction to any of the above.

    Lastly, I am quite disappointed that I have not received any answers to my questions in posts 28 and 33 - after all it is you who keeps demanding a technical discussion, so please answer my technical questions, and answer them properly.

    EDIT : Congratulations ! You have just been appointed the official representative of Santilli here, so I will have a lot of very technical questions for you. Hope your differential geometry skills are up to scratch
    Thank you, this is also a good technical question. Allow me to clarify possible misconceptions.

    What is called Einstein-Santilli field equations formally coincide with the Einstein equations you see in the books and that is the reason for some misinterpretation.

    The main difference is that the former equations refer to neutral bodies while the latter equations represent bodies with electric and magnetic moments. Additionally, the contribution to the gravitational field of total electric and magnetic moments is so small that it can be ignored. This is the very reason that Einstein assumed G = 0.

    By contrast, the T tensor in Einstein-Santilli equations is such that T_{00} is that the volume integral of T_{00} represents the entire gravitational mass of the body considered.

    In conclusion, the most important aspect, is the extremely large difference in numerical values for the source tensor that constitutes the fundamental novelty to such an extent that conventional Schwarzchild and other metrics are not even approximate solutions.

    However the open issue is to see whether such a large source tensor is confirmed in nature or not.

    THe Lagrangian you indicate is not in contradiction with Einstein-Santilli equations.

    Again, the only difference is the very large value of the electromagnetic term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    By the way, coming back to the questions raised about electromagnetism - what exactly are your contentions about the statements that



    and



    Would you agree with those or not ? If not, how do you propose to amend them ?
    To my knowledge, in his 1974 paper at MIT Annals of Physics, Santilli solely uses standard QED based on historical Maxwell equations and proposes no changes in those equations. This is the whole point because absolutely standard electromagnetism predicts that masses of all bodies no matter how big they are, are of purely electromagnetic origin.

    This is a very important point for achieving grand unification. In his '74 paper, he completely dismisses the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism on various grounds and replaces it instead with 100% identification of gravity with electromagnetism. In his contribution at the Marcel Grossman meeting in Jerusalem (Ref 15 on the above post) Santilli assumes this identification as the foundation and merely adds electroweak interactions.

    I'd also like to remind you that I am not the top expert in this field.

    If I have missed any others, please let me know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    1) Bending of light. All current representations of the bending of light with curvature become inapplicable for field equations (2), to my knowledge, for the very simple reason that gravitation is represented by dynamical equations and is no longer entirely represented by curvature of space. In this case, the bending of light remains fully Newtonian according to Santilli's reformulation of Newton's equations into a universal form, that is, including mass and light. (See, Chapter 3 of [Ref. 2] that includes historical references)
    Does Santilli's reformulation of Newton's equations result in a doubling of the amount of bending predicted by Newtonian Gravity? I only ask because General Relativity accurately predicts the amount that light is bent around the Sun, whilst Newtonian Gravity does not.

    So, does Santilli's prediction match the prediction of General Relativity?
    This is an excellent question to appraise Santilli iso-gravitation. Unfortunately, it's technical level is beyond my knowledge and perhaps you should contact Santilli directly if you think it is appropriate.

    What I know is that Santilli's reformulation on Newton's equation in terms of energy, instead of mass, which includes light, represents indeed a bending of light.

    However, I do not know how much. Whatever the representation, it's easy to predict gravitational corrections. Your question is complicated by the fact that Einstein gravitation represents the bending of light, but unfortunately, only after a long list of assumptions, each of which is questionable. For example, you need a special metric which is not the Schwarzchild, thus implying the use of different solutions for different problems. You can see a criticism of the GR representation of the bending of light here: Lecture ID – Part 1 | World Lecture Series

    Also note that the electromagnetic origin of the mass provides a dramatic disproof of the GR representation of the bending of light because all metrics are no longer exact solutions.

    All in all, the topic is ripe for a scientific paper analyzing all possible alternatives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You still haven't told who did these experiments:
    there have been three sets of measurements over several years all showing that light loses energy to a cold medium, with consequential redshift, without any relative motion
    Your other responses lack technical issues.

    The experimental papers that I know on IRS.

    [1] R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...soredshift.pdf

    [2] G. West and G. Amato, "Experimental Conformation of Santilli's IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift," Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 169-188 (2012), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...on-IRS-IBS.pdf

    [3] R. M. Santilli, G. West and G. Amato, "Experimental Confirmation of the IsoRedShift at Sun at Sunset and Sunrise with Consequential Absence of Universe Expansion and Related Conjectures, " Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 165-188 (2012), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...on-sun-IRS.pdf

    Additionally a friend of mine sent me one of many chromatographs for a recent independent verification in Europe which is below.

    You can see here that the blue light shifts for about 100 nm towards the red in the transition from the zenith (top curve) to the horizon (low curve) while their is the appearance of an additional 100nm in the infrared spectrum.


    http://i.imgur.com/bDcYM.png

    Please do not get confused with the large absorption lines for sunlight at the horizon, because they are evidently due to water vapor absorption since all measurements were done with the sunset over the ocean. These water absorption lines are absent for sunlight at the zenith.

    I understand that the measures are being repeated in various parts of the world including the measurement of the IRS at sunrise.

    The following aspect may be intriguing for colleagues in gravitation, geometry used by Santilli for the unique and unambiguous prediction of the frequency shift without relative motion is precisely the iso-minkovskian geometry at the foundation of santilli iso-gravitation. The only difference being that the four terms of the metric are approximated into quasi-constant for the case of our atmosphere, of course, in first approximation.

    I have been promised a paper on these additional measurements of the IRS, and in the event I receive it, I will post it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Intervention:
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    [As for the other aspects dealing with Santilli's research, I hope the moderator deletes political attacks and restricts the discussion in this Science forum to technical issues because this forum is visited by sxcientists the world over and our image is at stake here. WorriedLad
    Thus far the only politics in this thread are arising from your own posts. In your first post you make allegations of polticial intent on eight occassions. In this forum we prefer discussions to centre around the facts, not an individual's arrogant and unsupported assertions of political motive. I ask that you keep this in mind in future.

    I am also disturbed by this remark
    The denial of this additional incontrovertible evidence identified by Santilli establishes the political intent by you and your organization in denying all evidence that allows the advances of Einstein’s theories.
    1. Clearly the evidence is not incontrovertible, since some persons contest that evidence.
    2. Which organisation are you referring to? This forum has a diverse membership with many varied views. The only 'political' intent is an implicit one to encourage discussion of scientific matters while broadly following the principles of scientific methodology. Your assertion that there is an orchestrated attempt to supress views or evidence is unwelcome and unfounded.

    Your scientific contributions to the thread and the forum are most welcome. (Personally I long for a dismantling of BBT, but I currently see no prospect of that.) However, your unfounded allegations of political intent, which I am tempted to characterise as assinine, are not welcome. You will cease these at once, or face suspension. If you have issues with this please contact and Admin or report this post or pm me. Do not raise the matter in this thread. Thank you.
    I'm glad to read this and agree with your guidelines.

    Technical issues should be subjected to technical content and not assassination of character and other non-technical comments.

    Please be assured as you can see above that if I receive technical questions, I will do my best to provide respectful technical answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    G = k T

    Where G represents Einstein's tensor and T represents electromagnetic origin of the mass.
    These are just the standard Einstein equations, without the cosmological constant. They have not in any way been amended.

    The main difference is that the former equations refer to neutral bodies while the latter equations represent bodies with electric and magnetic moments.
    No, that is incorrect. The first equation is the exterior vacuum equation, i.e. the equations for outside a mass/energy distribution. It yields vacuum solutions such as the Schwarzschild metric, the Kerr metric etc etc. The second equation ( with SEM tensor present ) yields interior solutions, i.e. solution valid inside matter/energy fields, like for example the interior SM metric.
    I am surprised that, since you come on here making such bold claims, you seem oblivious of even such basic facts.

    By contrast, the T tensor in Einstein-Santilli equations is such that T_{00} is that the volume integral of T_{00} represents the entire gravitational mass of the body considered.
    Again, this is just the same as in standard GR. The tensor element is the energy density of a given system, so obviously the total energy of the gravitational source is just the integral over all of space-time :



    In conclusion, the most important aspect, is the extremely large difference in numerical values for the source tensor that constitutes the fundamental novelty to such an extent that conventional Schwarzchild and other metrics are not even approximate solutions.
    This is complete nonsense, since, as I have shown you above, there is absolutely no difference between the formalism you presented and standard GR. Furthermore, the SM metric is experimentally well verified within its domain of applicability, so there are no "extremely large differences in numerical values". Refer here for a small list of empirical tests, many of which are based on the ubiquitous SM metric :

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    However the open issue is to see whether such a large source tensor is confirmed in nature or not.
    See above.

    This is the whole point because absolutely standard electromagnetism predicts that masses of all bodies no matter how big they are, are of purely electromagnetic origin.
    Standard EM predicts no such thing. Classic electrodynamics deals only with EM fields and their sources, and makes no statements as to mass. Standard QED deals purely with the interaction between EM fields in general and light in particular with matter. Again, it makes no predictions as to masses, and it certainly does not state that all masses are of EM origin.

    In his '74 paper, he completely dismisses the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism on various grounds and replaces it instead with 100% identification of gravity with electromagnetism.
    How can he dismiss something that has not even been formulated yet ? Also, gravity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon, these two forces are of a fundamentally different nature - which is quite obvious, since the source terms of EM fields are 1-forms, whereas gravitational potentials are 2-forms. That obviously yields completely different physics.

    For example, you need a special metric which is not the Schwarzchild
    Again, completely wrong. Deflection of light is very easily derived via the Schwarzschild metric, and in complete agreement to observational data.

    Also note that the electromagnetic origin of the mass provides a dramatic disproof of the GR representation of the bending of light because all metrics are no longer exact solutions.
    Yet they give the correct values, which are in agreement with empirical evidence. Can you explain that ?

    I'd also like to remind you that I am not the top expert in this field.
    Yes. I can tell.
    So then, why are you calling so loudly for "technical discussion", if you don't even understand the basics ? We have not even begun to get technical yet.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; October 16th, 2012 at 12:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Your other responses lack technical issues.
    Just curious who you meant by "us" and "our group".

    The experimental papers that I know on IRS.
    So the only results are Santilli's own. That's a shame. Also, although I have only read very quickly through some of these papers, these seem to be reporting reddening, not red-shift, which is a very different thing.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Since the number of physicists believe on Earth at the center of the universe is dwindling rapidly,
    Now then. Both the OP and yourself keep referring to the expansion meaning that Earth is at the centre of the universe. I asked the OP what he meant by that and got no reply, so now I will ask you.

    What do you mean when you say that the expansion of the universe means the Earth must be at the centre of the universe?

    I have never heard of such a concept being linked with the expansion of the universe, and here you (both) are saying it. So what do you mean? It sounds like a complete misrepresentation of the theory to me (rest assured, I understand the theory very well indeed), and seems to be based on some sort of misconception. It sounds like a straw man argument, so I need you to justify this repeated assertion.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; October 16th, 2012 at 03:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,666
    At the risk of taking this off in a qualitatively subs-standard direction I have imagined that it was true to say that the expansion shows that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Just as every other point is. That if we think of the singularity as literally so (that's where the sub-standard quality comes in) then by definition everything arises from and is the centre. Is that too simplistic?
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    It means either everywhere is the centre of the universe, or nowhere is the centre of the universe.

    But the OP and WorriedLad keep referring to the Earth being the centre of the universe as if it is some sort of ludicrous notion or medieval thinking or something. I wanted clarification as to exactly what they mean, in case any lurkers might take it too literally.
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Junior JoshuaL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    268
    I thought I was the center of the universe.
    John Galt likes this.
    "The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is... doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting sh*t dead wrong."

    Take two of these and call me in the morning
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    G = k T

    Where G represents Einstein's tensor and T represents electromagnetic origin of the mass.
    These are just the standard Einstein equations, without the cosmological constant. They have not in any way been amended.

    The main difference is that the former equations refer to neutral bodies while the latter equations represent bodies with electric and magnetic moments.
    No, that is incorrect. The first equation is the exterior vacuum equation, i.e. the equations for outside a mass/energy distribution. It yields vacuum solutions such as the Schwarzschild metric, the Kerr metric etc etc. The second equation ( with SEM tensor present ) yields interior solutions, i.e. solution valid inside matter/energy fields, like for example the interior SM metric.
    I am surprised that, since you come on here making such bold claims, you seem oblivious of even such basic facts.

    By contrast, the T tensor in Einstein-Santilli equations is such that T_{00} is that the volume integral of T_{00} represents the entire gravitational mass of the body considered.
    Again, this is just the same as in standard GR. The tensor element is the energy density of a given system, so obviously the total energy of the gravitational source is just the integral over all of space-time :



    In conclusion, the most important aspect, is the extremely large difference in numerical values for the source tensor that constitutes the fundamental novelty to such an extent that conventional Schwarzchild and other metrics are not even approximate solutions.
    This is complete nonsense, since, as I have shown you above, there is absolutely no difference between the formalism you presented and standard GR. Furthermore, the SM metric is experimentally well verified within its domain of applicability, so there are no "extremely large differences in numerical values". Refer here for a small list of empirical tests, many of which are based on the ubiquitous SM metric :

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    However the open issue is to see whether such a large source tensor is confirmed in nature or not.
    See above.

    This is the whole point because absolutely standard electromagnetism predicts that masses of all bodies no matter how big they are, are of purely electromagnetic origin.
    Standard EM predicts no such thing. Classic electrodynamics deals only with EM fields and their sources, and makes no statements as to mass. Standard QED deals purely with the interaction between EM fields in general and light in particular with matter. Again, it makes no predictions as to masses, and it certainly does not state that all masses are of EM origin.

    In his '74 paper, he completely dismisses the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism on various grounds and replaces it instead with 100% identification of gravity with electromagnetism.
    How can he dismiss something that has not even been formulated yet ? Also, gravity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon, these two forces are of a fundamentally different nature - which is quite obvious, since the source terms of EM fields are 1-forms, whereas gravitational potentials are 2-forms. That obviously yields completely different physics.

    For example, you need a special metric which is not the Schwarzchild
    Again, completely wrong. Deflection of light is very easily derived via the Schwarzschild metric, and in complete agreement to observational data.

    Also note that the electromagnetic origin of the mass provides a dramatic disproof of the GR representation of the bending of light because all metrics are no longer exact solutions.
    Yet they give the correct values, which are in agreement with empirical evidence. Can you explain that ?
    It is obvious that we have a honest but major disagreement. Your view is a conventional widely accepted view that as such deserves respect.

    However, you continue to be resilient to contradictions.

    For instance, you are forced to assume the electromagnetic origin of the mass as being an internal problem, thus denying that electromagnetic fields are of long range action.

    I also have to stress that, in my view, all your other statements that you have made amount to personal beliefs and are far from what I believe to be scientific truth.

    As an example, some of your most questionable claims deal with the experimental verifications of metrics, the inability of QED to represent electromagnetic origin of all masses, ad hoc jumps from classical to quantum treatments, etc.

    This and other adaptations are clearly aimed at maintaining conventional Einstein equations in vacuum for NEUTRAL bodies, namely, G = 0.

    In particular, you have no technical argument here at all to dismiss Santilli's calculations that for the same NEUTRAL body in vacuum you have G = k T with T first order in magnitude - thus destroying Einstein's complete reduction of exterior gravitation to pure curvature.

    With all due respect, please understand that I see no point in continuing our exchange as your mind is closed and therefore unable to appraise the doubts raised by Santilli on Einstein gravitation. You remain with an essentially old and flawed theory while others are progressing new quantizations

    Best wishes,

    Worried Lad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Since the number of physicists believe on Earth at the center of the universe is dwindling rapidly,
    Now then. Both the OP and yourself keep referring to the expansion meaning that Earth is at the centre of the universe. I asked the OP what he meant by that and got no reply, so now I will ask you.

    What do you mean when you say that the expansion of the universe means the Earth must be at the centre of the universe?

    I have never heard of such a concept being linked with the expansion of the universe, and here you (both) are saying it. So what do you mean? It sounds like a complete misrepresentation of the theory to me (rest assured, I understand the theory very well indeed), and seems to be based on some sort of misconception. It sounds like a straw man argument, so I need you to justify this repeated assertion.
    With all due respect, I must express doubts on your knowledge of astrophysics.

    Hubble's law states very clearly that: The cosmological redshift of galaxies is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from earth in ALL directions in space.

    The earth being at the center of the universe is then absolutely an inevitable consequence for the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion, the BBt, and the expansion of space itself.

    It is very unfortunate for scientific knowledge that this unavoidable consequence has been systematically suppressed in literature for nearly a century, but clearly admitted as noted in this thread by Hubble, De Broglie, Fermi, and others.

    Please understand I will not return on this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    At the risk of taking this off in a qualitatively subs-standard direction I have imagined that it was true to say that the expansion shows that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Just as every other point is. That if we think of the singularity as literally so (that's where the sub-standard quality comes in) then by definition everything arises from and is the centre. Is that too simplistic?
    I'm afraid that Hubble's law literally implies that earth is at the center of the Universe because it is a consequence based on measurements of cosmological redshift in all directions in space from Earth. I am surprised that the posters here do not appear to know that the hyperbolic conjecture that expansion of space itself was propagated precisely to avoid Earth being at the center of the universe. Sadly, this conjecture failed to achieve the intended objection because of the acceleration of the expansion. In fact, had the hypothetical expansion of the universe been uniform, then the expansion of space itself would have avoided the earth at the center of the universe.

    What demolished the conjecture of the expansion of space itself is the acceleration of the expansion that persists despite expansion of space itself and remains the same in all directions in space from earth, thus implying a clear return of cosmology to the Middle Ages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    The earth being at the center of the universe is then absolutely an inevitable consequence for the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion, the BBt, and the expansion of space itself.
    Wrong once again. The universe does not have a centre point, because it is a 4-dimensional unbounded pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
    As for Hubbles Law - it holds for all points in the universe, not just for earth.

    Sadly your knowledge of basic physics and geometry is sorely lacking, as you have demonstrated on several occasions now. You are not in any way qualified to partake in a serious scientific discussion about matters of GR, differential geometry and cosmology.

    For instance, you are forced to assume the electromagnetic origin of the mass as being an internal problem, thus denying that electromagnetic fields are of long range action.
    Once again - QED and classical electrodynamics have nothing at all to do with the origin of mass. EM fields are of long range action because their vector boson, the photon, is massless and thus does not decay.

    I also have to stress that, in my view, all your other statements that you have made amount to personal beliefs and are far from what I believe to be scientific truth.
    Wrong once again. My standpoint is simply currently accepted physics and maths, not personal beliefs - you can either agree with those or not. It's your choice, just don't expect anyone else to follow you.

    As an example, some of your most questionable claims deal with the experimental verifications of metrics,
    Questionable claim ?
    Would you like me to show you how the SM metric leads to the correct deflection of light values ? It's just a basic calculation, and we can compare the result to observational data. I have already done the first step, namely solving the field equations in vacuum and deriving the SM metric, on this thread :

    Solving the Einstein Field Equations

    We can do the rest of the maths also - the outcome is of course that the SM metric values are in perfect agreement with observation.

    This and other adaptations are clearly aimed at maintaining conventional Einstein equations in vacuum for NEUTRAL bodies, namely, G = 0.
    Your repetition of your failure to understand what G=0 means does not make it any less wrong, you know. These are vacuum equations, they have nothing to do with a body being neutral or not.

    In particular, you have no technical argument here at all to dismiss Santilli's calculations that for the same NEUTRAL body in vacuum you have G = k T with T first order in magnitude - thus destroying Einstein's complete reduction of exterior gravitation to pure curvature.
    Sigh. Obviously I have wasted my time - you have not understood any of what I have explained. Not surprising.

    With all due respect, please understand that I see no point in continuing our exchange as your mind is closed and therefore unable to appraise the doubts raised by Santilli on Einstein gravitation. You remain with an essentially old and flawed theory while others are progressing new quantizations
    I agree that there is no point continuing on, because you do not possess the technical expertise required to partake in a discussion about this topic.
    The rest is just word salad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    With all due respect, I must express doubts on your knowledge of astrophysics.

    Hubble's law states very clearly that: The cosmological redshift of galaxies is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from earth in ALL directions in space.

    The earth being at the center of the universe is then absolutely an inevitable consequence for the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion, the BBt, and the expansion of space itself.

    It is very unfortunate for scientific knowledge that this unavoidable consequence has been systematically suppressed in literature for nearly a century, but clearly admitted as noted in this thread by Hubble, De Broglie, Fermi, and others.

    Please understand I will not return on this topic.
    Wow. It seems that cosmologists have been systematically suppressing an unavoidable consequence of Hubble's Law - that the Earth is at the centre of the universe! They are hiding this incredible fact from the literature! Nobody is mentioning it, in fact they are actively hiding it, but it falls straight out of Hubble's Law!

    Let me see if I can find anyone mentioning this hitherto unknown bomb shell.

    Curious About Astronomy: Is the Earth at the centre of the Universe?
    Where is the centre of the universe?

    Hmmm... there seems to be a principle at work in cosmology that is being used to systematically suppress this incredible revelation!

    Cosmological principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    See what I mean now, John?

    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Sadly, this conjecture failed to achieve the intended objection because of the acceleration of the expansion. In fact, had the hypothetical expansion of the universe been uniform, then the expansion of space itself would have avoided the earth at the center of the universe.

    What demolished the conjecture of the expansion of space itself is the acceleration of the expansion that persists despite expansion of space itself and remains the same in all directions in space from earth, thus implying a clear return of cosmology to the Middle Ages.
    The cosmological principle applies to the acceleration too, you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior JoshuaL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    268
    Good links, thanks!
    "The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is... doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting sh*t dead wrong."

    Take two of these and call me in the morning
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,666
    Comments as Moderator in green and red. Comments as member in black.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    With all due respect, I must express doubts on your knowledge of astrophysics.

    Hubble's law states very clearly that: The cosmological redshift of galaxies is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from earth in ALL directions in space.

    The earth being at the center of the universe is then absolutely an inevitable consequence for the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion, the BBt, and the expansion of space itself.
    The sentence I have underlined is, to put it simply, incorrect. Wholly, completely, irrevocably, absolutely incorrect.



    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    It is very unfortunate for scientific knowledge that this unavoidable consequence has been systematically suppressed in literature for nearly a century, but clearly admitted as noted in this thread by Hubble, De Broglie, Fermi, and others.
    Previously I issued you with this warning: "your unfounded allegations of political intent, which I am tempted to characterise as assinine, are not welcome. You will cease these at once, or face suspension."

    Yet here you are once again making the same kind of allegation. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.
    Such accusations, unless they are accompanied by material evidence that demonstrates your case without interpretation, are not welcome. I'm suspeding you for one day. If you choose to repeat the infringement it will be one week.



    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Please understand I will not return on this topic.
    I shall hold you to that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The earth being at the center of the universe is then absolutely an inevitable consequence for the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion, the BBt, and the expansion of space itself.
    Wrong once again. The universe does not have a centre point, because it is a 4-dimensional unbounded pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
    As for Hubbles Law - it holds for all points in the universe, not just for earth.
    Your conjectures are fundamentally flawed and can not be verified on Earth in any case.

    The real experimental evidence that we have is one and only one.

    Galaxies throughout the entire visible universe all expand with respect to Earth, thus dismissing dramatically the expansion with respect to other points in the universe.

    Additionally, it may be worth to repeat one final time, with the expectation that you are in good faith, in the event that the expansion of the universe was uniform then the expansion of space itself would have avoided earth being at the center of the universe.

    Geometrical and other attempts at avoiding Earth at the center of the universe are disqualified as non-scientific by the acceleration of the expansion, which again, is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from earth in all directions in space.

    This absolutely prohibits other points in the universe to have the same experimental data. How can this be made more clear?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Sadly your knowledge of basic physics and geometry is sorely lacking, as you have demonstrated on several occasions now. You are not in any way qualified to partake in a serious scientific discussion about matters of GR, differential geometry and cosmology.
    Wow, good thing you're not in charge of determining who can and can not participate in serious scientific discussions.

    Hubble, De Broglie, Fermi, and others never believed in the expansion of the universe because it would imply a clear return to the middle ages. I do not intend to answer intentionally adulterated comments - the definition of scientific corruption is the denial of physical evidence for personal benefits.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Galaxies throughout the entire visible universe all expand with respect to Earth, thus dismissing dramatically the expansion with respect to other points in the universe.
    Galaxies do not expand. They appear to recede. The important point is that the apparent recession velocity is proportional to distance. From this it is trivial to determine that exactly the same pattern of recession will be seen from any other galaxy.

    For example, consider two galaxies A and B, with B being twice as far away from us as A. We see A receding with a velocity vA and B receding with a velocity vB (where vB = 2 x vA). From this it is obvious that galaxy B will see galaxy A receding from it (in the direction towards us) at vA. And it will see us receding at vB.

    So, they see exactly the same "Hubble Law" as we do. They would appear to be at the center of the universe.

    Additionally, it may be worth to repeat one final time, with the expectation that you are in good faith, in the event that the expansion of the universe was uniform then the expansion of space itself would have avoided earth being at the center of the universe.
    As has been repeatedly pointed out, the earth is NOT at the center of the universe any more than A or B are in the example above.

    Just to be clear, in case you missed it: the earth is NOT at the center of the universe.

    How can this be made more clear?
    The only thing you seem to be making clear is your lack of understanding.

    Hubble, De Broglie, Fermi, and others never believed in the expansion of the universe
    What individual scientists "believe" is irrelevant. Especially those who were not aware of the evidence we now have.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
    Which is exactly why you should not be relying on the fact that some did not believe in the expansion of the universe. It may have just been ignorance.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Geometrical and other attempts at avoiding Earth at the center of the universe are disqualified as non-scientific by the acceleration of the expansion, which again, is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from earth in all directions in space.

    This absolutely prohibits other points in the universe to have the same experimental data. How can this be made more clear?
    You really have some very serious misconceptions about the expansion of the universe. It would do you good to actually learn about the theory, rather than argue from ignorance.

    The expansion and the acceleration is thought to be uniform throughout the universe at any given time, which completely undermines your argument.

    And I thought you said you weren't going to return to this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    Quote Originally Posted by WorriedLad View Post
    Your conjectures are fundamentally flawed and can not be verified on Earth in any case.
    They're not conjectures, just basic geometry - of which you obviously have no understanding.
    What you are doing is equivalent to postulating that the surface of a sphere must have a unique centre point, which is of course complete nonsense.

    Wow, good thing you're not in charge of determining who can and can not participate in serious scientific discussions.
    Serious scientific discussions ? Where ? I don't see them.
    When I attempted to have a serious technical discussion with you it quickly turned out that you do not possess the required expertise. Instead of acknowledging that fact you accused us of being close-minded, and then backed out.
    Did you not say you wouldn't "return on this topic" ? So why are you here again ?

    the definition of scientific corruption is the denial of physical evidence for personal benefits.
    Which is precisely what you are doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    Sadly your knowledge of basic physics and geometry is sorely lacking, as you have demonstrated on several occasions now. You are not in any way qualified to partake in a serious scientific discussion about matters of GR, differential geometry and cosmology.

    Once again - QED and classical electrodynamics have nothing at all to do with the origin of mass. EM fields are of long range action because their vector boson, the photon, is massless and thus does not decay.

    Wrong once again. My standpoint is simply currently accepted physics and maths, not personal beliefs - you can either agree with those or not. It's your choice, just don't expect anyone else to follow you.

    Questionable claim ?
    Would you like me to show you how the SM metric leads to the correct deflection of light values ? It's just a basic calculation, and we can compare the result to observational data. I have already done the first step, namely solving the field equations in vacuum and deriving the SM metric, on this thread :

    Solving the Einstein Field Equations

    We can do the rest of the maths also - the outcome is of course that the SM metric values are in perfect agreement with observation.

    Your repetition of your failure to understand what G=0 means does not make it any less wrong, you know. These are vacuum equations, they have nothing to do with a body being neutral or not.

    Sigh. Obviously I have wasted my time - you have not understood any of what I have explained. Not surprising.
    I have continued to follow this exchange and I have to denounce Markus Hanke's non-responses as political, not technical.

    In order to achieve a minimal degree of credibility you should disprove with equations Santilli's calculations that the pi - 0 meson has a first order electromagnetic source in the exterior problem in vacuum so large that it represents 134 MeV

    Everything else is misdirection in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,666
    Moderator Note:

    Worried Lad you were warned not to enage in comments about the motiviations of other posters. You have ignored this warning.

    You also said you would not be returning to the topic. Of course you are free to do so, but that act serves to confirm that your posts are unreliable.

    But back to the warning you chose to ignore: one week suspension for you. When you return I suggest you restrict yourself to facts. You might wish to begin by presenting evidence that disproves that while everything seems to be expanding away from the Earth, the same would be true from any other point in the observable universe. Good luck with that.

    If you have issues with this suspension you may, upon your return, pm me, pm another member of the admin team, or report this post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    I have continued to follow this exchange and I have to denounce Markus Hanke's non-responses as political, not technical.
    Please point out exactly where I made a reference to anything which can even remotely be considered political.
    Just as a matter of record - I hate politics. I never get involved in anything which has to do with politics, no matter whether they are family-, village- or national politics. I couldn't be bothered. I'm the science nerd, and that's that - I agree that politics are important, but I leave them to people who are better suited for it then me. You can detest me as much as you like, but being political is one thing which you will never be able to hold against me.
    Besides - before you opened that thread I had never even heard of Santilli. How then can I be part of a political conspiracy against him ? Can you explain that ?
    Also, I have been actively involved in mainstream physics as a hobby for the better part of the last 25 years, and I had never even come across Santilli's name. What does that tell you about his contributions to physics, do you think ?

    In order to achieve a minimal degree of credibility you should disprove with equations Santilli's calculations that the pi - 0 meson has a first order electromagnetic source in the exterior problem in vacuum so large that it represents 134 MeV
    I am not looking for credibility from you. Frankly, I couldn't possibly care less what you think about me, or anyone else on this forum.
    But anyway, present those calculations ( NOT just links !!! ) here, explain in detail how they were derived, and I shall be happy to give my two cents' worths

    Btw, we already understand that there are electromagnetic interactions taking place between the up-quark and the anti-down-quark making up the pion, since both of these are charged. Together they make a globally neutral particle, but at close range they possess EM fields which have an energy content. That energy can simply be accounted for in the energy-momentum-tensor, however, it is not the sole source of the pion's mass. The pion's total relativistic mass is made up of all forms of energy contributing to this system. This is all well understood.
    Now tell us, since all this is already well known, what exactly is Santilli's new hitherto unknown prediction, and how when and where has it been experimentally verified ?

    Everything else is misdirection in my opinion.
    Is it ? How so ? Please explain in detail.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; October 25th, 2012 at 01:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,778
    I have continued to follow this exchange and I have to denounce Markus Hanke's non-responses as political, not technical.
    That's as big a piece of nonsense as I've ever seen posted here.

    And considering the cranks we get here, that says a lot.
    Halliday likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,666
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    I have continued to follow this exchange and I have to denounce Markus Hanke's non-responses as political, not technical.
    Moderator Warning:
    The next person who introduces comments about motivation, politics, personality, etc regardless of who they are or how much they may have been provoked will get a suspension. Restrict yourselves to a discussion of the technical issues.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    26
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;361316]
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    But anyway, present those calculations ( NOT just links !!! ) here, explain in detail how they were derived, and I shall be happy to give my two cents' worths
    Are you kidding? These are extremely complex QED calculations. I feel like me reading the paper to you would be a derailment

    Study the paper published in MIT's Annals of Physics.

    http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,977
    Quote Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce View Post
    Are you kidding? These are extremely complex QED calculations.
    That is precisely my point. I am not having a discussion with Santilli here, I am having a discussion with you. Therefore I want to be shown that you actually understand what Santilli did there, maths and all. If you do not really understand those "extremely complex QED calculations" yourself, then I will not be wasting my time putting together a response which you can't grasp anyway. That is why I asked you to present the material in your own words.
    You come on here purporting to represent Santilli - so go ahead and present his ideas for us. Just giving links isn't good enough. So far as I am concerned you appear to be just regurgitating bits and pieces of text from Santilli's works without having any real understanding what they actually mean.

    By the way, can you point me to the page number where Santilli calculates the pion mass of 134 MeV using just QED - I must have missed it while skimming through the PDF. Also, this doesn't appear to be an Annals of Physics article at all, it looks more like an excerpt from a book.

    Another thing - you never gave an answer to post 28. Likewise, you never explained to us why you came onto this forum to defend Santilli - most of us are not real physicists, but merely interested amateurs in the area of physics. Why are you here instead of writing real scientific papers and trying to publish them ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by ndrcrpsel View Post
    ....
    Oi! Spammer! I think you forgot something. No wonder you can't get a proper job.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •