Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377732 > unrolled thread

Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:10 -0800
    Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 18:47 -0800
      Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 19:29 +0000
        Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 12:35 +0100
          Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:38 +0000
          Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-06 08:22 -0800
            Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:54 -0800
          Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-07 12:54 -0800
    Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 23:04 -0800
      Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-03-03 07:52 -0800
      Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 11:22 -0800
        Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:09 -0800
          Re: Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 10:41 -0800

#377732 — Does General Relativity Predict Gravitational Waves?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674 
 "Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christoph-adami/einsteins-struggles-with-_b_9214794.html 
 "What is less well known is that Einstein struggled mightily with the theory of gravitational waves. The fact that Einstein was a genius but nevertheless mortal is, by now, somewhat known. After all, it took him five tries to get the field equations of General Relativity right." 

Typical empirical approach isn't it? Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not, to use Einstein's words, "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled in which known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner: 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm 
 Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." 

Since general relativity is an empirical model, it can predict anything - e.g. both existence and non-existence of gravitational waves. Or both static and expanding universe. Or both constant and variable speed of light. Anything! 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#377759

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> Since general relativity is an empirical model, it can predict anything - e.g. both existence and non-existence of gravitational waves. Or both static and expanding universe. Or both constant and variable speed of light. Anything! 

Not even wrong. Simply N/A.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377810

JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> 
>> Since general relativity is an empirical model, it can predict anything
>> - e.g. both existence and non-existence of gravitational waves. Or both
>> static and expanding universe. Or both constant and variable speed of
>> light. Anything!
> 
> Not even wrong. Simply N/A.

You not, of course. Pentcho is 100% consistent. Relativity is been 
invented BEFORE the discovery of an Universe being in expanding mode. And 
Relativity remained valid. It does not really mater whether the Universe 
is expanding or not, or, whether the misunderstood Gravity Waves are real 
and detectable or not. Relativity will still be valid. Nor whether the 
Speed of Gravity (SoG) coincide with the Speed of Light (SoL). Relativity 
will still be valid. You don't know your own theory. Moreover, SR will 
still be valid, GR or not, at ANY value of c, be that whatever. That's why 
is been said that SR is a stronger and more fundamental theory than GR. GR 
is based only on suppositions and postulates. SR is not. SR is clean.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377938

Helénē Swanhild wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Obnoxious liar.

> JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> Since general relativity is an empirical model, it can predict anything
>>> - e.g. both existence and non-existence of gravitational waves. Or both
>>> static and expanding universe. Or both constant and variable speed of
>>> light. Anything!
>> 
>> Not even wrong. Simply N/A.
> 
> You not, of course.

Gibberish.

> Pentcho is 100% consistent.

The gibbering, ’nym-shifting troll still does not know the difference 
between “consistent” and “correct”.

> Relativity is been invented

Relativity is not an invention.

> BEFORE the discovery of an Universe being in expanding mode.

Instead, general relativity (1915) suggested to Lemaître in 1927 that it 
could be a correct description of reality even in an expanding universe, and 
Hubble showed the expansion of our universe in 1929 as a side-effect of his 
astronomical observations.

> And Relativity remained valid.

Relativity as it is commonly understood nowadays includes two theories, the 
special theory of relativity (special relativity, less commonly abbreviated 
“SR”), and the general theory of relativity (general relativity, commonly 
abbreviated “GR”).

Theories are not considered “valid” at any point in their existence.  The 
’nym-shifting troll still has not understood that theories come along with 
uncertainties.  However, those theories have been experimentally confirmed 
many times.  No modern device would work if they were fundamentally flawed 
as no microchip would work as designed then.

> It does not really mater whether the Universe is expanding or not, or,
> whether the misunderstood Gravity Waves are real and detectable or not.

Once again, gravity waves are not gravitational waves.

Gravity waves can be observed daily on Terra with the naked eye, in the 
oceans and the clouds.

Gravitational waves have been detected by LIGO recently with a statistical 
significance of 2σ, i.e. a probability of 95.4499736 %.  Future detections 
by LIGO and similar experiments on Terra and in outer space are expected.

The one who has misunderstood everything is, once again, only the ’nym-
shifting troll.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>

> Relativity will still be valid. Nor whether the Speed of Gravity (SoG)
> coincide with the Speed of Light (SoL). Relativity will still be valid.
> You don't know your own theory. Moreover, SR will still be valid, GR or
> not, at ANY value of c, be that whatever. That's why is been said

Rather vomited into science newsgroups by nobody but the ’nym-shifting 
troll.

> that SR is a stronger and more fundamental theory than GR. GR
> is based only on suppositions and postulates. SR is not. SR is clean.

Not even wrong.

*PLONK*


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377973

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> that SR is a stronger and more fundamental theory than GR. GR is based
>> only on suppositions and postulates. SR is not. SR is clean.
> 
> Not even wrong. *PLONK*

You can't be that stupid, not even for a one like you. You can't pretend a 
*plonk* by reading and answering in kilometres, are you? Come on, you just 
gave another proof for being unusually, all over standard, stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378031

<PointedEars@web.de> "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" is not
only a brainwashed parrot, but he's an Einstein Dingleberry 
that religiously worships Albert's Sphincter. 
To boot, **Lahn hat Groessenwahn** as seen 
in his posts that are lahm like Lahn. <snip> 
Lamebrain-Lahn is funny though... 
Thanks for the laughs, Du Trottel....ahahahaha... ROTFMAO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378219

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-8, hanson wrote:
> <PointedEars@web.de> "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" is not
> only a brainwashed parrot, but he's an Einstein Dingleberry 
> that religiously worships Albert's Sphincter. 
> To boot, **Lahn hat Groessenwahn** as seen 
> in his posts that are lahm like Lahn. <snip> 
> Lamebrain-Lahn is funny though... 
> Thanks for the laughs, Du Trottel....ahahahaha... ROTFMAO

Oh no, he is baaaaaack. Muahaha!

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378203

> "jay moseley" said that "Volksverhetzer Thomas Lahn" wrote..
>>>gibberish
> *PLONK* PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
>
----- [[[ Mosley   1   -:-  Lahn    0, zero, null, nichts  ]]] -----
>
because:
<PointedEars@web.de> "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" is not
only a brainwashed parrot, but he's an Einstein Dingleberry 
that religiously worships Albert's Sphincter. To boot, 
**Lahn hat Groessenwahn**,  which rhymes, as seen 
in his posts that are lahm like Lahn. <snip> 
Lamebrain-Lahn is funny though... 
Thanks for the laughs, Du Trottel....ahahahaha... ROTFMAO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377771

http://www.mqup.ca/space--time-and-einstein-products-9780773524729.php 
 J.B. Kennedy, Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction, p. 189: "Even though general relativity predicts black holes, Einstein always denied their existence."

General relativity is an empirical model - it can predict anything. So it can predict both existence and non-existence of black holes. Einstein preferred "non-existence" but LIGO folks disagree. Тhey know general relativity even predicts important features of black holes - LIGO folks were somehow able to extract those features from gravitational waves.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/ 
 ""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity. For all the theory's conceptual elegance -- it revealed gravity to be the effect of curves in "space-time" -- its mathematics was enormously complex."

Einstein equivocated but LIGO folks don't. According to them, general relativity not only predicts the existence of gravitational waves - it even gives minute detail about them. And the detailed predictions were gloriously confirmed, LIGO folks honestly and proudly say.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377788

сряда, 2 март 2016 г., 23:04:56 UTC-8, Pentcho Valev написа:
> http://www.mqup.ca/space--time-and-einstein-products-9780773524729.php 
>  J.B. Kennedy, Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction, p. 189: "Even though general relativity predicts black holes, Einstein always denied their existence."

Gravity geometry would be a parabolic metric wave...
This doesn't work out. Disembodied gravity field
isn't a reality or a truth...

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> General relativity is an empirical model - it can predict anything. So it can predict both existence and non-existence of black holes. Einstein preferred "non-existence" but LIGO folks disagree. Тhey know general relativity even predicts important features of black holes - LIGO folks were somehow able to extract those features from gravitational waves.
> 
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/ 
>  ""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity. For all the theory's conceptual elegance -- it revealed gravity to be the effect of curves in "space-time" -- its mathematics was enormously complex."
> 
> Einstein equivocated but LIGO folks don't. According to them, general relativity not only predicts the existence of gravitational waves - it even gives minute detail about them. And the detailed predictions were gloriously confirmed, LIGO folks honestly and proudly say.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377809

Einsteinians know no limits:

http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/03/ligo-black-holes-may-be-dark-matter.html 
 Luboš Motl: "LIGO black holes may be dark matter. Particle physicists prefer to believe that there exists dark matter and it's mostly composed of a new elementary particle species such as the WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle such as the LSP, the Lightest Supersymmetric Partner in supersymmetric theories, such as the neutralino, such as the bino or wino and so on) or the axion. But such a dark matter particle hasn't been found and it's not crazy to assume that it doesn't exist. Some people want to modify Newton's or Einstein's equations (MOND etc.). But it's also possible that dark matter exists but it is not composed of elementary particles. It can be MACHO, RAMBO, SUPERMAN, PUTIN, or something else. In fact, the two black holes that were detected by LIGO may be representatives of dark matter, as Simeon Bird and 7 co-authors (including AR, a Nobel prize winner) argue in the new preprint."

Needless to say, dark matter black holes and their gravitational waves were gloriously predicted by Einstein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00 
 DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ 
 We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377887

The making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting" ("empirical models") as defined here: 

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf 
 "The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." 

Note that the parameters of the empirical model "do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property". So in Einstein's general relativity one of the parameters - the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity - absurdly DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g): 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm 
 "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached." 

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm 
 "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm 
 "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." 

Here Michel Janssen describes endless empirical fudging and fitting until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254043454_The_Einstein-Besso_Manuscript_Looking_Over_Einstein's_Shoulder 
 Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377896

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 9:09:34 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting"

Not really.

> Note that the parameters of the empirical model "do not necessarily
> correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property". So in
> Einstein's general relativity one of the parameters - the speed of light
> falling towards the source of gravity

Completely false.  The parameter was that the speed of light was c locally.
There was no "parameter" defining the speed of light any other way. 

> - absurdly DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the
> acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g): 

No, it is NOT -2g.   That light falling toward a gravity source appears to
be slowing down is due to gravitational time dilation and is certainly not
-2g.

> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm 
>  "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is
> the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity.

Irrelevant.

> Here Michel Janssen describes endless empirical fudging and fitting
> until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached: 

Pentcho misunderstands the text he quotes - again!

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web