General theory of relativity a pseudoscience?

[Michael Sternbach]

33 minutes ago, joeblast said:

this

 

is anyone under some delusion that GR is somehow not an approximation?

 

same for QM

 

they're pretty damned accurate, but still approximations.  just as newtonian is an approximation of GR (where some important things disappear entirely just using NM)

 

I had to lol at the thieving idea, that was.....right out and funny

 

Yes. E.g., it's conceivable that there is no 'Dark Matter' and GRT as we know it simply isn't applicable on the galactic/intergalactic scale.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[Stosh]

A photon sphere? ... photons do not require an expenditure of energy to propagate, if they did, they would go dark before failing to escape ,so you couldnt see the back of your head , no?

[Marblehead]

All that would be left would be Dark Matter.

 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

they would go dark before failing to escape

Exactly. GRT is based on c-constant and the idea that a star bends space around it, so the light from another star curves around the former.   For that to hold, the photon (just as an angel in any religion)   has to have inconsistent magical properties, namely a     magic mass: its mass-speed is affected by the space curvature; but not by the gravitational well.

 

All the math and phys research in GRT is the same religious phenomena as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology

[joeblast]

45 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

Exactly. GRT is based on c-constant and the idea that a star bends space around it, so the light from another star curves around the former.   For that to hold, the photon (just as an angel in any religion)   has to have inconsistent magical properties, namely a     magic mass: its mass-speed is affected by the space curvature; but not by the gravitational well.

you appear to not grasp the fact that elementary 'particles' that travel the speed of light always travel the speed of light, from the instant they are created.  it is always this way - anything that doesnt travel the speed of light cant ever get there, and anything which does travel the speed of light always does so.

 

the "slowdown" manifests via frequency - this is why there's redshift.

 

photons ARE a propagation of energy, so where this notion of "requiring energy to propagate" comes into play....EVERYTHING requires energy to propagate! 

 

TT, you're going to have to do a much more thorough job of explaining yourself if you want anyone to take you seriously on this subject.  Whether or not its "gravity" or as dollard asserts "just the collapsing of the dielectric".....GR is equations describing motions...and its proven to be accurate within its realm of applicability.....so in effect it doesnt quite matter if "GR isnt right" because we know it is but an approximation and will thus necessarily be limited in its applicability and extent.

 

it matters if you're trying to figure out what its an approximation of.....but to go on a crusade against it saying its wrong is just silly.  we already know it doesnt 100% describe the underlying happenstance.

[Marblehead]

12 minutes ago, joeblast said:

you appear to not grasp the fact that ...

I have that experience often.

 

[Taoist Texts]

15 minutes ago, joeblast said:

TT, you're going to have to do a much more thorough job of explaining yourself if you want anyone to take you seriously on this subject.

Thanks. I dont want to be taken seriously, i am just shooting breeze here per the kind invitation of the OP.

 

I read your post but could not grasp the science part of it. What hard-science background do you have?

 

18 minutes ago, joeblast said:

.but to go on a crusade against it saying its wrong is just silly. 

crusade is something religious, yes? interesting choice of words.)

yes going against an established religion is silly, i agree. most fun things are.

[Taoist Texts]

7 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I have that experience often.

 

one of the previous posts featured a talking beam of interstellar light, i wander what kind of voice it had, could not grasp it

 

[Stosh]

Joe, what I am proposing is that one cannot add nor subtract from the energy content of a photon. Not that it isnt considered an energy. 

I think we,d agree on that.

I am thinking it follows faithfully the curvature of space which it cannot deviate from.

So one cannot have an energy expenditure which allows or doesnt allow entry or emergence from a supposed photon sphere. One cannot put enough gas in it to get it to emerge like a satelite. I figure it would bounce off or circumnavigate the anomaly to shoot off tangential to its initial trajectory just before presenting me with an image of my bald spot.

I shave my head just in case though, and wonder why no shaver manufacturers recognize that theres a market for a special config head shaver. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Stosh

[Michael Sternbach]

49 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Joe, what I am proposing is that one cannot add nor subtract from the energy content of a photon.

 

Yes, you can. However, as has been mentioned before, that would not diminish the photon's speed (which will always be c in a vacuum) but its frequency and wavelength.

 

However, I don't see how that consideration would enter the picture here.

 

49 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Not that it isnt considered an energy. 

I think we,d agree on that.

I am thinking it follows faithfully the curvature of space which it cannot deviate from.

 

Exactly! And it is because of the peculiar way a black hole curves surrounding space that the photon is forced into an orbit around it.

 

49 minutes ago, Stosh said:

So one cannot have an energy expenditure which allows or doesnt allow entry or emergence from a supposed photon sphere. One cannot put enough gas in it to get it to emerge like a satelite. I figure it would bounce off or circumnavigate the anomaly to shoot off tangential to its initial trajectory just before presenting me with an image of my bald spot.

I shave my head just in case though, and wonder why no shaver manufacturers recognize that theres a market for a special config head shaver. 

 

Again, the way I see it, the concept of energy expenditure doesn't apply here.

[Stosh]

Say the space is curved, introducing a photon from the outside means that the vector would pop it back out, if it is going to spiral in ,its not going to make a circular trip. To have the exact trajectory to make an exact circle the photon must originate on the circle , because it cannot have its momentum reduced to make it settle into that pattern, it has no momentum. 

 

Point two, how is it that you think the wavelength is going to get reduced , what is going to absorb the energy relinquished ... conservation of energy would apply I think , or am I going to learn that photons actually have mass momentum friction etc. 

What is literally going to become energized with the lost photonic energy? There is nothing at the event horizon.

 

And finally, if there was an energy reduction related to wavelength that happened to light as it passes massive objects ... then there should be a frequency shift as well as lensing ... which I never read mentioned.

Amplitude is the sum of photons where are all those photons disappearing to?

 

 

So far youve got no where to insert the light from , to make it happen ,no way to change wavelength or frequency  , no way to reduce amplitude ,or change direction relative to the shape of spacetime. 

There is no photon sphere. 

But lets say it is possible for light to hit that horizon so perfectly tangential that space forms a circular track , the photon goes round, as mass of the black hole increases the circuit immediately becomes imperfect relative to that ideal tangent and the photon is released from bondage.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Happy thought of the day. A bed of donuts. 

[Marblehead]

That might end in a sticky situation.

 

[thelerner]

I like my donuts like I like my universe.. torus shaped. 

[whitesilk]

check it out

 

https://earthsky.org/space/white-dwarf-mass-measured-einstein-relativity-confirmed

[whitesilk]

mmm doughnuts.

Edited October 22, 2018 by whitesilk

[Taoist Texts]

4 hours ago, Stosh said:

because it cannot have its momentum reduced to make it settle into that pattern, it has no momentum. 

 

Point two, how is it that you think the wavelength is going to get reduced , what is going to absorb the energy relinquished ... conservation of energy would apply I think , or am I going to learn that photons actually have mass momentum friction etc. 

they say it does have momentum. but its a magical momentum, without a mass

 

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-4-photon-momentum/

 

[silent thunder]

awareness and light seem related to me for some time now.

my mind routinely interprets awareness as a field

 

a simultaneously expansive/contractive field

made of light

 

this field of light... 

unfolding... ever unfolding

and where motion arises, it pivots about a point of empty stillness

 

 

 

I deeply appreciate science and its many dependable observations.  Yet our faculties are so limited and our apparatus, both biological and mechanical... are so limited that any time science claims (this is how it is 100%)  The words echo with the dogmatic projective assumption of certainty that was offered by our evangelical pastor back on Sundays.

 

Science does the best it can, but too often, our most recent understandings of things are touted and received as 100% truth, when the reality in my experience is far less certain. 

 

I take scientific claims as 'given observation... this is the best way we have of describing this at this time'  and all claims are in my mind, destined to evolve as observation, awareness and insight unfold.

 

That is a beautiful, wonderful thing to me.

[Stosh]

7 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

they say it does have momentum. but its a magical momentum, without a mass

 

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-4-photon-momentum/

 

Interesting , Ok they can impart  momentum,, somehow ,, it still leaves an issue , when the photon reaches the hypothetical circular orbit place , at the precise tangent , to allow it to enter the orbit ,,, along with its momentum ..  , then it is exactly equivalent to a photon that was already zipping around the circle in space. Which I am thinking, means that there are at least two vectors from which can come photons into that point in space which could lead to a circular path around the anomaly ,, entirely consistent with the curvature of space-time. 

If this is so , then there is an equal probability that at any point on the circle , a photon could leave on a tangent OUT of the circle and yet still be entirely consistent in its trajectory and momentum in curved space.

No photon sphere again. 

[Taoist Texts]

49 minutes ago, Stosh said:

If this is so , then there is an equal probability that at any point on the circle , a photon could leave on a tangent OUT of the circle 

what would cause it to leave?

[Stosh]

28 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

what would cause it to leave?

Its just as likely to stay as leave , leave or stay . A 50-50 proposition for the entire circumference of the circle for as many revolutions as occur , So I am thinking , since leaving is a one way trip , and staying is not stable, they all leave eventually. 

This implies that light is not travelling along a predestined curvature though even under  'normal circumstances' ,,, at any point , the light is just as likely to be "deviating" along an equally straight and likely course of travel.. It could have gone elsewhere , and still have gone straight! in space time.  

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

Its just as likely to stay as leave , leave or stay . A 50-50 proposition for the entire circumference of the circle for as many revolutions as occur , So I am thinking , since leaving is a one way trip , and staying is not stable, they all leave eventually. 

I am not sure that is the case. Once a particle enters an orbit, it stays there absent any energy causing it to leave. Also this problems is explained by the Newtonian gravity, and was in fact posited by him back in 1704 , nothing relative is needed.

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

Quote

On the conclusion of his treatise on Optics in 1704, Newton posed a number of questions in order to inspire a further search to be made by others. The First of these was the following: Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their actions bend its Rays, and is not this action strongest at the least distance?

 

 

Of course it is a purely mental exercise, not subject to experiment, akin to asking if an omnipotent god can create a stone  which he cant lift. Purely mental exercises belong to the realm of ideas and hence religion. In fact GRT was hoisted on the world by a true believer, a missionary

 

Quote

Eddington's books and lectures were immensely popular with the public, ...but also for his willingness to discuss the philosophical and religious implications of the new physics. He argued for a deeply rooted philosophical harmony between scientific investigation and religious mysticism, and also that the positivist nature of modern physics (i.e., relativity and quantum physics) provided new room for personal religious experience and free will.

 

 

The hilarious irony is of course that GRT was immediately used by the atheists to combat and replace the very same religion which gave rise to GRT.

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

I am not sure that is the case. Once a particle enters an orbit, it stays there absent any energy causing it to leave. Also this problems is explained by the Newtonian gravity, and was in fact posited by him back in 1704 , nothing relative is needed.

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

 

The assumption there,,  is that an orbit is a single vector, a track of sorts , and if you ain't on the track , you ain't in orbit and ain't gonna get into orbit there. And that's a fine perspective as far as it goes. 

But in our mental exercise we have a proton that has to get into that orbit , from a vector which is not already the orbit, its coming from 'outside the orbit' .

 Any direction it goes or could go , is perfectly valid and abides by the curvature of space . So no matter what happens , we can consider it to be an ordinary event , quite predictable.. its just that half the events do not entirely enter the orbit and slingshot back out into space, and the other half are only retained in the orbit temporarily till they spin down or spin out , without any causal factor since all the possibilities were entirely valid at the same time. 

This equality of probabilities comes into play all over in physics , like the double slit experiment quantum spins ,  uncertainty principle , and so forth. It is not really bizarre , its just that we are taught to have an expectation that the consequence of any one event has one single outcome , since we rarely see events that are so finely balanced that multiple possibilities present themselves.  

For ex.. 

I might go out the garage , or out the front door ,,, but if I have to take out the garbage , I go out the garage. Neither choice is remarkable, but once the event happens either way , history proceeds from there on. Elementary particles themselves are unaffected by time , the million yr old hydrogen atom is essentially identical to the one year old hydrogen atom (assuming the same q-state) - it doesn't go forward nor backward in time , its already forward, and is still backwards 'in time' . ( but that's another issue ) 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Stosh

[Zhongyongdaoist]

The discussion about black holes is somewhat bogged down because it needs to consider Hawking Radiation which describes how and why a "photon" might leave the black hole.  That might not satisfy Taoist Texts though since he may also dismiss quantum physics as a religion.

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

The discussion about black holes is somewhat bogged down because it needs to consider Hawking Radiation which describes how and why a "photon" might leave the black hole.  That might not satisfy Taoist Texts though since he may also dismiss quantum physics as a religion.

" Hawking showed that quantum effects allow black holes to emit exact black body radiation." 

Well , I need to hear this one explained in English , how it both cannot emit em and yet it does. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Stosh