Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Rossim
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by Rossim » Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:24 pm

This thread is not intended to merely bash General Relativity.


According to Karl Popper, "hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is, among other things, falsifiable."

I believe astrophysics' best opportunity to falsify GR was the galactic rotation anomaly. GR's gravity-dominated model predicts a certain rotational velocity of the galaxy with specific characteristics, such as the inner-most stars must travel faster around the center of mass than stars on the outer edges. These predictions were directly observed and they failed terribly, yet GR was, of course, preserved with the advent of dark matter.

Wikipedia states, "Dark matter is a kind of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for gravitational effects that appear to be the result of invisible mass. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level."

Carl Sagan compares pseudoscience to science, and GR fits very well: "Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed."


Even if the Rosetta mission observes definitive electrical discharging on comet 67P, a phenomenal confirmation of the EU, it would not falsify GR and some untestable hypothesis will be conjured (though not dark matter related like viscount aero believes). Even if you sent a probe through a galaxy's "supermassive blackhole" and it survived on the other side, it may not falsify GR.


So, if you could devise any experiment (even those clearly unfeasible) what would you attempt to directly observe to falsify GR?


And my favorite quote:
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions... A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it." - Karl Raimund Popper

User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by Metryq » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:40 am

The galactic rotation curve wouldn't falsify GR anymore than it would falsify Newton's gravity, it only throws a monkey wrench into the a priori notion that gravity drives the universe.

In KICKING THE SACRED COW (Section Three: Drifting in the Ether: Did Relativity Take A Wrong Turn?) James P. Hogan compares Einsteinian Relativity to Ptolemy's epicycles—not so much a "wrong" theory as an overly complicated one. Within limits, it is still useful for making predictions, but it is cumbersome. Hogan then goes on to list many other theories fully compatible with classical Galilean transforms, yet which make all the same predictions as GR. Many other authors have made similar arguments—
But it is important to realize that none of the 11 independent experiments said to confirm the validity of SR [Special Relativity} experimentally distinguish it from LR {Lorentzian Relativity] -- at least not in Einstein's favor.
...
But of those who have compared both LR and SR to the experiments, most seem convinced that LR more easily explains the behavior of nature.
—Tom Van Flandern, MetaResearch
There is also Dowdye's Extinction Shift and the work of Ron Hatch.

There's no dearth of challenges to Einstein's Relativity; the galactic rotation curve simply isn't one of them.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:29 am

Although not GR, STR was falsified by a contemporary experiment done to prove it: The Hafele–Keating experiment done with identical clocks flown on planes in opposite directions around the Earth. They alleged it proved STR as the clocks read different times from when they departed versus upon their return trips. To allege, as they did, that it proved STR is an erroneous assumption for many reasons. One reason, which is never examined seriously, is the very principle of there being no absolute time per Special Relativity ("spacetime" and local/nonlocal reference frames) would require the clocks simply return to their original "speeds" once they were both in the same reference frame (side by side and provided the mechanisms within the clocks remained operating "normally"). Hence, Hafele–Keating proved nothing.
Last edited by viscount aero on Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:33 am

Metryq wrote:The galactic rotation curve wouldn't falsify GR anymore than it would falsify Newton's gravity, it only throws a monkey wrench into the a priori notion that gravity drives the universe.
Moreover, it falsifies Newtonian law being construed as universal. Flat rotation curves proved that it wasn't. Newtonian law works in some cases and does not in others. The principle revealed that galaxies are structurally different than what theory had assumed.

601L1n9FR09
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:10 pm

All experiments can do is fail to falsify a theory. An experiment can provide support but nothing can genuinely confirm a theory. A theory that is so constructed as to deny any chance of falsifying it is strictly philosophical in nature. Einstein would concur with the very doubts expressed on this forum on both SR and GR. He was the principle critic of his own theories and thereby a great man of SCIENCE.

ZenMonkeyNZ
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by ZenMonkeyNZ » Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:33 am

Andre Assis' Relational Mechanics has some great info on issues with all mechanical and relativity theories (with implications for electrodynamics, too). It's worth reading the whole thing (Ernst Mach and Wilhelm Weber, whom he refers to a lot, are also great reading, but it's a lot of material to get through).

His text is the best summary of this dynamical mechanics I have found. You can download a copy here: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Relati ... hanics.pdf

If you are specifically interested in Relativity issues, there is a section dedicated to that (take a look), but without the background info contained in the first section of the book (or related material – such as Mach's Mechanics) you might find it more difficult to get the full gist of what he is saying.

Andre also correctly notes that Relativity, as currently used, is a misnomer. The relative dynamics of Mach is proper relativity (i.e. the observer frame of reference is irrelevant). Andre prefers the term Relational, as it won't get confused with the modern use of the term Relativity. This seems like a reasonable position to take, IMO.

silvanelf
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by silvanelf » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:25 am

viscount aero wrote:Although not GR, STR was falsified by a contemporary experiment done to prove it: The Hafele–Keating experiment done with identical clocks flown on planes in opposite directions around the Earth.
Hence, Hafele–Keating proved nothing.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself: either the Hafele-Keating experiment disproved Special Relativity, or it proved nothing. Both statements cannot be valid at the same time.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:46 am

I shall clarify: STR was falsified by the Hafele–Keating experiment.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:47 pm

viscount aero wrote:I shall clarify: STR was falsified by the Hafele–Keating experiment.
You mean STR = special relativity? Usually shortened as SR.

Crothers thinks SR is invalid, because you can not get a consistent time dimension for more than 2 objects.
Sky Scholar (S.J. Crothers)- Special Theory of Relativity: Logical Inconsistencies

There are at least 2 alternatives:
1) The time does not change, but the physical phenomena between 2 objects behave
as if their clock runs slower/faster.
2) The speed of light stays constant with the sender. Maybe connected via quantum mechanics.
According to a researcher in a video by Natural Sciences this is was
showen in the Hafale-Keating experiment.

Essentially, Special relativity is a simple linear correction for movement of forces in space.
It compensates for the speed of the forces, that are all assumed to be at the speed of light.
Alternatively you can also use infinite speed for the forces in many cases.
Which corresponds to option 2 above.

Special relativity does not simply work with accelerations (like rotations), as the
Ehrenfest paradox shows.
Einstein "solves" it by claiming the disk is "not real".
The situation is very common though, as electrons and muons orbit around atoms near light speed.
And the Sagnac effect shows that there is no relativity in a circular circuit.
Magnetism is thought to be the direct result of special relativity.
But if there is no relativity in a circular circuit, how can a circular
current cause a magnetic field?
These edge-cases could use far better research. (No PhD bullshit papers).
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:28 pm

"In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time."

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:26 pm

viscount aero wrote:"In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time."
Ok, what is the effect of relativity on the orbits of muons?
And how is Crothers problem solved?

I am looking around physics forums and such, but I find only "not real" answers.
In experiments on muons it seems that relativity does not really exist the the same sense.

The QED theory behind it is not really consistent. The "renormalization" is really a Hack..
Wikipedia wrote: "Renormalization is a collection of techniques in quantum field theory, the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, that are used to treat infinities arising in calculated quantities by altering values of quantities to compensate for effects of their self-interactions."
Non-convergence of QED has some weird reasoning:
Wikipedia wrote: "An argument by Freeman Dyson shows that the radius of convergence of the perturbation series in QED is zero.[23] The basic argument goes as follows: if the coupling constant were negative, this would be equivalent to the Coulomb force constant being negative. This would "reverse" the electromagnetic interaction so that like charges would attract and unlike charges would repel. This would render the vacuum unstable against decay into a cluster of electrons on one side of the universe and a cluster of positrons on the other side of the universe. Because the theory is 'sick' for any negative value of the coupling constant, the series do not converge, but are an asymptotic series."
While it is "generally accepted" it is certainly not thoroughly researched on edge-cases.
It is as if somehow the scepticism has disappeared when aether did not work and
the topics became too difficult for most scientists.

I personally think that Einstein has made 4 huge mistakes with his theories which
have locked down the theories of physics for 100 of years.

1. Photo-electro effect.
2. Force= particles.
3. Time is a dimension.
4. Gravity bends light (and space).

But those are just small mistakes compared to the errors in astronomy.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Cargo
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by Cargo » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:34 pm

What an incredible prose. And yet the choice selection of your material should easily provide the answer. It should be obvious really.

Or maybe you don't really, can't really, know what's Real.

Karl Popper had a Theory. So did Einstein. I believe the former was pleading for what was Real, while the latter was not.

GR/SR can not be falsified because they are not Real.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:59 am

Gravitational-constant mystery deepens with new precision measurements

https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitationa ... surements/
The Huazhong TOS and AAF measurements of G have record-breaking uncertainties of 11.64 ppm and 11.61 ppm respectively. While the TOS measurement agrees with the accepted value of G to within uncertainties, the AAF result does not. Indeed, the AAF value is about 45 ppm larger than the TOS result. Furthermore, these latest results are in disagreement with previous measurements made by the Huazhong team.
So with better measurements of gravity, we falsify general relativity.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by D_Archer » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:45 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Gravitational-constant mystery deepens with new precision measurements

https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitationa ... surements/
The Huazhong TOS and AAF measurements of G have record-breaking uncertainties of 11.64 ppm and 11.61 ppm respectively. While the TOS measurement agrees with the accepted value of G to within uncertainties, the AAF result does not. Indeed, the AAF value is about 45 ppm larger than the TOS result. Furthermore, these latest results are in disagreement with previous measurements made by the Huazhong team.
So with better measurements of gravity, we falsify general relativity.
What is G? by Miles Mathis:
http://milesmathis.com/g.html
Therefore, in order to put both fields in the same equation, we must transform one size to the other, or one velocity to the other. This is what G does. And because velocity is proportional to radius, the radius of the messenger photon must be 6.67 x 10-11 times less than the radius of the hydrogen atom (or average particle of the physical field). This also explains the variation in G, since not all macro-objects are composed of hydrogen atoms.
G is the transform between the average size of the atoms present in the field being calculated and the size of the radiated photons. Therefore G is not really a constant. As the average atoms vary, G varies
---

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of General Relativity?

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:32 am

D_Archer wrote: What is G? by Miles Mathis:
http://milesmathis.com/g.html
Therefore, in order to put both fields in the same equation, we must transform one size to the other, or one velocity to the other. This is what G does. And because velocity is proportional to radius, the radius of the messenger photon must be 6.67 x 10-11 times less than the radius of the hydrogen atom (or average particle of the physical field). This also explains the variation in G, since not all macro-objects are composed of hydrogen atoms.
G is the transform between the average size of the atoms present in the field being calculated and the size of the radiated photons. Therefore G is not really a constant. As the average atoms vary, G varies
I didn't know there could be so much non-logic in a few sentences.
Each statement does not really make sense, nor their connection.
Miles invents new words and new concepts and his own logic, and makes it seem
as if it still has any connection with reality,
by making the last sentence in line with what was observed.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests