Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory

[rhertz]

Check this out:

*******************************************************************
Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory

http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node23.html


Many GRT inconsistencies are well-known:

1) the principle of correspondence is violated (the limiting transition
to the case without gravitation cannot exist without introducing the
artificial external conditions);

2) the conservation laws are absent;

3) the relativity of accelerations contradicts the experimental facts
(rotating liquids under space conditions have the shape of ellipsoids,
whereas non-rotating ones - the spherical shape);

4) the singular solutions exist.
(Usually, any theory is considered to be inapplicable in similar cases,
but GRT for saving its "universal character" begins to construct
fantastic pictures, such as black holes, Big Bang, etc.).


Subsections

General remarks
The geometry of space
The equivalence principle
Time in GRT
Some GRT corollaries

***********************************************************************

More to come.

Debunk A Few World Famous Experiments


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375002717_Debunk_A_Few_World_Famous_Experiments

[rhertz]

Post by rhertz
*******************************************************************
Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory
http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node23.html
1) the principle of correspondence is violated (the limiting transition
to the case without gravitation cannot exist without introducing the
artificial external conditions);
2) the conservation laws are absent;
3) the relativity of accelerations contradicts the experimental facts
(rotating liquids under space conditions have the shape of ellipsoids,
whereas non-rotating ones - the spherical shape);
4) the singular solutions exist.
(Usually, any theory is considered to be inapplicable in similar cases,
but GRT for saving its "universal character" begins to construct
fantastic pictures, such as black holes, Big Bang, etc.).

<snip>

There may be some confusion with the principle of correspondence, as
it's used also in philosophy.

I meant this principle of correspondence, from quantum physics:


https://www.britannica.com/science/correspondence-principle

QUOTE:

Correspondence principle, philosophical guideline for the selection of
new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the
phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid. Formulated in 1923 by
the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this principle is a distillation of the
thought that had led him in the development of his atomic theory, an
early form of quantum mechanics.

Early in the 20th century, atomic physics was in turmoil. The results of
experimentation presented a seemingly irrefutable picture of the atom:
tiny electrically charged particles called electrons continuously moving
in circles around an oppositely charged and extraordinarily dense
nucleus. This picture was, however, impossible in terms of the known
laws of classical physics, which predicted that such circulating
electrons should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. Atoms,
however, do not gradually lose energy and collapse.

Bohr and others who tried to encompass the paradoxes of atomic phenomena
in a new physical theory noted that the old physics had met all
challenges until physicists began to examine the atom itself. Bohr
reasoned that any new theory had to do more than describe atomic
phenomena correctly; it must be applicable to conventional phenomena,
too, in such a way that it would reproduce the old physics: this is the
correspondence principle.

The correspondence principle applies to other theories besides quantum
theory. Thus, the mathematical formulations for the behavior of objects
moving at exceedingly high speeds, described by relativity physics,
reduce for low values of speed to the correct descriptions of the
motions of daily experience.

[J. J. Lodder]

Woof! WoofWoof!!

Post by rhertz
<snip>
There may be some confusion with the principle of correspondence, as
it's used also in philosophy.
https://www.britannica.com/science/correspondence-principle
Correspondence principle, philosophical guideline for the selection of
new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the
phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid.

Nobody ever needed Niels Bohr for that.
(apart from it often being false)

Post by rhertz
Formulated in 1923 by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this principle is a
distillation of the thought that had led him in the development of his
atomic theory, an early form of quantum mechanics.

Nonsense. Special relativity, 1905, and general relativity, 1915,
had, and have no need for this Bohrian obscurantism with respect to
the old quantum mechanics of 1923.
(remember that the real quantum mechanics didn't start until 1925-26)

Derivation of the non-relativistic limit of relativity
is straightforward, and it is obviously in agreement
with preceding theories, where applicable.

Jan

[rhertz]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Woof! WoofWoof!!

Post by rhertz
<snip>
There may be some confusion with the principle of correspondence, as
it's used also in philosophy.
https://www.britannica.com/science/correspondence-principle
Correspondence principle, philosophical guideline for the selection of
new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the
phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid.

Nobody ever needed Niels Bohr for that.
(apart from it often being false)

Post by rhertz
Formulated in 1923 by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this principle is a
distillation of the thought that had led him in the development of his
atomic theory, an early form of quantum mechanics.

Nonsense. Special relativity, 1905, and general relativity, 1915,
had, and have no need for this Bohrian obscurantism with respect to
the old quantum mechanics of 1923.
(remember that the real quantum mechanics didn't start until 1925-26)
Derivation of the non-relativistic limit of relativity
is straightforward, and it is obviously in agreement
with preceding theories, where applicable.
Jan

Such "Bohrian obscurantism" was patiently taught to their disciples,
being the young Heisenberg one of them. Freed from the mental chains
that Max Born imposed to him, and being in a total mental crisis, was
brought by Bohr to his house for rest between 1924 and 1925.

Bohr, a slow but deep thinker, reshaped the mind of Heisenberg about
theoretical physics, and taught him how to think in terms of "observable
things". This effort allowed Heisenberg to come with his Matrix
Mechanics theory of the atom, which was the FIRST SOLID THEORY for a
model of H atoms that wasn't based on the planetary model (which was the
only theory between 1919 and 1925). Born was a fervent defender of such
theory, and wrote a whole book about it by 1925.

Once Heisenberg came with his model, Born abandoned the prevailing model
and coined the term "quantum mechanics" for this new theory, which he
and his associates found to be based in matrixes.

When Schrödinger came with his wave theory in 1926, once again Born
changed horses and embraced THIS THEORY, only because MOST (if not all)
physicists of that epoch were used to work with waves, and didn't know
shit about matrixes.

Both theories could explain "observables" known in that epoch, only that
the matrix model was abandoned for being too difficult for the imbeciles
of that era.

Most of the bright minds in that epoch revered the figure of Bohr and
his philosophy (Dirac, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, De Broglie, Schrodinger,
etc.) and were frequent visitors to Bohr's Institute and were hosted on
his house.

Bohr modeled the nucleus of the atom as behaving like a liquid drop,
which allowed to Meitner and his nephew to explain the "fission" of
Uranium by 1939.


So, the obscurantism that you came with was actually LIGHT that allowed
the most
important developments by their "disciples", like Gamow and many others.


Read his biography, as well as many books on the history of physics as
you can, because your IGNORANCE and your FOSSILIZED MIND are the causes
that you post so many crappy things, without REASONING. You are stuck in
2 or 3 concepts, plus you suffered the virus of relativity, which proves
(in your case) to be FATAL.

As a proof, you constantly resort to LIES, DECEIVING COMMENTS, DOGMAS,
etc., which characterize a chronic (and intellectually poor) relativist.

EVERY SINGLE TIME WHEN YOU WRITE A POST.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
*******************************************************************
Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory
http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node23.html
1) the principle of correspondence is violated (the limiting transition
to the case without gravitation cannot exist without introducing the
artificial external conditions);
2) the conservation laws are absent;
3) the relativity of accelerations contradicts the experimental facts
(rotating liquids under space conditions have the shape of ellipsoids,
whereas non-rotating ones - the spherical shape);
4) the singular solutions exist.
(Usually, any theory is considered to be inapplicable in similar cases,
but GRT for saving its "universal character" begins to construct
fantastic pictures, such as black holes, Big Bang, etc.).

<snip>
There may be some confusion with the principle of correspondence, as
it's used also in philosophy.
https://www.britannica.com/science/correspondence-principle
Correspondence principle, philosophical guideline for the selection of
new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the
phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid. Formulated in 1923 by
the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this principle is a distillation of the
thought that had led him in the development of his atomic theory, an
early form of quantum mechanics.
Early in the 20th century, atomic physics was in turmoil. The results of
tiny electrically charged particles called electrons continuously moving
in circles around an oppositely charged and extraordinarily dense
nucleus. This picture was, however, impossible in terms of the known
laws of classical physics, which predicted that such circulating
electrons should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. Atoms,
however, do not gradually lose energy and collapse.
Bohr and others who tried to encompass the paradoxes of atomic phenomena
in a new physical theory noted that the old physics had met all
challenges until physicists began to examine the atom itself. Bohr
reasoned that any new theory had to do more than describe atomic
phenomena correctly; it must be applicable to conventional phenomena,
too, in such a way that it would reproduce the old physics: this is the
correspondence principle.
The correspondence principle applies to other theories besides quantum
theory. Thus, the mathematical formulations for the behavior of objects
moving at exceedingly high speeds, described by relativity physics,
reduce for low values of speed to the correct descriptions of the
motions of daily experience.

There is nothing exclusive to relativity for which relativity is valid.
There is no need for relativistic corrections at high speeds. So, future
theories can disregard it.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
*******************************************************************
Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory
http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node23.html
1) the principle of correspondence is violated (the limiting transition
to the case without gravitation cannot exist without introducing the
artificial external conditions);
2) the conservation laws are absent;
3) the relativity of accelerations contradicts the experimental facts
(rotating liquids under space conditions have the shape of ellipsoids,
whereas non-rotating ones - the spherical shape);
4) the singular solutions exist.
(Usually, any theory is considered to be inapplicable in similar cases,
but GRT for saving its "universal character" begins to construct
fantastic pictures, such as black holes, Big Bang, etc.).

<snip>
There may be some confusion with the principle of correspondence, as
it's used also in philosophy.
https://www.britannica.com/science/correspondence-principle
Correspondence principle, philosophical guideline for the selection of
new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the
phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid. Formulated in 1923 by
the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this principle is a distillation of the
thought that had led him in the development of his atomic theory, an
early form of quantum mechanics.
Early in the 20th century, atomic physics was in turmoil. The results of
tiny electrically charged particles called electrons continuously moving
in circles around an oppositely charged and extraordinarily dense
nucleus. This picture was, however, impossible in terms of the known
laws of classical physics, which predicted that such circulating
electrons should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. Atoms,
however, do not gradually lose energy and collapse.
Bohr and others who tried to encompass the paradoxes of atomic phenomena
in a new physical theory noted that the old physics had met all
challenges until physicists began to examine the atom itself. Bohr
reasoned that any new theory had to do more than describe atomic
phenomena correctly; it must be applicable to conventional phenomena,
too, in such a way that it would reproduce the old physics: this is the
correspondence principle.
The correspondence principle applies to other theories besides quantum
theory. Thus, the mathematical formulations for the behavior of objects
moving at exceedingly high speeds, described by relativity physics,
reduce for low values of speed to the correct descriptions of the
motions of daily experience.

It is said that a good theory conserves the successes of its
predecessor. However, relativity has no success to conserve by a new
theory. For example, it did not predict a doubling of the Newtonian
deflection because it provides no mathematical or physics basis for
inserting the number "2" in the equation.