Big Bang Bull (2)

[KickLaBuka]

This topic has been posted at Space Dot Com

I would like to formally ask the astronomer just how "successfull" General Relativity really is, because I do not see any engineering technologies advancing due to it. If General Relativity is wrong, and time does just rely on itself as one would expect, then doesn't that directly imply that the size of the Universe and its activity has been sorely misappreciated? I refer to a 1980's discovery that the aparent diameter of galaxies greater than Z=1 is getting bigger and dimmer. Doesn't this fly in the face of the 1905 prediction?

[Anaconda]

Hi KickLaBuka:

I couldn't find it, but I'd at least want to follow the discussion. Could you please link it.

[KickLaBuka]

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18871

[redeye]

As far as I'm aware the error margin involved, whether you adjust for relatavistic effects or not, is within the margin of error allowed in GPS results. Are signals sent to and from Cassini adjusted for relativity?

Cheers!

[Anaconda]

Hi KickLaBuka:

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18871

Thank you very much

I haven't read the entire thread, yet, but I'm already impressed with your approach and doggedness (a reasonable doggedness )

KickLaBuka, you demonstrated a better grasp of the specifics than I have. I tend to deal in first principles and logic and logical construction (I freely admit my mathematical skills are non-existent and I often get tagged for that, but I do have a decent grasp of the first principles that support the various mathematical details).

Frankly, I'm not sure which concept is right: The variation in postion (GPS is only accurate to within three meters) or that atomic clocks work on either a decay rate or a vibration rate, either of which are effected by electromagnetic intensity of the field, which at the height of orbit of the GPS satellites is distinctly stronger than at the surface (you suggested a third reason why the clocks are different, the speed of the satellites, I don't know much about that hypothesis).

You are right to be dogged in regards to the GPS issue because that is the "proof" that most folks on that "side of the aisle" trot out when General Relativity is exposed to dispute and rejection. In fact, that's what was thrown at me when I questioned General Relativity, and initially, I didn't have an answer, but upon further research I found the "electromagnetic field effects the decay rate or vibration rate of atoms" argument, and based on experiments this argument has validity.

(Side note, when proponents of General Relativity challenge an interlocutor about their scientific knowledge, what they really are saying is: "You don't agree with me and oppose the validity of General Relativity, anybody who opposes GR doesn't know what their talking about." I don't find that very impressive )

Again, I found your handling of the discussion (so far as I've read) excellent.

Another reason, to challenge General Relativity, as you suggested in the Space.com thread, is that without General Relativity's hocus pocus (new physics or the laws of physics change or are unknown within the point-mass singularity), the foundation for the "big bang, black hole" paradigm goes up in smoke

No doubt that is why any mention of a challenge to General Relativity always brings out the "threatened bee hive" swarming response

Keep up the good work

[nick c]

Thought I would post this summary here, as relativists commonly state as an indisputable fact that the success of GPS proves relativity correct, this is simply not true.
Here are some links to that discussion:
forum thread....
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1651

Don Scott's reply to GPS and relativity:

THE (NON)USEFUL PRODUCTS OF ASTROPHYSICS Also on his page 4, TB claims that the Global Positioning System requires general relativity for precise computation of transmission delay times of the GPS signals in the gravitational field of Earth. This, he claims, is a useful contribution of astrophysics. However, as with so many of the pronouncements of the astrophysics power structure, there is an alternative explanation. H.F. Fliegel and R. S. DiEsposti of the GPS Joint Program Office of the Aerospace Corporation conclude1 ―Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no ‗missing relativity terms.‘ They cancel out.‖ General Relativity Theory is not needed.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf

However, the (GPS) calculations mentioned (quoted here, below) do not
apply to time, but to atomic clocks, meaning essentially, to the orbit
of electrons around atomic nuclei.
http://groups.google.com/group/Fine-Par ... c6c9b4b50b

In other words it is the clocks that are not synchronized, not Time.



In any event, the margin for error of GPS is far too large to even measure a relativity effect.

As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all!
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm

and

At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).

Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

nick c

[redeye]

Why are such discussions limited to GPS satelites. The navigation of the Cassini probe (as well as all other space probes) must require precise knowledge of where said probes are relative to the Earth. Are they adjusting for space/time curvature with all such probes? Could this explain the anomolous position of the Pioneer probe?

Cheers!

[flyingcloud]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... 22mond.htm

[KickLaBuka]

Is anyone still following this? I've just been hit with the most absurd question imagineable. Can someone tell me who this person is who refuses to let E=Mcc go?

[StevenO]

Is anyone still following this? I've just been hit with the most absurd question imagineable. Can someone tell me who this person is who refuses to let E=Mcc go?

What's wrong with E=mc2 ??

[arc-us]

Is anyone still following this? I've just been hit with the most absurd question imagineable. Can someone tell me who this person is who refuses to let E=Mcc go?

What's wrong with E=mc2 ??

Apparently, nothing but the [mis-] &/or [re-]interpretation.

http://www.google.com/search?q=e%3Dmc+s ... =firefox-a

[KickLaBuka]

Pulsars... If E=mc² without reference to the flow of charge in the surroundings, then it is only an approximation for a certain scope; one that excludes electricity in the cosmos.