2020s: The decade of electric universe and anti-relativity memes?

[crawler]

There are many scientists who are interested in seeking QM oriented definition of gravity, but it's hard to simply ignore the numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics. For instance time dilation, and the orbit of Mercury are examples of predictions made by GR which demonstrate it's advantages over Newtonian definitions of gravity.

Mercury's perihelion stuff was not a prediction of GR. Einstein's equation was invented to cater for the known 40 arcsec per century. The equation is an impossibility (Crothers). Einstein took 3 of them & added 2 of them & subtracted 1 of them. Numerical analysis shows that the equation is krapp (Eckhardt & others) -- orbits run away off the page. I have read that for Mars it predicts 1 arcsec instead of the 9 arcsec. And the 43 arcsec is not correct, or at least not that simple.

[LaSuisse1]

In terms of other types of "evidence' to support GR theory, a very recent article suggests that "frame-dragging" (a prediction of GR theory) seems to have been observed recently.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time
There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that time isn't 'fixed", rather it's variable depending on speed and proximation to mass and such.

Einsteinologists are fond of proving GTR, they never say that their observations support GTR & every other theory that fits.

Then the simplest thing to do would be to link to the proofs in the scientific literature that prove that other 'theories' can also explain frame-dragging, time dilation, precession, etc. My view would be that they do not exist.

There are no other theories that can explain frame-dragging, mainly because frame-dragging is an impossibility.

Brilliant! And your mathematical refutation of the already observed frame-dragging is..........................

[crawler]

Brilliant! And your mathematical refutation of the already observed frame-dragging is..........................

The only physical thing that i know that can transfer spin is tidal effects. Frame dragging will have a proper physical explanation.

[EtherQuestions]

numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics. For instance time dilation, and the orbit of Mercury are examples of predictions made by GR which demonstrate it's advantages over Newtonian definitions of gravity.

I guess I don't fully understand your argument about Doppler shift but I've never seen anyone try to use Doppler shift to refute GR theory before. Could you elaborate, or cite a prior post that explains your argument a bit better? Maybe I missed it.

*I've never seen anyone try to use Doppler shift to refute GR theory before*

It is an argument against Special Relativity, and light invariance which GR is built on top of.

It is not about GR's additional gravitational red/blue shift, it is just about the relativistic Doppler Effect. The Doppler Effect is how speed can be detected using light waves, it is where a moving object reflects longer or shorter wavelengths dependent on relative motion to the source (just like sound and fluid waves do).

These 2 memes found on reddit show how light invariance is invalidated by the Doppler Effect better (one is phase invariance one is group invariance.

https://old.reddit.com/r/ElectricUniver ... ompletely/
https://old.reddit.com/r/ElectricUniver ... s_special/

*"numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics"*

By applying the same velocity and torque adjustments we apply using Heaviside's equations to electric and magnetic fields but instead applying this to gravitational fields and a new co-gravitational (magnetic field) counterpart, Oleg Jefimenko's modified Newtonian field equations predict Mercury's perihelion, Time Dilation (Electromagnetic Retardation), and gravitational "Time Dilation" the same as SR/GR.

[LaSuisse1]

Brilliant! And your mathematical refutation of the already observed frame-dragging is..........................

The only physical thing that i know that can transfer spin is tidal effects. Frame dragging will have a proper physical explanation.

It matters not what you know of. Where is the scientific explanation of it that does not include relativity? Arguments from incredulity are not valid arguments.

[crawler]

Brilliant! And your mathematical refutation of the already observed frame-dragging is..........................

The only physical thing that i know that can transfer spin is tidal effects. Frame dragging will have a proper physical explanation.

It matters not what you know of. Where is the scientific explanation of it that does not include relativity? Arguments from incredulity are not valid arguments.

Not true. Credibility is paramount. What is Einstein's explanation of exactly how Mercury's orbit is affected. Providing an equation is not an explanation. I had a quick look on google & it was sickening.
Einsteinologists say things like "the 43 arcsec is a test of GTR". No it aint. Einstein's GTR explains the 43 arcsec, or at least it might except that Einstein never explained anything in STR or GTR, & his derivations are a puzzle to his apostles disciples & followers.
A test would involve say coming up with realistic numbers for the precessions of all of the other planets, & i seem to remember that GTR fails.

[LaSuisse1]

Brilliant! And your mathematical refutation of the already observed frame-dragging is..........................

The only physical thing that i know that can transfer spin is tidal effects. Frame dragging will have a proper physical explanation.

It matters not what you know of. Where is the scientific explanation of it that does not include relativity? Arguments from incredulity are not valid arguments.

Not true. Credibility is paramount. What is Einstein's explanation of exactly how Mercury's orbit is affected. Providing an equation is not an explanation. I had a quick look on google & it was sickening.
Einsteinologists say things like "the 43 arcsec is a test of GTR". No it aint. Einstein's GTR explains the 43 arcsec, or at least it might except that Einstein never explained anything in STR or GTR, & his derivations are a puzzle to his apostles disciples & followers.
A test would involve say coming up with realistic numbers for the precessions of all of the other planets, & i seem to remember that GTR fails.

Oh dear! Word salad. As expected. Have you, or have you not, got an explanation for the precession of Mercury, that can be checked against observation? A simple yes or no will suffice. The maths that predicted it would be fantastic. I'll check it. No problems. Is your answer going to be - "No, I don't understand maths, and nobody has ever managed to predict the precession of Mercury without using relativity."? Because that would be the correct answer, wouldn't it? Unless you can show otherwise. Which you can't. Which renders your whole argument (whatever it is) moot. Correct?

[LaSuisse1]

Brilliant! And your mathematical refutation of the already observed frame-dragging is..........................

The only physical thing that i know that can transfer spin is tidal effects. Frame dragging will have a proper physical explanation.

It matters not what you know of. Where is the scientific explanation of it that does not include relativity? Arguments from incredulity are not valid arguments.

Not true. Credibility is paramount. What is Einstein's explanation of exactly how Mercury's orbit is affected. Providing an equation is not an explanation. I had a quick look on google & it was sickening.
Einsteinologists say things like "the 43 arcsec is a test of GTR". No it aint. Einstein's GTR explains the 43 arcsec, or at least it might except that Einstein never explained anything in STR or GTR, & his derivations are a puzzle to his apostles disciples & followers.
A test would involve say coming up with realistic numbers for the precessions of all of the other planets, & i seem to remember that GTR fails.

Oh dear! Word salad. As expected. Have you, or have you not, got an explanation for the precession of Mercury, that can be checked against observation? A simple yes or no will suffice. The maths that predicted it would be fantastic. I'll check it. No problems. Is your answer going to be - "No, I don't understand maths, and nobody has ever managed to predict the precession of Mercury without using relativity."? Because that would be the correct answer, wouldn't it? Unless you can show otherwise. Which you can't. Which renders your whole argument (whatever it is) moot. Correct?

EDIT:

You sound like a very bitter person. Can I take it as read that you are not much cop at maths, and possibly have a chip on your shoulder because of that? Show me a real scientist questioning relativity. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Bizarrely, the only people who seem to be questioning it, seem to be those incapable of understanding it. Mathematically, or otherwise. Which is a bit sad, don't you think?

[Michael Mozina]

numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics. For instance time dilation, and the orbit of Mercury are examples of predictions made by GR which demonstrate it's advantages over Newtonian definitions of gravity.

I guess I don't fully understand your argument about Doppler shift but I've never seen anyone try to use Doppler shift to refute GR theory before. Could you elaborate, or cite a prior post that explains your argument a bit better? Maybe I missed it.

*I've never seen anyone try to use Doppler shift to refute GR theory before*

It is an argument against Special Relativity, and light invariance which GR is built on top of.

It is not about GR's additional gravitational red/blue shift, it is just about the relativistic Doppler Effect. The Doppler Effect is how speed can be detected using light waves, it is where a moving object reflects longer or shorter wavelengths dependent on relative motion to the source (just like sound and fluid waves do).

These 2 memes found on reddit show how light invariance is invalidated by the Doppler Effect better (one is phase invariance one is group invariance.

https://old.reddit.com/r/ElectricUniver ... ompletely/
https://old.reddit.com/r/ElectricUniver ... s_special/

*"numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics"*

By applying the same velocity and torque adjustments we apply using Heaviside's equations to electric and magnetic fields but instead applying this to gravitational fields and a new co-gravitational (magnetic field) counterpart, Oleg Jefimenko's modified Newtonian field equations predict Mercury's perihelion, Time Dilation (Electromagnetic Retardation), and gravitational "Time Dilation" the same as SR/GR.

I'll checkout your links as I get time. Thanks for the links.

[Michael Mozina]

You sound like a very bitter person. Can I take it as read that you are not much cop at maths, and possibly have a chip on your shoulder because of that? Show me a real scientist questioning relativity. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Bizarrely, the only people who seem to be questioning it, seem to be those incapable of understanding it. Mathematically, or otherwise. Which is a bit sad, don't you think?

Unfortunately I do think that you're probably right that a lot of EU/PC proponents tend to reject the GR theory of gravity for the sins of the LCDM cosmology model. Not everyone seems to understand where the *requirements* of the GR theory of gravity end, and the *requirements* of the LCDM cosmology model begin, which does tend to result in a wholesale tossing out of the GR baby with the LCDM bathwater.

Of course the mainstream is mostly responsible for this type of confusion since they intentionally attempt to blur the lines between GR theory and the LCMD model by trying to ride the coattails of GR theory to prop up the mythical magical nonsense associated with the LCDM model. It is unfortunate. Then again, the mainstream does the same thing with respect to Edwin Hubble who in the later years of his life championed tired light models to explain redshift, not "space expansion'. They also do the same thing to Hannes Alfven when they attempt to misuse his work on MHD theory to promote magnetic reconnection models, something which Alfven completely rejected as "pseudoscience". The mainstream continues to misrepresent the work of Einstein, and Alfven and Hubble in a willful attempt to sweep their numerous physical problems right under the rug.

[Zyxzevn]

.. And your mathematical refutation of the already observed frame-dragging is.....

Frame dragging is by definition not observable.
It is a mathematical construct. We may or may not see some of its mathematical predictions.

Mercury's perihelion stuff was not a prediction of GR. Einstein's equation was invented to cater for the known 40 arcsec per century.

So the theory is adapted to fit the observation?

I am also wondering what else can influence these orbits.

This is the rotation of the moon around earth, seen from earth.
This was known by the Sumerians!
Seen from the sun it is just a circle around the sun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
And seen from the Galaxy, both are just rotating around the sun.
So this makes it less clear, which way everything is moving.
And how much these intergalactic movements affect the orbits.
Maybe the "magnetic" component of gravity is affecting the orbits too.

The equation is an impossibility (Crothers). Einstein took 3 of them & added 2 of them & subtracted 1 of them.

Crothers often explains how the Tensor maths are used in a wrong way.
Sadly I have not seen good discussion about this.
There are no counter arguments to the problems that he lists.
Nor do I understand exactly what the problems are.

It seems to me that in Physics people have oversimplified a lot of phenomena
and mix up certain maths to make it simpler.
Like the black-body radiation which is clearly a special case, not a general rule.

Numerical analysis shows that the equation is krapp (Eckhardt & others) -- orbits run away off the page. I have read that for Mars it predicts 1 arcsec instead of the 9 arcsec. And the 43 arcsec is not correct, or at least not that simple.

I have also seen that people tried to use Einstein's gravity in other situations, where it did not work.
Sadly these simulations did not become mainstream.
I am a programmer and can try to repeat this calculation.
Some simulations run away due to calculation inaccuracies.
But this also happens in mainstream science.

By the way: this is a fun experiment that you can do yourself:
Measuring gravity in your own basement (or shed).
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

[EtherQuestions]

Have you, or have you not, got an explanation for the precession of Mercury, that can be checked against observation? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Your condescending display ignorance is bewildering. You are now cornered because you have repeatedly made a false claim about Einstein predicting Mercury's precessional orbit, when he didn't at all. It was already known. This demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of the basic historical scientific facts.

Now you are trying to save face by saying that there is no alternative that predicts Mercury's precession, and therefore ALL the hundreds of logical fallacies that debunk relativity (like this one about length contraction https://i.redd.it/johf2ogmdwf41.png) should be ignored.

Which isn't true either. You have cornered yourself again because:

There are actually many alternative theories to GR that mathematically and accurately explain Mercury's precession.

Such Oleg Jefimenko's Gravitational and Co-Gravitational Field Equations, overview here:

https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Annal ... (2007).pdf

As long as there is a local rest frame that exists to derive velocity, Oleg Jefimenko's equations hold strong and explain Mercury's orbit as well as gravitational "time dilation" (Electromagnetic Retardation). They simply apply the same relative torque and velocity adjustments that are applied to Electric and Magnetic Fields with Oliver Heaviside's Equations (the guy that made Maxwell's equations usable), into gravitational fields. It is just a correction/modification of Newton's equations, applying the same rules that we analogously use in all other non-gravitational fields and applying them to Gravity.
No Special/General Relativity required, just classical field equations.


Also your personal message you sent us all LaSuisse1 was immature, and demonstrates pure ignorance and lack of intelligence. You don't even try and debate on here. Other relativists do discuss the actual logical criticisms, you don't.

[crawler]

There are actually many alternative theories to GR that mathematically and accurately explain Mercury's precession.

Such Oleg Jefimenko's Gravitational and Co-Gravitational Field Equations, overview here:

https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Annal ... (2007).pdf

As long as there is a local rest frame that exists to derive velocity, Oleg Jefimenko's equations hold strong and explain Mercury's orbit as well as gravitational "time dilation" (Electromagnetic Retardation). They simply apply the same relative torque and velocity adjustments that are applied to Electric and Magnetic Fields with Oliver Heaviside's Equations (the guy that made Maxwell's equations usable), into gravitational fields. It is just a correction/modification of Newton's equations, applying the same rules that we analogously use in all other non-gravitational fields and applying them to Gravity.
No Special/General Relativity required, just classical field equations.

I doubt that the Sun can do anything gravitational to affect Mercury's precession.
Except that if gravity had a finite speed, which it has, then this might give precession, but i don't know whether this would account for 43 arcsec per century.
And perhaps tidal effects in the Sun & in Mercury might affect precession, ie gravitational forces due to changes in shape.

[EtherQuestions]

I doubt that the Sun can do anything gravitational to affect Mercury's precession.

Oleg Jefimenko's model modifies the "gravitational" field, to include a "co-gravitational" counterpart (like Electric Fields and Magnetic Fields).
The field itself is redefined as a mutual acceleration to a "null point" by co-gravitation, this is elaborated upon from the fact there is a point between two gravitational bodies where somebody experiences 0 acceleration from either one. He doesn't use a physical analogy at all, he just provides the field equations and the field equations fit Mercury's precession.
One can think of the co-gravitational field as an Ether vortex, and the mutual acceleration occurring from pressure voidance of two mutual likewise rotations (like two CW and CCW tornadoes combining into one). This is also consistent with recent evidence for "frame dragging" (recent results have NOT matched GR's equations in a predictive way, despite LaSuisse's misleading posts, they are just evidence of the "physical effects" not calculations), what is happening is just the Ether dragging in a vortex (magnetic field). I'd check out Theoria Apophasis (Ken Wheeler) ideas for elaboration on this.

[crawler]

I doubt that the Sun can do anything gravitational to affect Mercury's precession.

Oleg Jefimenko's model modifies the "gravitational" field, to include a "co-gravitational" counterpart (like Electric Fields and Magnetic Fields).
The field itself is redefined as a mutual acceleration to a "null point" by co-gravitation, this is elaborated upon from the fact there is a point between two gravitational bodies where somebody experiences 0 acceleration from either one. He doesn't use a physical analogy at all, he just provides the field equations and the field equations fit Mercury's precession.
One can think of the co-gravitational field as an Ether vortex, and the mutual acceleration occurring from pressure voidance of two mutual likewise rotations (like two CW and CCW tornadoes combining into one). This is also consistent with recent evidence for "frame dragging" (recent results have NOT matched GR's equations in a predictive way, despite LaSuisse's misleading posts, they are just evidence of the "physical effects" not calculations), what is happening is just the Ether dragging in a vortex (magnetic field). I'd check out Theoria Apophasis (Ken Wheeler) ideas for elaboration on this.

All the same the way i see it is that a simple force is unlikely to cause precession of orbit. A magnetic field can make a say compass rotate, or half rotate, just the once, which might affect the precession of an orbiting compass, just the once. And a moving charged particle might follow a spiral trajectory. But i don't see how any of that kind of thing can affect precession in an ongoing way.

An aether vortex or some other kind of vortex could indeed affect precession. But are aether vortexes true? I don't think so. A uniformly spinning Sun might drag aether radially inwards (ie along the acceleration vector)(ie centrifuging of aether), but i don't see how spinning could create an aether vortex. And i don't see how an aether vortex could create spinning. Aether only responds to acceleration, not uniform velocity. Otherwise, apart from centrifuging in/near spinning (or orbiting) bodies, there is no such thing as aether drag. And vice versa. But if an aether vortex could somehow affect precession, the main question becomes -- where did the vortex come from in the first place?

Or one might start to think about the possibility of a polarised gravity field. Or an imaginary component of gravity. The biggest obstacle might be that gravity is always an attraction.

But there aint no such thing as gravitational frame dragging (or any other kind of frame dragging). Nor torsion (with all due respects to Evans & Co).