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

[Higgsy]

All the same the way i see it is that a simple force is unlikely to cause precession of orbit.

you do know that more than 90% of Mercury’s apsidal precession, and almost all of the apsidal precession of the other planets is explained by the simple central inverse square force of Newtonian physics?

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).

I don’t believe that your personal incredulity is actual evidence against the predictions of GR.

[crawler]

All the same the way i see it is that a simple force is unlikely to cause precession of orbit.

you do know that more than 90% of Mercury’s apsidal precession, and almost all of the apsidal precession of the other planets is explained by the simple central inverse square force of Newtonian physics?

]

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).

I don’t believe that your personal incredulity is actual evidence against the predictions of GR.

Yes the other planets are the main cause of precession, ie lots of simple Newtonian inverse square force(s).

But i was of course talking about the Sun & Mercury, in particular the Sun's spin & Mercury (& perhaps involving Mercury's spin too), ie in the context of Einstein's equation (applied to the Sun's spin & Mercury), which i must admit doesn't involve a simple force (although i inferred that it did), it involves a silly frame-dragging, although perhaps it half involves a simple force(s) (ie due to the Newtonian half of his silly equation)(which i don't understand).

I see that wiki still calls this a test of relativity, which it aint, it was never a test, it was at best an explanation of the 40 or 41 arcsec, or, it might have been an explanation, if Einstein had bothered to try to explain it (did he ever explain anything?).

My incredulity is based on trying to understand STR & GTR etc as much as possible, hampered by a non-understanding of higher math, but i can dismiss perihelion as being a prediction of GR because it was never a prediction. Einstein's double bending, that was 100% a prediction (& was also 100% correct)(albeit for wrong reasons). Mercury's perihelion, a 00% prediction (& a 00% explanation).

[Higgsy]

All the same the way i see it is that a simple force is unlikely to cause precession of orbit.

you do know that more than 90% of Mercury’s apsidal precession, and almost all of the apsidal precession of the other planets is explained by the simple central inverse square force of Newtonian physics?

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).

I don’t believe that your personal incredulity is actual evidence against the predictions of GR.

Yes the other planets are the main cause of precession, ie lots of simple Newtonian inverse square force(s).

But you said above: " a simple force is unlikely to cause precession of orbit.".

But i was of course talking about the Sun & Mercury, in particular the Sun's spin & Mercury (& perhaps involving Mercury's spin too), ie in the context of Einstein's equation (applied to the Sun's spin & Mercury), which i must admit doesn't involve a simple force (although i inferred that it did), it involves a silly frame-dragging, although perhaps it half involves a simple force(s) (ie due to the Newtonian half of his silly equation)(which i don't understand).

Indeed you do not understand the relevant equations, if you think that the additional apsidal precession explained by GR has anything to do with frame dragging. The relevant 43 arcseconds per century comes about by considering the geodesic of a free falling body in a Schwarzchild metric (ie the metric around a massive non-rotating uncharged body). Neither the rotation of the Sun nor Mercury is relevant to this calculation.

I see that wiki still calls this a test of relativity, which it aint, it was never a test, it was at best an explanation of the 40 or 41 arcsec, or, it might have been an explanation, if Einstein had bothered to try to explain it (did he ever explain anything?).

Hang on. All but 43 arcseconds per century of Mercury's apsidal precession is explained by Newtonian mechanics. People were struggling for decades to figure out where the additional 43 arcseconds comes from. The Einstein field equations solved for the Sun/Mercury situation give an apsidal precession for Mercury that almost exactly matches the observed precession including the 43 arcsecond per century anomaly. And this isn't a test for the predictions of GR? Wow.

My incredulity is based on trying to understand STR & GTR etc as much as possible, hampered by a non-understanding of higher math,

Ah, I think that might be where you are going wrong, as you cannot hope to understand either SR or GR without following the maths (any more than you can follow Newtonian mechanics without following the maths).

but i can dismiss perihelion as being a prediction of GR because it was never a prediction. Einstein's double bending, that was 100% a prediction (& was also 100% correct)(albeit for wrong reasons). Mercury's perihelion, a 00% prediction (& a 00% explanation).

I hope that now you can see that you are wrong.

[Higgsy]

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.

arXiv:1105.3456v1
How is this not empirical evidence in support of the frame dragging predictions of GR?

And then there is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09674v1

[Aardwolf]

Hang on. All but 43 arcseconds per century of Mercury's apsidal precession is explained by Newtonian mechanics.

Newtons mechanics can't explain orbits accurately. You need to solve that problem before you can state Einstein has been proven to solve a minor discrepancy.

[crawler]

But you said above: " a simple force is unlikely to cause precession of orbit.".

But i was of course talking about the Sun & Mercury, in particular the Sun's spin & Mercury (& perhaps involving Mercury's spin too), ie in the context of Einstein's equation (applied to the Sun's spin & Mercury), which i must admit doesn't involve a simple force (although i inferred that it did), it involves a silly frame-dragging, although perhaps it half involves a simple force(s) (ie due to the Newtonian half of his silly equation)(which i don't understand).

Indeed you do not understand the relevant equations, if you think that the additional apsidal precession explained by GR has anything to do with frame dragging. The relevant 43 arcseconds per century comes about by considering the geodesic of a free falling body in a Schwarzchild metric (ie the metric around a massive non-rotating uncharged body). Neither the rotation of the Sun nor Mercury is relevant to this calculation.

I see that wiki still calls this a test of relativity, which it aint, it was never a test, it was at best an explanation of the 40 or 41 arcsec, or, it might have been an explanation, if Einstein had bothered to try to explain it (did he ever explain anything?).

Hang on. All but 43 arcseconds per century of Mercury's apsidal precession is explained by Newtonian mechanics. People were struggling for decades to figure out where the additional 43 arcseconds comes from. The Einstein field equations solved for the Sun/Mercury situation give an apsidal precession for Mercury that almost exactly matches the observed precession including the 43 arcsecond per century anomaly. And this isn't a test for the predictions of GR? Wow.

My incredulity is based on trying to understand STR & GTR etc as much as possible, hampered by a non-understanding of higher math,

Ah, I think that might be where you are going wrong, as you cannot hope to understand either SR or GR without following the maths (any more than you can follow Newtonian mechanics without following the maths).

but i can dismiss perihelion as being a prediction of GR because it was never a prediction. Einstein's double bending, that was 100% a prediction (& was also 100% correct)(albeit for wrong reasons). Mercury's perihelion, a 00% prediction (& a 00% explanation).

I hope that now you can see that you are wrong.

As u say, the Sun's spin is not a part of the calculation of the 43 arcsec. However i still maintain that the 43 arcsec is not a test of ER, however i would agree to it being a success of ER.

[Higgsy]

Hang on. All but 43 arcseconds per century of Mercury's apsidal precession is explained by Newtonian mechanics.

Newtons mechanics can't explain orbits accurately. You need to solve that problem before you can state Einstein has been proven to solve a minor discrepancy.

Ah - the man who doesn't understand numerical solutions.

Central inverse square forces (Newtonian) explain and predict Mercury's orbit accurately except for 43 arcseconds per century (0.00012 degrees per year!) of its apsidal precession - Fact

General Relativity predicts Mercury's orbit accurately including the 43 arcseconds per century - Fact

So Newtonian mechanics is accurate in predicting Mercury's orbit except for 0.00012 degrees precession per year. If that's not accurate, I don't know what is. And GR is even more accurate.

[Higgsy]

As u say, the Sun's spin is not a part of the calculation of the 43 arcsec. However i still maintain that the 43 arcsec is not a test of ER, however i would agree to it being a success of ER.

So, you got there in the end. Kudos to you for admitting your errors.

As for the 43 arcseconds not being a test of GR, maintain all you like. Serious physicists don't agree with you. Perhaps yupu don't understand what constitutes the test of a theory in physics.

[Michael Mozina]

As u say, the Sun's spin is not a part of the calculation of the 43 arcsec. However i still maintain that the 43 arcsec is not a test of ER, however i would agree to it being a success of ER.

So, you got there in the end. Kudos to you for admitting your errors.

As for the 43 arcseconds not being a test of GR, maintain all you like. Serious physicists don't agree with you. Perhaps yupu don't understand what constitutes the test of a theory in physics.

While I tend to agree with your position as it relates to GR theory and "testing" GR theory, I would argue that most mainstream astronomers don't really understand what constitutes a legitimate "test" of the LCDM and/or "big bang" cosmology model.

Pretty much every failed 'test' of the LCDM model is simply swept under the rug (confirmation bias), or the tests of the so called "predictions' of the model tend to actually be tests of "postidictions" of the model. Furthermore, many of the core cause/effect assumptions of the LCMD model cannot be 'tested' in direct controlled experiments, so only the mathematical parts of the model are ever actually 'tested".

For instance, when it comes to "testing" claims of galaxy evolution over time, the mainstream model has a truly *horrible* track record. Not only are the most distant galaxies far more "mature" than predicted by the mainstream big bang model, they tend to be much more massive too.

When the mainstream "tests" their dark matter claims in the lab, the constant string of negative results are never used to outright falsify the concept of exotic matter, they only serve to "constrain' the exotic matter concept. It's not a valid or actual "test" of the core claim itself.

Even now, there's a *serious* tension between the Hubble constant as it's calculated based on Planck data, and as it's calculated based on SN1A data sets. They two numbers don't match and the two results fall outside of error bars of both methods. That type of "failure" isn't ever used to "falsify" the claim that space expansion is an actual cause of redshift. In short, most so called "tests" of the LCDM model are simply ignored if they don't provide the desired result.

[EtherQuestions]

How is this not empirical evidence in support of the frame dragging predictions of GR?

And then there is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09674v1

Recent Frame Dragging Evidence

The recent "confirmation" of frame dragging was not based on an accurate mathematical prediction fitting results, it was just the expected physical effects of frame dragging. These effects are also to be expected in my preferred (Magnetic Ether Vortex) theory derived from the field equations Oleg Jefimenko's work. Special/General Relativity are entirely impossible, this might seem like a bold claim, but check out my 1-3/100 growing reasons why it is impossible on https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... 2&start=75.

"Measurements of two PK parameters can be used to obtain the mass of the pulsar (Mp) and of the companion (Mc) by assuming a theory of gravity such as GR whereas three or more PK parameters can be used to perform self-consistency tests of that theory. An alternative formalism assumes a theory of gravity such as GR, which allows direct model fitting of the component masses. This is preferred if the goal is to understand the properties and dynamics of the system under that theory, rather than testing the theory itself. We adopt this approach in this report, and assume that GR adequately describes the system."


About older Gravity Probe B "evidence" for GR Frame Dragging

The data was incredibly noisy and took 5+ years to evaluate properly. The frame dragging effect ended up being the same size as the initial uncertainty in the measurement which isn't a good thing. Now eventually the data was sorted out an a measurement consistent with GR was made, but there wasn't any high precision to it. You could for example not measure any small deviations from the GR prediction using the experiment which is very important for a physics experiment.

Here's an article detailing the experiment's failings:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... sa-review/

Here's some more detail:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/scie ... .html?_r=1

[Higgsy]

arXiv:1105.3456v1
How is this not empirical evidence in support of the frame dragging predictions of GR?

And then there is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09674v1

Recent Frame Dragging Evidence

The recent "confirmation" of frame dragging was not based on an accurate mathematical prediction fitting results, it was just the expected physical effects of frame dragging.

Nonsense. The paper I quote above shows the theoretical effect sitting bang in the middle of the measured effect.

These effects are also to be expected in my preferred (Magnetic Ether Vortex) theory derived from the field equations Oleg Jefimenko's work.

Are they really? Where's your paper that predicts the precise value of the frame dragging effect at the altitude of Gravity Probe B, and Lares and Lageos using "Jefimenko's field equations"? You'll excuse if I say that I don't believe you until you produce the calculation.

Special/General Relativity are entirely impossible, this might seem like a bold claim, but check out my 1-3/100 growing reasons why it is impossible on https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... 2&start=75.

Ah yes, you have 100 trivial reasons why relativity is impossible. 100 reasons that the tens of thousands of professional physicists are too stupid to recognise. Except that your most recent one on the Twins is based on an incorrect application of the Lorentz transformation. Not a good start.

About older Gravity Probe B "evidence" for GR Frame Dragging
The data was incredibly noisy and took 5+ years to evaluate properly.

Ancient history. Do keep up.

[Aardwolf]

Hang on. All but 43 arcseconds per century of Mercury's apsidal precession is explained by Newtonian mechanics.

Newtons mechanics can't explain orbits accurately. You need to solve that problem before you can state Einstein has been proven to solve a minor discrepancy.

Ah - the man who doesn't understand numerical solutions.

From the man who doesn't understand that numerical solutions are approximations. Fact.

So your ever so wonderful proof of a minor discrepancy is based on major science approximations.

Keep the blinkers on.

[EtherQuestions]

So your ever so wonderful proof of a minor discrepancy is based on major science approximations.

Keep the blinkers on.

I wouldn't even call it a prediction. The founders of GR already knew about the precession so they just kept attacking the problem from different angles until they fitted the math into it after-the-known-fact. The geodesic effect only works because Mercury falls within a certain distance of the Sun, but other theories have mathematically "predicted" the exact same precession. Same with the so-called observed "Frame Dragging". most analogous "gravitomagnetic" theories have to predict these same effects by design. The margin of error in this paper Higgsy linked wasn't convincing enough to be hailed as any kind of precision proof, unfortunately most my links to O. Jefimenko's work no longer work so I can't reply to him about Frame Dragging, but here is an introduction you might be interested in.

Oleg Jefimenko's Co-gravitation overview:
http://www.rexresearch.com/jefimenko/jefimenko1.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_D._Jefimenko
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko%27s_equations

As long as there is a local rest frame his co-gravitational equations match a lot of observed effects.

[Higgsy]

I wouldn't even call it a prediction. The founders of GR already knew about the precession so they just kept attacking the problem from different angles until they fitted the math into it after-the-known-fact.

Of course one of the things you try to do in theoretical physics is to formulate theories that explain already-known but currently unexplained facts. If Einstein had come up with a theory that just explained the apsidal precession problem by some sort of curve fitting, but which had no other value, then of course your criticism would be valid. But GR is a rather simple conceptual framework (even if the its mathematical formulation is quite complex) which can be expressed very simply in the field equations, which is completely compatible with SR, which reduces in the limit to Newtonian mechanics and which is a consistent theory for gravity. One test of it is whether it correctly explains the Mercury anomaly, which it does.

To be predictive, a scientific theory does not have to foretell the future.

You might as well criticise Maxwell for fitting his mathematics to after-the-known-facts about electricity and magnetism.

[EtherQuestions]

You might as well criticise Maxwell for fitting his mathematics to after-the-known-facts about electricity and magnetism.

This made me laugh because I actually do this very thing for (some) of his assertions (Maxwellian theory is a different topic entirely though).