Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 23:02:04 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <019e732175ac6f25890da94bc392ae9e@www.novabbs.com>
References: <f968e982f145ffe557c2bd2e1f919081@www.novabbs.com> <71e7c403645740182559679184e2319b@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3693680"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$y9Wq8kAhjjMWLmCclLKDye7lNLKwBwtREyM5Rg./TmeSLMcpqB/6e
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4294
Lines: 73

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 0:57:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:34:57 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> 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.).
>>
>
> <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.
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.