Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 21:33:35 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <ec360b9d1bb04319251f34061fa03225@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="3847376"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$gJYlwf1zQeAW85g36UQajuG7zPZy72hEGTagXbDofYgiYjT5hTg..

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.
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.