Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:06:01 +0000 Subject: Re: No true relativist! Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <89ea9e0a4ddc271a7bc16200c6a5dbb4@www.novabbs.com> <180651eb5742ea7d$15$992698$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 09:06:19 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 134 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-j2rFB3xAt0pJdzBLhx/oljjdHC+YWEpAR3kBRIzv3FfoEoDEIwWL3p2b6+YTZ+xZ8iwFCvTRqXulVZl!RgtGw4inxRW+hdzzCwcPBqEPsKHRnt3OEoKVyTxi7Ckobg6+8ORSgs2gbBpaGAy454o7F+zVNidU X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 7104 On 11/10/2024 02:45 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 09.11.2024 17:17, skrev rhertz: >> The concept of the "curvature of the universe° has infested astronomy >> MANY years before 1915 GR. Blame to Riemann's theory about N-dimensional >> SPACE, published shortly after his death in 1864. >> >> Also blame Schwarzschild (astronomer and polymath) who, in 1900, >> published this paper: >> >> >> `On the permissible curvature of space' >> K Schwarzschild, 1900 >> >> Schwarzschild is considered the founder of cosmology, with this seminal >> paper, written 15 years before 1915 GR. >> >> By that epoch (and until early 1920s), the "universe" was thought as >> being only the Milky Way, estimated being 10,000 ly wide and having >> about 5,000 stars, plus cosmic dust. >> >> It would be required to wait until the 2.5 mt telescope was built, by >> 1922, and the actions of his director (Hubble), to understand the huge >> vastness of the universe and the existence of myriad of galaxies. >> >> So, talks about the curvature of space PRECEDES RELATIVITY for decades. >> >> Schwarszchild analyzed three types of curvatures, thinking about a >> "closed universe". He concluded that the "known universe" WAS FLAT. >> >> >> You can see that there is a HUGE CONNECTION between Schwarzchild and >> Einstein since 1914, when Einstein started at the Berlin University. >> Schwarzschild WAS INSTRUMENTAL in getting Einstein there, because he was >> the one who obtained 50% of the funding for Einstein's salary for a 12 >> years contract (Total: 240,000 Marks), from a Jew industrialist. >> >> Schwarzschild was a borderline Jew (from his father), so HIS DUE FAME >> WAS DENIED from the jew establishment, EVEN AS OF TODAY. But HE WAS THE >> REAL BRAIN BEHIND 1915 GENERAL RELATIVITY, and it's acceptance by the >> Pruaaian Academy of Science. He was PRESENT every week, in Nov. 1915, >> when Einstein had to explain GR to the PAS. >> >> Curiously, Schwarzschild was an artillery officer on the Eastern Front >> (where he got his fatal disease), but managed to get A LICENSE to be >> present there in Nov. 1915. >> >> Schwarzschild (as Hilbert) WAS TOO MUCH for the imbecile Einstein, so >> both WERE CANCELLED FROM HISTORY by the zio media. >> >> See? Knowing HISTORY OF SCIENCE really matters. > > The fact is that the Schwarzschild metric is an exact solution to > the Einstein field equations for a universe with only one > non rotating spherical mass, so it is based on the General Theory > of Relativity. > It is a very good approximation of the curvature of spacetime > in the vicinity of the Earth, and an extremely good approximation > if the quadrupole moment due to the rotation of the Earth is > accounted for. > > So the predictions of the Schwarzschild metric are predictions of > GR, and they are very well experimentally confirmed. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf > (See pages 708-716) > https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf > > Now you can make a fool by yourself by claiming that all > the physicists who made the experiments above are frauds. > Schwarzschild radius is a rather simple result after Newtonian gravity, insofar as what GR predicts only matches for being "Newtonian in the limit, ...". The other day one of the ideas was "the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light only at the center of a black hole", yet, as singularity of sorts then it's often considered anathema when the mathematics refuses any notion of "infinity" at all. Of course a usual idea of the point/local/global/total, makes for black-holes as gravitational singularities, that there is the white-hole concept, and that being each of the black-hole's virtual partner, the universe altogether, and a sea like Dirac's for positrons, Dirac and Einstein's positronic white-hole sea, then also there's the notion that atoms themselves are rather like black-holes of an atomic sort, and the universe itself is also black-hole/white-hole. Concepts here from mathematics include "space inversion", and usual notions of complementary duals, which well reflect on usual notions of symmetry and conservation. When GR doesn't say so much about gravity except "classical (Newtonian) in the limit", so that the Riemannian metrics and "whatever-tensors" are "whatever-adds-up", and in GR then simply "gravity is down, the rubber-sheet model", with no explanation at all of mechanism of curving or flattening space-time, and the only bonus supposedly being light following the geodesy, any changes in the geodesy are not much explained by GR only following out "whatever-tensors" result "classical in the limit". I.e., nothing explains gravity in GR, and it's just "whatever-tensors" and "whatever-metrics" fit, then that as with regards to something like rest-exchange-momentum, and moving frames and rotating frames, the moving frames move relative to _all_ observers, and the geodesy is only ever "always instantaneous". So, the dynamics of GR are mostly as what must get into the difference between moving linear/rectilinear frames, and rotating/curvilinear frames, then that as well should be "classical in the limit" as classical and of course as Lagrangian and as with regards to a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, with a clock hypothesis as an Einstein's "the time", as inertial again, and that otherwise physics needs better classical mechanics. Of course "SR is local" and furthermore "SR is weak".