8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature

Rather bad news today at arxiv.org for string/brane notions, loop
quantum gravity, and other major quantum gravity theories.


See: arXiv:1108.6005v1 [gr-qc]

Published (and Highlighted by editor) in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
vol.533
"No quantum gravity signature from the farthest quasars"
Tamburini et al.


Anybody ready for a new paradigm that can actually make definitive
predictions, and then have them vindicated? One that was generated
by
studying nature, rather than hoping for guidance from hermetic
mathematical abstractions.


RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

On Aug 31, 9:51*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
Rather bad news today at arxiv.org for string/brane notions, loop
quantum gravity, and other major quantum gravity theories.

See: arXiv:1108.6005v1 [gr-qc]

Published (and Highlighted by editor) in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
vol.533
"No quantum gravity signature from the farthest quasars"
Tamburini et al.

Not surprising, as there is an abundance of literature failing to find
such effects. Doesn't make the work less valuable, just less
interesting to me.

I maintain the point of view that without a conflicting observation
regarding GR, there's never going to be much progress on the
gravitation side of attempting to unify physics.


Anybody ready for a new paradigm that can actually make definitive
predictions, and then have them vindicated? *One that was generated
by
studying nature, rather than hoping for guidance from hermetic
mathematical abstractions.

You seem to be deeply confused about what is going on in modern
physics in 2011.

In order to break a theory, you have to push it to its' limits. That
requires taking theories as far as they can go, and the results tend
to be interesting. In GR's case, you get black holes. In QM's case
its' fuzzier as everthing is 'out there', but entanglement is a good
example of a corner case of the mathematics.

At any rate, I'm starting to wonder if you are all that interested in
science. You now post to sci.*.research every few weeks about some
latest non-discovery published somewhere, then crow about how some
theory's parameter space was shrunk.

Yet when you post about *your* theory, and I respond with literature
references that show it to be wrong, you remain silent. What's up with
that?

Examples:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...6?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...f?dmode=source

I could always start new posts titled as 'NO DSR SIGNATURE FOUND' and
go that route. Would that help?

RLOhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

Originally Posted by Eric Gisse

On Aug 31, 9:51*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
Rather bad news today at arxiv.org for string/brane notions, loop
quantum gravity, and other major quantum gravity theories.

See: arXiv:1108.6005v1 [gr-qc]

Published (and Highlighted by editor) in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
vol.533
"No quantum gravity signature from the farthest quasars"
Tamburini et al.

Not surprising, as there is an abundance of literature failing to find
such effects. Doesn't make the work less valuable, just less
interesting to me.

I maintain the point of view that without a conflicting observation
regarding GR, there's never going to be much progress on the
gravitation side of attempting to unify physics.


Anybody ready for a new paradigm that can actually make definitive
predictions, and then have them vindicated? *One that was generated
by
studying nature, rather than hoping for guidance from hermetic
mathematical abstractions.

You seem to be deeply confused about what is going on in modern
physics in 2011.

In order to break a theory, you have to push it to its' limits. That
requires taking theories as far as they can go, and the results tend
to be interesting. In GR's case, you get black holes. In QM's case
its' fuzzier as everthing is 'out there', but entanglement is a good
example of a corner case of the mathematics.

At any rate, I'm starting to wonder if you are all that interested in
science. You now post to sci.*.research every few weeks about some
latest non-discovery published somewhere, then crow about how some
theory's parameter space was shrunk.

Yet when you post about *your* theory, and I respond with literature
references that show it to be wrong, you remain silent. What's up with
that?

Examples:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...6?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...f?dmode=source

I could always start new posts titled as 'NO DSR SIGNATURE FOUND' and
go that route. Would that help?

RLOhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

There are many conflicting observations related to GR and you do not have to go to black holes to get them. Many binary stars have motions that are not consistent with GR. DI Herculis was the first and recent discoveries show it's not the last. Yeah, MIT researches tried to explain DI Herculis but when the new parameters were applied GR's error dropped by only 50%. Not so perfect.

Eric Gisse;1171878 Wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article removed -- mjh]

There are many conflicting observations related to GR and you do not
have to go to black holes to get them. Many binary stars have motions
that are not consistent with GR. DI Herculis was the first and recent
discoveries show it's not the last. Yeah, MIT researches tried to
explain DI Herculis but when the new parameters were applied GR's error
dropped by only 50%. Not so perfect.




--
Jamahl Peavey

On Sep 1, 3:25*pm, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:
Eric Gisse;1171878 Wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article removed -- mjh]

There are many conflicting observations related to GR and you do not
have to go to black holes to get them. * *Many binary stars have motions
that are not consistent with GR. *DI Herculis was the first and recent
discoveries show it's not the last. *Yeah, MIT researches tried to
explain DI Herculis but when the new parameters were applied GR's error
dropped by only 50%. *Not so perfect.

--
Jamahl Peavey

DI Herculis seems to be an example of a complicated system. Some folks
seem to think there could be a 12th magnitude star relatively close,
or perhaps the effects are due to how tilted the star's axes are.

Either way, it is not fair to say this is conflicting to GR when the
dynamics of the system are not fully understood yet.

Originally Posted by Eric Gisse

On Sep 1, 3:25*pm, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:
Eric Gisse;1171878 Wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article removed -- mjh]

There are many conflicting observations related to GR and you do not
have to go to black holes to get them. * *Many binary stars have motions
that are not consistent with GR. *DI Herculis was the first and recent
discoveries show it's not the last. *Yeah, MIT researches tried to
explain DI Herculis but when the new parameters were applied GR's error
dropped by only 50%. *Not so perfect.

--
Jamahl Peavey

DI Herculis seems to be an example of a complicated system. Some folks
seem to think there could be a 12th magnitude star relatively close,
or perhaps the effects are due to how tilted the star's axes are.

Either way, it is not fair to say this is conflicting to GR when the
dynamics of the system are not fully understood yet.

In addition to DI Herculis, GR gets the precessions for the binary systems below wrong as well.

PSR J1518 +4904
B2303 + 46
V541 Cygni
As Camelopardalis

Unfair is not to GR but to the facts. Some folks thought Mercury's strange motion was caused by a planet called Vulcan. Some Astronomers say they saw the planet, which was clearly a lie. Some have tried to turn V541 Cygni and As Camelopardalis into three body systems to help GR. I say, "Find the third body and then we talk", my guess is the third body or 12th magnitude star is as real as Vulcan. The axis solution was considered before the MIT group did their analysis and observation. I guess all the systems GR gets wrong has misaligned axis or three bodies. I guess not. DI Herculis is not a complex system. It is a detached binary and fairly clean in terms of gas. It is clear GR has problems no one wants to admit to. There is Astronomy and then there is Theoretical Physics. Astronomers have to be fair to the measurements. If theoretical physicist get it right, good. If they get it wrong, good we move on.

Eric Gisse;1172180 Wrote:
On Sep 1, 3:25*pm, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:-
Eric Gisse;1171878 Wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article removed -- mjh]

There are many conflicting observations related to GR and you do not
have to go to black holes to get them. * *Many binary stars have
motions
that are not consistent with GR. *DI Herculis was the first and recent
discoveries show it's not the last. *Yeah, MIT researches tried to
explain DI Herculis but when the new parameters were applied GR's
error
dropped by only 50%. *Not so perfect.

--
Jamahl Peavey-

DI Herculis seems to be an example of a complicated system. Some folks
seem to think there could be a 12th magnitude star relatively close,
or perhaps the effects are due to how tilted the star's axes are.

Either way, it is not fair to say this is conflicting to GR when the
dynamics of the system are not fully understood yet.


In addition to DI Herculis, GR gets the precessions for the binary
systems below wrong as well.

PSR J1518 +4904
B2303 + 46
V541 Cygni
As Camelopardalis

Unfair is not to GR but to the facts. Some folks thought Mercury's
strange motion was caused by a planet called Vulcan. Some Astronomers
say they saw the planet, which was clearly a lie. Some have tried to
turn V541 Cygni and As Camelopardalis into three body systems to help
GR. I say, "Find the third body and then we talk", my guess is the
third body or 12th magnitude star is as real as Vulcan. The axis
solution was considered before the MIT group did their analysis and
observation. I guess all the systems GR gets wrong has misaligned axis
or three bodies. I guess not. DI Herculis is not a complex system. It
is a detached binary and fairly clean in terms of gas. It is clear GR
has problems no one wants to admit to. There is Astronomy and then
there is Theoretical Physics. Astronomers have to be fair to the
measurements. If theoretical physicist get it right, good. If they get
it wrong, good we move on.




--
Jamahl Peavey

On Sep 2, 1:20*pm, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:
Eric Gisse;1172180 Wrote:









On Sep 1, 3:25*pm, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:-
Eric Gisse;1171878 Wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article removed -- mjh]

There are many conflicting observations related to GR and you do not
have to go to black holes to get them. * *Many binary stars have
motions
that are not consistent with GR. *DI Herculis was the first and recent
discoveries show it's not the last. *Yeah, MIT researches tried to
explain DI Herculis but when the new parameters were applied GR's
error
dropped by only 50%. *Not so perfect.

--
Jamahl Peavey-

DI Herculis seems to be an example of a complicated system. Some folks
seem to think there could be a 12th magnitude star relatively close,
or perhaps the effects are due to how tilted the star's axes are.

Either way, it is not fair to say this is conflicting to GR when the
dynamics of the system are not fully understood yet.

In addition to DI Herculis, GR gets the precessions for the binary
systems below wrong as well. *

PSR J1518 +4904

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9605122

"Because the J1518+4904 system is much wider than the prototypical
double neutron star
system of PSR B1913+16, it emits far less gravitational radiation, and
the relativistic decay of its
orbit will be difficult to detect."

Given that the Hulse-Taylor pulsar as well as J0737-3039 happen to be
deeply relativistic, with lots of telescope time on each with no
visible anomalies, I have to wonder "what are you talking about?"

B2303 + 46
V541 Cygni
As Camelopardalis

No references, no explanations. But this "list" has shown up
elsewhere.

I search for this list, then I find this:

indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issue.4/apr11jamal-5.pdf

I have absolutely no idea where I've seen this before, but it has
shown up in my browser as something I've seen before. I recognize the
article. Just not where it is from.

I am sure it is a coincidence that you are pushing your own fringe
theory.

BTW

http://www.thescienceforum.com/astro...discussed.html

Is this you? The arguments and the list are kinda familiar now.


Unfair is not to GR but to the facts. *Some folks thought Mercury's
strange motion was caused by a planet called Vulcan.

"Some folks" are dumb. Such a planet was excluded by observation many
years before Einstein developed general relativity.

*Some Astronomers
say they saw the planet, which was clearly a lie. *Some have tried to
turn V541 Cygni and As Camelopardalis into three body systems to help
GR. *I say, "Find the third body and then we talk",

Take Di Hercurles for example. Do you think the wonky spin axes of the
system are just happenstance?

my guess is the
third body or 12th magnitude star is as real as Vulcan. *

You "guess"?

That's almost as good as science!

The axis
solution was considered before the MIT group did their analysis and
observation. *I guess all the systems GR gets wrong has misaligned axis
or three bodies. I guess not. *DI Herculis is not a complex system. *It
is a detached binary and fairly clean in terms of gas. *It is clear GR
has problems no one wants to admit to.
*There is Astronomy and then
there is Theoretical Physics. *Astronomers have to be fair to the
measurements. *If theoretical physicist get it right, good. *If they get
it wrong, good we move on.

--
Jamahl Peavey

Here's the problem: This is a sci.*.research newsgroup, not
sci.physics[.relativity] where you can scream "I HAVE A LIST" and call
it a day.

You have made exactly no effort here beyond the copypaste of a list
plus the usual crank concern trolling about GR's validity in a highly
tested area. That's fine, if this were sci.physics. But you are here,
so there's some expectations.

1) I am not going to do your research for you.

Digging up the article on the discovery of PSR J1518+4904 and its'
rather uninteresting status tells me that *you* haven't even done the
research. Feel free to correct me if you actually have spent more than
5 minutes reviewing the literature on the subject.

Then post the literature, so it can be read rather than have an
afternoon wasted on a wild goose chase.

2) I am not going to discuss things that have exactly no citations or
useful discussions around.

Pointing at your list and mumbling about how "GR must be wrong then"
is unacceptable as it is boring.

3) At least know what you are talking about.

GR has been rather well tested in the realmn of "binary system". We
have PSR B1913+16 with about thirty years of telescope time on it, in
addition to the semi-recently discovered double pulsar system
J0737-3039. Both of which confirm general relativity to the sub-
percentage point area.

What you are doing is pointing at a bunch of other systems, one of
which was remarked on by its' discoverer as not that relativisitc (why
is it being talked about here?), that are in the same testing realm as
the above well-understood systems and remarking about how GR is wrong.
If you've done a few minutes of reading you would also see that some
of those systems have quite reasonable questions about the number of
components of the system.

This is silly, and I'm not playing that game here.

Jamahl Peavey wrote:
Eric Gisse;1172180 Wrote:
On Sep 1, 3:25*pm, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:-

[...]
There are many conflicting observations related to GR and you do
not have to go to black holes to get them. * *Many binary stars have
motions that are not consistent with GR. *DI Herculis was the first
and recent discoveries show it's not the last. *Yeah, MIT researches
tried to explain DI Herculis but when the new parameters were
applied GR's error dropped by only 50%.

No, only about 10%, which is well within the noise. See Claret et al.,
Astronomy&Astrophysics 515 (2010), article ID A4. The preprint is
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2949.

[...]
In addition to DI Herculis, GR gets the precessions for the binary
systems below wrong as well.

PSR J1518 +4904

Reference? ADS shows one paper on measurements specifically of this
system, Janssen et al., A&A 490 (2008) 753, which finds no problem.

B2303 + 46

Reference? Again, I can find no such claim in any of the recent papers
on this object in ADS.

V541 Cygni

Volkov and Khaliullin, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 4680, 1,
find no discrepancy.

As Camelopardalis

Not clear -- see Pavlovski et al., ApJL 734 (2011) L29. As in DI Her, the
rotations are misaligned.

Steve Carlip