A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 19th 11, 01:45 PM
Jamahl Peavey Jamahl Peavey is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: May 2011
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [_2_] View Post
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
The thread is about issues related to quantum gravity, so I am reluctant to continue the discussion about GR which unlike quantum gravitational models is proven. With that in mind, I would like to address GR for the last time.

I could not find a GR prediction for Binary Stars PSR J1518+4904 and B2303+46 during my research. I guess that means GR gives a correct prediction
.

The GR prediction for V541 Cygni is clearly incorrect. See article below:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/...0293.text.html

Also consider the research article by Ed Guninan who was the first to bring GR's predicted error to the Astronomy community.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21541934Z

There are still many questions that need to be answered with respect to DI Herculis and any attempt to apply the same analysis to other binary stars as a solution. Ed Guninan research is very significant too and does not simply say, "solved" no more questions. In fact, he suggest the that axis has undergone precession. This is interesting because my research shows that in some configurations precession can change over time or flux. Kepler defined orbits as closed, fixed elliptical orbits. Einstein proved the orbits are open and rotates or undergoes precession. I showed that the precession is also unstable within a potential of possible precessions.

My research and comments are not presented to change anyones perspective. Perspective is just a lens through which we interpret the facts. If one believes GR is flawless then we can just disregard any facts to the contrary. If one believes GR is worthless then we can just disregard any facts to the contrary. I believe GR and Newtonian Mechanics are the best theories we have for how objects move under the influence of gravity. I also believe there are objects in the universe whose motion cannot be explain completely with a gravitational field theory alone. This ultimately requires a theory which interfaces gravity and electronmagnetism using quantum structures. That is what I presented in, "Binary Precession Solutions based on Synchronized Field Couplings".

Last edited by Jamahl Peavey : September 19th 11 at 04:52 PM.
  #22  
Old September 19th 11, 04:56 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Jamahl Peavey[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature

[_2_ Wrote:
;1174692']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


The thread is about issues related to quantum gravity, so I am reluctant
to continue the discussion about GR which unlike quantum gravitational
models is proven. With that in mind, I would like to address GR for the
last time.

I could not find a GR prediction for Binary Stars PSR J1518+4904 and
B2303+46 during my research. I guess that means GR gives a correct
prediction
...

The GR prediction for V541 Cygni is clearly incorrect. See article
below:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/...0293.text.html

Also consider the research article by Ed Guninan who was the first to
bring GR's predicted error to the Astronomy community.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21541934Z

There are still many questions that need to be answered with respect to
DI Herculis and any attempt to apply the same analysis to other binary
stars as a solution. Ed Guninan research is very significant too and
does not simply say, "solved" no more questions.

My research and comments are not presented to change anyones
perspective. Perspective is just a lens through which we interpret the
facts. If one believes GR is flawless then we can just disregard any
facts to the contrary. If one believes GR is worthless then we can just
disregard any facts to the contrary. I believe GR and Newtonian
Mechanics are the best theories we have for how objects move under the
influence of gravity. I also believe there are objects in the universe
whose motion cannot be explain completely with a gravitational field
theory alone. This ultimately requires a theory which interfaces
gravity and electronmagnetism using quantum structures. That is what I
presented in, "Binary Precession Solutions based on Synchronized Field
Couplings".




--
Jamahl Peavey
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quantum Gravity 240.5: Quantum Gravity "Demolished" At Universityof Oregon USA Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 1st 08 03:12 PM
How Much Help does EM give to Quantum Gravity ??? G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 3 March 24th 08 10:48 PM
Topics in Quantum Gravity 1 Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 0 July 17th 07 01:57 AM
Quantum Gravity Topics 1 Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 0 February 20th 07 04:43 AM
Quantum Gravity? [email protected] Astronomy Misc 4 June 11th 05 08:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.