8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature

jacob navia wrote:
I agree completely with that. sci.astro, and all other Usenet astronomy
groups are *swamped* by cranks saying "Einstein is wrong" and then
coming with antisemitic arguments (Einstein was a Jew, you know), or
with completely wrong stuff.

[Mod. note: just for clarification, I don't believe that Jacob was
calling any individual poster here a crank or a crackpot; had I
thought so, I would not have allowed the post -- mjh]

This is not about Einstein. It is about GR and it's accuracy. When
Einstein made Newtonian Mechanics better it was not about Newton but his
model. This a professional assessment not a personal attack. Yet, I
have been called a Crack Pot but I do consider the source.

My research spans over 10 years and the article you are referring to,
"Binary precession solutions based on synchronized field couplings was
published in a peer-reviewed journal. Calling people "crack pots" to
cover up the facts just means you lost the agruement. Do you know
Gravitational Waves and it's associated radiation has never been
detected? It's inferred like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Pulsar PSR
1913+16 is not on my list of systems GR gets wrong so you have no
arguement.

What does GR have to say about Dark Matter, inferred or otherwise?
Nothing.

What does GR have to say about Dark Energy, inferred or otherwise?
Nothing.
When Einstein throught the universe was static he put in the
cosmological constant. Hubble showed him it was expanding and he took
it out as a blunder. Now we know the universe is accelerating and it's
back calling it Dark Energy. Make a prediction not
a post-diction. There are inferred fundemental structures in the
universe that are not addressed in GR.

What does GR have to say about Dark Flow, inferrd or otherwise? Nothing.
I only say that Astronomy has gotten better over time with
measurements. It's theoretical physics on large scales that has not had
a major break through since 1919. If Einstein were alive he would be
building better models and promoting work you like to call that of
"Crack Pots". S. Bose of "Bose-Einstein Condensate" and Louis DeBroglie
were called "Crack Pots" but a real genius knows the difference between
a great idea and Crack Pot. That's why Einstein supported and lanched
their works. I know he would support my work because it is correct if
you like it or not. My work is peer-reviewed, so it has support, just
not among those who do not know or don't care to report the facts.

The facts is not a game and it does not take a genius to see that.
Theoretical physics has become the biggest game in science "Multiverse"
and it's really sad to those who love science.




--
Jamahl Peavey

I am sorry about my message actually.

I apologize, it was just a reaction that was a product of having
(again) tried to counter the tirades of crackpots like "hanson" and
"androcles" in sci.astro just before I read sci.astro.research.

Of course GR and Einstein's theories can be questioned in scientific
grounds.

jacob

Originally Posted by jacob navia[_5_]

I am sorry about my message actually.

I apologize, it was just a reaction that was a product of having
(again) tried to counter the tirades of crackpots like "hanson" and
"androcles" in sci.astro just before I read sci.astro.research.

Of course GR and Einstein's theories can be questioned in scientific
grounds.

jacob

Your apology is respectfully accepted. My research was inspired during the time when I was given an opportunity to work with the Einstein Papers Project @ Boston University. They are now at CalTech. Einstein was the only person who believed quantum mechanics could be described as GR with a continuous field theory. He believed until his death someone would find it and he would be vindicated. My research on binary star motion proved he was correct. Not everyone wants to hear that because they said it could not be done. The engineering community and Astronomy community have made my research avaliable so I thank them and you for your apology.

On Sep 6, 7:14 am, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
I agree completely with that. sci.astro, and all other Usenet astronomy
groups are *swamped* by cranks saying "Einstein is wrong" and then
coming with antisemitic arguments (Einstein was a Jew, you know), or
with completely wrong stuff.

[Mod. note: just for clarification, I don't believe that Jacob was
calling any individual poster here a crank or a crackpot; had I
thought so, I would not have allowed the post -- mjh]

This is not about Einstein. It is about GR and it's accuracy. When
Einstein made Newtonian Mechanics better it was not about Newton but his
model. This a professional assessment not a personal attack. Yet, I
have been called a Crack Pot but I do consider the source.

I'm sure there's a reason my reply to you asking for some actual
justification for your claims is sitting there all alone with no
attention from you.


My research spans over 10 years and the article you are referring to,
"Binary precession solutions based on synchronized field couplings was
published in a peer-reviewed journal. Calling people "crack pots" to
cover up the facts just means you lost the agruement. Do you know
Gravitational Waves and it's associated radiation has never been
detected? It's inferred like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Pulsar PSR
1913+16 is not on my list of systems GR gets wrong so you have no
arguement.

That's not how it works. PSR B1913+16 and the various other low-
separation pulsars are important because they emit gravitational
radiation. We can directly detect the inspiral due to that, which in
the case of the Hulse-Taylor pulsar I believe the precision is in the
neighborhood of 0.5%.

Which happens to be the same type of prediction you claim GR gets
wrong in other cases, but haven't managed to substantiate yet. Or
fully articulate, becuase I'm guessing at exactly what you think GR is
getting wrong.

At any rate, dark matter and energy are inferred but you might want to
investigate the history of such inferences in physics. The sucess rate
is very high.


What does GR have to say about Dark Matter, inferred or otherwise?
Nothing.

Other than DM's equation of state is of nonrelativistic dust (positive
energy density), which excludes radiation models and goofy + simple
scalar/vector/tensor fields. CMB observations further exclude
neutrinos, which share that behavior. Plus that DM will behave as
normal matter, up to and including gravitational lensing (see Bullet
Cluster) and gravitational redshift (see Integrated Sachs-Wolfe
effect).

Now if I include the observations that validate the above, we can
discern dark matter is nonbaryonic, does not interact
electromagnetically, has a rather small scattering cross-section, does
not meaningfully self-interact, and has left an imprint on the CMB.

If that means nothing to you, that certainly frames the position you
are arguing from.


What does GR have to say about Dark Energy, inferred or otherwise?
Nothing.

GR says what its' effect would be on the expansion of the universe, as
well as how it affects the binding energy of superclusters which we
have observed. I have discussed this in the past, so a google groups
search would find it and my discussion of the details.

Both DM and DE of course leave big imprints on the CMB which we have
seen rather strongly, along with independent observations using
supernovae, special galaxies, and whatnot.

If this means nothing to you, or even if this is 'new', you have no
business arguing.


When Einstein throught the universe was static he put in the
cosmological constant. Hubble showed him it was expanding and he took
it out as a blunder. Now we know the universe is accelerating and it's
back calling it Dark Energy. Make a prediction not
a post-diction.

You don't know what you are talking about. The FRW model for the
expansion of the universe covers whether it is expanding, contracting,
or static. This is old, old hat.

Einstein's back-and-forth with the cosmological constant is
irrelevant. Einstein's personal preference for a particular solution
is irrelevant. The cosmological constant is also irrelevant - I can
just add it again as a constant term in the right hand side of the
field equations.

There are inferred fundemental structures in the
universe that are not addressed in GR.

Such as?

I wonder if you've ever seen the results of the Millennium simulations
which model the large scale structure of the universe. Correctly.


What does GR have to say about Dark Flow, inferrd or otherwise? Nothing.

Why should it?

Besides, I am personally unconvinced that 'dark flow' is anything
other than yet another flawed analysis of the CMB. If you pay slight
attention to people who think they find stuff in the CMB, they are
invariably wrong because of induced artifacts from their analysis.
Komatsu has written a looooot about this.


I only say that Astronomy has gotten better over time with
measurements. It's theoretical physics on large scales that has not had
a major break through since 1919.

Do you *SERIOUSLY* believe observational astronomy hasn't had a major
breakthrough in 90 years?

Get real.

If Einstein were alive he would be
building better models and promoting work you like to call that of
"Crack Pots". S. Bose of "Bose-Einstein Condensate" and Louis DeBroglie
were called "Crack Pots" but a real genius knows the difference between
a great idea and Crack Pot.

Except the BEC stuff was theoretical. Plus both those folks had
established track records as researchers.

That's why Einstein supported and lanched
their works. I know he would support my work because it is correct if
you like it or not.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

How many points do you think "Einstein would support my theory if he
were alive" is worth?

My work is peer-reviewed, so it has support, just
not among those who do not know or don't care to report the facts.

This may be news to you, but articles published in a fringe open
access journal are not taken all that seriously. I look at their
publication guidelines and the editorial board and I don't see much
evidence for 'peer-reviewed' either.

Submit this to ApJ and let me know if it is taken seriously.


The facts is not a game and it does not take a genius to see that.
Theoretical physics has become the biggest game in science "Multiverse"
and it's really sad to those who love science.

--
Jamahl Peavey

Oh no, another person that is sad that science is going in an
uncertain but definite 'wrong direction'.

Who just happens to have a theory of his own!

What are the odds?

'jacob navia[_5_ Wrote:
;1173307']I am sorry about my message actually.

I apologize, it was just a reaction that was a product of having
(again) tried to counter the tirades of crackpots like "hanson" and
"androcles" in sci.astro just before I read sci.astro.research.

Of course GR and Einstein's theories can be questioned in scientific
grounds.

jacob

Your apology is respectfully accepted. My research was inspired during
the time when I was given an opportunity to work with the Einstein
Papers Project @ Boston University. They are now at CalTech. Einstein
was the only person who believed quantum mechanics could be described as
GR with a continuous field theory. He believed until his death someone
would find it and he would be vindicated. My research on binary star
motion proved he was correct. Not everyone wants to hear that because
they said it could not be done. The engineering community and Astronomy
community have made my research avaliable so I thank them and you for
your apology.




--
Jamahl Peavey

On Sep 6, 1:54*pm, jacob navia wrote:

Of course GR and Einstein's theories can be questioned in scientific
grounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Good, because I would like to question 2 things about GR.

1. GR assumes that the space-time manifold becomes ever-more smooth as
one goes to ever-smaller scales. What if we relax this constraint?
Could one have diffeomorphism invariant manifolds that are non-
differentiable? Is a fractal manifold conceivable, wherein
differentiability is ok as an approximation, but no more?

2. GR assumes that mass is a roughly continuous variable for
macroscopic objects. What happens if the masses of stars, pulsars and
galaxies are more rigorously constrained?

I wonder if these alterations would harm the beauty of GR, or would
extend its generality?

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

On 2011/09/07 14:38, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
I would like to question 2 things about GR.

1. GR assumes that the space-time manifold becomes ever-more smooth as
one goes to ever-smaller scales. What if we relax this constraint?
Could one have diffeomorphism invariant manifolds that are non-
differentiable? Is a fractal manifold conceivable, wherein
differentiability is ok as an approximation, but no more?

You can do such things using sheaf theory: one just needs model sheaves
(which are derived from smooth charts in the case of an smooth
manifold). But the mathematical analysis becomes complicated.

And covariance type of invariance, at least in the case of Riemann
manifolds, imposes conditions on the curvature. So my guess is that is
incompatible with GR.

2. GR assumes that mass is a roughly continuous variable for
macroscopic objects. What happens if the masses of stars, pulsars and
galaxies are more rigorously constrained?

By contrast, it is fairly straight-forward using a tensor algebra
extended with distributions.

I wonder if these alterations would harm the beauty of GR, or would
extend its generality?

It might be better focusing on the physics one wants to express, and
then find mathematical models for that.

Hans

Originally Posted by Eric Gisse

On Sep 6, 7:14 am, Jamahl Peavey Jamahl.Peavey.
wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
I agree completely with that. sci.astro, and all other Usenet astronomy
groups are *swamped* by cranks saying "Einstein is wrong" and then
coming with antisemitic arguments (Einstein was a Jew, you know), or
with completely wrong stuff.

[Mod. note: just for clarification, I don't believe that Jacob was
calling any individual poster here a crank or a crackpot; had I
thought so, I would not have allowed the post -- mjh]

This is not about Einstein. It is about GR and it's accuracy. When
Einstein made Newtonian Mechanics better it was not about Newton but his
model. This a professional assessment not a personal attack. Yet, I
have been called a Crack Pot but I do consider the source.

I'm sure there's a reason my reply to you asking for some actual
justification for your claims is sitting there all alone with no
attention from you.


My research spans over 10 years and the article you are referring to,
"Binary precession solutions based on synchronized field couplings was
published in a peer-reviewed journal. Calling people "crack pots" to
cover up the facts just means you lost the agruement. Do you know
Gravitational Waves and it's associated radiation has never been
detected? It's inferred like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Pulsar PSR
1913+16 is not on my list of systems GR gets wrong so you have no
arguement.

That's not how it works. PSR B1913+16 and the various other low-
separation pulsars are important because they emit gravitational
radiation. We can directly detect the inspiral due to that, which in
the case of the Hulse-Taylor pulsar I believe the precision is in the
neighborhood of 0.5%.

Which happens to be the same type of prediction you claim GR gets
wrong in other cases, but haven't managed to substantiate yet. Or
fully articulate, becuase I'm guessing at exactly what you think GR is
getting wrong.

At any rate, dark matter and energy are inferred but you might want to
investigate the history of such inferences in physics. The sucess rate
is very high.


What does GR have to say about Dark Matter, inferred or otherwise?
Nothing.

Other than DM's equation of state is of nonrelativistic dust (positive
energy density), which excludes radiation models and goofy + simple
scalar/vector/tensor fields. CMB observations further exclude
neutrinos, which share that behavior. Plus that DM will behave as
normal matter, up to and including gravitational lensing (see Bullet
Cluster) and gravitational redshift (see Integrated Sachs-Wolfe
effect).

Now if I include the observations that validate the above, we can
discern dark matter is nonbaryonic, does not interact
electromagnetically, has a rather small scattering cross-section, does
not meaningfully self-interact, and has left an imprint on the CMB.

If that means nothing to you, that certainly frames the position you
are arguing from.


What does GR have to say about Dark Energy, inferred or otherwise?
Nothing.

GR says what its' effect would be on the expansion of the universe, as
well as how it affects the binding energy of superclusters which we
have observed. I have discussed this in the past, so a google groups
search would find it and my discussion of the details.

Both DM and DE of course leave big imprints on the CMB which we have
seen rather strongly, along with independent observations using
supernovae, special galaxies, and whatnot.

If this means nothing to you, or even if this is 'new', you have no
business arguing.


When Einstein throught the universe was static he put in the
cosmological constant. Hubble showed him it was expanding and he took
it out as a blunder. Now we know the universe is accelerating and it's
back calling it Dark Energy. Make a prediction not
a post-diction.

You don't know what you are talking about. The FRW model for the
expansion of the universe covers whether it is expanding, contracting,
or static. This is old, old hat.

Einstein's back-and-forth with the cosmological constant is
irrelevant. Einstein's personal preference for a particular solution
is irrelevant. The cosmological constant is also irrelevant - I can
just add it again as a constant term in the right hand side of the
field equations.

There are inferred fundemental structures in the
universe that are not addressed in GR.

Such as?

I wonder if you've ever seen the results of the Millennium simulations
which model the large scale structure of the universe. Correctly.


What does GR have to say about Dark Flow, inferrd or otherwise? Nothing.

Why should it?

Besides, I am personally unconvinced that 'dark flow' is anything
other than yet another flawed analysis of the CMB. If you pay slight
attention to people who think they find stuff in the CMB, they are
invariably wrong because of induced artifacts from their analysis.
Komatsu has written a looooot about this.


I only say that Astronomy has gotten better over time with
measurements. It's theoretical physics on large scales that has not had
a major break through since 1919.

Do you *SERIOUSLY* believe observational astronomy hasn't had a major
breakthrough in 90 years?

Get real.

If Einstein were alive he would be
building better models and promoting work you like to call that of
"Crack Pots". S. Bose of "Bose-Einstein Condensate" and Louis DeBroglie
were called "Crack Pots" but a real genius knows the difference between
a great idea and Crack Pot.

Except the BEC stuff was theoretical. Plus both those folks had
established track records as researchers.

That's why Einstein supported and lanched
their works. I know he would support my work because it is correct if
you like it or not.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

How many points do you think "Einstein would support my theory if he
were alive" is worth?

My work is peer-reviewed, so it has support, just
not among those who do not know or don't care to report the facts.

This may be news to you, but articles published in a fringe open
access journal are not taken all that seriously. I look at their
publication guidelines and the editorial board and I don't see much
evidence for 'peer-reviewed' either.

Submit this to ApJ and let me know if it is taken seriously.


The facts is not a game and it does not take a genius to see that.
Theoretical physics has become the biggest game in science "Multiverse"
and it's really sad to those who love science.

--
Jamahl Peavey

Oh no, another person that is sad that science is going in an
uncertain but definite 'wrong direction'.

Who just happens to have a theory of his own!

What are the odds?

You really should learn how to read before you comment on someones statements. I said, "Theoretical physics has not had a major large scale break through since 1919 or the year Einstein published General Relativity. I said Astronomy has gotten better with measurements.

The Indian Journal of Science and Technology is not a frienge publication. In fact, the Indian Journal of Science and Technology publishes more significant articles in science than any pure theoretical physics journal you can name. Their articles are not relevant to anyone but themselves. String Theory is the best the theoretical physics community has to offer. Multiple Universes. I am glad a real science journal published my research.

Science and Technology departments have and will always be present and the future of science. It's called engineering and our ideas should be promoted. If you ever had a significant idea you would promote it, but I guess you haven't. My converstation is over with you because you began by saying GR has no inconsistencies. Once you were proven wrong you played like the facts were disinteresting, made personal attacks and started being dishonest. You're really sad.

On Sep 7, 7:38*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:54 pm, jacob navia wrote:

Of course GR and Einstein's theories can be questioned in scientific
grounds.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Good, because I would like to question 2 things about GR.

1. GR assumes that the space-time manifold becomes ever-more smooth as
one goes to ever-smaller scales. *What if we relax this constraint?

Then you don't have a differentiable manifold.

Besides, that isn't even strictly true. The technical term for what GR
assumes is our old friend "continuity", and is a staple feature of any
classical theory. What GR does not assume, however, is infinite
amounts of differentiability.

Folks who know the technicals a bit better will probably correct me on
this but the metric and the stress-energy tensor only have to have
defined up to their second derivatives. Why? Because the differential
equations of the theory are all second order.

Could one have diffeomorphism invariant manifolds that are non-
differentiable? *Is a fractal manifold conceivable, wherein
differentiability is ok as an approximation, but no more?

Sounds like one of those things that should have a few PhD
dissertations worth of mathematical developent behind it.

Is there any mathmatical development, or is this thought
indistinguishable from something written on a napkin in a bar?


2. GR assumes that mass is a roughly continuous variable for
macroscopic objects. What happens if the masses of stars, pulsars and
galaxies are more rigorously constrained?

Not GR's problem. Much like how GR isn't a theory of particle physics.

Besides, there is no such binning for stars/pulsars/galaxies. Hans
Alberg gave you a reference on this already, and you and I have
already been over this before with planets.

The last time this came up I gave you the link to the extrasolar
planet database. Random error goes as 1/sqrt(n), and n was well over
eight hundred for that database so any such definitive binning would
not be a likely random occurance. Since you haven't mentioned it since
then, can I assume you either have not done the work or have done the
work and aren't mentioning it falsifies your theory?

I'm not sure what you could use for a stellar mass database. Probably
the vizer database. Have you tried doing anything on your own?


I wonder if these alterations would harm the beauty of GR, or would
extend its generality?

Wreck continuity and you don't have a classical theory anymore.


RLO
Fractal Cosmology

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