|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by Jamahl Peavey : September 2nd 11 at 04:06 AM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
8/30/11 - No Quantum Gravity Signature
Le 05/09/11 00:06, Eric Gisse a écrit :
This is silly, and I'm not playing that game here. 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by Jamahl Peavey : September 6th 11 at 08:35 PM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 09:48 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 03:43 AM |
Quantum Gravity? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 4 | June 11th 05 08:42 PM |