Doubts about GR (split from Exclusive: Grave doubts over LIGO’s discovery of gravitational waves)

[beecee]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

The requirement for both, a classical theory of gravity, and a quantum field theory of gravity is that it is self-coupling.

For a classical theory, like GR, stress-energy produces curvature in space-time, either static or travelling ( as in GWs ). This curvature of space-time is also a stress-energy and so, contributes to further curvature. IE gravity gravitates.

That's near word for word how an old Astronomer mate explained it...pretty straight forward actually.

Quote

What exactly is the problem ?

Nothing at all with your post and general description. 

[MigL]

From your own link ( to the other Physics Forums ), this is what PeterDonis said...

"At the quantum level, this means gravitons (the quantum particles associated with the massless, spin-two field) interact with other gravitons. At the classical level, it means that, since the EFE is nonlinear, curvature can be present even when the “source” on the RHS of the EFE is zero, i.e., there can be vacuum solutions of the EFE that have curvature present. (Schwarzschild spacetime is an obvious example.) In other words, on this view, the answer to our question is “yes”: gravity *does* gravitate!"

Maybe you should read what you link to.
Sigh !

Who's wasting whose time here ?

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/does-gravity-gravitate/
 

[Q-reeus]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

From your own link ( to the other Physics Forums ), this is what PeterDonis said...

"At the quantum level, this means gravitons (the quantum particles associated with the massless, spin-two field) interact with other gravitons. At the classical level, it means that, since the EFE is nonlinear, curvature can be present even when the “source” on the RHS of the EFE is zero, i.e., there can be vacuum solutions of the EFE that have curvature present. (Schwarzschild spacetime is an obvious example.) In other words, on this view, the answer to our question is “yes”: gravity *does* gravitate!"

Maybe you should read what you link to.
Sigh !

Who's wasting whose time here ?

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/does-gravity-gravitate/
 

Nice try at cherry picking there MigL. Omitted from above quoted are these two preceding paras:

Quote

 

Hilbert’s answer (and Einstein’s, when he saw Hilbert’s work) was basically that the action SG is the simplest possible action for gravity that is not trivial. However, in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, a different approach was developed, based on trying to treat gravity as “just another quantum field”, like the electromagnetic field and all the other fields that were then being studied. I won’t go into too much detail about this, but the upshot was that the quantum field theory of a massless, spin-two field on a flat spacetime background, when made self-consistent, turns out to have as its classical limit the Einstein-Hilbert action SG ! (The “massless, spin-two” part comes from the fact that only a massless field can give rise to a long-range interaction, which gravity is, and only a spin-two field can give rise to an interaction which is always attractive *and* couples to all the other known “matter” fields.)

In other words, on the “gravity as just another quantum field” view, classical GR is just a low-energy effective field theory; it is what you get when gravity is too weak for its quantum nature to show up. (Don’t be misled by that “too weak”, btw; in the sense of the term used here, gravity is “too weak” at, and well inside, the horizon of a stellar-mass black hole.) Which means that the way we wrote the action, and hence the EFE, above is just the natural way to write the classical limit of a theory with gravity present along with other fields.

 

So, real message there is any actual 'gravitons gravitate' theoretically kicks in perceptibly only at enormous energy densities where classical gravity is assumed to fail to an appreciable extent. We are no longer in the strictly classical GR energy regime. Do try and be more careful to provide full context next time.

The summary part:

Quote

 

It’s important to note that there is no contradiction between the two answers we have just described. “Gravity” in the two answers means two different things: gravity as a massless, spin-two field (either quantum or classical) does gravitate (the field interacts with itself), but gravity as a tensor satisfying the Bianchi identity doesn’t gravitate, because there is nothing “left over”, once the Bianchi identity is satisfied, to contribute to the source on the RHS of the EFE.

To sum up what we’ve said so far: we’ve talked about two possible ways to answer our title question, and they lead to opposite answers:

(1) In order to ensure conservation of the source, the complete Einstein tensor, including *all* contributions from gravity, must appear on the LHS of the EFE; there is nothing left over to contribute to the “source” on the RHS of the EFE. So in this sense, gravity does *not* gravitate.

(2) Viewed as a quantum field, gravity is a massless, spin-two field, and the classical limit of the quantum theory of such a field is standard GR (based on the Einstein-Hilbert action for gravity). But this field interacts with itself; its field equation, at both the quantum and classical levels, is nonlinear. So in this sense, gravity *does* gravitate.

 

Only (1) is relevant here - my repeated point you have chosen to ignore twice now. Which in itself is I suppose a subtle message.
Another message is your failure to address the plain significance of that single expression R_μν = 0.
Here, again, reproduced from earlier post addressed to you:
 

Quote

OK, one last stab, from a slightly different but equivalent perspective. See single simple expression under 1.6 here:
www.pas.rochester.edu/~rajeev/phy413/Grav13.pdf
Please - actually THINK about it some....

Let me make it real clear what that single equation means. Every in vacuo gravitational field in classical GR regime is not a source for more gravity i.e. specifically gravity does not gravitate. It covers e.g. inspiral of 'BH's' and subsequent GW emissions of any strength. That there is iirc notionally observational evidence of reduced final merged mass consistent with calculated energy-momentum loss in GW's can be taken as evidence against GR and supporting theories where gravity does gravitate as an inherent feature of that theory. I have mentioned this earlier but it goes in one collective ear and out the other.

That clear statement R_μν = 0 (in vacuo) is routinely skirted in practice via 'creative accounting' as mentioned way back. GR is an inconsistent hodgepodge where ad hoc procedures give the appearance of a coherent whole. But I get the message. Folks here have an unfailing trust in the rightness of GR, and that's that.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Q-reeus

[swansont]

17 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

 Yes too vague. Like right there. Please - actually quote specific passages, preferably in proper context.

But here’s the punch line: as a massless, spin-two field, gravity not only couples to all the other “matter” fields; it also couples to *itself*. Its field equation, both in the quantum version *and* in its classical limit, the EFE, is nonlinear. At the quantum level, this means gravitons (the quantum particles associated with the massless, spin-two field) interact with other gravitons. At the classical level, it means that, since the EFE is nonlinear, curvature can be present even when the “source” on the RHS of the EFE is zero, i.e., there can be vacuum solutions of the EFE that have curvature present. (Schwarzschild spacetime is an obvious example.) In other words, on this view, the answer to our question is “yes”: gravity *does* gravitate!
 

It’s important to note that there is no contradiction between the two answers we have just described. “Gravity” in the two answers means two different things: gravity as a massless, spin-two field (either quantum or classical) does gravitate (the field interacts with itself), but gravity as a tensor satisfying the Bianchi identity doesn’t gravitate, because there is nothing “left over”, once the Bianchi identity is satisfied, to contribute to the source on the RHS of the EFE.
 

Quote

Have I? Please, again, actually quote where and how exactly. Bearing in mind my actual overall position.

I'm not sure what your actual overall position is. But, see above. 

 

Quote

It may sound like it to you. To me the situation is as explained by PeterDonis - there is no room for gravity gravitating in standard GR's standard EFE's. Period. Want to keep this up? Play a game of attrition? If so, you 'win'. Right here and now. If otoh there is still genuine misunderstanding at play, it's still a case of 'this will never end happily for both sides'. So - Good night, again.

Is sounds like that because of the way he explained it. The "nothing left over part" and that equations being nonlinear.

51 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

Nice try at cherry picking there MigL. Omitted from above quoted are these two preceding paras:

So, real message there is any actual 'gravitons gravitate' theoretically kicks in perceptibly only at enormous energy densities where classical gravity is assumed to fail to an appreciable extent. We are no longer in the strictly classical GR energy regime. Do try and be more careful to provide full context next time.

So it can be neglected at lower values. I don't see why that's a big deal here. 

You complain that something isn't present, although it is, and also note that in most cases it's too small to account for. I don't understand what your actual objection is.

Quote

Let me make it real clear what that single equation means. Every in vacuo gravitational field in classical GR regime is not a source for more gravity i.e. specifically gravity does not gravitate. It covers e.g. inspiral of 'BH's' and subsequent GW emissions of any strength. That there is iirc notionally observational evidence of reduced final merged mass consistent with calculated energy-momentum loss in GW's can be taken as evidence against GR and supporting theories where gravity does gravitate as an inherent feature of that theory. I have mentioned this earlier but it goes in one collective ear and out the other.

Where is the prediction wrong? How would this be evidence against GR?

You mentioned this, but have not actually explained why it's allegedly a problem.

[Q-reeus]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But here’s the punch line: as a massless, spin-two field, gravity not only couples to all the other “matter” fields; it also couples to *itself*. Its field equation, both in the quantum version *and* in its classical limit, the EFE, is nonlinear. At the quantum level, this means gravitons (the quantum particles associated with the massless, spin-two field) interact with other gravitons. At the classical level, it means that, since the EFE is nonlinear, curvature can be present even when the “source” on the RHS of the EFE is zero, i.e., there can be vacuum solutions of the EFE that have curvature present. (Schwarzschild spacetime is an obvious example.) In other words, on this view, the answer to our question is “yes”: gravity *does* gravitate!
 

It’s important to note that there is no contradiction between the two answers we have just described. “Gravity” in the two answers means two different things: gravity as a massless, spin-two field (either quantum or classical) does gravitate (the field interacts with itself), but gravity as a tensor satisfying the Bianchi identity doesn’t gravitate, because there is nothing “left over”, once the Bianchi identity is satisfied, to contribute to the source on the RHS of the EFE.
 

I'm not sure what your actual overall position is. But, see above. 

The only logical way to interpret that first passage that doesn't conflict with the later one is to realize PeterDonis is being a bit loose with language.
'Curvature present' need not imply such curvature is itself a source of gravitation. Weyl curvature is source free but is nevertheless a type of curvature. It's only Weyl curvature that exists in exterior Schwarzschild solution. It's non-linear in character but not thereby a violation of R_μν = 0 (in vacuo) - the Ricci curvature is zero there.

 

Quote

 

Is sounds like that because of the way he explained it. The "nothing left over part" and that equations being nonlinear.

So it can be neglected at lower values. I don't see why that's a big deal here. 

You complain that something isn't present, although it is, and also note that in most cases it's too small to account for. I don't understand what your actual objection is.

'It' i.e. gravity gravitating is not present at all within classical GR! As above covered, and indeed the point made in almost every other post I have made here. Why confuse things by adding in speculative considerations of a speculative quantized version of GR in its high energy regime?

Quote

Where is the prediction wrong? How would this be evidence against GR?

You mentioned this, but have not actually explained why it's allegedly a problem.

But I have, beginning with the very first post here.

A brief recap. In say a binary merger -> GW's. The two supposedly mutually compatible GR relations div T_μν = 0, and R_μν = 0 (in vacuo), are not. I tire of repeating why. It's all been written earlier. Retention here is atrocious probably owing to innate faith in GR. Hence an unwillingness to seriously countenance anything casting doubt on it. Especially if it's simple, basic in character.

PS - I note my score has gone from +2 to +3 and back to 0. Pissed someone off. Too bad. Unlike one here in particular, I don't covet such approval rating tokens.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Q-reeus
'social comment' added

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

And you have made that (admittedly very widespread) assertion without looking through all that was previously posted in particular by myself?! Why should I bother further here.
OK, one last stab, from a slightly different but equivalent perspective. See single simple expression under 1.6 here:
www.pas.rochester.edu/~rajeev/phy413/Grav13.pdf

Interesting you did not point to the introduction, where you can find

The most important complication we must deal with is that the Einstein equations are non-linear. Physically this is because the source of gravity is mass-energy; but the gravitational field carries potential energy. Thus gravity can be its own source: nonlinearity.

 

 

2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

 But I have, beginning with the very first post here.

A brief recap. In say a binary merger -> GW's. The two supposedly mutually compatible GR relations div T_μν = 0, and R_μν = 0 (in vacuo), are not. I tire of repeating why. It's all been written earlier. Retention here is atrocious probably owing to innate faith in GR. Hence an unwillingness to seriously countenance anything casting doubt on it. Especially if it's simple, basic in character.

This is based on your claim that gravity is not a source of gravity. But two sources you have provided, and other sources other people have provided, say the opposite.

 

[MigL]

Speaking of cherry picking...

Did you read the part where he mentions special 'interpretation' of the Einstein Field Equations ?
The simple fact that there are no gravitational terms on the stress-energy side of the equations does not mean that there is no contribution to the curvature metric ( right side ).
The curvature side is gravity, and the generally accepted interpretation is that it contributes to itself.
Otherwise, as he also explains, there could not be vacuum solutions.

You are quibbling over the INTERPRETATION of the model used to describe the reality.
Certainly there can be no quibbling over the actual reality.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

But I get the message. Folks here have an unfailing trust in the rightness of GR, and that's that.

The message is far simpler then that. Folks here, folks on the other forum that you have constantly referred to, where you were banned, folks in academia in general, students and professionals alike, Renowned scientists everywhere, all the reputable links I have supplied, all say you are wrong. Gravity does make gravity, gravity is simply spacetime geometry. When you get that message, then you may possibly be able to move on.

That doesn't say though that in the course of time, some limitation to GR will be found. But as I have educated you in the past on, that will not probably come via science forums such as this and others where you attempt to conduct your crusade. That will come from the professionals that are already working towards improving and extending on GR and testing the same everyday, every year. But guess what? As Professor T'Hooft said, at this time GR still stands as the accepted, evidenced backed, most accurate theory of gravity that we have.

[Q-reeus]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Interesting you did not point to the introduction, where you can find

The most important complication we must deal with is that the Einstein equations are non-linear. Physically this is because the source of gravity is mass-energy; but the gravitational field carries potential energy. Thus gravity can be its own source: nonlinearity.

 

 

This is based on your claim that gravity is not a source of gravity. But two sources you have provided, and other sources other people have provided, say the opposite.

 

So I need to repeat - nonlinearity is NOT equivalent to 'gravity gravitates'! What you are suggesting is that PeterDonis's clear exposition of why gravity does NOT gravitate in classical GR is wrong, and further that he continually contradicts himself. Not in that particular exposition. Later, he does fall into the trap of using a common pseudo tensor type approach that as I have said, skirts that 'gravity does not gravitate in classical GR' finding. And yes that then does lead to self-contradictory predictions. Which is what I have picked up on here.
That such skirting the basics in EFE's is very widespread in GR community gives it a weight of authority you and others here evidently find compelling. That's imo at heart a sociological issue not actual physics.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Speaking of cherry picking...

Did you read the part where he mentions special 'interpretation' of the Einstein Field Equations ?
The simple fact that there are no gravitational terms on the stress-energy side of the equations does not mean that there is no contribution to the curvature metric ( right side ).
The curvature side is gravity, and the generally accepted interpretation is that it contributes to itself.
Otherwise, as he also explains, there could not be vacuum solutions.

You are quibbling over the INTERPRETATION of the model used to describe the reality.
Certainly there can be no quibbling over the actual reality.

So you say. See my reply to swansont last post. (Oh gawd, this system insists on merging my posts - even when I logged out, then back in again to try and beat that feature!)

If perchance there is someone else here at ScienceForums who understands GR and would like to make a fresh contribution, I would likely engage. Otherwise, it's very clear where the current lot of posters each stand. In my view, it's a pointless time-wasting exercise to keep up this circular circus act. I'll cut and paste my very brief position, from last post of mine:

A brief recap. In say a binary merger -> GW's. The two supposedly mutually compatible GR relations div T_μν = 0, and R_μν = 0 (in vacuo), are not. I tire of repeating why. It's all been written earlier. Retention here is atrocious probably owing to innate faith in GR. Hence an unwillingness to seriously countenance anything casting doubt on it. Especially if it's simple, basic in character.

That's it. I'm done with going in circles on this. Let's stop this not-so-merry-go-round now.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Q-reeus

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

If perchance there is someone else here at ScienceForums who understands GR and would like to make a fresh contribution, I would likely engage.

I do not believe if that did happen it would change your skewered view of GR, and GW's one little bit.

Quote

 

Otherwise, it's very clear where the current lot of posters each stand. In my view, it's a pointless time-wasting exercise to keep up this circular circus act. I'll cut and paste my very brief position, from last post of mine:

. I tire of repeating why.

That's it. I'm done with going in circles on this. Let's stop this not-so-merry-go-round now.

 

 Not sure how many times now you have threatened that you are done.....

Again, let me repeat myself and as I have asked you here and elsewhere, with regards to your crusade, if you believe the errors and misinterpretations of your generally unsupported claim, then write up a professional paper, in a professional manner, for professional peer review.  But Hey! wait! All the professional peer reviewers would be like the experts here and simply recalcitrant to your hypothetical unevidenced ideas, correct?

[Q-reeus]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

I do not believe if that did happen it would change your skewered view of GR, and GW's one little bit.

 Not sure how many times now you have threatened that you are done.....

Again, let me repeat myself and as I have asked you here and elsewhere, with regards to your crusade, if you believe the errors and misinterpretations of your generally unsupported claim, then write up a professional paper, in a professional manner, for professional peer review.  But Hey! wait! All the professional peer reviewers would be like the experts here and simply recalcitrant to your hypothetical unevidenced ideas, correct?

Stop trying to tell me what do - GR fanboy. Remember - this is a FORUM. People are free to post thoughts as they see fit. You don't even understand SR let alone anything significant in GR. As evidenced many times at that other site.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Q-reeus said:

Stop trying to tell me what do - GR fanboy. Remember - this is a FORUM. People are free to post thoughts as they see fit. You don't even understand SR let alone anything significant in GR. As evidenced many times at that other site.

I'm not telling you not to post your thoughts, but that's exactly what they are...thoughts, albeit incorrect thoughts, for the many reasons stated. Now again if you are so sure you are right, then write up a professional paper, for professional peer review....You have something against that?

13 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

PS - I note my score has gone from +2 to +3 and back to 0. Pissed someone off. Too bad. Unlike one here in particular, I don't covet such approval rating tokens.

Perhaps your arrogance, along with your "certainty" on this issue, as against the general scientific community of professional experts, which you brush off, with baseless accusations, condemnations, and nutty conspiracy jibes along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracy ratbags. 

Whether you accept GR and all the observational and experimental data confirming it, is neither here nor there. It remains as our prime gravity theory and will for a long time yet. 

Your friendly GR fanboy!  

 

[Q-reeus]

Could someone in the know tell me who exactly had a hand in having this forked thread booted to Speculations?

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

Could someone in the know tell me who exactly had a hand in having this forked thread booted to Speculations?

Possibly because of your speculative unsupported nonsense? Just a wild guess on my part.

[Q-reeus]

Quote

Speculations Forum Rules

The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow:

    Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.
    Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.
    Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

The movement of a thread into (or out of) Speculations is ultimately at the discretion of moderators, and will be determined on a case by case basis.

Which above quoted is what one (currently) reads when pressing on link https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/29-speculations/#elForumRules

[Edit: Oh well, turns out copying and pasting 'direct link' to Speculations Forum Rules only results in Speculations main page. One has to then click on that 'direct link' to bring up the Forum Rules box. So weird.]

Hmm... I will ask again - who had a hand in booting this thread from Physics/Astronomy and Cosmology, to Speculations?
What exactly is the notional objective criteria for doing so, in light of above reproduced Forum Rules re Speculations sub-forum? Where is there any hint of a hypothesized 'new idea/theory' being promoted, as opposed to what is obviously true to me - a straight out disagrement over the basic character and implications of an established theory, namely classical GR? That other theories were incidentally and occasionally referred to in passing, but never promoted as 'fact' or made a focus, seems also too obvious to deny.
Or do I simply have to meekly accept that 'discretion of moderators' is the be all and end all of this decision?

Edited November 30, 2018 by Q-reeus
comment on 'direct' link issue

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

Could someone in the know tell me who exactly had a hand in having this forked thread booted to Speculations?

I don't know.

I stopped following this thread because I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be saying that GR is wrong (in a very roundabout and incoherent way) in which case, Speculations is the right place for it.

If you want to clarify what your point is exactly and then report that post, perhaps it would be reconsidered. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

 

[Edit: Oh well, turns out copying and pasting 'direct link' to Speculations Forum Rules only results in Speculations main page. 

Hmm... I will ask again - who had a hand in booting this thread from Physics/Astronomy and Cosmology, to Speculations?

Or do I simply have to meekly accept that 'discretion of moderators' is the be all and end all of this decision?

I believe your question has been answered with your anti GR stance and general ridicule of the accepted model, with some weird expectation that people here, learned people, not to mention the scientific world in general, must cow tow to your interpretation, despite the reality of the evidence that supports the incumbent model......

some examples.....

 

Quote

That there is iirc notionally observational evidence of reduced final merged mass consistent with calculated energy-momentum loss in GW's can be taken as evidence against GR and supporting theories where gravity does gravitate as an inherent feature of that theory. I have mentioned this earlier but it goes in one collective ear and out the other.

Quote

That clear statement R_μν = 0 (in vacuo) is routinely skirted in practice via 'creative accounting' as mentioned way back. GR is an inconsistent hodgepodge where ad hoc procedures give the appearance of a coherent whole. But I get the message. Folks here have an unfailing trust in the rightness of GR, and that's that.

Quote

'It' i.e. gravity gravitating is not present at all within classical GR!

Quote

Retention here is atrocious probably owing to innate faith in GR. Hence an unwillingness to seriously countenance anything casting doubt on it. Especially if it's simple, basic in character

 

Quote

nonlinearity is NOT equivalent to 'gravity gravitates'!

Quote

 That's it. I'm done with going in circles on this. Let's stop this not-so-merry-go-round now.

Quote

Stop trying to tell me what do - GR fanboy.

Your above quotes are from this page only, as I'm rather lazy at this time having consumed a couple of Schooners of Fosters with a mate, so please excuse that. The quotes reflect a mixture of
 "I'm not going to listen"attitude,  total arrogance, casting aspersions on fellow members, intended insults and facetiousness, not to mention that it is near entirely against the mainstream view of GR and what it entails.

[Q-reeus]

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't know.

I stopped following this thread because I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be saying that GR is wrong (in a very roundabout and incoherent way) in which case, Speculations is the right place for it.

If you want to clarify what your point is exactly and then report that post, perhaps it would be reconsidered. 

After all the posts so far, best you can figure is I seem to be saying sort of incoherently that GR is wrong somehow?
Wow. Then this thread has evidently run it's course. Given I have imo spelled out perfectly well enough what ails GR re 'gravity' gravitates' or rather not, and how that then conflicts with the assumed always valid stress-energy-momentum continuity relation. Enough of repeating myself on that, to no good effect here.

But I still expect an answer as to who had a hand in booting it here, and exactly on what grounds. I have made my case on that much quite clear. And expect nothing less back from those involved in it being in Speculations.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

But I still expect an answer as to who had a hand in booting it here, and exactly on what grounds.

Report the post with your question and maybe someone will tell you. Or maybe not. 

4 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

Given I have imo spelled out perfectly well enough what ails GR re 'gravity' gravitates' or rather not, and how that then conflicts with the assumed always valid stress-energy-momentum continuity relation.

And the point of that claims is, what, exactly? 

[Q-reeus]

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

Report the post with your question and maybe someone will tell you. Or maybe not. 

Whoever made the decision to move this thread here obviously has monitored it beforehand. Moving it was a public act. I'll wait some and see if I get a publically viewable response here in this thread. If none comes, then further action my part would be pretty pointless. Silence is a message in itself.

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

And the point of that claims is, what, exactly? 

Yet again? Combine for instance my very first post this thread with the last main para in this post (dammit, why no post numbering here?):
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117191-doubts-about-gr-split-from-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligo’s-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/?do=findComment&comment=1083090
Or last part this post:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117191-doubts-about-gr-split-from-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligo’s-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/?do=findComment&comment=1082944
Various other posts have covered it, but how many ways of pointing out the same basic issue is needed?

[Strange]

So your main point is that:

On 29/11/2018 at 10:22 AM, Q-reeus said:

GR is an inconsistent hodgepodge where ad hoc procedures give the appearance of a coherent whole.

Then the thread appears to be in the right place.

23 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

PS - I note my score has gone from +2 to +3 and back to 0. Pissed someone off. Too bad. Unlike one here in particular, I don't covet such approval rating tokens.

Which is why you said absolutely nothing at all about it. 

 

[Q-reeus]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

So your main point is that:

 

Quote

On 11/29/2018 at 9:22 PM, Q-reeus said:

GR is an inconsistent hodgepodge where ad hoc procedures give the appearance of a coherent whole.

 

Then the thread appears to be in the right place.

No. That was merely an overall opinion, excised by you and without any greater context, not a specific line of argument (which WAS given in various posts in various ways). OBVIOUSLY.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which is why you said absolutely nothing at all about it.

I'll add a bit more. Down to -1 as of this post. Now have a much better idea of the general climate here at ScienceForums, and what tactics are typically employed by some. Have a nice day.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

Stop trying to tell me what do - GR fanboy. Remember - this is a FORUM. People are free to post thoughts as they see fit. You don't even understand SR let alone anything significant in GR. As evidenced many times at that other site.

!

Moderator Note

Not quite. You are free to post their thoughts as they see fit as long as they post within the rules. Hijacking isn't within the rules. Posting unsupported assertions isn't within the rules. And attacking other members isn't within the rules. This far, you've gotten a pass. New arrivals are generally not given official warnings for thread hijacking — we split the offending posts off into a new thread. But your tactic of "this link is correct where it agrees with me and incorrect where it doesn't" doesn't work as far as supporting your assertions goes, especially when there are several other sources available that all say the same thing. This ties in with the fact that you are claiming that there is an issue with GR that nobody seems to have noticed for 100 years. Just based on that one would lean toward it not being an actual problem, and with you misinterpreting something.

And the snide remarks/mild insults can stop, too (this applies to all parties). I don't care what happened at some other forum, up until the point that it spills over to here. It's off-topic for any discussion.  

 

Let this serve as notice that we aren't going to let any such behavior slide any longer.

 

30 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

I'll add a bit more. Down to -1 as of this post. Now have a much better idea of the general climate here at ScienceForums, and what tactics are typically employed by some. Have a nice day.

How about you give it a rest. Complaining about your upvote/downvote tally is off-topic as well.

[Q-reeus]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Not quite. You are free to post their thoughts as they see fit as long as they post within the rules. Hijacking isn't within the rules. Posting unsupported assertions isn't within the rules. And attacking other members isn't within the rules. This far, you've gotten a pass. New arrivals are generally not given official warnings for thread hijacking — we split the offending posts off into a new thread. But your tactic of "this link is correct where it agrees with me and incorrect where it doesn't" doesn't work as far as supporting your assertions goes, especially when there are several other sources available that all say the same thing. This ties in with the fact that you are claiming that there is an issue with GR that nobody seems to have noticed for 100 years. Just based on that one would lean toward it not being an actual problem, and with you misinterpreting something.

And the snide remarks/mild insults can stop, too (this applies to all parties). I don't care what happened at some other forum, up until the point that it spills over to here. It's off-topic for any discussion.  

 

Let this serve as notice that we aren't going to let any such behavior slide any longer.

 

 

You claim nobody else in a 100 years seems to have noticed that problem with GR. Maybe not voiced in the particular way I have here, but e.g. Sir Arthur Eddington and Nathan Rosen were entirely skeptical of existence of GW's, owing to their 'phantom' nature. From the outset there were critics of certain other features of GR that made no sense to them. Their views, not all relevant but not all misplaced either, were side-lined as a matter of historical fact. One easily derived rigorous result that undermines one of the foundational bases of GR (known by Einstein in 1907 but later abandoned by him on aesthetic grounds), is shown in appendix A here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417
Feel free to point out here any flaw in that derivation btw. Or you would rather argue that because the GR community has not accepted that longstanding finding, the finding itself is therefore is ipso facto wrong and not even worth investigating?

I also see you or someone has seen fit to simply vanish a post (maybe others - only noticed this one by chance) of mine formally in p2 here:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117103-no-energy-conservation-in-photon-by-ehf-f↓-in-space-of-expansion/
Now have an idea of the kind of editorial freedom wielded here. And a fair idea who successfully pressed for that particular case of 'post -> poof'.

Regarding the snide remarks and outside issues dragged in, please go back and check who initiated, on several occasions, snide remarks and bringing in of extraneous issues from elsewhere. All before I decided to respond. I'm betting though no official warning notice appears against that member's offending posts. I can live with that kind of thing.

Lastly, if you also persist in characterizing my arguments re GR issues here as above, well nothing more I can see worth adding to change that perception.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Q-reeus

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

You claim nobody else in a 100 years seems to have noticed that problem with GR. Maybe not voiced in the particular way I have here, but e.g. Sir Arthur Eddington and Nathan Rosen were entirely skeptical of existence of GW's, owing to their 'phantom' nature.

So? Science including GR has been further understood and researched since those days a 100 years ago....simply put, they were wrong, and GW's as predicted by GR, have now been observed at least six or seven times now. No scientist is infallible, even Einstein from recollection questioned BH's, as he also questioned the dynamic expanding Universe. His qualities though saw him quickly admit to his error of judgement. Perhaps we all should take a leaf out of the great man's book.

Quote

From the outset there were critics of certain other features of GR that made no sense to them. Their views, not all relevant but not all misplaced either, were side-lined as a matter of historical fact. One easily derived rigorous result that undermines one of the foundational bases of GR (known by Einstein in 1907 but later abandoned by him on aesthetic grounds), is shown in appendix A here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417
Feel free to point out here any flaw in that derivation btw. Or you would rather argue that because the GR community has not accepted that longstanding finding, the finding itself is therefore is ipso facto wrong and not even worth investigating?

Whatever "finding" you are talking about, and whether flawed or otherwise, pales into insignificance against the mountains of data and successful predictions, supporting GR and made by GR. I post many interesting scientific items of interest on this forum, most supported by peer reviewed papers, but they still remain speculative, in that no firm data is yet at hand confirming them as scientific theories. They are science news and appropriately in the science section.That's how and why science guided by the scientific method, is in continued progress. Plus of course no one, least of all me, has ever claimed GR is perfect. If it was perfect we wouldn't need quantum mechanics would we? And the search and research into a possible QGT would then be redundant, wouldn't it? But it remains a well supported, evidenced backed model of gravity, which as yet, no other theory can come within an inch of.

You appear to be doing far more then that in claiming GR is wrong or faulty based on your own interpretation/s.

Quote

Lastly, if you also persist in characterizing my arguments re GR issues here as above, well nothing more I can see worth adding to change that perception.

It's your own words with regards to GR, and your claims that it is wrong is why this is in the speculative section. GR is the accepted mainstream position for obvious reasons as already stated by many here.

Edited November 30, 2018 by beecee