Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

11 December 2019 philippeb8: A deluded "you don’t like gravitons " lie when I have been citing actual gravitons .



The delusions has been writing about "gravitons".

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish?

11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "FT can save lives" delusion and "symptoms of denialism" lie.

10 December 2019 philippeb8: An ignorant fantasy that gravitons can produce "perfect cryonics"!

At least you got this right!

[philippeb8]

I give you a chance to give up before your GR nonsense buries your credibility that is pretty bad already...

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

How about summing up the frames of reference?

11 December 2019 philippeb8: His persistent ignorance about frames of reference.

Every observer has their own frame of reference with the coordinate system they select, etc. They can not be "summed over". That would be as stupid as taking every possible map of the Earth and summing them. There would be places that would be ocean + mountains + desert + lake + etc. :.

Charts, atlases, and transition maps in differentiable manifolds.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

At least you got this right!

Stupidity of agreeing that that he has been writing delusions about "gravitons" as in my post?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

11 December 2019 philippeb8: His persistent ignorance about frames of reference.



Every observer has their own frame of reference with the coordinate system they select, etc. They can not be "summed over". That would be as stupid as taking every possible map of the Earth and summing them. There would be places that would be ocean + mountains + desert + lake + etc. :.



Charts, atlases, and transition maps in differentiable manifolds.

Well it’s new mathematics then.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I give you a chance to give up before your GR nonsense buries your credibility that is pretty bad already...

11 December 2019 philippeb8: "give up before your GR nonsense buries your credibility that is pretty bad already" stupidity.
I have been stating and citing textbook GR with sources.

Go ahead, philippeb8. Give your scientific sources that show what I have been posting about GR is wrong.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Stupidity of agreeing that that he has been writing delusions about "gravitons" as in my post?

No surprisingly you understand the consequences of having a flux of gravitons traveling through a body.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I think the main problem is physics is cumulative so if there was a mistake in the past then nobody is willing to make the efforts of disproving 300 years of experiments. I did take the challenge and now I do have the exact solution and/or good approximation for:
- perihelion shift
- light bending
- time dilation cancellation altitude
- rotation curve without dark matter
- expansion of the universe without dark energy
- mass of the invisible universe encompassing the visible one

Where the latter is based on the estimated size of the invisible universe:
https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-...-universe.html

When looking at GR:
- perihelion shift
- light bending
- time dilation cancellation altitude

That's it. And I keep reading articles saying the expansion of the universe doesn't fit the theory of GR:
https://futurism.com/no-the-universe...physicists-say

I mean it's pretty much clear I have enough evidence at this point.

To answer your question: this is the first time I am presenting the evidence entirely so not everybody knows about FT yet. I am planning to give it away to the ISS National Lab and do some basic marketing of the upcoming book to put the word out there.

Here’s the requested evidence.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

So I'll assume you are not referring to angular acceleration but linear acceleration.

Well obv.

Quote:

Again, there is no linear acceleration involved if the frame of reference is spinning with the star.

There are no objective facts of the matter about frames of references, they are simply the reference points from which you make measurements or create models. They are a matter of choice for the observer.

But even if you decide to choose a spinning reference frame for this thought experiment, for whatever reasons, there is still linear acceleration. As long as there are forces there is also acceleration.

So we simplify the thought experiment to have a universe with only two particles in it.

There is also an attractive force between them then each particle will have an acceleration in the direction of the other particle.



Then suppose each particle has an initial velocity normal to the direction of the force but in opposite direction:



Then the particles still have an acceleration in the direction of the force and consequently the direction of the velocity of each particle will be turned a little.



Now your idea, as I understand it, is that there is some sort of objectively existing reference frame which would detect the movement of these particles and would alter its basis vectors so that the particles are in their original position, do I have that right?

But the point is that even if there was such a thing as an objectively existing reference frame, it would make no difference. A change of frame is simply a co-ordinate transform, it would not affect the dynamics of the system.

As I pointed out you can take any of my animations, run it on your phone and then rotate your phone in the opposite direction so that the particles remain more or less in the same place.

That is exactly the same as choosing a spinning reference frame. But I ask, how have you changed the facts of my model by rotating your phone screen?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Well it’s new mathematics then.

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Abysmal "Well it’s new mathematics then" ignorance.

Someone with a delusion of replacing 300 years of physics needs to learn the basics of physics, including its history. This is mathematics that has been around for well over a century and a half. GR uses a pseudo-Riemann manifold. Bernhard Riemann (17 September 1826 – 20 July 1866). GR was published 104 years ago!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

No surprisingly you understand the consequences of having a flux of gravitons traveling through a body.

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Gibberish - my posts are that all he has is an ignorant fantasy about gravitons.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Here’s the requested evidence.

11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Here’s the requested evidence" lie when no one asked about his fantasies or lies with no evidence!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Thank you for confirming 10^10 solar masses is the same order (2e40 kg).

11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "confirming 10^10 solar masses is the same order (2e40 kg) lie when my post has no 10^10 solar masses.

[JeanTate]

Thanks W.D.Clinger.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Originally Posted by JeanTate

You also realize, I hope, that the existence of "molecules" (plural) implies more than one "frame of reference", don't you?

Well, I would disagree with JeanTate's claim. There are always going to be infinitely many charts and atlases, which are the general theory of relativity's analogue of the "frames of reference" that are part of the special theory's jargon; even in the special theory, there are always going to be infinitely many frames of reference.

My bad.

I was trying to use philippeb8's own meaning of "reference frame"; obviously I didn't make that clear.

Here are some examples of how he uses that term (there are plenty more):

post #12: "In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins with the star."

post #23: "No you can't because there is nothing to relate it to." (in reponse to RC: "We can assign any spin that we want to a hypothetical star. ")

post #25: "That's exactly what I said: the star defines the reference frame."

post #35: "The universe is empty so the star itself defines the frame of reference. If you have a black whole [sic] next to the star then the black hole will define the frame of reference... and so on."

post #38: "Masses all have their own reference frame but their importance is proportional to their mass amplitude. Just like what I was saying in the thought experiment."

It is, obviously, very likely that I did not, and do not, understand what he means by "reference frame".

Quote:

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Where the most influential frame of reference is defined by the molecules that share the same properties.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Huh?

"Most influential", eh? cute.

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Find the error!

Here, philippeb8's error is rather fundamental: He/she/it doesn't realize there are infinitely many charts and atlases (or frames of reference), all of which are equally valid, regardless of the physical situation they describe, just as there are infinitely many possible maps that show any given patch of the earth's surface.

That may be so, but philippeb8 seems to have his own, idiosyncratic meaning of the term. A meaning which - pretty obviously - only he understands.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

- I just posted a recent article ...

11 December 2019 philippeb8: More lies and ignorance about GR.
He has not "just posted" any articles.
He lies that a science article would say "the expansion of the universe don’t fit GR" because GR only says the universe can be expanding, contracting or static.
His repeated lie that we do not know where dark energy comes from.

The question of energy conservation in GR is complex. GR conserves energy locally. Globally GR conserves the combination of energy and momentum.Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

Quote:

In special cases, yes. In general, it depends on what you mean by "energy", and what you mean by "conserved".
...
The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions of years. Each photon gets redder and redder. What happens to this energy? Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes. (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies" belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static nor asymptotically flat. Those who harbor no qualms about pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy. Others will say that the energy is simply lost.

[Reality Check]

6 December 2019 philippeb8: What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment [for time dilation]?
8 December 2019 philippeb8: What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Hafele–Keating experiments (SR time dilation measured for travelling atomic clocks)?
10 December 2019 philippeb8: What is your prediction for the time dilation of GPS atomic clocks due to the GPS satellite velocity and different gravitational potential (SR and GR predict the observed values).
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Give your derivation of this exact solution for perihelion precession and its match to the observed value(s)

Answering the last question is important because his OP links to an blatantly wrong "Perihelion Precession" which is a nonsensical for precession "V_eff" equation. There are several posts claiming an FT "exact solution for perihelion precession" that so far does not exist.

Later in the CQ thread he changes "Perihelion Precession" to "effective gravitational potential" and links to a paper by someone else! The biologist Randy Wayne published "Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury in Terms of a Velocity-Dependent Correction to Newton’s Law of Gravitation". By itself this is reasonable. But a reason that modifying Newton’s Law of Gravitation was considered and rejected was that it made all orbits unstable. Perhaps this has the same flaw.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Thanks W.D.Clinger.





My bad.



I was trying to use philippeb8's own meaning of "reference frame"; obviously I didn't make that clear.



Here are some examples of how he uses that term (there are plenty more):



post #12: "In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins with the star."



post #23: "No you can't because there is nothing to relate it to." (in reponse to RC: "We can assign any spin that we want to a hypothetical star. ")



post #25: "That's exactly what I said: the star defines the reference frame."



post #35: "The universe is empty so the star itself defines the frame of reference. If you have a black whole [sic] next to the star then the black hole will define the frame of reference... and so on."



post #38: "Masses all have their own reference frame but their importance is proportional to their mass amplitude. Just like what I was saying in the thought experiment."



It is, obviously, very likely that I did not, and do not, understand what he means by "reference frame".





That may be so, but philippeb8 seems to have his own, idiosyncratic meaning of the term. A meaning which - pretty obviously - only he understands.

Here’s a good example of a rotating reference frame:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation

No linear acceleration is involved there.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

11 December 2019 philippeb8: More lies and ignorance about GR.

He has not "just posted" any articles.

He lies that a science article would say "the expansion of the universe don’t fit GR" because GR only says the universe can be expanding, contracting or static.

His repeated lie that we do not know where dark energy comes from.



The question of energy conservation in GR is complex. GR conserves energy locally. Globally GR conserves the combination of energy and momentum.Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

See? You can’t answer it in a simple way.

What about the mass increase in GR you keep silently dismissing?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

6 December 2019 philippeb8: What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment [for time dilation]?

8 December 2019 philippeb8: What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Hafele–Keating experiments (SR time dilation measured for travelling atomic clocks)?

10 December 2019 philippeb8: What is your prediction for the time dilation of GPS atomic clocks due to the GPS satellite velocity and different gravitational potential (SR and GR predict the observed values).

10 December 2019 philippeb8: Give your derivation of this exact solution for perihelion precession and its match to the observed value(s)



Answering the last question is important because his OP links to an blatantly wrong "Perihelion Precession" which is a nonsensical for precession "V_eff" equation. There are several posts claiming an FT "exact solution for perihelion precession" that so far does not exist.



Later in the CQ thread he changes "Perihelion Precession" to "effective gravitational potential" and links to a paper by someone else! The biologist Randy Wayne published "Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury in Terms of a Velocity-Dependent Correction to Newton’s Law of Gravitation". By itself this is reasonable. But a reason that modifying Newton’s Law of Gravitation was considered and rejected was that it made all orbits unstable. Perhaps this has the same flaw.

I am using the same mathematics because it is quite elegant but not his physical interpretation.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Here’s a good example of a rotating reference frame:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation

11 December 2019 philippeb8: "good example of a rotating reference frame" ignorance
Absolute rotation

Quote:

In physics, the concept of absolute rotation—rotation independent of any external reference—is a topic of debate about relativity, cosmology, and the nature of physical laws.

The word frame appears: " co-rotating frame of reference". "stationary (non-rotating) frame". "Frame-dragging" etc.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Here’s a good example of a rotating reference frame:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation

No linear acceleration is involved there.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but I really do not understand this post of yours.

Especially as it is, apparently, meant as a response to a post of mine.

Would you please clarify?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Here’s the requested evidence" lie when no one asked about his fantasies or lies with no evidence!

Reality Check silently dismisses the link about the expansion of the universe not corresponding to the predictions of GR.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I am using the same mathematics because it is quite elegant but not his physical interpretation.

The point is that his paper is not FT and not cited. That CQ post plagiarizes his work. His equation is "a Velocity-Dependent Correction". There is no physical interpretation, that is what the equation is !

6 December 2019 philippeb8: What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment [for time dilation]?
8 December 2019 philippeb8: What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Hafele–Keating experiments (SR time dilation measured for travelling atomic clocks)?
10 December 2019 philippeb8: What is your prediction for the time dilation of GPS atomic clocks due to the GPS satellite velocity and different gravitational potential (SR and GR predict the observed values).
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Give your derivation of this exact solution for perihelion precession and its match to the observed value(s)

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I am using the same mathematics [...]

So you say.

How about presenting some evidence of this?

This thread is already more than ten pages long, and I have yet to find a single post, by you, in this thread which presents evidence of you using any mathematics at all. Perhaps I missed it?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Gibberish - my posts are that all he has is an ignorant fantasy about gravitons.

Reality Check is grasping at straws now with his curved spacetime that doesn’t work with any other field in physics.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Abysmal "Well it’s new mathematics then" ignorance.



Someone with a delusion of replacing 300 years of physics needs to learn the basics of physics, including its history. This is mathematics that has been around for well over a century and a half. GR uses a pseudo-Riemann manifold. Bernhard Riemann (17 September 1826 – 20 July 1866). GR was published 104 years ago!

The fact it was published 104 years ago doesn’t make it more right.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

How about summing up the frames of reference?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

11 December 2019 philippeb8: His persistent ignorance about frames of reference.

Every observer has their own frame of reference with the coordinate system they select, etc. They can not be "summed over". That would be as stupid as taking every possible map of the Earth and summing them. There would be places that would be ocean + mountains + desert + lake + etc. :.

Charts, atlases, and transition maps in differentiable manifolds.

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Well it’s new mathematics then.

(My highlighting.)

A century ago, the branch of mathematics that is now known as differential geometry was known to Einstein as absolute differential calculus. That branch of mathematics can be traced all the way back to Carl Gauss's Theorema Egregium of 1821, and was more fully developed by Gauss's student Bernhard Riemann, whose research on this subject was published in 1868. Riemannian geometry deals with Riemannian manifolds, which are locally Euclidean. Einstein formulated his general theory of relativity using pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, for which the metric tensor need not be positive definite, thus allowing a locally Lorentzian metric.

tl;dr:

As if further confirmation of philippeb8's ignorance of relativity were needed, philippeb8 didn't even recognize the branch of mathematics that must be understood before it is possible even to read Einstein's fundamental field equations for general relativity.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I give you a chance to give up before your GR nonsense buries your credibility that is pretty bad already...

Huh?

I thought this thread was supposed to be about some new "milestone in physics", developed by you.

There are, indeed, some posts by you on that (or so it would seem). However, they are, AFAICS, so vague as to be meaningless (in terms of physics; they might be good magic or fiction).

When do you intend to start presenting the so-called "milestone in physics"?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The fact you don’t like gravitons doesn’t make them unrealistic.

Hey! Some of my best friends are gravitons. I just think they should live in their own world and not mingle with “real” particles like protons and electrons.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Reality Check silently dismisses the link about the expansion of the universe not corresponding to the predictions of GR.

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Emphasizes his "not corresponding to the predictions of GR" lie again.
Once again, GR does not predict that the universe must expand at a certain rate or that the expansion must accelerate. It is the application of GR to data which shows that.

He links to a "futurism" web site with an article about a team of scientists writing about the accelerated expansion of the universe. The 2016 paper is Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae and its actual conclusion (and flaws!) are well documented.
No, Astronomers Haven't Decided Dark Energy Is Nonexistent

Quote:

The study concluded that we’re now only 99.7 percent sure that the universe is accelerating, which is hardly the same as “it’s not accelerating.”

A flaw is

Quote:

But the authors used a different method of implementing the corrections—and we believe this undercuts the accuracy of their results. They assume that the mean properties of supernovae from each of the samples used to measure the expansion history are the same, even though they have been shown to be different and past analyses have accounted for these differences.

A flaw is

Quote:

Furthermore, the overwhelming confidence astronomers have that the universe is expanding faster now than it was billions of years ago is based on much more than just supernova measurements.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Robin

Well obv.

There are no objective facts of the matter about frames of references, they are simply the reference points from which you make measurements or create models. They are a matter of choice for the observer.

But even if you decide to choose a spinning reference frame for this thought experiment, for whatever reasons, there is still linear acceleration. As long as there are forces there is also acceleration.

So we simplify the thought experiment to have a universe with only two particles in it.

There is also an attractive force between them then each particle will have an acceleration in the direction of the other particle.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-2.png?w=151

Then suppose each particle has an initial velocity normal to the direction of the force but in opposite direction:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-3.png?w=364

Then the particles still have an acceleration in the direction of the force and consequently the direction of the velocity of each particle will be turned a little.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-4.png?w=343

Now your idea, as I understand it, is that there is some sort of objectively existing reference frame which would detect the movement of these particles and would alter its basis vectors so that the particles are in their original position, do I have that right?

But the point is that even if there was such a thing as an objectively existing reference frame, it would make no difference. A change of frame is simply a co-ordinate transform, it would not affect the dynamics of the system.

As I pointed out you can take any of my animations, run it on your phone and then rotate your phone in the opposite direction so that the particles remain more or less in the same place.

That is exactly the same as choosing a spinning reference frame. But I ask, how have you changed the facts of my model by rotating your phone screen?

The frames of reference is not detecting the particles, the frames of reference are emitted by each particle.

Suppose the particles are always facing each other, in an empty universe they will crash on each other following a straight line and not rotate around each other because the sum of the 2 frames of reference is a bigger rotating grid encompassing the 2 particles.

I think I’ll have to create some animation to better explain this.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Reality Check is grasping at straws now with his curved spacetime that doesn’t work with any other field in physics.

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Idiocy of "his curved spacetime that doesn’t work with any other field in physics".
I do not own any curved spacetime ! Those "any other field in physics" do not use GR's curved spacetime because they are not GR !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The frames of reference is not detecting the particles, the frames of reference are emitted by each particle.

11 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant delusion about frames of reference being emitted by particles.
Highlighted where anyone can read what a frame of reference is. He cannot use a "frame of reference" in his fantasies because that has a scientific definition. Maybe use a "philippeb-thingy"?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Huh?



I thought this thread was supposed to be about some new "milestone in physics", developed by you.



There are, indeed, some posts by you on that (or so it would seem). However, they are, AFAICS, so vague as to be meaningless (in terms of physics; they might be good magic or fiction).



When do you intend to start presenting the so-called "milestone in physics"?

I did present all the mathematics in the old CQ thread and in the Academia drafts.

Now I understand people do not understand the multiple rotating frames of reference so I’ll work on a better demonstration.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

I did present all the mathematics in the old CQ thread and in the Academia drafts.
<snip>

Can you remind me please, how extensively do you use differential geometry in those sources?

And do you consider those sources to be a good presentation of the physics of your "milestone"?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Now I understand people do not understand the multiple rotating frames of reference...

11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "people do not understand the multiple rotating frames of reference" lie.
We understand real rotating frames of reference that exist in physics textbook that have a scientific definition.
He has an ignorant fantasy about rotating bodies emitting a rotating thing that he labels as "frames of reference" when they are not actual frames of reference. Ditto for particles emitting his things.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Can you remind me please, how extensively do you use differential geometry in those sources?

And do you consider those sources to be a good presentation of the physics of your "milestone"?

I am using simple calculus to get the exact solutions that are presented. The book will be a better structured presentation.

For the multiple rotating frames of reference, it will require I create a better visual presentation.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The frames of reference is not detecting the particles, the frames of reference are emitted by each particle.

How does a particle "emit" a frame of reference?

Quote:

Suppose the particles are always facing each other, in an empty universe they will crash on each other following a straight line and not rotate around each other because the sum of the 2 frames of reference is a bigger rotating grid encompassing the 2 particles.

You said earlier "Again, there is no linear acceleration involved if the frame of reference is spinning with the star.". How are they going to crash into each other if there is no linear acceleration? Have you changed your mind and now say there is linear acceleration?

Quote:

I think I’ll have to create some animation to better explain this.

Why don't you give me a reference for this mathematics and I can look it up myself?

Or is this some new mathematics which you have devised?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Robin

How does a particle "emit" a frame of reference?



You said earlier "Again, there is no linear acceleration involved if the frame of reference is spinning with the star.". How are they going to crash into each other if there is no angular acceleration? Have you changed your mind and now say there is angular acceleration?



Why don't you give me a reference for this mathematics and I can look it up myself?



Or is this some new mathematics which you have devised?

Particles emit gravitons which creates a field around the particles which has the same spin.

It looks to be some new mathematics because we need to weight the influence of each frame of reference like I did for the conversation on the ISS and the influence of the Earth vs the influence of the Sun.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Particles emit gravitons which creates a field around the particles which has the same spin.
<snip>

How many gravitons does an electron emit?

At what rate are they emitted?

In which direction(s) are they emitted?

How much energy do the gravitons carry away?

Likewise for quarks, neutrinos, anti-muons, the Higgs, etc.