Problems with General Relativity Theory.

[JohnMartin]

This thread is devoted to problems with General Relativity Theory.

Problem 1

Part A

GR models are hydrodynamic.
But the real universe is atomistic and granular.
Therefore the GR models cannot account for he granular CBR and space.

Taken from A Critique of General Relativity, by Wasley S. Krogdahl, Professor Emeritus, Astronomy and Physics, University of Kentucky.

A consequential objection to all general relativistic models of the universe is that they are hydrodynamic. That is, they postulate that the matter of the universe is spread continuously throughout. The real universe, however, is atomistic and granular. It consists of discrete objects from electrons and protons to molecules, planets, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. General relativity is an essentially field theory, not capable of accounting for the granular appearance of the cosmic background radiation or the vast vacancies between galaxies.6

Part B

GR is too general.
What is general is non specific and lacks power over more specific models.
Hence GR is a weak theory due to a lack of specificity.

The theory is also ambiguous in several respects. For one, it cannot say whether its model universes are oscillating, static, or forever expanding. It depends upon observation to identify which kind of universe is the actual one. This is not a telling objection, since appeals to observation are always in order for any theory. One may view such uncertainty, however, as a comparative disadvantage with respect to a theory whose model(s) is (are) specific.

Part C

There is a lack of sufficient reason given for the cosmological constant within the theory.
The positive value is said to be false 1) as derived from an acceleration of the space expansion which is a fiction, and 2) implies an increase in gravitation between two masses which increases over distance.
The two points indicate GR concept of the cosmological constant is not well founded and concludes to a counter intuitive result.
Such makes the theory of GR problematic.

Related to this ambiguity is the value of the “cosmological constant”. It could conceivably be positive, negative or identically zero (non-existent). A complete theory would ideally be able to give a reason for a particular choice. The cosmological constant is said to be required in order to account for a presumed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. However, this hypothetical acceleration is rather a consequence of neglecting to take proper account of time dilation in clocks receding at high velocity. The acceleration is not real. Moreover, a positive value would imply a force of gravitation between two masses which, beyond a certain point, increases with distance; this is a highly counterintuitive result.7

Problem 2

Part A

GR requires space time to be both a non substance, but with substance like properties. Such a notion is not logical, nor consistent. Yet is a notion within GR that is accepted. The illogicality of a space-time continuum that is not a substance, but has substance like properties is problematic. Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp 123-4.

Part B

GR assumes symmetry, but has no underlying reality to account for the symmetry.

Spacetime symmetries are features of spacetime that can be described as exhibiting some form of symmetry. The role of symmetry in physics is important in simplifying solutions to many problems. Spacetime symmetries are used in the study of exact solutions of Einstein's field equations of general relativity.

Yet the S-T symmetry is problematic, for "symmetries are caused by things and not the cause of things. If relativity is always true then there has to be an underlying reason. Attempts to evade this problem inevitably result in contradictions. Ibid, 124-5.

JM

[TheLurch]

Newsflash: General Relativity is incomplete and not compatible with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean it's not phenomenally accurate in the domains where it does apply.

[Sea of red]

Your posts are all anyone needs to see that the US has a serious problem taking care of the mentally ill.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This thread is devoted to problems with General Relativity Theory.

Odd that you neglected GR's largest and most well-known failing-- it's incompleteness with regard to Quantum Mechanics. Still, you got an interesting list.

GR models are hydrodynamic.
But the real universe is atomistic and granular.
Therefore the GR models cannot account for he granular CBR and space.

I'll have to disagree with Dr. Krogdahl, here. Nothing in GR implies that matter is spread continuously across space.

R is too general.
What is general is non specific and lacks power over more specific models.
Hence GR is a weak theory due to a lack of specificity.

This seems like a fairly odd complaint. I'm not sure you quite understand what "general" means in the context of Relativity. Other than the aforementioned problem with QM, can you point to any "specific models" for which GR does not accurately account?

There is a lack of sufficient reason given for the cosmological constant within the theory.
The positive value is said to be false 1) as derived from an acceleration of the space expansion which is a fiction, and 2) implies an increase in gravitation between two masses which increases over distance.
The two points indicate GR concept of the cosmological constant is not well founded and concludes to a counter intuitive result.
Such makes the theory of GR problematic.

Indeed, the cosmological constant was an arbitrary addition to GR, originally, which was intended to preserve the idea of the static universe. However, it was abandoned from the theory until observed data provided a reason to reintroduce the term. Now, far from being simply a stop-gap, as Einstein had originally intended, the cosmological constant is derived from observable data. I'm not sure why you would think these data are a "fiction," but the constant certainly has sufficient reason for its inclusion.

GR requires space time to be both a non substance, but with substance like properties. Such a notion is not logical, nor consistent. Yet is a notion within GR that is accepted. The illogicality of a space-time continuum that is not a substance, but has substance like properties is problematic. Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp 123-4.

I'm not sure why you think GR implies spacetime is not a substance. It certainly implies that spacetime is not matter, but nothing requires it to be a "non-substance."

GR assumes symmetry, but has no underlying reality to account for the symmetry.

Without knowing more about which symmetries you find problematic, it's impossible to comment upon whether or not those symmetries truly imply contradictions.

[Leonhard]

Problem A, B, C are different from each other, and there's no coherent overlap between them. I don't think the mods are going to allow you to use alternative naming schemes, to get around the clear restrictions to number of problems, that they've given you in other threads.

[Leonhard]

GR models are hydrodynamic.
But the real universe is atomistic and granular.

This is false, you can treat point particles just fine in General Relativity.

GR is too general.
What is general is non specific and lacks power over more specific models.

This is not a problem, this merely just says something about the scope of General Relativity, as it pertains to explaining the phenomenon of motion and gravity in general, not the specifics of the results.

There is a lack of sufficient reason given for the cosmological constant within the theory.

You're misunderstanding. The cosmological constant is not an assumption of the theore, its a result. It's particular value however can only be determined through observations.

The positive value is said to be false 1) as derived from an acceleration of the space expansion which is a fiction,

You have a very bad habit of simple declaring Standard Cosmology as being false, or fictitious whenever it conflicts with your ideas. Acceleration of space expansion is the standard view, therefore its up to you to show why the typical arguments and evidence in its favor is flawed. Not merely to declare it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

2) implies an increase in gravitation between two masses which increases over distance.

This is actually the opposite of what happens, in Standard Cosmology, where the Cosmological Constant can be considered to be a weak repulsive contribution, not attractive.

GR requires space time to be both a non substance, but with substance like properties. Such a notion is not logical, nor consistent. Yet is a notion within GR that is accepted. The illogicality of a space-time continuum that is not a substance, but has substance like properties is problematic. Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp 123-4.

Why can't spacetime be a substance? Certainly that's the view of thomists today!

GR assumes symmetry, but has no underlying reality to account for the symmetry.

Simple declaring "Symmetry" isn't enough. Your thinking is in general very muddled, and you tend to mix wildly different categories together. What do *you* mean when you say "symmetry"?

It's based on the notions of Special Relativity, combined with the fact that locally acceleration is indistinguishable experimentally from gravity. That's it. The rest of the mathematical jargon is all that happens when you work consistently with these assumptions.

Yet the S-T symmetry is problematic, for "symmetries are caused by things and not the cause of things. If relativity is always true then there has to be an underlying reason. Attempts to evade this problem inevitably result in contradictions.

You'd need to further unpack that. Already be saying S-T symmetry, you're using a concept that's not found usually in the literature. And I suspect you don't understand what you're talking about.

[JohnMartin]

Problem A, B, C are different from each other, and there's no coherent overlap between them. I don't think the mods are going to allow you to use alternative naming schemes, to get around the clear restrictions to number of problems, that they've given you in other threads.

A, B, and C were all taken from the same 5 page document -A Critique of General Relativity, by Wasley S. Krogdahl.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Your posts are all anyone needs to see that the US has a serious problem taking care of the mentally ill.

You are being unusually kind at this time of year.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The positive value is said to be false 1) as derived from an acceleration of the space expansion which is a fiction,

You have a very bad habit of simple declaring Standard Cosmology as being false, or fictitious whenever it conflicts with your ideas. Acceleration of space expansion is the standard view, therefore its up to you to show why the typical arguments and evidence in its favor is flawed. Not merely to declare it.

Not so, the original statement included this claim from the professor.

The cosmological constant is said to be required in order to account for a presumed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. However, this hypothetical acceleration is rather a consequence of neglecting to take proper account of time dilation in clocks receding at high velocity. The acceleration is not real.

GR requires space time to be both a non substance, but with substance like properties. Such a notion is not logical, nor consistent. Yet is a notion within GR that is accepted. The illogicality of a space-time continuum that is not a substance, but has substance like properties is problematic. Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp 123-4.

Why can't spacetime be a substance? Certainly that's the view of thomists today!

A substance is not a space time continuum. A substance has absolute time as an accident and not the relative time as part of a S-T continuum as stated in relativity theory.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Problem 1 continued

This is an extension of the problems given by the same author, Wasley S. Krogdahl in problem 1 in the OP.

GR is silent on the value of the Hubble constant, which infers GR is a weak theory.

The general theory is mute concerning the controversy over the value of the Hubble “constant”. Kinematic relativity, a Lorentz invariant theory, resolves the controversy by showing that both sides are correct. The Hubble “constant” is not constant but increases with distance, as the observations show.8

GR has nothing to say about the origin or cause of dark matter or dark energy. GR is either weak, or may only infer a maths model of the universe that does not support the requirements of DM and DE in the observed universe. In short the DM and DE issue may indicate GR is not a realist model of the universe.

General relativity has nothing to say concerning “dark matter” or “dark energy”, currently described as “mysterious” and requiring much further research. The presence of “dark matter” was first implied by observations of the motions of stars at the outskirts of galaxies; they revolved about their respective galactic nuclei at velocities far greater than could be justified by the amount of visible matter in those galaxies. The seeming discrepancy is great; “dark matter” would have to amount to some six times that of visible or “baryonic” matter (the sum of the masses of all the protons, neutrons, electrons and other fundamental particles).

Problem 3

The Cosmological Principle may have been invalidated or at least need not be used to interpret data.

In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.

The article arrives at a conclusion that the data may be understood within an inhomogeneity with no constraint on Λ.

Do we really see a cosmological constant in the supernovae data ?

Marie-Noëlle Célérier (Observatoire de Paris-Meudon)
(Submitted on 15 Jul 1999 (v1), last revised 11 Jul 2007 (this version, v4))
The magnitude-redshift relation is one of the tools for a direct observational approach to cosmology. The discovery of high redshift Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) and their use as ``standard candles'' has resurrected interest in this approach. Recently collected data have been used to address the problem of measuring the cosmological parameters of the universe. Analysed in the framework of homogeneous models, they have yielded, as a primary result, a strictly positive cosmological constant. However, a straight reading of the published measurements, conducted with no a priori idea of which model would best describe our universe at least up to redshifts z∼1, does not exclude the possibility of ruling out the Cosmological Principle - and cosmological constant - hypotheses. It is therefore shown here how the large scale homogeneity of this part of the universe can be tested on our past light cone, using the magnitude-redshift relation, provided sufficiently accurate data from sources at redshifts approaching z=1 would be available. An example of an inhomogeneous model with zero cosmological constant reproducing the current observations is given. The presently published SNIa data can thus be interpreted as implying either a strictly positive cosmological constant in a homogeneous universe or large scale inhomogeneity with no constraint on Λ. An increase in the number and measurement accuracy of the candidate ``standard candles'' at very high redshift is therefore urgently needed, for progress in both fundamental issues of the Cosmological Principle and cosmological constant.

In the same article they conclude the universe may be inhomogeneous and can be considered when interpreting the data.

It has been shown however that LTB models are highly degenerate with respect to any magnitude-redshift relation, but this is not the case for FLRW models. The best way to prove large scale inhomogeneity would therefore be to disprove homogeneity. Conversely, the best way to prove a non zero cosmological constant would be to prove large scale homogeneity. But, as the Friedmann distance-redshift relation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for homogeneity, its observed verification would not, in principle, be enough to support the Cosmological Principle. Even if this would imply a fine tuning of its parameters, the possibility for an inhomogeneous universe to mimic such a relation could not be excluded.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

This thread is devoted to problems with General Relativity Theory.

Problem 1

Part A

GR models are hydrodynamic.
But the real universe is atomistic and granular.
Therefore the GR models cannot account for he granular CBR and space.

Taken from A Critique of General Relativity, by Wasley S. Krogdahl, Professor Emeritus, Astronomy and Physics, University of Kentucky.




Part B

GR is too general.
What is general is non specific and lacks power over more specific models.
Hence GR is a weak theory due to a lack of specificity.



Part C

There is a lack of sufficient reason given for the cosmological constant within the theory.
The positive value is said to be false 1) as derived from an acceleration of the space expansion which is a fiction, and 2) implies an increase in gravitation between two masses which increases over distance.
The two points indicate GR concept of the cosmological constant is not well founded and concludes to a counter intuitive result.
Such makes the theory of GR problematic.



Problem 2

Part A

GR requires space time to be both a non substance, but with substance like properties. Such a notion is not logical, nor consistent. Yet is a notion within GR that is accepted. The illogicality of a space-time continuum that is not a substance, but has substance like properties is problematic. Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp 123-4.

Part B

GR assumes symmetry, but has no underlying reality to account for the symmetry.



Yet the S-T symmetry is problematic, for "symmetries are caused by things and not the cause of things. If relativity is always true then there has to be an underlying reason. Attempts to evade this problem inevitably result in contradictions. Ibid, 124-5.

JM

A person incapable of figuring out how a waning crescent moon can be seen in the daytime in a heliocentric model of the solar system has NOTHING meaningful to say about the theory of relativity. It's like a child who just mangled a 2 fingered rendition of twinkle twinkle little star informing the audience his next 'number' will be the Rachmaninoff Concerto in C minor.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

A person incapable of figuring out how a waning crescent moon can be seen in the daytime in a heliocentric model of the solar system has NOTHING meaningful to say about the theory of relativity. It's like a child who just mangled a 2 fingered rendition of twinkle twinkle little star informing the audience his next 'number' will be the Rachmaninoff Concerto in C minor.

Jim

So Jim thinks I'm incompetent even when I quote a professor of physics.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

So Jim thinks I'm incompetent even when I quote a professor of physics.

JM

Yes indeed, I do.

Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

So Jim thinks I'm incompetent even when I quote a professor of physics.

JM

You'd still be incompetent no matter who you quote.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So Jim thinks I'm incompetent even when I quote a professor of physics.

Quoting a professor of physics doesn't make a person competent. There's a difference between random quote copy-pasta, which is incompetent, and utilizing the position of an expert to support a claim about a subject which you actually understand, which is competent.

If you can demonstrate that you actually understand General Relativity and the complaints which Dr. Krogdahl has made, as well as the reasons why the overwhelmingly vast majority of cosmologists remain unconvinced regarding his Kinematic relativity, you would demonstrate that you are not incompetent. As opposed to, say, simply posting quotes from a professor who would be the FIRST person to tell you that he holds to a fringe position which is not widely accepted.