Q-reeus

The article title suggests something quite dramatic - failure of conservation of energy. It soon becomes evident that's not the case. Instead it boils down to a lossy coupling that laterally offsets and phase-shifts the magnetic field coupling source to load, and then back again from load to source. Because of the locally translational lateral motion of the coupling conducting ring, the lateral offsets move in the same direction in both cases, as does the relative phase-shift. Hence what gets back to the source coil is double shifted, whereas the coupling from source to load has only a single shift. Hence a net non-reciprocal mutual inductance.

There is not that much different in principle to what happens in say an induction motor as commonly used for ~ a century.

As currently realized (and I don't see room for much improvement) it is somewhat unwieldy, inherently lossy, with imo little prospect of practical use. An interesting novelty with maybe niche use.

44 minutes ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Quote

Mr. Q-reeus, you said that"it's poor etiquette to cut & paste a quote like above without detailing precisely where it came from - including page number and/or paragraph.".

I am sorry. "Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today." was copied from your recommendation from https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

Please don't be unhappy because of me. My English is poor and using this foum is also poor. But I have no mind to make you unpleasant.

Rather I thank your comments. Especially I thank you because you told me that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. It is important and I was surprised because I really didn't know it.

If you have time, please give me your comments continuously for the other discussions .

I appreciate that response and applaud your respectful attitude. The main things is to learn and not serially repeat offend. And hopefully the articles already linked to have been studied and not just skimmed over. I do understand how hard it can be to shift perspective. Intuition is never really 'innate' but something accreted over time. It gets better as one learns and experiences more, but never is an infallible guide.

 

1 hour ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Quote

"Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today."

Jinsuk Kim - it's poor etiquette to cut & paste a quote like above without detailing precisely where it came from - including page number and/or paragraph. I wasted time looking through all the links provided by myself and others before finding it comes from para immediately below the WMAP image in article:
https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
That part red highlighted above is plain wrong-headed. To be detected here at all, it must have been heading towards us! The writer likely confused a rarely adopted pov that says the redshift can be interpreted as velocity Doppler shift from distant sources having a high recession speed wrt us, owing to cosmic expansion.
Most cosmologists simply adopt the view light originally emitted long ago has stretched in the intervening time before we detect it.

Quote

 

- The above comment cannot become the evidence of the big bang theory compared to "redshift", so I said "indirect evidence".

- Now I can't immediately show you but I suppose that CMB data "2.7 K" was feedbacked to the big bang theory. So I said "self-supporting evidence".

 

You have been given numerous links to articles explaining why conservation of energy should not be treated as 'golden holy cow urine' as per one linked article put it. In particular the article Strange linked to:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
goes into quite some detail to explain just why. Your choice to ignore it all, but if so I suspect there is a likely religious ideological reason for doing so.
Care to confirm or deny that?

2 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

 

Quote

Your advice is very helpful and proper to my argument. I completely agree with you.

But I made no judgement there - just briefly outlined the main two differing positions, with a link to each.
There is a third position (variant of 2nd one given earlier): 'Energy cannot in general be determined uniquely or even unambiguously defined in a non-static universe. All that matters is the dynamical evolution.'

Quote

 

 I attach some comments.

In relation to “energy lost via photon redshift is gained elsewhere~”

1. This is related(similar) to my alternative. I proposed that the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results.

 

Sorry but seems to me there is circular reasoning in that passage. Hubble's Law holds as a linear relation between redshift and distance on smaller scales but has to be modified on truly cosmological scales (accelerated expansion - or perhaps not depending on theoretical framework used).
 

Quote

 

In relation to “Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved”

2. The law of energy conservation is also very important in the big bang theory. The big bang theory was developed from it.

 

Not really. Standard BB not including inflationary epoch, assumes only an initial hot uniformly dense matter-radiation phase evolving according to GR's EFE's.

Quote

 

- Equation including kinetic, potential, and dark energy(sorry, equation is not marked)-

May we say that energy cannot be conserved in the big bang theory?

 

Have you actually read through at least the main article in that 2nd link I gave?

 

Quote

3. Though the big bang theory was developed in detail, we should not forget that the biggest weakness of big bang theory is that it has only one evidence, redshift.

Not true, e.g. : https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
There are alternate theories that don't posit a standard BB as such, but nevertheless they also cite multiple lines of evidence not just redshift.

 

Quote

As you know, CMB is an indirect and self-supporting evidence. So should we abandon the law of conservation of energy for redshift? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to find an alternative?

See my earlier comment re reading through ALL of article at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Quote

I was surprised at your comment “Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved”. I didn't know that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. Later, when I say this, I will say that this is not my own idea.

?? Anyway, see my last comment. Try and get used to the idea conservation of energy may not be sacrosanct and perhaps really does has a limited domain of validity. Here's another easy read on that:
https://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/energy_not_golden_holy_cow_urine-72881
Also see the links to similar at end of that rather amusing piece.

One camp among GR/cosmologist buffs holds that energy lost via photon redshift is gained elsewhere - presumably in aiding cosmic expansion itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved (Noether's theorem fails because time translation symmetry fails in cosmic expansion setting)
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Nice post and argument. As I have previously suggested though, in time, and if this V4 continues to stand up to scrutiny, it will be made public. There are two many young up and comers and plenty of experienced cosmologists, that would like to be able to improve on or widen the parameters of GR. But it won't be easy and nor should it be. GR has an outstanding track record, but if this new V4 is better and more descriptive  without any problems, then it will be revealed in time. At this time though, that investigation and research continues and that claim [V4 being superior] cannot be made just yet, if at all.

Of course. See last part of my next post re likely time-frame for more definitive results.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

Quote

 

Thank you for deciding to participate in the discussion. +1

Hopefully now you have taken the first bite of the apple you will have aquired the taste of posting here at SF.

Meanwhile I was interested in the line above concerning Bayesian methods, which are semi-empirical.

Can you provide more detail?

 

It is interesting because my view of GR is that our use is in a similar state to late 19th and early twentieth century Physics in many areas.

If you read texts from that era much was made of more and more accurate experimental determination of many coefficients in a wide variety of physical equations, well ahead of any theoretical interpretation or links (for example the Lennard Jones potential).

I'm not saying this was not very good work, because it was.

Just that the Einstein Field equations conntain quite a few such coefficients, the values of which make enormous differences to the outcome solutions.

So I would be very interested to see how Bayesian guesswork ties into this.

(nor is this a condemnation of Bayesian methods which has some spectacular successes over more traditional methods and also offers a fine example of establishment blocking of significant work and theory)

 

Hi studiot and thanks for welcome. Regarding ref to Bayesian method employed re https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364, I have no experience working with it. A word search reveals 3 instances of the word Bayesian.:
p10, Under 'Constraints on Modified Dispersion'
p11, right column, 3rd para
p12, right column, 2nd para
So checking those out may provide all the context you need there. Svidzinsky's critique is as I mentioned currently only in a draft version response, and I don't feel comfortable posting it all here. I will however reproduce the precis and initial reference to Bayesian use in first para:

Quote

 

In a recent paper “Tests of general relativity with GW170817” (arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]) the
authors found overwhelming evidence in favor of tensor gravitational wave (GW) polarization over vector by analyzing GW signal measured by the LIGO-Virgo network. Here we show that measured LIGO-Livingston signal is substantially reduced at certain frequency intervals which might be attributed to noise filtering. We found that if these blunder regions are excluded from the analysis then data are consistent with vector GW polarization and not with tensor. We also show that signal accumulation from the entire bandwidth erroneously underestimates the LIGO-Livingston signal amplitude which yields consistency of the data with tensor polarization and not with vector.

In a recent preprint [1] the authors reported results of the gravitational wave (GW) polarization test with GW170817 performed using a Bayesian analysis of the signal properties with the three LIGO-Virgo interferometer outputs. The authors found overwhelming evidence in favor of pure tensor polarization over pure vector with an exponentially large Bayes factor. This result is opposite to the conclusion of our analysis based on a direct comparison of the GW signals measured by the three detectors [2]. Namely, we found that the measured signal ratios are inconsistent with the predictions of general relativity, but consistent with the recently proposed vector theory of gravity.....

 

As mentioned in first post, the article proper is due for publishing at arXiv.org probably within a week from now. Sorry but just be patient...
In that vein, I will further reproduce part of my response to his private correspondence reply (prior to that, also posted in the other forum):
 

Quote

 

"Annoyingly we will have to wait till ~ Jan-Feb 2019 for LIGO-Virgo-GEO to begin a new ~ year long run:
https://ligonews.blogspot.com/2018/09/update-on-ligo-detectors-and-start-of-o3.html
Then likely some months more into 2019 before new GW data, particularly accurately locatable NS-NS merger events, will likely confirm what the currently sole NS-NS merger GW event implies.

Similarly, EHT data collation and analysis just keeps dragging on and not until sometime in 2019 before initial verdict re Sagittarius A* 'SMBH' is published:
https://eventhorizontelescope.org/faq
And so GR's lengthy stay as incumbent stretches on a while longer."

 

 

Having joined up back in May 2011, this is my first post here. At the outset I will state that as a layman have no formal education re GR. But do understand the basic principles and will claim to think clearly on such things (mostly anyway)  It so happens I started a thread on Anatoly Svidzinsky's Vector Gravity at another forum back on June 8, 2018.
Regarding a 'future test' of Vector Gravity vs GR via GW data - it's in effect already been done wrt the NS-NS merger event GW170817:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520
However a slightly more recent (than v2 of above linked article) joint LIGO_Virgo analysis has come down strongly favouring GR tensor GW's over Svidzinsky's Vector GW's:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364
No reference therein to Svidzinsky et. al.'s earlier findings. Nor any publicly available paper since v1 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520 (April 6th, 2018) attempting to rebut the findings there. Which is strange as Svidzinsky got a very positive response in that Editorial piece already linked to here. A formal response from LIGO et. al. team members was surely expected as a matter of formality if not courtesy. I suspected pure bias by LIGO_Virgo team, so emailed Svidzinsky with 3 pertinent questions. He kindly replied in some detail. Reproduced below is what I posted on it at the other forum site, with only slight modifications:

A short while ago received a very helpful reply email from Anatoly Svidzinsky, where 3 questions put to him were answered. Because it was a private communication I'll just summarize/paraphrase his answers:

Q 1: A recent joint LIGO-Virgo paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364 makes no mention of your own reanalysis https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520
re findings in an earlier joint LIGP-Virgo article. Have you had any private communication from them trying to justify what looks like an outright snub?

A 1: They were contacted by us and alerted to the problematic issues with their pro GR finding, but evidently they failed to see any issue. A detailed response will appear at arXiv.org this or next week. Title:
Comment on “Tests of general relativity with GW170817”
[I was given the draft version. Basically, they point out that Jackson et. al. criticisms (see Q 2 below)] are valid to the extent that improperly applied noise reduction techniques has corrupted key parts of in particular the LIGO Livingston detector GW170817 event GW detection (a 'glitch' coinciding with detection event). Which then skewed the overall Beysian analysis to favour GR over Vector Gravity. When properly cleaned up, the opposite holds true, in agreement with the direct analyses earlier done by Svidzinsky et. al.]

Q 2: Any credibility to recently resurrected Jackson et. al. criticisms re GW detections?:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/]Ne

A 2: Jackson et. al.'s criticism is imo valid regarding LIGO_Virgo's handling of noise filtering. However, in particular the NS-NS merger event GW170817 has a long train of continuous data that, apart from corruption of segments of the Livingston data, is very clearly a bona fide GW signal.

Q 3: A recent article by Matt Visser et. al.: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03781
"The exponential metric represents a traversable wormhole"
The finding (sect 3.1), of a minimum proper radius throat at a modest R = m, seems to imply inevitability of stellar i.e. post NS density collapse to some indefinitely small final size. Given proper volume grows as r continues to decrease! Which effectively makes the EOS very soft for any in-falling matter/radiation beyond that point. This in turn undercuts your arguments re maximum mass of NS's, and viability of theorized 'multi-Mev Axions' 'SMBH's' e.g. at Sagittarius A*?

A 3: I contacted Visser et. al. shortly after their arXiv article was published, and pointed out that their vacuum solution is unrealistic, and furtheremore the situation R < M does not occur for NS's using our EOS. Hence they are stable objects according to Vector Gravity - which automatically includes any potential 'wormhole' character of exponential metric. See fig's 3 & 4 in http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/pdf
Similarly, for meV [not MeV as I had written] scale axion 'dark matter' 'SMBH' candidates, presence of matter gives a different character than 'traversable wormhole' solution suggests: See e.g. fig.3 in https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607179v2
Visser et. al. have raised nothing really new with their article.

In summary, Svidzinsky has detailed answers to all criticisms so far leveled at his theory. Evidently gravity actually takes on a repulsive nature below hypothetical wormhole throat region R = M - making such a vacuum solution 'traversable wormhole' formally symmetrical in nature. The ultimate fail-safe against GR predicted 'collapse to a point singularity'. No need for quantum gravity to ever enter as rescuer of a non-existent problem - imo.