# Experiment verification of General relativity

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

He also showed that the variation of the elementary charge violates the law of conservation of energy.

So does the idea that c is a variable. Consider the local conservation of the energy-momentum tensor in the presence of gravity:

$T{^{\mu}}{_{\nu ||\mu}}=0$

Since the covariant derivative depends on the metric, which explicitly contains c, and because in your idea c varies in a way that is not covariant, the above relationship ends up being no longer valid. This whole idea puts you in a situation where there is no longer any conservation of energy-momentum, not even locally. This is clearly in direct contradiction to experiment and observation.

Edited by Markus Hanke

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Yanchilin assumed that the splitting of spectral lines in distant quasars will not change, so the constant of the fine structure does not change. He also showed that the variation of the elementary charge violates the law of conservation of energy.

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

So does the idea that c is a variable. Consider the local conservation of the energy-momentum tensor in the presence of gravity:

Tμν||μ=0

Since the covariant derivative depends on the metric, which explicitly contains c, and because in your idea c varies in a way that is not covariant, the above relationship ends up being no longer valid. This whole idea puts you in a situation where there is no longer any conservation of energy-momentum, not even locally. This is clearly in direct contradiction to experiment and observation.

The law of conservation of energy will not be violated, the rest masses of all bodies are also variable and are determined by the gravitational potential. Here I found a link to this theory in English https://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0398v1.pdf

6 hours ago, swansont said:

It is useless to accumulate impulses, this only narrows the Delta f. With a gravitational shift all frequencies of the spectrum will change by the same relative value

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

It is useless to accumulate impulses, this only narrows the Delta f. With a gravitational shift all frequencies of the spectrum will change by the same relative value

I’m talking about an atomic clock. What are you talking about? What relevance do those drawings have?

If I have a clock running at a frequency F, and I count the number of “ticks”, I measure time. Now we take a clock, running at F, to some new height, H, above the reference clock. According to your earlier post, the frequency will be lower by a relative value 2gH/c^2. I can count the number of ticks at this new height, return it to the original height and compare it to a reference clock.

GR predicts a higher frequency at H, and you predict a lower one. This is easily checked and trivially falsified.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Let's say we count 1000 pulses from the Geiger counter. In fact, we form a rectangular pulse, whose front front coincides with the first pulse, and the back - with the 1000th. when transmitting it to an external observer, we will get the same rectangular pulse, the duration of which will be formed by a proportional change in all the frequencies of its spectrum.

Nothing will work, we check the gravitational frequency shift.

##### Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Let's say we count 1000 pulses from the Geiger counter. In fact, we form a rectangular pulse, whose front front coincides with the first pulse, and the back - with the 1000th. when transmitting it to an external observer, we will get the same rectangular pulse, the duration of which will be formed by a proportional change in all the frequencies of its spectrum.

Nothing will work, we check the gravitational frequency shift.

That’s not how clocks work. That’s not even how these measurements work - we don’t care about this “rectangular pulse” We just count the decays. Discrete values.

We have a radioactive sample. We measure 1000 dps at the reference system. Now we move the clock up such that the frequency changes, according to your theory, to 998 dps. GR predicts 1001 dps. Let the system sit there for an hour. Then we compare to the reference. From what you’ve said, your prediction is 120 decays fewer, what GR predicts is 60 more.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, swansont said:
52 minutes ago, swansont said:

We measure 1000 dps at the reference system

Yes, you are right, such an experiment will help you find the truth

Edited by SergUpstart

##### Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Yes, you are right, such an experiment will help you find the truth

We’ve done the equivalent experiment with clocks, several times.

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

The law of conservation of energy will not be violated

Yes it will be. If you look at the above equation, if c is variable, the covariant derivative will contain extra terms including derivatives of c. These terms don’t cancel out, so there is no way to not violate the relation.

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, swansont said:

We’ve done the equivalent experiment with clocks, several times.

Let's go back to the clock experiment. The new theory States that as the gravitational potential increases, Planck's constant decreases, which should REDUCE the rate of radioactive decay. We need an experiment not with one, but with a couple of hours, where one will work on the principle of radioactive decay, and the other as a quantum frequency standard. This pair of hours is set at the top and synced, then we lower the pair of hours down and they will have to be out of sync.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Let's go back to the clock experiment. The new theory States that as the gravitational potential increases, Planck's constant decreases, which should REDUCE the rate of radioactive decay. We need an experiment not with one, but with a couple of hours, where one will work on the principle of radioactive decay, and the other as a quantum frequency standard. This pair of hours is set at the top and synced, then we lower the pair of hours down and they will have to be out of sync.

How does the rate of radioactive decay depend on Planck’s constant?

Why not address the experiment I described, instead of trying to come up with a more complicated experiment?

##### Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 8:42 AM, SergUpstart said:

The new theory States that as the gravitational potential increases, Planck's constant decreases

Again, gravitational potential - if it can be meaningfully defined at all - is a gauge field with a gauge freedom to choose a zero point, whereas Planck’s constant obviously isn’t. It is not physically meaningful to relate the two in this manner.

##### Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 8:23 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Yes it will be. If you look at the above equation, if c is variable, the covariant derivative will contain extra terms including derivatives of c. These terms don’t cancel out, so there is no way to not violate the relation.

Yanchilin's equations are slightly different from Newton's

Newton's Phi (r)=Gm/r g (r) = Gm/r^2

Yanchilin'sPhi(r)=2Gm/r g(r)=(dPhi/dr)/2=Gm/r^2

This reflects the law of conservation of energy. When an Apple accelerates when it falls from a height H, the energy of the Apple changes not by the amount of mgH, but by the amount of 2mgH. Half of that energy to change the kinetic energy mv^2/2, and the other half goes to the change in internal energiei that of Apple, which is Einstein's E=mc^2, and Yanchilin's respectively E=-mphi.

A photon has a rest mass of 0, so all this energy  is used to change the kinetic energy of the photon. 2mgH and not mgH, as in Newton. This explains and corrects the error Of Newton's theory, which predicts the deflection of a ray of light in a gravitational field exactly 2 times less than GRT.

On 6/28/2020 at 2:13 PM, swansont said:

How does the rate of radioactive decay depend on Planck’s constant?

Why not address the experiment I described, instead of trying to come up with a more complicated experiment?

How are you going to measure local time and determine when to stop counting decay events? There's no way without a second watch. Have there been experiments with two different clocks?

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

How are you going to measure local time and determine when to stop counting decay events? There's no way without a second watch. Have there been experiments with two different clocks?

You don’t have to stop counting until you bring them back together. No timing required, though that’s not a big issue (if you do a measurement that lasts a day, who cares if you have a few nanoseconds of dilation. It has a negligible effect on the answer, if you do the experiment properly). You start and stop with the two systems next to each other.

Yes, this has been done with clocks. Tom van Baak’s version was to bring some clocks up on Mt Rainier for few days while the family went camping, and compare to the clocks left at home.

(I think someone linked to this recently, but I don’t recall which thread)

##### Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 2:09 PM, SergUpstart said:

Yanchilin's equations are slightly different from Newton's

I did not make any reference to Newtonian gravity or any particular form of potential, I am only using the fact that the energy-momentum tensor has to be locally conserved. The relation I gave follows from Noether’s theorem, and not any particular theory of physics. The point was simply that, if you allow c to vary, this conservation law no longer holds, because the underlying symmetry that gives rise to the conserved quantity is no longer there. If c is not constant, energy-momentum cannot be conserved, irrespective of what else you attempt to change.

##### Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 11:16 PM, swansont said:

How do you arrive at that interpretation? They measured the magnetic field near a black hole binary, not the permeability of free space.

But in Our galaxy, you can probably find more than one pair of main-sequence stars, so that they have approximately the same mass, temperature, and speed of rotation around their axis, but that one would be close to the center of the galaxy, and the other close to the edge of the galaxy. That would be a rough measure and compare the strength of their magnetic fields.

## Create an account

Register a new account