@wut
I quite agree with AKT, only idiots like you complain and never give constructive comments.

Say what?   Relativity theory, as predicted by Einstein, has been born out in experiments.  Exactly according to the scientific method.

AKT, you say relativity is invalid because it did not "measure relativistic quantities"?  Theories are devised to explain experimental results in science, experiments are designed to test and measure.  Perhaps you could ratchet down your anger at the very idea of relativity theory and look at the experimental results jjs mentioned.

Best regards to you, too

RKC

The so called physicists are emotional beings. So often reasoned argument is replaced by the totally expected (in these days) outburst of anger and hatred when some one steps on their nerve. I found that this is a juvenile culture. It is especially so as they are not aware of their emotional and cultural problems.

Newton said motion is a function from time to space. He warned that neither time nor space are physical entities. They are metaphysical entities. This is why in classical dimensional analysis, [time] and [length] are undefined dimensions whereas [speed], [accleration] etc are defined dimensions. For example as even elementary school students understand [speed]=[length]/[time]. You are referred to "Mathematical Physics", by Mentzel.

Except some enlightened  Quantum Physicists such as prof. David Deutsche of Merton College, this most basic principle of physics has been completely forgotten among physicists, thanks to the SR which defines [time] and [length] by [speed]. GR furthered  this "revolutionary" ideology to define [time] and [length] by [acceleration]. This is called self-refutation which became a mental disease in the last century. Some critics call this  "religion" but calling it religion might be an insult to decent religions.

Putting this conceptual flaw aside, GR is marred by so many mathematical and physical troubles. To begin with one of its most basic axioms is false. This certainly makes the whole theory of GR false. Assume A accelerates away from C with rate a and B accelerates away from C with rate b in opposite direction. Then kinematics will tell you that A accelerates away from B with rate a+b. This cannot be interpreted using force. This means that Einstein's claim that all accelerations are gravitational forces is FALSE. Moreover if PoE is correct why Einstein failed to unify em forces and gravitational forces.

Typical response to this fatal criticism  is as follows:

1. [Physics Prof. Jess Brewer, UBC] The addition of acceleration a+b is not relativistic.

It just does not matter. Does it make any difference? Also PoE is an axiom of GR and it means that one cannot use GR's results to state this axiom at the pain of vicious circularity. This simplest logical argument does not register to the brain of theoretical physicists.

2. [Many Experts here] GR does not talk about gravitational forces.

GR builds a 4D manifold model of space time from basic axioms. PoE is one of them. When PoE is prescribed, there is no such 4D space time manifold model. So, all we have to frame PoE is gravitational force. No matter how you represent gravitational force mathematically  and whatever "sexy" name you put on gravitational forces, gravitational forces are gravitational forces.

Naturally none of these irrelevant "responses" really defend the fallen GR.

Putting these physical errors aside, there is a disturbing mathematical errors in GR. What's new?! I will explain this problem using 2D space time representation of the motion of a train on a track. We use time coordinate and distance coordinate as train engineers have been using for the lase a few centuries. It is called by them, "diagram". The idea is to represent the motion of a train on this track as a graph on this 2D space time. This method, as all train engineers know very well without the genius of Einstein, does not work when the stations etc are moving around on on the coordinate representing the track. The idea of using space-time is to capture the motion as a static graph.

This means that this method of space time is limited to the situation where no stars are moving around changing their locations in the universe. This reduces Einstein's "genius" only to the class room of American Universities as HWs. Raymond Cote once said that GR is good only for test particles. Certainly it was good for Sir Arthur Eddington who faked data to experimentally verify the double bend result of light coming around sun.

This problem made GR unusable in the world of Big Bang Theory. After resisting a while Einstein gave in and parametrised GR with cosmological constant. This works only for the expansion of the universe but it cannot deal with the internal motion of stars.

Einstein's universe is expanding but otherwise it is stationary, dead. Only a few test particles move around and their motion is captured as geodesic in the 4D space time manifold.

To make the matter even more entertaining, we can always fix the inccuring anomalies by "calculating" the distribution of dark matters  in the space. GR never fails anymore. It was Karl Popper who told us that all physical theories must be empirically falsifiable. Alas, we have gained the ultimate theory which never fails. We might as well sit in an armchair with Cuban cigar and order competent graduate students to calculate the distribution of the dark matter to fix the problems. When some smart guys come up with direct hit attack on GR, we can always call them with names. These guys do not control peer reviewed publication systems.

I am fine with this name calling as long as it is substantiated by scientific reasoning. But name calling itself does not constitute scientific discussion. It is just an avoidable irrelevance which says nothing about attacked but everything about attackers.  Listing up tons of papers without  relating them to the issues  just does not do it. To begin with discussion is never meant to be listing links or copying and pasting from wikipedia.

Best regards,

AKT

You can support yourself with hundreds of links. It's futile. Just use your brain. How could you couple time with space? Time (of something) = motion (of something). Motion/time (of something) is the result of velocity (of something). Is it clear? Those who admit that understood relativity automatly admit they understood nonsense.

The arxiv paper is about gravitation not magnetic induction.  North America is already heavily woven with elevated steel-cored aluminum conductor - the power grid - from Canada to Mexico and Pacific to Atlantic oceans.  Nothing much happens day-to-day outside ordinary power generation.

A fat solar flare whacking the Earth's magnetosphere Roman-candles the grid from lines of force recombination and magnetic induction.  We are currently in the deepest solar minimum in at least a century.  Little amplitude recovery is expected for two solar cycles.  However, sunspot 1087 just came into view, and it is an angry whopper.  A .50 caliber Barrett round will kill you just as dead as a thermonuclear blast.

http://www.spaceweather.com/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html