To disprove GR

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Is it sufficient to say that the GR is not right if we can disprove the principle of equivalence? Thank you for your answer.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

GR as a mathematical theory is certainly as correct as Newtonian theory was. Both were great improvements on what went before, but are not complete theories.

GR as a physical theory is almost certainly wrong. We can now show that the geometric interpretation ("curved space-time") is inconsistent with two principles of physics (causality and "no creation <i>ex nihilo</i>"). The optical medium interpretation with light-bending, etc., being refraction effects, as detailed in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>, works much better.

As regards the principle of equivalence, neutron interferometer experiments have already shown that the weak principle is contradicted. This again just shows that the geometric interpretation is wrong. But Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, and other leading physicists never had much use for the geometric interpretation anyway, regarding it as a quaint coincidence. For one reason, contrary to opinions in some recent books, "curved space-time" does not imply curved space and does not substitute for force. For example, if we join any two points along an orbit, the straight line path connecting them is shorter than the orbit path. So orbiting bodies do accelerate through 3-space, which requires a force.

An article on this will appear in a future issue of the <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i>. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Tom)GR as a physical theory is almost certainly wrong. We can now show that the geometric interpretation ("curved space-time") is inconsistent with two principles of physics (causality and "no creation <i>ex nihilo</i>"). <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What would the MM say the universe looked like 50 billion years ago?

I understand that nothing is created "ex nihilo" but is it possible that everything in the universe is actually just one mass of energy that is continually changing; creating and destroying, expanding and contracting. An energy that is actually the highest, most "pure", form of existence, is infinite in every possible dimension, and everything ever created IS, WAS, or CAN BE, because this energy exist. An energy where the entire cosmic totality always equals itself. This would not be "ex nihilo" but self-instantiation. Wouldn’t this idea help validate GR, "The Big Bang", and an expanding universe. Would the ENERGY discribed violate any principles of physics? Wouldn’t this idea be compatible with the MM in that the Universe is infinite in space, time, and scale?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What would the MM say the universe looked like 50 billion years ago?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Pretty much the same as today, except in the details.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I understand that nothing is created "ex nihilo" but is it possible that everything in the universe is actually just one mass of energy that is continually changing; creating and destroying, expanding and contracting.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In MM, nothing is ever created or destroyed, just dissolving and re-assembling. And the present universe is not expanding. The observations are apparently better-explained by energy loss than by expansion.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>An energy that is actually the highest, most "pure", form of existence, is infinite in every possible dimension, and everything ever created IS, WAS, or CAN BE, because this energy exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Most importantly in MM, our scale is in no way special. So energy on our scale (where "energy" just means "much smaller, much faster substances") is not special either.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Wouldn’t this idea help validate GR, "The Big Bang", and an expanding universe.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't see how. It is not ideas, but observations and experiments to test predictions, that validate theories.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Would the ENERGY discribed violate any principles of physics?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If anything were created or destroyed, that would violate the causality principle.

If singularities exist in these models, that violates "the finite cannot become infinite" principle.

If momentum arises from nothing, that violates "no creation <i>ex nihilo</i>".

If space were curved or time dilated, that alters the meaning of "dimensions". It is okay for meter sticks to contract or clocks to slow, but not the dimensions by which these changes are measured.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Wouldn’t this idea be compatible with the MM in that the Universe is infinite in space, time, and scale?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The Big Bang is not an explosion into pre-existing space and time. It is an explosion *of* space and time. So nothing can come before. It appears to me that the Big Bang violates all the aforementioned principles of physics and their corollaries. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
From TVF:

The Big Bang is not an explosion into pre-existing space and time. It is an explosion *of* space and time. So nothing can come before. It appears to me that the Big Bang violates all the aforementioned principles of physics and their corollaries. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Can a "local" Big Bang -- I guess Small Bang-- be possible in a way that doesn't violate the MM principles?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Can a "local" Big Bang -- I guess Small Bang-- be possible in a way that doesn't violate the MM principles?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That would have to be an explosion of matter, something like a giant supernova or galaxy explosion, which is entirely different from the Big Bang. In BB, the galaxies do not move through space (except for small, local motions). Instead, they get farther apart without motion because new space is continually being created between them.

BTW, those are principles of physics, not MM. See "Physics has its principles" at [url] metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp [/url]. -|Tom|-

Reguarding your comment that the universe would be much as it is now 50bya-would the the BB also be as it is now at 50bya? This seems to me to be true since that time would be about z=5 or 10 or what ever it is and the redshift would still be as it is at that z, right?