[#!: full-line executeEmbeds,  phraseValueList = (("fout  fout)("backtrack  backtrack))
[#!: path_insertIn_fHand					(link  d_webWork  'fin Head_one.html')		fout  ;  
<TITLE> General Relativity is a turkey, Quantum Mechanics is a fools paradise.html </TITLE>    
[#!: path_insertIn_fHand					(link  d_webWork  'fin Head_two.html')		fout  ;  
[#!: path_executeEmbedsInsertIn_fHand  (link  d_webWork  'Menu.html')  phraseValueList  ;  
[#!: path_executeEmbedsInsertIn_fHand  (link  d_webWork  'Menu projects.html')  phraseValueList  ;  
[#!: path_insertIn_fHand					(link  d_webWork  'normalStatus.html'	)  fout  ;  
<BR>


<H2>General Relativity is a turkey? </h2>

The comments herein are VASTLY incomplete!  They would be far better (still vastly incomplete) if I could find extensive old notes.<BR>
<BR>
I first posted this theme in my review of the ?2012 Natural Philosophy Society conference, Maryland.  Over the preding years (from ~2007, I had started to look much more closely at relativitiy, nevenr having worked with it, and never have being particularly convinced, as it seemed to be self-contradictory to me, and possibly un-necessary.
<BR>
From my self-imposed practice of "Multiple conflicting hypothesis" (MCH), I am NOT throwing out the theory of General, Special] relativity!  MCH REQUIRES the retention of dominant scientific theories from history.  But it also REQUIRE alternative concepts! Nor am I a fan of many alternative explanations.  One important example is ether theory, but I have to admit that some models of ether (eg electromagnetic field based, maybe others) do pose interesting concepts.  But I will have to do much more digging here.<BR>
<BR>
I added added more comments for <A HREF="[#=; backtrack ;=#]Projects - mini/Randell Mills/Howell - review of Holverstott 2016 Hydrino energy.pdf">"Howell - review of Holverstott 2016 Hydrino energy"</A>.<BR>
<BR>
GR & QM have been highly successful theories for [modelling data, making predictions, applications] 
QM (and quantum chromodynamics etc) as the "most successful scientific theory in history".  But they are perhaps less-than satisfactory theories for [describing, explaining]  [structure, phenomena, ??]<BR>
<BR>
It seems to me that there is a [broad, deep, persistent] basis that questions the [honesty, competence] of essentially all physicists is continually questioned by looking at their historical performance (see <A HREF="[#=; backtrack ;=#]Lies, Damned Lies, and Scientists/_Lies, damned lies, and scientists.html">"Lies, damned lies, and scientists)"</A>.  One can always play with [frameworks, assumptions, changeable and inconsistent interpretations, statistics, small world universal function approximators] and get whatever answer you want.  This approach is something that GR & QM scientists seem to excel at.
<BR>
Vladimir Vapnik "drop your theories, go with the data...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

<H3>Interferometer experiments</h3>

<UL>
	<LI><I>Experiments of the mid-1800's (?Fizeau? water experiment, ???, etc)</I> - raised eyebrows.    
	<LI><I>Michaelson-Morely (?1898?)</I> - The results were interpreted to support the conclusion that Lorenz-Poincare relativity was correct because the estimated 3 km/s "ether wind" was not detected, and the positive result of ?8-12? km/s was within the estimated error range of the experiment.  Note that this was accurate enough to give somewhat-interpretable results given the assumptions about a very specific "material ether" model, but there [were, are] many models on the table!     
	<LI><I>Michaelson-Gale (?1922?)</I> - This interferometer test was much more accurate than the original Michaelson-Morely test.  It clearly showed that Lorentz-Poincare relativity, and Einstein's later (1905) Special Relativity, were INCORRECT, but it was conveniently ignored.  There may be some justification for that in the sense that it is probably not the best experimental approach to measuring the speed of light.  On the other had, it is still occasionally cited as a proof of [SR, GR].  That is anachronistic, and ignore better repeated experimental results by other researchers over the last century.
	<LI><I>Most recent experiments</I> do support relativity.  I caanhelp being suspicious, as [scientist, journal]s could hardly be expected to publish results that don't conform to the modern religion. 
</UL>


<H3>Famous 1919 solar eclipse and the anomalouss bending of light from Mercury by the sun</h3>

1919 solar eclipse observations by ?not Shapley but ?  
			modern mercury data does NOT fit GR!
			<UL>
				<LI><I>Ed Dowdye's Plasma atmosphere</I> - explains effective mass, ??relativistic effects??
				<LI><I></I>
			</UL>
	<LI><I>Atomic clock experiments</I>
		<UL>
			<LI><I>Ives-Stillwell ?1941?</I> -  
			<LI><I>Equatorial circumnavigation by aircraft</I> - 
			<LI><I>Alternative concepts</I>
				<UL>
					<LI><I>Solar cycles and radiactive decay atomic clock) variability?</I>  Cosmic-galactic rays vary with [solar,geo] magnetics...
					<LI><I>Clock rates as function of [gravitational, electric] fields?</I>
				</UL>
		</UL>
	<LI><I>Radiation reaction & Mossbauer effect</I>
	<LI><I>Tanjential velocities of stars in spiral galaxies as a function of radius from the galactic core</I> -  This isn't actually a GR problem, it's more of a Newtonian gravity problem!!  
</UL>
<BR>

I have to find old notes on : <BR>
Mossbauer results<BR>
Radiation reaction<BR>
<BR>


<BR>
[GR, QM] theory busting data? ...<BR>
<BR>

<UL>
	<LI><I>Planetary observations</I>  -   ?Earliest? determinations with a clear (albeit non-linear) trend over time, with some long series on the same instrument.  Large error bands were not capable of explaining the apparent trend, nor has there ever been a solid response to these results as far as I know.  
	<LI><I>Alternate concepts of constants that are constant: </I>
		<UL> 
			<LI><I>Ratio of Planck's constant ?k? and c?</I> - 
			<LI><I>Fine structure constant</I> - 
		</UL>
	<LI><I></I>
	<LI><I>Ether concepts</I> - 
	<LI><I>Alternate concepts : </I>
		<UL> 
			<LI><I>Ratio of Planck's constant ?k? and c?</I> - 
			<LI><I>Fine structure constant</I> - 
		</UL>
	<LI><I></I>
</UL>
<BR>


<H3>The speed of light in a vacuum (c) has gone down ~1.5% over ~300 years?</h3>

In ?1977?, the physics community simply SET the value of c, and ongoing experimental determinations are simply not reported and discussed!  We are currently in a period of an "flat" trend of c with time that is perhaps predictable from the trend over past 3 centuries, but this may not be the case over the oncoming [decades, century]? (14Dec2020 - as with the rest of this webnPage and that of Quantum mechanics, I have reat deal of [detail, data, analysis] from references to add at some time in the future).<BR>
<BR>
If correct, this data KILLS General relativity (GR) AND Quantum Mechanics (QM)!!! I have every confidence that "convoluted band-aid [mathematics, concepts]" can easily patch over the problem, as has consistently been done in the past, but that probably won't rescue the theories for me.<BR>
<BR>

<H3>References : </h3>

While involving only rare [scientists, amateurs, writers], there is a very substantial base and serious of criticism of GR & QM. 
I ceertainly don't expect all of these to be solid, and perhaps none are.  But they do THINK about the anomalies in the [data, experiments, concepts, theories, 
<UL>
	<LI><I>Criticisms of GR & EM</I>
		<UL>
			<LI><I>Tom ?Newell, bedwel?.. </I>
			<LI><I>"Ives papers"</I>
			<LI><I>German GR critics</I>
			<LI><I></I>
			<LI><I></I>
		</UL>
	<LI><I>Alternative concepts</I>
		<UL>
			<LI><I>Bill Lucas "Universal Force"</I> - From ?Thomas Agassiz? - relativity is entirely derivable from classical natural philosophy (pre-1900 physics).  Note that I am not quite there yett in my re-derivations (on hold for a few of years as of ~2018?). 
			<LI><I>Weber electrodynamics</I>
			<LI><I>Oleg Jefimenko</I>
			<LI><I>German websites!!</I>
			<LI><I>SAFIRE project</I> - an electrical model of the Sun.  Experimental indications of dramatically lower speed of light in intese electromagnetic fields?  My guess is that a GR explanation can be generated, but this seems to strech credibility too far from what has been stated in the past.    
			<LI><I></I>
			<LI><I></I>
			<LI><I></I>
		</UL>
</UL>
<BR>
<BR>


Last updated:<BR> 
25Sep2013  created, from listing of material at the time<BR>
26Sep2017 merged "New material" & "Old "New" Material" here - simpler and provides full list.  Some time or other I will set up a "quips blog"<BR>
[#!: full-line executeEmbeds,  phraseValueList = (("fout  fout)("backtrack  backtrack))
[#!: path_executeEmbedsInsertIn_fHand  (link  d_webWork  'fin Footer.html')  phraseValueList  ;