Home Neural Nets Projects Software programming & code Professional & Resume Publications & reports
Howell-produced videos Blogs Cool stuff Crazy themes and stories Hosted sub-sites Neil Howell's Art
major (1 active)
MindCode neural network Bill Lucas - Universal Force Randell Mills- hydrinos IceBreaker unchained (WWII) "Hope-to-do-soon" projects
Failures of thinking : Lies, Damned Lies, and Scientists Climate - Kyoto Premise fraud General relativity is a turkey? Quantum mechanics is a fools paradise? Robert Prechter - Socionomics
Economics & Markets : S&P500 1872-2020, 83y trend S&P500 P/E ratios vs Treasury rates Cryptos versus [currencies, rates] Robert Prechter - Socionomics Stephen Puetz - Greatest of cycles
Pandemics, health, Sun : Astro-correlates of health Influenza Corona virus Suicide
Life & [Pre,]-history : Civilisations and sun Steve Yaskell - sun & history Anthony Peratt -petroglyphs Galactic rays and evolution Stephen Puetz - Greatest of cycles
Astronomy, Earth, Climate : Ivanka Charvatova - solar inertial motion Climate and sun Solar modeling and forecasting SAFIRE - electric sun experiment Stephen Puetz - The Greatest of cycles
25Nov2020 This website has been substantially revamped, with changes to [page, menu, content, link]s. There will be problems with links - probably 10 or so webPages of 187 total still have to be corrected after coding changes and my mistakes messed them up.
Many of my web-postings will illustrate my [errors, inconsistencies, ignorance] and some may be upsetting. But I prefer to be seen as a fool than something that I am not? Huh?..., whatever...

General Relativity is a turkey?

The comments herein are VASTLY incomplete! They would be far better (still vastly incomplete) if I could find extensive old notes.

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.
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.

I added added more comments for "Howell - review of Holverstott 2016 Hydrino energy".

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, ??]

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 "Lies, damned lies, and scientists)". 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.
Vladimir Vapnik "drop your theories, go with the data...

Interferometer experiments

Famous 1919 solar eclipse and the anomalouss bending of light from Mercury by the sun

1919 solar eclipse observations by ?not Shapley but ? modern mercury data does NOT fit GR!
  • Atomic clock experiments
  • Radiation reaction & Mossbauer effect
  • Tanjential velocities of stars in spiral galaxies as a function of radius from the galactic core - This isn't actually a GR problem, it's more of a Newtonian gravity problem!!
    I have to find old notes on :
    Mossbauer results
    Radiation reaction

    [GR, QM] theory busting data? ...

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

    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).

    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.

    References :

    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,

    Last updated:
    25Sep2013 created, from listing of material at the time
    26Sep2017 merged "New material" & "Old "New" Material" here - simpler and provides full list. Some time or other I will set up a "quips blog"

    Directory of available files for this webpage

    Copyright © 2007 through 2020
    All website content is owned by William Neil Howell of Alberta, Canada, except when it isn't.

    Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Howell's content under either:
    GNU Public License The GNU Free Documentation License; with no Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.
    Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
    It is expected that reusers of this web-site will:
  • Acknowledge William Neil Howell and/or the specific author of web-site content,
  • Provide a link or reference back to the specific web-page carrying the content that is being used,
  • Allow any modifications made to the content to also be reused under the terms of either of the two standard licences (GNU or Creative Commons).