Talk:Tests of general relativity

Intergalactic proof of General Relativity obtained

In the introduction, it says that General Relativity is yet untested on intergalactic scales. Latest findings show that it still holds up: [1] Bhagwad (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What was actually shown is that the room for spatial discreteness on very small scales is severely restricted. Such discreteness would cause modified dispersion relations, i.e. dependence of light speed on energy. The effect would have to be small (or it would already have been seen); having a very long stretch of space over which to compare photons allows stricter bounds to be placed on it. This means that we now know any discreteness would have to turn up at even shorter distances than previously thought. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of General Relativity on cosmological scales, the very opposite end of the spatial scale.

In short, the referenced article provides no support for the claim made in the introduction. The entire paragraph is wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.191.156 (talk • contribs)

I'm not an expert in this, so I will not comment on the technical aspects. I have merely repaired the section header and signed and indented your comment. Please indent and sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)? Cheers and thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just came across what seems to now be proof from National Geographic that general relativity works on cosmological scales Bhagwad (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

General Precession

The stated value for the general precession in longitude, 5025.6 arcsecond/julian century IS incorrect.

Newcomb's value for the general precession was p = 5025.64 arcseconds per tropical century at the Besselian epoch B1900.0

The modern epoch is J2000.0. Since the length of the tropical century isn't constant, astronomers now use the Julian century. The error in confounding the two is about .1 arcsecond per century.

More recent adopted values for the general precession are:

5029.0906 IAU (1976)

5028.7922 IAU (2003) [2]]

5028.7955 (±.0003) Fukushima (2003) [3]]

5028.8300 (±.04) NASA (current) [4]]

The table listing the sources of precession implies an impossible level of accuracy. The accuracy is limited by pertubation of the 300,000+ unmodeled asteroids, the imprecisely known values for Mercury's prolateness (C22 equatorial eccentricity), and the large offset between Mercury's center of mass and it's center of figure (J1). It's either a stunning cooincidence, or the uncited numbers were simply pulled out of someone's behind.

As noted in the article, the confirmation bias for General Relativity is astronomical. Impossibly accurate agreement between theory and observation are often justifiably interpreted as evidence that the theory is incorrect. In this case, any knowlegeable person could easily recognize the information in the table cannot be trusted. First off, there is no citation. Secondly, there is no citation. Thirdly, there is no citation. Fourthly, due to a secular increase in the general precession, the associated epoch must also be given. Fifthly, "century" is ambiguous, it could be julian, besselian, or tropical. Sixthly, the most accurate determination of the observed perihelion precession is NOT made by radar, it is made by analyzing numerical ephemerides such as DE405.

Finally, the author actually proves his bias and his willingness to misrepresent experimental results:

"Einstein showed that general relativity predicts exactly the observed amount of perihelion shift".

Exact agreement! I'm convinced.

Today we measure locations in space relative to the inertial ICRF. The historical observations should be put in this context by taking out their observed frame effects. This makes the observation of the Equinoxes irrelevant to the calculation (as Earths orbital parameters should be, after they are used to calculate the effect of their tug on Mercury.) Using Clements, this gives an observed precession of:

5599.74±0.41 - 5025.64±0.50 = 574.10±0.65 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury

I don't understand that statement, Thus, the predictions of general relativity account for the missing precession (the remaining discrepancy is within observational error). The contributing factors are given as:

• 5028.83 ±.04 [3] Coordinate (due to the precession of the equinoxes)
• 531.4[citation needed] Gravitational tugs of the other planets
• 0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
• 42.98 ±.04 [4][5] General relativity

As presented, the least certain figure is 531.4, with an implied accuracy of +/- 0.1 (using the standard engineering convention that lacking a stated accuracy, you assume +/- 1 least significant digit). It is then stated that the total is 5603.24 (which has more significant digits than is justified by the input data), and that the observed value is 5599.7. This only agrees with the computed total to about +/- 4.0, yet we're saying that agrees with the total within the limits of observational error. It's been a while since I took physics lab, but I don't think this would have gotten full marks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning "Note: ... read with great caution" transferred to talk page as WP:OPED

This from User:Ystalyfera removed from article for consideration here:

Note that the contents of this article have been made obsolete by modern scholarship, notably in M .W. Evans, "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory" (Abramis Academic, 2005 onwards), in seven volumes, and in the National Library of Wales and British National Archives (www.webarchive.org.uk, site www.aias,us, UFT 150). The Einstein field equation is now known to be incorrect (UFT 137 and 139 of the British National Archives) due to his use of an incorrect connection symmetry, and in UFT 150 it has been found using computer algebra that his light deflection calculation is incorrect by no less than six orderss of magnitude. The correct development of Einstein's ideas in found in the internationally accepted ECE theory. So much of the following is obsolete, there are demands for curtailment of standard model funding in view of the way it tries to cover up gross errors. In UFT 150, Einstein's own integral was tested and his method shown by computer to be wildly wrong. So this article should be read with great caution by the wider scientific commuity that accepts ECE theory. These wikipedia articles are written by standard model proponents with vested interest in funding.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Newtonian physics predicts light bending around massive objects?

"Henry Cavendish in 1784 (in an unpublished manuscript) and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 (published in 1804) had pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will bend around a massive object." Is this correct? If the paper claims this, could someone clarify where such is claimed?--Δζ (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

need to add some info on precession

I'm having trouble adding a section on the real precession of Mercury. Is someone deleting my addition. If so, please contact me prior to deleting my text. D c weber (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)d_c_weber

You were contacted, and the feedback has been ignored. I removed the POV tag. The tag was placed in this article without adequate explanation. Also the tag appears to be a response to thwarted attempts of POV pushing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mercury precession - minority test

I have made numerous edits to the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity. But, these additions keep get removed by you and another person. The only comments are the nor and syn. There is no other detail. I don't agree that either nor o syn applies. So, this site needs the NPOV tag, because it is biased. The tag is needed and will be readded. Please leave it on and I would like to start a discussion about the added material on this talk page under the provision #2 of the ongoing dispute resolution list. I need for the additions that I want to make to be critiqued on this page and then I'll make the corrections and re-edit. D c weber (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just to clarify: the "article" or "page" is Tests of general relativity. The website or site is Wikipedia. It's an important distinction :> Doc talk 08:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that your proposed additions constitute original research and should therefore not be included. This is not sufficient reason to add a POV tag to the article, which is why it has been removed repeatedly. If you try to add it again, it could be considered edit warring and you run the risk of being blocked temporarily. Please continue the discussion on this talk page. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Favonian and Mr. Steve Quinn - I am sorry to convey the impression of [[WP:WAR|edit warring] & I apologize if I have not followed the proper wiki etiquette (I am new to using wiki). Attached below is the section that I would like to add to this wiki page of "tests of GRT". Would you please comment and critique this section for me , prior to my adding it? Thank you.:

'===Alternative calculation of the Perihelion precession of Mercury===

There have been more recent calculations of the motion of the planet Mercury. These calculations use the same multi-body calculation used in the past, but in addition the rotation of the mass of the Sun is accounted for using a non-field theory called “Theory of Interaction”. Using these calculations, there is almost no precession of Mercury's perihelion as shown in table 2.

Table 2 - Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury using the Sun's rotation

Amount (arcsec/Julian century)	Explaination
	Based on Observational Data
-5028.82	Velocity of movement of vernal equinox point relative to motionless space
5603.0	Velocity of perihelion rotation relative to the mobile vernal equinox point with including velocities changes of ecliptic and of Mercury orbit
582.53	Velocity of perihelion rotation relative to motionless space
	By results of interaction under the Newton law of gravity. Velocity of rotation of a perihelion relative to motionless space
530 – (table 1 above)	Planets and the Sun interact as material points
582	Planets interact as material points, and the oblateness and rotation of the Sun is taken into account as compound model
	Conclusions
0.53	Discrepancy with just Newtonian Mechanics (calculated difference between Newton theory and actual precession)
42.98 ±0.04	General relativity
42.45	Discrepancy with General Relativity (calculated difference between GR theory and actual precession)

'========================================= |- D c weber (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |-

Dear administrator Favorian,

I checked the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard website to see if "www.worldnpa.org " was listed as an unreliable source. There is discussion there, but no consensus. The organization is composed of >1900 scientists, so I would classify any source related to this organization as a "significant minority". The probability of an organization composed of 1900 scientists being unreliable is very improbable. Therefore, I suggest we get a concensus between us on what needs to be added at this site. I propose a sentence that says that "table 2 represents the calculations of one scientist published at a minority physical society." Is this acceptable? The premise of the wp:NPOV is that an article on Wiki should not be just one point-of-view. It doesn't matter if the point-of-view is "mainstream" as you say. "All" significant viewpoints must be presented. We just need a way to get it added without giving it equal weight to the "mainstream's" viewpoint.

Regarding the proposed table 2 being a synthesis, the table is no more a synthesis than the table that is there now. The table 2 above is attempt to portray an alternate test, so that table 1 (on the main page) and table 2 can be compared.D c weber (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

( — Copied from User talk:D c weber — ) I notice that you replaced two of your personal sources with NPA sources. Perhaps you are not aware, but the NPA (http://www.worldnpa.org/main/) is not considered to be a reliable source by the mainstream physics community. As you can verify on their principles page, this is one of those extreme fringe organisations, having as one of its main principles: "Aside from virtually unanimous agreement that contemporary cosmology and physics--especially modern or 20th-century physics--are in dire need of a thorough overhaul...", and more interestingly: "The central theme that concerns nearly all members, both because of its highly honored position in current dogma and because its rather simple mathematics makes it comparatively easy to deal with, is special relativity (SR). A very large majority in the NPA believe it is seriously flawed, and a clear majority believe it is totally invalid. I earnestly subscribe to the latter view: SR has no validity whatsoever." (emphasis mine). Looking at the 12 remaining principles on the mission page, I think it is clear that this site represents an extreme fringe view. It seems that your main source (Smulsky) has two cited papers at NPA (see also this). Therefore mentioning a result from this source would still put wp:undue weight on a wp:fringe view. And again, even it were not fringe, it would still be a case of wp:SYNTHESIS, as you create a table from various sources, in order to show that general relativity has it wrong, so to speak. DVdm (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

DVdm (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. DVdm,

Your personal opinion is that the NPA organization is an unreliable source. My personal opinion is that the NPA is a reliable source and it may have papers published that are of the fringe in some cases, and probably in this case. But, Wiki requires that we include ALL viewpoints in order to stay neutral, and do it in a way that gives appropriate weight. Right now, the Mercury precession section has one calculation and therefore no weight to any alternative calculations of Mercury's orbit. I would like for us to correct this deficiency.

Dear administrator Favorian,

What is our next step?D c weber (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not really true that "Wiki requires that we include ALL viewpoints in order to stay neutral". Just read wp:UNDUE and wp:FRINGE (and while you are at it, don't forget wp:SYNTHESIS). I really think that your next step should be to consider to stop pushing this. DVdm (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. DVdm, Please read the first sentence of the wp:UNDUE that you cited. It specifically mandates "all significant viewpoints". D c weber (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It also says 'Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.' And the number listed as interested in relativity at their site is truly tiny, smaller than the number of physics students at a decent sized university. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

D c weber, please read the last sentence of wp:UNDUE and the list preceding that sentence:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Also please read wp:FRINGE and wp:SYNTHESIS.

Finally, I think that we have a consensus (—also read wp:CONSENSUS—) not to take your table on board in the article. DVdm (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. DVdm: I can definitely tell you that there is not a concensus, because I am an editor that does not agree. wp:CONSENSUS#Process says that "..The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic."--I do not agree that telling one POV is an agreement of "all" editors. wp:CONSENSUS#Consensus_can_change says that using the words in a talk page of ".."according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals..". So, you can't just say that a significant group of scientists that agree with a peer reviewed scientific paper must be ostricized from the encyclopedia.
Dear Mr. Blackburne: You mention "Flat Earth" as not part of Wikipedia. This is in fact incorrect. There is extensive writing in a whole section at Flat_Earth#Modern_flat-Earthers. All I am proposing is to add a separate section with the alternate view. If Wiki was in place 1000 years ago, I'm sure that you would want the "Round Earth" section of the "Flat Earth" site to not be continually reverted. So, I appeal to you as a scientist that you include this alternate test of the precession of Mercury , as needed to keep the concensus. Please advise.D c weber (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write that I only copied it from the policy at WP:UNDUE. Yes flat-Earthers are covered but at Flat Earth, not at Earth. The same is true here: there are many pages on pre-Einsteinian physics, separate from this one. There's no page on relativity deniers: I notice there was a page on the NPA but [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Philosophy Alliance it was deleted], for lack of notability, suggesting they are a small fringe group, smaller even than the flat-Earthers.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr Blackburne: Are you proposing that we add this table 2 as a separate Wiki site and call it "Tests that don't confirm GRT" and change the name of this site to "Tests that confirm general relativity"? I don't think that that is a good idea. Better to keep both table 1 and table 2 on this one page Tests of general relativity. (I should point out that the Earth site _does_ reference Flat Earth. ) D c weber (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

D c weber, please read wp:UNANIMITY: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward." DVdm (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. DVdm, Wiki wp:UNANIMUS is also wp:UNANIMITY#not a majority vote. "Every opinion counts." An opinion favored by 75% is not enough for consensus. I want to achieve consensus with you and the other editors using the 4 step wp:UNANIMITY#how to achieve consensus. The step 1 is to have a free exchange. I am not sure that I have conveyed my interest adequately. My interest is to avoid evolving all scientific articles in Wiki to be one sided fait accompli's. But, I haven't really heard what your interest is. Could you explain (& others) why an article describing scientific tests would not include all significant tests related to that theory? Please justify to me (and any other editor reading this talk) why this article does not need a Template:POV tag on it to alert readers that the talk page is discussing a dispute and that one may not be getting all views or tests.D c weber (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, read this

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

With that in mind, where are the reliable sources that say this view is held by a significant minority? So far the only source suggests it is the third, a viewpoint held only by a tiny number, so has no place on Wikipedia, or at least not in a mainstream physics article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with John above) Everything written in the most recent response, and query by D c weber has already been asked and sufficiently answered. D c weber is repeating himself, and expects the other editors to repeat themselves. Here are a few new facts. Consensus is weighed against his fringe-theory at least four reasonable explanations to one refusing to get the point, between this talk page and their talk page. Also, attempting to joust with other editors about "consensus" and "majority" really will not make a difference. Third, in an attempt to save time - this type of behavior is not new, or orginal to me. And, more than likely it is not new, or orginal to the other editors who have responded here. So it is a familiar pattern, with familiar arguments. The results of those who have tread this well worn path can be found here at WP:ANI. I reccomend reading the threads there. Also, feel free to browse the links in the sectioned entitled, "Are you in the right place?" in order to read about other wikipedia experiences. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be that : this is more relevant. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Blackburne, your objection is clear. You think that the NPA source and the Russian university source is a tiny minority. A quick question, what quantity of scientists would you consider not a tiny minority, but has moved to just barely a minority - & so satisfy your objection?
Mr. Quinn, your objection is not clear to me. You say that you don't agree with Mr. Blackburne's objection to the text, but I don't know what your objection actually is. It sounds like you may be getting upset that I don't understand and I don't mean to cause that. I would just like to know what the problem is since my rewrite above on November 26, 2010.— Preceding unsigned comment added by D c weber (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get it: it's nothing to do my views of quantity. Find some reliable sources for what you want to include. Until then it has no place here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have been and I am in agreement with JohnBlackburne, DVdm, and Favorian. Appearently you misunderstood the "edit conflict" note. That means that I tried to add my response at about the same time as JohnBlackburne. Because of this I was unable to re-enter the conversation until I went back and opened up this section again. Also, I am far from being upset. I don't know how my last reply was interpreted that way. I believe I was merely trying to provide some insight. And, I will echo JohnBlackburne - the only way the fringe information can be included in this journal Wikipedia article is with reliable sources (please see WP:RS. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Mr. Favorian's thoughts (he hasn't commented here). But, I think I know what 3 editors (Blackburne, DVdm & Quinn) opinions are: You don't consider that the 2 sources (listed above in table 2 under 582 "/century) are reliable sources wp:RS. I propose closing this discussion until I can do more research. I'll reopen again as a different section. But, first I need a little more info and I would appreciate your help:
In wp:RS, there are 3 portions of the source, 1) the work, 2. the creator, and 3) the publisher. Do I correctly assume that you only have a problem with the publisher (i.e. NPA), but the creater (Smulsky) & the work are both OK?D c weber (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as the creator and the work are not sufficiently mentioned in the scientific literature, they are likely to remain considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a reliable source. See RS123 and wp:PRIMARY. DVdm (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, it took awhile to get there, but I understand now. Need wp:Secondary_sources. Need some time to research this. Since this discussion is long, I'll raise a new section in this talk in the future if necessary. discussion in this section temporarily finished.D c weber (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I added an undue-inline tag, this action does not undermine this discussion. Even if the new content is deemed 100% credible, a half-dozen sources would not support the conclusion that general relativity has been falsified. Incidentally, most relativists believe that general relativity is "seriously flawed", this is the prevailing (not the fringe) view. However, replacing GR with Newtonian theory only makes the galactic rotation problem worse. NOrbeck (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed D c weber's 4th or 5th addition—I have lost count. This time as anon 72.241.160.29 (talk · contribs). This is becoming pretty disruptive. I have notified admin Favonian (talk · contribs) who has some experience with Weber. DVdm (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in precession of Mercury

"The discrepancy of approximately -3 is larger than the observational error of approximately 0.04. This suggests slight measurement error."

I don't understand this. What is the difference between "observational error" and "measurement error"? In any case, when it transpires that measurements of the precession of Mercury actually do not agree with general relativity to the stated observational acuracy, why assume "measurement error"? Why not the possibility of error in the theory? This sentence sounds as if it's written by someone who's already made up their mind that GR exactly explains Mercury's precession, and is going to stick to that even in the face of evidence to the contrary. (Just so's everyone is perfectly clear, I am not a "relativity denier", crank, crackpot, etc. I am simply commenting on what I see as an inadequacy of the article.) 86.176.210.13 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Figures don't add up for Mercry's precession

Hi, looking at the figures for Mercury's precession, it seems that they don't add up as stated:

5028.83        Coordinate 
 530            Gravitational tugs of the other planets
   0.0254       Oblateness of the Sun
  42.98        General relativity
5603.24        Total

However, if you actually add those numbers up, you get 5601.8354, not 5603.24 as stated. This lowers the discrepancy between observation and theory significantly (much more than accounted for by the stated error ranges = 0.08). Anyone see where this failure to sum correctly has crept in? Inductiveload (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

Hi, just wondering about the wording etiquette on the main page in the news section. It says that it is 'confirmed' but under scientific parlance shouldnt it say that it is 'supported'? Mwheatley1990 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Whoever changed it, thanks Mwheatley1990 (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The equivalence principle

It can be shown that tests of general relativity can be explained via Fermat's principle and equivalence principle without the need of general relativity theory.

This statement was removed due to a lack of secondary source (this one and other wiki articles are full of similar sources). I did not agree that it is self-published source.84.42.169.65 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) (see [5],[6], commented in [7],[8]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.87.138 (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference

Smulsky and Iorio don't mention Fermat. Smulsky doesn't even mention the equivalence principle. Iorio is another arXiv. "Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)" doesn't say much. No textbook source? Nothing less possibly fringy? - DVdm (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)