===========

Subject: Re: Monograph received
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:36:42 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>
Cc: Tiziana Marsico <martiz64@libero.it>


P.S. I glanced at your latest article, co-authored by Dr. Tiziana Marsico
(On repulsive gravitational actions, arXiv:0710.3927v1), and spotted the
following remarks on p. 7:

"3. - It is clear that a cosmological model incorporating the existence of
the above repulsive actions could explain the so-called dark energy, i.e.
the energy that is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe [5].

"Further, the repulsive gravity could play a role in the dynamics of
gravitational collapses."

I agree with the latter and hope you and Dr. Marsico will elaborate. But the former statement involves the so-called coincidence problem, which in turn leads to logical mismatch: something, call it 'dynamic dark energy of X', produces time, and *at the same time* evolves *in that same time*,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Rafael

I wonder if you and Dr. Marsico would like to comment on this problem, as
well as on the solution proposed, which I believe you know very well.

Best - Dimi


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dimi Chakalov" <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: "Angelo Loinger" <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:14 PM
Subject: Monograph received

> Dear Angelo,
>
> Thank you very much for sending me your third monograph, entitled:
> "More on BH's and GWs' III" (ISBN: 978-88-7830-476-5). It makes a
> fascinated reading indeed.
[snip]

===========

Subject: arXiv:0803.0050v1 [physics.gen-ph]
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:21:46 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
To: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>
Cc: Tiziana Marsico <martiz64@libero.it>


Dear Angelo,

I do hope all my email messages sent since Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:14:23 +0300 have been safely received.

I read with great interest your latest paper, co-authored by Dr. Marsico, and wonder if you can elaborate on the two "tug-of-war" (evidence from galaxy formation) effects of gravity, currently called "cold dark matter" and "dynamic dark energy".

You and Dr. Marsico also wrote: "In particular, the concept of a vacuum energy is fully extraneous to GR." And a bit later:

"The galaxy gas and the gravitating body, hard core of the model, can be composed, partially or even entirely, of dark matter."

I wonder what is your idea of "dark matter" that could avoid the concept of vacuum energy, and how you would address the first issue above.

Finally, you wrote: "... the aim to show how useless are all the attempts to give a physical meaning to singular geometrical loci."

Please notice that I never suggested any *physical* meaning, because I believe we're dealing with a well-known, since Aristotle, form of reality,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Petkov.html#ADM

Best regards,

Dimi

===========

Angelo Loinger, Gravitational waves from BBH-systems? A (doubly) vain quest, physics/0602040 v1.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0602040


Angelo Loinger, An immediate proof of the non-existence of GW's, physics/0412164 v1; To be published in Spacetime & Substance

Abstract: "In general relativity (GR) no observer is physically privileged. As a strict consequence, it can be shown that the physical generation of gravitational waves (GW's) is quite impossible."

--
"1. - As it is well known, the notion of GW came forth as a by-product of the linear approximation of GR [1]. Now, this approximation -- which resembles Maxwell e.m. theory -- is fully inadequate to a proper study of the hypothetic GW’s (see [2], [3]). On the other hand, in the exact (non- approximate) formulation of GR no "mechanism" exists in reality for the physical generation of the GW’s, as it can be proved [3]. The undulatory solutions of Einstein field equations have a mere formal character.
...
"I give here another proof of the real non-existence of physical GW’s, which is so straightforward that even the physicist in the street will understand it.
...

"3. - An electric charge C which is at rest for a given inertial observer I₀ cannot emit e.m. waves. Any inertial observer I for whom C is in motion does not possess physical privileges with respect to I₀. Accordingly, both observer I₀ and observer I do not register any e.m. wave sent forth by C.

"In GR the expression at rest must be defined precisely every time, specifying the interested spacetime manifold, because the co-ordinates are mere "labels" of point events [5]. Let us consider for instance the Einsteinian gravitational field generated by a homogeneous sphere of an incompressible fluid as it was investigated by Schwarzschild [6]. In Schwarzschild’s system of co-ordinates S₀ the sphere is at rest, and no GW is emitted. Now, any observer S -- very far, in particular, from observer S₀ -- for whom the sphere of fluid is in motion does not possess any physical privilege with respect to S₀. Accordingly, both observer S₀ and observer S do not register any GW sent forth by the sphere of fluid. It is evident that this argument can be extended to any celestial body B, which can be considered at rest for a given observer S₀ and in motion for any observer S, who is very far, in particular, from S₀. Q.e.d."
=============

See also: Angelo Loinger, On the origin of the notion of GW et cetera, physics/0407134; cf. also Appendix: Hermann Weyl, How far can one get with a linear field theory of gravitation in flat space-time? Amer. J. Math. 66 (1944) 591.
--

Angelo Loinger, Wrong "idées fixes" in GR, physics/0403092

"Idée fixe No 4
"It is obvious that the notion of gravitational wave, as an object endowed with a physical reality, requires the existence of a class of physically privileged reference frames.

"Idée fixe No 5
"It regards the conceptual adequacy, for the treatment of the gravitational waves, of the linearized version of GR. Now, in a beautiful article of 1944 Hermann Weyl proved the mathematical and physical inadequacy of the linear approximation of GR, just under the above respect [10].
[10] H. Weyl, Amer. J. Math. 66 (1944) 591."
--

Angelo Loinger, Non-existence of gravitational waves. The stages of the theoretical discovery (1917-2003), physics/0312149, and

Angelo Loinger, Again on the non-existence of gravitational waves and of black holes,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311075

Abstract: Very straightforward arguments proving the physical non-existence of GW's and of BH's. They are so simple that even the members of the Wheelerian establishment will understand them.
--

Angelo Loinger, The Black Holes do not exist - "Also Sprach Karl Schwarzschild", physics/0402088

"The fictive notion of BH was generated by erroneous reflections on the "globe"  r = 2m  of the standard HDW-form. It would not have come forth if the treatises of GR had expounded the Schwarzschild form of solution in lieu of the standard form.
...

Continued gravitational collapse: it is almost evident that if we bear in mind, e.g., Schwarzschild’s and Broillouin’s forms, no continued collapse can generate a BH -- and this was just Einstein’s opinion [11]."

Submitted to Il Nuovo Saggiatore - Bollettino della Società Italiana di Fisica

Abstract: A very recent research validates observationally the theoretical demonstrations of the physical non-existence of the gravitational waves.
 

Recently (August 14th, 2003) it has been published on Los Alamos Archive (arXiv: gr-qc/0308050 v1) an observational paper by 368 co-authors (B. Abbott ... J. Zweizig) entitled "Setting upper limits on the strength of periodic gravitational waves using the first science data from the GEO600 and LIGO detectors".

Its abstract is as follows: "Data collected by the GEO600 and LIGO interferometric gravitational wave detectors during their first observational science run were searched for continuous gravitational waves from the pulsar J1939+2134 at twice its rotation frequency. Two independent analysis methods were used and are demonstrated in this paper: a frequency domain method and a time domain method. Both achieve consistent null results, placing new upper limits on the strength of the pulsar’s gravitational wave emission. A model emission mechanism is used to interpret the limits as a constraint on the pulsar’s equatorial ellipticity."

These null results could have been foreseen -- and in a very simple way.

A fundamental article of 1917 by T. Levi Civita [1] has demonstrated that the gravitational waves are mere formal undulations, fully destitute of energy and momentum, only endowed with a false (pseudo) tensor (i.e. a non-tensor) of energy-momentum. As a matter of fact, Einstein had always serious doubts about the physical reality of the gravitational waves, see e.g. his paper with Rosen of 1935 [2], even if the notion "gravitational wave" had been theorized by him in 1916 [3]. But in this paper he investigated the approximate linearized version of the exact general relativity (version whose substrate is simply Minkowski spacetime), which resembles the Minkowskian formulation of e.m. Maxwell theory, and which has an invariant character only under the transformations of Lorentz group.

On the contrary, Levi-Civita [1] made a frontal attack to the analogous problem of the exact GR, for which the variable metric is, in essence, spacetime -- and not a conventional field propagated through a fixed substrate.

In recent years I have given specific and stringent proofs of the physical non-existence of the gravitational waves [4], in particular of the absence of any generation mechanism whatever.

It is a pity that in 2003 the above 368 physicists base essentially their belief in the real existence of gravitational waves on the cited Einstein’s paper of 1916 [3], fully neglecting some basic concepts of the exact GR [5]. Of course, they have the possibility of persevering on their road with the aim to lower more and more the upper limits of the strength of the gravitational waves. And in fact they write that "further improvements are planned": a vain chase to nothing. In the Forties of the past century a distinguished experimentalist, Quirino Majorana (uncle of Ettore M.), had succeeded in lowering to the intensity of a very gentle breeze the upper limit of the strength of terrestrial ether’s wind; he used just a Michelson interferometer.

An Italian proverb says: "Chi si contenta gode".

References

[1] T. Levi-Civita, Rend. Lincei, 26 (1917) 381. For an English version seearXiv: physics/9906004 (June 2nd, 1999).

[2] A. Einstein and N. Rosen, J. Franklin Inst., 223 (1935) 43. See also L. Infeld and J. Plebanski, Motion and relativity, (Pergamon Press, Oxford, etc 1960, pp. 200 and 201.

[3] A. Einstein, Berl. Ber., (1916) 688.

[4] A. Loinger, Nuovo Cimento B, 115 (2000) 679; Idem, Spacetime & Substance, 3 (2002) 129; Idem, ibidem, 4 (2002) 145; Idem, On Black Holes and Gravitational Waves, (La Goliardica Pavese, Pavia) 2002, Part II.

[5] See also H. Weyl, Amer. J. Math., 66 (1944) 591.

xDipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano, Via Celoria, 16 - 20133 Milano (Italy) E-mail address: angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it

Subject: LIGO failed again
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 17:58:02 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Angelo Loinger <Angelo.Loinger@mi.infn.it>
CC: a.m.cruise@bham.ac.uk, ungarel@star.sr.bham.ac.uk,
     j.hough@physics.gla.ac.uk, s.marcuccio@cpr.it, touboul@onera.fr,
     h.ward@physics.gla.ac.uk, John.W.Armstrong@jpl.nasa.gov,
     Massimo.Tinto@jpl.nasa.gov, William.M.Folkner@jpl.nasa.gov,
     Frank.B.Estabrook@jpl.nasa.gov, office-hannover@aei.mpg.de,
     Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de, Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de,
     dhs@ligo.mit.edu, barish@ligo.caltech.edu, weiss_r@ligo.mit.edu,
     sanders_g@ligo.caltech.edu, kats@ligo.mit.edu,
     vitale@science.unitn.it, bignami@CESR.fr, mwaldrop@nsf.gov,
     njp@iop.org, fyi@aip.org, focus@aps.org,
     weinberg@physics.utexas.edu

Dear Angelo,

I wonder if you know that LIGO Scientific Collaboration (395 scholars, gr-qc/0505029 v1) failed again: no gravitational wave signals were detected in 9.98 days of analyzed LIGO S2 data,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#LIGO

Just as you and Hermann Weyl predicted.

Best regards,

Dimi
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

=====

Subject: Re: LIGO failed again
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:27:46 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de
CC: office-hannover@aei.mpg.de, Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de,
     Hermann.Nicolai@aei.mpg.de

Dear Dr. Schutz,

I elaborated today on my critical remarks at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html

Your professional feedback will be highly appreciated.

I do hope you will accept this as a professional challenge.

Should you have questions, please don't hesitate.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

=====

Subject: Re: LIGO failed again
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:53:39 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de
BCC: [snip]

Dear Dr. Schutz,

Let's do it professionally, okay? Your somber and cantankerous silence won't help for resolving the issue,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#quadrupole

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov

=====

Subject: Re: Request for reproducing published material
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:40:29 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Bernard F Schutz <Bernard.Schutz@aei.mpg.de>,
     schutz@aei-potsdam.mpg.de, Bernard.Schutz@astro.cf.ac.uk

P.S. I haven't heard from you yet.

D.C.
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:08:59 +0300, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Schutz,
>
> In line with IOP Guidelines for reproducing published material, I am
> respectfully requesting your permission to reproduce Fig. 24.3 from
> [Ref. 1, p. 349] and Fig. 1 from [Ref. 2].
>
> I will argue [Ref. 3] that the strain of GWs may not be observable *in
> principle*, and hence need to elaborate extensively on your viewpoint,
> which, in turns, requires reproducing your two figures, as requested
> above.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Dimi Chakalov
> --
>
> [Ref. 1] Bernard Schutz, GRAVITY from the Ground Up: An Introductory
> Guide to Gravity and General Relativity, Cambridge University Press,
> Cambridge, 2003.
>
> [Ref. 2] Bernard F. Schutz, Gravitational Radiation, AEI-2000-020,
> gr-qc/0003069 v1; Accepted by Encyclopedia of Astronomy and
> Astrophysics, 2000.
>
> [Ref. 3] D. Chakalov, Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable?
> Manuscript, August 2005.
 

Note: Prof. Angelo Loinger started his career in theoretical physics in 1961, as Full Professor in Theoretical Physics at the University of Milan. His research papers posted at Los Alamos Archive (currently 30) can be retrieved from here.

Let me only quote Sec. VI, Acknowledgements, from the above-quoted paper, LIGO-P030008-E-Z, gr-qc/0308050, produced by The LIGO Scientific Collaboration:

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration: B. Abbott et al., Setting upper limits on the strength of periodic gravitational waves using the first science data from the GEO600 and LIGO detectors, gr-qc/0308050 v1, 14 August 2003

"VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

"The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National Science Foundation for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council of the United Kingdom, the Max-Planck-Society and the State of Niedersachsen/Germany for support of the construction and operation of the GEO600 detector. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of the research by these agencies and by the Australian Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India, the Department of Science and Technology of India, the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Tecnologia, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation."

Why do we chase these empty waves in the year 2003? The issue has been sorted out by T. Levi-Civita in 1917 and, five years later, by H. Weyl. I think the situation is highly embarrassing.

Any comments? Do not hesitate, please!

Dimi Chakalov
September 10, 2003

P.S.  LIGO Scientific Collaboration, B. Abbott et al., simply don't care. Their wishful thinking is beyond imagination: "We discuss improvements in the search method that will be applied to future science data from LIGO and other gravitational wave detectors", in "First upper limits from LIGO on gravitational wave bursts", gr-qc/0312056 v1, Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:19:30 GMT.

What would be the upper limit, if any, of their incredible ignorance?

Since July 2000, Prof. Angelo Loinger has been banned from both publishing in, and cross-listing to, gr-qc section of ArXiv. His last paper posted in sec. gr-qc, gr-qc/0007048, is dated July 19, 2000.

Paul Ginsparg, who is personally responsible for this communist censorship, is keeping quiet. See my email of Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:17:04 +0200 below.

D.C.
December 10, 2003
Last updated: January 8, 2004

--

Subject: Phys Rev D and gr-qc/0312056 v3
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:17:04 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Alan J Weinstein <ajw@caltech.edu>
CC: prd@aps.org, prdcomm@aps.org, prdtex@aps.org,
     exoffice@aps.org, focus@aps.org, letters@aps.org,
     barish_b@ligo.caltech.edu, blackburn_k@ligo.caltech.edu,
     desalvo_r@ligo.caltech.edu, lazzarini_a@ligo.caltech.edu,
     nash@ligo.caltech.edu, sanders_g@ligo.caltech.edu,
     yamamoto_h@ligo.caltech.edu, Paul Ginsparg <ginsparg@cornell.edu>

RE: First upper limits from LIGO on gravitational wave bursts, LIGO Scientific Collaboration: B. Abbott, et al. gr-qc/0312056 v3, 21 pages, 15 figures, for submission to Phys Rev D.
 

Dear Dr. Weinstein,

In case you really decide to submit your paper to Phys Rev D, please see

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Loinger.html

Your publication in Phys Rev D will be quoted for many years to come, as an incredible case of total ignorance of basic facts known since 1917.

I believe Phys Rev D keeps much higher standards than, say, Proceedings of NEB-X, tenth Greek relativity meeting. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Paul Ginsparg also will be mentioned on numerous occasions, since his people have banned Prof. Angel Loinger from cross-listing to any section of arXiv. Prof. Loinger can publish his rigorous mathematical proof only in section /physics.

You may say that you don't read sec. /physics; the point is that my email will not bounce, and you will receive it.

I suppose you are good in math, so may I suggest you to take a real good look at the papers quoted at the URL above.

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to write me back.

If you wish to prove Prof. Angelo Loinger wrong, please don't forget to use some math.

Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience,

Yours faithfully,

Dimi Chakalov

====

Do you know that Newton's first paper, which claimed that white light is a composition of different colors, was ridiculed by the English Royal Society of Science? Newton was so shocked by the stupid and aggressive comments that he decided not to publish any paper in his life. Indeed his next publication was 20 year later! It is also interesting that, when Newton became a celebrated scientist in the court of the King, and re-published the idea, there we no objection, any more.

Laszlo Kish, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M,
http://ee.tamu.edu/People/bios/bkish.html
 

===

Subject: paper.doc
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:05:12 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>
CC: "Prof. Elemer Elad Rosinger" <eerosinger@hotmail.com>,
     "Isham, Christopher J" <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>

Dear Angelo,

Thank you for your reply. I referred to your physics/0506024 v2 and monograph, ref. [4]. In the web version, it appears at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Vitale.html#P4

> P.S. - The concept "acceleration" in GR (exact formulation) does not
> possess an invariant character with respect to transformations of
> general coordinates.

I recall also H. Weyl (Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science,
1949): "The introduction of numbers as coordinates ... is an act of
violence whose only practical vindication is the special calculatory
manageability of the ordinary number continuum with its four basic
operations."

And C. Moller (The Theory of Relativity, Clarendon Press, Oxford and New
York, 1952, p. 226): "In accelerated systems of reference the spatial and temporal coordinates thus lose every physical significance; they simply represent a certain arbitrary, but unambiguous, numbering of physical events."

There is nothing to 'hold onto'. That's my problem, in the context of my thesis 'Panta rei conditio sine qua non est'. So, I felt the need to propose a brand new kind of 'ether' (the putative global mode of spacetime), which springs 'from inside' each and every infinitesimal "point", as you use it in diff and tensor calculus. As a bonus, I believe we might have a chance to explain both the source and the dynamics of the "dark" energy, which constitutes up to 73 per cent from the stuff in the universe. Qui vivra, verra.

With all best wishes,

Dimi

============

From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Angelo Loinger <angelo.loinger@mi.infn.it>
Subject: Letter
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:55:32 +0200

Dear Angelo,

Thank you very much for your letter from November 6th. I agree that my
metaphor of the lake is not resolute; it's just a metaphor. Also, I added some ideas on p. 16 from the essay on GW astronomy,
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/gw.pdf

For your convenience, I attach the add-on from October 26th, gw_pdf_p16.rtf.

I also agree with you that should be "more cautious", and have updated my download page at
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

"It's all about a new (to theoretical physics) kind of reality, called
potential reality. Evidence can be found in both QM (the relativistic
"collapse") and GR (the so-called dark energy). Hence a new path to quantum gravity is suggested, by supplying QM and GR with what they do not have: reality. It is a potential reality which keeps the possible states of all physical systems in a Holon state. Thus, we restore the reality of 'quantum system out there' and 'spacetime point', and explain the origin of quantum and gravitational waves as an effect of the Holon."

I hope you would agree that there is no explanation of the origin of quantum waves nor the quantum of action (please see also my email from Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:05:12 +0300). So, I'm trying to get in the "fisherman" shoes of Geheimrat Max Planck. Tough. Hope to get the job done by November 2015.

With all best wishes,

Dimi