Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Answerer · 06-26-2002, 04:47 AM

Hey guys, recently I have met a new general relativity known as Yilmaz theory, it appears to be bettter than the old one as it removed all signs of singularity problems and other common problems or defects in the old theory. Although it is not widely accepted by most physicists, it is not refuted or falsified yet and instead, there are some compelling evidences to show that the theory was not derived purely from speculation. Anyway, here is the link and please let me know how your views about this new theory.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/jdbrown371/newtheory.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/jdbrown371/newtheory.html</a>

Tim Thompson · 06-26-2002, 08:31 AM

The Yilmaz theory is hardly "new", having been first published by Huseyin Yilmaz in 1958. It was subject to a considerable debate in the journals, and found to be most likely wrong.

It was at the time a serious alternative to standard general relativity. Anyone not well versed in the mathematical intricasies of GR will be quite unable to follow why the Yilmaz theory is not up to the standard set by Einstein's theory.

Amongst physicists, the debate has died away and the Yilmaz theory discarded, the last gasp of discussion went on about 10 years ago. It isn't going to be resurrected by some webpages.

Steven S · 06-26-2002, 10:22 AM

Was Yilmaz's theory ever a serious contender with GR? I'm suprised if it was. Anyway, a long time ago I read a discussion between Steve Carlip and Van Flandern about Yilmaz's theory on sci.astro and sci.physics.relativity. Chris Hillman was kind enough to archive it here:
<a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/YilmazAlley" target="_blank">http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/YilmazAlley</a>
Carlip is a leading expert in GR.

Steven S

Tim Thompson · 06-26-2002, 03:30 PM

Steve: Was Yilmaz's theory ever a serious contender with GR?

I only thought that from a quick look at the publication record. But then again, Arp is a lot more productive, but no more "serious". It would appear that in fact the Yilmaz theory was not as "serious" as I thought (I really don't know enough GR to judge for myself).

I didn't know about Carlip's earlier discussion, it's very interesting. I do remember Carlip went after van Flandern also over his hypothesis about the infinite speed of gravity.

So much for Yilmaz I guess.

Answerer · 06-26-2002, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Thompson:
<strong>The Yilmaz theory is hardly "new", having been first published by Huseyin Yilmaz in 1958. It was subject to a considerable debate in the journals, and found to be most likely wrong.

It was at the time a serious alternative to standard general relativity. Anyone not well versed in the mathematical intricasies of GR will be quite unable to follow why the Yilmaz theory is not up to the standard set by Einstein's theory.

Amongst physicists, the debate has died away and the Yilmaz theory discarded, the last gasp of discussion went on about 10 years ago. It isn't going to be resurrected by some webpages.</strong>

Hi Tim, do you have any links to the debate as I would like to see how they refuted the theory?

Steven S · 06-27-2002, 07:26 PM

The link I gave gives a detailed refutation of Yilmaz's theory. However, it is a discussion between two physicists so it might be somewhat incomprehensible. Since Yilmaz's mistakes are somewhat elementary it might be a nice excersize for me to try and describe them in layman's terms.

Steven S

06-26-2002, 04:47 AM	#1
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	A better general theory of relativity? Hey guys, recently I have met a new general relativity known as Yilmaz theory, it appears to be bettter than the old one as it removed all signs of singularity problems and other common problems or defects in the old theory. Although it is not widely accepted by most physicists, it is not refuted or falsified yet and instead, there are some compelling evidences to show that the theory was not derived purely from speculation. Anyway, here is the link and please let me know how your views about this new theory. <a href="http://members.tripod.com/jdbrown371/newtheory.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/jdbrown371/newtheory.html</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2002, 08:31 AM	#2
Tim Thompson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Pasadena, CA, USA Posts: 455	The Yilmaz theory is hardly "new", having been first published by Huseyin Yilmaz in 1958. It was subject to a considerable debate in the journals, and found to be most likely wrong. It was at the time a serious alternative to standard general relativity. Anyone not well versed in the mathematical intricasies of GR will be quite unable to follow why the Yilmaz theory is not up to the standard set by Einstein's theory. Amongst physicists, the debate has died away and the Yilmaz theory discarded, the last gasp of discussion went on about 10 years ago. It isn't going to be resurrected by some webpages.

06-26-2002, 10:22 AM	#3
Steven S Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 167	Was Yilmaz's theory ever a serious contender with GR? I'm suprised if it was. Anyway, a long time ago I read a discussion between Steve Carlip and Van Flandern about Yilmaz's theory on sci.astro and sci.physics.relativity. Chris Hillman was kind enough to archive it here: <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/YilmazAlley" target="_blank">http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/YilmazAlley</a> Carlip is a leading expert in GR. Steven S

06-26-2002, 03:30 PM	#4
Tim Thompson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Pasadena, CA, USA Posts: 455	Steve: Was Yilmaz's theory ever a serious contender with GR? I only thought that from a quick look at the publication record. But then again, Arp is a lot more productive, but no more "serious". It would appear that in fact the Yilmaz theory was not as "serious" as I thought (I really don't know enough GR to judge for myself). I didn't know about Carlip's earlier discussion, it's very interesting. I do remember Carlip went after van Flandern also over his hypothesis about the infinite speed of gravity. So much for Yilmaz I guess.

06-27-2002, 07:26 PM	#6
Steven S Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 167	The link I gave gives a detailed refutation of Yilmaz's theory. However, it is a discussion between two physicists so it might be somewhat incomprehensible. Since Yilmaz's mistakes are somewhat elementary it might be a nice excersize for me to try and describe them in layman's terms. Steven S

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.