Is GR a wrong apparoach to gravitation? [Archive]

Juan R.

May12-05, 07:12 AM

pervect

It is still in development. I have still some problem of interpretation of a factor that arise in the equation (possibly it will be related to the Q of cosmological models), but at least one can obtain new interesting ideas.

When finished, it will be not published in a usual peer-reviewed journal. It will be published in a new form. See our proposals for changing usual system of scientific publication on (http://www.electrochemist2.narod.ru/index.html). You can see I prefer review proccess.

Dear “DrChinese”

Even in its infancy stage, it is sufficiently developed like for solving some of problems of quantum gravity like the problem of time of Hamiltonian gravity or for showing us that string or M theory does not work and they will do not work. Please read again my criticism to string theory. My emphasis is not in the obvious failure of string as a practical (working) theory, my emphasis is in the it is wrong even if some new "stringy revolution" solves the current problem with compactification and landscapes and all that uggly stuff. Perhaps you would prefer now my own speculation about a future full theory to quantum gravity and SM, why there are 3 families (it is not related to CY), etc. but I prefer to wait...

If my theory is not interesting for you (or irritate to you). Simply ignore it. It is very easy!!

Daniel

There are many criticisms to usual GR. I am not sure of several of those criticisms. E.g. in some part I read that some people sure that GR does not explain Mercury perihelion, since that a special symmetry for the Sun is involved in the fit. However, I has quoted some flaws of Einstein GR that I think (of course I can be wrong) are true.

I reintroduce them here (from the above pdf manuscript) for your valuation and criticism. Please read the manuscript for more information. E.g. the fact of that recent experimental work suggests that gravitation interaction is not bounded by c. This is easily explained in our approach (in fact it is predicted).

- The first point is that Einstein field equations were not rigorously derived. Whereas the geometric part is “ constructed in fine marble” (here and
below on own words by Albert Einstein), the material part (the energymomentum tensor) relies on many assumptions, like the strong equivalence principle, and is, therefore, “ low quality wood”. Of course, the true proof for the gravitational field equations does not rely on the original derivation by Einstein, but we would open the mind to a possible failure of the equations.

- The second is that attempts to derivate Einstein field equations from canonical science rely on certain additional hypothesis (basically those used by Einstein) that break the beautiful mathematical structure of canonical science and contradict some of its basic principles: principles well proved in experiments and mathematically consistent. Of course, one could claim that Universe is mainly described by two theories: at one hand, Einstein gravitation and, at the other, canonical science. However, a dual structure is so strange as the current incompatibility between quantum mechanics and Einstein gravitation. The author’s idea is that canonical science would be also applicable to gravitational phenomena.

- The third is that Einstein GR is not fully compatible with Newtonian theory. It is usually claimed that one recovers Newtonian theory in the linear regime, but one really obtains a non-flat geometry contradicting basic Newtonian
principles. For example, time is not absolute in the linear Einstein regime since
its variation is related to the time-time component of the perturbative
component of the full metric. The situation is traditionally saved using a
double approach. At one hand, it is officially assumed that Newtonian
mechanics is the c infinite limit of special relativity but, at the other hand,
Newtonian gravity is formally modeled from GR only when c is finite. This
double criterion is inadmissible in science: either Newtonian theory is the c
infinite limit of Einstein relativistic theory or is not.

Note that the usual relativists’ argumentation on the small (unobservable)
character of curved spacetime in linearized gravity does not invalidate this
mathematical-epistemological argument here introduced. E.g. one cannot take
the mathematical limit c -> infinite on a “kinetic term” and ignore it in a
“potential term”. See the next point for further epistemological discussion.

- The fourth point, and very important, is that spacetime curvature is never
measured. The semi intuitive idea (the popular model of the elastic surface
uses the concept of extrinsic curvature that is not Einstein curvature) of that
gravitation is curvature is not convincing after all. For example, some authors
attempt to convince us that curvature of spacetime explains by itself the
deflection of light; since that spacetime around Sun is assumed to be curved,
you would naturally think that ray lights move on a “geodesic manner”.
It is just ignored that deflection is also predicted by Newtonian theory in flat
space; deflection calculated by Soldner as early as 1803. The real problem with Newton approach is that predicts approximately the half of experimental value, but a new force that arises naturally from canonical science, exactly from the relativistic thermomaster equation (named super-thermomaster by Patricia Iglesias Pérez), permits us to compute the correct deflection (remember that this research is still on a first stage).

What is more, a well-known epistemological principle says that if A is the
cause of B, then the elimination of A eliminates also B (the effect). Imagine a
hypothetical travel to other universe where the velocity of light is infinite: i.e. a Newtonian Universe. The standard linearized Einstein equations state that the curvature of the spacetime would be zero, whereas the Newtonian potential computed from relativistic gravitational potentials clearly is not. This
mathematical limit indicates that curvature is not the cause of gravitation as
officially assumed, since that elimination of curvature ( cause) does not
eliminate gravitation ( effect). However, canonical terms –relying on the nature of time– disappear when one takes the limit of infinite light velocity and then one recovers the satisfactory Newtonian model exactly. Therefore, canonical science is backward full compatible with the nonrelativistic Newtonian theory.

- The fifth point is that this canonical force can be unified with electrodynamic phenomena and permit us rethink (the always inconsistent!) Maxwell field electrodynamics. We obtain the so desired Einstein dream of unified electrogravitational field just when abandon the field theoretic approach and its divergent self-energies, unobservable fields, and inconsistent retarded fourpotentials!

- A sixth point relies in an epistemological analysis of Einstein gravitation. From basic epistemology, one knows that a theory explains other when there are less principles and unexplained assumptions than in the original theory.
General relativity is not clearly better than Newtonian gravitation from a
conceptual point of view because the number of whys to be answered is the
same in both cases.

Newton equation permits us to calculate the gravitatory force but says us
nothing about the underlying mechanism for the attraction between material
bodies. Almost all popular books and specialized manuals leading with
relativistic gravitation state that Einstein theory explains the mechanism: the
curvature of the own spacetime. This argument is not solid.

Of course, the mystery of a force-at-a-distance is eliminated but at price of
substituting it by a new mystery: what is the mechanism of the curvature of
spacetime? Centuries ago, Newtonian theorists asked, how does Moon know
what is the force generated by Earth on it? In Einstein terms, the question may be reformulated as follow, how does spacetime around Moon know what is the curvature generated by Earth on it?

Newton equation permits us only compute the force. In the same way, Einstein field equations permit just compute the curvature without an underlying mechanism for this curvature effect, and therefore, you are just substituting a mystery by other: force by curvature.

Moreover, it appears that one can quantize gravitation directly.

russ_watters

May12-05, 07:38 AM

If Newton's theory was superior to Einstein's, why was Einstein's developed in the first place...?

Juan R.

May12-05, 01:39 PM

If Newton's theory was superior to Einstein's, why was Einstein's developed in the first place...?

I am sorry, perhaps i explained bad, but i am not saying that Newton theory is best that Einstein one, but my recent post-Newtonian approach appears to be very effective. I am sure many relativistic expertise agree with me that initial acceptation of Einstein GR was favoured by the technology of the epoque o:) .

Today, it would be more difficult to accept Einstein GR since that experiments that validated GR now are below intense research. If i am not wrong my theory predicts all of classical effects usually atributed to curved spacetime and offers good answers to questions that GR do not. Examples:

- Recent high precision tests of redshifts (limbo) contradices classical GR prediction.

- Some extragalactic data does not fit adequately to GR. It is curious that MOND-type theories and similar ones arise naturally in my approach.

- There are convincing proofs of that gravitation is not delayed by c. Especialists can offer us lot of papers and experimental data: absence of aberration, instability in binary stelar systems, etc.

- Very recent work shows that usual field theoretic approach in electrodynamics is not correct. Maxwell field theory do not work. This is also predicted by my new theory, etc. It appears natural that GR (inspired in Maxwell) may be "wrong" or "almost wrong".

- Posibly my approach can solve some of most difficult open question iun cosmology. E.g. there is not necesity for "dark matter" in my approach.

- The square of Planck scale arises directly without additional asumptions. Note that the Planck scale is introduced by hand in suposed elegant TOEs like string theory.

- My theory shows why one cannot wait for a quantum field approach in the ipirit of QED.

- Etc.

Moreover, even ignoring all of this (perhaps all of this is only "concidence" caused by a cosmic fluctuation :yuck: ), what is the flaw in my reasoning?

1) does curvature explain gravity?

2) is newtonian gravitation contained in GR?

3) is there real gravitational waves?

Etc.

russ_watters

May12-05, 02:22 PM

I am sorry, perhaps i explained bad, but i am not saying that Newton theory is best that Einstein one, but my recent post-Newtonian approach appears to be very effective. That doesn't explain why it is a bad thing that GR is not completely consistent with Newton's Gravity. If i am not wrong my theory predicts all of classical effects usually atributed to curved spacetime... In that case, your approach would not be consistent with Newtonian gravity either.

Nereid

May12-05, 03:24 PM

Maybe you already addressed these points Juan R., but I didn't see them (apologies if I read too quickly):
What does it (your theory) predict for gravity probe B results? I think that an "alternate theory of gravity" might receive more serious attention if the PPN parameters are worked out for it and compare well with experimental evidence.
And if I may add a couple of (observationally-based) questions of my own ...
- "Recent high precision tests of redshifts (limbo) contradices classical GR prediction" - would you be so kind as to provide a reference to these tests?
- "There are convincing proofs of that gravitation is not delayed by c. Especialists can offer us lot of papers and experimental data: absence of aberration, instability in binary stelar systems, etc." - ditto; where is this experimental data published?

Chronos

May13-05, 12:55 AM

There is strong observational evidence showing decay of orbits in binary neutrons star systems [e.g., PSR 1913+16, PSR B1534+12 and PSR J0737-3039]. The explanation for this behavior is provided by GR: loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. In field theory, radiation is a consequence of the finite velocity of field propagation, so orbital changes via gravitational radiation are a damping effect due to its finite propagation speed. The calculation for the rate of damping is heavily dependent on the speed of gravity. In the case of PSR 1913+16, measurements indicate the speed of gravity is within 1% of the speed of light. Any candidate theory to replace GR must not only make new or different predictions than GR, it must also be consistent with the large number of observations that support GR. Some references to consider:

Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16: Thirty Years of Observations and Analysis
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149

Studies of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR B1534+12: I. Timing Analysis
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208357

Binary-pulsar tests of strong-field gravity and gravitational radiation damping
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0402007

The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103036

Was Einstein Right? Testing Relativity at the Centenary
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504086

Juan R.

May13-05, 07:21 AM

Sincerely, I thought that in this forum I would receive a hard criticism. This is not a problem for me, since that each new idea may be tested. Perhaps I am correct, perhaps I am completely wrong, but without debate I cannot be sure. My research appears consistent. Debate is not a problem. When Einstein published his relativistic ideas many “respected physicists” did joke of him. Somewhat like highly “respected physicists and mathematicians” claimed that Newton was completely wrong. Somewhat like recently “expertises” did joke in recent approach to adsorption kinetics. Moreover, I simply ignore jokes because jokes are a symptom of no serious arguments against my own ideas :approve: .

I thought sincerely I could open a serious debate in this forum, but several you misguided the point and posted many irrelevant comments (even infantile ones). I am perplexed. I am open to debate, to explain my ideas and to correct my possible errors. Fortunately, other members appear to be interested in a review of basic postulates of GR. Thanks!!

Collective answer (including serious and joke posts)

There is a basic principle of epistemology that says that a new theory may always explain previous theories. GR is not 100% compatible with Newtonian theory. Therefore, GR cannot be completely true and that is a bad thing.

You are wrong, my approach is totally consistent with Newtonian gravity since one can derive exactly Newtonian gravity in the appropiate limit of c --> infinite. GR cannot. In fact, in the limit of instantaneous interaction, GR predicts flat spacetime and therefore (according to usual belief) no gravitation, since gravity is assumed to be curvature... Still one may obtain the correct limit of nonzero gravitational field on that limit. Conclusion: GR is wrong in its rejecting of gravitation like force.

I am not a specialist on gravitation ( I began my research on this topic some month ago), but I can offer you some data. I plan to write a first manuscript in the last part of this year.

GR predicts a constant redshift of 2.12 10^-8. However there are experiments demostrating variation in function of center to limb distance to the Sun.

At the projected distance of 3 solar radii, the redshift is approximately the double of predicted by GR (Merat, P., et al 1974a. Astron. Astrophys., 30, 167.). See also Sadeh, D., et al 1968. Science, 159, 307 or Marmet, P. 1989, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 17, 238 for further discussion.

From J.H. Taylor et al Nature 355 (1992) 132. One can observe disagreement between predicted and observed period changes for PSR1913+16 and 1534+12. PSR1534+12 indicates a lower limit to the speed of gravity of order of 10^3c.

I am sorry, on gravity probe B results and PPN parameters I cannot say nothing serious still. As said I am still on a preliminary step of the research. However, redshifts, perihelion, time-delay, and deflection appear to be explained in this work.

I can explain some things: exactly those I have worked out these days.

Let me remark that my theory appears compatible with MOND (that is with departures from GR in galactic scales) and with the characteristic (1/r) behavior.

Of corse it is necessary more work still. I have not a final theory but it is very interesting that if even it is only approximated (e.g. valid just to c^-2 order, etc.) it has been already cuantized and open a new interesting alternative to usual QG approaches, specially ST that is a waste of time.

The quote on PPN is interesting but I believe that PPN research is more focused to generalization of GR, obtaining GR by taking the appropriate limits for the parameters (I suspect you may know this topic very well). I am asking if usual GR is wrong in the basis. I cannot sure it, but by this reason I opened this post days ago with a question: is GR wrong?

Note that I am not saying that GR can be useful or not like a computational device. Somewhat like Dirac hole theory is still used in atomic physics and quantum chemistry like a “computational model” when all of us know (I wait!!!!) that the hole theory is completely wrong.

Of course, any theory to supplant GR may explain experiments. I am focusing this basic epistemological principle since the beginning. My work is not "ELEGANT" (i.e. based in supposed elegance and beatiful "math" but with none or wrong links with reality) like ST is. If my theory cannot explain all of experimental data (just the classical tests), i wait can be useful like a first step in other better theory by my own or others.

Let me say that I am not saying that we cannot see retardation effects. In fact, like say in some part I obtain a simulation of fields and the retardation of the effects of those fields on the masses is of course bounded by c, but there are also direct instantaneous interaction and this violates basic Einstein thinking.

My theory “predicts” (really postdict because is newer) also as recent result regarding electromagnetism (PRE 1996, 53, 5, 53-57). It is usually asumed that the field theoretic approach based in retarded action is full compatible with experimental data. Canonical approach suggests that the field approach is not fundamental in electromagnetism and gravitation and therefore GR has already failed in its basic principles of overemphasize the field theoretic approach like Maxwell did on EM.

Juan R.

May13-05, 07:41 AM

Let me remark that my theory appears compatible with MOND (that is with departures from GR in galactic scales) and with the characteristic (1/r) behavior.

It reads ambigous. I mean the (1/r) galactic force not explained (into the limits of my knowledge) by GR.

russ_watters

May13-05, 08:00 AM

There is a basic principle of epistemology that says that a new theory may always explain previous theories. GR is not 100% compatible with Newtonian theory. Therefore, GR cannot be completely true and that is a bad thing. You misunderstand that basic principle of epistemiology: new theories must always explain phenomena better than previous theories (otherwise, why bother?). GR was first conceived because Newtonian gravity is wrong. Newtonian gravity works in some cases, but fails to work in others. GR (so far) works in every case where gravitational interactions are important. Therefore if GR were completely consistent with Newtonian gravity, it would not represent a step forward in our understanding, it would represent a step backwards.

Juan R.

May13-05, 01:19 PM

You misunderstand that basic principle of epistemiology: new theories must always explain phenomena better than previous theories (otherwise, why bother?). GR was first conceived because Newtonian gravity is wrong. Newtonian gravity works in some cases, but fails to work in others. GR (so far) works in every case where gravitational interactions are important. Therefore if GR were completely consistent with Newtonian gravity, it would not represent a step forward in our understanding, it would represent a step backwards.

You have misguided the point. :surprised

If you say that Newtonian gravity is "wrong" is that you are newer studied epistemology. Theories (i am talking about verified theories nor about hypotesis) are not correct or wrong, are applicable or inapplicable. Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to high velocities, but it is physically applicable at low velocities (and mases of course) and exact in the limit c--> 0.

Each new theory may coincide exactly with previous theories in the limit where the previous theory work perfectly. This is the reason of that taking the limit c --> infinite in the relativistic mass one obtains the Newtonian mass exactly.

The same may be true for gravitation or for any other theory of nature. For this reason in the limit of alpha --> 0 one obtains the action for GR from the superstring action, if one obtained another thing, ST newer had been even studied like a candidate to quantize gravitation. Precisely the problem of ST is compatification or the failure to obtain a macroscopic 4D from the 10D. Or said in another form one cannot obtain exactly 4D-GR in that limit.

It is more, there is another principle of epistemology of physics that says that in the mathematical limit where one obtains the special theory from the general theory, at least one constant of universe may disappear. I leave to you to discover what constant may disappear in the limit to newtonian physics.

All of that does not imply steps backwards, simply imply that the new theory may contain to previous theory like a special case valid in a determined limit. Somewhat like a circle is a special limit of an ellipse. Take a book in geometry!!

Moreover, my theory fits perfectly with Newtonian gravity in the limit of c--> infinite and explain (at least many) relativistic effects in the full regime. Sorry!! :devil:

Precisely the main criticism of Einstein to QM was that it is not full backward complatible with classical mechanics because in the limit of h --> 0 one does not obtain exactly classical mechanics.

Guy, have you heard about proposed modifications of QM for explaining correctly the classical word? Do you know the work of Penrose, Gell-Mann, Ownes, etc.? Has you heard about cats or about diagonal matrices?

Moreover, your emphasis on that GR works perfectly contrast a bit (only a bit of course :biggrin:) with the current status of many specialists that attemtp to explain experimental data and GR does not work adequately.

russ_watters

May13-05, 01:32 PM

Each new theory may coincide exactly with previous theories in the limit where the previous theory work perfectly. That is not what you said before - you did not include the caveat about coinciding only where the previous theory works. Thanks for clarifying.

However, that doesn't jive with your previous statement about GR not being fully compatible with Newtonian gravity. Where Newtonian gravity is correct, they do coincide - you can even derive Newton's laws from GR with the appropriate simplifying assumptions. But in the many cases where Newton's laws don't work, GR does work - so they quite naturally don't coincide. So quite, the flaw is in Newton's gravity, not in GR.

Juan R.

May13-05, 01:57 PM

That is not what you said before - you did not include the caveat about coinciding only where the previous theory works. Thanks for clarifying.

However, that doesn't jive with your previous statement about GR not being fully compatible with Newtonian gravity. Where Newtonian gravity is correct, they do coincide - you can even derive Newton's laws from GR with the appropriate simplifying assumptions. But in the many cases where Newton's laws don't work, GR does work - so they quite naturally don't coincide. So quite, the flaw is in Newton's gravity, not in GR.

After your first post i said clearly (Wednesday) that was a post-newtonian approach. It is obious that I was refering to the derivation of NG in the limit of c--> infinite.

Even ignoring now that GR does not explain all gravitational data exactly or that Einstein based his reasoning in Maxwell ideas -recently shows to be wrong in both physical and mathematical grouds (this indicated at least to me that GR cannot be correct)- GR explains very well many data: e.g. classical tests in solar sytem. My theory appears to obtain the same values that GR, but using flat spacetime, etc.

Moreover I obtain exactly Newtonian gravity in the limit c--> infinite. From GR one cannot. One obtain in the linearized regime the correct poisson equation, etc. but one obtains:

- c finite.
- Curved spacetime.
- A direct potential suposedly mediated by a retarded field!!!!

Both of three points are incompatible with Newton gravity (NG). Taking exactly the correct limit of c--> on GR one obtains:

- c infinite. (compatible with NG and classical nonrelativistic mechanic)
- Flat spacetime. (compatible with NG and classical nonrelativistic mechanic)
- The paradox of that one may obtain still -GMm/r with flat spacetime. Therefore curvature in not the source of gravitation.

Nereid

May13-05, 07:05 PM

GR predicts a constant redshift of 2.12 10^-8. However there are experiments demostrating variation in function of center to limb distance to the Sun.

At the projected distance of 3 solar radii, the redshift is approximately the double of predicted by GR (Merat, P., et al 1974a. Astron. Astrophys., 30, 167.). See also Sadeh, D., et al 1968. Science, 159, 307 or Marmet, P. 1989, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 17, 238 for further discussion.Thanks. I'll certainly check these out. In the meantime, I note that they are all rather old, and if - as you claim - the report inconsistencies with GR, I'd be astonished if they weren't followed up, and the observations repeated. Today, of course, much greater sensitivity is obtainable, so if you have more recent confirmatory observations, that'd be much appreciated.
From J.H. Taylor et al Nature 355 (1992) 132. One can observe disagreement between predicted and observed period changes for PSR1913+16 and 1534+12. PSR1534+12 indicates a lower limit to the speed of gravity of order of 10^3c.This too is 'old' (in the world of binary pulsar research), but nonetheless well worth looking into; thanks!

BTW, do you know if more recent observations of binary pulsars reveal similar inconsistencies? I note that the papers Chronos cites are all much more recent than the one you cite.

nickdanger

May14-05, 03:50 AM

Some time ago I began my research in gravitation.

Now I am actively working in GR and quantum gravity. I am sorry to say this but when I more study it, more I think that GR is not correct after all.

For some criticism to GR, you can see the last part of my "paper" on string theory sited in www.canonicalscience.com

I read your newsletter. It jumps around the topics a bit. However, I like that you show the problems with mathematical concepts, especially of the infinitesimal, dx. You bring some very good points. We must start to expand our understanding of the infinitesimal and the infinite series of the calculus to generally to exactly match our requirements in physical theory. I would say that Dirac already introduces the problem with his delta function and in general his bra-ket notation starts to distinguish the difference between c-numbers and q-numbers which is what I guess that Connes is trying to expand upon from your comments. Can you give me a reference for Connes work that you are reading.

I am currently working on the same mathematical problem. C. Flyte says that we simply can not view the transforms of the calculus as transforms from one c-number to another. We must expand our definition of the calculus transforms (integral and derivative) to be rotations to new types of numbers which are an expansion of the complex system and the entire theory of differential methods. These new numbers are just expansion of Dirac's definition of q-numbers and explains why the delta function can induct improper functions as 'proper'.

nickdanger

May14-05, 04:07 AM

This is just to tie the above post to the rest of the discussion: It is not Einstein's mathematics that is incorrect, because at the logic level of classical mathematics he is correct (the Lorentz transform). It is in the expansion of this idea that requires adjustment. Einstein makes his conclusion with SR that a fixed mass will rise to infinite energy as it approaches the speed of light. However, this lacks the detail analysis we require.....For this is true of every mass and we can not start to use his idea in the specific. Instead we are interested in a corrollary to his conclusion:
What average velocity do 'real' objects of the same mass possess? And we start by saying that all photons have the average velocity of c and assign the entire mass of the universe as zero. This only means that we assume the universe is the maximum mass and has a constant center (center of mass) that does not move.

In this way we have to eliminate the 'unreal' situation of infinite mass; and for that matter we are forced to also assign a mass to the photon, such that the zero of mass will only arise when there is no energy within a space at all.

Chronos

May14-05, 05:04 AM

Juan R.

May14-05, 05:15 AM

Thanks by your replies. Note this is a forum. It is not a peer review journal!!. Therefore I cannot are replying at each step with “the papers that I am reading”. Many people is soliciting to me references and more references. I am not soliciting you the papers that you are reading or the books in GR that you are read when reply to me. The list of papers that I have read is near 3000. More lots of monographs, textbooks, handbooks, etc. See my previous webpage (time ago it included downloable pdf papers in nanothermodynamics, chemistry, etc.) www.canonical.chemicalforums.com for a idea of I am doing or wait to the final version of www.canonicalscience.com.

I just want discuss some topics here. Use arguments! Owns or from others!!

Nereid

I am not a specialist on gravitation. Therefore, I cannot offer you mountains of reports and data. Specialists on relativity can write here and post for you dozens of reports. The inconsistencies are not due to sensitivity, since the failure on redshift is near the double and, moreover, it is not a random error. There is a clear tendency in many data: redshif is not constant. I quote only some report. I will cite all data, including more recent experimental data in the paper. Let me ignore now this data I am discussing just about the above points 1, 2, and 3. Still you have no critiqued my main idea of thinking.

I already known several of Chronos’ quoted papers, and in limbo-Redsift or in (1/r) they say nothing real. The recent “experimental confirmations of GR” that I know focus just in those themes where GR work well but ignore the flaws (somewhat like Dirac hole worked acceptably well for electrons, but Dirac simply ignored recent data on non-fermions...

nickdanger

I arrived to my work in calculus from nanothermodynamics.

I think that there are good motives for understanding that non-commutative geometry is not the so desired solution to the old problems of standard calculus. Please, I wait that nobody reply my saying: what? Calculus outdated? But it work perfectly in physics! That is the first notice that I have!! Please introduce modern reports in the topic…

Moreover, I am very skeptic that Connes’ approach was the key for our understanding of quantum spacetime. Precisely from my own approach to quantum spacetime I found a E-p relation akin to that found by LQG theorists.

You can see that I do not use the unconceivable (really unphysical) Dirac delta function. My work in math is not at level of mathematicians, of course. I follow Feynmann philosophy. My epsilon calculus permited to me understand epsilon thermal structures, obtain an R <--> (1/R) smmetry (it is not ST duality) and derive Hamiltonian equations of classical dynamics (and generalizations of them) from the thermomaster.

Juan R.

May14-05, 05:20 AM

Juan R.

May14-05, 05:23 AM

Infinities are obviously nonphysical. Just because math [a human construct] infers they might exist, does not mean they do, or that nature must bow to such absurdities. It appears to me the observable universe is not a singularity.

There is not infinites in my canonical gravitodynamics. Even if finally my approach is wrong in some detail and it is valid only like a first approach to a full understanding of gravitation. The could be a first step on our elimination of the infinites. Weinberg appears rather confortable with them, but infinites are only on our (really your :biggrin: ) papers.

Juan R.

May15-05, 09:49 AM

Still nobody has done absolutely none comments on my questions. There are several important questions around the validity of GR like a good theory of gravitation. Even ignoring recent data of deviations from GR predictions:

- Absence of aberration.

- "Dark matter".

- Non-constant solar redshift.

- Velocity of gravity in binary pulsars (the famous problem of conservation of angular momentum).

- Absence of any proof for gravitational waves. There are many confusions in literature regarding this topic and some papers mix certain gravitational effects with supposed radiation effects.

- Violations of GR outside of the solar system. The force (1/r). PLease note that the inelegant string theory is just a proposal for the modificiation of GR at Planck scale. We do not need the recent M-theory "r7" modifications of potential, we need explain the anomalous (1/r) behavior of the force in extragalactic regimes. Regime where string theory "predicts" just GR.

- Etc.

There are sound mathematical and conceptual flaws in Einstein approach to GR.

1) does curvature explain gravity?

2) is newtonian gravitation contained in GR?

3) is there real gravitational waves?

My replies are NO, NO, NO. Still nobody has here proposed good arguments against me.

juvenal

May15-05, 03:17 PM

Nereid

May15-05, 07:04 PM

Still nobody has done absolutely none comments on my questions. There are several important questions around the validity of GR like a good theory of gravitation. Even ignoring recent data of deviations from GR predictions:
- Absence of aberration.I missed this one! What do you mean?- "Dark matter".This is a favourite of may 'anti-' folk. Let's be clear here; are you referring to
a) 'missing mass' in spiral galaxies?
b) 'missing mass' in rich galaxy clusters?
c) analyses of the CMBR (and other, observational cosmology)?
d) something else?
e) some combination of the above??

My reason for asking is that the observational evidence for each is quite different, and the extent to which GR is (or is not) involved in analyses of the observations to yield DM, quite varied.- Non-constant solar redshift.
- Velocity of gravity in binary pulsars (the famous problem of conservation of angular momentum).I challenged you for papers, you provided them; I'm looking into this ... but I'll do it in my own good time (and get back to this thread when I'm done). For now, mark this as 'under investigation, Juan's case hasn't been made - yet - to Nereid (at least)'.
- Absence of any proof for gravitational waves. There are many confusions in literature regarding this topic and some papers mix certain gravitational effects with supposed radiation effects.Well, if you use the word 'proof', then our discussion will reach a quick end - no such thing is possible in science. Perhaps you addressed the many, many papers on binary pulsars (esp those to which Chronos provided links), but I'm sorry to say I didn't see your view (the only thing you said, that I found is: "I already known several of Chronos’ quoted papers, and in limbo-Redsift or in (1/r) they say nothing real. The recent “experimental confirmations of GR” that I know focus just in those themes where GR work well but ignore the flaws (somewhat like Dirac hole worked acceptably well for electrons, but Dirac simply ignored recent data on non-fermions...")- Violations of GR outside of the solar system. The force (1/r). PLease note that the inelegant string theory is just a proposal for the modificiation of GR at Planck scale. We do not need the recent M-theory "r7" modifications of potential, we need explain the anomalous (1/r) behavior of the force in extragalactic regimes. Regime where string theory "predicts" just GR.Er, this seems to be a reference to the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, or do you have something else in mind?

In any case, it's very, very easy to provide lots of examples of 'conformity with GR outside the solar system' - take a look at the MACHO and OGLE results, for example, or the gravitational redshift observed in white dwarf spectra.- Etc.Sorry, you're not going to get away with this ... if you have more good observational or experimental results which are inconsistent with GR, please list them.There are sound mathematical and conceptual flaws in Einstein approach to GR.

1) does curvature explain gravity?
2) is newtonian gravitation contained in GR?
3) is there real gravitational waves?
My replies are NO, NO, NO. Still nobody has here proposed good arguments against me.This is such a mish-mash!

I'll leave the 'mathematical and conceptual flaws' to others; for now I propose the following 'good arguments' against you:
2) in the sense that all good observational and experimental results which are consistent with 'Newtonian gravitation' are also consistent with GR, then 'newtonian gravitation IS contained in GR' (this 'operational' consistency is the one which trumps all others, IMHO)
3) until I've had a chance to check the papers you cited (and others), I will give only two things:
a) what is 'real'? how do you assess what's real and what's not? Without the reader knowing this, your question is impossible to address
b) binary pulsars.

pervect

May15-05, 07:31 PM

Still nobody has done absolutely none comments on my questions.

Lots of people have commented extensively on your posts - I haven't taken the time to do so until now, but I'll remedy that.

When I realized that your theory (whatever it is) didn't actually make any testable predictions about the near-term future results of the current gravity probe B experiments, (and that it had apparently never been peer reviewed), I basically lost interest in what you had to say.

It appears to me that you argue by selectively picking experimental results that favor your pre-conceived notions, and ignoring those that don't. That's no way to do science, and a peer-reviewed journal wouldn't let you get away with it. PF aparrently wouldn't either, that's why this post is in theory development.

It also appears to me that you don't really understand what you are talking about - at one point you appear to praise MOND-like theories, then at another point you loudly proclaim that your theory gives Newtonian theory in some sort of limit.

Well, the big problem with this is that any theory that reduces to Newtonian theory is not going to explain the observations that require one to modify Newtonian gravity (MOND stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics - you apparently didn't/ don't realize this).

I'm fairly sure you'll come up with a lot of BS in response to my post, if I get bored I may even stop by again and read some of it.

Juan R.

May16-05, 05:43 AM

I'm not sure why your answer to 3) is so confidently NO, since we're spending hundreds of millions of US dollars on the LIGO experiment to find gravitational waves. You cannot know, a priori, that they do not exist.

I'm curious. Have you studied GR? If I were to pick, say, 10 random problems from a basic GR textbook, would you be able to solve most if not all of them using the techniques of GR?

I newer imagined that the correctness of a scientific theory or concept was directly proportional to the money devoted to research. In fact, it is rather interesting your philosophy. If you are sure of the existence, why spent that money in the search of a direct confirmation?

Still I find that some people of this forum read not adequately and often misunderstand my own words. Please relead again my point 3). I said real gravitational waves not gravitational waves.

Juan R.

May16-05, 05:44 AM

I'm curious. Have you studied GR? If I were to pick, say, 10 random problems from a basic GR textbook, would you be able to solve most if not all of them using the techniques of GR?

GR? What is that?

Great Reply?

Juan R.

May16-05, 08:36 AM

I think that you are focusing in finding some failure on my interpretation of experimental data for saving GR from failure. It is improbable that you find some error. Still that does not invalidate my theory. As said, my preliminary theory is compatible with classical test of GR like Mercury, radar delay, etc. I did not say that my theory cannot do predictions for Prove B or others, I said that I am beginning and still did not calculation on that. Moreover, my theory is full backward compatible with NG (GR is not) and compatible (the electrodynamic + gravitodynamic) with recent data in magnetic interactions in clusters, data in Hg, and anomalous behavior of tomahawks where, of course, GR said nothing but the underlying Einstein field approach is wrong.

I have studied more aspects and, also, have in my mind the difficulties with Tidal theory in Moon orbit, retardation of Phobos, the failure of Nebular hypothesis, etc.

Moreover, remember the failure of the concept of field (recently found in classical Maxwell EM, I cited the paper in another post) but perfectly explained by canonical EM. I could cite experiments regarding failure of the WEP, etc. Sincerely, I would say you that your attempts to find a failure on my interpretation of fields and GR are advocated to failure.

But when there are not arguments...

Nereid

Precisely, I mean absence of aberration in gravitation. Have you heard about Poynting-Robertson?

I was talking about missing mass in galaxies and clusters.

My point about gravitational waves is as follow.

1) There is some confusion in the literature on this topic I revised. I think that many physicists consider that changes in gravitational fields are gravitational waves. This cannot be true. Therefore, I am very skeptic of some of the claims that I have heard of that PSR1913+16 is a proof of usual interpretation of GR and its waves.

2) I said real gravitational waves. That is, I doubt the existence of real classical waves and real gravitons. I propose that there are not both in nature.

I was talking of the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies. I have in my mind the related TF law.

I have said that “conformity with GR outside the solar system” could be interpreted in a computational scheme, somewhat like there are examples of “conformity with Dirac hole theory” (even a Nobel prize for the discovering of antiparticles) still we know today that Hole theory is simply wrong like a real consistent theory. Could it be possible that GR was a useful computational scheme being a historical curiosity?

Phlogiston theory is wrong still was compatible with many experimental data of the epoque. The last decade a chemist said that one could today gave a general course on chemistry using phlogiston theory (i.e. it is still very useful like a computational scheme being wrong). Do you see the link with GR...

"2) in the sense that all good observational and experimental results which are consistent with 'Newtonian gravitation' are also consistent with GR, then 'newtonian gravitation IS contained in GR' (this 'operational' consistency is the one which trumps all others, IMHO)"

This is not completely true. Each experiment has down a theoretical interpretation. A theory is not done of numbers alone, it is the sum numbers more consistent interpretation. GR is not full consistent with NG (and does not reduce to). In NG, gravitation is instantaneous, still GR says that there is delay, the only form for obtaining rigorously NG would be the taking the nonrelativistic limit c--> infinite (this is true in canonical gravitodynamics), but then there is no curvature in GR and the whole formalism collapse.

I wonder as anyone can claim for the derivation of instantaneous NG from GR leaving c finite. Remember also, that astronomers calculate orbits using instantaneous forces and introducing the delay for the apparent position of the body only!! If gravitation is curvature and the propagation is delayed, why is it computed (in laboratories of the real world) without delay, violating GR?

A question for the celebrated specialist in GR (juvenal). You appear an authentic specialist in the solving of really difficult textbook problems (perhaps at level of Wald!!). Have you computed real data using an orbit computer or some numerical integration software or only passed an exam in the Uni?

Let me remark that in the supposed success of GR in the computation of many gravitatory phenomena, the delay of interaction is NOT used. This is one ofthe true causes of the experimental success of GR. If one models the solar system with time delay of gravitation the result is a disaster. Therefore many of the supposed successes of GR in experiments… are based in ignoring one of main lessons of GR. Fascinating!!

Of course, there is no absolute concept of “real”. “Real” is the most simple and consistent explanation of nature we have got in any instant of history. Continuum matter was real before our discovering of atoms. Light was only a real wave before our discovering of photons, etc.

The status of gravitational waves is still poor since there is not proof of them. By this reason there are so many attempts to finding them!!

pervect

you said:

“It appears to me that you argue by selectively picking experimental results that favor your pre-conceived notions, and ignoring those that don't.”

I am sorry to say this but those words are not very honest.

Always, in alternative points of view, each member argues with proper arguments and data. Remember Bohr-Einstein. Finally, the theory with best experimental support and consistent interpretation wins and the other is ignored.

I am ignoring nothing, neither I am claiming that the final theory of gravitation may ignore experimental data. I said that I am beginning, did some computations, but still did not others. I cannot say anything still on Probe B. I am not saying that I will ignore it.

Still I may remark that there is experimental data contradicting GR that you are ignoring when it is available in literature.

Currently, the situation is as follow, GR can explain some experimental data but no others and is internally inconsistent (arguments in rest of posts), whereas canonical gravitodynamics can explain some data violating GR more the classical tests of GR like said today above and is internally consistent and agree with very recent EM studies violating Einstein's thinking about fields. I wait that canonical gravitodynamics in its actual form (or any future generalization) can explain all of data.

I think that you are misunderstanding the point. I do not praise MOND-like theories, since you possibly know that are more a computational scheme that a proper theory. I said that one can obtain a MOND type approach in certain limits and Newtonian theory in other limit.

Of course, I newer said that I could obtain at the same limit MOND and Newton. You probably know that Newtonian gravity is a special case of MOND theory (let me ignore now the fact of that MOND is not really a theory or if you prefer add “numerical” to “special case” above).

From your emphasis in that I would be wrong in my thinking of that GR is not the last true in classical gravitation, I am obliged to suspect that either you are not a specialist in the topic or carefully select literature supporting your own point of view.

I read from a very, very recent Physical Review, “may reflect departures from both Newtonian gravity and GR on galactic and larger scales. Now alternatives to GR are traditionally required to possess an Newtonian limit for small velocities and potentials... also raises the possibility that the correct relativistic gravitational theory may be of a kind not considered hitherto.”

I would remark that after several days of replies and re-replies still nobody has consistently shown that my main line of thinking is completely wrong and all of my theory is garbage. Many people is desperatedly focusing in showing that GR is marvellous and fit all data perfectly.

I ask again. What is the reply to my already famous 1), 2), and 3) questions?

For the lovers of GR I am doing an effort for posting in www.canonicalscience.com an experimental figure on the marvelous “success” of GR in fit solar system data. I will put the figure without additional explaining nor data. Since people here is extremely interested in knowing what is my literature basis but few (very little) interested in the discussion of my underlying reasoning (often rejected per se without rigorous analysis) I will put no references, since references would be posted only on the manuscript (in preparation) to be submited.

StarshipX

May16-05, 02:03 PM

What you are saying contradicts Einstein's equivalence principle (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/download/lrr-2001-4.pdf) which assumes the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.

juvenal

May16-05, 03:28 PM

A question for the celebrated specialist in GR (juvenal). You appear an authentic specialist in the solving of really difficult textbook problems (perhaps at level of Wald!!). Have you computed real data using an orbit computer or some numerical integration software or only passed an exam in the Uni?

Nice response. You didn't answer my question. Can you or not?

It's irrelevant whether I can or not, because I'M not the one trying to come up with a new theory to replace GR.

You do understand that 100% of the cranks who come in here do not know the basics of the theories they have problems with right? What makes you different from them?

Nereid

May16-05, 05:55 PM

Precisely, I mean absence of aberration in gravitation. Have you heard about Poynting-Robertson?Please say more (at face value what you wrote is gibberish, but perhaps that's a problem with my comprehension).I was talking about missing mass in galaxies and clusters.Thank you.

So, I assume you are familiar with the types of observations that establish value of DM for rich clusters?
1) the virial theorem applied to galaxy motions (of course we can 'see' only the line of sight ones)
2) hydrodynamic equilibrium for the IGM (per X-ray data)
3) gravitational lensing (a GR effect)
4) the SZE.

Now here's the curious thing: they all give approx the same value for the total mass of the rich clusters! Yet, when you estimate the baryonic content (several methods), you get a value that is ~1 OOM too small.

So, if GR is 'off' (#3 above), then so is NG, hydrodynamics, and (probably) the Standard Model in particle physics. MOND and similar modifications of NG are no help - from Day One, the MONDians acknowledged that rich clusters were way, way outside their predictions (and they had no quibbles with the data - do you?)1) There is some confusion in the literature on this topic I revised. I think that many physicists consider that changes in gravitational fields are gravitational waves. This cannot be true. Therefore, I am very skeptic of some of the claims that I have heard of that PSR1913+16 is a proof of usual interpretation of GR and its waves.Interesting ... but also irrelevant.

The question is: do the excellent, decades-long observations of binary neutron stars accord with the predictions of GR or not? In an earlier post you said "NO!", and cited one paper. Chronos gave you links to many, many others, where consistency is claimed. Who is right? Each reader must make up their own mind (hopefully, by reading the relevant papers, as a start).2) I said real gravitational waves. That is, I doubt the existence of real classical waves and real gravitons. I propose that there are not both in nature.Also interesting, but surely even you recognise that it's almost a classic 'non-answer'?

GR predicts gravitational radiation ('waves' in your terminology, I guess), Hulse and Taylor observed a binary pulsar and showed that what they observed is consistent with GR's predicted loss of energy in the system, due to gravitational radiation, to something like 1% (I'm going from memory). Since then, the baseline has been extended, and other binary pulsars have been observed ... no inconsistency with GR predictions.

Whether you choose to interpret this as 'real gravitational waves', or 'a mathematical construct that helps to the 'the right answer' (according to observations), or something else entirely is, surely, a question of your philosophy of science (and NOT a question of the match between observation and theory).I have said that “conformity with GR outside the solar system” could be interpreted in a computational scheme, somewhat like there are examples of “conformity with Dirac hole theory” (even a Nobel prize for the discovering of antiparticles) still we know today that Hole theory is simply wrong like a real consistent theory. Could it be possible that GR was a useful computational scheme being a historical curiosity?If I may say so, another classic 'non-answer'. So let me ask you straight: to what extent do you regard good observational data showing a 'gravitational redshift' in the spectra of white dwarfs as a match to the predictions of GR 'outside the solar system'?This is not completely true. Each experiment has down a theoretical interpretation. A theory is not done of numbers alone, it is the sum numbers more consistent interpretation. GR is not full consistent with NG (and does not reduce to). In NG, gravitation is instantaneous, still GR says that there is delay, the only form for obtaining rigorously NG would be the taking the nonrelativistic limit c--> infinite (this is true in canonical gravitodynamics), but then there is no curvature in GR and the whole formalism collapse.I point my telescope at Mercury, I record its apparent position; I do this thousands of times, over many years. I crunch Newton, and find that there's a residual in the orbit I can't account for. I crunch Einstein, and find that the residual is well accounted for (within the observational errors). I repeat for Neptune and Pluto; within the observational errors, Newton and Einstein are in agreement. I repeat this for dozens and dozens of other sets of observations; in every case I find that where Newton accords with my observations, so does Einstein; and where Newton does not accord, then Einstein does.

What am I missing? (For the avoidance of doubt, I don't give a **** about the intricacies of either Newton's or Einstein's equations; all I care about is the match to good experimental and observational results).I would remark that after several days of replies and re-replies still nobody has consistently shown that my main line of thinking is completely wrong and all of my theory is garbage. Many people is desperatedly focusing in showing that GR is marvellous and fit all data perfectly.The only way that has any lasting significance of showing your 'my main line of thinking is completely wrong and all of my theory is garbage' is strong inconsistency with good observational results.

To this end, unless I missed it, you have not made any testable predictions, where your idea yields a result significantly different from that of GR - despite having been asked to provide such many, many times!

Do you now understand the frustration of posters to this thread?

Give us a prediction on what GPB will find, before the official results are announced! Note that I'm not married to GPB, you could also say what the second year of WMAP will show, or the cross-correlation statistics from SDSS's final data release, or the consolidated results from two years of Swift, or ...

juvenal

May16-05, 06:19 PM

From his website:

Canonical science emerges from an elegant combination of physical, chemical, mathematical, biological, and philosophical theories.

If that doesn't set off your crank detector, I don't know what will.

Rebel

May17-05, 09:51 PM

Juan is trying to get so many adepts to his "theory" as he cans. Why not try to publish in peer-reviewed journals first? so maybe then he can say that the theory had the view of experts. I remember with that som falacious religious "leaders".

" Now I am actively working in GR and quantum gravity. I am sorry to say this but when I more study it, more I think that GR is not correct after all." I really do not understand why work on something that is so much wrong to him like GR.

There is too many people in the net trying to convince others that certain things are bad, to be the center of atention. If you Juan R., publish a Phys Rev. in the matter, maybe you can have positive atention. (or what is the fear?) There is a post from JANUS

(IMPORTANT!: Read before post) : << This forum is meant as a place to discuss the Theory of Relativity and is for the benefit of those who wish to learn about or expand their understanding of said theory. It is not meant as a soapbox for those who wish to argue Relativity's validity, or advertise their own personal theories. All future posts of this nature shall either be deleted or moved by the discretion of the Mentors. >>

, Juan is one of this, and it includes the final asertion. :wink:

Regards

P.S. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.--Bertrand Russell " taken from another post of Janus.

Chronos

May17-05, 11:47 PM

PF is a tough audience, Juan. Alternative theories don't fare well here. Mainstreamers like me do not croak from lily pads, we rest upon a rock of credible, published studies [including the most recent ones]. And observational evidence is the name of the game. A theory that predicts observations is more compelling than one that accomodates them after the fact.

Juan R.

May18-05, 06:06 AM

StarshipX

I think that already said some on that on my posts.

juvenal

Of course, I will not answer your question. You are right in that my query on orbits was irrelevant. I already know your answer.

Feel free to post any interesting comment to above questions 1), 2), or 3), if you consider that I am not a crank, sure.

Please re-read my previous posts and material on website. Note that I don’t still affirmed firmly that I have a new theory to replace GR. Just I pointed some flaws of standard GR and some new ideas that I am exploring.

Nereid

Nereid, that do you understand by “absence of aberration in gravitation”?

“So, I assume you are familiar with the types of observations that establish value of DM for rich clusters?”

Partially. Remember that, like I recognized I am not an expert in this topic. On your 1), 2) and 4) I can say nothing serious still because I have not studied.

I think that the total mass is only computed introducing additional unobserved mass: “dark matter”. I think that dark matter is not computed from first principles, just fitted to data. I think that fit is rather forced and not a good explanation.

If GR is off, that does not imply off of NG (if you mean off of NG in the computation without invoking dark matter the answer is yes, of course). I don’t think that implies off of hydrodynamics (since that hydrodynamics can be constructed with different models for forces between particles), and yes, my work implies violation of the Standard Model of particle physics. This is not a surprise for me, because the SM was already shown to be violated in previous research that others and I did.

I cannot agree in the MOND-like theories are of no help. In fact, in the limits of my knowledge, MOND-like approaches are more useful than GR-likes. In some data, one need several unproved assumptions on GR more the use of several free parameters (3?) for fiting data approximately; whereas MOND is more exact with one or zero parameters.

I don’t think that the confusion between gravitational fields and gravitational waves was irrelevant because GR predicts the later.

To your question on decades-long observations of binary neutron stars, I am sorry but my reply is a sound NO. No matter how many papers claiming for the contrary you can cite, I cannot agree with GR explanation. I think that the force of an argument is not based in the number of peer-review papers published or people believing on it. History of physics is the best example. Of course, whereas I don’t present my paper, people would only take the mainstream interpretation. I agree that it is the normal evolution of science.

Who is right? Only time will decide it.

I agree that GR predicts gravitational radiation (I prefer gravitational waves). I agree that the observed loss is rather consistent with GR. But GR says that the loss is due to gravitational waves, and nobody has find still those predicted waves. Therefore, nobody can rigorously claim for the total success of GR on binary.

“interpret this as 'real gravitational waves', or 'a mathematical construct that helps to the 'the right answer' (according to observations), or something else entirely is, surely, a question of your philosophy of science (and NOT a question of the match between observation and theory).”

This is not true. Since that both explanations (GR and mine) are very different and are testable. If my theory predicts that there is no gravitational waves and they are not found, that is not phylosphy is pure science. If the semiempricial fit to binary star data were all of the history, nobody would waste his/her time and money in the searching for hypotetical GR waves.

The interpretation of antiparticle like either holes or like excitations of a field is not philosophy. They are two well-defined scientific models: the first wrong and the second (QFT) correct. Still Dirac-hole theory fit some data, but is inconsistent and does not fit all of data. I again ask, could GR be like Dirac-hole theory, a non-correct theory still useful like a computational scheme in several data?

Your ask “to what extent do you regard good observational data showing a 'gravitational redshift' in the spectra of white dwarfs as a match to the predictions of GR 'outside the solar system'?”

I don’t know that answer to you. I only have studied solar redshift and some of cosmological by now.

I point “my telescope” (I have not one :-) at Mercury, and fit with canonical gravitodynamics. I repeat for Jupiter, Neptune, or Pluto, and canonical agrees within Newton. Einstein is not. He (his GR) predicts that there is an instantaneous Newtonian potential mediated by hypothetical unobserved waves traveling at c. Newtonian potential says that there is a force. GR says that there is curvature delayed by c and taking the limit c infinite, curvature is off whereas force is still here. Disappear the supposed cause and its effect continues!! GR is not internally consistent, does not explain gravitation from a conceptual point of view (see pdf), does not reduce adequately to NG, and does not fit experimental data.

Since that my above remark on the failure of GR for explaining experimental data could me misunderstood. Please could you post here an outline of how your compute the orbit of external planets from GR, please. I think that it is an important detail.

I am not a relativist. If you agree, could you say to me what is your carreer? (if that is not a problem for you, of course). Are you a relativist?

You said

“The only way that has any lasting significance of showing your 'my main line of thinking is completely wrong and all of my theory is garbage' is strong inconsistency with good observational results.”

I cannot agree. I don’t know any experimental data that violates my approach. Even if my theory cannot explain some of data that i still don't know. It can be a first step, somewhat like the first formulation of GR by Einstein was wrong and the own Einstein did introduce a modified corrected version for fitting experimental data.

Moreover, I said, and continue to said, that can explain experimental data that GR cannot. Therefore GR is not best that my still in working “CG”.

“To this end, unless I missed it, you have not made any testable predictions, where your idea yields a result significantly different from that of GR - despite having been asked to provide such many, many times!”

Again I cannot agree. I did no computation on prove B or your “GPB” (sorry I don’t know still), for instance, but I can quote limbo redshift, Newtonian gravity, (1/r) and MOND-like approaches, including absence of dark matter (necessary in GR but never detected), the well proved experimental TF law. GR cannot explain those matters without mathematical and conceptual inconsistencies or adittional strange asummptions add ad hoc, lots of parameters, and fine-tuning or appeal to unobserved strange things.

Moreover, in its EM counterpart, I cited experimental data I can explain and Maxwell cannot. Einstein based his gravitation theory on Maxwellian view. If Maxwell was wrong in his view of that interaction is mediated by a field (and this is perfectly proved by ignored by yours), why Einstein would are still correct?

I already cited one paper demonstrating the complete failure of the concept of field like the mediator of EM interactions between particles. I already said that that work could be shocking for yours (well-versed in standard low-level theories) but was not astonishing for me, because it is compatible with my ideas on canonical electrodynamics.

I don’t want that nobody feel frustrated by my post. I think that is good the open discussion of different points of view. I don’t feel frustrated by your hard replies (including clearly stupid ones), and in the unlikely situation I was completely wrong. I would be very happy of finding my own errors and don’t waste my time in a wrong approach, but sincerely I don’t think that it is the point here.

Rebel

I am a new member and I don’t know all forum guidelines. In fact, initially I posted it in other side but was moved by administrators. If this is not the correct place for discuss some preliminary ideas I can cease and finish now, if this forum is violating rules, I want not. Therefore I would be the first soliciting the erasing of this forum if is not adequate for the community. It is not a problem for me; I can obtain comments from specialists in many forms. The only problem is that only two or three can have access to my preliminary research before was published. The rest of course can consult final manuscript when published. I think that comments and criticism could be posted in my blog. I could receive there the non-formal replies to my work and read formal replies from your official comments on usual peer-review literature.

Thanks by collaboration!!

About publishing on peer-reviewed journals first, I am sorry to say this but Physical Review (or similar) is not sufficiently good for containing this ultra advanced theory. This is not string theory, thermodynamics, Maxwell electrodynamics, or QFT!!

My first paper, I did when was still an undergraduate student (I did alone), showed that a recent paper in Phys Rew E by recognized specialists was a complete nonsense. Curiously, many specialists read the manuscript and did good critics. I was invited to a special issue and to one international conference.

I would say that I was to an international conference on marine science when was still an undergraduate student. Precisely I was invited to assist because I found an error in a paper on nonlinear hydrodynamics by specialists (physicists) on the topic. My name appears before the name of the chief of the group of physicists on the paper.

See my project on new model of publication with Shagaev on this fro more information about my ideas of publication. A draft was discussed with an Nature assistant Editor this year and said that our project was really intringuing.

My own experience with reviewers is that often misunderstand the point because use an archaic point of view and elementary math. During my first manuscript on the topic, a number of well-recognized specialists (including an assistant of a Nobel laureate in the topic) did bad comments. It take to me several months convince to them that I was correct.

From “you may be wrong” I finally receive “I like your approach”.

I compute around 20 years for the complete publication of this theory in usual form (even if they was accepted for peer-review in usual time delays). I doubt of his complete publication according to comments of previous editor of Nature. This theory is so sophisticated and radical that would be very difficult publish it in the usual format, even if was happy with usual publication philosophy (I am not).

About “experts” view, I follow Feynman well-known comments on that. I did several manuscripts and sent to supposed specialists (e.g. Weinberg). I am sorry to say this but the replies are not good enough. I am sorry to say this but Weinberg understanding of QFT is rather wrong and his mathematical derivations full of mistakes. I know the view of specialists because I have read many many literature. See www.canonical.chemicalforums.com for some difficulties that I am experiencing. I cannot wait 15 years before “specialists” agree with the novel revolutionary SRT like already succeeded in literature, when I am already working in CRT and derive correctly SRT. The initial derivation is not rigorous.

When I sent a random collection of questions about time arrow to Prigogine he replied with “the question that you ask are very difficult.” Once a specialist is molecular dynamics did a four page review of a manuscript on the topic. After of replies and contra-replies I recognized that main criticism to my paper was the low number of references included!! No appreciable error on mathematical derivations or conceptual questions!

Chronos

Don’t worry Chronos. I finally leave out this post and sorry by the inconvenience. I still wait explain some data/questions to Nereid here if he/she agree.

Still could I do comments on posts by other using a mixture of my own ideas and published good literature or would that be also prohibited by forum rules?

Do forum guidelines permit the appeal to wrong but standard literature (e.g. that nonsense called string "theory" or the ineffective LQG) in replies to questions by others?

Juan R.

May18-05, 06:08 AM

From his website:

If that doesn't set off your crank detector, I don't know what will.

Juvenal I understand that you had not arguments, but insult is not the solution. I will not disappear, and the publication of my theory will be not delayed by your insults.

If you are a gentleman, please introduce your arguments on why my quote incite to you to insult me. I think that rest of members of this forum (specially those that are participating) would receive some explaining for your part.

I feel free for posting your last poster in my website. Since I use my real name in this forum, I would solicit you your real name for posting in the website together your last post. The insult from the hiding of real identity isn’t a symptom of education that would correspond to a scientist, engineer, professor, or undergraduate student.

There is a Spanish typical phrase (from popular wisdom) that define you perfectly: “tirar la piedra y esconder la mano”

Nereid

May18-05, 02:19 PM

I point “my telescope” (I have not one :-) at Mercury, and fit with canonical gravitodynamics. I repeat for Jupiter, Neptune, or Pluto, and canonical agrees within Newton. Einstein is not. He (his GR) predicts that there is an instantaneous Newtonian potential mediated by hypothetical unobserved waves traveling at c. Newtonian potential says that there is a force. GR says that there is curvature delayed by c and taking the limit c infinite, curvature is off whereas force is still here. Disappear the supposed cause and its effect continues!! GR is not internally consistent, does not explain gravitation from a conceptual point of view (see pdf), does not reduce adequately to NG, and does not fit experimental data.So now we have a clear statement, by you, that applying GR to solar system data will result in inconsistencies.

Just so that I don't misunderstand, you claim that NG (and your idea) are both consistent with the well-observed advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and that GR is not?Since that my above remark on the failure of GR for explaining experimental data could me misunderstood. Please could you post here an outline of how your compute the orbit of external planets from GR, please. I think that it is an important detail.A good ephemeris is HORIZONS (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.html). If you read the supporting documentation, you will find details of how they incorporate GR.Nereid, that do you understand by “absence of aberration in gravitation”?Juan, assuming you mean 'what do you ...?' - I don't know, that's why I was asking you to explain it.To your question on decades-long observations of binary neutron stars, I am sorry but my reply is a sound NO. No matter how many papers claiming for the contrary you can cite, I cannot agree with GR explanation. I think that the force of an argument is not based in the number of peer-review papers published or people believing on it. History of physics is the best example. Of course, whereas I don’t present my paper, people would only take the mainstream interpretation. I agree that it is the normal evolution of science.Time will indeed tell.

However, my question was whether the observations are in accord with the predictions of GR - IOW, you get two sets of numbers, and you see to what extent they align. All I'm asking you is: "Do you agree that the two sets of numbers (observational data, GR predictions) are consistent?" For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT asking you whether you think GR is good, bad, or indifferent. But GR says that the loss is due to gravitational waves, and nobody has find still those predicted waves. Therefore, nobody can rigorously claim for the total success of GR on binary.On this point, we are in agreement. Are you familiar with LIGO and other GW detectors? At their current levels of claimed sensitivity, should they have detected GW from the binary pulsars? If they should not (and IIRC such GWR would be many OOM below their detection threshholds), then the test hasn't been done, has it?Your ask “to what extent do you regard good observational data showing a 'gravitational redshift' in the spectra of white dwarfs as a match to the predictions of GR 'outside the solar system'?”Please do so, and quickly. GR makes clear predictions, and WD spectra match the predictions (gravitational redshift, same as Pound+Rebka found, in the lab) - if your idea predicts something different from what is actually observed then Einstein 1, Juan 0.I don’t know any experimental data that violates my approachBut then, you've made few predictions, so until you've done more work to show consistency, we are entitled to 'wait and see', aren't we?Moreover, in its EM counterpart, I cited experimental data I can explain and Maxwell cannot. Einstein based his gravitation theory on Maxwellian view. If Maxwell was wrong in his view of that interaction is mediated by a field (and this is perfectly proved by ignored by yours), why Einstein would are still correct?I am approaching your claims from an entirely observational perspective, so you won't be at all surprised to hear that my answer to your question is "because it is consistent with every good observational and experimental result" (with the caveat that I have yet to read up on the two areas you posted earlier).

Now the entrees are out of the way, the main course - Dark Matter in rich galaxy clusters:

1) observations of the line of sight motions of constituent galaxies get plugged into the Virial Theorem, out comes an estimate of the total mass these galaxies are 'feeling'; call it estimate-1
2) observations of lensing of more distant objects (mostly galaxies, but also some quasars) get plugged in to models of the mass distribution and GR, out comes an estimate of the total mass of the cluster; call it estimate-2
3) X-ray observations of clusters get plugged into hydrodynamics equations, out comes an estimate of the total mass of the cluster that the IGM (inter-galactic gas) is 'feeling'; call it estimate-3

The three estimates are pretty much in agreement (although the error bars are rather large, and there's been rather too few clusters observed yet). This is comforting; NG, GR, and hydrodynamics (also NG?) give consistent answers - in passing, I wonder what your idea would estimate the cluster masses to be, based on the lensing data?

Now comes the exciting part - how much of the observed mass is baryonic? How does one 'count baryons' in a galaxy cluster? Well, for starters, one can measure the total light emitted (almost entirely from the galaxies), assume it comes from stars, and turn the handle ... that's ~1% of estimate-n. Then one can count the X-rays (the IGM is a highly ionised plasma), and turn the handle ... that's ~10% of estimate-n. Then one can measure the SZE (Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect), and turn the handle ... that's ~10% of estimate-n. One can analyse the quasar Lyman forest, and turn the handle ... that's ~10% of estimate-n (this isn't a very accurate approach).

So what is the remaining ~90% of the observed mass? (It's actually only ~85%, I was OOM-ing). As I said earlier, MOND type theories fail hopelessly here - not only can they not 'explain' the lensing observations, but the MOND cluster mass estimates are off by at least 1 OOM (and maybe 2, I don't remember).

Looking forward to hearing how your idea makes all this DM go away!

Rebel

May18-05, 02:25 PM

...The only problem is that only two or three can have access to my preliminary research before was published. The rest of course can consult final manuscript when published. I think that comments and criticism could be posted in my blog. I could receive there the non-formal replies to my work and read formal replies from your official comments on usual peer-review literature. About publishing on peer-reviewed journals first, I am sorry to say this but Physical Review (or similar) is not sufficiently good for containing this ultra advanced theory. This is not string theory, thermodynamics, Maxwell electrodynamics, or QFT!!...

You can wait to "publish" your ideas and see when are accepted. If someone comes here to say that phys. rev. is not enough good to contain ultra-advanced ideas (not theories in the context of your formulation) I can paraphrase the beatles (Revolution): You say you want a revolution
Well you know --We all want to change the world ....we all love to change your head and so on. No puedes decir que mi forma de pensar es consevadora si me conoces, al contrario; pero realmente haces el ridículo. The word ultra-advanced is used almost without exception by some sealers and falacious leaders.

...I think that the total mass is only computed introducing additional unobserved mass: “dark matter”. I think that dark matter is not computed from first principles, just fitted to data. I think that fit is rather forced and not a good explanation... and yes, my work implies violation of the Standard Model of particle physics. This is not a surprise for me, because the SM was already shown to be violated in previous research that others and I did... My first paper, I did when was still an undergraduate student (I did alone), showed that a recent paper in Phys Rew E by recognized specialists was a complete nonsense. Curiously, many specialists read the manuscript and did good critics. ...I found an error in a paper on nonlinear hydrodynamics by specialists (physicists) on the topic...

Well, I really don't know where did you published your first paper, nor where was the publication (are you a physicist? what¡s your grade or where?), but someone that spends so many time trying to see mistakes everywhere is showing a behavior most proper in a paranoic person; maybe schizophrenia is the word you should be studying and accepting (had you being with the psychologist lately?), that is the first step. There seems like a natural explanation to someone that see errors everywhere and only accepts his own ideas from others. (sorry, but my IQ of 176 maybe is not sufficent to understand this in other way)

... A draft was discussed with an Nature assistant Editor this year and said that our project was really intringuing...My own experience with reviewers is that often misunderstand the point because use an archaic point of view and elementary math. During my first manuscript on the topic, a number of well-recognized specialists (including an assistant of a Nobel laureate in the topic) did bad comments. It take to me several months convince to them that I was correct. From “you may be wrong” I finally receive “I like your approach”... I doubt of his complete publication according to comments of previous editor of Nature. This theory is so sophisticated and radical that would be very difficult publish it in the usual format...

If someone insist me too much to convince me of an idea that the person is incapable to explain well (you just say that almost every actual theory is wrong -and you good always- without explaining anything, so one assumes you cannt explain) i say h8im hes right to dont have to heard nonsenses. Sure there should be some person in the world capable to understand your ideas (maybe is paranoic too or maybe not) apart from those two or three persons that you say.

About “experts” view, I follow Feynman well-known comments on that. I did several manuscripts and sent to supposed specialists (e.g. Weinberg). I am sorry to say this but the replies are not good enough. I am sorry to say this but Weinberg understanding of QFT is rather wrong and his mathematical derivations full of mistakes. I know the view of specialists because I have read many many literature...When I sent a random collection of questions about time arrow to Prigogine he replied with “the question that you ask are very difficult.” Once a specialist is molecular dynamics did a four page review of a manuscript on the topic. After of replies and contra-replies I recognized that main criticism to my paper was the low number of references included!! No appreciable error on mathematical derivations or conceptual questions!

Well, so you claim that Einstein is wrong, it can be. You said before that Feynmann didn't understand many concepts in the area he worked. That Weinberg understanding of QFT is wrong and full of mistakes mathematically.Wow, thats surprising and maybe we should see in you the greatest genius of all time (and claps claps). Sorry for being so direct in this, and i know is not the best to schyzophrenic people, but sometimes worked in the past (if they can be open minded a moment at least). Maybe you can read (or hear) the Revolution song, if you didnt already, and once again, see a psychologist. :wink:

Regards.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.--Bertrand Russell

Chronos

May19-05, 01:50 AM

I'm kind of uncomfortable with some of what has gone on in this thread. Can we please keep it objective? Anyways, Juan, the whole point of the binary pulsar thing, which I have been stuck on since my first post, is how else do you explain the orbital decay? The evidence it is decaying is overwhelming, in my opinion, and orbital angular momentum cannot just vanish without rewriting the laws of thermodynamics. Those are the kind of observations that insist upon an explanation.

About gravitational aberration, I too am confused about what that means. You mentioned the Poynting Robertson effect, but what does that have to do with gravity? That's an EM effect that has no known gravitational counterpart. Perhaps your model can make a prediction there.

Juan R.

May19-05, 07:46 AM

I am sorry to say this but I was very stupid posting here. I have a really good knowledge of many parts of physics, chemistry, mathematical ecology, nonlinear economy, biogeochemistry, and others. Still cosmology and gravitation were not of great interest for me, even when in the past I was interested in astrochemistry.

Due to that the derivation of GR from canonical science (exactly from the relativistic thermomaster) needs of several ad hoc assumptions based in Einstein original thinking bit don't very convincing, I thought that perhaps GR was not so great after all. It is important remark that I began believing entirely on GR!!

A bit of research shows to me that GR is not correct. Moreover the supposed verification of GR is based in a clear misunderstanding, careful coincidences and the omission of some data contradicting the main premises of GR.

I close this post by two motives:

1) That members in this forum have solicited it to forum administrators because the “cranck” (that is, I) is not capacitated for posting in this high-level forum for discussion of serious stuff by highly specialized people.

2) I though that people here was expert and I am seeing that after of many re-explanations, still you are misunderstanding my main lines of reasoning. Moreover, many comments are childish and suggest an basic understanding of the topics. I’m sorry to say this but I cannot waste my time in irrelevant discussion with people that do not study. Please study the topics a little more before do irrelevant or wonrg comments to canonical gravitodynamics!!

See www.canonical.chemicalforums.com for a change on my attitude with regarding to criticism.

When paper was published, I will post a new in my blog. Please don’t post irrelevant comments or based in a general survey of elementary low-level literature. Any comments of that form will be automatically ignored and erased. The objective of the blog will be that of post (nonending) peer-review of published material. It is not a forum for discussion of undergraduate or general topics.

Nereid

“So now we have a clear statement, by you, that applying GR to solar system data will result in inconsistencies.”

I said in many forms. It is not only that. But each day you take my words in a new surprising sense.

“Just so that I don't misunderstand, you claim that NG (and your idea) are both consistent with the well-observed advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and that GR is not?”

NO. Please re-read again.

From HORIZONS:

“Relativistic effects are included in all planet, lunar and small body dynamics, excluding satellites. Relativity is included in observables via 2nd order terms in stellar aberration and the deflection of light due to gravity fields of the Sun (and Earth, for topocentric observers).”

It is exactly compatible with my paper, mi ideas, and i said in previous posts. Now I already know (i only suspected it) that you have no idea of the topic and, moreover, read things just superfitially. How already said you, and juvenal and others newer computed an orbit and still claimed that GR is perfect and I wrong. What arrogance!!!! First study the topic a bit please before claiming for errors on the ideas and theories of others.

“Absence of aberration in gravitation” By your insistence I already knew that have no idea of I was talking.

Time will show that “decades-long observations of binary neutron stars” is just an artificial fit of data to GR.

“Do you agree that the two sets of numbers (observational data, GR predictions) are consistent?”

NO, they are not consistent. Somewhat like Hole theory appeared consistent with existence of antiparticles just when one forced the fit and ignored the mathematical and conceptual details of the theory. That is the reason that Dirac hole theory is simply a “historical curiosity” with no real value.

Still you can find in the "outdated" Feynmann QED textbook that Dirac approach (including the Hole theory for Hydrogen atom) is a "satisfactory model".

Still Hole theory was useful in a first stage of developing of QED and did several predictions on electrons, atomic H spectra (even a Nobel Prize by discovering of antiparticles!!!) being completely wrong.

Julian Schwinger: "The picture of an infinite sea of negative energy electrons is now best regarded as a historical curiosity, and forgotten."

I think that GR is in the same stage. It is our first stage to a new real consistent theory of gravitation. The supposed experimental verification of GR is not there, because one is forcing the fit to data carefully eliminating discrepancies, ignoring aditional GR effects that when introduced lead to experimental discrepancies, asuming, without proof, that some discrepancies on data may be atributed to experimental apparatus, but after newer verifyng it, etc, etc.

You use the term “GR predictions” in the next sense GR = a + b. Since that experimental value is a I ignore b and say that GR = a = experimental value. GR is marvellous and fit/explain/ predict data. But b continues there...

LIGO was designed for observing GW assuming that they exist. Of course, one can use the typical string theory claim of that the "string is more small still and was not detected" for saving preconceived ideas. It is not a problem of sensitivity, new experiments will have got the same result. GR predicts GW. There is no such one thing in nature.

“If your idea predicts something different from what is actually observed then Einstein 1, Juan 0.” Then if my theory predicts, for example, the orbit of Jupiter and GR cannot Einstein 0, Juan 1. Even if my theory (in its first formulation) could not predict one data that GR can (I doubt) the global result would be 1-1, and then a new theory, mixture of canonical gravitodynamics and GR, would arise.

“But then, you've made few predictions, so until you've done more work to show consistency, we are entitled to 'wait and see', aren't we?”

I titled my post “is GR a wrong approach to gravitation?” I do not tittled “without doubt GR is a wrong approach to gravitation” However, now I studied two new papers that inspired to me a new idea and already can do that.

“Moreover, in its EM counterpart, I cited experimental data I can explain and Maxwell cannot. Einstein based his gravitation theory on Maxwellian view. If Maxwell was wrong in his view of that interaction is mediated by a field (and this is perfectly proved by ignored by yours), why Einstein would are still correct?
I am approaching your claims from an entirely observational perspective, so you won't be at all surprised to hear that my answer to your question is "because it is consistent with every good observational and experimental result" (with the caveat that I have yet to read up on the two areas you posted earlier).”

NO. Since that there is a link between gravity and EM. Modification of one implies modification of the other. On your "entirely observational perspective" i did already comments.

On DM again sound NO. MOND-like theories explains perfectly anomalies (you continue reading just partially my posts or doing interpretations, e.g. lensing). Standard gravitation theories need of fine tunning, several assumptions, like statisitcla cancellation of effects, the use of several parameter for fiting the data and the appeal to unobserved and theoretically inexplained (string attempt has failed) DM. Moreover, I am citting here the support of DM paradigm from standard gravitation and its appeal to lots of unproved assumptions like special primordial cosmological perturbations, etc. My theory is based in well-proved facts. The existence of a (1/r) component in the force is perfectly proved (I already did extensive comments on that including recent work with Hg. Yes, I said Hg!!!!). There is no doubt on this. Of course you can ignore and search for alternative ugly explanantions that agree with your preconcevided ideas of that force way be really (1/rr) always because you want. I wonder that you are ignoring lots of recent data.like dwarf galaxies where even original MOND work very well. Original? Interesting data, perhaps (only perhaps, of course :-) there is more than one MOND approach and people (really specialists) in this forum were focusing in the old semiempirical MOND violating light deflection and all that... Perhaps you was thinking in Milgrom and all that :-)

From DM paradigm (and GR) one cannot consistently explain the extraordinary success in spiral galaxies. One can from MOND. In fact is one of standard methods in gauging distances due to very sharp correlation with data.

Rebel

“If someone comes here to say that phys. rev. is not enough good to contain ultra-advanced ideas (not theories in the context of your formulation) I can paraphrase the beatles (Revolution): You say you want a revolution.”

If you do not know the intricacies of peer-review process, journal guidelines, newer talked (“off-line”) with official journal editors, and has no idea of official reports published by several organizations on the current problem of usual “top-literature” and the neglect of revolutionary views, it is not my problem. If you do not know the new models of publication discussed for example in the last 2001 international conference on the topic in Kent (UK) is not my problem, if you don’t agree with Shagaev-Juan proposal is not my problem. If you don’t know the open letter by a Nobel laureate published this year in Nature critiquing the censure of works in ArXiv (often an pre PR box) against string theory is not my problem...

“The word ultra-advanced is used almost without exception by some sealers and falacious leaders.”

Whow, Wery good reply! It is fascinating the high level of replies, of course all pure-scientific ones. The appeal to sealers and falacious leaders, asking to me if can solve 10 random problems, what literature I am reading, etc. Good level, congratulations!!

If you cannot see far away from GR and Hilbert space math, it is not my problem. I’m sorry but it is your problem.

Your mocking is a symptom of hot irritation by your part. If I am just a “schyzophrenic people” seeing errors everywhere, simply ignore me. It may be especially easy for a talented man as you are. Please don’t read my articles, don’t read my blog, don’t read nothing about me. Can you?

If you have good ideas, solid math, and comments, I replied to you. If you have just some elementary idea on topics or garbage, or mocking and personal attack, then I will simply ignore you.

I wonder if you would do the same attack to me using your real name. It is an open offer for you :-)

Or perhaps you are not completely sure of that I was a schyzophrenic and you prefer remain hidden Rebel.

Note that whole Humanity would be highly acknowledged to you if you save people of this schizophrenic guy seeing errors elsewhere. Perhaps you (really you) could receive even a Prize for your valiant and generous action!!

Chronos

you said "Alternative theories don't fare well here". Don't ask by details now. Details in my paper.

“orbital angular momentum cannot just vanish without rewriting the laws of thermodynamics.” Eh!!!!!!!!!!

“About gravitational aberration, I too am confused about what that means. You mentioned the Poynting Robertson effect, but what does that have to do with gravity? That's an EM effect that has no known gravitational counterpart. Perhaps your model can make a prediction there.”

USUAL Poynting Robertson effect is an EM effect. Of course, My god, that great reply you did!!!!

If you don’t know the link with gravitation is not my problem. This is also for you Nereid

Replies to my work may follow the most high-level standards. Nonsense, stupid, and irrelevant comments like those on thermodynamics or that of Poynting Robertson effect will be simply ignored.

Chronos don’t post any kind of these irrelevant posting on the criticism to my paper when corresponding news is ready.

Nereid

May19-05, 10:36 AM

Bye Juan ... when your paper appears in a peer-reviewed journal, would you be so kind as to let us know? A post in the S&GR section of PF will do just fine.

Oh, and a word of friendly advice, if I may? Tone down the attitude. YOU are the one making a claim about a marvellous new theory that will sweep away GR (or whatever) - it is up to YOU to demonstrate that it is a) internally consistent, b) consistent with other good theories, where the domains of applicability overlap, and c) consistent with good observational and experimental results.

You have been asked - several times - in this thread to demonstrate c) (and a) and b), but I want to focus on c). With one exception, your replies were (I'm paraphrasing) "you guys just don't understand my marvellous new idea", and no (apparent) attempt to address the (mild) challenges presented to your idea head on.

This forum has, I think, given you relatively mild treatment ... I expect that if (when?) you get to present your ideas to a room full of cosmologists or folk who study GR, you may get a response considerably more robust.

Good luck!

Chronos

May20-05, 02:04 AM

Interesting. And to think I thought I was being nice. Apparently the need to address potential violations of thermodynamics is an alien concept in the canonical scheme. I would guess it's not irrelevant in many peoples minds.

Juan R.

May24-05, 07:22 AM

Nereid

You are right about the tone used in some post. Excuse me, things can be said in several forms, one would be was always a gentleman.

If you want you could send your view on standard journals. Explaining us the "marvellous" (if you think so) peer-review process.

http://www.electrochemist2.narod.ru/index.html

For instance, look at

http://electrochemist2.narod.ru/YourNotesEngl1.htm

You can see that by now there is many people that opine that peer-review literature has obvious flaws. Moreover, you may unknown previous Nature editor-in-chief claim of that Newton's gravitational theory today would be rejected for peer-review publication. Yes, I could ignore traditional journals and post a preprint in ArXiv, but there is censure since that i don't believe in string theory.

A Nobel laureate has said this year in an open letter to comunity criticing ArXiv administration and a web page that Einstein theory could not be published in ArXiv today in the basis of administrative issues!!!

See my proposal for model of publication. It is much more rigid that usual peer-review journals in the sense of that review is permanent (not only previous to publication) and at least i claim for a minimum of six reviewers, reviewers may be non-anonimous (this impide, for example, that one GR specialist can anonimously reject my novel theory of gravity for supporting his/her own views about nature). If anyone has serious arguments against a theory he/she can post his/her real name. Precisely inthis forum some people has used a nickname for personal attack. Why don't post here real names, specially in hard replies and personal attacks?

Ah!! a last question.

I know a bit research metodology, but thanks by your a), b), and c) points.

Yes, canonical gravitodynamics fits experimental data, explain why many supposed experimental verifications of GR are not correct ones and explain why in some experimental situations GR offer the wrong answer. It also offer reply to some of most hot topics frequently bebated on the USENET, and of course, will explain to you why you are wrong when you believe that HORIZON is full compatible with GR predictions.

Chronos

I'm sorry to say this Chronos but your replies are based in profound misunderstanding of the topic.

Again, I'm sorry, your post, at least here, are always irrelevant.

"Apparently the need to address potential violations of thermodynamics is an alien concept in the canonical scheme. I would guess it's not irrelevant in many peoples minds."

Since that there is not violation of thermodynamics, You would measure your words before posting and sure of posting just solid claims.

A note of style for you and others for future debate:

First an example of bad post (from you):

The evidence it is decaying is overwhelming, in my opinion, and orbital angular momentum cannot just vanish without rewriting the laws of thermodynamics. Those are the kind of observations that insist upon an explanation.

It is arrogant because assumes that my work is wrong before read it! It is based in absolute terms like "cannot just vanish without rewriting the laws of thermodynamics". It sound like the last word, THE DOGMA. All people would accept it without providing evidence that you are wrong.

Now, a model of acceptable post:

Dear Juan, I don't know the details of your theory but let me be sckeptic, I think that the experimental evidence of decaying just shows that orbital angular momentum could not vanish at least one rewrites the laws of thermodynamics for consistency. Please could you explain me this violation, is real, just apparent, or there is not violation of thermodynamics and i am misleading some detail?

There is difference in the tone...

Chronos

May25-05, 02:05 AM

Juan R.

May25-05, 04:28 AM

I agree I am confused. You said gravity waves do not exist. I asked [repeatedly] for you to explain how binary neutron star orbits decay without invoking gravitational radiation, and provided links to recently published papers that contraindicate your position. And you reply by saying the questions are irrelevant. I therefore conclude either: A] you do not understand the question; B] you don't have an answer. You give the appearance of being a crackpot by claiming to have a 'canonical' TOE that sweeps aside everything from QFT to GR. But, interestingly enough, not only has your theory not been published in a peer reviewed journal, it hasn't even been written:
Agreed, you are not a specialist on gravitation, and I doubt 'some month' of study would correct that deficiency. I hear cowbells.

It is very hard for me reply your strange posts. I wonder your efforts for misleading points, post wrong replies, extract incorrect conclusions...

Still you are not using the correct tone :tongue2: .

I am only repling here now to you, because some people reading your last posts could receive a distorted view. I will be brief:

- Gravitational waves do not exist.

- Your links to recently published papers are so ineffective like those papers (then recent ones) claiming that a new undiscovered planet was the cause of anomalous perihelion of Mercury. That supposed new planet explaining anomalous Mercury orbit vas never discovered and a new theory was launched. I would remember to you that those supposed waves explaining binary data newer were found, the recent failure of LIGO (designed for seeing the waves if they exist) is not surprising for me. I wait that you can see a little more light now...

- I didn't say that those questions are irrelevant. I said that your posts are irrelevant and just reflect an general ignorance of literature on the topic.

- Unfortunately, your are again wrong, the canonical theory has been wroten. As already said, It is only one aspect (Q factor) of recent research in gravitation that still need of more research.

- Of course, the canonical theory has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. Precisely, because it is an interdisciplinary very advanced theory, it cannot be published in a simple journal of physics, chemistry, ecology, etc.

- You forget the very important point of that the theory is revised by recognized specialists in each field (quantum chemistry, particle physics, irreversibility, molecular dynamics, nuclear thermodynamics, special relativity, biogeochemistry, etc.). Their names appear in the metadata of each article. Until now no specialist found significant error (one claim for one error, but i show that is not correct, and moreover, other three specialists claim for the contrary), still, of course, some specialists (concretely one working in generalized QM) maintains diferent points of view in some parts of my work. This is natural.

It is really childish by your part to believe that a real "TOE" (i am not speaking about the ugly ineffective bundle called string theory) can be published in a usual journal. String theory can, because it is a low level theory based mainly in a 90% of usual QFT more some math.

Peer-review is not synonym of quality. See our comments in above link on my project with Shagaev. String theory has been peer-reviewed like LQG, like so claimed GUTs, like Hawking approach to black holes, like recent search for violation of thermodynamics in quantum regimes, like Weinberg proposal for quantize gravity, like decoherence, etc. All that peer-review material is not good from a canonical science view.

I am not claiming for a new theory closed to debate (as claim many physicists , especially string theorists, erasing dangerous material from ArXiv on the basis of adminstrative data. See recent polemic opened in Nature with Nobel laureate who claim that today Einstein SR would be rejected by ArXiv administrators in the basis of afiliation data). I am claiming that obviously this theory is more sophisticated that peer-review journals and not adequate for a old model of publication.

I talked this question with many specialists (editors, referees, information scientists and librarians, etc.), almost all of them agree with me. The recent six-month report highlighted in a recent Nature news on that current model of scientific publication is clearly stopping science development and a new model is need, and lots of reports, articles in publishing and information science agree may be totally unknown for you.

For example, previous editor-in-chief of Nature journal has said that this theory cannot be published in a peer-review journal. He has also openly admited that if Issac Newton was to submit his theory of gravitation for peer-review, it would be rejected.

Of course, you ignore all of that, and still think that on gravitation i may be talking about a theory that may be so simple like Einstein-GR more one new, probably small, term. No, research in canonical science is not so simple, i am talking of some totally new, revolutionary one. Other form i would continue with my previous work in biogeochemistry publishing standard works in standard peer-reviewed journals providing infinitesimal advance of science.

A note for you, Clifford Will livingreview that was cited here in a previous post is not we consider a good scientific work. In fact, that work probably accepted for publication in usual peer review literature would be not accepted for publication according to our proposals. That work (probably excellent for you) is based in a not very profound analisys of experimental data and lots of hidden mathematical and conceptual asumptions. In the light of a more profound and detailed analisys, i doubt that Clifford can sure that GR is well supported by experiments in a rigorous basis.

My idea of scientific publishing is a more heavy peer-review process, with at least six top referees, with open debate and non-anonimous reports and suggestions.

When an article is published (rejected) in a top-journal i newer know why has been accepted (or rejected). The acceptation or rejecting of a new paper may be open to all comunity.

For more information on proposal of scientific publication can see above two links or some data on previous canonical web

www.canonical.chemicalforums.com

Chronos

May26-05, 01:13 AM

- Your links to recently published papers are so ineffective like those papers (then recent ones) claiming that a new undiscovered planet was the cause of anomalous perihelion of Mercury. You're comparing my references to 'planet Vulcan' theories? That's hilarious. I'm referencing studies based on Nobel award winning research, and you counter with crackpot material? How lame is that?- Unfortunately, your are again wrong, the canonical theory has been wroten. As already said, It is only one aspect (Q factor) of recent research in gravitation that still need of more research.Provide a link so we may all give it a look. It's OK if you haven't quite figured out the Q part, I am willing to suspend judgement on that aspect.It is really childish by your part to believe that a real "TOE" (i am not speaking about the ugly ineffective bundle called string theory) can be published in a usual journal.Of course, what reputable journal would consider publishing a real TOE theory.String theory can, because it is a low level theory based mainly in a 90% of usual QFT more some math.Now that's what I call new information - ST is based mainly in 90% of usual QFT? I'll pass that on to Lubos Motl. I've always wondered how he enunciates 'moo'.

Juan R.

May26-05, 05:54 AM

Chronos

It is not hilarious consider that the explanation by gravitational waves is only correct if and only if those waves are found. If this step was unnecesary, people would no waste his time and money in expensive experiments for verifying GR predictions of the existence of waves.

Again your comments are irrelevant. Let me reply to your appeal to "Nobel award winning research"

Paul A. Dirac developed his relativistic theory for electrons, when applied to H-atom, he found instability. For solving this he developed his hole theory and predicted the existence of positrons (initially he did an attempt to fit that to proton then only known particle with positive charge) but after of some research he agreed that mass was just of an electron but with oposite charge.

He predicted existence of new particles called positrons. From his Nobel Lecture (December 12, 1933):

Thus in allowing negative-energy states, the theory gives something which
appears not to correspond to anything known experimentally, but which we
cannot simply reject by a new assumption. We must find some meaning for
these states.

An examination of the behaviour of these states in an electromagnetic field
shows that they correspond to the motion of an electron with a positive
charge instead of the usual negative one - what the experimenters now call
a positron. One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons in
negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will not do, because the
observed positrons certainly do not have negative energies. We can, however,
establish ‘a connection between electrons in negative-energy states and
positrons, in a rather more indirect way.

We make use of the exclusion principle of Pauli, according to which there can be only one electron in any state of motion. We now make the
assumptions that in the world as we know it, nearly all the states of negative
energy for the electrons are occupied, with just one electron in each state,
and that a uniform filling of all the negative-energy states is completely unobservable
to us. Further, any unoccupied negative-energy state, being a departure
from uniformity, is observable and is just a positron.

Compare Nobel arguments with current standard status from QFT where E > 0. For example from Julian Schwinger (also Nobel Laureate and one of fathers of QED):

The picture of an infinite sea of negative energy electrons is now best regarded as a historical curiosity, and forgotten

As said in multiple occassions, i believe that GR is like Dirac theory: was useful, "predicted" many experimental data, can be used like a computational approach (still today Dirac theory is used in atomic physics and chemistry due to complexity of QED) but is wrong. QFT substitute to Dirac theory, i wait that canonical gravitodynamics can substitute to GR.

"Provide a link so we may all give it a look."

Initially that was my objective, but it is rather arrogant from your part first solicite to forum adminstrators that my posts here are not adequate and that, in your words, "alternative theories are not adequate here" and now claim for further information/links from me.

NO.

When i finish the manuscript i will send it to many specialists in the topic for review and debate and finally when errors corrected and manuscript improved, the final version will be available to scientific comunity. As already said after of claims for close this forum, i decided do not explain here my theory, don't post links or material, etc.

Your irrelevant question "Of course, what reputable journal would consider publishing a real TOE theory." I unknow that reply to you. Well, perhaps i know. I know very well that Nature want not publish that. I cannot post personal mailing here but I can post open commentary (available in literature) by the previous editor-in-chief of Nature, that highly respected peer-reviewed journal:

If Issac Newton had submited his theory of gravitation today he would be rejected for peer review publication because was too ambitious one

Even ignoring that i (and others) disagree with standard ugly model of peer-review publication. I prefer a new model without obvious flaws of the former.

Precisely Lubos Motl is not known like one of leading lights of string theory :-), and his knowledge of QFT is rather discutible. In fact the impact factor of Lubos' research in real science is close to zero, begining from his PhD Thesis and continuing with his last paper. Now, i don't remember exactly, but I think that he wrote only one or two research paper on the last years. He is not passing by a good epoque i believe.

I have talked with some string theorists and particle physicists and their appretiation of Lubos is rather interesting. I want not repeat here the hard words. Approximately, i could say that they consider only "the guy of the messages" ,-)

Of course string theory is firmly based in QFT more some new mathematical tools, there is few really new outside of CY. Before irrelevant Lubos thinking I prefer recent David Gross words after recieve the Nobel Prize for particle physics 2004.
Gross is particle physicist and one of the leading lights of string theory:

But we still haven't made a very radical break with conventional physics.
We’ve replaced particles with strings-that in a sense is the most
revolutionary aspect of the theory. But all of the other concepts of
physics have been left untouched-a safe thing to do if you're making
changes.

Curious, really curious, i am doing some of them changes that Gross claim, precisely i am not just replacing particles by strings and add some new (30-years ineffective) geometric math :-)

Chronos

May27-05, 02:27 AM

"Provide a link so we may all give it a look."Initially that was my objective, but it is rather arrogant from your part first solicite to forum adminstrators that my posts here are not adequate and that, in your words, "alternative theories are not adequate here" and now claim for further information/links from me.You are sorely mistaken. I did not, and have never solicited anyone on this forum, much less administrators, to do anything at my behest. I have no influence whatsoever in that regard. My comments are mine, and mine alone. And I take full responsibility for every word.... Lubos Motl is not known like one of leading lights of string theory :-), and his knowledge of QFT is rather discutible. In fact the impact factor of Lubos' research in real science is close to zero...And that, again, makes it look like you are clueless. Lubos is one of the most brilliant string theorists alive, according to most people. You have, in my opinion, assembled and are trying to sell an incoherent pile of technobabble. You dodge and duck all the specific questions. If you had genuine questions, and were looking for genuine opinions, you should have dismounted and shook all our hands before entering your imaginary pony in this parade. Pardon my tone. This is why you landed in TD, and I'm frankly amazed it didn't get locked before it went this far. Some reading material to consider:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
ll

Anomalous

May27-05, 08:43 AM

http://physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3667&stc=1

Look at the picture very carefull ( I mean like no human ever did ).

Light travells in straight line. As in this picture of the black hole if light is send along thoes imaginary lines that are seen bend just near the BH then it should pass by the blackhole and regain its original direction. But that is not the case in the real world.

What does that mean ?

Juan R.

May27-05, 09:05 AM

You are sorely mistaken. I did not, and have never solicited anyone on this forum, much less administrators, to do anything at my behest. I have no influence whatsoever in that regard. My comments are mine, and mine alone. And I take full responsibility for every word.And that, again, makes it look like you are clueless. Lubos is one of the most brilliant string theorists alive, according to most people. You have, in my opinion, assembled and are trying to sell an incoherent pile of technobabble. You dodge and duck all the specific questions. If you had genuine questions, and were looking for genuine opinions, you should have dismounted and shook all our hands before entering your imaginary pony in this parade. Pardon my tone. This is why you landed in TD, and I'm frankly amazed it didn't get locked before it went this far. Some reading material to consider:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
...

After of Rebel's plea for that administator erased/moved this post, you wrote "PF is a tough audience, Juan. Alternative theories don't fare well here." I think that you are right on your present claim on the closing. I mixed yesterday you and Rebel, you are that guy claiming that "Alternative theories don't fare well here" and after soliciting to me more information, further links, etc. you are that guy saying "and I'm frankly amazed it didn't get locked before it went this far."

I'm sorry by the confussion.

Lubos is an assistant of Harward? with no-tenured position and a very small record of "scientific" achievements (if one can call "scientific" to string theory) and nothing really serious, relevant, or revolutionary. Some string theorists say very hard words about his/her colleague. Morever, i believe that heard in some part that Lubos was recently leashed and is searching for a new university.

As said above, Lubos "understanding" of string theory and QFT is well-known. Both his fascist-style of writing in blogs and forums and his large list of direct personal attacks (i.e. without scientific arguments, only insults) to anyone writting doubts about string theory are also legendary ones.

You are open to believe in the words of Lubos :-) or to believe in the words of David Gross, a recognized leader in particle physics, one of most important leaders of string theory and recently Nobel laureate for particle physics 2004. You are, of course, open to believe. It is interesting that Gross coincide with my thinking, or I with him.

Of course, i simply ignore your tone and personal stuff. The link that you provided from Chris Hillman was interesting. Sincerely, it is very easy wrote all of that web page. In some thinks i agree, in others i cannot say nothing still, whereas in that i studied seriously, i simply smile.

On gravitational waves, of course i don't doubt that are predicted by GR but "it is quite obvious from modern treatments that they exist and that they carry energy." is interesting. I will look for buying a webcam and do an attempt to see the face of that "expertise" when my work was published.

The appeal to the "proofs" on modern textbooks (precisely i use between others Wald's well-known textbook, "the textbook of choice for the discerning graduate student." according to Chris Hillman, ha, ha, ha) may be based in general misunderstanding of the topic. My work is consistent.

On incompatibility with Newtonian limit, ha, ha, other of my specialities. The author says "This is also, of course, equally ludicrous. The theorem stating that gtr does indeed go over to Newtonian gravitostatics in the very weak field, very slow motion limit is proven in detail in almost every gtr textbook." Well perhaps the problem is on the use of "proven". By proven i mean "proven" in a rigorous sense of the word, whereas others mean the math that appears, for example, in Wald textbook.

On velocity of gravity, it is especially interesting the premature claim of "rebuttal" from a very restricted preprint from Carlip studying only an specific aspects of the problem of aberration, alluding to mental experiments that would convice to readers that preprint is correct, based in a general misunderstanding of several mathematical and conceptual aspects, and introducing several jokes. Specially interesting (i will cite on my paper) are the jokes:

"If gravity could be described exactly as an instantaneous, central interaction, the mechanical energy and angular momentum of a system such as a binary pulsar would be exactly conserved, and orbits could not decay."

"One could again try to formulate an alternative theory in which gravity propagated instantaneously, but, as in electromagnetism, only at the expense of “deunifying” the field equations and treating gravity and gravitational radiation as independent phenomena."

And after of many garbagge, "semiproofs", "extrapolations", the incorrect "appeal" to well-known theorems, etc, etc, etc. by that preprint, What? Even asuming that preprint was correct, compare

Chris Hillman claims in that marvellous web page that idea of that gravity is instantaneous is flagrantly erroneous and writte lot of gargabe, and quote to the work of renowned specialist Carlip who finally writte,

"In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity."

He says "Consistent" Interesting, really interesting Chris Hillman's confusion of words "flagrantly error" with "consistent". Perhaps it also ignore the real sense of word "proof" when allude to Wald!

Perhaps now the great specialists in GR of this forum that critiqued to me here begin to think that perhaps (of course only perhaps :-) this guy is not so hoax and studied the topic a bit.

In my paper, of course, will show why GR is not consistent and retarded interaction mediated by a field is a myth. Carlip is not correct after all.

On the rest of rather ridiculous web page, bla, bla, bla, bla.

Thanks by your link, was amazing.

Stingray

May27-05, 04:55 PM

Anomalous

May28-05, 02:27 AM

I am waiting all of for your comments on my post.

If no one likes the truth then I would request the moderators to delete my last post.

Chronos

May28-05, 02:58 AM

Anomalous, if you mean post 52, Are you familiar with the Sachs-Wolfe effect?

Juan R.

May28-05, 01:58 PM

GR is compatible with Newtonian gravity. The derivations used in textbooks are a little lacking, but textbooks only contain a very miniscule portion of the available work on the subject. The problem has been treated more carefully by Ehlers, among others. As I remember, you can read about this in

Ehlers J: Examples of Newtonian Limits of Relativistic Spacetimes, Class. Quantum Grav. 14 (1997), A119

and references cited therein.

Although I don't want to search through this whole thread again, I think I recall you claiming that using retarded gravitational fields is in conflict with observation. For this, read http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html.

Are you seriously claiming that gravity is instantaneous? That contradicts SR, which is quite well-verified experimentally.

Why do you keep bringing up Nature? They wouldn't publish anything in this subject anyways. You might as well be talking about the Journal of Neuroscience.

Going on and on about the problems of the peer-review system is really not very productive, and you lose credibility for it. I'm sure you could write up your ideas in a series of (relatively) small papers that are not "too profound" (if there's really something there).

Stingray

I said in www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf

that GR is “compatible” with Newtonian gravity in a strange manner. The derivation is not consistent because there is a careful mixture of relativistic with nonrelativistic terms: finite c with infinite propagation, curved spacetime and Newtonian gravity, etc.

Moreover, the claim of that gravity is curvature is not supported because if one eliminate curvature (e.g. take the limit c --> infinite on the metric for the weak approximation) the spacetime become flat and still Newton gravitation remain. This contradicts one of most basic principles of epistemology of science. If A is the effect of B then elimination of A may eliminate to B. This indicated to me that question of gravity was more complex that was usually stated. Then I began this solid research. By solid i mean at level of mathematical error used in rest of canonical science endeavour

Thanks by your reference.

Note that Baez says in the webpage that you linked below (bold text is mine)

“The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.”

A carefully study demonstrate in several forms that GR is not consistent. For example as said in many occasions in the past, the absence of aberration is a symptom of that there is no delay. Crackpot people like Chris Hillman wrote that the idea of instantaneous interaction was “flagrantly erroneous” and that a paper by “Steve Carlip, one of the world's leading experts on gravitation physics” had rebutted that "stupid" idea.

The history is very different and Carlip, who only studied one specific aspect of the problem, say not that in (gr-qc/9909087). He claim finally that absence of aberration is compatible with both instantaneous interaction and GR. From Hillman's nonsense one pass to Carlip's consistency. Well, this is a first step on the reeducation of general relativists.

The next logical step is demonstrate that GR is not consistent. I studied Carlip preprint provided by Chronos the other day and I already know what are the errors that Carlip is doing. Basically he admits instantaneous interaction in his assumptions (he appears that does not know this crucial point) and then claim for “extrapolation” and incorrect calims to theorems.

I want do joke of Carlip errors but since is a bit arrogant, i am open to say that

may be not difficult explain an “instantaneous” effect from assumed instantaneous equations and after claiming that GR and retarded action fits data perfectly. I see easiliy his strong errors in the electromagnetic part of the article, therefore I am obligated to say that has not studied the topic in deep.

Yes I am seriously claiming that gravity is instantaneous

But that does not contradicts SR. This is very easy for seeing. In fact it is trivial but very difficult to see from usual papers, books due to his very low rigor when compared to canonical science.

Unfortunately, general relativists have a lot of confusion in their heads. Perhaps a previous work in Neuroscience could be of help for them... :rofl:

My work, of course, is perfectly compatible with SR (when one studies SR in deep) and explain the same experimental data. In fact, not only we can obtain SR from canonical science, we can obtain generalizations of them. As said in a previous pdf available in my old page (It will be available again in the future www.canonicalscience.com) we can obtain modifications of SR from quantization of spacetime. It is rather remarkably that one can obtain a relationship obtained by loop theoreticians for the E-p relationship.

E^2 = p^2 + m^2 + adittional quantum-spacetime terms

Nature does not publish nothing that was non-standard. The list of papers rejected by Nature and after shown to be excellent is already very large. I don’t remember if they rejected Hawking paper in thermal radiation of BH for example.

NO, this theory will be not published in today archaic peer-review literature, but will be published using an more advanced model of scientific publication.

Stingray

May28-05, 03:59 PM

Please read my reference. Newtonian gravity can be recovered as a formal c->infinity limit without any ad hoc procedures (at least for asymptotically flat spacetimes).

Can you point to exactly where Carlip makes an error? I don't want to read the paper in detail. Besides, why don't you look at what the Post-Newtonian people have done? They use a much more rigorous series of approximations than Carlip's paper.

How does instantaneous propagation not violate SR?

Rebel

May28-05, 10:11 PM

Chronos

It is not hilarious consider that the explanation by gravitational waves is only correct if and only if those waves are found blah, blah,blah....

If the gravitanional waves are not found, it could be the case that we could not be able to find it, cause the low rates of energy flow permits to confuse these signals with anything else; can you tell any process that ocurs to you to search gravitational waves? sure you will handle it worst than any experimental employement used today; there are too many things in which people uses to believe as part of reality that are too hidden to see: had you saw an electron? there is too many theory based on it cause there are a many lot of experiments that gives count of it indirectly. The binary stars lowering of velocity should be just one of these indirectal proves that will make to strengthen the idea of reality of gravitational waves.

Well Juanito, you use to write too long posts to believe you are refuting all arguments vs. your strange way of thinking. There is needed just some notions of the way mind works to see that this is just a way you show your inferiority complex; when i first saw your invitation to see wath the "canonical science" is, i searched for this and found you have been jumping in others forums and things like that and discussing exactly the way you do here in physicsforums, till you extenuate the people and nobody answers anymore, or somebody tells you: "ok Juan, you are right, happy? :wink: (giving you a pat in the back). I just read the first line in the last posts from you cause your paranoic being doesnt deserve the atention, i do believe that Chronon and all others guys have more importants things that reading your things. I think the most people here enters for sakes of curiosity (y tú solo haces el ridículo) and for this we use to read the new posts. There is not respect from you trying to convince everybody about a thing that has not been published nor being reviewed by experts, and saying that everybody here and almost everybody in the world is bad when is the case you never havent proven, all the time you just talk about your "theoy" (it is not a real theory), but never talked about what really is it. Regards Juanito.

McQueen

May29-05, 11:25 AM

One of the thought experiments used to illustrate that there is no way of distinguishing between constant accelerated motion and a gravitational field , in general relativity , is the experiment with an elevator in space being pulled in an upward direction by a constant force. This states that everything in the elevator that is not attached quickly collides with the floor . If for instance someone drops a handkerchief the elevator floor rushes up to meet it . If someone in the elevator attempts to jump off the floor , the floor , rushing upward , is instantly underneath his feet again. Is this true ? Wouldn’t the objects inside the elevator possess the same rate of acceleration as the elevator itself , and therefore objects that are dropped , in the absence of gravity , should float in the place where they were released ? The person who jumps off the floor should in fact float in place till some other force sends him back down? Could someone explain why this is not so.

Juan R.

May29-05, 11:29 AM

Stingray

Thanks by your reference. I talked about this in previous post and in

http://www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf

Either Newtonian gravity is the limit of c --> infinite or it is not. If one take c finite one does not obtain exactly Newtonian gravity. If one take exactly the infinite c limit, one obtain Newtonian potential but a flat spacetime. Therefore Carlip's dogma of that gravity is spacetime curvature is wrong. He has remarked the "is" in several sci.research posts. He is wrong because Newtonian gravity is non-zero with zero curvature.

Again my previous epistemological criticism if A (curvature) is cause of B (gravity), then elimination of A may eliminate B otherwise A is not the real cause. The claim of gravity is not a force just spacetime curvature is not correct.

Yes, I can point where Carlip does errors (in plural). But as said time ago, i closed this post since that PF members criticing to me here from not expert positions, misunderstanding many things, using incorrect tones, jokes and did plea for closing of this post. I continue to post here just when somebody claim that my work may be wrong. Only that. Once nobody writte here again, i will abandon the post and will newer post here more results of research.

you say "I don't want to read the paper in detail." Perhaps it is a first important point for a scientist.

I know several Post-Newtonian models. Many of them agree with my theory.

"How does instantaneous propagation not violate SR?"

"That" will be answered in my paper.

Note that i says that gravity was instantaneous. I newer use the term "instantaneous propagation" which is other thing.

Rebel

Again your contributions are "excellent".

"If the gravitanional waves are not found, it could be the case that we could not be able to find it, or simply they do not exist".

Your comment on electrons may be another of your irrelevant posts. If people was sure of the existence of gravitaitonal waves like are sure of existence of electrons, people would not waste his time/money in complex experiments for detecting gravitational waves. They simply would say that waves are real without doubt. But the search continues...

No you are wrong about the indirect proof of waves from binary stars. I'm sorry.

Of course, how you has no serious arguments, and an insignificant idea of theory or experiments, you use personal attacks and call to me "Juanito".

Also you claim no interest but continue here "forever"!!!!

It is really interesting!!!

You appears very sure of your words and your knowledge of things. Still each time that i solicit to you your real name you omit my plea.

If you are so intelligent/erudite, etc. why don't post here or in other site your real name and a direct criticism to my ideas. It would be very easy for you demonstrate that I in your own words (estoy haciendo el ridiculo :-)

It is very easy personal attack, mocking, etc. from a nickname Rebel. Be valiant colleague!! Use your impressive knowledge of gravitation :-)

Simply begin with a

I Rebel with real name (your name here) show that Juan R. is wrong in this and this and this...

It would be a pleasure for me to review your "paper" and write a public comment, showing that you has no idea of the topic.

Anomalous

May29-05, 04:40 PM

Anomalous, if you mean post 52, Are you familiar with the Sachs-Wolfe effect?

Yes , please answer my question in post 52.

Stingray

May29-05, 05:03 PM

Either Newtonian gravity is the limit of c --> infinite or it is not. If one take c finite one does not obtain exactly Newtonian gravity. If one take exactly the infinite c limit, one obtain Newtonian potential but a flat spacetime. Therefore Carlip's dogma of that gravity is spacetime curvature is wrong.

Your link makes many incorrect statements, and my point in giving you that reference was to correct some of them. You clearly haven't read it, and are just repeating yourself.

Also, statements like "gravity is curvature [nonzero Riemann tensor]" are not meant to be taken too seriously, and in any case, the definition of "gravity" here is different than the Newtonian one. For example, it is obvious that the gravitational field at the surface of the earth is approximately constant (if we do not move too far out). We can therefore model it as something with zero Riemann tensor. Taking your phrase too literally would mean that there is no gravity as the surface of the earth. What we commonly call gravity is due to the curvature of our worldlines putting us in an unnatural reference frame.

The paper I quoted shows how to take formal limits of different spacetimes to Newtonian theory. The results are intuitive (e.g. Schwarzchild -> point mass), and do not have the problems you are claiming.

You evaded my other questions...

Stingray

May29-05, 05:05 PM

Anomalous, I don't understand your question. Can you can repeat it more clearly?

Chronos

May29-05, 05:34 PM

You evaded my other questions...What a surprise. Apparently your question is also irrelevant.

Anomalous

May30-05, 04:58 AM

Anomalous, I don't understand your question. Can you can repeat it more clearly?

Find post no 52 in this thread.

Stingray

May30-05, 05:04 AM

I did read your post. I just don't understand it. Can you reword it?

Juan R.

May30-05, 05:41 AM

Stingray

Effectively, I didn’t read that reference. I cannot do valuation of them still. I’m sorry.

I may be highly skeptic of that that author has demonstrated the reduction of GR to Newton gravity consistently, but I cannot do valuation still.

Again thanks by your reference.

You said

“Your link makes many incorrect statements,”

Whereas I obtain that reference for verify your claim, let me quote one of Steve Carlip (GR expertise) posts in sci-physics

“ general relativity very nearly reproduces the infinite-propagation-speed Newtonian predictions. ”

Note that he says very nearly. Perhaps he, others, and I are wrong, of course perhaps, but whereas I don’t read that reference I cannot say anything serious.

I may be sincere here, if really Ehlers obtains the Newtonian limit in a rigorous manner without ad hoc assumptions or tricks (like reparametrization of metric with “conformal factors”, gauges, or similar) with a curved spacetime, I will remain perplexed /:-()

From Wald GR textbook

“ Indeed, it asserts that spacetime must be curved in all situations where, physically, a gravitational field is present”

How model a physical gravitational field like Newtonian one from a flat spacetime!! Perhaps the correctmethodology is in the reference that you posted the other day, but i doubt it.

I don’t understand your next words

“For example, it is obvious that the gravitational field at the surface of the earth is approximately constant (if we do not move too far out). We can therefore model it as something with zero Riemann tensor. Taking your phrase too literally would mean that there is no gravity as the surface of the earth. What we commonly call gravity is due to the curvature of our worldlines putting us in an unnatural reference frame.”

The gravitational field at Earth surface is modeled assuming that Earth generates specetime curvature and that curvature change the movement of a test mass from the movement in a flat spacetime, the difference between both movements is claimed to be equivalent to our observation of a force field of 980 cm s-1 in GR.

Stingray and Chronos

Yes, Carlip preprint is wrong.

Yes, gravity is not delayed by c.

No, that does not violate SR.

No, i am not evading questions...

No, i didn’t say that those question were irrelevant.

No, i will not post any technical detail here. I said many, many, many times. Also say why :-)

Stingray

May30-05, 06:46 AM

“ general relativity very nearly reproduces the infinite-propagation-speed Newtonian predictions. ”

Note that he says very nearly. Perhaps he, others, and I are wrong, of course perhaps, but whereas I don’t read that reference I cannot say anything serious.

He is saying that in systems where we know Newtonian gravity works well, GR gives almost the same answers. This is a statement of physical rather than mathematical equivalence. There are no formal limits involved. If GR reproduced Newton's predictions exactly as it stood (with c finite), then it would be the same theory. It clearly isn't.

In Newtonian physics, we can have (at least approximately in a small enough region) a region of constant gravitational field. The local spacetime curvature (Riemann tensor) has nothing to do with the force we attribute to gravity. The spacetime of a uniform gravitational field is actually flat.

So is it curvature (Riemann tensor) or is it the connection (Christoffel symbols) which should represent the gravitational field? Many relativists prefer invariant definitions, so they choose curvature. As in my example of a constant field, this is at odds with the intuitive Newtonian concept. The relativistic and Newtonian definitions of "gravitational field" are completely different. This is only semantics, though. It has no effect on any calculations.

When going to the Newtonian limit, continuing to equate "curvature" and "gravity" would just be confusing. For that purpose, it's much better to use the connection.

I think that one of the things you're missing is that Newtonian gravity does not have the same spacetime structure as GR. It is actually more complicated. This was shown by Cartan and others when they figured out how to write Newton's theory in generally covariant form.

The Newtonian spacetime is not completely described by a single metric. There are instead two metric-like fields plus a connection. When starting from GR, these two fields are basically the limits of the covariant and contravariant metrics. Since each metric becomes degenerate when c->infinity, you can't invert one to get the other.

Anyways, the Newtonian gravitational field enters in the connection, not the metric. Unlike in Einstein's theory, the Newtonian connection is not determined by the metric(s).

I think all of this is explained in the reference I gave you. It is at least in the papers cited there.

Anomalous

May31-05, 04:36 AM

I did read your post. I just don't understand it. Can you reword it?

Thanks for not yet givingup on me.

Look at this picture
http://physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3667&stc=1

the original path of light is show in green after the lights direction shown in red has changed.

I know its just a picture but yet, the path lines of the space near the blackhole are just bend uptil certain distancea nd not engulfed in the blackhole. These are space cordinate lines, Now if its space that is bending and not light then light should emerge and regain its path and be on the green line after it has passed near by the blackhole.

Can you correct my understanding ?

Stingray

May31-05, 07:07 AM

Are you asking why light doesn't move on the coordinate lines? Those lines are arbitrary, and are mainly chosen so that the picture looks good. Nothing would naturally move along them.

Anomalous

Jun1-05, 02:51 AM

Are you asking why light doesn't move on the coordinate lines? Those lines are arbitrary, and are mainly chosen so that the picture looks good. Nothing would naturally move along them.

Now I am more confused. Thoes black lines show that the space is bend towards the BH in the nearby areas , So are not cordinates of space bending towards the BH, How else can space bend ?

Juan R.

Jun1-05, 03:41 AM

Stingray

I solicited a copy of Ehlers J: Examples of Newtonian Limits of Relativistic Spacetimes, Class. Quantum Grav. 14 (1997), A119 but I have not got still.

Still I can do some preliminary comments (remember that I didn’t read still Ehlers work) and all is based in my survey of last days.

Ehlers' work appears to be mainly focused to cosmological models.

It appears that his work has not been very popular for the construction of post-Newtonian models.

When I mean the recovering of Newton gravity from GR, I mean a consistent derivation of the full Newtonian model. Of course, one can obtain the “correct” Newton equation for trajectories in coordinate time

d^2 x / dt^2 = – “time-time connection”

but the physical metric corresponds to curved spacetime g = nu(SR) + gamma.

Often, one takes formally the c--> infinite in the obtaining of coordinate time, but one maintains c finite in the nu metric.

Generally, one argues for the derivation of “correct” Newtonian equation

a = – grad (phy)

from the “geodesic” equation

a + “time-time connection” = 0

and, therefore, the covariant derivatives does not commute, this implies that one cannot use ordinary derivatives in this regime.

If one want that covariant derivative exactly coincides with ordinary derivatives then one obtain that bodies are unaffected by gravity.

If one works all of this in detail for a Schwarzschild metric, one obtains either a pure flat spacetime with zero affine connections and zero Rieman curvature tensor, or usual GR “linear” gravitation on curved spacetime and c finite. Newtonian theory is a theory of gravity in flat spacetime and c --> infinite.

I don’t see how Ehlers’ work can modify this maintaining intact the basic structure of GR.

Please read my reference. Newtonian gravity can be recovered as a formal c->infinity limit without any ad hoc procedures (at least for asymptotically flat spacetimes).

As said I didn’t read paper yet, but I have found others interesting related works. It is interesting that other author refers to same Ehlers’ work like the “c--> infinite” limit and carefully emphasize the “”. This suggests to me that Ehlers is performing not the real limit after of all, only some formal "reparametrization". Of course, i am not sure of thyis because didn't read the article.

Yet Ehlers use at least (I didn’t read the paper) an ad hoc assumption: asymptotically flat spacetime. Not only is ad hoc, moreover, it is unphysical. In the basis of experimental evidence and analysis from Penrose or Misner:

“universe is not an island of matter surrounded by emptiness”.

Perhaps other better work imposing on the curvature tensor an ad hoc condition "prohibiting rotational holonomy" can permit us obtain Newton gravity in a “consistent” manner, but I doubt like one can obtain curved “geodesic” motion with a zero Christoffel. All attempts that I know until now are mixed approaches with flat structure plus a Newtonian potential = non-flat spacetime such as the world lines of test bodies follow the true non-flat metric. If the true metric is flat there is no gravitation, only pure free motion.

I unknown if Ehlers’ paper deals with solar system problem, but all works that I am seeing are focusing to cosmological issues, where one may expect deviations from pure Newtonian gravity and therefore the fact one does not obtain exactly Newtonian theory is not a problem, it is a virtue.

I think that GR clearly states that gravitation is curvature as was said by Einstein. By curvature I do not mean exclusively the Riemann curvature tensor, since that Christoffel symbols are another form of defining curvature.

Your distinction between “curvature” or “connection” regarding the true origin of gravity is not applicable to my non-technical work

http://www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf

Because I mean that in pure Newtonian theory, both vanish.

I think that Carlip know very well that there is no complete derivation of Newtonian theory from GR and that there are problems still unsolved. The cite that I quoted

“general relativity very nearly reproduces the infinite-propagation-speed Newtonian predictions. ”

is best understood in their surrounds

For weak fields, however, one can describe the theory in a sort of Newtonian language. In that case, though, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central---it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field---and that it depends on velocities as well as positions. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled; general relativity very nearly reproduces the infinite-propagation-speed Newtonian predictions.

It signifies that is not clear if GR can describe solar system dynamics due to aberration and other issues. There is no consensus if GR is compatible with experimental data or no. I think that no, as said many standard “proofs” and “verifications” are misleading. For example, the famous recent claim of measure of gravity speed may be seen like misleading (was not measure of that). Recent Carlip's paper in aberration of celestial bodies is, unfortunately, full of failures, and finally he agrees that interpretations of others using instantaneous interaction (for example canonical gravitodynamics) are consistent with experimental absence of aberration. But he is not demonstrating that absence of aberration is consistent with GR.

As said I didn’t not post here what are the errors of Carlip’s papers (in fact, one would need several pages in a paper for a detailed following), but I put an "indicator".

One cannot demonstrate a thing if begins assuming that thing in the form of a hidden assumption.

Therefore, one needs a theory of gravity with next requirements:

1) A theory giving exactly the Newtonian limit in a flat Euclidean space and absolute time. “Cartan-like” covariant “reformulations” are not that.

2) A theory for gravity on a flat spacetime. Unless one can measure curved spacetime, all our experimental evidence is for flat space and time.

3) A theory explaining usual Solar system tests: perihelion, radar delay, redshift, etc.

4) A theory explaining other tests, e.g. binary stars, but without appeal to unobserved gravitational waves, etc.

5) A theory where gravity speed is infinite. The model cannot violate SR but may, at the same time, fits experimental orbiting and astronomical data on BH, binary stars, aberration, etc.

6) A theory departing from GR at extragalactic regimes explaining data and empirical laws (e.g. TF one) without ad hoc assumptions like unobserved dark matter and fine tuning with two-three parameters.

7) A theory unified with EM.

8) A theory that can be satisfactorily quantized from first principles.

9) Solving of most hard problems of cosmology: inflation, cosmological dark matter (90%!!!), cosmological constant, etc.

At least twenty-five alternative theories to Einstein GR have been investigated from the 60’s. I cannot say that I have solved all those problems already (I don’t studied 9 still) but already said that things I have already obtained.

The research is very young but very, very promising.

Stingray

Jun1-05, 10:06 AM

Now I am more confused. Thoes black lines show that the space is bend towards the BH in the nearby areas , So are not cordinates of space bending towards the BH, How else can space bend ?

If you had a bent rubber sheet in front of you, would you need lines drawn on it to know that it was bent?

Coordinates can be chosen in all kinds of ways that don't necessarily have any physical significance. It's actually very rare to have any good notion of a "preferred" coordinate system in curved spacetimes (like Cartesian coordinates in flat spacetime). Going from some 'random' system of coordinates to something physical or invariant is what a large part of differential geometry is about.

Stingray

Jun1-05, 11:30 AM

Ehlers' work appears to be mainly focused to cosmological models.

There is no restriction in that article to cosmological models. In fact, it is somewhat more applicable to solar system-type problems to cosmological ones.

I don’t see how Ehlers’ work can modify this maintaining intact the basic structure of GR.

He does not go by the route you described. The structure of GR remains intact. The Newtonian structure is what is different than what you are expecting.

Although Newtonian spacetime is flat in a sense, it is not nearly as simple as Minkowski spacetime. There are two natural metrics, and both are singular. There always exists a coordinate system where one metric takes the form diag(1,0,0,0), and the other diag(0,1,1,1). It is clearly impossible to invert these, so you can't compute connections or curvatures from them.

At a fundamental level, though, connections are not defined by metrics. They have a separate existence describing the notion of parallel transport. This is certainly meaningful in Newtonian gravity, so there is a connection. Restricting the connections to ones which reproduce Newton's concepts does not leave you with something that is necessarily zero. The remaining freedom is actually just enough to allow for a gravitational potential giving you all the motions you'd expect.

This was all worked out back in the 1920's by Cartan. The rumor is that he got annoyed at Einstein's claims that GR was the only theory that remained elegant in generally covariant form, so he went off and showed that Newton's theory was only slightly more complicated!

If you're going to try to find a Newtonian limit of GR, then you really have to write the two in same (generally covariant) language first. This requires adopting Cartan's notation/formalism for Newton's theory. Ehlers shows that Einstein's theory goes over to Newton's in this way.

He writes Einstein's theory in an unusual way with a free parameter equal to 1/c^2. When this parameter is zero, you get something called Newton-Cartan theory (trivially). This isn't quite what I outlined above, but a slight generalization of it. It allows for what might be thought of as an overall rotation of the universe. If you only allow for asymptotically flat solutions, then you recover Newton's theory (in Cartan's notation).

I do not understand your objection to this last step. Newtonian gravity is only used in asymptotically flat problems. You would only encounter possible problems when going to cosmology, and to quote you,
[...] cosmological issues, where one may expect deviations from pure Newtonian gravity and therefore the fact one does not obtain exactly Newtonian theory is not a problem, it is a virtue.

I'll continue in another post...

Stingray

Jun1-05, 11:56 AM

I still think Carlip is saying what I outlined in a previous post. I can't see how you're misinterpreting him. Maybe it's a language problem?

Anyway, his paper isn't meant to be profound. It's basically something to demonstrate to students how things work. There are much more developed post-Newtonian and post-Minkowski formalisms around, and these do match up very well to solar system observations. Yes, you can agree with solar system measurements by starting from some non-GR, non-Newtonian theory having instantaneous interactions, but this is trivial. It's just a statement that you can do a Taylor expansion when everything is moving at speeds much less than c.

1) A theory giving exactly the Newtonian limit in a flat Euclidean space and absolute time. “Cartan-like” covariant “reformulations” are not that.

2) A theory for gravity on a flat spacetime. Unless one can measure curved spacetime, all our experimental evidence is for flat space and time.

To point 1: Cartan's reformulation of Newtonian gravity is exactly equivalent to the original version. There is an absolute time, and the spatial hypersurface defined by a single instant of time is Euclidean.

Point 2: Ok, fine. In some sense, "curved spacetime" is just semantics. It's a very nice mental picture, though, and I don't know why you want to spoil it.

Juan R.

Jun3-05, 09:39 AM

Stingray

First an important detail; initially I was a “believer” on GR, but a problem with symmetries in canonical science obligated to me to reconsider the question of gravity. Then I tought that (see page 17 of www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf) a canonical force in a flat spacetime could be compatible with curved spacetime GR gravitation, somewhat in the spirit of Lagrangian mech. <=> Hamiltonian mech. A more rigorous analysis, from derivation of Newtonian limit, to unification with EM, quantization requirements passing by some Solar system test, etc. obligated to me to re-thinking about gravitation. A careful discussion will appear in the paper.

Still I didn’t read Ehlers’ paper, but have studied additional stuff on the topic, and think that I already have got the point.

From standard GR (let me call it “metric gravity”) one cannot obtain Newtonian theory. I want to be clear here, the “metric” approach does not obtain the original Newton theory. Therefore, people have searched for alternative ways. Now my comments on “affine gravity” ("Cartan-like" approach).

Newton and Einstein are geometrically different.

The first step consists on “reformulate” Newton theory in a covariant form. First, this is not a simple reformulation (like Hamiltonian-Lagrangian of mech.). From a conceptual point of view, Newton-Cartan is not the same than original Newton approach. The geometric Newton-like theory is not the same that original Newton theory

The second step consists on reformulating also Einstein GR. In some sense, the method resembles the (3+1) formalism of HGR but one works with powers of parameter 1/cc (Ehlers) or 1/c (others). Both approaches are compatibles in the Newtonian limit. The differences arise in post-Newtonian approaches. The curvature Riemann tensor of the Newtonian hypersurfaces is zero, so spatially is flat. Ok.

The total spacetime is not flat and one introduces a single curved
derivative operator. The operator is splinted into two parts: a flat derivative operator more a scalar field.

Since that this reformulation of GR begins with a curved spacetime, only the single curved operator is physical. Therefore, there is ambiguity since the decomposition will not be unique (this resembles to me the infamous problem of time of quantum HGR). Then one cannot obtain original Newton theory from a reformulation of GR. All that one can obtain is a family of geometric Newton-like theories from a reformulation of GR.

For obtaining a single real geometric Newton-like theory, one needs to introduce some additional ad hoc condition does not contained in GR. There are many different covariant Newton-like theories and a great discussion in literature on which is the correct (if any).

Ehlers showed that one of the usual ad hoc equations for the Riemann tensor (the weak condition?) can be obtained from special boundary conditions: he showed from asymptotic flat spacetime and therefore the adittional ad hoc equation is not need.

I see two problems with that. The first that assumption is unphysical, the so-called “island assumption” by cosmologists. Cosmological experimental evidence does not support it and people rejects it as I already said. Still Ehlers could claim that unobserved asymptotic condition is valid very far from radio of observable Universe, but we cannot see it with our limited spacetime window. Maybe! But it continue being a hypothesis additional to GR.

But the second problem is much more interesting. Really assuming boundaries at infinitum, Ehlers is assuming instantaneous gravitation. This is difficult to see in static models but, in dynamic models, one can see that the choosing of different boundaries would leave intact the dynamical properties for example at the Solar system scale. Still, only one boundary leave to the correct Newtonian limit (in Cartan sense of course), the others boundaries offer wrong answers. Ehlers is fixing the “gauge” of the decomposition by means of a large (infinite) correlation that connect local spacetime dynamics with spacetimes regions at infinitum. Really very, very interesting.

Summary:

1º) “Reformulation” of Newton

2º) Reformulation of GR

3º) Additional assumptions (equations) for the correct splitting of the defined single curved derivative.

4º) If one want “eliminate” the ad hoc equatios one may assume an ad hoc unphysical boundary for the geometry that, moreover, is introducing instantaneous gravity.

A note, Ehlers unphysical boundary => instantaneous gravity, but a violation of that boundary (our universe is not of “island” type) =/=> that gravity is delayed because above there is a “=>” and not a “<=>”

And finally one (is exhaust :-) obtains a Newton-like theory in the limit of c--> infinite, probably full compatible with original Newton theory in an empirical sense

a = -grad(phy)

but incompatible in a conceptual sense. That is, there are two “phys” numerically agreeing but conceptually (theoretically) different: one is Newton real potential in flat space defining a real force, other is a scalar field that arise in the decomposition and that is related via connections with a physical curved spacetime where test bodies move in a “geodesic manner”.

From canonical gravitodynamics, one obtains the full Newtonian theory without modification of conceptual or theoretical issues simply taking the limit c--> infinite (without mathematical ambiguities nor singular points) in the expression for canonical force or applying it to a stationary case because canonical gravitostatics = Newton gravitation

A single well-defined mathematical step and need for zero assumptions outside of the canonical theory.

Canonical => original Newton theory

I call this a rigorous derivation.

Newton-Cartan-like approaches are summarized in

GR reformulation + ad hoc equations => Newton-like theories =/= original Newton theory

There is not derivation because the ad hoc equations (or boundary assumptions) are not derivable from GR alone. Moreover, with each assumption one obtains different “Newtonian” theories: Neo-Newt NG, Max NG, Weak NCG, etc.

Juan R.

Jun3-05, 09:53 AM

Stingray

I disagree, Carlip’s paper is meant to be profound and fixes the beliefs of one of the schools of gravity in dispute. He published this paper in PLA for a rebuttal of others’ ideas. Interestingly, in the web he maintained that instantaneous gravity was impossible, whereas in the final published paper Carlip recognizes that instantaneous explaining of experimental data is also possible. Great!

It is also interesting that Carlip agrees that there is “absence of direct
measurements of propagation speed”. Therefore the GR interpretation v = c is simply a theoretical interpretation like the assumption of curved spacetimes and the belief on gravitational radiation.

Problems with Carlip’s paper already begin with its EM review. He carefully chooses a specific model (velocity constant) with the aim of eliminate accelerating terms in the Electric field. It is interesting that also omit the discussion of magnetic fields (the movement of test charge is affected by both). Summing all physical terms, the force does not appoint toward the “instantaneous” position, contrary to his claim. This is natural and, in fact, is one of greatest problems in numerical Maxwell EM, the instability of computed trajectories due to time-delay. Some authors claim for solving this problem using preMaxwell fields in 5D (in the spirit of Kaluza-Klein :-) but a carefull analysys demonstrate that are using a concept of instantaneus interaction in 5D for coupling the preMaxwell fields.

Curiously, Carlip carefully chooses (he is astute) the models and equations just for eliminating the most part of aberration effects. If you are eliminating it from the beginning, it is very difficult that you obtain it at final.

Carlip (great GR specialist in the words of others) says,

“One could, of course, try to formulate an alternative model in which the Coulomb field acted instantaneously, but only at the expense of ‘deunifying’ Maxwell’s equations and breaking the connection between electric fields and electromagnetic radiation.”

It is completely wrong. Precisely advanced mathematical analysis of Maxwell EM show that there is an implicit “deunifying” of EM into transverse and longitudinal effects, and a “deunifying” on “pure” particles and “pure” fields contributions in the standard approach. From canonical EM a single unified formula can explain those topics.

Curiously, astronomers compute orbits, without retarded positions (violating GR). Only perihelion and light deflection are computed. Time-delay in gravitatory orbits is ignored. However, EM time-delay is always used! Full GR is not used as already said in previous posts.

The effect of a gravitational time-delay destroys the orbit. The effect is very small, probably undetectable in a direct measurement, but it is accumulative, and after of several miles of rotations, the usual orbit is destroyed. Astronomers’ chronology shows no signs of that.

Carlip continues

“If gravity could be described exactly as an instantaneous, central interaction, the mechanical energy and angular momentum of a system such as a binary pulsar would be exactly conserved, and orbits could not decay.

In general relativity, the gravitational radiation reaction appears as a slight mismatch between the effects of aberration and the extra noncentral terms in the equations of motion.

One could again try to formulate an alternative theory in which gravity propagated instantaneously, but, as in electromagnetism, only at the expense of “deunifying” the field equations and treating gravity and gravitational radiation as independent phenomena. ”

The first part is, of coourse, completely wrong. I believe that Carlip misunderstands the concept of “central” force. On the second part (GR) I agree. On the third part again incorrect, see my previous words on EM.

Carlip continues (in the next section) with “The naïve choice for a retarded Newtonian potential would be phy = m/R, where R is the propagation delayed distance”

This is childish, if phy is a number, a simple number, one could be tempted to follow that strange suggestion. But phy is not a number, it is a potential and therefore it has a well defined sense: like a measure of instantaneous correlations at one specific instant. The attempt to relativize that, one may substitute not R by retarded R, if not the delta(t), implicit in the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian formalism due to “collapse” of light cones, by a relativistic delta(tau) for the cones surfaces.

Moreover, Carlip posterior suggestion for phy = m/r, is not complete. The carefull discussion of those and others errors is outside of this forum, but is will be done in the paper in preparation.

Juan R.

Jun3-05, 10:25 AM

Stingray

Yes, you can agree with solar system measurements by starting from some non-GR, non-Newtonian theory having instantaneous interactions, but this is trivial. It's just a statement that you can do a Taylor expansion when everything is moving at speeds much less than c.

It is a bit more complex. From a conceptual point of view, the theories are very different. From an empirical point, instantaneous gravity is not equivalent to a Taylor series expansion of a delayed formula in powers of (1/cc). Only first terms are equivalent, to higher orders there exist differences between both approaches. I have no computed still the different terms for gravitation, for solar system test that i did recently i needed just the first expansion. But, in a future, there is possibility for an experimental confrontation.

Now we can compare preliminary canonical with GR

1) A theory giving exactly the Newtonian limit in a flat Euclidean space and absolute time. “Cartan-like” covariant “reformulations” are not that.

2) A theory for gravity on a flat spacetime. Unless one can measure curved spacetime, all our experimental evidence is for flat space and time.

3) A theory explaining usual Solar system tests: perihelion, radar delay, redshift, etc.

4) A theory explaining other tests, e.g. binary stars, but without appeal to unobserved gravitational waves, etc.

5) A theory where gravity speed is infinite. The model cannot violate SR but may, at the same time, fits experimental orbiting and astronomical data on BH, binary stars, aberration, etc.

6) A theory departing from GR at extragalactic regimes explaining data and empirical laws (e.g. TF one) without ad hoc assumptions like unobserved dark matter and fine tuning with two-three parameters.

7) A theory unified with EM.

8) A theory that can be satisfactorily quantized from first principles.

9) Solving of most hard problems of cosmology: inflation, cosmological dark matter (90%!!!), cosmological constant, etc.

I agree with you in that point 2 is fine, curvature is just semantics. My reply to your question is

A) because there is no experimental evidence of them and i follow Bohr advice of that a physicist may be the most conservator possible. I will choose curved spacetimes if i) they are measured and/or ii) someone shows that from flat spacetime theories one cannot explain all available data.

B) there are problems with the geometrical view, for example regarding the choosing of correct boundaries, the problem of how Earth knows what is the curvature of spacetime (GR proposes no mechanism), energy conservation, etc.

C) Because, that “deunify” physics, precisely it is the problem with quantum gravity and the rest of interactions considered forces. I see very logical to modify current gravity for adapting it to the other three.

D) From a computational point of view, GR is difficult and most of difficulties are unnecessaries for real computations due to weak character of corrections. By this reason, there is so much practical interest in computational models based in direct post-Newtonian approaches.

Corresponding GR points vs canonical ones

1) One cannot obtain exact original Newton theory in either “metric” or “affine” gravity. In the latter (more recent) one needs reformulate GR and add ad hoc assumptions for obtaining not he original theory, just a theory that look like.

2) GR is based in unobserved curved spacetime that enters like a “mathematical tool” in the theory.

3) GR fits with usual Solar system tests very well. I refer to perihelion, light deflection, etc. Others GR effects have not been carefully studied still!

4) GR explains other tests, e.g. binary stars but appealing to unobserved gravitational waves for maintaining energy conservation, etc.

5) GR claims gravity speed is c. There is serious mathematical and empiricial tests on contrary. E.g. absence of orbit aberration is not explained (at contrary of common claims).

6) GR cannot explaining data at extragalactic regimes and empirical laws (e.g. TF one) without ad hoc assumptions like unobserved dark matter or the appeal to fine tuning with two-three parameters or statistical ad hoc asumptions on galactic formation.

7) GR is not unified with EM. Einstein’s search for unified field theory failed.

8) GR is incompatible with QM. All attempts (dozens and dozens) of quantize it have failed. Recent non-commutative program is “stopped”. String theory is at one very bad stage with many recent publications in the form of “no-go theorems”, and the number of publications down this year. LQG continues with its very fundamental problems, in the limits of my knowledge still nobody demonstrated any classical limit, the problem of time remain unsolved, the interpretation of cosmological wavefunctions, etc.

9) GR introduces really difficult problems in the cosmological scale: singularities, need for hypothetical inflation for explaining large scale structure (interestingly this is related with the “local” character of GR), ad hoc assumption of a 90%!! of dark matter, the old crux of cosmological constant, etc.

I sincerely think that in an average view of all points canonical gravitodynamics looks very promising :!!), especially seing that Einstein developed three or four previous versions of GR before the definitive, and needed of 10-15 intense years, when canonical gravitodynamics is at a very early stage, it born this year, and still has been not published. Once, the first draft manuscript is ready, i will send to several especialists for comment/review and correct possible errors.

Like a scientist, I think that i would follow this way of research closely and verify what we could obtain, even if relativists :grumpy: would prefer the closing of this "dangerous" new posibility, that GR was a kind of Dirac hole theory.

Stingray

Jun3-05, 10:46 AM

The first step consists on “reformulate” Newton theory in a covariant form. First, this is not a simple reformulation (like Hamiltonian-Lagrangian of mech.). From a conceptual point of view, Newton-Cartan is not the same than original Newton approach. The geometric Newton-like theory is not the same that original Newton theory

What is the difference? All predictions are the same. "Conceptual points of view" are not really important. Any theory can be equivalently reformulated in an infinite number of different ways. Each of these might suggest different underlying concepts. Take, for example the Ashtekar formulation of GR. It bears no resemblance to textbook GR, but it's the same thing.

Since that this reformulation of GR begins with a curved spacetime, only the single curved operator is physical. Therefore, there is ambiguity since the decomposition will not be unique (this resembles to me the infamous problem of time of quantum HGR).

This is not true. Any well-defined derivative operator is "physical." In both GR and (standard old-fashioned) Newtonian theory, you normally use derivative operators adapted to whichever coordinate system is most useful for the problem at hand. Covariant derivatives are rarely used in 'real' problems. Anyway, preferred coordinate systems (basically inertial frames) can be defined as ones which diagonalize the Newton-Cartan metrics. This is invariant, intuitive, and gives a unique split

As for your objection to asymptotic flatness, can you point to any non-asymptotically flat system that should have a Newtonian limit? Newton's theory does not apply to cosmology, and that's the only place where this assumption could be problematic. The solar system, for example, can be assumed asymptotically flat. Also, almost all non-cosmological work in GR makes this same assumption.

Really assuming boundaries at infinitum, Ehlers is assuming instantaneous gravitation. This is difficult to see in static models but, in dynamic models, one can see that the choosing of different boundaries would leave intact the dynamical properties for example at the Solar system scale.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. There is no assumption of instantaneous gravitation. Of course boundary conditions do matter, but this is also true in Newtonian gravity (or any field theory). You have to make sure that the system isn't being strongly influenced by things extremely far away (either through Coulomb-type interactions, or gravitational radiation). You're right that this assumption is technically separate from GR, but GR doesn't say c->infinity either. It is quite reasonable to assume that the appropriate limiting process makes both of these assumptions.

Now that we've beaten this topic to death, how about appropriate limits in other physical theories. Does non-relativistic quantum mechanics go over to classical mechanics in an appropriate sense? Does quantum field theory go over non-relativistic QM? As far as I know, nobody has shown either of these things to the degree of rigor that NG follows from GR.

Stingray

Jun3-05, 11:10 AM

I agree with your point that Carlip only looks at very special cases. That was why I said before that the paper was just meant to illustrate a point. Don't take it too seriously.

I was not aware of any instabilities in numerical EM. Can you elaborate?

Going back to gravity, Post-Newtonian expansions of GR now exist to very high order. Everything is stable. If you still claim otherwise, cite a source. Self-force effects are negligible if that's what you're talking about.

Juan R.

Jun4-05, 06:36 AM

What is the difference? All predictions are the same. "Conceptual points of view" are not really important.

Of course that are important!! Physics is not engineering. Numbers alone are not sufficient: empirical models are not theoretical models, that is the reason you claim that gravity cannot be instantaneous, because you are inferring from a previous theoretical framework called GR where vG = c. But c in my theory has the same valor but is not the velocity of gravitation.

Phy in Newton theory is not the same that Phy in Cartan-Newton-Ehlers theory even if numerically both agree in the “Newtonian” limit. This is the reason of that the asymptotic condition

lim R--> inf; {Phy = (1/R)} = 0 (*)

is valid in the first one approach (in fact is the well proven and famous principle of decomposition of clusters), but totally unphysical (the so-called island assumption by cosmologists and rejected because violates direct observation) in the second. Why is (*) accepted by all people in the first case but neglected by many people in the second? Because the two phy are not the same. Newton-Cartan theory is not Newton original theory

This is not true. Any well-defined derivative operator is "physical." In both GR and (standard old-fashioned) Newtonian theory, you normally use derivative operators adapted to whichever coordinate system is most useful for the problem at hand. Covariant derivatives are rarely used in 'real' problems. Anyway, preferred coordinate systems (basically inertial frames) can be defined as ones which diagonalize the Newton-Cartan metrics. This is invariant, intuitive, and gives a unique split

The only well defined (physical) derivative operator is the corresponding to curved spacetime. This is splinted into two terms, but each term is not well-defined (only the total sum) by this reason each term need to be fixed with an additional physical equation does not contained in GR and that needs to be invoked for pure consistency with experimental data. This is not pure math, the failure for spliting adequately the curve operator is related to well-known problem of inertial and gravitatory masses in gravitation. From a conceptual point of view we fix the splitting for fixing the relation between inertial mass and gravitatory mass.

Reformulated GR + ad hoc equation/assumption => NC gravity =/= Original Newton gravity.

With each ad hoc equation/assumption introduced in the formalism, different spacetime structures and different Newtonian-like theories arise. I summarized some of them in #77 post. If am not wrong (i don't read his paper still), Ehlers’ formalism may be of the weak NCG type.

Canonical gravitodynamics is clearly superior here. There is no ambiguity and there is full consistency with Newton original theory.

As for your objection to asymptotic flatness, can you point to any non-asymptotically flat system that should have a Newtonian limit? Newton's theory does not apply to cosmology, and that's the only place where this assumption could be problematic. The solar system, for example, can be assumed asymptotically flat. Also, almost all non-cosmological work in GR makes this same assumption.

It is not my objection, as said cosmologists, relativists, say,

“universe is not an island of matter surrounded by emptiness”.

Ehlers uses ad hoc asymptotic flatness for ignoring the additional equation needed for fixing the splitting of the total derivative operator. As said i) is empirically unphysical, ii) is introducing an instantaneous component for gravitation. The same ii) question arises if one admits asymptotic flatness in solar or other GR models. Some of geometric models of Newtonian gravity that said above claim to do not use directly that boundary and use others ad hoc equations, but I don’t know if it is “still here” (hidden) because I have not checked the formulas.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. There is no assumption of instantaneous gravitation. Of course boundary conditions do matter, but this is also true in Newtonian gravity (or any field theory). You have to make sure that the system isn't being strongly influenced by things extremely far away (either through Coulomb-type interactions, or gravitational radiation). You're right that this assumption is technically separate from GR, but GR doesn't say c->infinity either.

There is not explicit assumption of instantaneous gravitation but there is implicit one. Basically, you are connecting two infinitely separated regions of spacetime in a pure geometric manner, breaking the causality connection that would correspond to a dynamical approach where c is finite. You are “taking” the “group of word lines” outside of the light cone.

As said above (*) in Newtonian gravity the limit at infinite does not imply an anticausal link of spacetimes (matter densities), it has other interpretation because the theory is completely different. The (*) is not a boundary conditions in Newtonian gravity, just reflects the famous principle of decomposition of clusters and is totally physical, in fact is perfectly compatible with cosmological data, whereas Ehlers’ boundary not. By this reason nobody reject the principle of decomposition of clusters, but most cosmologists reject Ehlers boundary condition like unphysical. I am repeating because I think that are not fixing the point here.

Now that we've beaten this topic to death, how about appropriate limits in other physical theories. Does non-relativistic quantum mechanics go over to classical mechanics in an appropriate sense? Does quantum field theory go over non-relativistic QM? As far as I know, nobody has shown either of these things to the degree of rigor that NG follows from GR.

NG does not follow from GR I did extensive comments on that above and in #77. Resume:

Canonical => original Newton theory

I call this a rigorous derivation.

Newton-Cartan-like approaches are summarized in

GR reformulation + ad hoc equations => Newton-like theories =/= original Newton theory

There is not derivation because the ad hoc equations (or boundary assumptions) are not derivable from GR alone.

Therefore your phrase “NG follows from GR” would rigorously read like “NCG follows from GR more ad hoc equations or assumptions”

************

Effectively, quantum mechanics does not go over to classical mechanics. The derivation that appears in textbooks (derivation of Newton law) is completely false. This is the reason of that many groups around the world are studying the topic seriously since 70 years ago. There exist several levels of mathematical conceptual rigor (from less rigor to more rigor).

Textbook derivation, multiple-worlds, etc. <= decoherence <= Gell-Mann histories <= generalizations of QM.

In generalizations of QM, there is again different levels of rigor/sophistication, again from few to high

Direct modifications of Schrödinger <= spacetime foam, non-critical strings, etc. <= Brussels School <= Thermomaster (from canonical science).

Of course, it is rigorously impossible to derivate classical physics from QM, therefore you will newer see such one derivation.

The same comments apply to relativistic quantum field theory. The best comment is from Dirac.

“Most physicists are very satisfied with this situation. They argue that if one has rules for doing calculations and the results agree with observation, that is all that one requires. But it is not all that one requires. One requires a single comprehensive theory applying to all physical phenomena. Not one theory for dealing with non-relativistic effects and a separate disjoint theory for dealing with certain relativistic effects. Furthermore, the theory has to be based on sound mathematics, in which one neglects only quantities that are small. One is not allowed to neglect infinitely large quantities. The renormalization idea would be sensible only if it was applied with finite renormalization factors, not infinite ones. For these reasons I find the present quantum electrodynamics quite unsatisfactory. One ought not to be complacent about its faults. The agreement with observation is presumably a coincidence, just like the original calculation of the hydrogen spectrum with Bohr orbits. Such coincidences are no reason for turning a blind eye to the faults of a theory. Quantum electrodynamics ... was built up from physical ideas that were not correctly incorporated into the theory and it has no sound mathematical foundation. One must seek a new relativistic quantum mechanics and one’s prime concern must be to base it on sound mathematics.”

He is correct. Specially in the “radical” idea of that agreement with observation is presumably a “coincidence”. This is rigorously demonstrated from quantum part of canonical science!!!

I was not aware of any instabilities in numerical EM. Can you elaborate?

The usual Maxwell formulation requires knowledge of one of the world lines in order to compute the electromagnetic field acting on the other everywhere in spacetime. One may then compute the trajectory of the other, and given this, the effect of its field on the first. The resulting motion of the first particle may then not be consistent with the original assumption, and the process of trial and error, or iteration, often is unstable.

F. Rohrlich already pointed clearly that the N-body problem is intrinsically unstable in the standard Maxwell theory.

I think that the same problem would arise in gravitatory bodies. I think that nobody has rigorously solved the 2 and 3-body problem in gravitation. Right?

Those computational problems are easily solved in canonical electro- or gravitodynamics. My objective is not make a rigorous and elegant theory, it may be ueful also.

Everything is stable.

I think that none relativist has seriously studied the effect of instabilities due to time delay in gravitatory bodies still.

Self-force effects are negligible.

What do you mean by “negligible”?

tdunc

Jun4-05, 10:02 PM

I would seriously rethink your belief that gravity has an instantaneous effect regardless of distance if you are thinking what I think you are thinking. This completely lacks logic and common sense, I dont care where you get it from, I'm telling you right now your wrong. What you really want to say is that the force of gravity from a distance object is present in the time of a second local body that for example is about to travel over an area being affected by the gravity of the distance body, only in that sense is it being affected by the gravity of the distance object in real time. Know that the force of gravity had to travel over space-time (borrowing from GR) to affect the local area. Certainly we will not want to call this instantaneous though because people will misunderstand what it implies. (If that didnt make sense, its just like the travel of light.)

You say that gravity cannot be explained by a curvature of space. It COULD BE and it IS explained, in GR that is.., however your right, gravity is NOT caused by a curvature of space. GR is false.

You say gravity is not governed by C, correct. I'm surprised you know this.

"Newton equation permits us only compute the force. In the same way, Einstein field equations permit just compute the curvature without an underlying mechanism for this curvature effect, and therefore, you are just substituting a mystery by other: force by curvature."

The above paragraph I will take it to mean that you realize that there is no underlieing force to cause a curvature in the first place. Clever, your correct. Forget the math. Most people do not get this Very simple crucial concept. In other words, you need gravity to pull down on an object to make a curve in space, the object having mass & weight alone will not curve space! (obviously to have mass requires gravity too, sort of like a chicken and egg thing going on) And Yes GR regards a physical curve of space as in the context of a "fabric of space", it is derived from relating his math into a physical model or interpretation of the real world. No other interpretation of GR is true, he really DID believed in a physical curvature.

Which brings me to another point, space in all relateable contexts of the word cannot be curved, it just... cant. Its a non fixed medium of free moving particles such that of a gas or liquid. It has no semi-solid structure about it. Whatever you move ("curve") will move around you, such that you can never push against it and it will stop you. (There is however concievable ways to create an artificial boundry of particles involving the suspention of particles using magnetics but thats as far as it goes, and not even related)

There are quite a few other obvious conceptual disproofs of GR that you are missing... I happen to know them, but I would have to look them up in my journal because they are not coming to mind at the moment.

Hey good luck with that, I'm certainly not against you, I didnt really read to much into it but looks like you got a good start. You make no mistake arguing String theory thats for sure.