Quote by waterfall
See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/81449908/F...timeGravitons
find this starting line:
"5. Einstein's geometrodynamics viewed as the standard field theory for a field of spin 2 in an "unobservable flat spacetime" background...".
Please share how it differs to your description of Baryshev's as when you described it in the other thread:
"FTG is a classical field theory that begins with the Lagrangian which has three terms, one each for the field, one for the matter and crucially one for the interaction between the field and the matter. The exchange boson, if the theory was quantized would be spin2. All this is done in Minkowski spacetime."
atyy.. since you are familiar with the MTW approach, please share how it differs to the above FTG theme. Thanks.

All of the authors atyy cites believe that spin2 field theory is identical to GR in physical predictions at least up to the event horizon, and possibly beyond (except, of course, for Hawking radiation). Baryshev believes that spin 2 field theory predicts that the event horizon doesn't exist, and therefore that BekensteinHawking thermodynamics of black holes is incorrect. You can see this more clearly from some of Baryshev's other papers.
See, for example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2328
Almost all other authors on spin 2 field theory would disagree with every prediction of the above paper, believing that spin 2 field theory would agree with GR instead. As with atyy, I am not in a position to judge Baryshev on the merits.
One comment on the disagreement is noted in the following:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2476 :
"Finally, let us mention that approaches exist that treat gravity as simply a spin2
field on
flat space [114, 115]. It has been conjectured that one could reconstruct the
EinsteinHilbert action in such an approach by considering consisitency conditions order
by order in perturbation theory. This will, of course, be an invalid treatment when
gravity is strong, and in cosmology."
Most authors disagree with this paragraph and argue that such recovery of the EinsteinHilbert action is imperative, and that the comment on invalidity is itself invalid.