Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

An ether theory with GR limit and EEP

  1. Feb 10, 2004 #1
    If you think that ether theory is crackpot nonsense, look at
    gr-qc/0205035. A quite classical ether in Newtonian framework of absolute space and time, with continuity and Euler equations as conservation laws, gives an effective metric theory of gravity with exact Einstein equivalence principle and the Einstein equations in a natural limit.

    Differences with GR: "frozen stars" instead of black holes, a "big bounce" without singularity instead of the big bang, the universe should be globally flat.

  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 10, 2004 #2
    Hi Ilja,

    Do you write about some version of stable state theory?
  4. Feb 10, 2004 #3
    No. (To be honest I don´t now enough about stable state theory to be sure, but there is nothing in my theory which remembers what I have heard about stable state theory.)
  5. Feb 11, 2004 #4
    Just because something is posted to arxiv.org doesn't mean it isn't a crackpot theory. I note that according to information on the archive (which could be out of date), it has not been published in a journal -- it's only a preprint.
  6. Feb 11, 2004 #5
    Look at it.
  7. Feb 18, 2004 #6
    Hi Ilja

    I have long believed that your proposal that Lorentz Aether is equivalent to GR is correct. Also, that it assists in a deeper understanding of physics.

    On your web page at http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/CQG-137134.html [Broken] you quote the 2nd referee as saying "On the other hand, due to the many interesting aspects in this paper touching philosophical and fundamental problems, I suggest the author to publish this article in Foundations of Physics, for example. In this case I would recommend publication of this paper."

    Have you followed this up?


    Ray Tomes
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  8. Feb 18, 2004 #7
    Hm, my theory is not exactly equivalent to GR, but has the Einstein equations of GR as a limit.
    No. I´m sufficiently frustrated by all these badly justified rejections that I have decided no longer to submit my papers.
    Moreover, I´m working now for myself, so I see no reason to transfer any copyright to dubious journals for free.

    If people do not read my papers because they are not peer-reviewed, its their problem.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  9. Feb 18, 2004 #8
    Let me give you some friendly advice, as one who has had papers reviewed and as one who reviews papers:

    1. When writing responses to reviwers' comments, it is not helpful to use snide and/or facetious remarks about why the individual is in error -- even if you feel that way, or even if it's true! Regardless of whether you're in the right, the reviwers are the ones who are going to allow publication of your paper. If you piss them off, you don't get a paper published.

    2. Try other journals. CQG isn't the only game in town. I myself have had bad luck with one paper sent to CQG, but when I submitted to another journal it was immediately accepted. Gen Rel Grav is another obvious choice for your work. And there is nothing wrong with Foundations of Physics, although I note that you did submit it there (the result being?...)

    3. Avoid the "Einstein complex". I've read through the reviews' comments on your website, and the second one suggests that you toot the horn of your theory as 'beautiful and elegant', with the aim of comparing your work to major paradigm shifts in the discipline. Again, whether or not it is true, it is not your place to tout your work as "beautiful". Let history be the judge of that.

    4. If you give up submitting your papers, you will not get a university or college position (should you be seeking one). The "misunderstood genius" game isn't going to get you anywhere in the profession (and again will come through with referees, if you do submit again and don't watch how you respond to criticism). There is no grand conspiracy to uphold the orthodoxy of modern physics. Most referees are open-minded enough to explore the periphery of established theory. Grumbling that they clearly don't see something obvious is in fact sort of dubious.

    5. If this is but one example of rejections of your paper, my guess is that it's symptomatic of a deeper problem (i.e. maybe *they* are not the ones who don't get it). Even if the assumptions you make are wild and novel, they should be worthy of publication so long as they are correct, consistent with known theory, and ultimately a useful contribution to the literature.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2004
  10. Feb 18, 2004 #9
    Hi Ilja

    Ilja: Hm, my theory is not exactly equivalent to GR, but has the Einstein equations of GR as a limit.

    Ray: Can you describe in non-mathematical terms the differences in predictions between your theory and GR or point me to where these are described on the web?

    Ilja: No. I´m sufficiently frustrated by all these badly justified rejections that I have decided no longer to submit my papers.

    Ray: I didn't see that one which supported publication in a different place as so much rejection.

    Ilja: Moreover, I´m working now for myself, so I see no reason to transfer any copyright to dubious journals for free.

    Ray: Well that is fair enough.

    Ilja: If people do not read my papers because they are not peer-reviewed, its their problem.

    Ray: Sure. There are two battles that innovators can fight, one with nature to give up its secrets and the other with the people who think they already have all of nature's secrets. The person who is good at the first may not find any joy in the second.

    Do not be disheartened. Eventually this generation of reactionaries will die off and if you leave your work around it can be learned by younger fresher minds. Later on they will become reactionaries defending your work. ;-)

    Like you, but even more so, I have faced problems in getting my posts even in to s.p.r so I gave up on that and decided that my chance in a peer-reviewed journal was even less so have never tried. My work has been the development of the "Harmonics Theory" which is based on the single axiom that:

    The universe consists of a standing wave that develops harmonically related waves and each of these does the same.

    Clearly this is not the beginning as it must result from a non-linear wave equation for the universe. However it leads to a vast new set of predictions which no other theory can come up with about the scales at which strong structures form in the universe. See the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=148832#post148832 for more information.


    Ray Tomes
  11. Feb 19, 2004 #10
    Instead of a big bang I obtain a "big bounce". This is a variant of
    inflation (inflation does not mean big expansion rate as in common sense but increasing expansion rate).

    Then there is an additional homogeneous dark energy like term. But Einstein´s cosmological constant may be used too.

    The third interesting thing is that the gravitational collapse stops before horizon formation. There are stable "frozen star" solutions with a size slightly greater than the black hole horizon.

    Last not least, the universe should be globally flat.

  12. Feb 19, 2004 #11
    Hi Ilja

    Ilja: Instead of a big bang I obtain a "big bounce".

    Ray: I am interested in this because I am quite convinced (like Fred Hoyle) that the universe is vastly older than 10^10 years.

    My reasons for this derive from my study of cycles in the universe and my Harmonics theory which leads to a very specific and recognisable pattern of harmonically related strong cycles periods. These are found, with for example geological cycles of 586, 293, 146, 73 and 37 million years, and many other cycles through to human periods. (Not all the period ratios are 2).

    This pattern can only arise after many cycles (to produce harmonics through non-linearity) of longer periods such as 14.07 billion years or several other related possibilities (that figure times 3/2, 4/3 or 2). The fundamental cycle may also be very much longer.

    In your theory, is the bounce time consistent from one bounce to the next?

    Are you able to estimate a bounce time from recently found cosmological parameters?

    There is no doubt in my mind that the universe is much older that the big bang says and that there has been consistent communication between its parts for more than 10^11 years, possibly much more.

  13. Feb 20, 2004 #12

    To obtain an oscillating universe I need also Einstein´s cosmological constant with the "wrong" sign (that means, not the sign used today to explain the acceleration of expansion). That´s not impossible, to explain dark energy my other term seems sufficient. This other term does not give acceleration but linear expansion, thus, is not optimal but does not seem to be ruled out completely.

    In this case, the time from bounce to bounce depends on the value of the cosmological constant and is, therefore, unknown.

    Else, with the other sign of the cosmological constant, there is only one bounce, no oscillation.
  14. Feb 21, 2004 #13
    Through my point of view any theory is nothing but a model of the things that it describes.

    Therefore any model can omit incidentally some "not" very important details that can change the all paradigm when new information and insights about these details are discovered.

    For example: the black body radiation problem and Plank solution.

    Most of modern world technology was triggered by this solution, so we can learn that no model can really capture reality.

    I mean that reality always transcendent any model, therefore there is no such a thing "the theory of everything", because everything is only reality itself and never a model of it.

    What do you think?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook