# Einstein proved right again.

SpaceGuy
An experiment by Italian scientists using data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft, currently en route to Saturn, confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity with a precision that is 50 times greater than previous measurements.

## Answers and Replies

Homework Helper
"like I always said: that guy is on to something."
paraphrased from A. Michelson

Albrecht
... confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity with a precision that is 50 times greater than previous measurements

This experiment shows that the velocity of light is in fact reduced in a gravitational field. This was originally proven by Shapiro in the 1970ies.

Why does the reduction of the velocity of light in a gravitational field prove that the spacetime is curved?? This is just a formal way used by Einstein to describe this phenomenon.

When a light-like particle (like e.g. a photon) passes a massive body it is subject to a lot of interactions with the exchange particles of the fields within the body (e.g. the strong and the electric interaction). These interactions disturb the path of the particle, so that the particle will need more time to pass a specific distance.

To my knowledge this was not quantitatively evaluated yet as a theory. But as soon as it is done it will us tell what really goes on, in terms of physics.

What Einstein has done is, from the point of science theory, a so called "geometrized" theory. This method is nomally a mathematically elegant way, but causes us to forget the physics behind.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
To my knowledge this was not quantitatively evaluated yet as a theory. But as soon as it is done it will us tell what really goes on, in terms of physics.

So if nobody has been able to quantitatively evaluate this theory in the affirmative, what justification do you have to claim it is what really occurs?

This method is nomally a mathematically elegant way, but causes us to forget the physics behind.

Well I guess I forgot the physics behind it, because to the best of my knowledge, the only physics that adequately explains gravity is General Relativity.

Last edited:
What's the deal with needing to invoke all those extra fields. If spacetime around an object is curved, and light always follows a 'straight-line' path, we know from simple geometry that a curved trajectory is longer than a perfectly straight trajectory. The velocity of light remains c, it just has more distance to traverse. Asides from the mathematics to describe the actual curvature, that is about as simple as physical concepts gets right there.

Coughlan
light does follow a strait path ok, but if lights path must be strait how can it traverse the curved space time?[?]

Originally posted by Coughlan
light does follow a strait path ok, but if lights path must be strait how can it traverse the curved space time?[?]

Because light is following a straight path in curved space. The "path of least resistance" so to speak. Remember, the shortest distance in curved space doesn't always look straight.

Coughlan
Ok so if you were to be riding on the photon then its path would apear to be strait, but if you looked at space and how the light traveled then it would be curved.......sort of like walking only at slower speeds....

Originally posted by Coughlan
Ok so if you were to be riding on the photon then its path would apear to be strait, but if you looked at space and how the light traveled then it would be curved.......sort of like walking only at slower speeds....

The important thing here is light never slows down. It's always at c. In curved geometry, a curved path can be the shortest. Light takes the "shortest" path thinking it to be a straight shot to where ever it's traveling.

Albrecht
... the only physics that adequately explains gravity is General Relativity
General Relativity of Einstein does in fact not explain gravity.

Gravity is one of the big open problems in present physics. Gravity is in conflict with the standard model, it is in conflict with quantum mechanics.

But a solution is possible. If we take the fact that the velocity of light is reduced in a gravitational field and apply this to the internal oscillations of an elementary particle (as it is stated by the Dirac equation for the electron) then gravity is quantitatively explained and the conflicts to the rest of physics disappear.

So, the origin of gravity is the reduction of the velocity of light near a massive body. - Why is the velocity of light reduced? This is the open question and to explain gravity means to explain the reduction of the velocity of light.

Did Einstein explain, why it is? No, he did not! He just stated that the velocity of light is always constant, but the space is contracted/curved in the vicinity of a massive body. This is by his statement the reason why a photon needs more time to pass a specific distance. Why should the space contract?? I found no answer.

If you sit in your car and push the throttle control, the car will accelerate. That is a normal physical statement. Equivalently you can state that the speed of your car is always constant, but when you push the throttle control, the space in front of the car will contract. This is in fact a possible description of this process, and it can mathematically yield the correct results. But would you do it in this way? And will this explain why this contraction of space happens?

Einstein has not explained gravity, he only described the facts in a formal ("geometrized") mathematical way. The only quantitative parameter in gravity, the gravitational constant G, was not given by Einstein by a theoretical deduction, but was measured in experiments. And the measurements are, as we know, inconsistent to each other. Why are they? Most probably he theory is wrong!

If you are interested in the way how gravity follows from the reduction of the velocity of light, I have prepared a site in the web to explain this:
http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

Yeah I guess Einstein was wrong. I mean even with an agreement of 20 parts per million, its still so blatently wrong! The problem with G is that the very limits of our technology will not allow it to be determined precisely. Though one could take a given amount of mass/energy, and how much spacetime curves (again both measured) and derive G, an actual theoretical calculation is not present, I agree. But this cannot come about until we better understand just exactly what spacetime itself is. That does not mean Einstein is wrong. It just means he has a model. But that doesn't mean he is absolutely right either. It just means he's more right than you. But regardless, light does NOT slow down in a gravity well, it merely has to traverse more curved space.

Albrecht
But this cannot come about until we better understand just exactly what spacetime itself is.
I think it is a different point.

"Space" as well as "time" are human abstractions. We cannot measure them, we cannot notice them.

We can compare the sizes of objects, but we cannot measure "space".
We can compare the frequencies of periodic processes, but we cannot measure "time".

So we are very much free to define what "space" or "time" should mean. Our definition of space or time cannot be "right" or "wrong", it can only be practical or less practical.

By my example of an accelerated car I wanted to show a definition of space, which is not wrong, but which is not very practical.

In this meaning it is not practical to use space and time in the way as Einstein did it. He is/was not wrong, but he was not very practical.

I guess that we will find out soon which physical effect delays the motion of e.g. a photon. (I.e. the interaction with the exchange particles of the other forces). After this is made sure, (and I am very confident about it), what will then happen to the model of Einstein of a curved space/time??

Regarding the measurement of G: The differences of the results are greatly outside the measurement uncertainties (many standard deviations). I guess for the reason: Gravity does not depend on the mass of the gravitational source but on something different, which is however quite strongly related to the mass (e.g. the number of charges of all kinds in the source object).

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
In this meaning it is not practical to use space and time in the way as Einstein did it. He is/was not wrong, but he was not very practical.

How do you figure? Einstein's use of space and time revolutionized physical thinking, correctly predicted many effects that were previously thought absurd, enabled the precise operation of the GPS system, and yields quantitative calculations that agree with reality better than any other known theory of gravitation.

And one point lost on most people is that modelling space-time with differential geometry (aka "curved space") is less of an assumption than that space-time looks globally Minowski or Newtonian.

The very definition of a differentiable manifold is that it looks like Rn locally... which is the only thing our experiments have confirmed anyways. It is, pardon the expression, downright silly to insist that space-time must look like Rn globally, and especially because this assumption appears to be inconsistent with the behavior of gravitation.

Einstein has not explained gravity, he only described the facts in a formal ("geometrized") mathematical way. The only quantitative parameter in gravity, the gravitational constant G, was not given by Einstein by a theoretical deduction, but was measured in experiments.

You do realize there are twenty-odd parameters in the Standard Model that are not given by theoretical deduction? (not to mention I can't imagine how one can presume that the existance of a ton of fields is any more of an explanation than curved space)

Albrecht
How do you figure? Einstein's use of space and time revolutionized physical thinking, correctly predicted many effects that were previously thought absurd, enabled the precise operation of the GPS system, and yields quantitative calculations that agree with reality better than any other known theory of gravitation.
Let's start from a simple point.

Some postings ago we had the following discussion which we can relate to the Shapiro experiment:

We find experimentally that a photon moving from Earth to Venus and back needs more time when the sun has to be passed closely, than at the other time when the sun is far.

Two explanations:

1. The velocity of light is reduced in the gravitational field of the sun .... or
2. The velocity of light is always the same, but the space is curved in the gravitational field.

The second statement follows Einstein.

What is the advantage to use the second way (Einstein)? We give up our traditional understanding of space (and of time in the general application). What do we get as a return?

When we look to the bending of light at the sun, which was observed at the sun eclipse experiment of 1922 (which made Einstein famous), this can be quantitatively explained by a normal refraction process. We know that the velocity of light is reduced in the gravitational field in the following way:

c(r) = c0*(1-(G*M)/(c0*r^2))

In every situation where c is dependent on r, we get - very classically - a refraction. This refraction explains quantitatively correct what happened during this sun eclipse. Without any space curvature.

The same refraction happens within an elementary particle to the internal oscillation going on there. This causes the normal gravitational acceleration.

I have asked at several occasions whether there are effects of General Relativity which cannot be explained in an analog way. Nobody told me such cases. If you can, please do, I would be really thankful.

For the details of the cases above I again refer to the web site I made about it:

http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
What is the advantage to use the second way (Einstein)? We give up our traditional understanding of space (and of time in the general application). What do we get as a return?

A more accurate understanding of space-time, gravitational bending of light, gravitational redshift, black holes, gravitational waves, cosmic expansion (hubble redshift), GPS...

Anyways, before I know how to respond, I must know if you accept special relativity.

Ambitwistor
Originally posted by Albrecht
When we look to the bending of light at the sun, which was observed at the sun eclipse experiment of 1922 (which made Einstein famous), this can be quantitatively explained by a normal refraction process.

Gravitational light bending cannot be explained by refraction. In refraction, the angle of deflection must be dependent strongly on the wavelength of light. But experiments have shown that gravitational light bending is independent of wavelength.

Anyway, a "variable speed of light" theory of gravity such as you propose cannot account for the multitude of other experiments concerning gravity that do not involve the deflection of light (Hafele-Keating, Taylor-Hulse, Lense-Thirring, Friedmann cosmology, etc. etc.). Scalar theories of gravity generally do not work (e.g. chapter 7 of Misner et al).

I have asked at several occasions whether there are effects of General Relativity which cannot be explained in an analog way. Nobody told me such cases. If you can, please do, I would be really thankful.

You haven't even been able to support your claims of what your theory can predict; your web page claims that your theory can account for the perihelion precession of the planets, but you have no derivation of its value (e.g. ~43"/century for Mercury).

It is up to you to prove that your theory accounts for all known effects, not for other people to check your theory against all known effects. Get Cliff Will's book and calculate what your theory predicts for all of the standard tests of GR. (Some of these tests are summarized in http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/).

Better yet, calculate the PPN parameters of your theory. If they come out in agreement with experiment, someone might bother paying attention to your theory.

Until then, it is absurd to believe or even suggest that there are no effects that your theory cannot account for -- you have considered only a tiny fraction of the effects that general relativity can explain, and have not even made truly quantitative predictions for most of them.

Albrecht
Originally posted by Hurkyl
A more accurate understanding of space-time, gravitational bending of light, gravitational redshift, black holes, gravitational
waves, cosmic expansion (hubble redshift), GPS...

That works also with the approach I gave you. But much easier to understand.

Anyways, before I know how to respond, I must know if you accept special relativity.
Sure, I accept special relativity. That means I accept the phenomena of contraction (of objects), dilation (of periodic processes), and the increase of mass at motion.

However, I do not use as a theory the (geometrized) version of Einstein, but the (physical) version of Lorentz / Poincare which delivers the same results. Special relativity is the consequence of the limited velocity of light by which all fields propagate, and of the inner structure of elementary particles.

I have described also this in a web site:
http://www.ag-physics.org/relat

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Gravitational light bending cannot be explained by refraction. In refraction, the angle of deflection must be dependent strongly on the wavelength of light. But experiments have shown that gravitational light bending is independent of wavelength.
That is definitely wrong.
If the velocity of light depends on the wavelength (like in a glass lens), then also the refraction angle depends on the wavelength. The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength. That is basic classical physics.

Anyway, a "variable speed of light" theory of gravity such as you propose cannot account for the multitude of other experiments concerning gravity that do not involve the deflection of light (Hafele-Keating, Taylor-Hulse, Lense-Thirring, Friedmann cosmology, etc. etc.).
Hafele-Keating is partially special relativity and is of course in agreement with the model I gave.
Lense-Thirring can also be explained by the refraction process, similar to the perihelion shift.
I do not know Taylor-Hulse and Friedmann cosmology, I shall check those two.

For the perihelion drift you are right, I should give the result in detail. I am going to add it to my web site.

Formally what I am doing is just a mathematical transformation of the theory of Einstein into something different, which gives us the possibility to understand it as physical phenomena. So the results will not be different.

It is up to you to prove that your theory accounts for all known effects, not for other people to check your theory against all known effects. Get Cliff Will's book and calculate what your theory predicts for all of the standard tests of GR. (Some of these tests are summarized in http://www.livingreviews.org/Articl...me4/2001-4will/)
You are right that I have to prove my theory myself. But it helps me if you provide me material. So thank you for the reference given. I shall read it and then respond. I have already read something in livingreviews, but did not find conflicts yet.

Ambitwistor
Originally posted by Albrecht
The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength.

My apologies. I was paying attention to the part where you said you were describing light bending by ordinary refraction, not noticing that your theory does not, in fact, describe ordinary refraction.

Hafele-Keating is partially special relativity and is of course in agreement with the model I gave. Lense-Thirring can also be explained by the refraction process, similar to the perihelion shift.

All right, prove it: where is your calculation of the magnitude of these effects?

Formally what I am doing is just a mathematical transformation of the theory of Einstein into something different,

No, you are not. You are writing down a scalar theory of gravity in a fixed background, which is mathematically inequivalent to general relativity: it doesn't even have the right number of degrees of freedom. (Your field theory has only one independent component of the gravitational field: the speed of light at an event. GR has 10 independent components. It is mathematically possible for the former to be equivalent to the latter.)

In particular, the gravitational field you obtain for the Sun is mathematically equivalent to the metric,

ds^2 = -c(r)^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

which certainly is not general relativity's prediction.

You are right that I have to prove my theory myself. But it helps me if you provide me material. So thank you for the reference given. I shall read it and then respond. I have already read something in livingreviews, but did not find conflicts yet.

Of course you will never find conflicts if you don't confront your theory with experimental data. For that, you need to make concrete quantitative predictions. You certainly have not calculated even a fraction of the effects that serve as tests of general relativity, so it means nothing that you "have not found conflicts yet".

Mentor
Originally posted by Albrecht
That works also with the approach I gave you. But much easier to understand.
No. What you are proposing does NOT fit with observations.
That is definitely wrong.
If the velocity of light depends on the wavelength (like in a glass lens), then also the refraction angle depends on the wavelength. The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength. That is basic classical physics.
Thats basic classical physics except the part about gravity bending light. In any case, you said before that bending of light from the sun could be explained by the "normal refraction process." So which is it? Gravitational lensing (according to relativity) or atmosphereic refraction (according to classical physics)? Hint: only one can make predictions that fit with observations.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
This is an execellent conversation for the Theory Development forum.

Albrecht
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
All right, prove it: where is your calculation of the magnitude of these effects?
Hafele-Keating:
The time dilation due to the motion of the air planes was special relativity, that is easy enough.
The time advance at altitude in comparison to the ground level results with the same calculation like in standard physics. Normally in GR the dependency of time from the gravitational potential is taken as a fundamental fact. The change in c is deduced from it. Here it is the other way around: I take the change of c as the fundamental fact and the change of time progress is a consequence. The same calculation as normal but the other direction.

Lense-Thirring:
I did not do calculations, but from the refraction it is clear that an effect of this kind must happen. Maybe I do it later quantitatively. It is very much related to the perihelion shift.

Your field theory has only one independent component of the gravitational field: the speed of light at an event. GR has 10 independent components.

This theory also has several components:
- the gravitational potential is 1
- the gradient of the grav. pot. are another 3
- the internal components of an elementary particle which is subject to refraction are ca. 5 more

The theory is easier to do because some of the particle parameters are constant (like the spin and the velocity of the internal oscillation which is essential for this theory).

In particular, the gravitational field you obtain for the Sun is mathematically equivalent to the metric,
ds^2 = -c(r)^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

This is Minkowski metric which I do not use. I use the classical (Euklidian) metric also for special relativity as Lorentz and Poincare did. It works!

Originally posted by russ_watters
In any case, you said before that bending of light from the sun could be explained by the "normal refraction process." So which is it? Gravitational lensing (according to relativity) or atmosphereic refraction
If the velocity of light depends on the position, then there is always a refraction by simple geometrical reasons (length of the light path dependent on the position; you can also use Fermat's principle). Independent on what the reason of this dependency is. This causes in this context the gravitational lensing. Of course, nothing by atmosphere.
And this calculation fits perfectly to the observation as you may read in my web site:
http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

Ambitwistor
Originally posted by Albrecht
Normally in GR the dependency of time from the gravitational potential is taken as a fundamental fact. The change in c is deduced from it.

There isn't any change in c in GR.

In any case, where is your calculation? You claim you have one, but where is it?

For that matter, where is your calculation of perihelion precession? You cannot claim that your theory accounts for perihelion precession unless you have the quantitatively correct result (e.g. 43"/century for Mercury).

Lense-Thirring:
I did not do calculations, but from the refraction it is clear that an effect of this kind must happen.

What matters is whether you get the number right.

- the gravitational potential is 1
- the gradient of the grav. pot. are another 3

No, you don't get to count gradients as independent components; the gradient can be derived from the potential.

- the internal components of an elementary particle which is subject to refraction are ca. 5 more

So the coupling to gravity depends on internal components of the particle? What internal components? How is this consistent with tests of the Einstein equivalence principle?

This is Minkowski metric which I do not use. I use the classical (Euklidian) metric also for special relativity as Lorentz and Poincare did. It works!

The Lorentz aether theory is mathematically equivalent to Minkowski spacetime: that's the whole point. If you put in a variable speed of light into such a theory, it will be equivalent to Minkwoski spacetime with a variable speed of light, unless you intend to give up consistency with special relativity.

Originally posted by Albrecht
Regarding the measurement of G: The differences of the results are greatly outside the measurement uncertainties (many standard deviations). I guess for the reason: Gravity does not depend on the mass of the gravitational source but on something different, which is however quite strongly related to the mass (e.g. the number of charges of all kinds in the source object).

I new, and not a physicist. I believe this is so, that gravity does not depend on mass but on interactions of charged particles within matter. I'm at concept stage, and have very little mathematical formulations, but what I have documented (including experiments) can be found at http://www.QuantumRisk.com/www/BookStore/iSETI_DownLoad.htm [Broken]

I would appreciate feedabck.

Ben

Last edited by a moderator:
Albrecht
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
There isn't any change in c in GR.
We had this discussion before. With reference to the Shapiro experiment. I you observe that a photon takes more time for the way from earth to Venus and back if the path is close to the sun than you have the choice to assume that either:
1. the velocity of light is reduced in the gravitational field (which is normal physical understanding) or
2. the velocity of light is always constant but the space is contracted close to the sun (Einstein)

Both assumptions yield the same results, it is just a formal transformation. But 1. can be related to physical causes, 2. cannot.

In any case, where is your calculation? You claim you have one, but where is it?
It is a problem of time. But look: the model I have given yields the deflection by the sun precisely (like the model of Einstein) and it yields the gravitational acceleration of an object at rest also precisely (which I do not find at Einstein). These are the fundamentals, all the rest are consequences. I do not see any reason why the rest should not work.
However, I will add the perihelion shift as soon as time permits.
So the coupling to gravity depends on internal components of the particle? What internal components? How is this consistent with tests of the Einstein equivalence principle?
The internal oscillations within an elementary particle are the cause or the gravitational acceleration for a particle at rest. For details please refer to the site:
http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

There is no point about the equivalence principle. It is in fact not necessary. Gravity is from it's cause not a force but an acceleration. That is the secret. So it is unavoidable that all object have the same acceleration in free fall without a need of an equivalence principle. Please refer again to the web site given above.

The Lorentz aether theory is mathematically equivalent to Minkowski spacetime: that's the whole point.
I agree! But I did not expect this statement from you. But it shall be mentioned that the Lorentz aether theory is much easier to understand, and it conforms to quantum mechanics in contrast to Einstein.

Originally posted by spacetravel101
... what I have documented (including experiments) can be found at www....[/URL]
I would appreciate feedabck[/QUOTE]
I shall respond to it. But please be patient for some days, I am presently on travel.

Last edited by a moderator:
Ambitwistor
Originally posted by Albrecht
Both assumptions yield the same results, it is just a formal transformation. But 1. can be related to physical causes, 2. cannot.

No, you simply do not accept Einstein's explanation as a "physical cause". That you have some emotional objection to the theory says nothing about the theory itself.

It is a problem of time. But look: the model I have given yields the deflection by the sun precisely (like the model of Einstein)

As far as I can tell, you only have small deflections. What about large deflections? The GR prediction has been verified out to 90 degrees and more.

and it yields the gravitational acceleration of an object at rest also precisely (which I do not find at Einstein).

Einstein's theory predicts the acceleration of an object at rest.

I do not see any reason why the rest should not work.

Considering the fact that your theory is mathematically inequivalent to GR, it is quite presumptuous to conclude that it will pass all the tests GR has passed. It is not hard to construct a theory that will pass one or two tests.

The internal oscillations within an elementary particle are the cause or the gravitational acceleration for a particle at rest. For details please refer to the site:
http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

Your site doesn't have details. Where is your field equation? How can you even claim to have a theory without one? How can I predict the speed of light at a point for an arbitrary, moving, non-spherical mass density distribution?

There is no point about the equivalence principle. It is in fact not necessary.

The equivalence principle is an experimental fact, that the internal state of a particle does not influence its gravitational coupling, aside from its stress-energy.

But it shall be mentioned that the Lorentz aether theory is much easier to understand

Special relativity is much easier to understand, for it gives the same results with fewer entities. It also explains why all effects should propagate at light speed, not just electromagnetic effects; Lorentz's aether supports electromagnetic waves, but there is no intrinsic reason why it should support other waves in the same way; material media typically do not. But from the Einsteinian perspective of promoting Lorentz invariance to a fundamental spacetime symmetry, this is easily understood.

and it conforms to quantum mechanics in contrast to Einstein.

Special relativity and quantum mechanics conform. General relativity and quantum mechanics do not, but there is no Lorentz aether theory of quantum gravity, either. For that matter, there is no Lorentz aether quantum field theory, so it is silly to claim that it "conforms to quantum mechanics".

In any case, the fact that you keep referring me to the same inadequate web page indicates that you don't actually have a theory: no field equation, no even qualitative description of how gravity couples to other quantum or classical fields, no equations of motion, no significant set of predictions. Until you do seriously more development, there is very little to discuss, so I'm not particularly interested in carrying on this non-conversation further.

Albrecht
No, you simply do not accept Einstein's explanation as a "physical cause".
That is correct. I do not take that as a physical cause.

What Einstein did, is in science theory called "geometrization".

It is a known fact since ca. 200 years that every physical process and most technical processes can be completely transfered into purely geometrical processes. This is often a mathematically very elegant way but looses the connection to the physical facts and causes.

Einstein seems not to have known this, he has inadvertantly re_invented it. (As he did with many of his physical considerations.) After he was so successful formalizing the relativistic phenomena in this way, serveral physicists and mathematicians, mainly from Japan and from Russia, have given a lot of examples of it during the 20th century by tranferring physical and technical phenomena into a geometrical presentation.

To apply this to the Shapiro experiment: the statement that c is always constant but the space is curved is a prototype example of geometrization.

My opinion (which is shared by prominent physicists) is: we should go back to physics!

As far as I can tell, you only have small deflections. What about large deflections? The GR prediction has been verified out to 90 degrees and more.
I have used classical refraction. That works also for large angles.

Einstein's theory predicts the acceleration of an object at rest.
How can a curve spacetime make an object at rest moving? Please explain this by physical arguments.

The equivalence principle is an experimental fact
If you accept gravitation as a process of refraction then all corresponding experiments (Eötvös etc.) are completely explained.

Special relativity is much easier to understand, for it gives the same results with fewer entities. It also explains why all effects should propagate at light speed, not just electromagnetic effects; Lorentz's aether supports electromagnetic waves, but there is no intrinsic reason why it should support other waves in the same way;
I do not follow the Lorentzian aether. The only difference to Einstein is that there is an absolute system at rest (which is required by quantum mechanics to my knowledge) and to assume that the phenomena: contraction, dilation, mass increase have true physical causes, not only a geometrized description. And if we use this understanding, we can understand a lot more in physics as main stream does now; and by the way: it is much easier.

Last edited:
Ambitwistor
Originally posted by Albrecht
That is correct. I do not take that as a physical cause.

You're welcome to your opinion, but the fact is that the geometry of spacetime is physically measurable and determines the dynamics of physical processes.

My opinion (which is shared by prominent physicists) is: we should go back to physics!

Please do not pretend that prominent physicists reject Einstein's theory of gravity or its geometric interpretation.

I have used classical refraction. That works also for large angles.
The question is, does it agree with the data at large angles. I seriously doubt you have even studied the data.

How can a curve spacetime make an object at rest moving? Please explain this by physical arguments.

Since you reject a priori that geometry is physical, of course I cannot make an argument concerning geometry that you would regard as "physical".

Nevertheless, general relativity correctly predicts the gravitational acceleration of a body at rest.

If you accept gravitation as a process of refraction then all corresponding experiments (Eötvös etc.) are completely explained.

I'm sorry, I only accept actual derivations and proofs, not your repeated assertions.

And if we use this understanding, we can understand a lot more in physics as main stream does now; and by the way: it is much easier.

As I mentioned in more detail earlier, you don't even have a theory, let alone one that is known to agree with all observations, let alone one that is "easier".

iSETI Report

iSETI = Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative

Last edited by a moderator:
Albrecht
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
You're welcome to your opinion, but the fact is that the geometry of spacetime is physically measurable and determines the dynamics of physical processes.
This seems to me as the fundamental logical error.

You can measure the extension of objects, not of space.
You can measure the speed of clocks, not of time.

Space and time are entities of human abstraction. So we are free to define them at it seems practical to us. And I do not state that Einstein was not right, but I state that he was not practical for use in physics with his way of geometrization (what it in fact is).

Please do not pretend that prominent physicists reject Einstein's theory of gravity or its geometric interpretation.
To my knowledge the Austian physicist Roman Sexl was not happy with Einstein's relativity. But he alway stated it very cautiously ("between the lines"). He gave me the idea to explain gravity by refraction. I guess he has tried it but was not successful. My model of an elementary particle ("basic particle model") made it working. This model, by the way, explains a lot of other things like e.g. the origin of (inertial) mass, quantitatively correct.

I'm sorry, I only accept actual derivations and proofs, not your repeated assertions.
(That means the equivalence principle)

From the refraction approach of gravity the equivalence principle follows immeditately. I do not know any other theory which explaines this. For Newton and for Einstein it was just a believe, not taken from a theory. Perhaps my wording was not very clever when I stated that this principle is no longer necessary. I meant that it is no longer necessary as a believe (what a principle always is).

I shall give you another example of the ability of this model: the determination of the Schwarzschild radius.
Question: which is the radius at which a photon is just captured by the gravitational field of an object into it's orbit?

The orbital acceleration of the photon in the orbit is
a = c^2/r

This has to be compensated by the gravitational acceleration
a = 2GM/r^2 (the grav. accel. of a light-like object)

Result by equating a:
r= 2GM/c^2

Now, as an exercise, you may do the same using Einstein's field equations.

Ambitwistor
Originally posted by Albrecht
This seems to me as the fundamental logical error.

You can measure the extension of objects, not of space. You can measure the speed of clocks, not of time.

If you, for instance, measure the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, and it doesn't come out to &pi;, space is not flat, by definition.

To my knowledge the Austian physicist Roman Sexl was not happy with Einstein's relativity.

Lots of people weren't happy with the theory when it first came out. That's because it was new and different, and didn't have much experimental support.

But he alway stated it very cautiously ("between the lines"). He gave me the idea to explain gravity by refraction. I guess he has tried it but was not successful. My model of an elementary particle ("basic particle model") made it working.

An amusing claim, considering that (a) you don't have a theory of gravity, and (b) you don't know if the theory you do have works.

From the refraction approach of gravity the equivalence principle follows immeditately.

As I said, I do not accept repeated assertions, only derivations and proofs. You can claim all you want that thus-and-such follows from your theory, but you have not demonstrated it.

I do not know any other theory which explaines this.

What do you mean by "explains this"? You can derive the equivalence principle from the axioms of either Newton's or Einstein's theory.

I shall give you another example of the ability of this model: the determination of the Schwarzschild radius.

Newtonian gravity obtains the same formula as GR for the Schwarzschild radius. Its derivation is simpler than GR's. That doesn't mean that Newtonian gravity is right, or better than GR. (And Newton's description of black holes is quite different from GR's -- light can escape from a Newtonian black hole, although it cannot escape to infinity. Light cannot escape GR black holes at all.)

Question: which is the radius at which a photon is just captured by the gravitational field of an object into it's orbit?

The orbital acceleration of the photon in the orbit is
a = c^2/r

This has to be compensated by the gravitational acceleration
a = 2GM/r^2 (the grav. accel. of a light-like object)

Result by equating a:
r= 2GM/c^2

You calculated the location of a circular photon orbit. That is not the same thing as the Schwarzschild radius.

General relativity's prediction is r = 3GM/c2 for a circular photon orbit. It is r = 2GM/c2 for the Schwarzschild radius.

Mentor
Originally posted by Albrecht
This seems to me as the fundamental logical error....

Space and time are entities of human abstraction. So we are free to define them at it seems practical to us. And I do not state that Einstein was not right, but I state that he was not practical for use in physics with his way of geometrization (what it in fact is).
Actually, thats YOUR fundamental logical error. Or rather your misunderstanding of what "science" is on a most basic level.

As discussed in another thread, words like "momentum" and "energy", may be arbitrary (you could call them "Bob" and "Fred") but their physical manifestations are unambiguous and very real. If you start calling them "Bob" and "Fred" you will confuse a lot of people and accomlish nothing of scientific use, though at least the existing equations will still work. If you change the definitions, then you will likely end up with nothing - useless words for things that don't exist.

Similarly, physical constants may be based on arbitrary units, but they are still very real manifestations of properties of the universe.

Time, space, mass, heat, etc are words invented by humans which are used to describe very real and measurable things.

Your (and most others who post pet theories in here) fundamental misunderstanding here is that science reflects reality, not the other way around. You cannot change definitions and write theories that reflect how you WISH the universe looks/operates and assume that the universe will conform to your theory. So you can call "up" "down" all you want, but that will not make you fall toward the sky.

Last edited:
Albrecht
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
If you, for instance, measure the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, and it doesn't come out to &pi;, space is not flat, by definition.
Which type of circle do you mean? A circle of space? What would that mean?
No, you can only measure an object. There is a gedanken experiment, the Ehrenfest disk. If it is rotated with high speed it should break because the periphery contracts. This has to do with the fact that fields contract in motion. And this again was known in classical physics before Einstein started to develop relativity.

Lots of people weren't happy with the theory when it first came out. That's because it was new and different, and didn't have much experimental support.
Roman Sexl was to my knowledge one of the best known specialists for relativity worldwide. He died middle of the 1980ies. No one should guess that he did not understand relativity.

An amusing claim, considering that (a) you don't have a theory of gravity, and (b) you don't know if the theory you do have works.
I do not have and I do not need a specific theory of gravity. I refer mostly to classical physics. Refraction is not my invention but really classical physics, and it does happen in the context we discuss here. Refraction is not at all an option but an inevitable fact. The only special point is that I use particle physics as well. I use the internal oscillation of a particle as it follows from the Dirac equation for the electron, and I assume the same oscillation for a quark. Nothing more is necessary!

As I said, I do not accept repeated assertions, only derivations and proofs. You can claim all you want that thus-and-such follows from your theory, but you have not demonstrated it.
Of course I have. Please look to page 2 of my gravity website. I deduce from refraction:
a = 2*GM/r^2 (for a light like object; for an object at rest it is half of it).

This equation does not contain any parameters of the test-mass under acceleration. So it is a direct proof of equivalence.

What do you mean by "explains this"? You can derive the equivalence principle from the axioms of either Newton's or Einstein's theory.

The equivalence principle was not derived from axioms of either Newton's or Einstein's theory, but it is an axiom in both theories. In the refraction calculation on the other hand it is a deduced consequence.

Light cannot escape GR black holes at all.
Can you please refer to an experiment which proves this?

General relativity's prediction is r = 3GM/c2 for a circular photon orbit. It is r = 2GM/c2 for the Schwarzschild radius.
Thank you for this information. This is a good point to decide which way is correct. Can you please also for this case tell us an experiment (or direct observation) which can be used to make a decision?

Originally posted by russ_watters
Time, space, mass, heat, etc are words invented by humans which are used to describe very real and measurable things.
True, the words are all human inventions. But the word "size" (of an object) means something different than "space". And the size of something is measurable, space is not measurable.

An example from special relativity: It was known, before relativity came up, that fields are contracted during motion (Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Lodge, Heaviside etc). This comes fundamentally from the limited velocity of light by which field changes propagate. If it is now stated that not the field shrinks but space itself shrinks, this is of a different quality. And I doubt (as e.g. Lorentz did until the end of his life in the 1930ies) that this is a practical approach.

You cannot change definitions
I do not change definitions. But I try to show that the classical understanding of space and time was a practical one (not my invention), and that it is more related to a physical (instead of geometrized) understanding of the world to assume e.g. the contraction of objects rather than the contraction of space. Because we have very concrete physical causes for the contraction of objects; we do not have any similar for space.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by Albrecht:
Formally what I am doing is just a mathematical transformation of the theory of Einstein into something different, which gives us the possibility to understand it as physical phenomena. So the results will not be different.

May I take your last post as an admission that this claim is incorrect?

Ambitwistor
Originally posted by Albrecht
Which type of circle do you mean? A circle of space? What would that mean?

I mean, take a piece of string, sweep out a curve of fixed radius with it, take another piece of string, wrap it around that curve, and measure its circumference. That is a measurement of the geometry of space.

Roman Sexl was to my knowledge one of the best known specialists for relativity worldwide. He died middle of the 1980ies. No one should guess that he did not understand relativity.

I didn't say he didn't understand relativity.

I do not have and I do not need a specific theory of gravity.

Whew! That makes things easy, then. Now I can ignore all your claims that your theory predicts gravitational effects, like influencing the orbits of planets.

Refraction is not my invention but really classical physics, and it does happen in the context we discuss here. Refraction is not at all an option but an inevitable fact.

This variable light speed theory you have concocted is not a "fact", and it is not ordinary refraction, either.

The only special point is that I use particle physics as well. I use the internal oscillation of a particle as it follows from the Dirac equation for the electron, and I assume the same oscillation for a quark. Nothing more is necessary!

Please look to page 2 of my gravity website. I deduce from refraction:
a = 2*GM/r^2 (for a light like object; for an object at rest it is half of it).

The equivalence principle applies to everything, not just light-like objects.

The equivalence principle was not derived from axioms of either Newton's or Einstein's theory, but it is an axiom in both theories.

An axiom of Newton's theory is that F = GMm/r2. From that you can derive the equivalence principle. An axiom of Einstein's theory is that objects in gravitational motion along geodesics. (Actually, you can derive that as a theorem from the field equation via the Einstein-Born-Infeld procedure.) From that you can derive the equivalence principle.

Can you please refer to an experiment which proves this?

No. That's not the point. The point is that although you can "easily" derive properties of black holes in Newtonian gravity, they do not behave like black holes in Einsteinian gravity --- and they also do not behave like black holes in nature. So an "easy" derivation of the Schwarzschild radius is not a virtue.

Can you please also for this case tell us an experiment (or direct observation) which can be used to make a decision?

I don't know of any measurements of the location of the photon sphere. It would be easier to look for the location of the innermost circular orbit: for compact bodies in GR, there is a radius outside of the black hole, but within which no stable orbit can exist. This has been observed astronomically: the accretion disks outside black holes vanish abruptly close to the hole.

Albrecht
Originally posted by Hurkyl
May I take your last post as an admission that this claim is incorrect?
No, it is meant that both statements are equivalent.

Assume history would have been different: First a physical theory of relativity would have been developed. Then Einstein would have appeared and transformed this physical theory into a "geometrized" theory for which he used the idea of a curved spacetime. - Such transformation can of course be inverted.

History was, however, different. Einstein was first and created the geometrized theory as the first one. Now I have entertained to do the inverted transformation back to physics.

The results which can be proven by the experiment should be the same in both cases.

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I mean, take a piece of string, sweep out a curve of fixed radius with it... .
How do you fix the radius? How do you measure the circumference? You will have to use some kind of mechanical (or optical) equipment. This equipment undergoes changes in a gravitational field. So there cannot be an independent measurement of the space itself.

Now I can ignore all your claims that your theory predicts gravitational effects, like influencing the orbits of planets.

No, why should that be? I repeat the point: we do not need a specific theory of gravity. Gravity is explained in one part by classical physics (the refraction process) and in the other part by our present knowledge of particle physics (i.e. the internal oscillation of particles) which was not accessible to Einstein.

This variable light speed theory you have concocted is not a "fact", and it is not ordinary refraction, either.
The variance of the speed of light near a big object is an experimentally proven fact. Shapiro and his followers have made very precise measurement of it.

The cause of it is most probably the interaction of the particle (photon...) with the field of the other forces inside the object. This has, of course, still to be quantized. But I see good chances to do that. Einstein on the other hand has not at all given a cause for the change of the light speed. The "curved space" is only another wording to state the result.

The equivalence principle applies to everything, not just light-like objects.
Of course, I said that. In the equation which I have derived, there is that factor between 1 and 2 which depends on the speed of the object. (And a factor very close to 1 causes the perihelion shift). But the result does not depend on properties of the object, that is the essential point of the equivalence principle.

An axiom of Newton's theory is that F = GMm/r2. From that you can derive the equivalence principle. An axiom of Einstein's theory is that objects in gravitational motion along geodesics.
Both axioms you mention are "equivalent" to the equivalence principle. So one has the choice which version to take formally as the axiom.

The point is that although you can "easily" derive properties of black holes in Newtonian gravity, they do not behave like black holes in Einsteinian gravity --- and they also do not behave like black holes in nature.
That was my question: How behave black holes in nature? Which experiment exists that shows it with sufficient precision?

This has been observed astronomically: the accretion disks outside black holes vanish abruptly close to the hole.
My question was: where is the experiment which is precise enough to decide about the factor of 1.5 ?