Is GR a wrong apparoach to gravitation?

[Juan R.]

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 would aknowledge debate. I will attempt for solve your doubts, questions, etc. in this hot topic .

Please note that canonical gravitodynamics (it is finally correct one) fit also with experimental data, but corrects some flaws of Einstein GR. PLease, note that contrary to usual belief in GR, the speed of gravitational interactions is not bounde by c, like a series of recent experiments proved. That and the recent LIGO failure for see gravitational waves would open our minds to posible failure of GR.

Note that i am not talking about posible Planck scale correction terms to classical action. I am talking of new approach in the macroscopic, classical regime.

 

[pervect]

I'm not familiar with your theory at all, and am not sure at this point how seriously to take it. What does it (your theory) predict for gravity probe B results?

Also, has this theory been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or is it your personal theory that has only been published on the web?

 

[robphy]

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.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node9.html
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/expgravpage/expgravnew.html

 

[dextercioby]

What are those "some flaws of Einstein GR"...?At classical level,of course.

Daniel.

 

[DrChinese]

What are those "some flaws of Einstein GR"...?At classical level,of course.

Daniel.

He lists one of the flaws as: GR is different than Newton's equations.

He also criticizes string theory for failing to deliver any practical benefits. But after patting himself on the back for the wonders of his new theory, he admits that he doesn't have anything specific yet either as the theory is still in its infancy.

'Nuff said.

 

[Juan R.]

if my work is interesting help me, if it is not ignore it!

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 process.


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]

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

 

[Juan R.]

I am not saying that

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 .

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 ), 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]

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]

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[/color]" - 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.[/color]" - ditto; where is this experimental data published?

 

[Chronos]

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.]

Is GR wrong but computationally useful?

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 .

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.]

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]

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.]

Whow!

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.

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!

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 ) with the current status of many specialists that attemtp to explain experimental data and GR does not work adequately.

 

[russ_watters]

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.]

GR does not contain to NG

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 referring 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Juan R.]

I am not a librarian

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[/url] for a idea of I am doing or wait to the final version of [url]www.canonicalscience.com[/URL].

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

[b]Nereid [/b]

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...

[b]nickdanger[/b]

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 Feynman 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.]

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.

Really, GR relies on usual calculus, and since this is not totally convincing. We may admit that GR is not convincing. For skeptics, simply to say that I am not insane! In fact, there is a school of mathematicians improving GR in a sound mathematical basis. They do not use complex number nor the usual logic. There are several links between recent mathematicians work and my.

 

[Juan R.]

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 ) papers.

 

[Juan R.]

Yes or no?

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]

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?

 

[Nereid]

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...[/color]")

- 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]

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.]

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.]

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.]

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. 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 possesses 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]

What you are saying contradicts 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 accommodates them after the fact.

 

[Juan R.]

I leave out this post but i wait at least reply some open question before

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[/URL] 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!

[b]Chronos[/b]

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.


[i]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?[/i]

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.]

About Gentlemen

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]

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 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 approach

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?

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 into 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]

...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 he's right to don't 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 Feynman didn't understand many concepts in the area he worked. That Weinberg understanding of QFT is wrong and full of mistakes mathematically.Wow, that's 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.

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]

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.]

Bye

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[/URL] 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 [b]post (nonending) peer-review of published material[/b]. It is not a forum for discussion of undergraduate or general topics.


[b]Nereid [/b]

“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" Feynman 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!) [b]being completely wrong[/b].

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

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 ([b]in its first formulation[/B]) 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 [b]unobserved[/b] and [b]theoretically inexplained[/b] (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 [b]standard methods[/b] in gauging distances due to very sharp correlation with data.


[b]Rebel[/b]

“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 [i]Nature[/i] 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!


[b]Chronos[/b]

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 [b]Nereid[/b]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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:

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...

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.

Agreed, you are not a specialist on gravitation, and I doubt 'some month' of study would correct that deficiency. I hear cowbells.

 

[Juan R.]

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 .

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[/URL]

 

[Chronos]

- 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.]

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, beginning 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 receive 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 :-)