Is GR a wrong apparoach to gravitation?

[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 :-)

 

[Chronos]

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

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

You are sorely mistaken. I did not, and have never solicited anyone on this forum, much less administrators, to do anything at my behest. I have no influence whatsoever in that regard. My comments are mine, and mine alone. And I take full responsibility for every word.

... Lubos Motl is not known like one of leading lights of string theory :-), and his knowledge of QFT is rather discutible. In fact the impact factor of Lubos' research in real science is close to zero...

And that, again, makes it look like you are clueless. Lubos is one of the most brilliant string theorists alive, according to most people. You have, in my opinion, assembled and are trying to sell an incoherent pile of technobabble. You dodge and duck all the specific questions. If you had genuine questions, and were looking for genuine opinions, you should have dismounted and shook all our hands before entering your imaginary pony in this parade. Pardon my tone. This is why you landed in TD, and I'm frankly amazed it didn't get locked before it went this far. Some reading material to consider:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
ll

 

[Anomalous]

Use your mind and look beyond what is seen

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

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

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

What does that mean ?

 

[Juan R.]

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

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

I'm sorry by the confussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thanks by your link, was amazing.

 

[Stingray]

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

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

and references cited therein.

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

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

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

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

 

[Anomalous]

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

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

 

[Chronos]

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

 

[Juan R.]

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

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

and references cited therein.

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

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

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

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

Stingray

I said in www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL]

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

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

Thanks by your reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[b]Yes I am seriously claiming that gravity is instantaneous[/b]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stingray]

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

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

How does instantaneous propagation not violate SR?

 

[Rebel]

Chronos

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

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

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

 

[McQueen]

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