Jefimenko's Theory of Gravitation: Continued Discussion

[marcosdb]

TL;DR

Trying to better understand Jefimenko's gravitational-cogravitational equations

This is a continuation of this post, which has been closed to replies:

I am also really curious to better understand Jefimenko's theory of gravitation; I have the book, which apparently is no longer available on amazon, and I updated the wikipedia page to include his generalized gravitation equations.

Some of the vector equations in the book were a little over my head; would be really curious if there is anyone here who has read the book & is able to understand the vector equations to give a breakdown of what holds water & what doesn't.

 

[vanhees71]

This looks rather like a personal "theory" by Jefimenko than physics. The still best theory of gravitation is Einstein's general relativity with a well-defined weak-field limit, leading to Newtonian theory of gravitation with a well-defined realm of validity.

 

[marcosdb]

For sure, but it seems quite sound, given that the guy was quite brilliant, it seems like it'd be worthwhile for someone who is able to understand it to deeply look at it.

What I mean is, I'd love a breakdown like "his theory/formulation breaks down when you try to apply his X formula against Y physical behavior, it breaks down & incorrectly predicts the results"

That is what science is about after all, right? (and not "the best theory is the one we know so there's no need to dig deeper into anything else)

Not digging into pseudoscience is fair, but Jefimenko actually lays out formulas that should be pretty easy to shoot down

 

[Vanadium 50]

For sure, but it seems quite sound

How do you know that? Are you an expert?

given that the guy was quite brilliant

Brilliant people are not always right. Aristotle, for example.

it seems like it'd be worthwhile for someone who is able to understand it to deeply look at it.

So, your argument is that it's not worth your own time to become an expert yourself and look into it, but instead someone else should devote their time into looking at it. Not the best sales pitch.

Some proponent of the theory should calculate its predictions for the PPN parameters and show they agree with experiment. If they don't, the theory is wrong. If the theory can't predict them, it's not much of a theory.

 

[marcosdb]

My argument is that I, a software engineering expert, am not going to brush up on it as quickly as a physics expert would

Much like I could answer a question about Kotlin/Java/C++/C# in 10 seconds, while it may take you years to learn the subject

My pitch is that I, a software engineering expert, would be more than happy to lend my knowledge/expertise/understanding in my field in exchange for a rundown in phsyics

 

[PeterDonis]

My pitch is that I, a software engineering expert, would be more than happy to lend my knowledge/expertise/understanding in my field in exchange for a rundown in phsyics

Sorry, that's not how things work here.

Thread closed.