I Jefimenko's Theory of Gravitation: Continued Discussion

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter marcosdb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation Theory
marcosdb
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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
 
marcosdb said:
For sure, but it seems quite sound
How do you know that? Are you an expert?
marcosdb said:
given that the guy was quite brilliant
Brilliant people are not always right. Aristotle, for example.
marcosdb said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes Motore, dextercioby, PhDeezNutz and 6 others
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
 
marcosdb said:
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.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top