Indeed, it is difficult to find clear evidence for the existence of gravitational waves operating in the classical Newtonian gravitational field, but equally difficult to convincing proof of the space-time curvature.

It seems that we have another example of issue in which the current level of advancement of knowledge perfectly meets the common sense adage "the truth usually lies in the middle".

PS

By the way, I want to demonstrate my deep indignation with the introduction by ResearchGATE the "down vote" function, and even more - a fact entirely unjustified use of this feature by some users of the portal.

I think that we all have at heart the culture and the level of substantive discussion, and they we should openly and clearly present their views on the debated issue, and not absurdly hide behind anonymous numbers of the "down vote" counter.

With full awareness of the responsibility for my own words

Andrzej Szymanski

Even the precise large optical interferometry could have not revealed the gravitational waves. The atmosheric lidar experiments have not detected any anomaly that can be attributed to those waves.

On a more quantitative level, it is possible to characterize a broad class of gravitational theories using the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) framework (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism), in which deviations from Einstein's predictions are captured in the form of a set of dimensionless parameters. Measurements such as radio-science observations involving distant spacecraft (e.g., Cassini, Viking), laser and radar ranging of the Moon and other planets, and other tests constrain these parameters. For instance, two such parameters which were originally introduced by Eddington and are denoted by the Greek letters beta and gamma have present-day values of |gamma - 1| < 2.3e-5, and |beta - 1| < 2.3e-4. So on this basis alone, we can firmly exclude Newtonian gravity (which would require beta = gamma = 0).

So we know (from observation!) with high confidence that Newtonian gravity cannot be valid, and that either general relativity or something that mimics Einstein's gravity very closely must be valid.

In other words, I don't think that the statement, "there is no successful experiment to validate the current theories" is justifiable. Even though there has been no direct detection of gravitational waves, there are a great many successful experiments that validate current theories.

Detection of the graviton is a completely different issue. Classical general relativity does not depend on the existence of the graviton. The graviton is only needed if one wishes to quantize gravity. Now there are plenty of good reasons why we would wish to do that, but even if we never succeed (or never find experimental proof of a seemingly viable quantum theory of gravity) it does not in any way undermine the validity of the classical theory.

To help in answering your question let me quote from two papers of Carlip:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403060

Model-Dependence of Shapiro Time Delay and the "Speed of Gravity/Speed of Light" Controversy

S. Carlip

(Submitted on 14 Mar 2004 (v1), last revised 2 Jun 2004 (this version, v3))

Fomalont and Kopeikin have recently succeeded in measuring the velocity-dependent component of the Shapiro time delay of light from a quasar passing behind Jupiter. While there is general agreement that this observation tests the gravitomagnetic properties of the gravitational field, a controversy has emerged over the question of whether the results depend on the speed of light, c, or the speed of gravity, cg. By analyzing the Shapiro time delay in a set of ``preferred frame'' models, I demonstrate that this question is ill-posed: the distinction can only be made in the context of a class of theories in which c≠cg, and the answer then depends on the specific class of theories one chooses. It remains true, however, that for a large class of theories ``close enough'' to general relativity, the leading contribution to the time delay depends on c and not cg; within this class, observations are thus not yet accurate enough to measure the speed of gravity.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510056

Reply to ``Comment on Model-dependence of Shapiro time delay and the `speed of gravity/speed of light' controversy''

S. Carlip

(Submitted on 11 Oct 2005)

To determine whether the Shapiro time delay of light passing near a moving object depends on the ``speed of gravity'' or the ``speed of light,'' one must analyze observations in a bimetric framework in which these two speeds can be different. In a recent comment (gr-qc/0510048), Kopeikin has argued that such a computation -- described in gr-qc/0403060 -- missed a hidden dependence on the speed of gravity. By analyzing the observables in the relevant bimetric model, I show that this claim is incorrect, and that the conclusions of gr-qc/0403060 stand.

You are certainly not immodest. It helps me, since I am interested in the subject.

Forget "space-time curvature". Check out:

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J. , 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity discusses tests of general relativity that distinguish its results from those of Newton's universal law of gravitation.

As I understand, Newtonian gravitation is still widely used because its equations are much simpler that those of GR - however, IMO great care should be taken to ensure that conveniently simplistic methods of evaluation are not applied inappropriately to more complex conditions. Please see http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-011-0854-z or http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224, for example.

Thank you for your useful comments.

To my knowledge( and Wikipedia) ," Gravitational redshift " observed in a region of a weaker gravitational field, is a direct result of Gravitational time dilation. Conversely, when light comes toward the stronger fields, then the blue-shift happens, after the emerge of the full theory of general relativity, Einstein calculated the correct amount of light deflection – double the Newtonian value in accordance to Eddington's solar eclipse photography and later was approved by spectrometry of the atomic line shifts. However, the gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was predicted by Newton. He also predicted that some stars would have such a strong gravity that light may not be able to escape (black holes).

Therefore, the experiments have so far shown that GR is more precise than Newtonian one. It mainly arises from time dilation and accelerating frame concepts. Despite the experiments validate the findings of GR theory, however those do not investigate the nature of gravity at all. Hence, I believe that the origin of gravity is still ambiguous.

Parviz,

As I understand, spacetime is contracted by the presence of a compact mass - space is length contracted as the advancement of time becomes dilated. The two effects are interdependent and cannot be separated.

GR very accurately describes the effects of gravitation, but only in terms of abstracted dimensional coordinate system - it does not attribute those effects to any physical element that can be directly detected, such as the controversial material ether or any form of vacuum energy density. While many well schooled physicists and mathematicians have no difficulty manipulating abstract coordinate systems, I find this to be theoretically unsatisfactory. I believe that their must be some physical element or property of spacetime that is described by the field equations necessary to produce physical effects.

While quantum theorists would like to fit the gravitational effect into quantum field theory, this would require that it is produced by an exchange of some material particle energy mediated by the exchange of a force carrying (boson) particle (graviton). This would seem to be more consistent with the (less accurate) Newtonian exchange of a hypothetical 'attractive force'. There seems to be no empirical evidence of any such mechanism, however - it is supported only by the success of quantum theory in describing the 'other' quantum interactions of matter.

Gravitation, however, seems to actually be produced by the mediation of some unidentified collective energy by some physical property of spacetime itself. As John Wheeler said in "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam", "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve."

Dear James: It would indeed be deeply unsatisfactory if GR described gravity in terms of an "abstract" coordinate system, but that is absolutely not the case. It is convenient, but _not necessary_ to use a coordinate system to write down the laws of general relativity. Indeed, it is easy to show that these laws work independently of the choice of coordinate system and none of the physically meaningful results of GR depends on the choice of coordinates. The one thing that is (more or less) essential to GR is the existence of a metric, which provides a connection between (contravariant) vectors and three-dimensional volume elements (represented by covariant vectors), allowing us to form inner products (i.e., map pairs of contravariant and covariant vectors to scalars). However, all these concepts can be defined purely geometrically, without ever referencing coordinate systems.

V. Toth,

Thanks very much for the necessary correction, but the issue remains: there is no mechanism described that physically produces the effects of gravitation - only a mathematical representation of abstract dimensions used to describe those effects. Geometry is generally used to describes some property of a physical element...

In contrast, a description of gravity consistent with quantum theory would necessarily describe a physical mechanism that produces observed effects. IMO, GR is more correct, but incomplete in this way.

James: I honestly don't know what you mean by "there is no mechanism". Is an equation like F = ma a "mechanism" for you or just a "mathematical representation"? We had earlier conversations in which you insisted that you want expressions to describe a property of something "physical", but I have to ask: why is the rank-2 tensor field of gravity any less "physical" than, say, the spinor field of the electron or the vector field of the photon? In what way is the coupling of a rank-2 tensor field to the spinor field of the electron more "abstract", less "physical" than the coupling of the electromagnetic 4-vector field to the same spinor field? What does "physical" mean to you (as we obviously disagree on the meaning of this rather elusive term)? In any case, how can something be any more "physical" than fundamental geometry, which is directly measurable using meter sticks or (in the case of spacetime geometry) clocks?

V. Toth,

I can only attempt to explain in rudimentary terms. As I understand, the law of universal gravitation describes the effects of an undescribed attractive gravitational force as: F = G ((m1*m2)/r^2). This describes only the force effect produced - not _how_ the specified mass-energy physically produces the described force effect. How does object mass physically cause the force to be imparted? No mechanism is described that can convert the potential mass-energy into kinetic motion. I hope this helps - I don't know how to describe this issue any clearer.

In contrast, photons (bosons) mechanically exchange EM energy among particles of matter (fermions). Again, I think that GR more properly describes the effects of gravitation - requiring the involvement of (some implicit physical property of) dimensional spacetime in the mediation of gravitational effects - but incompletely.

James, and V. Toth:

According to GR, as it can be deduced from filed equations and "conservation laws", point particles worldlines are geodesics. In fact that was the starting point of Einstein's original thinking. But do we understand "why" it is so? Do we understand "why" field equations are such and some other ones? Because they they are the "simplest ones" satisfying certain requirements? So what? We do not understand much more than Newton did.

The fact that geodesics or field equations minimize certain "action" does not tell us much about the mechanisms. Here the parallel transport law is "more physical" than minimizing the square of the "distance". Differential equations are more "physical" than extremum principles.

That is why there are physicists looking for "emergent gravity", where gravity is an an emergent phenomenon, emerging from some deeper "mechanism" at a certain level. Even trying to get gravitation out of "quantum vacuum" (which is hardly physical) seems to be more "physical" than just postulating Hilbert-Einstein action principle because it is "elegant and simple".

James: I don't know what you mean by "photons [...] mechanically exchange EM energy". To be honest, when I first read this sentence, the mental image of a little stick figure photon guy came to mind that came and cranked some gears, causing some "mechanical" exchange of energy :-)

Conceptually, I see very little difference between how the electromagnetic field (of which the photon represents quantized excitations) couples to a matter field vs. how the gravitational field couples to a matter field. Sure, there are specific differences in the details, but conceptually they are the same: two fields which interact, and the interaction is represented by an interaction potential. If one makes sense, so does the other. If one is mysterious, the other should also be mysterious. If you somehow conceptualize the two differently, that is simply not reflected in the mathematics.

Arkadiusz: Actually, the Einstein-Hilbert action tells us how the metric of spacetime behaves in a vacuum. It does not tell us how matter acts, or why matter particles not influenced by other forces follow geodesics.

For that, you need to turn your attention to the part of the action that describes, well, matter. Notably, to the key assumption that the metric of spacetime couples to matter universally and minimally. These two words have specific meaning: the first means that the metric couples to all forms of matter the same way, the second means that the coupling is through inner products and the volume element in the integration measure, but nothing else. These two capture fundamentally intuitive concepts: the fact that gravity is indeed, as far as we know, universal, and that its effects can be removed locally by a geometric transformation to an accelerating frame.

It is this fact about how the metric couples to matter, not the specific form of the Einstein-Hilbert action that makes matter particles follow geodesics. And even if you replaced the Einstein-Hilbert action with something else (e.g., f(R) gravity), matter particles will continue to follow geodesics so long as they couple to the metric universally and minimally.

@Arkadiusz,

It is reported that Newton was aware of the strange "action at a distance" nature of his gravity law and that he felt mental discomfort about it. Nevertheless he was not willing to overcome this discomfort by inventing a hypothetical mechanism (his famous 'hypotheses non fingo' is said to belong to this context). So one can at least state positively that due to Einstein we understand that the formal rules of pseudo-Riemannian geometry together with the Einstein-Hilbert field equations let gravity act in a way that gravitational influence can't propagate faster than light. Thus no 'action at a distance' is required by gravity.

The desire for a deeper mechanism for gravity is understandable, but it is important to recognize that it is not more or less urgent than for electromagnetism. That it is presently not on the agenda of mainstream science ( with strings, in a sense, it is anyway) is a consequence of the fact that no reasonable research approach could be found so far. If such an approach (comparable to the principle of local non-abelian gauge theory in particle physics) could be identified, things would change very fast (as they changed with local non-abelian gauge theory).

Indeed, you are right. Thanks. In fact Einstein-Hilbert is irrelevant here. Somehow I have forgotten about this fact. Geodesic principle follows essentially from defining matter reaction as dual to geometry displacements and general covariance. The most elegant and general derivation uses the method of J. M Souriau. Adding gauge invariance one can derive also the electromagnetic force in the same way.

Ulrich, perhaps Terrence W. Barrett has something interesting to suggest in this respect:

PACS W: 02.40.Re; 03.65.Vf

Terence W. Barrett

BSEI

1453 Beulah Road

Vienna,VA22182

e-mail:[email protected]

Topology and Electromagnetism

Contents

1. Introduction 118

2. Solitons 120

3. Instantons 122

4. Polarization Modulation Over a Set Sampling Interval 123

5. Aharonov-Bohm Effect 126

6. Summary 129

Abstract

We attempt to show the fundamental explanatory nature of the topological description of solitons, instantons and the Aharonov-Bohm effect — and hence electromagnetism. In the case of electromagnetism we have shown elsewhere that, given a Yang-Mills description, electromagnetism can, and should be extended, in accordance with the topology with which the electromagnetic fields are associated. This approach has major implications.

I clarify my question:

There are electromagnetic - electric engineering, nuclear engineering and radiation engineering related to three main forces: electromagnetic force, nuclear weak and strong forces. However we do not find any gravity engineer throughout the world. The driving force of most of rockets and spacecrafts are still based on third Newton's law while we are not able to build a machine to reduce or magnify the gravity or reverse its effect functioning as a novel spaceshuttle. In fact, our knowledge of gravity is not adequate for engineering.

Parviz: What makes gravity "special" in this regard is not whether it's Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity, but the fact that gravity is universal. In electromagnetism, you can have different materials that respond to electromagnetic fields differently: conductors, insulators, magnetic materials, semiconductors, you name it. In the case of gravity, there is only one thing: mass. So that rather limits our ability to manipulate gravity. That being said, I'd argue that "gravity engineering" has, in fact, been around since the times of antiquity. What else do you call, for instance, a weapon like a trebuchet that uses gravity to fire a projectile at an enemy?

V. Toth,

Unlike microelectronic devices and other products of quantum theory, the mechanical devices that employ the effects of mass, momentum and gravitation do not directly manipulate those effects... I think that Parviz's point, that "knowledge of gravity is not adequate for engineering" remains valid.

While we now much better understand how the Sun radiates such enormous energy, we can only describe the gravitational effects it produces, not how they are produced. I think it should also be noted that if, unlike 'the other forces of matter', gravitation employs some energy physically contained within the vacuum of dimensional spacetime, there is no even atomic scale manipulations of gravitational interactions that could be achieved...

James: you move about an electric charge; you create changes in the electromagnetic field; you observe how this affects another electric charge. You move about a mass; you create changes in the gravitational field; you observe how it affects another mass. Granted, because gravity is so much weaker, a practical experiment must involve very large masses, but it can be done (e.g., using a large mass and a torsion balance) and I don't see any difference in principle. I also don't understand why you believe that we understand better the "how" of the production of solar radiation or the solar magnetic field as opposed to the solar gravitational field. You are either making gravity sound more mystifying than it really is, or your understand something about the other interactions that I don't.

Thank you James

You are right.

I emphasize that " our current knowledge of gravity is not adequate for engineering". In fact , we are not able to manipulate gravity. We are not able to reduce,magnify ,reverse, level down ,level up gravity. Ballistic and aviation engineering which are based on Newton's laws are quite different from Gravity engineering that we do not have its adequate knowledge to manipulate.

Parviz: Chemists may disagree with you as they use a centrifuge to create a gravitational force that is thousands of times stronger than terrestrial gravity and use it to separate chemicals. Even military engineers may disagree with you who are contemplating the use of ultra-precise clocks to measure the accidental manipulation of gravity that occurs when an opponent creates a cavity under the desert sand somewhere in the form of a bunker. The fact that we are not able to reduce gravity (well, actually, we sort of are; think about NASA's "vomit comet", although the reduction of course is only temporary) is not because we lack adequate knowledge: we know very well why it cannot be done, namely that gravity (unlike the electrostatic force) is always attractive, so there are no "negative gravitational charges" that could be used to cancel out the gravity of an object; and furthermore, that gravity is universal, and consequently no material exists that can shield gravity. I think we should be very careful not to confuse "I don't know how to do it" with "I know why it cannot be done".

V. Toth,

A centrifuge has nothing to do with any gravitational effect. Despite the evidence provided by positronium and muonium, not all physicists are certain that mass is always positive and gravity is always 'attractive' - see http://alpha.web.cern.ch/. As for desert bunkers, that's only based on the knowledge that gravitational effects are proportional to mass and diminished by the inverse-square of its separation distance.

Dear Toth

Centrifuge is based on Newton's laws and it is not according to Gravity engineering. I wish if we could shield gravity field by a super- material. In fact, you accept our lack of knowledge to find such a material ( natural or artificial) or even repulsive gravity or negative mass or as you asserted " negative gravitational charges" and so on.

If we do not know something at the moment , we may achieve tomorrow. I conclude that " at the onset of 19th centuary, a chief of patent office resigned because he believed that no more invention can be filed any longer! " since then millions of patents has been filed !

Parviz: What is wrong with Newton's laws? They describe gravity just fine unless you want to account for very tiny corrections. And, well, I wish we could shield gravity, too, but we can't. But that's not because we understand gravity any less than we understand electromagnetism, it's because the nature of gravity is different. Again, not knowing how to do a thing is not the same as knowing that it cannot be done. Of course it may turn out that our knowledge is incomplete, but then again, our knowledge of electromagnetism may also be incomplete. My point is, our knowledge of gravity is not any less complete because we know that certain things cannot be done that can be done with electromagnetism.

Ok. Dear Voth

Let us truncate this discussion, because I think we are still far away from complete science and we need more research and higher technology as tools for more research and better technologies as long as we achieve a breakthrough such as gravity shield etc. It may be found outside earth or beyond our solar system or may be found in a comet coming to us!

Despite I appreciate Newton's laws and Maxwell's laws , I do not understand the nature of gravity force and I wonder the unsymmetry in existence of electric monopole and lack of attendance of magnetic monopole. I understand the same poles generate repulsive force and vise versa but I still do not know the nature of electric or magnetic forces. We may use an analoguy and imagine gravity poles and say since we only face positive mass then gravity is only attractive. However the opposite electric charge generate attractive force while hypotetical opposite mass may be repulsive! We are patient since that time if we found negative mass or our technology gradually grows up to generate the negative mass.

I conclude with the following question:

Do you believe that we know all fundamental laws of Physics?

For instance,

We may know many things about fusion reactions , however we are not able to build a fusion reactor. Is it a matter of science or because of problems in technology?

Parviz: I think theoretical physicists have a fairly good understanding as to why in electromagnetism (mediated by a vector field) like charges repulse, whereas in gravity (mediated by a tensor field) like charges attract. They also have a fairly good understanding as to why inertial mass always needs to be positive in a stable universe. So you are banging on open doors, so to speak. As to fusion reactors, how do you know that a working fusion reactor is even possible? But before we touch on such "exotic" technology, just consider the sorry state of ordinary chemical battery technology: although many of the first automobiles in the late 19th century were electric, here we are in 2013, and electric automobiles are still the exception, not the norm, because batteries are expensive, bulky, hard to charge, and their energy density is mediocre. Does this mean we don't understand basic chemistry? Or are we perhaps simply wishing for something that is not compatible with the well-understood laws of basic chemistry? There is a big difference.

And of course I am not suggesting we know all the fundamental laws of physics. If we did, physics would be dull. But there are laws that we DO know, and we should not pretend they don't exist just because they are difficult to learn and internalize or because they conflict with our wishful thinking.

Toth, you wrote: But there are laws that we DO know, .

I do not know who are these "we"? Because, for instance Schrodinger was not so sure that "conservation of energy" always holds. De Broglie was not sure that quantum mechanics is valid in every circumstances. Einstein was not sure that his theory of gravitation is all good. And so on. Dirac thought that we may be missing an important element of electromagnetism. And so on.

What we do know is that certain laws usually hold under certain conditions. I say "usually", because we do not know if they hold "always". We make educated guesses and we extrapolate taking risks. Unfortunately all to often we forget that there are no good reasons for all our extrapolations. We have no idea why there is any order in the Universe. And when I say "we", I have also you in mind.

Of course there are many who will strongly disagree, but even if all experts agree on something, that does means that they are right. Sometimes we have to wait for a long time before we get an idea about which expert's opinions was only a little bit wrong, and which ones were completely wrong, mostly because of prejudices. And who is completely free of prejudices.

And do not forget that lot of science is today, when we have global industrial and military complex, kept secrecy. How else can it be? Money counts first, all the rest depends on the money. Of course scientists have an illusion of freedom/. But not all of them.

Dear Voth

I have taught Physics for many years,static electric force and gravity force are based on charge and mass and the distances and nothing else. Do you think this is the nature of electric force and gravity? inside the nucleus there are a number of nucleons(protons and neutrons), the similar charges exert notable repulsive forces on each other at very short distances in nucleus(pm or whatever) it is easy to calculate the electric forces, however nucleus is still stable and protons are not separated apart mainly due to another stronger force( or due to the binding energy of nucleons dropped in the potential well) or whatever.

However, that nucleus is very important because it is the basis of bulk mass, you can easily calculate how many nucleus is equal to 1 gram, and you may neglect electron masses obviously because the nucleon mass is much greater(1800 times) than electron mass.It is important because those nucleus are basis of gravity too. Then we have only electric and nuclear forse inside nucleus but suddenly gravity force appears. Our Physics should show us how gravity force emerges from electric and nuclear forces inside each nucleus but our Physics is unable to explain.You see our Physics is not absolute and perfect,

Furthermore, according to Quantum physics, electron in the atomic potential behaves as a wave,much better to say electron has its own eigen-state and eigen-function around nucleus, similarly the proton and neutron in the nucleus potential well may follow quantum theory and find their own energy states and wave- functions to behave just as stationary waves.

Eventhough those are waves inside nucleus, they have mass because you weigh your 1 gram bulk material. Please tell me finally are they mass or they are waves?

Our Physics fails to descibe the real status of nucleons in nucleus even using our best knowledge of present physics laws.

Arkadiusz: I am not saying that the laws we think we know always hold and that there aren't surprises. That would be stupid and narrow-minded of me. However, when you challenge an observed law of nature that is well-established by observation and experiment, you better have a darn good reason. Simply saying "I don't like it" (or worse yet, "I won't make an effort to really understand it") is not a good enough reason. (As a good example, Schrödinger's reason to question conservation of energy was not good enough. The law held; it was his understanding that was incomplete at the time.)

There is very little secrecy in fundamental physics. I sincerely doubt that the military-industrial complex is hiding anti-gravity machines, faster-than-light engines, reactionless drives, teleporters or time machines. Our understanding (and by "we", I mean much of the community of theoretical physicists), while incomplete, is fairly thorough and quite deep.

Parviz: You are giving me a choice ("are they mass or are they waves") but these choices are not exclusive. Waves carry energy. Energy and mass are the same. They both couple to gravity. So I am not sure what your issue is. While it is true that there are questions physics cannot explain, we must be very careful not to confuse the lack of completeness of a field of discipline with our own incomplete understanding of the state-of-the-art in that field.

Energy and Mass are equivalent but it does not mean those can be converted to Each Other at any condition. Can you weigh 1 g of RF frequency? Energy in Wave can Not be weighed by Balance Even You assume Energy is Mass equivalent.

The Same for nucleons in nucleus. If they are Energy You can Not weigh them, if they are mass what about their Quantum States? if they exhibit dual characteristics in the same time , Is it allowed?

Again, I emphasize on nucleus where all four basic forces are available inside nucleus . I suggest Gravity Force may be the resultant of the coupling of electric and atomic strong forces?! If it is not and gravity acts as an independent force (as it is expected so far ) the strong force would be overwhelming the electromagnetic and gravity forces, then in this case, no coupling takes place and gravity arises from summation of nucleon Masses. However, it is not clear that those nucleons are perfect particles when they are bounded. Among various interaction theories , muon exchange may occur between nucleons and it means coupling of forces. Who can assisst us for better understanding of Gravity Based on old and novel models or from a quantum unit of mass , Here nucleus?

Parviz: from the perspective of gravity, energy and mass are the same. In somewhat more precise language, what gravity couples to is the stress-energy tensor, which is the relativistic quantity that encompasses the rest mass and internal energy of an object or medium. This is also the case when a atom is involved: the effective inertial/passive gravitational mass that we observe is the combination of the rest masses and binding energies of the constituent particles. These terms all couple to the tensor field of gravity that, in turn, couples to other particles. The coupling is very weak (hence gravity is very weak) but if lots of atoms are present, the end result is detectable. And by the way, yes, you can weigh energy. This is why, for instance, a helium atom's mass is different from the mass of a deuterium molecule, even though they contain the exact same particles; the difference arises because of the difference in internal binding energies.

V. Toth,

"What is wrong with Newton's laws? They describe gravity..."

That Newtonian dynamics describe both centrifugal effects and gravitation does not imply that a centrifuge manipulates gravitation! IMO, you're pointlessly pursuing an absurd line of reasoning!

James: place an observer inside a closed chamber that you then place in a centrifuge. Turn on the centrifuge and wait for it to spin up. Assuming that the radius of the centrifuge is much larger than the chamber itself, what measurement can the observer perform inside the chamber without looking out that would tell him that he is, in fact, in a centrifuge and not standing on a planet with higher gravity?

V. Toth,

Simultaneously drop two identical balls from the same distance from the floor. In a centrifuge, the separation distance of the balls will minutely increase. Earth's gravitation will cause the balls to converge by a tiny amount.

Regardless of this test or any other, a centrifuge may produce effects that are somewhat similar to gravitation, but they are not those of gravitation. Does the law of universal gravitation describe centrifuge effects?

The issue was whether we understand what causes gravitation and how it is produced to an extent comparable to our understanding of quantum electrodynamics. This diversionary discussion does nothing to resolve that question - which should be quite clear...

V. Toth

It looks to me that the experiments of A Dmtriev, PE Shaw and mine have have been able to falsify the principle of equivalence upon which which the 100-year-old theory of General Relativity rest.

Our experiments demonstrate that the weight of a test mass can be changed with the application of heat and coldness. The idea that mass can attract other mass or warp space is a weird idea that is up there with the now falsified( thanks to the amateur Leon Foucault) idea that the earth possessed some unexplained ability to make all the objects in the Heavens revolve around it in a 24 hour period.

If it is assumed that it is the radiation leaving mass and not the mass itself that is doing the gravitational attracting, then there is a much better "close-to-experience" way to account for the flat rotation curves and cosmic acceleration--two serious anomalies you did not mention when you extolled the unquestioned virtues of a idea that assumes that centripetal motion of the planets is not due to a force. I believe you are the person who worked on the Pioneer anomaly. Thus you must be quite versant on how heat can affect the acceleration of mass.

I would appreciate hearing your arguments as to why the experiments of Dmtriev, Shaw and mine do not falsify the principle of equivalence.

Peter Fred

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4461

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/044/mwr-044-09-0515.pdf

Dynamics of the Continuum Space-Matter:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235435962_Dynamics_of_the_Continuum_Space-Matter?ev=prf_pub

Data Dynamics of the Continuum Space-Matter

I am sure my weight (about 80Kg equivalent to 784Newtons about) is due to the gravitational force (mesurable by a dynamometer) and not to the space-time warp.

Besides in the correct theory of the gravitational field the gravitational effect is instant and there is no distance action because the gravitational potential is present in all points of space.

Dear Toth

I may amend your statement:

" And by the way, yes, you can weigh energy. This is why, for instance, a helium atom's mass is different from the mass of a deuterium molecule, even though they contain the exact same particles; the difference arises because of the difference in internal binding energies."

That is not right because:

1- He atom and deutrium molecule contain the exact same particle but different binding energies.

2- He has a single nuclues potential well consists of (2p+2n) and deutrium has two potential wells,two nuclei each including (p+n).

3- At each D or (p+n) nucleus, each nucleon lends ~ 1 MeV bining energy to potential well and its mass reduces to stabilize within nucleus. Similarly, in He-4

each nucleon lends ~7 MeV binding energy to its potential well to stabilise in nucleus.

4- The binding energies of nucleons in deutrium and helium are different such that, the corresponding nucleus mass is equivalent the rest mass of nucleons minus the corresponding binding energies. In fact, the mass of deutrium is slightly greater than helium mass equivalent to 4*( 7-1)~24 MeV, since more energy was given by He to its potential well and relatively less mass remains respect to that of deutrium.

"Therefore, we do not weigh the binding energy of nucleons in nucleus, whereas we weigh the reduced mass of nucleons."

Quite different of your imagination! I have checked it for helium and deutrium.You may calculate too or I will add here according to the following Ref:

Elements of nuclear physics

Walter Ernst Meyerhof

McGraw-Hill, 1967 - Science - 279 pages

http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/binding_energy.gif

I agree that centrifuge( centripetal force) creates a form of artificial gravity and there are plans for such space stations similar to large steering wheels based on angular momentum conservation, however it is again based on Newtonian laws!

To my knowledge, according to energy point of view, gravity acts as potential energy while centrifugal gravity arises from kinetic energy.

Parviz,

Sorry, but I cannot agree - at best centrifugal effects can be used to approximately simulate effects of gravitation. As you mention, the effects of gravitation are produced by the presence of potential mass-energy - that is one thing we do understand! Meanwhile, centrifugal effects are produced by the application of kinetic energy, producing inertial mass effects.

Engineering solutions employing centrifugal effects do _not_ require any understanding or manipulation of the mechanisms or processes that physically produce gravitation - only understanding of its effects!

Dear James

I agree with you.Despite ecntifugal effect may simulate gravity based on inertial mass -rotaional kinetic energy,however real gravity does not need kinetic enegy to be activated and is based rest mass-potential energy.

Why I believe that light can decrease gravity and why gravity is a pushing force?

After doing over 1000 hours of experimenting with a torsion pendulum and a 30 degrees laminar light beam, the results can be best explained this way. Some readers have given other explanations but none has made real experiments to verify them.

These are the facts:

At first, a fixed mass was attracting a moving mass at one end of the pendulum. When the fixed mass was removed, the mobile mass returned to its rest position. It was clear that the fixed mass was attracting the moving mass, or it seemed so.

If light can block the gravitational force given by the fixed mass, the mobile mass should be attracted less than before.

After finding the distance travelled by the mobile mass when it was attracted by the fixed mass, a laminar red laser beam was passed between the 2 masses to decrease the gravitational attraction. The results were exactly opposite: the mobile mass was attracted more when light passed between them. That was impossible but that was the physical reality. The experiment was done over and over again, at different time of the day, different days, different months, and different years. These possible causes were examined and rejected: there was no static electric force; a rock gave the same results as a brass mass, there was no air movement. I had to accept that light increased gravity but I was not satisfied. After lots of thinking, I thought that maybe light was blocking gravity coming horizontally from space and not from the fixed mass.

To verify that possibility, the fixed mass was removed and the mobile mass was able to find a rest position. When the light beam was directed north of the mobile mass, it moved north. When the light was directed on the south side, the mobile mass was pushed toward south, in the direction of the light beam. It was as if light was attracting the mobile mass... Or if there was a blocking effect by light, that means that light was blocking the gravitational push coming from one side of the mass. That was thought by Lesage but not proven before.

The facts were there, one has to explain what was happening and not reject the facts. The best explanation to date is this: there is a gravitational push in space surrounding us in every direction. The pushing force from the left is very close to the pushing force from the right and we cannot feel it. But the pushing force from above us is a little bigger than the one from below, because the planet earth is blocking some of the force coming from space from below. We thus think that earth is attracting when really, it is only blocking some gravity from below, as Lesage thought.

The other conclusion is that light can interfere with what is causing gravity. That means light is not a ripple travelling in a medium but something real travelling at great speed and something very small probably at Planck’s limit. What is causing that pushing force? Probably all what is zooming in space coming from stars and all matter in space.

These results also give an insight of the real nature of light. We know that an electron meeting a positron reverts to a light pulse. We can make an electron and a positron from a high frequency light. Does that mean that ordinary matter and light are from the same stuff but organized differently? It seems so.

The next step was to verify if ordinary light could affect the mobile mass. A lab projector was placed outside the wooden box containing the torsion pendulum. As soon as the projector was activated outside the wooden wall, the mobile mass was pushed toward the light. We even put the light in an enclosed steel box so that the pendulum could not `see` the light. The same effect was observed: light blocks some gravitational push.

If someone wants the video taken by the web cam of the movement of the mobile mass, it is possible to plot the distance travelled by the moving mass and have a nice graph showing the effect. Since we have many such graphs, they can be put in the public domain for anyone to verify.

Here is on good result: without laser beam for 30 minutes, laser on and the laser off. The movement is on the vertical axes and the time on the horizontal axes.

The complete report was published in Physics Essays, December 2011.

I will study with much attention your experiments.

I just been able to locate the URL of the forth paper where test masses were observed to change their weight in response to the application of heat. This and the other three papers raise serious questions about the principle of equivalence upon which GR rests and Newton's idea that it is the mass rather than the radiation leaving mass that does the gravitational attraction. Here is the URL of Fan, L et al paper

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Gruvitas/ZavOtTemperat/Liangzao_2010.pdf

I also attach below a picture of an experiment that shows graphically that radiation warming up a colder mass is gravitationally attractive, When the power was turned on the room was 4 or 5 degrees below zero on the Celsius scale. As the picture shows the heat from the lamps attracts the hanging hemisphere. One would think that the expanding heated air molecules would push the hemisphere away. But that does not happen.

We do not know whether Newton's gravitational law holds at very short distances, at the quantum level. We do not know, except by using brute force extrapolations, how quantum phenomena affect gravity. Heating may well affect short distance organization of materials. And ho knows what else was acting on the materials and scales during the experiments? We do not know, except in a speculative way, how information and organization relates to gravity.

Of course experiments done only in China are always suspicious. They do not have such a level of control there as it is the case in the West. On the other hand gravity experiments in the West may be under "too much" of a control ...

Therefore it is good to have eyes and minds open.

hi

The results from my experiment show that light does change the gravitational forces and an object will move slowly towards the light in absence of any other forces. That is probably another verification of the same effect. The paper explaining the experimental results was published in Physics Essays December 2011.

Louis

Peter,

the Bernoulli effect (Bernoulli principle) of a heat induced vertical air flow is a plausible explanation for the observed attraction in the 'experiment' in your appended image.

In most astrophysics Newtonian gravity is enough except very strong gravity or very beginning of the universe.

It is neither. It is not ‘Newtonian force’, because it is absurd to think that anything can act through empty space. It is not ‘space-time curvature’, because it is equally absurd to think that structure-less, form-less space can deform.

Nainan

The metric does precisely describe the structure and form of dimensional spacetime, but what does that abstract geometric topology represent? It seems to be related to some energy property of the vacuum - see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

"The stress–energy tensor (sometimes stress–energy–momentum tensor or energy–momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity."

That there is structural deformation is most clearly evidenced by the strong gravitational lensing of background light passing around a massive foreground object, especially when an Einstein Ring phenomenon is produced.

Perhaps we should not forget that there is also this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235508590_TeleparallelismA_viable_theory_of_gravity?ev=prf_cit

Teleparallelism—A viable theory of gravity?

Folkert Müller-Hoissen and Jürgen Nitsch

Phys. Rev. D 01/1983; 28(4). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.718

ABSTRACT The teleparallelism theory of gravity is presented as a constrained Poincaré gauge theory. Arguments are given in favor of a two-parameter family of field Lagrangians quadratic in torsion. The inclusion of a "parity violating" term in the field Lagrangian avoids difficulties with the initial-data problem, recently discussed in the literature. Several new exact solutions of the corresponding teleparallelism theory give considerable insight into its physical consequences. The resulting general field equations are analyzed in the weak-field approximation excluding ghosts and tachyons. The physical meaning of the six additional components of the tetrad field (as compared with the metric) appears naturally from our theory and is made clear.

Article Teleparallelism—A viable theory of gravity?

Minkowski space is parallelizable and has hyperbolic geometry. Moreover we can have teleparrel theory on a non-parallelizable manifold. In that case the soldering form can be degenerate at some points. Nothing wrong with that. There is more and more research being done on gravity with "phase transitions" (for instance change of dimension).

I look at this dilemma differently:

The masses in famous Newton relation:

F=Gm1*m2/r^2

are really the summation of the reduced masses of all nuclei available in each body. Therefore, the gravity force may directly arise from the nuclear forces ( as micro world with quantum basis).

Similarly, the GR theory ( as macro world ) should have considered those forces but it does not.

Assume a star and a black hole with the same mass , why the gravity of black hole is extra-ordinary higher than the star?

If it comes from the effect of densities, the Newton relation will not enable to explain that.

Parviz,

IMO, the error introduced is that all galactic mass - m1 - (within the subject's 'orbital' radius) are summed, then the Newtonian force approximation is evaluated for the contributing galactic mass at the single, radial, separation distance... This improperly treats all relevant galactic mass as a single point mass, at a separation distance = the subject's radial distance... In this case the error is not in universal law of gravitation or GR - the error is introduced only in their improper application!. Please see my simple, informal profile essay and its references...

I rewrite general gravity relation as below:

F=G *Sumj (mj-B.Ej))* Sumi (mi-B.Ei)) / r^2

where (m i-BEi) is the reduced mass of each nucleon(proton or neutron) located in each nucleus of atom.The summation is taken over all nuclei of all atoms of a body

such that now gravity not only depends on mass but the binding energy.

It appears to me that you are reducing the objects' estimated masses (generally derived from interpretations of observed gravitational effects or luminosities resulting from nuclear processes) by the nuclear binding energy imparted by the confinement of quark propagation energy by the strong force interaction. All that would remain would be the summation of the relatively miniscule rest mass of elementary particles, correct?

Sorry if I'm addressing a separate issue - in evaluating the gravitation of large scale, compound structures, especially the non-spherical mass distribution of spiral galaxies, vast distributions of masses cannot be properly represented as a simple sum separated by a single separation distance ('r').

Note that the gravitational force is derived from the inverse square of the single separation distance between the subject object and the center of a generally planar distribution of massive objects.

In fact, galactic mass is actually separated from the subject object by a vast distribution of individual distances - ranging from near zero to more than a hundred thousand light years. Simply representing that vast distribution of separation distances by the subject's radial distance introduces a significant error that increases as a function of the subject's radial distance.

IMO, this is the single source of significant error responsible for producing the perceived galaxy rotation problem - the expectation that F should diminish as a function of separation distance from the galactic center. In fact, the source of galactic gravitational potential is not its center - it is much more generally distributed throughout its planar disk - thus producing the observed flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies.

Their might be other sources of error, but I think this is most significant.

Mass is taken into account as the summation of all nucleons( neutrons and protons), however those nucleons are bound in nuclei and therefore their reduced masses are measured as their masses. The rest mass of nucleon is ~few MeV greater than its mass inside the nuceus, hence reduced mass= rest mass -BE.

According to below:

Http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/binding_energy.gif

The binding energy (MeV ) / nucleon is a function of number of nucleons in nucleus (A). For light nuclei such as H,D,T, He3 and

He 4 , binding energy increases with A while for heavy nuclei such as U235,U238 anf Pu239 etc it decreases weith A. The former is responsible for Fusion and the latter explains fission.

In this case, mass of a body is really the summation of the reduced masses of all nucleons inside all nuclei. Thus, the total mass not only depends on the nucleon masses , but also their binding energies which is a function of A too.

Thanks for explaining - interesting.

However, as I understand, the estimated gravitational mass of astronomical bodies used in gravitational evaluations is not based on any summation of nucleons, as this is not determinable. Gravitational mass is approximated by interpretation of observed gravitational effects (where F is derived from M) and by approximations based on luminosity/color relationships for main sequence stars. I don't think that astronomical mass approximations are precise enough to justify making such fine, nuclear scale adjustments.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that nucleon binding energy would only be relevant if the mass estimate was based on nuclear material but gravitational effects would be imparted to unbound nucleons, or vice versa. This might be an intermediate consideration in the core collapse of supernovae remnants - producing neutron stars, for example.

Dear James

Thank you for your comment. I am examining another aproach.

All materials are made up atoms and each atom has its own nucleus therefore all gravitational mass is related to these summation of nucleons somehow. Nucleons may be bound or unbound based on the situation in the body. I am writing a paper explaining this effect(binding energy and reduced mass) on the gravitational mass of astronomical bodies sun ,neutron star , black hole, etc.

I appreciate receiving your comments.

Regards

Parvin

Parviz,

I also find interesting (perhaps in association with black hole firewall conjecture) that bound matter entering the event horizon of a black hole (being accelerated to ~ c) may disintegrate, releasing even quark binding energy - which might be retained as the mass-energy of contracted (curved) spacetime while residual fundamental particles are ejected via relativistic jets. In this way, mass-energy might be accreted by black holes without requiring retention of dimensional matter within any dimensionless singularity. I'm not capable of writing any formal paper, though...

Your comments are very interesting particularly pertaining black hole which may act as an accelerator of nucleons , demonstration of the relativistic particles and a natural machine for releasing the quark binding energy within the space-time curvature.

Those certainly create quite different conditions respect to other astronomical bodies.

Do you think that those facts may affect on the gravity?

and comparing what we understand as gravity in our solar system?

Thanks very much! My perspective is that relativistic acceleration is only produced by black holes, and perhaps temporarily during the stellar core collapses that produce neutron stars, that only then are nucleons disintegrated (owing to their relatively large mass undergoing 'irresistible' acceleration). In this way I think that released mass-energy is directly manifested as contracted spacetime by the conditions of the black hole. I can't really guess what affects that might have on gravitational effects - but then I was unaware that there was binding energy involved in the confinement of nucleons within atomic nuclei (even without specific information - I should have expected that).

Please see http://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123 - I envision a similar concept, but more closely related to particle accelerator experiments than string theory...

I don't envision that such quantum effects would occur within the Solar system, for example.

Dear James

Binding energy per nucleon versus number of nucleons in the nucleus A :

Dear Parviz,

Very interesting - this is the nucleic binding energy energy (the average mass-energy per nucleon confined within a nucleus) that might be obtained by nuclear processes, correct?

It would also be interesting to see the total for each element.

I would also find it interesting to see the extended nucleonic binding energy (mass-energy of quarks confined within nucleons) for each element. A I understand, this would be the total kinetic energy that might be obtained by 'completely' disintegrating atomic nuclei into their constituent quantum elements - through some quantum process...

Nucleon type, Quark configuration, Nucleon rest mass (MeV/c^^2) *

Proton, uud, 938.272013±0.000023

Neutron, udd, 939.565346±0.000023

* I understand that the nucleon rest mass obtained as kinetic energy would be reduced by the residual quark rest masses, where up quarks ~ 2.4 and down quarks ~ 4.8 MeV/c^^2.

As you can see, the energy that might be obtained by the quantum disintegration of atomic nuclei into quarks far exceeds that for nucleons! I'd guess, though, that any nucleonic binding energy accreted within a black event horizon would be extracted from the region outside the event horizon, as any 'free quarks' produced at the event horizon would 'immediately' be rebound, forming 'new' nucleons. I suspect that some of these 'new', protons/neutrons are detected within relativistic jets, having been expelled from the black hole. Detection of less massive protons might be favored, having been propagated all the way to Earth, although neutrons (incorporating free electrons in the residual particle stream) might be produced in greater volumes...

Dear James

I review again my understanding of nucleon binding energy and its relation to reduced mass and its subsequent relation with Newton graviity force:

1-The rest mass of each nucleon is ( proton ~ 938 MeV and neutron ~ 939 MeV).

2- The bound nucleon reduced mass is ~ 1-8 MeV smaller than its rest mass (free from nucleus potential well). This is dependent on atom species (light to heavy atom differs from binding energy per nucleon according to graph above).

3- The measurable mass of of each nucleus is the summation of the reduced masses of all nucleons in the nucleons.In fact , we weigh the reduced mass because the binding energy can not be weighed.

4- The mass in Newton gravity relation is the summation of reduced mass of nucleons of all nuclei + all electron masses that is 1873 times smaller the nucleon rest mass( 938 MeV/.511MeV~ 1837)

5- In rigid bodies, we deal with the equivalent force due to the reduced masses of nucleons measured by Hook law. However , since the binding energy is increasing with atomic mass , the reduced mass decreases accordingly.

6- In Black hole, to my knowledge, the massive core may convert to mass-energy and contracted space-time or the reduced masses may gain the binding energy to give it to gravitational field. Since there are very great no of nuclei then the corresponding energies are huge. This concept may be a clue for understanding the relation of binding energy ( as a quantum concept ) to gravity concept.

An example: Helium atom and Deutrium molecule both contain 2 protons and 2 neutrons but their masses are different because the binding energy / neucleon in helium nucleus is higher the D nucleus. It means that D2 molecule is rather heavier than helium. In summary, the gravitaional force exerted on D2 is slightly greater than helium. That is why I emphasize the Newton gravity relation should be rewritten.

7- I have not investigated the quark binding energy, though I believe that the equivalent energy of synchrotron ~TeV is needed to generate the elementary particles and quarks too.

However, I wonder to find that nucleons may be accelerated in the vicinity of black hole (event horizon probably) as a natural accelerator, In this case, neutrons can be accelerated in Black hole's curved spacetime while a synchrotron only accelerates the charged particles,

I would like to hear your advice regarding binding energies of nucleons in conjunction with the black hole (item 6).

Regards

Dear Parviz,

I'm going to have to study your analysis a little more - I think there's some discrepancy with my understanding: for example, the rest mass of a proton is ~938 MeV - consisting of (2) up and (1) down quarks, whose rest mass is (2 * 2.4) + 4.8 ~ 9.6 MeV. Thus, the binding energy of quarks within a proton is 938 - 9.6 ~ 928.4 MeV...

6- I've read a brief description by Kip Thorne of the conversion of mass-energy to the contraction/curvature of spacetime at the singularity. I reason that, since nuclei cannot be accelerated to c, why would that process have to occur at the center of the black hole - why not at the event horizon, where the effective escape velocity reaches c? [I know that it's commonly considered that the _average_ 'mass density' at the event horizon of a SMBH is considered to be very low, but somehow matter within accretions disks is greatly accelerated...] The difference would be that, in the event horizon disintegration scenario, all infalling mass-energy is extracted, while all residual fundamental particles are expelled from the event horizon. In the Kip Thorne scenario, some overflow process would be necessary to explain why some particles are selectively expelled (this is sometimes euphemistically described as 'burping', but why would a black hole's ability to ingest matter so frequently exceed some constraint, despite it having caused the matter to 'fall in'?) Also, in the Thorne scenario dimensional fundamental particles would have to either be converted to curved spacetime or retained at the dimensionless singularity (or evoke wormholes, extra dimensions, etc.).

I'll have to think more about the quantum gravity implications (as best I can), but I do not really subscribe to the concept of gravity as a quantum force interaction among particles - perhaps as a quantum interaction (not necessarily involving a mediating particle) between potential mass-energy and some kinetic energy contained within the vacuum that directly corresponds to the energy-momentum tensor of general relativity...

7- Good question. As you mention, atoms initially would be accelerated towards the event horizon by gravitation. If, as I speculate, atoms, nuclei and nucleons are progressively disintegrated into their fundamental particles and released binding energy at the event horizon, electron flow could (I think) produce the black hole's peripheral magnetic field. Depending on when quarks might rebind to form nucleons (I guess nearly immediately) - proton charge could be accelerated to relativistic velocities (reaching Earth), while neutrons might linger. Of course, it could be that the conditions are not adequate for producing neutrons at all (I think that would require the rebinding of quarks producing a proton, then 'reverse decay' absorbing an electron as in the conversion of protons to neutrons in neutron star formation). There's certainly much involved that is unknown - I know less than many...

Dear James

1 -Binding energy of nucleon in nucleus is ranging 1-8 MeV while its rest mass is 938-939 MeV ( it means a neutron with 8 MeV kinetic energy may enter the heavy nucleus and disintegrate it leading to release of more nucleons similar to fission process) , or it may decompose due to energetic collisions with other atoms or nuclei similar to what happens in accelerators.

2- As you stated and it is quite right, binding energy of quarks in nucleon is 928.4 which implies that much greater energy is needed to decompose nucleon into free quarks( respect to disintegration of nucleus to proton and neutron ~ 8 MeV) and it may be supplied by event horizon gravity . A natural elementary particle generator?!

However , my question pertaining the Newton gravity relation is still open.

(1) According to Einstein his field equations couple his gravitational field to its material sources and his energy-momentum tensor describes the material sources. According to Einstein, everything that is not the gravitational field is matter.

(2) Einstein and his followers assert that when energy-momentum tensor = 0 there is present a material source (e.g. a star or a black hole). In this case the only solution is the so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ for R_{uv} = 0.

(3) Einstein and his followers assert that when energy-momentum tensor = 0 there are no material sources present whatsoever (de Sitter’s empty universe solution for R_{uv} = lambda g_{uv}).

(4) Thus, by (1), (2) and (3) according to Einstein and his followers material sources are both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0. That’s impossible! Hence, material sources can’t be both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0, contrary to the claims of Einstein and his followers. So (1), (2) and (3) are inconsistent.

(5) For (1) and (3) to be consistent, energy-momentum tensor = 0 means there are no material sources present, by mathematical construction. Indeed, that is the meaning gleaned from (1) and the very expression energy-momentum tensor = 0. Claim (2) is then inconsistent with (1) and (3). Therefore (2) is false. The black hole comes from (2). The black hole is therefore false. On the other hand, if (1) and (2) are supposed consistent, then (3) is false, and the Universe is spatially infinite, is eternal, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat, because the only solution when energy-momentum tensor = 0 is the ‘Schwarzschild solution’, which excludes multiple material sources.

(6) Neither the supposed consistency of (1) and (2) nor the consistency of (1) and (3) bear any relation to the actual Universe because the actual Universe contains more than one material source. R_{uv} = 0 and R_{uv} = lambda g_{uv} are physically meaningless. Nonetheless Einstein and his followers keep them both. Moreover, energy-momentum tensor = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity itself because neither the Principle of Equivalence nor Special Relativity can manifest in black hole universes or empty universes. Thus, black hole universes and empty universe are again utterly false.

Since R_{uv} = 0 and R_{uv} = Λ g_{uv} = 0 are both physically meaningless and violate the physical principles of General Relativity (see my previous post), and also taking into consideration conservation of energy and momentum, Einstein's field equations can only take this form,

G_{uv}/k + T_{uv} = 0

where the G_{uv}/k are the components of a gravitational energy tensor and T_{uv} the components of the energy-momentum tensor (which describes the material sources of Einstein's alleged gravitational field). Thus, the G_{uv}/k and the T_{uv} MUST VANISH IDENTICALLY (0 = 0). This means the when energy-momentum tensor = 0 there is no universe described by Einstein's field equations (there are then no equations!). The above set of equations also constitutes a total energy-momentum equation. Taking the tensor divergence of the left side gives 0. The total energy-momentum is thus conserved. However, the total energy-momentum IS ALWAYS ZERO. This means that gravitational energy can't be localised (i.e. Einstein's gravitational waves DO NOT EXIST) and so all attempts to detect Einstein's gravitational waves are and have always been destined to detect nothing. They have detected nothing! Furthermore, this also means that General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and is therefore in conflict with experiment on the deepest of levels. It is therefore false.

With the so-called 'cosmological constant' Λ included, Einstein's field equations must take the following form:

[G_{uv}/k + Λ g_{uv}] + T_{uv} = 0

Now the components of the gravitational energy tensor are given by [G_{uv}/k + Λ g_{uv}] . Once again the gravitational energy tensor and the energy-momentum tensor must vanish identically, with all the same results as for the case when the so-called 'cosmological constant' is absent. The so-called 'cosmological constant' has therefore no physical meaning either.

Linearisation of Einstein's field equations is consequently a futile operation. Linearisation of a nonsensical set of equations produces even more nonsense. Einstein and his followers obtain a wave equation for his alleged gravitational waves from the linearised form of his nonsensical equations 'in the absence of matter' and claim to have thereby deduced the speed of propagation of his waves at c, the speed of light in vacuo. This is patently false. The gravitational wave equation so obtained is coordinate dependent and so the speed of propagation is not unique. By choosing a different coordinate system the speed of propagation is entirely different to c. All Einstein did was decide that he wanted have his waves propagate at speed c and then simply chose a set of coordinates to make it so. However, this issue is moot, since GR conflicts with the experimental results for the usual conservation laws and is therefore false.

Stephen,

I cannot evaluate, but you might find this material relevant to your argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperstock's_energy-localization_hypothesis

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231012063_The_localisation_of_energy_in_general_relativity?ev=prf_pub and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231027066_The_localisation_of_energy_in_general_relativity._II?ev=prf_pub

Article The localisation of energy in general relativity

Article The localisation of energy in general relativity. II

James, I am aware of the writings of Cooperstock. His arguments are to no avail because Einstein's field equations are also total energy-momentum equations and thus violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum. This can't be evaded. My first post explains why setting the energy-momentum tensor to zero is a fantasy. My second post explains why the full field equations violate the usual conservation laws. The Schwarzschild solution for a sphere of incompressible homogeneous fluid does not escape this. It comes from the field equations, but they violate the usual conservation laws.

Dear Stephen

We know that gravitational wave has not been detected so far, therefore it may not exist( or extremely weak that is not sensible by our best hyper- resolved sensors!!). Moreover, the corresponding frequency will remain unknown!

Despite of uncertainty in Einstein's field equations, we need to distinguish which part of his theory is accredited by experimental detections and which part is not yet. On the other hand, we are aware of simplicity of Newton gravity, even though it exhibits to be adequate at least for analyzing our solar system.

Parviz,

Here is a starter. Ed Dowdye Jr. has shown conclusively that the bending of light at the limb of the Sun is due to a refractive effect. There is no bending observed beyond the limb of the Sun. He has shown that no gravitational lensing has been observed for the stars orbiting at Sgt A*, but such lensing should be observed if GR is correct. Here is his 2012 exposition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvwvHe-a5q8

Stephen,

I can't assess, but I understood that repeated Solar eclipse observations precisely confirmed the predictions of general relativity's field equations - see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976AJ.....81..452T.

I did not sit through the 40+ min. presentation video you referenced above, but I did find a site that includes an overview - see http://www.extinctionshift.com/. A related peer-reviewed paper can be found at http://www.dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3073809.

It must be considered that The Earth is ~27 light years from Sgr A*, looking through the galactic plane. Detecting a slight deflection of background light in these conditions is a non-trivial exercise. However, you should review "GRAVITATIONAL LENSING OF STARS ORBITING THE MASSIVE BLACK HOLE IN THE GALACTIC CENTER," http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/701 which may contradict some of Edward Dowdye, Jr.'s claims that no gravitational lensing has been observed for the stars orbiting Sgr A*.

Also see http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/exotic/gravitational%20lens/2000/03/text/results/100/

- the observation announcement of a microlensing event attributed to the foreground passage of an isolated stellar mass black hole within the Milky Way.

Dear Stephen, your source is totally incorrect and James is correct. Light bending is measured further than the limb of the Sun by VLBI, on a routine basis. I have a light bending measurement planned for the 2015 total solar eclipse. This will be the first optical test from the surface since the University of Texas test in 1973. My test will be done from Ny Alesund (Svalbard) using a 125 mm refractor and special software. All light bending tests from 1919 to 1973 agreed within the errors of their measurements with GTR. See my question" What are sources of error in testing GTR by measuring the deflection of light in the vicinity of the Sun during a total solar eclipse?" under Astronomy

In date 19-12-2013, Louis Rancourt has reported in this question the result on his innovative experiment in which he has proved the existence of the action of light on mass. That experiment confirms indirectly also the action, already known, of mass on light. The experiment can be reproduced.

On the interaction of light and mass:

The rest mass of photon is zero, but photon has mass equivalent to : E=pc where E is the photon energy p is the photon momentum and c denotes light speed. in fact, E=hf according to planck. Then, hf=pc => p=hf/c , it emphasizes the photon mass m=hf/c^2 is relatively higher at higher frequencies. The light bending due to the massive sun may arise from gravity of light mass and massive sun, just similar to what happens for photon in gravitational redshift. This may be an analoguy for GR space time curvature.

Conversely, I could not find any valid comment why a low level laser affects on gravity.

I suggest Louis Roncart (19-12-2013 report) to carry out the following items:

1-Did you repeat the experiments using laser beams at different wavelengths?

2-Did you check the effect of laser intensities?

3-Did you investigate the double beam experiments? on/off beams ? Beam direction effect?

4- Did you inspect pulsed lasers too? Effect of pulse durations?

Those diversities may verify the strange findings( this is strange to me). Particularly, an IR laser and a visible laser with identical output power, may lead to quite different results due to the relative change in photon energy and mass.

Highlighted shortcomings of GR theory

[Ref: Salvatore Capozziello, Valerio Faraoni, "Beyond Einstein Gravity"; ISBN 978-94-007-0164-9 Springer 2011]

Last thirty years, several shortcomings of Einstein's theory were found and scientists began wondering whether GR is the only fundamental theory capable of successfully explaining the gravitational interaction.

These are some shortcomings of classical GR:

1) Cosmology: presence of the Big Bang singularity together with the flatness of horizon and monopole problems. [A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981).]

2) Quantum field theory: GR is a classical theory which cannot work as a fundamental theory when a full quantum description of space-time and gravity is sought for.

3) Mach's principle: GR admits solutions that are explicitly anti-Machian, such as the Godel universe. [II Ozsvath, E. Schucking, in Recent Developments in General Relativity, (1962) p. 339.

James Dwyer,

You cite Texas Mauritian Eclipse Team, ‘Gravitational deflection of light: solar eclipse of 30 June 1973 I. Description of procedures and final results’, APJ, 1976, to claim confirmation of General Relativity. Go to Table II therein and ask yourself; at what position relative to the Sun are these reported deflections obtained (note the values of deflection L)? The deflection of light is not predicted by Einstein’s field equations at all. It is obtained from an alleged solution for the field equations. Which solution is that? You don’t know? Here is what Einstein tells us:

“For a field producing point mass at the origin of co-ordinates, we obtain, to the first approximation, the radially symmetric solution …”

(Einstein, A. the foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916, Section 22)

What set of alleged field equations is Einstein talking about? You don’t know? It is for R_{uv} = 0, where the energy-momentum tensor = 0.

I now refer you to this press release:

Dowdye, E. Findings on Observed Gravitational Light Bending show Strong Impact Parameter Dependency (15 March 2013)

http://www.pr-inside.com/findings-on-observed-gravitational-light-bending-show-impact-parameter-dependency-r3614512.htm

and to this press release:

Dowdye, E. Significant Findings Reveal No Gravitational Lensing in the Vacuum Space just above the Rim of the Sun

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=185702

I also refer you to the following two articles:

Frequency dependent time-delay

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings06B.htm

No lensing in empty space

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings01.htm

You cite ‘Hubblesite News Release Number: STScI-2000-03 Lone Black Holes Discovered Adrift in the Galaxy January 13, 2000 12:30 PM (EST)’ which you also say is evidence for “foreground passage of an isolated stellar mass black hole within the Milky Way”. In the report we find these assertions:

“All previously known stellar black holes have been found in orbit around normal stars, with their presence determined by their effect on the companion star. The two isolated black holes were detected indirectly by the way their extreme gravity bends the light of a more distant star behind them. … The black hole's gravity acts like a powerful lens, bending the light of a background star so that it appears as two separate images when the black hole slowly drifts in front of it. … However, the black hole's gravity also magnifies these stellar images, causing them to brighten as the black hole passes in front. Bennett's team was searching for these passages, called gravitational microlensing events.”

Thus it is alleged that not only do black holes exist in multitudes and bend light, they acts as a magnifying glass and produce two images of “a background star”. There are no such events, no such magnifying glass effects, because there are no black holes anywhere. Black holes do not exist. They are the product of an irrational imagination. There can therefore be no “microlensing events” due to black holes. Nobody has ever observed microlensing due to black holes. Nobody has ever observed light bent by black holes. Nobody has ever found a black hole, and nobody ever will. All allegations of discovery of black holes are patently false. All allegations of black hole microlensing are nonsense.

You also cite Bozza, V. and Mancini, L., ‘GRAVITATIONAL LENSING OF STARS ORBITING THE MASSIVE BLACK HOLE IN THE GALACTIC CENTER’, APJ, 2009. This article reports only calculations. No detections of gravitational lensing are reported by these authors. Indeed, they tell us:

“Our aim is to calculate the position and the luminosity of the secondary images of the 27 S stars as functions of time, generated by the MBH at the center of our Galaxy.”

The whole paper is based upon the false assumption that there is a “massive black hole” (MBH) at Sgr A*. In relation to S2 they say,

“The light curve for its secondary image, as well as the first two relativistic images, was calculated in the Schwarzschild black hole hypothesis.”

I refer you to this article:

No lensing as Sgt A*

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08.htm

In their paper, Bozza and Mancini frequently cite Gillessen et al, 2009, ApJ, 692, 1075. Gillessen et al allege a black hole at Sgr A*. On 9 December 2008 Gillessen, Genzel, and Eisenhaur alleged a black hole at Sgr A* in this report:

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081209-blackhole-stars.html#comments

However, prior to the appearance of their 2009 paper, Gillessen admitted to me, in writing, that he and his colleagues had not in fact found a black hole at Sgr A*. He also admitted that nobody has ever found a black hole and that the concept of black hole escape velocity is nonsense. Nonetheless Gillessen and his colleagues went on to tell the lie in their 2009 paper that there is a black hole at Sgr A*. Here is the correspondence between me and Gillessen during December 2008 and January 2009,

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/dialogue.pdf

On 20 July 2013 Gillessen continued to peddle what he admitted is a lie:

http://derstandard.at/1373512915711/Supermassereiches-Schwarzes-Loch-verwandelt-Gaswolke-in-Spaghetti#forumstart

In their paper, Bozza and Mancini say:

“The relative error in the position of the images committed by using Equation (1) is at most of the order of (Rg/DLS)^2, where R_g = 2GM/c^2 is the gravitational radius of the black hole.”

“The deflection angle is calculated assuming that the black hole is spherically symmetric, thus being described by a Schwarzschild metric.”

I remark first that R_g = 2GM/c^2 is not the radius of anything in the so-called ‘Schwarzschild metric’. Indeed, it is not even a distance in that metric. The authors, as is usual for proponents of black holes and big bangs, are ignorant of this fact.

The ‘Schwarzschild black hole’ is obtained from Einstein’s alleged ‘field equations’ R_{uv} = 0. The so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ allegedly applies to stars and planets, indeed any spherically symmetric mass, not just black holes. You seem to have decided to ignore my first post, so I will repeat it.

(1) According to Einstein his field equations couple his gravitational field to its material sources and his energy-momentum tensor describes the material sources. According to Einstein, everything that is not the gravitational field is matter.

(2) Einstein and his followers assert that when energy-momentum tensor = 0 there is present a material source (e.g. a star or a black hole). In this case the only solution is the so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ for R_{uv} = 0.

(3) Einstein and his followers assert that when energy-momentum tensor = 0 there are no material sources present whatsoever (de Sitter’s empty universe solution for R_{uv} = lambda g_{uv}).

(4) Thus, by (1), (2) and (3) according to Einstein and his followers material sources are both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0. That’s impossible! Hence, material sources can’t be both present and absent when energy-momentum tensor = 0, contrary to the claims of Einstein and his followers. So (1), (2) and (3) are inconsistent.

(5) For (1) and (3) to be consistent, energy-momentum tensor = 0 means there are no material sources present, by mathematical construction. Indeed, that is the meaning gleaned from (1) and the very expression energy-momentum tensor = 0. Claim (2) is then inconsistent with (1) and (3). Therefore (2) is false. The black hole comes from (2). The black hole is therefore false. On the other hand, if (1) and (2) are supposed consistent, then (3) is false, and the Universe is spatially infinite, is eternal, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat, because the only solution when energy-momentum tensor = 0 is the ‘Schwarzschild solution’, which excludes multiple material sources.

(6) Neither the supposed consistency of (1) and (2) nor the consistency of (1) and (3) bear any relation to the actual Universe because the actual Universe contains more than one material source. R_{uv} = 0 and R_{uv} = lambda g_{uv} are physically meaningless. Nonetheless Einstein and his followers keep them both. Moreover, energy-momentum tensor = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity itself because neither the Principle of Equivalence nor Special Relativity can manifest in black hole universes or empty universes. Thus, black hole universes and empty universe are again utterly false.

Now all of this black hole nonsense is supposed to be going on where? Inside some big bang universe! Which big bang universe is that, bearing in mind that there are 3 alleged types? And which black hole universes are alleged in which big bang universe, bearing in mind that there are 4 alleged types of black hole? All alleged black hole universes spatially infinite, eternal, contain only one mass, are not expanding, and are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. But all alleged big bang universes are either spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), of finite age, contain radiation and many masses (including multiple black holes, some of which are primordial), are expanding, and are not asymptotically anything. Thus the black hole and the big bang contradict one another – they are mutually exclusive. Consequently no black hole universe can be superposed upon any big bang universe or upon any other black hole universe or upon itself, and no big bang universe can be superposed upon any black hole universe or any other big bang universe or upon itself.

Ludwig Combrinck,

Dowdye has discussed the VLBI measurements on microwaves and the Neutron-Pulsar sources. There are no observations of Einstein rings. The General Relativity predicted light bending beyond the limb of the Sun has not been observed. I refer you to the following:

Dowdye, E. Findings on Observed Gravitational Light Bending show Strong Impact Parameter Dependency (15 March 2013)

http://www.pr-inside.com/findings-on-observed-gravitational-light-bending-show-impact-parameter-dependency-r3614512.htm

Dowdye, E. Significant Findings Reveal No Gravitational Lensing in the Vacuum Space just above the Rim of the Sun

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=185702

Dowdye, E. Frequency dependent time-delay

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings06B.htm

Dowdye, E. No lensing in empty space

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings01.htm

The density of the limb of the Sun is much greater than solar physicists allege on their fallacious gaseous model of Sun and stars:

Robitaille P.-M.

Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter — The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-35-16.PDF

I also refer you to my reply to James Dwyer.

There are two distinct aspects of gravity in terms of a change in energy (dE/dt’) due to metric time components and a change in path due to the spatial components (arrived at by solving the geodesic equations for a smooth Riemann manifold). Therefore, one could say that the actual Newtonian part of general relativity is due to time dilation alone. The spatial components only act to change the path analogous to a wave traveling through a varying medium.

Although general relativity itself is on a firm standing, Einstein’s field equations are a different story. It is clear that light does deflect due to gravitational sources as confirmed by Einstein rings (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Einstein_Rings.jpg/750px-Einstein_Rings.jpg), Einstein crosses (http://observing.skyhound.com/archives/sep/ec.jpg), time dilation and the deflection of light around the Sun. However, the current lack of gravitational waves and per particle solutions are significant downfalls of EFEs. I have developed a fully consistent theory that does not allow for gravitational waves, which is based upon per particle solutions. The solutions and treatment of pressure, bulk flows and the resulting space-time metric for composite objects can be found in my book.

Stephen, unfortunately the write-ups you list here are factually incorrect, abuse the work of dedicated scientists and seem to be written to cause confusion. To evaluate science one needs to perform experiments, conduct proper scientific analysis and use methods and techniques which are open and accessible for peer review and evaluation. Light bending has been observed beyond the limb of the Sun. As a matter of fact no experiment has been designed to observe light bending on the limb of Sun as the effect of the corona interferes with the measurements. That is true from Eddington's 1919 experiment to the present. The values at the limb are calculated values. The measured values were further away (out of the coronal glare) and then curve-fitted and extrapolated to the limb. The light bending experiment I will be conducting in March 2015 is from 2R to 3R, specifically not to try and measure star fields through the corona as it is too bright. The scheduled VLBI observations of the International VLBI Service are mostly 15 degrees away from the Sun to avoid coronal effects. Of course VLBI experiments are not scheduled at the limb of the Sun, but the effect of light bending has to be accounted for, as a matter of routine, for all measurements of the Celestial Reference Frame. The interpretation of E Dowdye of the Shapiro effect is incorrect. The Shapiro effect is routinely incorporated in data analysis of satellite laser ranging, and has been tested to a high level. For VLBI the effect is from 17 × 10^4 ps for a light ray grazing the Sun's limb to ~17 ps when the direction to the source is opposite to the Sun. For satellite laser ranging the Shapiro delay is about 7 mm for the LAGEOS satellites. For GPS it is about 19 mm.

There seems to be a certain amount of material floating around on the internet where pseudo science is pushed and propagated as real science. These authors typically have some 'issue' with A Einstein, or GTR, or want to bring the ether back, or whatever. We all know that science develops, theories are tested, evaluated, improved, and that no theory is perfect. However, if we evaluate something, we must be very careful, diligent and try to improve our understanding of science, not create imaginary scenes reinterpreted as reality. As a starting point I suggest you read the IERS technical notes to get an idea of what goes into the astrometric and other VLBI measurements as well as the techniques used for research in space geodesy. Utiise recognised scientific journals and scientific outcomes evaluated by the community, not write-ups in newspapers.

Let's pack away for a little often useless discussions and let's look for going back to the heart of the matter.

What did I understand until now?

1. I understood Ludwig Combrinck is readying an experiment on the bending of light near the sun when there will be a total solar eclipse in 2015 March. This project is very positive for me.

2. I understood then Ludwig C. would want to make a different experiment from those made until now as from 1919 (Eddington). Here I would want to understand more.

3. I understood Ludwig would want to eliminate "the corona effect" in the measured value. Is it true?

4. In actuality I prefer to talk about "the atmosphere effect" but perhaps you can esplain to me the two effects practically match.

5. I think your experiment is anyway a very positive fact and it can be useful to do clearness on an important question.

I would want to conclude with a question to which I think yuo can answer: What is the range of values in order that the result of your experiment can be considered positive?

In case after I can define my range of values. Thanks.

In contrast with usual formalism of general relativity one can perform a model of spacetime with fixed background geometry, like Newtonian mechanics or special theory of relativity. Then the set up of action implies the imposing the Ricci scalar not as a scalar curvature of spacetime but as a matter source. The standard derivation of the Newtonian gravity as a weak field limit of relativistic theories do not expose the specific feature of Brans-Dicke theory which can include Newtons law of gravitation as an exact solution. arXiv:1312.4641

The fixed background geometry is precisely how I developed my per-particle calculations based upon a unified field theory. If one were to ponder what particles or fields are, it becomes clear that the only physically real structure is space itself. In other words, matter originates from Planck-scale fluctuations of space analogous to a 3d spring-mass system. Therefore, I'd have to wager that gravitational waves will never be directly detected as space plays a much more fundamental role.

With respect to the equations I've posted, the two below single particle solution define vacuum energy density; i.e. the energy density due to the underlying Planck-scale fluctuations of space (this can be approximated with E/r or simply the Newtonian result for a single particle). Furthermore, Einstein's field equations insist a new type of "aether" exists; here this "aether" is vacuum energy density, which defines the space-time metric. Thus, one can view general relativity as localized waves moving through other localized waves, where the induced time dilation produces Newtonian gravity.

Since the space-time metric is being defined from a scalar field, this will produce locally isotropic metrics. I've had success in fitting cosmological observations with an asymptotically flat, locally isotropic and linear gravitational potential, where both the extent of gas in clusters (squares = x-ray, triangles = ly-alpha) and LAS of similar luminosity double radio lobes (circles) are in agreement (galaxies follow a similar trend). The black line is my model and blue is lambda-CDM with favored parameters. In short, the inferred accelerated expansion appears to be an illusion due to local geodesic deflecting towards the center of a global gravitational potential.

Daniele, some answers to your comments:

Firstly, the difference in the 1919 to 1973 experiments and mine lies to a large extent in the technology that will be used, secondly in the observing strategy and thirdly in the analysis techniques. So, instead of using photographic plates and a plate measuring machine, I will be using a CMOS camera, image stacking and specialised software for the analysis. The observing strategy is different in that instead of having a wide field of view, covering a star field of several degrees including the eclipsed Sun and its corona, the captured star field will be from 2 radii to 3 radii, and a block of about 15 x 7 arcminutes.

The idea is then to obtain hundreds or thousands of stars in the CMOS images. Previous experiments required bright stars (M

This is the graph of the expected region of measurement.

Ludwig, thank you for your answers.

I need a little of time in order to study better your experimental project.

Daniele