Dear John, a very interesting question indeed. 

I think the the universe is as simple as it can be, that our knowledge of it is just in the very beginning and that there is a lot more of it that we can understand. However, there is different matter related with this, which is: are we capable of discovering it? because one thing is understanding, other is discovering.

For instance, anyone can easily understand now the Newton's model; however, to discover it, it took a long time and the work of persons that were considered "genius", persons with capabilities above normal human ones.

To discover requires a knowledge and a methodology which is largely ignored by scientists; worse, the capabilities required are repressed; that is a serious problem. And it last for long, that is why very important contributions were made from persons that did not belong to the scientific system (Newton, for one).

There is another aspect which is the following: we cannot state that the universe is understandable and we do not understand it; because that causes stress, fear, frustration. Therefore, we state that it is not understandable but we are so fantastic that we can still have some control over it, making use of tools that surpass human capabilities like maths!!!!  And once it is not understandable, we can make crazy hypotheses, dark matter, dark energy, wharmholes, colliding universes, multidimensions, Higgs boson, neutrino flutuation of state, and so on - and that makes science very popular. So, to state that the universe is not understandable is much more convenient for everybody (except for those that want to understand it)

The answer is no.

humans just like to over-complicate things.

Once you begin to understand the true fundamental of physics the rest drops out from first principles.

For those versed in the art Of QM (see the first ref).

For those who prefer a gentler introduction try the second ref

Article The formulation of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental e...

Book Everything is Physics Book 1. Understanding physics at the f...

Some  would say that everything can be understood in terms of string theory, which to some extent is connected to concepts and objects from common experience, and hence can be mentally pictured as such. However, such intuitive understanding is as best incomplete, and more likely very misleading, unless connected to a well defined mathematical model. By "shutting up and calculating" from such models, it becomes possible to enhance the available experience, and through this make more and larger albums of mental pictures. For quantum mechanics it seems very difficult to reconcile the pictures in different albums with each other.

Nevertheless, many aspects of f.i. elementary particle physics manifests themselves very concretely; one can basically "see" quarks and gluons in high-energy collisions, in the form of track-forming jets in particle detectors. On another RG thread it was referred to Hertz’s view that electricity was a “thing of thought". Try to touch a hot wire while calmly contemplating electricity as a "thing of thought". 

Certain aspects of the physics of living objects seem difficult to understand; how does such objects differ from non-living ones?

I think that the problem is just the opposite. Too often our intellectual capacity (and our academic interest) over-complicates simple things. So "we" are the problem. On the contrary, I impose on myself to simplify things. Just an example:

to explain quantum gravity and quantum relativity we have elaborated theories (M-theory > strings) which use more than 20 dimensions, we persist to search gravitons and so on. This is a clear example of overcomplication.

While by hypothesizing a fluid quantum space everything go to the right place, as I've recently shown in my works.

Quantum gravity doesn't come from gravitons (doesn't come from force carriers in this case) but from space's quanta, the absorption of which causes flows which correspond to the gravitational fields. And - as a consequence - this absorption is able to easily unify all interactions (see link).

Quantum relativity then. The same approach of a fluid quantum space immediately updates the equivalence principle to a "fluid equivalence principle" (see link)  and all Einstein's equations can be derived as a mere consequence, the relativistic effects of SR and GR are unified and reduced to mass increase.

So, in my opinion, it's rather the fact that some leading academics force physics along paths that perfectly agree with their ideas and research, with what they know best, to stay in the limelight, though this fact let things appear more complicate than they are. Many don't want to step back. Thus, often, the correct approach, if not appropriate to mainstream, risks lagging behind for a long time, while we wonder "maybe this is then too complicate to be conceptually understood"?

Article A superfluid Theory of Everything? [outdated version]

Marco,

there are very convincing arguments in your papers and I share the point of view of the active background which is basically responsible of implementing the least action principle.

One thing I've spotted in your paper is the interpretation of the time dilation which is still based too much on the forces and it should not be...

@Stefano

thanks for discussing and sharing ideas on this topic.

Why do you say time shouldn't be linked to forces? You know that time is not subject to dilation. Only clocks are. This is the official point of view in relativity.

Now, you are right only if you can find a type of clock which is not based on movements and whose movements are not caused by forces, which are not caused by accelerations. There is no one. Also caesium clocks are based on atoms movements caused by gravity (acceleration, g) and laser beams.

Maybe you think of a kind of time which is absolute and independent from clocks. But this would be rather philosophy than physics. So, I'm sure you agree. Thank you. 

yes. we are limited creatures

Before DNA,biology was a a mess thousands of species subspecies, phyla etc.etc. DNA explained it all.

One fundamental mass, explains it all h/c^2. including space-time As I suspect Kare has already guessed this from my previous posts.

That however, is the starting point and many more insights can be gained from it.

@ Kare

My work has far advanced beyond what i have published -Importantly I  can tell that you have understood the gist  of it

but

It will take a century for you to perhaps get to the right answer.

and

It may take  a century perhaps for the stuff I am proposing to get to mainstream

 We can collaborate - please consider.

John  --  First off: what's physics? I contend that physics is unable to investigate anything basically not repeatable. Astronomy gets around my qualifier "basically" by taking reproducible recordings of rare events so maybe this isn't as hard as it sounds. Without even getting into quantum effects, my contention excludes most physical events that are chaotic. The math is repeatable but the physics is not because one can't input perfectly accurate initial conditions. Quantum phenomena may fall to this same dictum. I think no one has demonstrated how to have an isolated quantum system. If we can't do that then any calculations we make on simple systems, say, for 2 particles, leaves out any effects on one of the two from the rest of the universe, for example, one or both of the 2 might be entangled with some outside particle or particles.

On a different tack, one may quibble whether the mind/brain dilemma is physics or not but it brings up how your question is phrased. The mind/brain problem seems to be beyond our current capabilities but it seems your are asking about our current ability.

@ Andrew,

Any new or different theory has however to be verified or better "verifiable". I myself propose and will carry out checks on mine. Otherwise everyone is convinced he/she's right and that is only matter of time to be accepted in the mainstream. So, to answer the question of this topic, we can understand and explain everything ...provided that it is verifiable. And first of all mathematically congruent, possibly. It is good to point it out.

I am surprised by the number of answers so far that imply that it is possible for the human intellect to understand everything in nature.  Since the human brain is finite, this implies to me a broad based belief that there must be a model of the universe which simplifies and explains everything. For example, to conceptually understand all the properties of an electron, (energy, inertia, electric field, de Broglie waves, curvature of spacetime, gravity, etc.) it seems that both an electron and spacetime must have a conceptually understandable structure (model).  If you believe that spacetime is an empty void, then it is impossible to understand how space can have constants of c, G, ħ and εo.  Electromagnetic radiation experiences the impedance of free space (Zo = 1/cεo ≈ 377 Ω) and gravitational waves experience the impedance of spacetime (Zs = c3/G ≈ 4 x 1035 kg/s). Both of these are measurable and implies that spacetime is much more than an empty void.  My work has shown that these two impedances are the same when charge and electric fields are characterized as a quantifiable polarization of spacetime.  Therefore, I also believe that the human intellect can understand everything in nature because there really is an underlying simplicity to all of nature.

@ Marco/John

Marco on the right track.

But John not so complex as the mathematicians would have you believe, they must after all generate  a "raision d'etre"

 Nature does not hide it's secrets  but humans do- to maintain  their importance.

Marco, I am quite willing to reveal Nature's  secrets- but you must ask yourself the question at what velocity must the superfluid go to  prove SR is correct, within your theory.

Dear John,

your question in general is of philosophical type ... By the way let focus your question on your example.

'For example, questions about the composition of fundamental particles or string theory strings are often treated as unanswerable. What are your thoughts?.'

With this respect I can answer that my quantum gravity theory gives a precise answer. This theory well encodes all actual experimental facts. Furthermore it opens also new interesting panorama on new quantum processes. These to be experimentally verified necessitate production of higher energy levels than ones now reached.

By conclusion we can answer in the affirmative to your question about quantum particle physics. See the following works.

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491.

[2-3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2894.

[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Manuel,

I do not know whether you have read my works on the quantum gravity ... By the way the problem that you emphasized in the attached paper to your post, does not arise in my approach. In fact therein you can understand the new meaning of quantum measurements that I have introduced. These completely agree with experimental procedures followed and should be accepted also by Albert.

I invite you to read more carefully my work ... and eventually we can discuss on some more technical aspects.

My best regards,

Agostino

Yes they can do it !

Dear John, a very interesting question indeed. 

I think the the universe is as simple as it can be, that our knowledge of it is just in the very beginning and that there is a lot more of it that we can understand. However, there is different matter related with this, which is: are we capable of discovering it? because one thing is understanding, other is discovering.

For instance, anyone can easily understand now the Newton's model; however, to discover it, it took a long time and the work of persons that were considered "genius", persons with capabilities above normal human ones.

To discover requires a knowledge and a methodology which is largely ignored by scientists; worse, the capabilities required are repressed; that is a serious problem. And it last for long, that is why very important contributions were made from persons that did not belong to the scientific system (Newton, for one).

There is another aspect which is the following: we cannot state that the universe is understandable and we do not understand it; because that causes stress, fear, frustration. Therefore, we state that it is not understandable but we are so fantastic that we can still have some control over it, making use of tools that surpass human capabilities like maths!!!!  And once it is not understandable, we can make crazy hypotheses, dark matter, dark energy, wharmholes, colliding universes, multidimensions, Higgs boson, neutrino flutuation of state, and so on - and that makes science very popular. So, to state that the universe is not understandable is much more convenient for everybody (except for those that want to understand it)

Dear Manuel,

I never down vote some user !!! Please do not launch me stupid and false accusations !!!

As soon as possible I will answer also on the rest.

@ Manuel Morales

You have written:

'... do these "experimental procedures followed" that you mentioned identify which selection variables are being used to obtain the effects observed in these experiments?'

and

'CERN is not able to do so. Please explain how you can.'

In order to understand what I said it is necessary to carefully read my work and do not play the wiseacre on some things that you do not know !

Therefore whether you sincerely aim to see how I select quantum variables to obtain effects observed in experiments, you can, for example, look on the appendices of the following paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.

@ Manuel Morales

it is clear that you few understand and neither are a serious user.

In fact:

1) You have written:

'By the way, please stop down voting me for asking you questions. Not cool.'

I never down vote users ! But you instead pretend to say that I down voted you ! This it means that you are not a serious user, and neither a polite people ! In fact you should apologize to me for your stupid and false accusation ! ...

2) You have written:

'... The same logic you just referred to as making, "...stupid and false accusations !!!"'

Taking into account the point 1) it is clear that you cannot talk about logic !

3)You have written:

'What you have failed to understand is that your position of "nonlinear quantum propagators with non-zero defect quantum electric-charge, are interpreted as {\em exotic-quantum supergravity} effects." says nothing about how such propagation is caused in the first place.'

I do not pretend that you could understand, since your logic is that I have emphasized at the points 2) and 3). But what is astonishing that you are unable to recognize that in Mathematical Physics phenomena are encoded by PDEs and boundary value problems therein. This for you is 'nothing '.

4) You have written:

'Of course you can use mathematics, just like using words, to explain your "discovery". However, Nature has a language all of its own and we call it reality.'

You is a common example of user that, since is unable to seriously enter in the technicalities, escapes in the so-called 'Nature'. In fact such a user knows very well what is Nature. For sure these are special users. They refute mathematics, and talk directly with Nature ! My compliments !

5) You have written:

' So please explain to me, if you can, how is it no one, including you, can make a calculation, conduct an experiment, or physically exist without a selection being made?'

This your question proves that you did not read my work, since it is full of examples showing what you are asking now !

6) I do not report here your further comments ... Any user can read them and understand that you at the least are a stupid user that likes to play the wiseacre ...

Of course in the future please address your empty posts to some other user that like to talk about nothing ... sorry about Nature  ! ...

'Asinus asinum fricat ...'

Be aware, there  is a troll on this website who is trying to stir things up on this normally dignified  scientific site.

@ Manuel Morales

You have written:

1) ' If you cannot support your opinions without reverting to insults then perhaps you should choose another profession that accepts such behavior.'

I am yet waiting your apologies for insults addressed to me by you ! ... Therefore it is clear to any user that perhaps is Manuel Morales that does not agree with academic behaviours ...

2) ' I read you work and found it to be wanting. In reality, which you are a part of like it or not, mathematics does not cause the existence of reality. It can be used to describe states of existence and nothing more.'

Your personal convictions about the relation between Mathematics and 'Reality' does not interest the Scientific Community, and neither myself ... In fact this relation is well clear to all serious scientists. There is not room to discuss about !

3) 'Previously I asked can you make a calculation without first making a selection to do so? Yes or no.'

Do you like some more calculations by me, other than many ones that I have reported in my works ?

Well ! First present your apologizes for your trivial accusations ... Then specify with a concrete example what you like that I should calculate with my quantum gravity theory.

@ Manuel Morales

Now it is completely clear your position !

You neither understand about Science and in particular of Mathematical Physics !

Furthermore you are neither a correct user, since you did not apologize to me for your trivial accusations ...

You do not like more calculations by me. You want only to launch stupidities that neither have to do with Mathematical Physics !

Good luck !

NO MORALES !

You are wrong !

You are living in the Middle Ages ... You confused Nature with Philosophy !

SCIENCE is different ! The proof is that you reject Mathematics that is the universal language to do Science.

I suggest you to send your posts to a philosophical gate.

Good luck !

No Manuel !

You insist with a long rigmarole on your personal convictions, completely unrelated from my quantum gravity theory that you are unable to read !

Furthermore, it is enough to read your attached papers. to understand that you are unable to do science ...

For example in your paper you talk of 'Unification of Cause and Effect' ... But in this way you prove that you are living in the philosophy of the Middle Ages. This unification has been just made by Einstein's GR unifying space and time.

Sorry you did not understand Physics and neither know Mathematics.

I must insist . Send your posts to  a philosophical gate !

Good luck !

No Manuel !

I am not afraid ... I am sure of my quantum gravity theory !

It is enough to be able to read in experiments ...

Nowadays the Scientific Community has another experimental proof for the Einstein's GR ! ...

Richard Feynman is not "the" authority in questions beyond physics. Of course I understand quantum mechanics. Everybody has serious problems  if he/she tries to understand QM in terms of classical mechanics. Classical mechanics is as abstract as QM, but a nice phase space orbit is more bizarre as a neat Hilbert space vector |n). 

Dear Anton,

you are right !

'Everybody has serious problems  if he/she tries to understand QM in terms of classical mechanics.'

But the problems with the classical QM as well QFT and String Theory were just that: they are quantizations of classical theories !

In some circumstances these problems were in some sense solved (e.g., quantum systems of low energy and quantum electrodynamics ...). But in general it was impossible to reconcile quantum systems with classical ones. This is particularly evident in the quantum gravity !

All the best,

Agostino

dear Agostino, not really: I start with a de Sitter type of space time group like SO(4,2) and write down a covariant linear field equation. Exactly this did your famous college Ettore Majorana some 80 years ago, with SO(3,1): The representation space of such a group is naturally a Hilbert space and the physical states are eigenstates of this above mentioned (very natural) field equation, from which you may construct a decent Lagrangian and THEN you got canonical (anti) commutation rules.

Dear Anton,

why not ! Whether I understood well your post you quantized a classical model.

By the way please send me your paper, I am interested to see the technicalities used by you therein. Thanks

To be more clear in advance, please consider that any classical dynamical PDE can be quantized, but the problem arises when one aims to interpret the meaning of such quantizations. In fact these represent quantum fluctuations of the classical solutions. Then it is clear that such quantum fluctuations cannot encode quantum world in general ...

Regards,

Agostino

Caro Agostino, below a kind of draft, not the final version. Eventually you enjoy the figures.

Dear Anton,

thanks for your paper. I will read with great interest.

Agostino

Another aspect really important related with the question is the diference between having control and understanding

In technology, many times the development work is based in building prototypes, measuring and making models of the data, grounded vaguely in the physics processes concerned; these models allow to build a better prototype and so on. In this process, understanding is often not important. 

That is basically what is done by science most of the time although scientist may think the contrary; for instance, standard cosmological model is obtained applying GR to a certain model of the universe but no one checked the validity of GR in expanding space because the goal was to obtain equations that fit data, i.e., to have control. The same happens with QM, the only goal is to have control.

Now, one may ask: but if we manage to have control, what is the need for understanding?

Let us see a case.

Ptolemy model is a model of data that allows full control over data; in fact, even today there are programs for determining the apparent position of celestial bodies of that kind. But the need for understanding of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton (and others) led to Newton's model. 

The models for control allow a fast initial progress in science, however, they fatally lead to dead alleys, like Ptolemy model; to get out of that alleys, it is necessary to look for understanding.

Science is facing dead alleys in cosmology and atomic physics. Any progress will came only for someone searching understanding; and for that it is necessary to begin rewriting all the physics of the last century, which is a hell of a task because to do that one has to be out of the scientific system. 

Alfredo: I fully agree with you. But it is even worse. I cannot call neither GR, nor the "standard" cosmology: "having control". As you suggested, everything is out of control. Fearfully, the journals ignore any theory that isn't allegedly based upon GR, even if it is a lie.

Hafele wrote the annexed paper, which explains the fly-by with gravitomagnetism, an independent theory created by O. Heaviside in 1893 and hijacked by trickery by GR proponents. However, the hijacked version needs oblate instead of spherical planets and stars, while in reality gravitomagnetism doens't need that.

Everywhere, one can read about "Einstein was right". In fact, the system is totally biased. Concerning the LIGO "discovery":

However, several theories will confirm that acceleration provides gravity energy losses and emission. So did gravitomagnetism, the gravitational equivalence of electromagnetism, which perfectly complies with the Gravity Probe B, and which perfectly explains satellite fly-by results, as proven by Hafele.

First they will need to prove that the "ripple" exists, then prove that the "ripple" is the "universe itself", and then that the "ripples" comply with Einstein's equations.

Alfredo,

I do not agree with the distinction between control and understanding. What you described as a difference between the two is better described by the distinction between normal science change and paradigmatic changes, the later involving a whole framework re-assesment while normal science innovations are more fine grain improvements, filling of small gaps of understanding. But all framework of understanding can be seen by the engineers a frameworks for building systems which are control systems.

I do not agree that a paradigm shift in physics require  ''that it is necessary to begin rewriting all the physics of the last century''.  In a single small paper on special relativity, Einstein triggered a paradigm shift.  He did not have to write more than few pages and he did not need to undo anything of past physics, only to abstract from it.  It was not adding, but more extracting a more abstract core.  He had to look at the 4 Marxwell equations and about light as an electromagnetic wave and imagine himself at the age of 16 riding such a wave and ask what happen when such a wave propage at the speed of light and he saw that the equations were falling with a contradiction. He did not solve the puzzled then but by learning about transformation of Lorentz and the reflections by Poincare and bringing this to solution of his puzzled, the solution came.  Nothing complicated in fact.  No more complicated that what Copernicus did when taking Ptolemy system of equations, tried to simplified them by sitting on the sun position.  A simple simplification.  The next paradigm shift in physics will be as simple, someone will simply look at the big feathures of quantum physics, not the details, and at general relativity and will look at both from a particular viewpoint, and he will see both as compatible while sitting there.

Louis Brassard

Let me give an example of what I designate by having control. I had to design high power rf inductors with a certain inductance; I measured 3 or 4 inductors of the kind, then, from the measures, I obtain an equation relating the design parameters with inductance; and I build the desired device without the need to have the minimum understanding of the relationship between the parameters and inductance.

In the same way I designed very successful radiating systems - I started with some intuition about the design, I build a theory fabricated with pieces of electromagnetic theory, I made prototypes and measures, I obtained equations and the final design with no worry about the electromagnetic phenomena concerned.

Present atomic theory or cosmological model are now just mathematical models of data. Every time a new result is obtained, it is necessary to add a new parameter - called a new particle, or dark energy, or dark matter, etc.. This is just what happened with the geocentric model, that is why epicycles and deferents had to be added. There is no result from observations that can falsify these theories because a parameter can always be added.

The Newton model was not obtained by a simple change of equations. Galileo write physics from the very beginning. He proved that Aristoteles ideas were wrong one by one and then started from new.

Einstein did not achieve understanding. He simply found a simple solution for the problems of the time. Gemini paradox is not understandable. Einstein obtained a simpler model of data, but not "understanding". His work is extraordinaire and he come very close to "understanding" but did not achieve it; his contribution for "understanding" is ignored, what everyone knows is Minkowsky work, a perfect example of what does not serves understanding but control. That is why Einstein said that since mathematicians have worked out Relativity he no longer understood it. But Einstein was looking for understanding and GR is the consequence of it. Of course that one can think that he just imagined  in a wave and obtained his theory, or that Newton saw an apple falling and made his work; but that are stories, both had to think everything from the very beginning. 

My formula for understanding is: "to forget all theories, to collect all data, and start from the beginning". This is very logic: we start with few data, we make theories on them, necessarily wrong because data is not enough; but data is more and more and then we can make a better theory from the data then available.

Alfredo,

Newton did not started from scratch, he build on top of other conceptions and other data and discoveries.  Why starting from sratch if you can do otherwise.  Since then, the big discoverer are not finder of new fact, experiementators but great synthetizer.  Einstein was such a great synthetizer. A great synthetizer is not looking at the trees when looking at the forest. Science grow as an organism.  It does not burn the place up and start from scratch. Paradigm shifts correspond to new vision, but the new vision emerged by carefully looking at the old vision , not at the trees, but at the shape it is sudgesting, and this is the new paradigm.  It was already there for everybody to see.

Your description of the engineering process is accurate and correspond to my own experience in engineering. 

Regards,

Well it seems we now understand gravity waves.

But do we understand black holes

Thierry

Gravitational waves seems to me to be very plausible; the same I cannot say in relation to the announcement of their detection; this is a known story, a huge project, big money, lots of people working in it. That is good and useful The worse is that it comes a time when it is necessary to justify the investment; then the suspicious of having achieved the result is announced. The confirmation never arrives but that is not important. The same happened with Higgs boson. 

In this case, I am puzzled with the measuring device because it seems to be very good for detecting mechanical vibrations, not gravity waves. But probably I am missing information.

If you see my answer to Louis Brassard, you will understand that I am looking only for understanding in Physics (for control, I have engineering); so, I started from the very beginning and so I do not pronounce my self about theories and I have not yet reached through a full understandable path. And I have also to limit my self, because I can't understand everything. But of course that Gravitomagnetism is promising and grounded in a logic idea.

Of course not-because there aren't any ``mysteries of physics'' in the first place. Physics is a-controlled-approximation for the description of natural phenomena. Among the approximations are what are the meaningful questions to ask, within any given description. 

Recently gravity waves have been found, that means that we can at least understand gravity far better, But GTR is not the only theory that supports gravity waves

There are other theories  that suggest this result without the paradoxes of GTR

Einstein did not predict the existence of black holes, in fact he denied their existence in a paper published in 1936, Simply because that would imply the existence of singularities, with infinite density and zero time passage at the event horizon.

The force of gravity in General relativity  (GTR) is thought to come form the curvature of space-time.

Unfortunately the maths of GTR implies infinite curvature and zero time passage at the black hole event horizon  and the black hole becomes a singularity- and yet the black hole has a radius.

The Misner Wheeler Thorne interpretation partially resolved this in  that the singularity rests inside the event horizon.

But yet another paradox arises if time stops at the event horizon (frozen star) no matter would fall in hence  black hole could not accumulate matter, and all the in-falling matter would be situated at or near the event horizon.

The solution is to alter the maths of GR.

Additionally GR falls down in a number of areas, so any new maths should also resolve these problems

Yes GR works in the weak fields of the the solar system, and Intermediate

fields of neutron stars. 

1). It produces infinite density singularities in the very strong fields

such as in black holes.

2).It does not necessarily explain dark matter in galaxy cores where we

know super-massive black holes exist and the galactic dark matter

therein,

3). It does not explain dark mater present in galactic halo's,and galactic

clusters such as the bullet cluster,

4).It does not explain the presence of cosmological dark matter as a whole.

5). It has not yet been fully corroborated by the studies of neutron stars

and in black holes.

6). It does not easily explain the presence of dark energy and cannot be

translated in quantum gravity.

7). It predicts that time stops at the event horizon

Here I enclose a number of publications which explain all of these

phenomena, whilst agreeing with the results of GR where it has been

thoroughly tested.

1).First to obviate the infinite density singularities.

1a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity?ev=prf_pub

1b)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689554_The_formulation_of_Dynamic_Newtonian_advanced_gravity_DNAg?ev=prf_pub

2).Secondly we explain the presence of dark matter at the centre of the

galaxy.

2a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228858219_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_and_Cold_Dark_Matter_Modelling._The_Gravity_of_Dark_Matter

3) Thirdly it is possible to explain the presence of dark matter in the

galactic halo.

3a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689929_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Physics_and_Dark_Matter_Modelling_of_the_Galactic_Halo?ev=prf_pub

4). It is able to explain the presence of cosmological dark matter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity

5). It is corroborated in neutron stars (including Data from radiation

damping ) and is corroborated by black hole studies.

5a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32888463_An_advanced_modification_of_dynamicgravitation

5b).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269667939_Corroboration_of_Dynamic_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_from_Observations_of_Cygnus_X-1

6) it explains dark energy and translates into quantum gravity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32899306_String_quintessence_and_the_formulation_of_advanced_quantum_gravity

7). It does not offer infinite time dilation at the event horizon

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287213872_Finite_Gravitational_Time_Dilation_In_Black_Holes_Using_Dynamic_Newtonian_Advanced_Gravity_DNAg

Read full-text

SourceAvailable from: Andrew Worsley

Article: An

Can the non-existence of gravitational waves refute General Relativity? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_non-existence_of_gravitational_waves_refute_General_Relativity2#56bf0b5e64e9b2858f8b4598 [accessed Feb 13, 2016].

Article An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity

Article The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg

Article Advances in Black Hole Gravitational Physics and Cold Dark M...

Article Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of ...

Article An advanced modification of dynamic gravitation

Article Corroboration of Dynamic Black Hole Gravitational Physics fr...

Article String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity

Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...

Dear Andrew,

your last post emphasizes a crucial point in the actual physics: quantum gravity.

The reciprocal incompleteness of the QM and GR can be solved just with a correct formulation of quantum gravity !

I have read your approach to quantum gravity, and frankly I considered it far to be the right approach. You have well understood that an important aspect is to restore the gravity as a force, but this can be done without to destroy the geometric aspect of the Einstein's formulation ... Really it is enough to reformulate it as Yang-Mills theory, namely a gauge theory. But this is not yet enough !

In fact the fundamental step is instead to understand that in the quantum world the logic is not commutative. In other words, the geometry of the quantum gravity must be encoded in a suitable category of noncommutative manifolds. This category is just that of quantum (super) manifolds as I introduced.

But neither this is sufficient to build a quantum gravity theory ! Really it is also necessary to build a geometric theory for quantum (super) PDEs, since quantum gravity must be encoded by quantum (super) PDEs. This is a new mathematics that I formulated in many decades ... By means of this mathematics it is nowadays possible to work with quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs, namely the master equations of the quantum gravity. For more information please look to the following papers (and my works quoted therein).

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491. (Already published on arXiv in 2009.)

[2-3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2894.

[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.

My best regards,

Agostino

Andrew> the existence of singularities, with infinite density and zero time passage at the event horizon.

Andrew> GTR implies infinite curvature and zero time passage at the black hole event horizon

Huh???

How did you (not) learn General Relativity?

About the detection of gravitational waves

Einstein repeatedly draw attention to the fact that the length unit changed with field. He even called the reference-body a "reference-mollusk". This is easy to understand, atoms have a structure defined by fields, by interactions that propagate as light so they change in the same way of light propagation - that is what light speed holds constant, because the measuring length and time units change with it. To make this more clear, one can say: atoms have a structure made of light, depending on the properties of light.

So, in the case of the interferometer, the length of the arms shall change exactly as light speed. If is was not so, Michelson experiment would be sensitive to the orientation of the device.

There is a small component that can appear with a gravitational wave: the length of bodies does changes instantaneously because of inertia; therefore, the mechanical reaction is a kind of high pass filter and a strong and fast oscillation can have a small difference between arms; but is a so small fraction of the signal that I don't think that it could be detectable.

Am I missing something? This is puzzling me.

or the idea is that light is not affected by gravitational waves? How can that be?

Dear Ales,

my quantum gravity theory gives a precise answer to your question:

'... For example: we don't understand why do quantum relaxations appear to be fundamentally random (time at which individual radioactive nucleus will decay is to us unpredictive). But is it, or is it only our ignorance? So far, through history randomness equaled ignorance.'

In fact, the underlying mathematical model is well defined and gives an exact description of the quantum world in noncommutative language.

But when one measures such a quantum model by means of so-called 'quantum measures' one gets a statistical information on this quantum model. This statistical information is just what link the noncommutative microscopic world to our macroscopic one.

Let me add that your example about the decay-time of a radioactive nucleus, is not completely appropriate, because it mixes two different aspects. One is just the quantum measurement that I already considered, and the other is the instability effect that is related to random perturbations of the system.

Really also in a macroscopic system the instability cannot give the exact time where will appear the catastrophic motion, but only an asymptotic behaviour. Of course this happens for our impossibility (ignorance) to know all the neighbouring specific influences. It should be possible to completely isolate a macroscopic instable system, it will remain in its state without to produce catastrophic motions. The same should happen for a radioactive nuclide.

Dear Ales,

I have not introductory paper about ... By the way you can read the detailed mening of what I said in my works already quoted in some post before.

However for your convenience I report them in the following:

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491. (Already published on arXiv in 2009.)

[2-3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2894.

[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.

In [1] you can find also the theory of stability systems in quantum world.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Ales,

I could consider to write a review paper on my quantum gravity theory, addressed to broaden accessibility, whether I find time to write such a paper for a journal like Nature ... By the way for the next future I do not foresee that I have this chance. In fact such a type of paper could confuse ideas more than clarify them. Really the more clear words are expressed by a mathematical language than by an approximated common language.

Furthermore, my sharing to RG aims also to help eventual interested user to offer them my support to understand my quantum gravity theory.

My best regards,

Agostino

Alfredo: et all:

Gravity waves are indeed causing the bending of light. It is not the mass, but the gravity field, away from the mass, that causes it.

This bending of light is calculated by gravitomagnetism. Not fabricated like with GR, after the succesful unofficial measurements of the solar eclipse of 1914.

Gravitomagnetism, the gravitational equivalence of electromagnetism, perfectly complies with the Gravity Probe B, and perfectly explains satellite fly-by results, as proven by Hafele.

Out of the LIGO report, I cannot conclude that this is specifically a support of GR. They still need to prove that it is "space-time" that vibrated, and they still need to prove that it corresponds with Einsteins wave calculus.

Neither can be proven since we are allegedly living in the "space-time". So, the detection tool as well. So, how can a deformed detection tool detect the same deformation as itself? Would the light bending be exempted from the "space-time" deformation in order to measure it? How would the detection tool be placed outside of "space-time"?

Or is the whole GR not more but a farce?

Annexed, the calculus for the bending of light according to gravitomagnetism.

Dear Thierry,

I looked to your attached paper. I have read the following:

'When light grazes the sun we find again several forces

with the Maxwell analogy, but partly other forces then

these of (6.8). Since the rest mass of light rays is zero we

must not consider the gravitation force of Newton!

Only a mass at speed c must be taken into account, and this

will generate a gyrotation force.'

Can you explain to what 'the mass at speed c' refers, since photons have no mass and neither electric charge ?

Thanks !

QM is a mathematical model of data. in technology, these kind of models are trivial. But they are not understandable, not intended to be. They are intended to give control over phenomena. 

To understand phenomena, one has to investigate what may cause the data. That is difficult, that is in the limits of human intelligence, we are are all much more stupid then we think; that is why it takes a "genius" to achieve that. After discovered, we can understand, we can understand much more about the universe than we do actually.

So, we must keep in mind these things: mathematical modes of data are not to be understood, just learned and applied; they don't represent the universe. The best example is still Ptolemy model. People that think dark energy is real is making the same mistake that those that though that celestial spheres were real.

The importance of understanding this, is that only when we realize that QM or the cosmological model are just mathematical models of data can we open space for investigating what really is the universe behind these data. Without it, the scientific system is blocking all efforts for discovering the universe. 

Note that a mathematical model is not "wrong" - it is correct as long as it is able to fit data. And it is useful because it allows control, organize data, detect main properties of it. But it is not a representation of the universe, don't feed that illusion. it is just a first step in the long process of discovering. There is another step to be made.

Alfredo. Do you think that Newton's mechanics also is "just a way to fit data"?

Kåre, what else?

Zeno did not understand why bodies move. Then somebody noticed that the motion could be extrapolated with the first derivative:

x = x_0 + vt

Then, it did not worked nice with a body tossed up. So they took the second derivative

x = x_0  + vt + at^2/2

It worked just nice.

So, let's take the third derivative. How many do we need? Infinite number?

No, said Newton. Let us cut this procedure by introducing forces depending only on positions and first derivatives and solving differential equations. And it worked satisfactory. Till the cases were found where it did not work.

I suspect there are people that think Newton mechanics was God given.  

Agostino: "Can you explain to what 'the mass at speed c' refers, since photons have no mass and neither electric charge ?"

Light allegedly has no rest mass. However, it has an impulsion at a speed c, so it possesses a mass at a speed c.

When considering a light beam grazing the Sun, it bends due to the magnetic part of gravity, induced by the velocity c of the beam.

No Thierry !

You use an old point of view that is completely wrong !

The quantum mass of a quantum particle is identified by its mass-gap. For a photon this is zero. You talk of momentum of photon of energy E=h\nu. Then you refer to the relativistic formulas where a particle with zero rest mass has energy E= pc, with p the momentum. Then by considering a photon as a classical relativistic particle you can consider that its momentum is p=h\nu/c. But in order to talk of mass you should assume that p=mc, namely m=h\nu/c^2. But this mass does not exist ! It is only the equivalent-mass to the energy E=h\nu !

Therefore your formulas are improperly applied to photons that are not particles with a mass. Furthermore, nowadays one cannot more use the old relativistic language to photons, since these are not point-like classical particles but extended quantum objects

By conclusion you improperly mix classical electromagnetism with quantum particles identified with photons considered by you as massive relativistic particles !

Of course this mixing nothing has to do with photons grazing the sun !

Regards,

Agostino

Kåre

To what I call a mathematical model of data, called Einstein a model of data as acquired by us. His definition is more clear, I admit, because mathematical models are them all. Now, you can see the difference between Ptolemy and Newton's model. Ptolemy model, as the cosmological model or QM, is a model of data as acquired by us; Newton's model is not.

One can defend that Newton's model superseded Ptolemy's one just because it obtained an accuracy that the latter could not obtain, but things are not so simple; Newton's model has roots on Copernicus one, which was less accurate then the one of Ptolemy. But it had a superiority: no unknown entities.

Models of data as acquired by us are usually simpler and more accurate; and to increase their accuracy one has just to go on adding parameters; it is this characteristic, the use of parameters that, in spite of suggestive names (from neutrino to dark energy) do not correspond to anything we can call an "entity" (because an "entity" has a set of properties and interactions, is not just "energy" or "field") that distinguishes what I call a mathematical model from a model of reality - which is a model of entities, each one with a defined set properties and interactions. 

A model of entities we can understand; a set of equations that fits a set of data as acquired by us we cannot. Anyone that says that "understands" such a model is mistaken. Worse, he does not understands the methodology of discovering and the role of these models of data, therefore he becomes an obstacle in the discovery process.

This is rather philosophical, of course, and rather personal also, just my humble way of understanding these things (I may seem very assertive but it is just my lack of skill in writing). And this way of seeing things is very good for our mental health.. . at least we cannot get crazy trying to understand what is not to be understood. And has another advantage: once one sees things this way, one can know where to look for solving current problems (which does not mean that one finds it, but....)

Agostino: Your view is biased, not mine. You don't know what relativistic particles mean. They don't exist in gravitomagnetism! You mix quantum concepts, relativity and classic gravitomagnetism. You declare that light is a photon with a relativistic mass. You declare that an old point of view is wrong.

Light has an impulse momentum and so it has a mass component at speed c. It is not a photon at a relativistic speed.

In gravitomagnetism, mass doesn't grow with speed, only the gravity fields alter! Gravitomagnetism gives the correct Lorentz transforms and the correct interpretation of SR, as shown by O. Jefimenko.

First you should read the theory as it should be read, look at the equations and at the classical concept of gravitomagnetism, as it was conceived by the genius O. Heaviside and further developed by O. Jefimenko. And look at the great results that gravitomagnetism brings!

Gravitomagnetism not only solves the fly-by as shown by Hafele, it also solves the Gravity Probe B, the velocity curves of disc galaxies, the missing windings of spiral galaxies, the statistical observations of the asteroids belt, etc. It predicts a large quantity of issues in the cosmos.

Dear Thierry,

I am always available to learn what I do not know ! But in the case of the Gravitomagnetism I cannot share your opinion that it is a good substitute of the Einstein's GR.

This is not only my opinion but it is universally well-known. I do not think it is necessary to spend many words about. This can be checked also on popular webs like wikipedia.

Furthermore, you claim:

'Light has an impulse momentum and so it has a mass component at speed c. It is not a photon at a relativistic speed.'

Even if light has a Poynting vector, this does not mean that it has also a mass. This is a BIG MISTAKE that you cannot justify !

Sorry, I must insist.

Your point of view is completely wrong !

Agostino> do not think it is necessary to spend many words about.

Since the equations are not invariant under general coordinate transformations, one may probably derive any kind of desired result by choosing the right coordinates. Isn't that a wonderful feature of a theory? ;-D

It is not a matter of "sharing an opinion". The problem for you is that Gravitomagnetism solves numerous issues, and that you spent your best years for GR, but it only gave fiasco after fiasco in an imaginary world!

You prefer to run away and close your eyes than to see the evidence of the results!

Your problem is that you deny evidence of a theory, Gravitomagnetism, which works perfectly well. This is due to your biased theoretical views, based upon a theory that doesn't work at all, i.e. GR and consequently cosmology. You decided that a theory cannot be used because of the bias of GR. Just like a medieval pope! Spites all its evident successes! Of course, the GR pyramid is now to big to fail, isn't it? So, why change it, if it can be patched endlessly and occupy everybody a generation or two more?

Gravitomagnetism doesn't need to invent a metric for every case that needs to be explained like as with GR. It only uses the Maxwell analogy and the retardation of the fields by the speed c, and it even finds SR, although correctly interpreted.

Why would you need the alleged dark matter and dark energy then if your holy theories were so fantastic? Gravitomagnetism doesn't need dark matter! It explains that all orbits of a spherical galaxy with a spinning center swivel into prograde orbits in the plane. The integration of the mass results in a nearly constant orbital velocity curve.

GR only confirms the double bending by fabrication of the "holy" equation, after the 1914 solar eclipse, where the bending was measured unofficially.

You are blocked by the mathematical wet dreams of Lorentz invariance and Lagrangians, space-time, and so on. They don't exist because they are no physics! But you are unable to put aside your religious belief in an unworkable theory that, spites a million of written pages doesn't resolve even correctly the abnormal Mercury advance, as Vankov confirmed in the annexed paper. All the other issues that GR treats are just indirectly deduced and biased reasonings, without any directly observable proof.

So, there is no proof whatsoever for any of the GR suppositions and interpretations! Neither can you prove that light wouldn't have a mass.

Instead, the fly-by which is real physics, is well explained by Gravitomagnetism, as shown by Hafele in the annexed paper, so are the many other cosmic issues.

Thierry and Agostino

Well, I have my reasons to think that GR, SR and Gravitomagnetism, they all have a point, but none is fully correct. We have to stop to behaving like football fans

Anyone that takes a critical look to Einstein work on Special Relativity will note that he invoked a symmetry principle to obtain the value of a parameter he needed to end his calculation, he himself mentioned this. That is the cause of gemini paradox and all the subsequent problems. I fully clarify this in one of my papers in the arXiv and I have seen what I say replicated in a book published by an important scientific academy. But that problem cannot be faced, isn't so?

That has consequences for GR. 

But SR is not the only way of modeling data. As Einstein said, it is a model of data as acquired by us. Its great advantage is its simplicity. A simplicity that arises from the adoption of a symmetry principle that would be very convenient if it were true; but it is not.

Lorentz approach is another approach to the problem. A better approach is fact; but as Lorentz did not adopted any convenient principle, he was not able to fully solve the problem.

Einstein approach in GR is correct; however, it depends on SR, which is not fully correct.

Gravitomagnetism follows a different approach.

For me, we have to start to be able of fully solving SR without the symmetry principle that does not hold - its not just me that says it, Einstein himself said about this "what else could I have done?" After that, we will have a new understanding of space and time and of the nature of the universe. Before that, any discussion is grounded in wrong beliefs and no one is fully correct and so will not convince the other point of view.

Dear Thierry,

I understood your enthusiasm for Gravitomagnetism, but the problem with this theory is that is not a theory !

Really in all your long post I cannot find a word justifying the mass of the light that it is necessary in your formulas ... Furthermore, in which space-time works ? It does not satisfy the covariance requests ... Moreover it is well known that it is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles ...

On the other hand I do no understand your strong dislike for GR. A century of GR and important experimental results supporting it, should suggest  to any serious scientist to appreciate it as the most important advancement in grvitation after Newton's theory.

Regards,

Agostino

Dear Agostino: For "theory" I refer to Wikipedia... I don't see your problem...

Strictly speaking, the induced magnetic gravity in gravitomagnetism only needs impulse moments, since the mass is always combined with its speed in order to calculate its induced magnetic gravity (I call it gyrotation).

So, I can find a consensus with you and forget about the mass in the case of light. The result of the calculus remains the same.

For the rest of your remarks, your ideas are biased. No space-time, no covariance requests, no slow particles, no "strong gravity fields", no dark matter.

The need for gravitomagnetism is very clear: whereas Newton allows an energetic equilibrium for masses that remain at a given distance, that equilibrium is broken for masses that mutually move. Motion causes a second field that is perpendicular to that motion. Isn't there anything more simple and effective at the same time?

By purely using the retardation of the fields in gravitomagnetism, one gets "relativistic" results, I mean, results that suits any velocity below or equal to c. results that can calculate the fields of two frames with a relative velocity or acceleration, and calculate back from the second to the first frame. There is no covariance requests, but the Lorentz form will be maintained, although not necessarily identical in both directions, due to posible gravitational induction.

Now, be informed that, for all the tangible results, allegedly from GR, gravitomagnetism has been secretely used, including for the LIGO interpretation...

It is not a matter of like or dislike, but tell me one issue that GR solves and that is confirmed by *direct* observation.

Or tell me one issue in gravity that gravitomagnetism *doesn't* solve.

No Thierry !

Your remark:

'So, I can find a consensus with you and forget about the mass in the case of light. The result of the calculus remains the same.'

cannot work ! ...

Your formulas work for a massive particle ... You cannot change cards and to consider that for massless particles all remains unchanged ... (You emphasized that in Gravitomagnetism do not work relativistic particles ...) On the other hand Pointing vector does not represent kinetic energy !

Really all the Gravitomagnetism plays its role on the kinetic effects. These effects cannot be present in the case of the light !

I skip on the other covariant problems of this theory ...

Your last comment:

'... tell me one issue that GR solves and that is confirmed by *direct* observation.'

is completely inappropriate ! ...

'Sapere aude! ....'

(Immanuel Kant)

Dear Alfredo,

thanks for your ecumenical post.

But the problem is not to find a new space-time where reconcile GR and Gravitomagnetism.

The problem is just that Gravitomagnetism does not work as a theory !

Of course this is not well accepted by Gravitomagnetism fans, but Science does not work like a musical festival ...

My best regards,

Agostino

Agostino: you are defensieve and you try to save the old fossiele GR is. You escape my questions on what GR would really solve and on what gravitomagnetism wouldn't solve.

You try to force your meaning about light but you don't know light, nor do you know what mass is. Gravitomagnetism explains also the attraction or repel of light beams depending from its polarization. GR does nothing.

Dear Thierry,

I do not escape ... I talk about  what you suggest ... and on this ground I cannot say what I said !

You claim:

'You try to force your meaning about light but you don't know light, nor do you know what mass is.'

I am sure that my understanding about light is more advanced than yours. In fact in my quantum gravity theory it is also proved that photons can acquire mass by means of interaction with matter ... But your Gravitomagnetism is unable to encode such phenomena ... It tries to shuffle cards ... since it is not a serious theory.

The reality is that you are escaping since you do not want recognize scientific facts ... you play hand tricks cards three.

'Absit iniuria verbis ...'

Caro Agostino, ora et labora! (San Benedetto, also I know a bit of latin)

Dear Anton,

... and San Benedetto was a great saint ...

Into few days I will send my comments on your interesting paper.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Agostino

You are right but... the same can be said about GR and SR fans... or not? ;-)

Abraço,

Alfredo

Agostino: "In fact in my quantum gravity theory it is also proved that photons can acquire mass by means of interaction with matter ... But your Gravitomagnetism is unable to encode such phenomena"

Well, I am glad that you have found one single issue that is not solved by Gravitomagnetism. And I agree with you that all the other issues are solved by it.

However, electromagnetism doesn't solve quantum effects either... Gravitomagnetism solves as much phenomena as electromagnetism does.

Now you still need to find one single issue that GR solves. Good luck!

@ John Macken 

The maths presented here is algebraic and far far less complicated than the tensor calculus seen in GTR, That is one of it great advantages

Have another look 

Unfortunately the complex maths of GTR implies infinite curvature and zero time passage at the black hole event horizon  and the black hole becomes a singularity- and yet the black hole has a radius.

The solution is to alter the maths of GR.

Additionally GR falls down in a number of areas, so any new maths should also resolve these problems

Yes GR works in the weak fields of the the solar system, and Intermediate

fields of neutron stars. 

1). It produces infinite density singularities in the very strong fields

such as in black holes.

2).It does not necessarily explain dark matter in galaxy cores where we

know super-massive black holes exist and the galactic dark matter

therein,

3). It does not explain dark mater present in galactic halo's,and galactic

clusters such as the bullet cluster,

4).It does not explain the presence of cosmological dark matter as a whole.

5). It has not yet been fully corroborated by the studies of neutron stars

and in black holes.

6). It does not easily explain the presence of dark energy and cannot be

translated in quantum gravity.

7). It predicts that time stops at the event horizon

Here I enclose a number of publications which explain all of these

phenomena, whilst agreeing with the results of GR where it has been

thoroughly tested.

1).First to obviate the infinite density singularities.

1a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity?ev=prf_pub

1b)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689554_The_formulation_of_Dynamic_Newtonian_advanced_gravity_DNAg?ev=prf_pub

2).Secondly we explain the presence of dark matter at the centre of the

galaxy.

2a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228858219_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_and_Cold_Dark_Matter_Modelling._The_Gravity_of_Dark_Matter

3) Thirdly it is possible to explain the presence of dark matter in the

galactic halo.

3a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689929_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Physics_and_Dark_Matter_Modelling_of_the_Galactic_Halo?ev=prf_pub

4). It is able to explain the presence of cosmological dark matter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity

5). It is corroborated in neutron stars (including Data from radiation

damping ) and is corroborated by black hole studies.

5a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32888463_An_advanced_modification_of_dynamicgravitation

5b).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269667939_Corroboration_of_Dynamic_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_from_Observations_of_Cygnus_X-1

6) it explains dark energy and translates into quantum gravity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32899306_String_quintessence_and_the_formulation_of_advanced_quantum_gravity

7). It does not offer infinite time dilation at the event horizon

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287213872_Finite_Gravitational_Time_Dilation_In_Black_Holes_Using_Dynamic_Newtonian_Advanced_Gravity_DNAg

Read full-text

Article An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity

Article The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg

Article Advances in Black Hole Gravitational Physics and Cold Dark M...

Article Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of ...

Article An advanced modification of dynamic gravitation

Article Corroboration of Dynamic Black Hole Gravitational Physics fr...

Article String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity

Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...

Thierry,

read more carefully what I have written !

Please do not play with words ...

I have seen also the post by Andrew ...

The problem is not to see whether Einstein's GR has some sense ... In fact no serious scientist can now confute GR.

Of course GR is not a complete theory. In fact I formulated a quantum gravity theory that goes beyond GR and QM.

But Gravitomagnetism ... cannot be considered a serious substitute to GR ...

and please do not play with words ... otherwise I cannot continue to discuss with you !!!

Dear Alfredo,

please read my last post addressed to Thierry about GR.

Thanks

Agostino

Dear Andrew,

please read my last post addressed to Thierry about GR .

Thanks,

Agostino

Agostino: "In fact no serious scientist can now confute GR." That is a childish statement, based upon nothing. I am still waiting for one directly verifiable success of GR.

The negationism of gravitomagnetism, of Heaviside's and Jefimenko's work, and of its successes in order to "save" GR has been institutionalised. It is a dictatorship that doesn't allow for any discussion. Millions of pages about GR didn't solve any issue at all in a satisfactory way. Hidden calculus by modified and so-called linearized GR is used in order to get very poor and unverifiable results of very distant events.

But apparently, the GR institution is too big to fail...

And when it comes to real and correct calculus, like the satellite fly-by or the Gravity Probe B, it always comes to gravitomagnetism. This theory is so much needed by GR proponents that they hijacked it shamelessly from Heaviside and distorted it to a GR-like freak.

However, a hundred pages of true gravitomagnetism solves all the known issues in the cosmos, including nearby events like the motion of asteroids, and further, the hourglass explosions, quasar jets, the velocity cuves in galaxies, "dark matter", gravity waves, the fly-by, the Gravity Probe B and so on.

It even generates the Lorentz transforms, the SR-like equations, and it shows the mistaken interpretations of SR-proponents.

Dear Thierry,

also the Newton's gravitation theory is yet applied in the practical calculations for satellites, but this does not mean that is a complete theory ! ...

Probably this is true also for Gravitomagnetism ... In fact it is founded on classical mechanics, therefore it should work as works Newton's theory ...

You claim:

'"In fact no serious scientist can now confute GR."[This refers to my post] That is a childish statement, based upon nothing. I am still waiting for one directly verifiable success of GR.'

OK ! This means that all the Scientific Community is a Childish Community !

Thanks for your beautiful evaluation.

Good luck !

Dear Anton,

I have seen that you follow Kleinert's work to obtain mass formulas for hydrogen atom, by considering Majorana equations. Of course this method is a beautiful application of infinite-dimensional representation of groups theory.

My criticism about is stressed in the following.

1) You use quantization of a classical model. This method gives good descriptions at low energy levels, namely working for atomic and molecular systems. Really your results appear well fit experimental results for hydrogen atom and its excited states.

2) Higher energy interactions cannot similarly encoded. For example e-p scatterings ..., \nu-p, p-p...

3) These quantum processes necessarily require an more fundamental framework as one given by my quantum gravity theory.

My compliments,

Agostino

Thierry,

Gravitoelectromagnetism - not gravitomagnetism as you make reference to - is a well accepted phenomena, It isn't neither obscured nor forgotten by physicists. There isn't a 'Relativist Plot' - that's complete nonsense.

Caro Agostino, Hydrogen and Hadron spectra were the work of Barut and Kleinert and a few others. they did this some decades ago, by using infinite dimensional represenatations of SO(4,2), the bosonic (hydrogen) and the fermionic (hadrons). They call this system "Majorana equations". I use two subgroups of SO(4,4), in (finite) 8-dimensional representation and find 8 equations in 8 Majorana parameters for a four particle spectrum. I solved this involved system and it has three masses (and a mass zero, neutrino?) as solutions: proton, neutron, electron, ZERO parametes are involved

mneutron/mproton ≈ 1 +2melectron/mnucleon

This is a RESULT and not a fit. Therefore I found a relation between theses three masses. with other words, one mass (say, the electron) is expressed by the masses of the two nucleons. Like Ohm's law: R=U/I. I hoped you saw this point, but this is not the case. Forget it!

Dear Anton,

I understood what you have done ... but it is not clear why !

Your mass-formula it appears to fit experimental data ... but why ?

Caro Agostino, This is not a data fitting: I computed a parameterfree formula f(m(1),m(2),m(3)) = 0, from first principles (Majorana technique a la Barut/Kleinert) by extracting the 8 involved Majorana parameters from eight given equations. The result is a unique solution: two masses determine the third: f.i., if the nucleonic pair is given, the electron mass results! (is COMPUTED!) Bevore I give this to a journal I have to show this to some competent persons to judge it. As I saw, I couldn’t make my point to you. This means, I have to begin with changes by starting at the  “abstract”, if not the title. (I wrote several “abstracts” in the last years!) Perhaps I should sent the technical details, which are indeed very involved, into an appendix. But these details are crucial to arrive at the result. Note, I’m dealing with eight ORDINARY equations in 8 variables, and if this set is independend (it is), it would be possible to CALCULATE the masses of proton, neutron, electron: INDEPENDENDLY. Next, if it is possible to compute these three elementary masses parameterfree from first principles - this “Majorana set” - then THE Majorana set itself is basic. 

As an outlook the Majorana set seems universal: In addition to Barut/Kleinert’s hydronic and hadronic presentations I found two further, even more elementary systems: the nucleonic and electronic, respectively. These four systems can partially transformed into each other, so it seems, eventually this “Majorana set” is a full theory on elementry particles. It would be a SO(4,4) theory. (Perhaps this would be a nice new “abstract”)

Alcides: You get nowhere with Gravitoelectromagnetism since it is a concoction of GR with a so-called perturbation. Therefore you need oblate spheres, which is simply wrong. What about egg-shaped spinning objects, the "inverse" of oblate?

Gravitoelectromagnetism has been fabricated by scientists because it is well known that Gravitomagnetism solves the issues of real events. But Gravitoelectromagnetism is not coherent, it is in contradiction with the Schwarzschild metric, and so, with GR itself.

Not GR, not PN, not Schwarzschild, not Kerr solve any issue that is directly observable. There is no proof whatsoever of a spacetime metric, neither of a mass increase, or of a length contraction with velocity. Neither any proof that time-dilatation  with velocity is clock-independent. Only guesses, based upon other guesses.

Instead, Gravitomagnetism (created by the genius Oliver Heaviside's in 1893) is a pure analysis of gravity, where spheres are used instead of oblate spheres, as it should be. It is a theory where masses don't grow with velocity, only gravity fields, and where time is clock-type dependent. As it should be "a priori".

Gravitomagnetism solves issues in a causal and coherent way, by taking into account the retardation of the fields. It is totally alike electromagnetics.

It solves many issues of interpretation of mass, time, length, as shown by the brilliant Oleg Jefimenko in his books, and it solves the cosmic issues as annexed.

There indeed is a tunnel vision by the relativists that has taken proportions of an orchestrated dictatorship, and that exclude any paper that is not starting with GR or any approved GR-concoction.

Authors need to fake the relationship with GR if they speak of Gravitomagnetism, in order to not be rejected.

Don't be naive. There is no democracy whatsoever in nowadays' science of gravity and cosmology. Also in cosmology, papers that don't claim an expanding universe are systematically banned, including all observations that indicate a static universe.

Yes Anton !

I emphasized that this your formula fits well experimental data only !

My previously posted ' why' was addressed to know whether you could give a plausible explication of this result.

My impression about is that the chosen symmetry group SO(4,4) and the two fixed subgroups of SO(4,4), necessarily give your result, since you work in the fiber structure of a suitable gauge structure where Majorana equations represent some suitable constraints.

In other words, you obtain an algebraic equation mass formula uniquely by some constraint gauge structure. Really this is a natural corollary to the Standard Model.

Of course this approach has nothing to do with the dynamical problem encoding quantum reactions. Hasn't it ?