No. The problem is that gravity is a gauge theory with a noncompact gauge group, the group of diffeomorphisms. It's the fact that it's noncompact that leads to the appearance of spacetime singularities at the classical level and the same property means that one must find a quantum theory, whose classical limit is a gauge theory with a noncompact gauge group-and how to do this isn't known.

Thank you Dr. Stam

Obinna Nwagbara ,

Here is the theory of Yurij Baryshev which gets quite close..

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.02020.pdf

And the theory of Gary Nash

Article Modified general relativity and quantum theory in curved spacetime

Thank you so much Engnr Stefano Quattrini for your prompt response to the topic under discussion.

Baryshev's paper doesn't address quantum gravity, but many aspects of classical gravity. And the reason it doesn't address quantum gravity is for the reason mentioned above.

Nor does Nash's paper.

Many people apparently don't understand that the obstacle for defining a quantum theory of gravity is to find the theory, whose classical limit is invariant under diffeomorphisms.

The reason that problem is hard is because a classical gauge theory, with a noncompact gauge group, inevitably, leads to singularities; so the quantum theory must resolve them. This issue isn't even recognized, let alone mentioned.

For the moment the only singularities, whose resolution can be, partially, addressed are the time-like singularities of extremal Reissner-Nordstrom black holes, for which it is possible to identify the degrees of freedom, whose degeneracy describes the entropy of the near horizon geometry, when probed by quantum matter. The dynamics of these degrees of freedom is not under full control, yet, however. So this is part of what will become a quantum theory of gravity for this problem.

Dear Obinna Nwagbara ,

If you visit my RG profile you will come across a concept of gravity that can work both at the elementary level and at the macroscopic level.

But all this is not a direct answer to your question!

Regards,

Laszlo

Wow! Thank you alot for your passion and high level of professionalism.

All your inputs so far are awesome.

Stam Nicolis ,

Thank you once more sir

Baryshev's paper doesn't present a new theory of gravity, it reviews the phenomenology of classical gravity with known astrophysical sources. The brief remark he makes about gravitons isn't new-he doesn't claim it is-involves the linear approximation and doesn't lead anywhere about quantum gravity.

Nash does a lot of calculations about quantum matter on a spacetime background, that are known, when they're correct, misses many subtleties and doesn't address the issue of how to describe the fluctuations of the spacetime geometry, either.

Stam Nicolis ,

so relativistic gravitation is classical???

Nevertheless FGT is much closer to QFT than GR. And again the title of the thread does not address directly quantum gravity.

yes, and arrives at modeling the curves of the galaxies without the need to put ad hoc matter to keep GR alive, but he manages to insert gravitational energy in the game...

Once more: Quantum gravity is the theory, whose classical limit is classical gravity. Classical gravity is the gauge theory, whose symmetry group is the group of diffeomorphisms.This is a noncompact group. This property leads to the appearance of spacetime singularities, that are well known.

The other known interactions are described by gauge groups that are compact. That's the difference between them and gravity and the reason why the formalism that describes their quantum properties doesn't work for gravity. Quantizing gravity means providing a way for resolving spacetime singularities. This can be done, in part, for the time-like singularities that describe extremal Reissner-Nordstrom black holes. How to resolve singularities that are not time-like, isn't known, yet.

Yes, ``relativistic gravitation" is synonymous with classical gravity (Newtonian gravity is ``non-relativistic gravitation''). Classical gravity is the theory that's invariant under diffeomorphisms of the spacetime geometry; general relativity is the special case of classical gravity, where the spacetime geometry is described only by the metric tensor. It's time to distinguish history of physics from physics.

The statement about ``FGT" is wrong, because the quantum theory is inconsistent. The statement about being ``closer to QFT'' doesn't make sense, if the quantum effects can't be described consistently, which is the case for gravity. It was just that, in those years, people didn't understand many things, that are, now, understood, so they did calculations to try and understand what was going on.

What Feynman did was to show how to organize the perturbative calculations about any given spacetime geometry-assuming they could make sense-and found that, to lowest, non-trivial order, these required the contribution of additional fields, that couldn't contribute, however, to any physical process (these were, later called ``ghosts''). This remark remains correct, even though the perturbative calculation can't be carried out to all orders in a consistent way and turned out to be more relevant for gauge theories with compact gauge group (as was remarked some years later by Faddeev and Popov; that's why these fields are, now, called ``Faddeev-Popov ghosts'' rather than ``Feynman ghosts'') than for gravity, whose problems are, as mentioned, different.

The rotation curves of galaxies don't have anything to do with quantum gravity, they involve only classical gravity. GR doesn't care about what form of matter there is, so it's wrong to claim that matter must be added to ``keep GR alive''. GR describes how the geometry of spacetime, described by the metric, affects and is affected by the energy-momentum tensor of classical matter, whatever the matter content. The properties of matter aren't relevant. They can enter the picture in generalizations of GR, that involve additional fields, beyond the metric tensor, for describing the spacetime geometry, known as ``scalar-tensor theories'', if the additional field(s) are scalars, whose energy-momentum tensor isn't consistent with identifying them as matter, or, in the most general case, ``supergravity''. Both classes are severely constrained by experiments. However these don't show that GR could be inconsistent, but that it might be incomplete. Many people confuse inconsistency with incompleteness; they're wrong.

What many people, still, don't realize is that the symmetries define the theory, but they may not define the field content uniquely.

Gravity is defined as the theory that's invariant under diffeomorphisms of the spacetime geometry. That immediately implies how matter fields couple to the fields that define the geometry and leads to predictions that can be compared to measurements. It doesn't fix whether the spacetime geometry is defined by the metric, only, or whether additional fields (scalars, spinors or vectors) can contribute to the definition of the spacetime geometry, without it being possible to identify them as matter fields. This wasn't understood until the 1970s, when supergravity was understood. Many people, still, don't understand it, apparently.

How to describe ``gravitational energy", i.e. gravitational waves, is, also, known. People that write about the ``energy-momentum tensor of gravity'', really mean gravitational waves. Once more, one shouldn't focus on issues people were confused about, once it's understood what the correct formulation is.

The rotation curves of galaxies aren't sensitive to quantum effects. They're classical quantities and they are only affected by classical matter or by the spacetime geometry (which is, also, a property of classical physics, since it's defined by the properties of the solutions of the equations of motion of its fields). So to describe them, one needs to take into account the classical effects of new forms of matter (it turns out that a perfect fluid suffices, the only property being its equation of state) or the classical effects of new contributions to the spacetime geometry and there’s been considerable work on both aspects. It turns out that the constraints coming from the known measurements are much harder to satisfy if one tries to modify how the spacetime geometry is defined, than if one tries to modify the equation of state of the fluid. What this doesn't pin down is what is the particle content of the fluid. All this doesn’t have anything to do with quantum mechanics, however; and the question was about a theory of gravitation that has the same results as GR, but is consistent with QM beyond GR. The answer is that such a theory, for the moment, isn't known, in full generality; but part of it is. A summary is presented here: https://www.hri.res.in/~sen/asian12.pdf To understand it requires studying not just quantum mechanics and general relativity, but, also, quantum field theory.

Stam Nicolis ,

The energy-momentum tensor for classical matter, in a classical spacetime, doesn't require taking into account any quantum effects. Nor is the measurement of the rotation curves subject to any quantum effects.

Both are well-defined by studying the properties of the classical equations of motion. How to do so is explained in any course on general relativity, which it would be a good idea to actually study. Popular accounts aren't really sufficient, nor are history books. This: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf might be a good place to start.

And this: https://jila.colorado.edu/~pja/astr3830/lecture17.pdf might be a good place to start for learning what rotation curves of galaxies actually mean. The rest of the course is, of course, useful for actually learning the technical aspects of cosmology, beyond popular accounts.

``Quantum physics'' isn't another buzzword, it means something-for classical matter in classical gravity it means, indeed, that quantum effects are irrelevant. That's why it doesn't make sense to claim that quantum effects have anything to do with the rotation curves of galaxies; they don't. Galaxies aren't subject to detectable quantum fluctuations either of their constituents or of spacetime. Quantum fluctuations are relevant before inflation (whatever the mechanism that gives rise to it may turn out to be) but this period of the Universe can't be probed, experimentally, for the moment, nor is a theoretical framework, within which to perform consistent calculations, available for the moment.

The is a better model of the Big (cosmology) and the small (interference of particle light & photoelectric effect). These are the goals of GR and Quantum Mechanics, but both fail in their domains. So, the answer to your question as phrased is NO because neither fits their domain well enough to be a model for the future.

But the STOE does explain both domains better and can correspond to both with appropriate simplifications:

SUMMARY

Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model

Intellectual Archive 9, #4, p.14

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414

Bg Bang comology is classical gravity, the photoelectric effect doesn't have anything to do with quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is the quantum field theory of matter fields and spacetime geometries, not the quantum theory of a single particle. It would be a good idea to learn quantum field theory, from a textbook, that dates after 1925 and, preferably, after 1980.

Grand Unified Theories describe the quantum effects of non-gravitational interactions, they don't describe gravity. The reason it's not possible to write down a consistent quantum Grand Unified Theory of all the interactions has, once more, to do with the fact that gravity is gauge theory with a non-compact gauge group. The problem is summing over the states that are equivalent under diffeomorphisms and aren't solutions to the equations of motion of matter and of spacetime. It was hoped forty years ago that supergravity could impose sufficiently strong constraints, to lead to a renormalizable theory; that turned out to be wrong. It is now understood that supergravity itself is a low energy limit of a quantum theory of gravity; but many aspects of this limit are not, yet, known.

Newton's theory of gravity is non-relativistic, incidentally. The only way to obtain Newton's theory of gravity as the non-relativistic limit of a theory, that has local Lorentz invariance, is by imposing invariance under diffeomorphisms. The only question then is the field content of the gravitational theory.

A scalar theory of gravity was proposed by Nordstrom in 1916. One reason it can be excluded is that a scalar field can only couple to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor of classical electrodynamics in a way consistent with invariance under diffeomorphisms. However the trace of the energy-momentum tensor of electrodynamics vanishes, because electrodynamics is invariant under conformal transformations, which would imply that light isn't bent by spacetime curvature; which was measured to be bent by a non-zero angle (and is tested by all GPS devices for many years now). In scalar-tensor theories, bending of light is due to the metric, not the scalar field. Nordstrom recognized this immdiately, once the experiment was done; it appears many people since have yet to get the message.

Thank you once more for your amazing inputs in this subject under discussion.

Great progress.

Obinna Nwagbara : Einstein's general relativity (GR) is just fictitious - an abstract geometrical construct, which has no relevance to objective reality and hence not a scientific theory at all!. It is a subject of empty scholasticism only: Please see: “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754)

Newton's theory of gravity is faulty and is valid only on or near the surface of a cosmic body, like the earth; but not beyond. A correct and new gravitational potential (in correspondence with the historical works of Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Leibniz) is now proposed instead of that of Newton. Please see: "KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas: Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

This new (dialectical) theory eliminates the problems related to Newton's theory of gravity and at the same time eliminates the needs of the "Big Bang" theory of creation and the fantastic dark/black cosmic monsters needed to explain the dynamics of cosmology, based on Newton's theory or Einstein's GR. The dialectical idea of space and time directly leads to quantum electrodynamics (QED) and to the problems of the quantum microcosm. Please see: "The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?" : Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

For a more exhaustive elaboration of QED, please see the references in the following RG Question: ""Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2

For any other questions on gravity or QED related to the dialectical approach, please see my GR profile or search the internet for my published books and scientific articles.

“Are there any theory of Gravitation that has the same results as Einstein's general relativity and is compatible with quantum mechanics?”

- really now in mainstream physics there is no really scientific theory of Gravity, that would be compatible with quantum mechanics, since in the mainstream standard theory of Gravity is the GR, which fundamentally isn’t compatible with QM.

That t happens because of the GR fundamentally is based on the postulate that objects/events/effects/processes in gravitationally coupled systems fundamentally are caused by really fundamentally non-existent, but illusory and fundamentally erroneously postulated in the GR, interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”;

- while in QM that is impossible, so the theories .of other fundamental Nature Weak, Electric, and String/Nuclear forces act, and their actions are described/analyzed in corresponding QM theories, in fundamentally flat Matter’s spacetime.

Besides in accordance results in some Gravity theory “as Einstein's general relativity” there is really no necessity. The Newton’s Gravity at description and analysis of systems of bodies in weak Gravity fields differs from the GR in physical practice rather negligibly, while, when Newton’s theory, which is similar to Electric Force theory when only Coulomb law existed, really isn’t applicable in cases of strong Gravity fields and extreme speeds of bodies in some gravitationally coupled systems,

- however when the GR is applied in this case, the results [a number of “holes in spacetime, “warped spaces”, etc., ] are inevitably only fantastic ones, and so aren’t adequate to what really exists and happens in Matter. So, say, if a theory’s results would be “as the GR”, that would only show that this theory is wrong.

Gravity, as that rigorously proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, and more concretely in this case in the 2007 initial Planck scale model of Gravity [more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces],

- is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which in a few traits is similar to fundamental Electric/[EM in mainstream physics] Force, and essentially to Nuclear Force, which are well “quantized” now in QM, though also rather strangely, especially in QFTs, but that is outside this topic [if that is interesting, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

So the really scientific Gravity theory must, and let hope will, be developed basing on the initial model above, and mostly as clarification of now uncertain problems that are pointed in section “conclusion” in 1-st and 2-nd links above.

Cheers

Dear Stam Nicolis: You stated the widely accepted notion that since spacetime is singular in GR, a quantum theory of gravity is necessary to resolve that problem: "The reason that problem is hard is because a classical gauge theory, with a noncompact gauge group, inevitably, leads to singularities; so the quantum theory must resolve them. This issue isn't even recognized, let alone mentioned."

I must point out to you that the non-vanishing line element vector field that is a fundamental part of all Lorentzian metrics, which Modified General Relativity (MGR) explicitly depends upon (and GR does not), leads to the realization that a Lorentzian spacetime in MGR is singularity-free; the Kretschmann invariant does not blow up at r=0 in a spherically symmetric Lorentzian metric in MGR because r>0. No quantum gravity theory is necessary to smooth over the singularity because there is no singularity.

Best regards,

Gary Nash

Dear Stam Nicolis: With regard to your reply to Stefano's comment about adding matter to GR: " ...GR doesn't care about what form of matter there is, so it's wrong to claim that matter must be added to ``keep GR alive''

I must point out that GR cannot explain the rotation curves of most galaxies without the addition of a dark matter profile to represent dark matter. GR is not complete because it does not contain a connection-independent symmetric tensor that describes gravitational energy-momentum; that is the tensor that Einstein sought a century ago and that was constructed in 2019 in Modified General Relativity. See Modified General Relativity and dark matter for all details. You need to understand that the regular line element field is paramount to the existence of all Lorentzian metrics. From that an orthogonal decomposition of symmetric tensors in a Lorentzian spacetime is developed, and with Lovelock's theorem, Einstein's equation is completed in one line with his missing tensor. The Einstein equation remains the same with the energy-momentum tensor then consisting of an ordinary matter part and the energy-momentum of the gravitational field. The new tensor is connection-independent because it is constructed from the Lie derivative. There is no conflict with the equivalence principle and local gravitational energy-momentum exists; the accepted notion that it does not exist is blatantly wrong.

Best regards,

Gary Nash

Dear Obinna Nwagbara: "Modified General Relativity and quantum theory in curved spacetime" is a step forward to the construction of a pre-quantum gravity theory. By symmetrizing the spin-1 Klein-Gordon wave equation in curved spacetime, the symmetric part is the Lie derivative of the metric, which is totally ignored in quantum theory. Because any action functional with a scalar Lagrangian constructed from the tensor fields of the Lagrangian is invariant under the group Diff(M) of diffeomorphisms, and the spin-0,1 field equations contain the Lie derivative of the metric, the quantum property of entanglement is explained by the pull-back of the metric under a family of diffeomorphisms. The Lorentz group is a subgroup of Diff(M) so the pull-back of the metric (or push-forward by the inverse metric) is not restricted to the speed of light. It is possible for quantum information to be super-luminal; hence entanglement is not that mysterious after all.

Nor is the wave-particle duality because the KG multi-spin wave equation □Ψ = k2Ψ exists for the quantum field Ψ with spins-0,1 and 1/2 where k is the inverse Compton wavelength attributed to each particle of a given spin. All known bosons and fermions move as a wave everywhere in curved spacetime. Moreover, the flat spacetime d’Alembert wave operator always exists in the KG equations for spins 0,1,1/2 in curved spacetime from the properties of a covariant derivative. That operator can be expressed in the momentum representation as −pμ pμ/h2 with the momentum vector pμ . Hence, spin 0,1 bosons and spin-1/2 fermions always move as a wave and their waves have inherent particle characteristics. That resolves the mystery of the wave-particle duality.

Best regards,

Gary Nash

Obinna Nwagbara,

The theory of gravitation that has the same results as Einstein's general relativity and is compatible with quantum mechanics is general relativity itself as an effective perturbative quantum field theory.

Baryshev's gravity theory is a failed theory, and Baryshev was pointed to his mistakes by many physicists but he wouldn't listen and died astray.

The Made-in-China quasi-copied Nash's theory is a fiasco from the get-go, and how many times his failed dead theory was cited and those who cited it and why they cited it speak volumes.

Obinna Nwagbara : Yes! A "New Physics" is now proposed that replaces the wrong Newton's theory of universal gravitation and abolishes Einstein's theories of gravity (or relativity) as having no basis in objective reality and is just a mythology like old Greek or Hindu mythologies used as ruling ideas of modern decadent and moribund monopoly capitalism: Please see: "New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity - The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion". : Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" : Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Stefano Quattrini,

Please check out the following link known as Baez's crackpot index

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

“…..Please check out the following link known as Baez's crackpot index

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html ......”

- practically the same as that is in the quote above a few weeks ago was recommended in some other RG thread by some other mainstream professional physicist - to check out an “crackpot index” in http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

- what was commented in corresponding SS post, and the comment is quite adequate to this quote, so:

- the rather scientifically strange article in the [2-nd] link above is on so the called “C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics” main site; where in the section “about” http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/itp/www/ it is written:

“…Research at the C.N.Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics includes varied topics of fundamental interest. Quantum-field theories supply the language for our description of matter on the smallest scales. Supersymmetric field theories and supergravity and string theories are being studied and developed, with attention to both their mathematical structure and physical consequences. Of special interest is the quantum mechanical description of gravitation and its relation to other forces… the study of magnetic monopoles .…..”

Really [and essentially the rest in the section, though] in the quote after – and including – the word “Supersymmetric…” is only something out of a gray mare’s dreams after the mare has grazed on a lawn with fly agaric mushrooms.

However yeah, all that above in the quote is well popular in recent mainstream physics and besides this Institute’s head in the mainstream numerous other numerous physicists compose vividly their numerous fly agaric mushrooms fantasies,

- which without any problems are published in top mainstream physics journals, etc.; an recent example see in reDzennn comment [8+1 passages] to a Physical Review Letters (2024) paper in https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.htmlThe removed by moderator passage now is in the end of the comments thread.

At that ~ 50 submitted in “conventional journals” papers in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model were/are rejected by the journals’ editors, and by even preprint publication sources moderators, just because of the submissions contained/contain really fundamental physical results, but the authors aren’t “correct”, when the results must have “correct” authors;

- and on phys.org last month some strange moderation appeared, an example see above, and though in the example it was possible to make additional reDzennn passage that makes whole comment understandable, but in https://phys.org/news/2024-02-scientists-particles-large-hadron-collider.html Provided by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (2024) 7-1 passages,

the removed evidently necessary passage

____ __

[continuation] - and more concretely relating to Matter in framework of the Planck scale physical model, which is based on the conception, 3 main papers are https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0707.4657

http://dx.doi.org/10.20944/preprints202110.0453.v4

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23711.64165 ,

- where, including, completely rational initial Planck scale models of particles and Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces are developed.→

_____ __

- remains be removed till now.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature/606 is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

When interpreting that general relativity is based on the fundamental gravitational force as attraction, a contradiction arises: the curvature of spacetime is smooth and deterministic, but the energy density is operator-dependent with quanta.

When interpreting gravitation as an emergent phenomenon and the logic of its actions as stochastic outside-in and curved space-time as a real fundamental structure, energy densities can be considered as expectation values and compatibility between theories can be found.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force/21 , first of all the pointed link in the post,

- is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Dear Obinna Nwagbara

Although quantum mechanics is quantum theory the used viewpoint is classic physics. That is why theorists started the development of quantum field theory (QFT) at the start of the second half of the 20th century. A quantum theory that has incorporated parts of quantum mechanics.

In Einstein’s theory of General relativity space and time is handled like it is one combined phenomenon. While Newton’s space and time are mathematical abstractions (Euclidean space in relation to synchronous transformations).

It was Einstein who stated that without matter there exists no gravitation. So it is clear that gravity has no basic quantum field on its own. Einstein’s statement was confirmed in 2011 by Eric Verlinde who showed that Newtonian gravity is an emergent force field too.

However, nearly the whole physics community has “adopted” curved spacetime. That is why a new theory about gravity has to elucidate why Einstein’s theory of curved spacetime is confirmed by so many observations.

Nevertheless, Einstein’s theory of General relativity is misused too. For example the crazy idea that a black hole is a singularity. First of all, Planck’s constant (h) isn’t a singularity and there is no theory that predicts the vanishing of the universal electric field under certain conditions. It is against the law of conservation of energy too.

But more worse are the new telescopes that have revealed that neutron stars have also accretion disks and 2 jets at each side of the rotation axis. The only difference between black holes and neutron stars that are created by “dying” stars is the amount of mass of the collapsed star. So it is really awkward to advertise the idea that the “tangible” part of a black hole is a singularity and a neutron star has an observable boundary.

About 3 weeks ago nearly every newspaper had an article about the observed mechanism behind the accretion disks and jets of black holes in the centre of large galaxies. The hypothesis is that we observe accretion disks and jets if there is a supply of matter (dust, gas, etc.) in the direction of the black hole. But the detected magnetic field lines have revealed that without matter the accretion disk and jets still exist, although we cannot observe the emission of radiation if there is no involved gas, dust, etc. The consequence is that near the surface of a black hole there is a quanta transfer by the universal electric and corresponding magnetic field that has a resultant velocity that nears the speed of light.

But how is it possible that curved spacetime changes its geometrical position in relation to the electromagnetic field with about 367 km/s (CMBR dipole) while the energy transfer around a black hole (actually the energy transfer within the universal electric field) nears the speed of light?

The curvature of spacetime seems to be the curvature of the universal electric field around matter. In line with QFT but not in line with the theory of General relativity. So it raises the question if Einstein’s theory of General relativity is about gravitation or about the influence of gravitational vectors on the universal electric field. If the latter is true, Einstein’s theory of curved spacetime isn’t about gravity at all.

With kind regards, Sydney

No. But the question's parameters are too narrow. Better is a model to unite Big and small. Both GR (Big Bang) and QM have many problem observations.

A place to start, perhaps, is to consider space-time and quantum vacuum energy (or equivalent) as the same stuff - a kind of aether.

Obinna Nwagbara This forum seems to be dominated by non-observing and unthinking mob; guided totally by faith and persecuting the "heretics"! Since Newton in astrophysics and more importantly Einstein in all areas of theoretical physics; new observational and experimental facts only led to the addition of extra parameters to the existing theory, keeping the theory as an absolute truth alive, thus we have "Big Bang", "Inflation", "Black Hole", "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy" etc., ad nauseum - Myths to save the theory! There is also enormous and absurd mathematical acrobatics to keep the Evil Quanta at bay and save the "absolute truth!

Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology"!: Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

In classical terrestrial physics, any new experimental or observational fact contrary to the theory; inexorably led to a new theory, instead; which could take into account all the existing and new facts and science inevitably made progress. There has been no progress in astrophysics and cosmology since Newton and no progress in theoretical physics since Einstein - only the proliferation of more and more absurd Myths and Cosmic Monsters!

But the problem with modern ruling class is that unlike the previous history when the ruling elite could pacify their subjects with their Myths; this is no more applicable now. The modern ruling elite have to "PROVE" their Myths, even if with contrived, deceptive and/or false "PROOFS";bought by the promise of fame, fortune and funds! But there is a limit, how far you can go with any trick, and modern monopoly capitalism has already reached the limit. All the exotic and ethereal dresses tailored-up by the charlatans to cover up the nakedness of their two venerated Emperors are on the contrary progressively, increasing the naked view of them. Ironically, the more they try to cover the nakedness, the more is its exposure!!! The latest JWST is an example and the following publications: "New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity": Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...

or, https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9594

“KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas”: Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"The Times They Are A-Changin': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90WD_ats6eE

World’s top cosmologists convene to question conventional view of the universe

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/14/worlds-top-cosmologists-convene-to-question-conventional-view-of-the-universe

The conference brings together some of the scientists behind the recent anomalous findings. These include observations that suggest the universe is expanding more quickly in some regions than others, hints at megastructures in the night sky and evidence for cosmic flows – vast celestial rivers of material on a scale that cannot be readily accommodated within conventional theories.

Dr Nathan Secrest, of the US Naval Observatory and a collaborator with Sarkar, is presenting findings that raise the possibility that the universe is slightly lopsided. After analysing a catalogue of more than 1m quasars (extremely luminous galactic cores), the team found that one hemisphere of the sky appeared to host roughly 0.5% more sources than the other.

It may not sound like a major discrepancy but, according to Sarkar, if confirmed it would undermine the basis for dark energy, which is supposed to be the dominant component of the universe. “It would mean that two-thirds of the universe has just disappeared,” Sarkar said.

Dr Konstantinos Migkas, of Leiden University, will share findings that the Hubble constant – the rate at which the universe is expanding – appears to vary across space. “Our results add another problematic piece to the puzzle,” Migkas said. At a local scale, at least, this suggests that observations do not match predictions of the standard model. “We can’t extrapolate that it’s wrong over the full universe,” he added.

Alexia Lopez, a PhD student at the University of Central Lancashire, has discovered what appear to be cosmic megastructures, named Big Ring and Giant Arc. These shapes, traced out by galaxies and galaxy clusters, occur on a scale beyond which the universe should be smooth and effectively featureless.

“When we’re finding a list of structures that are exceeding this scale, are they challenging this assumption that is so fundamental in cosmology?” said Lopez. “Maybe there needs to be more of a critical analysis of our standard model.”

Sarkar suggests that belief in the standard model of cosmology has been so deeply ingrained that it is treated as “the religion”. “I find that frankly annoying that this principle hasn’t been checked,” he said, although not everyone agrees with this characterisation.

Dear Abdul Malek

A couple of years ago I have send a paper about the existence of different "rates of expansion" to a renowned astrofysicist in Switserland. Because the "different rates of expansion" (actually the different regions of the density of the general structure of the universe) is the consequence of the existence of the Higgs field in QFT. Moreover, the differences (max 14,6%) are related to the point of observation of the observer and everything around.

So maybe mathematical physics is not always "absurd mathematical acrobatics to keep the Evil Quanta at bay and save the "absolute truth!"

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm : You, Sir, like most others, fail to see the fundamental difference between my dialectical approach to natural science (theoretical physics and cosmology in particular) and the causality and formal logic-based approach (metaphysics for Hegel), adopted by mainstream and official physics, since Newton.

My point against "absurd mathematical acrobatics” is that causality-based Kantian subjective idealism (based on logical/mathematical categories) is the pabulum and the mainstay of modern mainstream theoretical physics since Einstein and in philosophy since Kant himself! This is also convenient for class-rule because Kant “found it necessary to make room for faith”! Mathematics is the epitome of subjective idealism! This world-view of ordinary thought is a legacy and a heritage of our biological evolution as a species and of our good old common-sense of everyday-life experience, As Kant pre-warned, this epistemology can only deal with the phenomena based on sensuous experience, while the noumena (the ontology of existence) is beyond man and a mystery (unknowable thing-in-itself). So, this epistemology (which you and most follow) say nothing about the ontology of objective reality, i.e., how the world (your "Higgs field" for example) and all its contents came to be! You have to depend on a “first cause” of a beginning and necessarily of a finite universe given in one stroke (Big Bang) by God – a perpetual mystery.

Natural science since antiquity, is based on the premise of “matter in eternal motion” and one can only know about the World - Nature, Life, Society and Thought, only through (living) social/historical practice, technology etc., through which subjective man (and life in general) interact with external and objective Nature. There is no other way to know the world. Theory or positive knowledge can only be a summation of past experience and practice and a guide to future search for positive knowledge and enhanced practice. A good and tentative scientific theory grows out of practice, of guided and/or accidental new discoveries etc., and does not need any “proof” because it grew out of positive knowledge and is proved millions of times a day through the practice of men in technologies! This is the dialectical approach that I follow.

But an epistemology based on esoteric and pure thought (though induced by some sensuous experience) of individually brain-cooked Kantian logical/mathematical categories and “models”; and imposing these on poor Nature and the world and “proving” those models through contrived, manipulated, deceptive or even fake “proofs” – a practice adopted by mainstream and official science since Einstein, can never be science or represent objective reality!

You did not say anything about the fate of your “paper”, but if we go by your comment, it can be nothing but esoteric (Kantian type) scholasticism, the abundance of which is the problem with modern theoretical physics and cosmology. You (like many others) can be self-satisfied with your own personal categories and model or may be me or others can support it, but unfortunately, it would be of little significance, unless your model is in conformity with the official line and like many other models like yours would never the “proved” experimentally. This unfortunately, is the reality!

Regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul Malek

I mailed the paper to Ruth Durrer – University of Geneva – with the “message” that the paper was not written for cosmologists but maybe she could use it if observations show comparable differences in the red shift of electromagnetic waves from galaxies at verified distances. I didn’t expect an answer because the paper is not in line with the lambda-CDM (Standard cosmological model).

Anyway, in your previous comment you made a reference to an article in The Guardian about a conference today (https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2024/04/cosmological-model). A lot of these renowned astronomers and cosmologists are member of ResearchGate. But you will never see them making a comment on a RG topic. The same situation in theoretical physics, although Gerard ‘t Hooft has tried to participate some years ago. He stopped after a couple of days because of all the unpleasant and awkward reactions.

Some active members of ResearchGate use this site for their personal crusade against “the scientific establishment” and/or accepted theories. That is a pity because we need “state of the art” scientists to keep the discussions interesting and valuable.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm > “Some active members of ResearchGate use this site for their personal crusade against “the scientific establishment” and/or accepted theories.”

You are speaking about an “active members of ResearchGate (RG)”, like me! But this “personal crusade” is only possible because of the fairness and the generosity of the RG authorities! RG is the only free of cost outlet, where such “crusades” or any “non-standard” physics or cosmology is possible, because standard journals will reject your “paper” just after seeing the title and the authors; standard discussion forums will delete your “non-standard” comments immediately.

I learnt early on, in my few decades long business in this area, from my late friend Chip Arp (who faced similar problems) and advised me (as he himself did) to publish my works in whatever sub-standard avenue is available, just to put it up online – a resource that previous generations of heretics lacked! So, I started doing so, and now find RG as Godsend. My poor friend Chip, did not get this opportunity. This great (non-standard) eye and mind of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, where about 350 galaxies bear his name; is now a no-name person, as if he never existed. Even the galaxies that he discovered and bears his name are now getting new NGC numbers as his name gets slowly erased!

I did have some indirect encounter with Prof. Gerard ‘t Hooft and also lobbed some equally indirect challenges to him through RG. Even earlier, he unceremoniously rejected my lone article I ever submitted to the journal he used to be the Editor; even though his female secretary of that time, made pleasant remarks after receiving the manuscript. My RG profile showed that the Professor read few of my significant publications from my profile, but never made any comment or gave no indication of his reaction. But as a heretic, my life in RG during the past half a decade remain anything but pleasant; as it was in my earlier half a decade long participation in “Comment is Free” (Cif) of the science blogs (now discontinued) in “The Guardian”, especially the blog “Life and Physics” by Prof. Jon Butterworth, Chair Physics, UCL and the leader of the British team with the detector ATLAS of LHC.

But this intimidation, abuse, persecution etc., which inevitably was my fate; (dialectically) had a positive effect on me! It made me to be resolute and to sharpen my own weapon of dialectics in these encounters. As a consequence, this now enables me to return the favour in kind and in proportions to what was bestowed on me. You may be interested to read the brief history of my experience in RG in my following comment posted in another thread of RG:

[Abdul Malek added a reply

Nancy Ann Watanabe > “The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed.”

But Truth Be Known:

The above-mentioned forum was eventually closed not by the author, but by an unprecedented RG ruling! There was so much personal abuse, hatred and complains against this author of that forum; that RG ultimately decided to close it down; initially totally removing it, but later reinstalled it, but prohibiting any further comments. This author can continue to be active in RG only because of the great generosity and fairness of the RG authorities.

One young man named Jerry Muzsik (totally unknown to this author) wrote a “Prose Collage” of only the comments by this author and posted it online. A copy can be seen in the attached file, below; which will indicate why there is so much vengeance perpetrated against this author by a powerful and internationally coordinated group. The Internet web-page of Jerry and similar other websites with favourable comments are either deleted, vandalized or routinely removed from the Internet listings as hostile acts against this author. Luckily, Jerry’s collage was saved in time, as a WORD-file (shown below), before it was removed from the Internet listing.

But in spite of all these, an ”Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity” came in a storm of some recent publications by this author, particularly the following one: “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

A new publication shown below, as a Tsunami will complete the Herculean task. "New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity":

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/9814

But of course, this refutation is done in principle only. This Tsunami has to work its way through the strong and powerful pillars and foundation and the debris of the centuries-long establishment. The author of this Tsunami may not see his “Victory Crown” (Or Bijoyo Mukut in his native Bengali), in his life-time, but eventually will be a reality; his Quantum Dialectics gives him this much assurance!]

Regards, Abdul

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm : I must add an additional note, about the heretics of the past and the present as I see it. In the medieval past, the heretics (in my judgment) were better off! They were put under the guillotine or like Giordano Bruno were burnt alive on the Stake in an inhuman way, but nevertheless they got fame and live on in history. On the contrary, the rulers of modern times, eliminate their heretics like Halton (Chip) Arp; in a more human, but very efficient and cheap way; by just ignoring them and making sure that they never get any publicity – neither personally nor through published works; so they and their works forever remain unknown to history!

Well, I agree (Abdul Malek ) that ResearchGate is a great medium for scientific communication.

Anyway, the topic is about curved spacetime and the existence of a corresponding theory that is also compatible with quantum theory.

Einstein’s relative time isn’t compatible with quantum theory. One can argue that there are relativistic QM versions, but that is not because quantum theory predicts that time is relative. It is the opposite, in quantum theory time is a universal constant because of Planck’s constant and the constant speed of light. Time in the classic world was a constant too because the universe was supposed to be a continuum.

In Einstein’s theory of General relativity Newton’s gravitational field was replaced by the influence of deformed (curved) space. That means that curved space is equal to a 3D topological (mathematical) structure under invariant volume. The consequence is that the influence of gravity in vacuum space must have the speed of light (smooth topological transformations that have a duration because 3D topological deformation is a flux of infinite small geometrical “objects”).

In Newtonian gravity the gravitational influence is mediated by vectors. Vectors are 1-dimensional (mathematical) objects so we can add and subtract the magnitudes of vectors. But because vectors are 1-dimensional their mutual influences have no delay time (vectors act instantaneous).

The strength of the influence of gravitation depends on the mass of the source and the square of the distance between the source and a point somewhere in vacuum space around the source. Unfortunately, there is no difference between the strength of the gravitational influence in both mathematical models (topological field versus vector field). The only difference is the velocity of the influence because Newtonian gravity can be interpreted as a push (density) force too (see image).

There is a paper about the velocity of the gravitational influence: Ton van Flandern (1998): “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say” Physics Letters A, Volume 250, Issue 1-3, p. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00650-1

Most theorists are not impressed by the paper because they are convinced that Einstein’s curved spacetime is correct at the macroscopic scale size. Moreover, it is really difficult to detect the velocity of the influence because the influence itself is so small. So at the moment we have only reasoning to determine the velocity of the gravitational influence (topological field versus vector field).

In the “primordial” universe (see the article in The Guardian about the Standard cosmological model) there was no matter. That means that there was no rest mass (or quark/gluon “soups”) so the whole universe was vacuum space. There was the universal electric field (3D topological field under invariant volume), its corresponding magnetic field (vector field) and the Higgs field (universal scalar field). All the magnitudes of the scalars of the Higgs field were identical (perfect flat scalar field).

In other words, all the dynamics in the “primordial” universe was restricted to the changes within the structure of the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. The consequence is that the strong force, the weak force and the gravitational force emerged in the “primordial” universe at the moment the 3 basic quantum fields “created” matter.

So this is what we have to rethink: how is matter created?

With kind regards, Sydney

Here is an illustration of the main way of discrediting A.Einstein by @Abdul Malek, namely by propagating the paper as follows almost in every post:

Here is the copy of the top popular answer (in another RG forum), in the rebuttal of Prof. Domsta's dismissal of the article published in INSPIRE: “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754>>

[Abdul Malek added an answer

November 29, 2022

Joachim Domsta : You Sir, unfortunately, seem to me to be the most confused formal mathematician/scientist of any others, I have seen in RG for the past few years. Please see how many times you make successive comments to clarify or correct your own immediate previous posts. Also, I am not a formally trained mathematician and have very limited ability in mathematics. So, we are a mismatch to continue discussion on Einstein's mathematics used in LTs.

I would rather leave the matter to the consideration of others who are more qualified and for better judgments. If you have any issue with my publication, please take it up with INSPIRE, who listed/cited my article in their website. The following is what "INSPIRE" says in their website:

"INSPIRE (http://inspirehep.net/) is a trusted community hub that helps researchers to share and find accurate scholarly information in high energy physics.

It serves as a one-stop information platform for HEP community, comprising 8 interlinked databases on literature, conferences, institutions, journals, researchers, experiments, jobs and data. Run in collaboration by CERN, DESY, Fermilab, IHEP, IN2P3, and SLAC, it has been serving the scientific community for almost 50 years. Previously known as SPIRES, it was the first website outside Europe and the first database on the web. Close interaction with the user community and with arXiv, ADS, HEPData, ORCID, PDG and publishers is the backbone of INSPIRE’s evolution".

Thanks.]

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Were_some_scientists_right_in_showing_that_the_Lorentz_Force_brings_to_a_paradox

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm : The misery of the Big Bang cosmology (and Einstein's SR and GR, including hoped for “the theory of everything”) keeps on increasing in direct proportion to the square (^2) of the “mysteries” it harvests – inflation, black hole, dark matter, dark energy etc. ad nauseum and now it meets the cosmic B.O.A.T!!! https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68787534

To end this misery, Halton (Chip) Arp one of the greatest astronomers of modern times, back in early 2000, already accepted the notion of a dialectical universe, which is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing, mediated by quantum and dialectical chance and necessity.

"THE COSMIC GAMMA-RAY HALO." : Article THE COSMIC GAMMA-RAY HALO.

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" : http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Abdul Malek suggested:

JoaD:"The above accusation of Einstein by suggesting usage of division by zero is an evidence that

-- either the Esteemed Prosecutor has no simple understanding of mathematics used in SRT,

-- or He has lost ability to apply any reasonable argumentation for his aim to "refute" SRT and therefore He HAD to decide to apply ugly way of severe cheating the readers."

A.M. responsed:

That's a GREAT NEW WAY of throwing down responsibility: the journal is guilty that The Author lied about A.Einstein!

In addition to what our honourable and great mathematician Prof. Joachim Domsta , describes in his comment above: The greatest scientist and mathematician of all times, namely Albert Einstein in his publications; also gives the following equation for relativistic mass increase:

m = m0 x gamma, where m0 is equal to 0 (zero); for photon's mass.

If we substitute the numerical value of m0 given by Prof. Einstein, we get the following expression; which my little knowledge of mathematics can understand:

gamma = m/0!!!!

It means that our greatest physicist and mathematician of all time, Herr Professor Einstein, is simply hiding a mathematical fallacy, by using alphabetic symbols instead of using real numerical values! Long live our naked Emperor and his admirers! Amen!

Here is another FALSE statement by Abdul Malek reads as follows:

When we see somewhere 0/0, n/0, etc., you shouldn’t immediately declare the author a fool or a swindler. It is better to use the recommendations of the first paragraphs of any mathematical analysis course (since Euler's time) and imagine this zero in the denominator as the limit of a certain sequence. By God, this will be more useful for science than the favorite pastime of the profane - overthrowing the classics.

Dear @Alexey Orlovsky,

You are perfectly right if speaking to mathematicians, not to persons which on one side declare they do not are trained in math, and on other side they pretend to be competent in EVALUATION of mathematical propositions. And use their FALSE conclusions for ugly way to discredit authorities.

Best regards,

Joachim Domsta

“…text-copy of a paragraph of the paper:

There can never be any "rest mass m0", whether it is zero or not! Quantum electrodynamics and dialectics forbid zero motion. For dialectics, "There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter"

The metaphysical theories of Einstein, specially SR; is now negated and replaced by quantum dialectical new physics" . "New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity": Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...

Maybe this article explains of Expansion of Universe.Please visit the Doi link

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10047.52647

Anybody calming to be a "scientist" must show the temerity to refute at least the following scientific publications of a scientist before ganging-up and making vacuous, shameless and idiotic comments about another scientist. Many, including a Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics, who really read these works have not done it so far:

In order of the oldest first:

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

"QUASARS – POINTERS TO AN INFINITE, ETERNAL AND DIALECTICAL UNIVERSE AND A REPUDIATION OF THE BIG BANG COSMOLOGY" : Article QUASARS – POINTERS TO AN INFINITE, ETERNAL AND DIALECTICAL U...

"New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion" : Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...

Maybe this article useful for future research

Preprint EXPLAINING of EXPANSION of Universe

Here is a quotation from PDF by Abdul Malek: KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas:

- - - - - - -

Here is a link to an article which disproves the above Abdul Malek statement:

https://xaviermath9.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/newtons-elliptical-proof-report.pdf

Comment: It was found for RG by @Stefano Quattrini already couple of months before. Thank you, Stefano.

Dear all,

Our opportunist and spurious Professor, maliciously and without any scientific spirit a) does not show or discuss the mathematical derivations and explanation made in the publication, he refers to, very clearly demonstrating why Newton was wrong and Kepler and Leibniz were right; b) does not show the ability of his own expertise and “scientific acumen” to prove why the author of this article is wrong; c) but instead he “rediscovers” one of his fellow traveller’s “discovery” of a another person’s obscure and lame publication ("proving" no centrifugal force of the planets"), to claim victory over his opponent!

Please read the article, to see for yourself; which many (obviously with much interest) did read so far, including a Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics; at the following link: Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Moreover, please read some follow-up publications (including the last reference cited in my comment above) and comments on this issue, by this author at the following link”: "Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!" Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

RG Question: What is Physics and what is Metaphysics?:

Galileo, Newton, Einstein vs (dialectically corresponding) Kepler, Leibniz, Hegel: Which group was on the right side of science, but got the wrong side of history?

After Copernicus abolished medieval Geocentric cosmology; is modern cosmology of Newton and Einstein anything other than a Geocentric one?

What is at the root of the crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology?

Was Hegel justified when he said, “Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honour, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”.

[As would be shown below, Newtonian metaphysics, assuming the same perfect circular orbits of planets like Galileo and Ptolemy; in essence brought back Geocentric cosmology with his law of universal gravitational attraction and Einstein just perfected this wrong notion with his general relativity (GR) - the epitome of all metaphysics!]

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Physics_and_what_is_Metaphysics

Dear Dr. Sydney Ernest Grimm: Now, in the context of new developments in this forum you probably can appreciate the discussion I had with you, regarding the fate of modern-day heretics and the following copy of my comment to you, "But this intimidation, abuse, persecution etc., which inevitably was my fate; (dialectically) had a positive effect on me! It made me to be resolute and to sharpen my own weapon of dialectics in these encounters. As a consequence, this now enables me to return the favour in kind and in proportions to what was bestowed on me".

Now you probably understand, why as a heretic I have to use a bull-horn to Bragg and shout about myself!! As you yourself found out, the Kosher journals of official physics will not even touch your untouchable heretic work and if you are forced to publish in lesser journals, it is sacrilege of Physics!!!

But TRUTH eventually prevails, as it must!

Dear All,

The impertinent way of dispute by Abdul Malek is readily seen after one compares

1. the sentence

A.M.:

and

2. the content of the article by Jeffrey Gallo April 6, 2017

《History of Mathematics 1/ Newton’s Mathematical Proof of Elliptical Orbits》

available at

https://xaviermath9.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/newtons-elliptical-proof-report.pdf

- - - - - - - - - -

Indeed, the section "Newton’s Principia, Proof of Elliptical Orbits" is illustrated by copies of original works by Newton on pages 23 - 25 which use explicitly the notion of "motion of bodies in eccentric conic sections" (cf. Fig. 17 on p. 24)

- - - - - - - - - -

PS. For readers in eristic technics of cheating: It is clear that contradiction pointed by my last comment concerns the emphasised words [Newton totally disregarded Kepler's]. The defense by Abdul Malek against them is focused on the nature of centrifugal force and on the way I've got to know the paper by Jeffrey Gallo - which should be treated as just auxiliary info.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Conclusion. There is no chance to continue any fair scientific discussion with arguments presented by Abdul Malek.

Thank you for your attention.

Joachim Domsta

Dear All,

"The impertinent way of dispute by Abdul Malek" is "proved" by one "Professor of ALL Professors" Joachim Domsta by using just two sentences, one from each of two rival publications. No qualification was necessary to come to the "profound truth" of this judgment, i.e., why only one was "impertinent". So it is definitely a Professorial way of coming to the truth. But you have to find the truth yourself!

As I have shown through my numerous publications; we cannot depend on God dictated causality and deterministic (pure) idealist mathematics of Professors from Newton to Einstein; not to speak of their followers - the lesser spurious ones, to find objective truth of the world. The quantum phenomena and the dialectical & historical evolution of Nature, Life, Society and Thought, so far; have already abolished the Kingdom of God!

In the immortal words of Epicurus, "It is better to suffer the indignity of faith; than be a slave to the determinism of the physicists". What a great scientist he was, so early in the history of modern science; who also perceived the truth as only now it is possible to appreciate, after the recognition of the Evil Quanta: The universe is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing, mediated by quantum and dialectical chance and necessity, from the macrocosm of the galaxies and their clusters to the microcosm of the quantum world.

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" : http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

"The Limits of Mathematics" : http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

My Esteemed Opponent recognised the following: >

Means I have succeeded! Thanks. The goal was exactly this: To show an evidence that ONE of the sentences in the mentioned paper by Abdul Malek announces a FALSE fact about the written contributions of Sir Isaac Newton [comp. post #2 p.7]

Dear All - my scientific opponents, my supporters or any neutral bystanders following this discussion:

I am extremely sorry to have brought you to watch this unfortunate spectacle, where a Professor and a fellow RG (supposedly scientist) member has such a pitiful mental state, where he takes the sarcasm of his behaviour as the admission of his "success" and his victory!! Sorry, I have lost words to express my grief and sadness about the deplorable state of modern theoretical sciences and cosmology! Good night to you all!

look up Erik Verlinde's emergent gravity, to answer your question yes. this model appears to work also.