My thought has always been that the GT of Einstein must be wrong since you can not bend an empty space!

It's at most a convenient theory to make some calculations.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson please consider this Hypothesis: Imagine Einstein's spacetime manifold wrapped around an ever-expanding Event Horizon. Adding quantum-thin layers to the Black Whole that we call our universe. Quantum time is the radial polar coordinate. These holographic Cosmic Onion layers remember the where & when of each quantum event. The so-called vacuum is NOT empty, it is a superfluid (no viscosity & no aether drag). The mass density and energetic oscillations within the elasticity of this superfluid define Planck units, together these define Impedance, Permeability, and Permittivity.

Please read: Preprint Resolve Dark Energy & Proposed CODATA 2022 Values

Section 4.13 Describes how quantized mass manifestations produces a quantum-to-subquantum slowdown of time. Which spreads forth and merges with these mass manifestations of other nearby particles thus creating a dent in time which spreads forth like radial lines in accord with the inverse square laws. At right angles to these radial lines is concentric contour lines which is the curvature of space.

John Wsol

I believe that all phenomena in nature are rather simple, you just have to change the very mathematical approach, which doesn't lead anywhere, and start all over trying to understand, before playing with math.

I suggest to start reading (in my profile) a demonstration that Einstein's relativity theories are wrong.

That is an excellent starting point.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson please, respectfully read the context of Section 1 which fully explains the fallacy of mainstream thinking that spacetime is flat.

We live in an ever-expanding spherical universe. We and all observers in other galaxies are always on the outer-most edge of this Cosmic Event Horizon. Through out telescopes we "think" we our looking out to outer space -- we are actually looking into the depths of times past when the universe and everything in it was smaller. Light rays that we say are straight "spatially" are actually bent "temporally". Learn about Cosmic Onion geometry & covariance as described in: Preprint Resolve Dark Energy & Proposed CODATA 2022 Values

Valery Borisovich Morozov General Relativity is just missing one thing to make it complete. With the introduction of Cosmological Relativity, I've found how to unify all of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. The solution is SO simple that when you all finally wrap your minds around the distinction of absolute quantum metrics vs. ever-expanding emergent metrics. By mixing quantum metrics with our SI units in the same expression these terms with their dimensional units explain time dealation at the quantum-level.

"c^2 it is so simple (Δarea) / (ΔPlanck times/second) per each passing second. The value of 4.27x10^25 Planck times/second^2 will forever be in every physics book of the future.

John Wsol

The only thing that I can agree on is that many fundamental "constants" change their value with the Universe expansion.

JES

Dear Valery Borisovich Morozov,

After more than ten years of thinking (and two years of hard condition work) the article about gravity is ready) concordant with reality, containing Newton gravity theory and Einstein theory two)

It has geological, solar, and geochemical proves.and concordant with ancient traditional Chinese philosophy, it is connected to the electromagnetism. gives reasonable explanation to the gravity waves and it has the graviton:

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

(Hungarian)

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

From it exists English translation:

Abstract:

Research Proposal Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton (Fiz...

Conclusion:

Chapter Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton

Graviton:

Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t

If someone helps me with English language correction i will translate to English:

My co-author of the next article:

Article Gravity a paradym shift in reasoning

wrote me the next:

’No quark

No, contradict you!

Our theory extended

It has Newton and Einstein too..’

Regards,

Laszlo

The only way we can identify other universes in the expanding universe relies on electromagnetic waves(including light). What defines the universe being flat or not flat? We can check this through the path of electromagnetic waves. In my paper(Title: Beyond the Speed of Light – A Review of the Theory of Relativity and the Speed of Light by the Ether(Dark Matter)), I suggested that ether, a medium, exists in all spaces where electromagnetic waves propagate, and that ether has mass. It is inconceivable for humans, who can check space through electromagnetic waves, to think of a flat three-dimensional space in the universe where the strength and weakness of gravitational fields exist depending on the mass of matter. Since the universe is not flat due to the gravitational field, electromagnetic waves cannot travel in a straight line.

Dear Hyun-Chun Lee ,

I agree with you on many points.

However, you go against the classical traditional philosophy, which is basically based on observation of nature... You approach things only from the yang side, and where is the ying nature. There are no women in your life. I don't think so. They'd be very angry with you if they found out you denied their existence.

Regards,

Laszlo

Stellan Gustafsson "The only thing that I can agree on is that many fundamental "constants" change their value with the Universe expansion."

Fundamental constants are linked to biochemical properties of matter.

Changing fundamental constants therefor violates the anthropic principle.

The extreme complexity of metabolic processes cannot tolerate even the slightest modification of biochemical properties. During a time period of more than four billion years, no such changes can have happened. Otherwise every change would have enforced a restart of evolution from scratch.

Wolfgang Konle

That depends on; how these constants are changing.

At the end of the year I hope to arrive at the end of the Daon Theory, which is a description of how the Universe is working. Which of course will included the variation of all pertinent constants.

So have some patience.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson "That depends on; how these constants are changing."

Considering the nonlinear relation between molecular energy levels and natural constants, you cannot really believe that there is a way that the natural constants can change their values without changing biochemical properties.

Wolfgang Konle

The expansion of the Universe is a very slow process (if we look into molecular physics) and all energy levels are influenced in the same manner. This means that all relative difference between the levels will be unchanged whereas their absolute values will change.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson "The expansion of the Universe is a very slow process"

It is irrelevant how fast basic natural constants would change. Evolution also is a very slow process. Evolution cannot tolerate the slightest modifications, because some of the metabolic processes use mechanisms which have been developed during the very beginning of biological evolution on earth.

A critical point is that a space expansion without a coordinated acceleration of the lapse of time would change the speed of light. But the speed of light directly influences molecular energy levels.

Wolfgang Konle

I can give you a first taste of the solution:

1) Velocity in general will be unchanged but dimensions and time will change so that the velocity remains constant.

2) Energy and mass will grow linearly with the expansion.

The rest will be a surprise.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson "Energy and mass will grow linearly with the expansion."

If this would be true, we would not exist. The molecular energy levels depend in a complex nonlinear way on the rest mass of electrons. An expanding universe would permanently change basic biochemical properties of matter. This would make a biological evolution impossible.

Our existence proofs stable constant conditions within at least the last four billion years.

Below you will find an electromagnetic explanation of gravitation. It is in agreement with Newton's results.

Article The electromagnetic cause of gravity

Andreas Gimsa "The electromagnetic cause of gravity"

Sorry, but this derivation of gravity based on variations of fundamental natural constants is not convincing at all.

Gravitation is completely independent from the consistence of matter. Even pure energy gravitates according to its mass equivalent.

Your formulae, which contain various natural constants related to matter, are not applicable to the gravitating properties of pure energy.

Wolfgang Konle

The scientific community needs constructive criticism and not a teacher-in-chief who makes unfounded assertions.

Wolfgang Konle

It's to easy to say "complex nonlinear way", if you really want to understand things. You must be precis in the definition of molecular energy levels.

And, please don't start with QM or other doubtful theories. If you look at the distance between electrons and nucleus you find that there should not be any special effect, it's normal electromagnetic relations (but some improvement of Maxwell's equations is needed).

JES

Andreas Gimsa "scientific community needs constructive criticism and not a teacher-in-chief"

Ok, you think that my point of the critics of your gravitation theory is too scholastic.

But my point is that your derivation is not applicable to the gravitation of a mass equivalent of energy. Do you consider this point as typical for a "teacher-in-chief" because it points to a gap in your theory?

May be you have a more factual answer, which closes the gap. Brushing of comments as coming from a teacher-in-chief is not helpful.

Stellan Gustafsson "You must be precise in the definition of molecular energy levels. And, please don't start with QM or other doubtful theories."

Sorry, but quantum mechanics is the only theory which allows to calculate molecular energy levels. The energy levels correspond to the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian, which describes the energy contained in a molecule and its freedom to oscillate and rotate.

But currently our calculation capabilities, even with the largest computers, are not sufficient to determine energy levels of biochemical molecules. But we know that even the energy levels of a hydrogen molecule do not linearly depend on natural constants. They depend in a complex nonlinear way on (h, e, me, mp, ε0, μ0)

We cannot find a possible modification pattern of all those constants, which keeps all expressions for the energy levels unchanged.

In terms of physics, the energy content contains kinetic and field energy density parts, which depend on geometric relations. This mélange of relations leads to an extreme complexity in the things, which hold our world together in the most intrinsic aspect we can imagine.

Re-arranging only the slightest things in this non-transparent intrinsic situation questions everything, what we assume to be obviously given.

Wolfgang Konle

OK!, I'll give you a simple demonstration in the next chapter of the Daon Theory, which explains the behaviour of the electrons within an atom.

It should be ready in about a week. So, if you like we can continue this discussion after that.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

OK, I am looking forward to a simple and comprehensible explanation.

The first statement is false. Newton in his book "Opticks" suggested gravity was gradient of his aether. The advantage, in "Opticks", was because the aether could also be used to describe light diffraction. Since Newton, no model included light diffraction in the "gravity' explanation. Well, except the STOE which started with Newton's "Opticks" then skipped GR and went to Hoyle's and Narlikar's QSSC. So, the challenge is not to have JUST a model of gravity but to include light diffraction. GR fails. No modification of GR succeeds.

Wolfgang Konle

"But my point is that your derivation is not applicable to the gravitation of a mass equivalent of energy."

Yet another unfounded assertion, only it is at least worth discussing.

Of course you can take equation (20) and simply insert the mass equivalent of a quantum of light. Then you get the gravitational force on the quantum in relation to the sun, for example. If you have an initial momentum, you can calculate a trajectory. Since the electromagnetic notation of my equation is identical to Newton's, this is of course possible. Photons are neutral to the outside like any mass, they too must change with the expansion of the universe, their frequency must fall with age. The wavelength increases in the same proportion as the orbital of an electron. An electron and a positron could anhilize light radiation to approx. 1,000 keV. Previously there were two charged masses on which gravity naturally acted. We can assume that my calculations also apply to photons.

Article The electromagnetic cause of gravity

Hyun-Chun Lee ,

"Electromagnetic radiation normally propagates in straight lines at the speed of light and does not require a medium for transmission. It slows as it passes through a medium such as air, water, glass, etc."

Source: https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter6-1/

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe,

The fact that light(electromagnetic waves) does not propagate in a straight line within a gravitational field was known by many observers measuring the bending phenomenon of starlight passing around the sun in the early and mid-20th century. Of course, before that, Einstein's theory of general relativity suggested the angle of deflection of starlight passing by the sun. Einstein's angle of deflection did not match observations. Although it is not common, I calculated the angle of deflection of starlight using Newtonian mechanics by assigning mass to ether, which acts as a mediator in the propagation of light. The calculated value closely matches the observed value. Aether, a medium for the propagation of light(electromagnetic waves), exists in all universes where light reaches. If ether had mass, the direction of light(electromagnetic waves) would not travel in a straight line anywhere in the universe where gravity acts, although there may be some differences. I'm sorry if I'm rude. Thank you.

Andreas Gimsa "The wavelength increases in the same proportion as the orbital of an electron."..."We can assume that my calculations also apply to photons."

All your equations are related to elementary particles and atoms. How can you assume that they also apply to photons?

Starting with equation 13 and ending with equation 75, every equation contains me and mp. Those rest masses are not related to photon properties.

Electric and magnetic fields only interact with charges. Gravitational fields interact with mass and energy. If according to your theory gravitation is a residual electric and magnetic interaction, then it cannot act on uncharged media like photons.

Wolfgang Konle

Both masses and light are usually electrically neutral.

As we know, light is electromagnetic radiation. Depending on the frequency, a photon can be assigned an energy and thus a mass equivalent as well as a momentum: m=hf/c²; p=hf/c.

A gravitational force follows with the mass equivalent.

The spatial increase in charge during the expansion of the universe results in a displacement current. The frequency of light also changes with the expansion, it becomes smaller.

If light is in the area of an attractive mass, the displaced electrical charges of this mass affect the magnetic part of the photon radiation. Conversely, the shifted electrical component of the photon radiation acts on the magnetic field of the attracting mass.

Andreas Gimsa " the shifted electrical component of the photon radiation acts on the magnetic field of the attracting mass."

Such an interaction is a pipe dream. Photons do not at all react on magnetic fields.

Wolfgang Konle

yet another such unprofessional claim.

Please note: The gravitational influence of any masses on photons is extremely small. I do not expect you to understand my explanations.

Another example is the photon Hall effect.

Andreas Gimsa "The gravitational influence of any masses on photons is extremely small."

Yes but the influence of magnetic or electric fields on any masses of photons is zero. If gravitation would be caused by some residual electromagnetic impact, it could not act on photons.

"I do not expect you to understand my explanations."

The problem is that your explanations are not related to physical facts.

Wolfgang Konle

"If gravitation would be caused by some residual electromagnetic impact, it could not act on photons."

I didn't write anything like that anywhere, but that during the expansion of the universe the atoms become spatially larger. The resulting displacement currents of the charges cause a Lorentz force effect on the magnetic fields of other masses.

In this way, I calculate Newtonian gravity very precisely. The known experiments show that photons with their mass equivalent are subject to the same phenomenon.

I have given an initial explanation, but it is not yet entirely satisfactory for me either. That's the way it is in research. However, I am sure that it is only a matter of time before this phenomenon can be qualified by quantum physics.

Article The electromagnetic cause of gravity

Andreas Gimsa "I have given an initial explanation, but it is not yet entirely satisfactory for me either. That's the way it is in research. However, I am sure that it is only a matter of time before this phenomenon can be qualified by quantum physics."

Thank you for the honest answer.

This quote should stop discussions on this topic.

Valery Borisovich Morozov "The only real theory of gravity is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The object of this theory is Einstein's physical space. This object has mass density, momentum and stress. However, the speed of the physical vacuum does not make sense."

If the energy momentum tensor, exclusively with contributions from mass, energy and stress, would be the only relevant item within Einstein's physical space, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity indeed would be the only real theory of gravity.

But as soon as gravity itself also is considered as a source of gravity, Einstein's theory is incomplete. The problem is that a negative energy density is not consistent with contributions to the components of the energy momentum tensor. Negative mass density values compromise the consistence with the components momentum and stress of this tensor.

But we can get a consistent context, if we add a medium of gravitational nature, which compensates the negative energy density. A gravitational field then reduces the energy density of that medium.

By adding such a medium, we come to a consistent theory, but with a maximum value for the gravitational field strength. This then invalidates the Schwarzschild solution of Einstein's field equation.

But there is another point. The additional medium can have an intrinsic flow. In this case, even the speed of the physical vacuum makes sense and gravito-magnetic effects arise.

Wolfgang Konle "But as soon as gravity itself also is considered as a source of gravity, Einstein's theory is incomplete. The problem is that a negative energy density is not consistent with contributions to the components of the energy momentum tensor. Negative mass density values compromise the consistence with the components momentum and stress of this tensor."

This problem is solved in the articlePreprint New version of General Relativity and the Structure of "Black Holes"

Valery Borisovich Morozov

Congratulation to the excellent article based on a deep understanding of the relevant and complex differential geometric relations.

Based on equation (1) I think that the complete derivation is correct. But let me ask a question about the energy momentum tensor f of the gravitational field, which appears in equation (1).

How is it possible that the negative energy density of the gravitational field can be expressed as a valid energy momentum tensor?

Can you answer this question?

Wolfgang Konle ,

Negative energy of the gravitational field appears in Newtonian theory. In the Landau-Lifshitz course, negative energy density was calculated. I use this to partially test the field energy-momentum tensor. Negative particle energy is nothing strange. The peculiarity of the gravitational field is that in a static field the field energy density is negative; on the contrary, gravitational waves carry positive energy

Valery Borisovich Morozov "The peculiarity of the gravitational field is that in a static field the field energy density is negative; on the contrary, gravitational waves carry positive energy"

Yes, but the general problem is that an absolute negative energy density cannot exist. Therefor another field, may be a dark energy field, must compensate the negative energy density.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster "There is absolutely nothing which forbids total energy (density) to be negative..."

...except the fact that radiation must have a positive energy density.

We must consider that radiation is the only possible method to adapt a field, which contains an energy density, to a modified velocity of the field source.

Force fields are co-moving with its source. If the field source gets accelerated, it radiates. The aperiodic part of the radiation modifies the static co-moving field component. The result of the modification after the end of the acceleration and after the radiation also has ended is an again co-moving field with the new velocity.

But the radiation has no chance to adapt a field with an absolute negative energy density to a modified velocity. Radiation gets its energy from the energy source, which provides energy for the acceleration. This is positive energy.

If you can find another mechanism, which also would be able to adapt a field with an absolute negative energy density to a modified velocity of the field source, then I also can believe that an absolute negative energy density would be possible and also adaptable to moving sources.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster "The energy density of the gravitational field equals the total energy density in matter-free space-time."

With this statement you switch to a holistic consideration of everything. But this does not lead to concrete consequences.

The key point remains that an absolute negative field energy density cannot be adapted to source movements, by radiation.

This key point proofs that an absolute negative field energy density cannot exist. Your holistic view is remarkable, but does not disprove the key point.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster "responsible for movements..."

With this statement you underline your holistic view. Let me also contribute something to this view:

We consider the potential energy W of an isolated mass density distribution ρ in its own gravitational potential. This energy is given by W=0.5*∫ρɸdV. Isolated only means that the potential vanishes in infinity.

Replacing ρ=∇²ɸ/(4πG) from the poisson equation and executing the partial integration, which transforms the integrand ɸ∇²ɸ to (∇ɸ)² leads to

W=- 1/(8πG)*∫(∇ɸ)²dV.

(The partial integration says for definite integrals ∫f'g=fg-∫fg'. We identify f' with ∇²ɸ and g with ɸ. We then get in out three dimensional case f=∇ɸ and g'=∇ɸ. In our case fg vanishes due to the infinite integration limits, where the potential vanishes)

Please note ∇ɸ=g. g is here the gravitational acceleration, the field strength of the gravitational field. This integral relation holds for all configurations of a mass density where the potential vanishes in infinity.

This relation simply says that the total potential energy of mass in its own gravitational field is equal to the total energy contained in the gravitational field. This equality unmistakably says that the potential energy and the gravitational field energy are the same. Therefor, if you say that this is not the case in general relativity, then in this respect, general relativity must be wrong.

But again, this fact, the equivalence of potential energy and field energy, has nothing to do with the radiation property of static fields.

The statement, that the basic purpose of radiation is to keep force fields permanently attached to the movement of their sources, again remains untouched by your holistic view.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

you obviously ignore that the Newtonian view on gravitation coincides with the general relativistic view for not too strong gravitational fields.

May I remind to the work of Valery Borisovich Morozov who shows just this coincidence in his publication "Preprint New version of General Relativity and the Structure of "Black Holes"" (see text from eq. (5) to eq. (6).)

Within this moderate range of field strength, there is no contradiction between the Newtonian and the Einsteinian view. This absolute clearly holds, if we add the concept of the mass equivalent of the field energy density to the Newtonean gravitation.

This theoretic analogy especially concerns the equivalence of the potential energy and the field energy. Considering field energy, or alteratively the energy located in space distortions, does not really make a difference. It is the same subject, only expressed by different methods.

But we now just arrived at the same point, which we could not resolve in previous discussions.

However, the current discussion should be about the fact, that the purpose -, or more precisely the impact, of radiation, emitted by an accelerated field source, is to adapt the field to the modified movement.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

Yes, your point is that gravitational fields, expressed in terms of space distortion are something else as gravitational fields expressed in terms of a negative energy density.

My point is, that it is the same, and that Valery Borisovich Morozov has shown that it is the same.

However, you did not at all comment the statement that the aperiodic part of radiation adapts force fields to the modified velocity of the field source.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

Ok, let's focus on the radiation issue.

Force fields are permanently co-moving with its source. If the field source gets accelerated to a new velocity, something must adapt the field to the new velocity. We know that accelerated field sources radiate.

We also know that the accelerated movement, the cause of the radiation, causes a periodic and an aperiodic reaction. Only a periodic movement can cause a purely periodic reaction.

Therefor we can assume that the aperiodic reaction adapts the force field to the new velocity. Because the force field contains an energy density the aperiodic part of the radiation also must contain energy.

The energy for radiation is provided by the same source, which provides the energy for the acceleration. This is positive energy. A field with an absolute negative energy density therefor cannot be adapted by radiation to a new velocity.

Consequently a field with an absolute negative energy density cannot exist.

"The only real theory of gravity is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The object of this theory is Einstein's physical space. This object has mass density, momentum and stress". Valery Borisovich Morozov :

"It is the old story. First of all, one makes sensuous things into abstractions and then one wants to know them through, the senses, to see time and smell space. The empiricist becomes so steeped in the habit of empirical experience, that he believes that he is still in the field of sensuous experience when he is operating with abstractions. We know what an hour is, or a metre, but not what time and space are! As if time was anything other than just hours, and space anything but just cubic metres! The two forms of existence of matter are naturally nothing without matter, empty concepts, abstractions which exist only in our minds." Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature. Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Stefan Bernhard Rüster "Gravitational waves are a part of the gravitational field. And so the energy density of gravitational waves are a part of the energy density of the gravitational field.

I hope that this explanation helps you to understand the whole thing?"

Yes, that statement is correct. But we still seem to have differences in the discussion of the consequences.

The key point is that gravitational waves, radiated by accelerated sources of gravitational fields must have a positive energy density.

Those waves, or more precisely the aperiodic part of those waves, cannot have a negative energy density. Therefor they cannot contribute to the adaptation of a gravitational field with a negative absolute energy density to the new velocity of an accelerated field source.

This proofs that an absolute negative energy density of force fields cannot exist.

Abdul Malek About "it is the old story"

Things easily become more complex as a superficial consideration reveals.

We get an impressive example if we consider the response of an elastic medium on a force. We intuitively expect a displacement exactly in the direction of the force. But any elastic medium does not react this way on the force. There are also displacement components perpendicular to the force.

For well trained people it is obvious that describing the response of an elastic medium on a force, requires tensor calculous. For others this is uncomprehensible mumbo-jumbo.

This exactly is the fact with relativity theory and spacetime. Some aspects of the theoretical tools to handle all the implications of the theory are understood as being mumbo-jumbo.

But accepting of having a certain deficit of information concerning that theory, scratches at the self-confidence. Therefor the way out of this dilemma is discrediting the theory as being irrelevant and wrong.

Many people think that way. Therefor doubts in releativity theory get more and more spreaded in the world of self-made scientists. The general attitude of using the internet, amplifies this principle.

Minkowski-Einstein (so-called) "spacetime" is a fiction - an abstract geometrical construct with no empirical content. It is only a fantastic mental creation. Space and time as abstract entities to which one can only assign quantity (infinite), but absolutely no tangible quality through which one could have any sensuous feeling (taste, smell etc.); not to speak of bending, stretching etc. The so-called "spacetime" and the much-venerated gamma factor can be derived from thought (geometry alone), no physics is necessary. 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

All this endless and meaningless scholasticism, debates, "scientific" discourse, deceptive and fake experimental "proofs" of Einstein's "theories" of relativity, going on for more than a century are an absolute waste of human, natural, financial etc., resources and a curse on humanity; only benefiting the Frankenstein Monster, namely monopoly capitalism as a ruling tool.

Abdul Malek "Minkowski-Einstein (so-called) "spacetime" is a fiction - an abstract geometrical construct with no empirical content. It is only a fantastic mental creation."

You are interpreting mystical things in spacetime. "Spacetime" only means that for certain aspects, space and time are not independent.

Mathematically this dependency is expressed by four dimensions, which offer this dependency between time and space. That is all.

Abdul Malek

Wolfgang Konle

Wolfgang is right. Einstein invented a cover up for gravity by bending of nothing. GRT is wrong.

SRT is also wrong. Michelson and Lorentz created SRT by absurd Lorentz transform. Transverse ether wind falls inside the wave front according to the wave model, and such an ether wind cannot tilt a wave front. This was also an invention in 1887.

John-Erik

Wolfgang Konle and John-Erik Persson : I am sorry gentlemen, I do not do scholasticism based on brain-cooked ideas and metaphysical speculations; which is going on about the question of gravitation since Isaac Newton and counting! I am a scientist and your comments directed to me do not conform to scientific practice. For a scientific approach to gravity, please see the following article in addition to the one cited above, I would be happy to discuss about any question of gravitation related to these two publications only. Thanks.

"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...

Abdul Malek

I think that you FIRST should read my papers, than I can give comments on your papers, containing 99% history. You have not commented a word about my short statements above.

John-Erik

Abdul Malek

The gravitational force is caused by the same principle as all forces in nature are caused. The cause of any force F on an object is the modification dW of an energy content, caused by a displacement ds of the object. F=dW/ds.

Stefan, "the Energy density of the gravitational field e consists of two parts, the Energy density of the Background b and the Energy density of the waves w"

In principle, you could be right. But w, the energy density of gravitational waves, is not determined. It is not ensured and cannot be ensured that w always and everywhere compensates the negative energy density of static gravitational fields. Only a omnipresent static field with a positive energy density can ensure this compensation always and everywhere.

But I see it as a great success that you begin to follow my argumentation, that a compensation of the negative energy density of static gravitational fields is necessary at all.

My conviction is that only an omnipresent static field can accomplish this, but other solutions are also possible.

Right. Same about all notions describing the real world. All we can do is to exchange our impressions about them, be it qualitatively or even quantitatively.

For instance, our room where we live is imagined as a piece of 3D ABSTRACT SPACE confined by planar borders (the abstracts of the inner surfaces of walls, floor and the ceilling.

Most of us treat the ABSTRACT objects called by the community by special names as REAL, since the next day, and the next day, and all other next days we can make measurements which show each time THE SAME result.

By now, the community of people which may daily experience relativistic phenomena is too small. Therefore we cannot reach acceptance that the relativistic phenomena are real.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster ,

it is not true if one follows General Relativity and assumes in Newtonian Gravitation that vacuum energy density, far from masses, is 0...emptiness of masses means total emptiness..

That way it is quite difficult even to find the energy necessary for two equal massess to collide towards their common Center Of Mass...which is the most common experience...

Post Card:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Benish/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914/attachment/659811dd53d234443fdc93df/AS%3A11431281215929505%401704464861522/download/PostCard+Frnt-Bk+Jan+2024+LLR.jpg?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6ImhvbWUiLCJwYWdlIjoicXVlc3Rpb24iLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJxdWVzdGlvbk92ZXJ2aWV3IiwicG9zaXRpb24iOiJwYWdlQ29udGVudCJ9fQ

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914/818

Copy of a comment in another RG forum, probably of some interest here also

Abdul Malek added an answer 2 days ago

Michael Peck> "Is the modern approach to cosmology fundamentally flawed"?

No, the modern approach to cosmology is NOT fundamentally flawed! It is achieving brilliant results guided by the noble philanthropist (Late) Sir Jeffrey Epstein. You would know some of the makers and the shakers of modern cosmology from the following report from Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss – one of the scientific representatives and organizers of Sir Epstein: “I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists. Stephen Hawking came. We had three Nobel laureates: Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who's working on the Large Hadron Collider—which, a decade ago, people wouldn't have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be”.

Full report available at the following links: https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

The Guardian report: The MIT-Epstein debacle shows ‘the prostitution of intellectual activity’. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/07/jeffrey-epstein-mit-funding-tech-intellectuals

Stefan Bernhard Rüster ,

GPE is certainly positive, the question is, where is it taken from?

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

this is the problem, here lays an unwarranted assumption, the consequence of having assumed as 0 the intrinsic energy of the vacuum.

So we are eating the rest mass??

Stefan Bernhard Rüster "...a positive value for the Energy density of the gravitational field is Not true in Case of a gravitational system Like a Star for example."

Imagine an omnipresent positive energy density W0 added to the negative energy density -g²/(8πG). This leads to a positive absolute energy density W=W0-g²/(8πG), but does not at all change the (attractive) properties caused by the relative negative energy density.

There are MANY observations that GR fails to explain. Several others where the explanation id ad hoc ( very weak). And GR is incompatible with much of the universe (the small) covered by QM. It's been too long stuck in the last major paradigm shift. Time for a TOE. I think I have one.

John Hodge "I think I have one."

Do you have an explanation or an observation that GR fails to explain?

Stefan Bernhard Rüster ,

the problem has been considered solved in classical mechanics by assuming a potential energy.... it is a good move but it just shows that there is something coming apparently from nowhere...

so again where do you take the energy from...because again the only solution, if one discards vacuum energy, is that some rest mass is eaten and then restored if the body is lifted in the gravitational filed...

Wolfgang Konle

asymmetric rotations curves of spiral galaxies. Theoretical value of CMB. Periodic redshift of galaxies. All 10 of the Pioneer Anomalies. Then there is the ad hoc spiral galaxies rotations curves (ad hoc is dark matter - still unidentified). Planet 9. Correlation of central mass object and central velocity dispersion.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster ,

the simplest scenario is the one tested by Cavendish between two relatively small masses and he found the gravitational constant.

We can even consider the Hulse and Taylor configuration...also there, there is an assumption of the "gravitational potential energy" of the two masses at a certain distance...

the problem of where that energy comes from remains unless you imply that the energy is taken from the rest mass of one of the two bodies or both or I don't know...

Stefano Quattrini> “it is not true if one follows General Relativity and assumes in Newtonian Gravitation that vacuum energy density, far from masses, is 0...emptiness of masses means total emptiness..That way it is quite difficult even to find the energy necessary for two equal massess to collide towards their common Center Of Mass...which is the most common experience...”

The root of this bankruptcy in the “Development of the theory of gravity”; of Professors now crawling out of their woodwork to declare, “Therefore we cannot reach acceptance that the relativistic phenomena are real.”; and most of all as the Guardian report (cited above) showing, “scientists” resorting to intellectual prostitution etc., has only one source –the word, IMAGINATION.

This started with the imagination of the Epicycles of Ptolemy, the imagination of the perfect circle of the orbits of the planets by Newton, the imagination of the 4D abstract geometrical manifold having tangible material, physical, metrical attributes etc., of Einstein; now leading to “Imagine an omnipresent positive energy density W0 added to the negative energy density -g²/(8πG)", by modern "physicists". So far, there is nothing but imagining in the “Development of the theory of gravity”; surpassing in the fantasy of cosmic myths of prehistory and the early history of Hindu or Greek mythology. This imagining has also led to the ultimate indignity of natural science -begging at the door of theology and the Vatican!

The problem of the REAL “Development of the theory of gravity”, was very simple indeed, and was already worked out from the incredibly meticulous observational data of Tycho Brahe and Kepler’s brilliant power-law relation – a fundamental attribute of Nature as observed in gravitational, electric, magnetic, nuclear, luminosity etc., phenomena. Kepler’s laws and elliptical orbits led Leibniz to the correct conclusion that gravitation is a dialectical contradiction of two opposites, namely attractive force that Galileo measured on the earth’s surface and a repulsive force arising from vis viva (motion) – a sovereign and an inherent attribute, the mode of existence of matter. There can be no matter particle without chance and necessity mediated motion and no motion without matter. The dialectical consideration naturally leads to the Potential for gravitation: Ep= mA/r^3 - GMm/r – mCr^2, (where A, C are constants), and is more appropriate for any cosmic formation; planetary, star clusters, galaxies etc., absolutely without the necessity of any cosmic monsters, imagined by our bankrupt "Physicists”! Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

This is a far cry from Newton’s imagination of an equilibrium of eternal and uniform planetary motion along a perfect circular orbit after the “First Impulse” from God. But vis viva, defying God’s hand was not be and still is not; courtesy of Imperial England, the Church and the opportunist European Bourgeois capitalism, now in its decadent monopoly state – hence the total negation of the Copernican revolution – the greatest revolution in human history, which had brought the promise of the liberation of man from all alienations and particularly from the exploitation of man by man. Now, monopoly capitalism has brought the ultimate insult on theoretical physics and cosmology in the form of Einstein’s theories of relativity and the most fantastic cosmic mythology of all times!

The rot in official cosmology actually started with the adoption of the wrong side of the dispute on momentum: Cartesian mv vs. Leibnizian mv^2 : "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...

Wolfgang Konle

Also, there are the BIG issues:

inconsistency with the small (light interference, etc.)

It's NOT Machian: Both Newton and GR assumes the high potential is reduced by matter/energy. Where does this high stuff come from?

John Hodge "Where does this high stuff come from?"

Are you considering the (gravitational) potential as "stuff"?

Stefano Quattrini "the problem of where that (potential) energy comes from remains unless you imply that the energy is taken from the rest mass of one of the two bodies or both or I don't know..."

The energy is located in the gravitational field. It is definitively not taken/(eaten) from the rest mass of the two bodies. The relative field energy density E is proportional to the field strength squared. E=-g²/(8πG)

Wolfgang Konle

Kinda. It is the thing that is lowered to which the gradient is applied to get force. In some videos, it is the rubber sheet that deforms when weight is added. Newton suggested it was the aether.

John Hodge > "Where does this high stuff come from?"

You can just IMAGINE whatever you like! NOT a BIG problem!

Stefan Bernhard Rüster > "The same with the total energy density which is equal to the energy density of the gravitational field in matter-free space-time."

The question was asked where does "the energy density of the gravitational field in matter-free space-time.", come from? And where does matter-free "spacetime" itself come from if not from God, like Newton's "First Impulse" for motion? If there is no scientific answer to this question, then this is no science and does not deserve any scientific discussion.

There is no wonder that the Vatican has now taken over this kind of theoretical physics and cosmology: “By 1982 when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F.Hoyle, V. Ambartsumian, and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents. In fact, in the introduction to he published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers”. Burbidge G. Vatican Conference on big bang. In G. Münch, A. Mampaso, FSánchez Ed. The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology,Cambridge University Press 1997.