GR is not always static gravitational theory. It depends upon which scheme of geometry you are dealing with. For local solutions of Einstein equation, You can get static gravitational solutions. this kind of solution provide you the nature of black holes or local horizons. But when you will try to deal with global case, you have to deal with cosmic bubble and you will need to use different geometry i.e. FRW or Bianchi or LTB like geometry. Those geometry never provide you static gravitational solution, instead you may find expanding universe models. Even from dynamical decomposition mechanism or Raychaudhuri equation you will also find dynamical gravitational solutions.

quantum theory introduce good discussion

Shouvik Sadhukhan，

GR attempts to establish a mathematical model of gravity through geometry, but the gravity model that GR is trying to describe is actually a gravity model under the influence of gravitational waves.

We deduced the gravitational equation under the influence of gravitational waves and applied it to the calculation of planetary orbits. We found that the obtained orbital data is basically the same as the result of GR calculation, but the calculation of Venus precession deviation is different from GR. the result of.

240" vs 8.6", according to the characteristic of Venus's orbit close to a circle, 240" is more reliable and closer to astronomical observation.

Lubomir Vicek reminded us of the opinion of the first Nobel laureates in physics, who believed that “the theory of relativity is a mathematical and not a physical theory, and this theory of contradicts the fundamental ideas about space and time: the Euclidean space and the usual ideas of time must remain binding”.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RAfMhZhvNPqFVNXo8 You see, the space-time warping model established by GR is so similar to the gravitational model under the Doppler effect of gravitational wave, but GR is static, and GR's space warping model is symmetrical relative to the center of the ball, but our gravitational model is a dynamic gravitational model, which is axisymmetric relative to the direction of the planet's motion, which is the real physical essence.

GR is not static theory, because its mathematical base is 4-dimensional space (space-time). Exact solutions of GR (Einstein, or field equations) can be static, stationary, non-static, non-stationary. Static solution (Shwarzschield solution in the empty space-time, for example) is static, because this metric does not depend on time. Goedel solution is stationary, because it depends of the velocity of rotation of 3-space but does not depend on the time coordinates. Friedman solutions of expandng Universe are non-static because depends on the time.

Larissa Borissova,

Such an answer can only make us doubt that GR is a "cobbled together" theory, and different scenes are cobbled together in different ways.

Especially in the calculation of Venus precession deviation, GR calculation is not correct.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html

Table 2 and Figure 46 compare the observed perihelion precession rates with the theoretical rates calculated from Equation (1024) and the planetary data given in Table 1. It can be seen that there is excellent agreement between the two, except for the planet Venus. The main reason for this is that Venus has an unusually low eccentricity (📷), which renders its perihelion point extremely sensitive to small perturbations.

Professor Richard's paper also clearly pointed out the particularity of Venus, which was not reflected in the calculation of GR, because GR is a static gravitational model.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RAfMhZhvNPqFVNXo8 You see, the space-time warping model established by GR is so similar to the gravitational model under the Doppler effect of gravitational wave, but GR is static, and GR's space warping model is symmetrical relative to the center of the ball, but our gravitational model is a dynamic gravitational model, which is axisymmetric relative to the direction of the planet's motion, which is the real physical essence.

The theory of relativity must be separated from the theory of gravity. The shortcomings of Einstein's theory of gravity are given in article [1]:

[1]. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2020.812202

Einstein's attempt at a general theory is not valid, because he approached the project believing that general relativity would just be a simple generalisation of special relativity's physics.

And it's not. A general theory is based on fundamentally different assumptions to the special theory.

• Under a general theory, all observer-masses must have associated curvature, and any relative motion of observers must then physically alter the shape of spacetime (=shape of the light-metric), due to gravitomagnetic effects.
• Under special relativity, we assume perfectly empty space, and we assume that the introduction of observers does not affect the status of that space as perfectly empty. All observers can move how they like without affecting the shape of spacetime.

So SR observers have zero curvature and zero effect on the metric, while GR observers must have curvature and their motion must affect the metric, otherwise the general principle doesn't work.

"SR" and "GR" observers are mutually incompatible, and GR observers cannot obey the physics derived for SR observers. GR observer-masses cannot obey SR equations of motion. These are different geometries.

Consequently, Einstein's general theory is riddled with logical faultlines and inconsistencies, that we are only able to deal with by avoiding exact solutions (which would expose the mismatches) and embracing approximations, or by arguing that certain irresolvable problems will have to wait until a theory of quantum gravity comes along.

Currently, Einstein;s general theory doesn't even work properly for the simplest possible idealised mass (a spherically-symmetrical mass whose specific details are hidden behind a curvature horizon), moving inertially, in a straight line at constant speed, against an arbitrarily-flat background, arbitrarily-distant from any other disturbing matter.

Preprint Gravitomagnetic horizons and the comprehensive failure of Ei...

If a gravity-well has any motion at all with respect to a distant observer then ... pooft ... Einstein's general theory self-destructs.

Yes, GR may be missing understandings of some minute details, but it's still a great theory. Gravity Probe B may have showed minor discrepancies between GR theory and observation.

What are now called gravity waves were predicted as aether waves about 150 years ago. They are simply waves in the background field (aether) caused by the very largest bodies very closely orbiting each other. Although called gravity waves, they actually have very little to do we the force of gravity IMO.

From merging black holes have been discovered of SECONDARY waves of the gravitational field. They are similar to the "moire pattern" of Figure 7, shown in the work https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2020.812202

The primary gravitational field is relict, the frequency of oscillation of its waves is already known: = 7.4x10^42 Hz: https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2020.812202

Gravitation in A static system would lead to collapse in its center

This will happen if you operate with abstract mathematical zeros and infinities. In real physics, there are no zeros and infinities, there are very small and very large values, but they are FINITE.

Dear Valentyn, what about square root (1-v^2/c^2) if v=c?

Errors in relativistic quantities are that in real physics it is impossible to compress an object less than to a value l = 1.616x10^-35 m. Therefore, all relativistic mathematical dependences, incl. yours, require correction. So far, what you oppose to me, it is abstract mathematics. and not real physics.

As false axioms (like light speed = c, universe is homogenuously and closed, etc.) are involved, Big bang theory is false. That's the tru theo, nothing abstract

This does not affect my previous answer.

RT leads to singularities. Singularities can be avoided by using distributions theory. The only one singularity which should not be avoided, is the earth.

Paul, you only understand numbers and you reduce everything to them. This is far from real physics and works only in catch of known factors. But what about the synthesis of the new and the unknown, which is characterized as scientific discoveries? Can you find, and most importantly, identify in the sets of your numbers NEW AND currently unknown real physical effects and phenomena?

Dear Valentin, I understand more than numbers: physical laws (depending on varariables or not), theory of everything, fuzzy logic, distributions theory, singularities, broken symmetries, lorentz transformation, dimensions, homogenuous spaces... and- That's the point- I have my own theory about universe în cosmos. Do you have your own opinion, or are you relating anew what others claim?

Paul, I'm interested in real scientific discoveries. For example, the mass of a photon, is it zero or not?

What do your methods say about this during the transition from "naked" numbers to real physical values?

Valentyn, my researches about the photon merely say that it cannot reach the speed of c.

Thank you for your honesty. We will continue to work.

Preprint Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe the Movement of Inte...

Light travels through a long glass. If the speed of the glass is 0, the speed of light is v0; if the speed of the glass is 100m/s, the speed of light is v1. What is the relationship between v0 and v1? Will it be equal or not equal?

Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space

Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter

I used my gravitational equation to calculate the orbit data of all the planets in the solar system and drew a 3D orbit image. You can download it in the link I shared.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/H8kbXR2oud7bey3y6

I think you can understand my paper, but I think maybe your work does not allow you to deny GR or support my theory. In any case, I would like to thank you very much for the suggestions you have given me over the past two years. I very much hope that you can stand shoulder to shoulder with me to overthrow GR. GR is already the biggest obstacle to the progress of human science.

I will share my program and I will send you a copy if you need it.

Preprint Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves

Kind regards,

Tony

Is GR a static gravitational theory? The word "static" implies no motion. GR adds time to its gravity formula. Time relates to change and motion, so GR is not static. It holds up for observations up to 5 kiloparsecs. Beyond that it can fail unless unseen, unknown dark matter is thrown into the mix and calculated where it should be imagined to uphold otherwise false predictions.

1st GR was static. Then Hubble stated expansion. But Hubble's law becomes invalid at distances greater than 4GPc. Outside of the observable universe one doesn't know how it looks like, because radiation did not reached there