Every theory, so Einstein's TGR, subjected to the enclosure issue cannot significantly be enhanced, that is can merely be replaced by an alternate model remaining in any case descriptive and so exposed again to the enclosure problem.

A theory is said enclosure-confined if and only if stable metrics, expressed thru conventional number systems, link the observer to the object to be examined. Such theory can merely be descriptive due to the equivalence amid the gathered data and ”law“ extracted from it.

To overcome the enclosure issue so that it may become explicative, a theory requires unstable metrics (cf. Number form© theory published on RG) linking the defining (!) observer to the object to be examined.

An observer is said a defining observer if and only if he shows as a structural oscillator releasing structure waves (cf. Structure wave© theory published on RG) conveying the required amplitude information plus structural energy (=mental work) that build jointly the object that can be observed conventionally, hence via stable metrics at the defined level.

Instead, the metrics linking the defining observer to the defined level (i.e. any enclosure, for instance, a universe...) are the said number form metrics that can be converted into stable metrics: that kind of "metric collapse" converts concepts expressed thru structure waves into manifested item classes titled "physical". In any case, the released structure wave arrays hold the potential to explain the level that was formerly merely described by theories exposed to the said enclosure issue.

Thus, any theory claiming to hold explicative status naturally asks for a theory dealing structurally with the creative part of Consciousness, titled Mental.

And nevertheless, I am interested in a specific physical problem. How to change GTR and improve it. Its disadvantages are known. This is the uncertainty of the gravitational field energy and singularity. I see a real way to reconstruct the theory by removing the Einstein equation. This makes it possible to use the Einstein tensor to calculate the total energy-momentum tensor, including the energy and momentum of the field itself.

Dear Valery, there is a part of gravity that is not well known, and that is gravity dynamics.

When talking of gravity dynamics, the key is "motion of masses". The question is whether moving masses have an additional property of gravity compared with Newton's gravity equation.

In electromagnetism, one gets a magnetic field about a charge as soon as a charge is moving in an existing field.

That magnetic field is perpendicular to the line of motion, and can induce any moving charge.

Maxwell's equations gives a set of induction equations for electromagentism.

The question as to gravity has been experimentally verified as follows: gyroscopes have been put in a satellite about the Earth. If there is a velocity-dependent, magnetic-like component of gravity, then the Earth's spin would act as a gravitational dipole and influence the gyroscopes' axis accordingly.

The idea was initated by the Thirring-Lense postulate that "spinning space" would occasion a kinematic special relativity effect related to a Coriolis force and a centrifugal force (sic).

When effectuating the experiment, the deviations of the gyroscope axes indicated that not only the spin of the Earth altered the inclination, but also that it is not a kinematic effect but a gravity effect, since it depends also on the gravity constant G.

Moreover, not only the Earth's spin was responsable for a deviation, also the Earth's orbital motion occasioned a deviation that depended from G. This part could not even be predicted by either the Thirring-Lense theory or the Kerr metric, a dynamic expression of General Relativity for rotating masses.

The experiment is named "Gravity Probe B", and the theory that complies completely with it is precisely the set of Maxwell-like equations for gravity, as used in gravitomagnetism, without correcting it with the Lorentz invariance. This means that time is considered as the pre-1905 concept requires it.

According to gravitomagnetism, the same thing as with electromagentism happens to masses. In addition to Newton's gravity (analogeous to Coulomb's static equation), there is a velocity-dependent set of equations, as given in the Maxwell-like equations for gravity.

With gravitomagnetism, one can straightforwardly look for the influence of the motion of the Sun in the Milky Way upon the orbits of the planets.

When a charge moves in an electric field, it gets a magnetic field that encircles it, perpendicularly about the line of motion. Another charge that would pass-by would get a Lorentz-force that will either attract or repell, depending from the direction of the motion and the sign of its charge.

It is the same when applying gravitomagnetism, with the difference that the sign of masses is invariant.

When will it attract and when will it repell depending from the motion of the planet?

Like the experiment of parallel electric wires that get attracted or repelled under an electric currect, moving masses also are more attracting or more repelling, depending from their velocity direction.

Let's take the following hypothesis and apply it to a nebula in space. The like-oriented moving particles will group, the opposite-oriented moving masses repell a bit (However, Newton's gravity remains the same). Grouped clouds will slightly repel other, opposite-moving grouped clouds.

That would cause the creation of spinning nebulae, and eventually stars. However, the stars should be created by pairs if one wants to keep the original "global-zero" angular momentum of randomly moving particles in a gas cloud.

The above is exactly what is observed: stars appear spontaneously, by pairs or sometimes as quartets, when a certain particle density has been attained in a nebula.

Translated to Mercury's orbit, and considering that the solar system is inclined with 62° with respect to the Milky Way's plane, one finds that at one side of the orbit, the Solar gravitational induction by its motion in the Milky Way is responsible to make deviate that orbit in three ways:

1) Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance of 43"/century is exacly obtained by calculus, by considering that the Sun moves in the Milky Way. It induces Mercury's orbit by slightly advancing its perihelion by 43"/cy.

2) One can also qualitatively prove that the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit is caused by that same induction, because at both sides of Mercury's orbit, the deviating induction force points in the direction of the Milky Way's center. Hence, Mercury's orbit is flattened.

3) One can also prove qualitatively that the inclination of Mercury's orbit is caused by that induction, because the solar system's inclination of 62° with respect to the Milky Way's plane splits the induction force into two components, one in the Milky Way's plane, and one perpendicular to it, at each position of Mercury in its orbit. In positions where Mercury is ascendent or descendent with respect to the Milky Way's plane, the second component will also be affected by the induction.

This also causes Mercury's orbit to deviate a bit from the Sun's equatorial plane.

It can also be easily shown that the influence of the Sun's spin, as a gravitomagnetic dipole, is very minor as to Mercury's orbit deviations, but not inexistent.

It must be concluded that Mercury's motion is fully explained by the Sun's motion in the Milky Way.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

It is very interesting. I want to add, apparently for the first time, Einstein considered this in 1912 in the article "Does a gravitational effect exist, similar to electrodynamic induction?"

This can be attributed to the distortion of space in which the isotropy of space is not preserved. Dakoy we are seeing in gravitational waves. Unfortunately, the new edition of the GR is not complete in this part. I consider mostly isotropic space. although it is clear how this can be done.

Respect, Valery

Dear Valery, yes, Einstein tried to find Mercury's perihelion with it, but he failed, because he didn't realize that the induction by Sun's motion in the Milky Way is the key to get the 43"/century. Then, the perfect solar eclipse in 1914, visible from Sweden to Turkey, allowed him to estimate the bending of light, which made him concoct his theory two years later.

Remark that the bending of the light by gravity is also straightforwardly found by gravitomagnetism. Hence, it explains ànd Mercury ànd the light bending, but moreover, explains two more issues:

1) the effect of low-velocity gravity dynamics, such as Mercury, light bending, the stability of disc galaxies, the shape of supernova SN 1987A remnants and so on ;

2) the effect of high-velocity, "relativistic" gravity dynamics, such as the knots in the central ring in SN1987A, or non-exploding millisecond stars, black hole bursts and so on.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Any enclosure-confined scientific theory, such as Einstein‘s TGR, can at most be descriptive, not explicative, due to stable metrics linking the observer to the object to be examined. The claims of any such theory occur all a posteriori and are just descriptive due to the equivalence amid the data gathered and the ”laws“ extracted from it.

Explicative science, instead, is based on unstable, say number form metrics avoiding the said enclosure problem generating various kinds of ”singularities“ (cf. Number form theory published on RG).

Dear Thierry,

Your reasoning is plausible, but you need a detailed analysis. I want to note that Einstein predicted gravimagnetic forces before the creation of GR. I do not think that the value is so great. But undoubtedly they can have an impact for some objects.

Respect, Valery

"Any enclosure-confined scientific theory, such as Einstein‘s TGR, can at most be descriptive, not explicative, due to stable metrics linking the observer to the object to be examined. "

Any theory should describe and explain. The extent to which it does this depends on the degree of investigation of the subject. But there is always a misunderstanding. Such is the logic of the development of science. GRT is no exception. She explains a lot but does not always accurately describe. Clarifying the description (what I do) allows you to better understand. For example our universe, a good example Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

Respect, Valery

I can not judge the work submitted in part or in full. My doubts arise already at the stage of possible initial hypotheses. I see in attempts to represent the gravitational field in the form of quantum fields of the 19th century attempts to explain electromagnetism by the presence of ether with already known properties. This is similar to the theory of modernized Lesage. I do not see in these theories the continuation associated with Riemannian space.

A huge number of works on "quantum gravity" did not lead to the theory of "quantum gravity". One can safely say that such a theory "quantum gravity" does not yet exist. As much as we would not like to believe in it. The number of works of this kind suggests that there is no quantum theory of gravity. I am sure that its creation is possible now, but not on the beaten track.

Dear Valery, You wrote: "I want to note that Einstein predicted gravimagnetic forces before the creation of GR."

No, he didn't predict that. Oliver Heaviside predicted that in 1893.

Then, you wrote: "I do not think that the value is so great."

You should not underestimate its value. Please find the impact here.

Book Gravito-Magnetism - Including an introduction to the Coriolis Theory

Newton's gravity is incomplete for moving masses. The consequence of motion is that parallel moving masses attract a little more, and opposite-moving masses attract a little less.

This causes the segregation of velocities in nebulae and the spontaneous spinning, wich lead to the formation of pairs of stars, as observed, because the global angular momentum must remain the same.

The additional, velocity-dependent part is “Gyrotation”, and the entire theory is Gravitomagnetism.

Gravitomagnetism gives the reason why our solar system is nearly flat, and why some galaxies are flat as well with in the centre a more spherical bulge. Furthermore we will know why the galaxy becomes spiralled, and why some galaxies or clusters get strange matrix shapes.

And a simple calculation makes clear why the stars of flat galaxies have approximately a constant speed around the centre, solving at the same time the “dark mass” problem of these galaxies.

It gives more insight why the spirals of galaxies have got so few windings around the centre, in spite of the elevated age of the galaxy. Moreover it gives the reason for the shape of the remnants of some exploding supernovae. When they explode, the ejected masses called remnants, get the shape of a twin wheel or a twin lobe with a central ring.

Some calculations concerning certain binary pulsars are possible, these are sets of two stars twisting around each other.

We get an explanation for the fact that some fast spinning stars cannot disintegrate totally, and also a description of the cannibalization process of binary pulsars: the one compact star can indeed absorb the other, gaseous star while emitting bursts of gasses at the poles.

An apparent improbable consequence of the Gyrotation theory is that mutual repulsion of masses is possible. We predict the conditions for this, which will allow us understanding how the orbit deflection of the planets goes in its work.

Furthermore we will bring the proof that Gyrotation is very similar to the special relativity principle of Einstein, allowing a readier look on how the relativity theory looks like in reality. The conclusions from both, Gyrotation Theory and Relativity Theory are however totally different, even somehow complementary, but not always recognised as such by the scientific world.

Also more detailed calculations for fast spinning stars, black holes, their orbits and their event horizons can be given.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry, Probably the reasonings of Einstein and Heviside are similar. However, if we return to the theory of gravity, we will see that there acceleration depends on speed in a complex way http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/02/21/0001226348/img705.gif

Gravity Magnetic Effect was measured in a unique experiment Gravity Probe B

Sincerely, Valery.

Dear Valery, I agree that acceleration depends on speed in a complex way, as determined by Oleg Jefimenko for gravity (quite a bit different than your non-linear equation), and it is analogous to electromagentism as described by Liénard and Wiechert.

"Gravity Magnetic Effect was measured in a unique experiment Gravity Probe B". But it was not an experiment of one day, performed one time, but a well prepared experiment, lasting during many months!

So, it is worth more that "just an" experiment. Moreover, it has been proven to comply with directly observable facts, and not just distant allegedly existing binaries or black holes as with GRT.

Remark that "time" in gravitomagnetism (Gravity Probe B) is Euclid.

The local, directly observable facts explained by gravitomagnetism are disc galaxies structure, SN1987A, asteroid motion, and so on.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

Perhaps you `re right. It seems there are several options for the representation of gravimagnetic forces ..

Sincerely, Valery.

Very important discovery:

“Matter does not have Gravitation”

Adrian Ferent

“Moving Faster Than Light you will see Black Holes”

Adrian Ferent

“Because Gravitons travel Faster Than Light, they do not see Matter, only Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

“Because Gravitons do not see Matter, this means Matter does not have Gravitation”

Adrian Ferent

“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Gravitation is wrong”

Adrian Ferent

“Dark Matter does not emit light, Matter does not emit Gravitons”

Adrian Ferent

“Ferent Quantum Gravity theory is the right Gravitation theory”

Adrian Ferent

“Riding on a beam of light you will see Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity, means l < Planck length”

Adrian Ferent

“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Special theory of relativity is wrong”

Adrian Ferent

“At Ferent wall was created Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

You learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists…about Special theory of relativity:

Special theory of relativity is "special" in that it only applies in the special case where the curvature of spacetime due to gravity is negligible. In order to include gravity, Einstein and Hilbert formulated general relativity in 1915.

If you move fast enough through space, the observations that you make about space and time differ to some extent from the observations of other people, who are moving at different speeds.

The speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the light source.

Length contraction:

Length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object and it is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light.

Time dilatation

The rate of a single moving clock indicating its proper time t0 is lower with respect to two synchronized resting clock indicating time t.

This means the duration of the clock cycle of a moving clock increased, it is measured to be running slow.

This means ‘Riding on a beam of light’ time would stop, and distance would be zero.

“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Special theory of relativity is wrong”

Adrian Ferent

In Ferent Quantum Gravity beyond the Planck wall is another wall, the Ferent wall.

At Ferent wall were created Ferent matter and gravitons.

“Ferent Matter is Dark Matter with the density greater than Planck density”

Adrian Ferent

“At Ferent wall was created Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

Today we know that the space is not an infinitely divisible continuum, it is not smooth but granular, with the Planck length and Ferent length.

At Ferent wall was created Dark Matter and at Planck wall was created Matter.

What means l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity in Ferent Quantum Gravity?

“In Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity, means l < Planck length”

Adrian Ferent

This means:

“Riding on a beam of light you will see Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

“Moving Faster Than Light you will see Black Holes”

Adrian Ferent

“Because Gravitons travel Faster Than Light, they do not see Matter, only Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

“Because Gravitons do not see Matter, this means Matter does not have Gravitation”

Adrian Ferent

The conclusion:

“Matter does not have Gravitation”

Adrian Ferent

You learned the wrong thing, that anything that has mass also has Gravity.

This means:

“What you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Gravitation is wrong”

Adrian Ferent

All quantum gravity theories like String theory, LQG… are wrong theories because Einstein’s Gravitation theory is wrong and are limited to speed of light.

“Dark Matter doesn’t emit light, Matter does not emit Gravitons”

Adrian Ferent

This is another proof that:

“The elementary particles contain Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

“Ferent Quantum Gravity theory is the right Gravitation theory”

Adrian Ferent

The apple did fall on Newton's head not because the apple has Mass and Gravitation, but because the Dark Matter inside the apple has Gravitation!

129. I am the first who discovered that Matter does not have Gravitation

130. I am the first who discovered that at Ferent wall was created Dark Matter

131. I am the first who discovered that in Ferent Quantum Gravity l = 0 at the speed of light from Special theory of relativity, means l < Planck length

132. I am the first who discovered that riding on a beam of light you will see Dark Matter

133. I am the first who discovered that moving Faster Than Light you will see Black Holes

134. I am the first who discovered because Gravitons travel Faster Than Light, they do not see Matter, only Dark Matter

135. I am the first who discovered because Gravitons do not see Matter, this means Matter does not have Gravitation

136. I am the first who explained that what you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Special theory of relativity is wrong

137. I am the first who explained what you learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists… about Gravitation is wrong

138. I am the first who discovered that Dark Matter doesn’t emit light, Matter does not emit Gravitons

139. I am the first who explained that Ferent Quantum Gravity theory is the right Gravitation theory

140. I am the first who explained that the apple did fall on Newton's head not because the apple has Mass and Gravitation, but because the Dark Matter inside the apple has Gravitation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328761370_Matter_does_not_have_Gravitation_Moving_Faster_Than_Light_you_will_see_Black_Holes