In fact, STR and GTR are a theory of space.

The quantum “theory” of gravity is generally concerned with the introduction into the Langrangian of General Relativity of terms related to Einstein’s physical space.

GR is for those who like to

think geometrically.

I dont see how the quantum

Could enter in that way

“…In fact, STR and GTR are a theory of space.

The quantum “theory” of gravity is generally concerned with the introduction into the Langrangian of General Relativity of terms related to Einstein’s physical space.… ….”

- yeah, STR and GTR are a theory of space, though that is quite clearly postulated in these theories, and in this case “In fact”, i.e. as some claim that only now that is revealed, looks as rather superfluous…

But just from this fact it completely rigorously follows that these theories really have too strange relation to what really exists and happens in Matter. The Matter’s space/time/spacetime, as that completely rigorously proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

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

- is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, i.e. it fundamentally cannot by any means be impacted by anything in Matter, including by the SRT “inertial reference frames”, and by some “masses” in GRT, and it fundamentally cannot by any means to impact on anything in Matter, including to contract real bodies’ lengths and to slow tick rates of real clocks in the SRT “inertial reference frames”, and to force “masses to move “along geodesics”.

Besides in the model above completely scientifically rigorously shown, that the absolute, etc., above Matter’s spacetime is (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct).

More about what is Gravity, which fundamentally is nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, as that Weak, Electric, and Strong/Nuclear Forces are see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forcesto read the last link before this, where 2023 initial model of Nuclear Force is presented, in this case it is useful as well – in the models it is rigorously scientifically shown that at least these 3 Forces act by the same scheme.

The SS post in some other frame is relevant to this thread, so some quote from this post

_____ __

“…[SS quote][and quote] where??? ….”

- the SR is applied in at least everyday practice in high energy physics, where at every experiment some lab – and practically inertial - reference frame is established, where the experimental instruments – accelerator, targets, detectors, etc., have concrete coordinates, and distant clocks are synchronized in full accordance with Lorentz transformations.

Besides, after experimental data are obtained, the data are processed, including, in numerous “gedanken” frames, mostly “center of mass” frames, which are established obligatorily in accordance with only Lorentz transformations, where experimental data about events times, distances, energies, momentums, etc. are also transformed with accordance only Lorentz transformations.

Though in this case yeah – the main discoveries in the SR, i.e. “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, say “space contraction” and “time dilation” in accordance with, say, all humans on Earth, including accelerators’ teams, say, when LHC works in normal mode of operation, transform into ~ a dozen of mcm thickness pancakes, age in ~ 10000 times slower than when LHC doesn’t work, and rotate with ~ 10 kHz frequency,

- aren’t used.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko ,

Пространство Эйнштейна измеримо, есть алгоритм, позволяющий измерить все параметры метрики. Кроме того, пространство Эйнштейна наделено физическими свойствами - всем тем, чем наделено электромагнитное поле. Так они оба имеют плотность энергии и импульс, кроме того оба поля обладают тензором напряжения, который ответственен за передачу энергии от тела к телу.

Конечно метрика не влияет на на размеры тел или ход часов. в "точечной" собственной системе отсчета ничего не меняется. Меняются эталонные часы и линейки метрики.

Но есть одно свойство электромагнитного и гравитационного поля - им нельзя приписать скорость. Это следует из Эксперимента Фарадея - это первое экспериментальное подтверждение принципа относительности.

Почитайте статью Эйнштейна " Эфир и теория относительности " (1920) и

Preprint Пространство-время как физический объект. Завещание Эйнштейна

Preprint Space-time as a physical object. Einstein's testament

Удачи! Не болейте.

Sergey Shevchenko ,

Einstein space is measurable; there is an algorithm that allows you to measure all the parameters of the metric. In addition, Einstein's space is endowed with physical properties - everything that is endowed with the electromagnetic field. So they both have energy density and momentum, in addition, both fields have a stress tensor, which is responsible for the transfer of energy from body to body.

Of course, the metric does not affect the size of bodies or the running of clocks. in the “point” own reference frame nothing changes. The reference clocks and metric rulers are changing.

But there is one property of the electromagnetic and gravitational fields - they cannot be attributed to speed. This follows from Faraday's Experiment - this is the first experimental confirmation of the principle of relativity.

Read Einstein's article "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" (1920) and

Preprint Space-time as a physical object. Einstein's testament

Good luck! Do not be ill.

Valery Borisovich Morozov,

Sorry, but, say, that

“…Sergey Shevchenko ,

Einstein space is measurable; there is an algorithm that allows you to measure all the parameters of the metric. In addition, Einstein's space is endowed with physical properties - everything that is endowed with the electromagnetic field. So they both have energy density and momentum, in addition, both fields have a stress tensor, which is responsible for the transfer of energy from body to body.……”

- looks as is rather strange. There is quite concrete phenomenon/notion – and, as that is rigorously scientifically proven in the SS&VT 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- absolutely obligatory “attribute” of Matter, Mater’s space[/time/spacetime], which fundamentally cannot be endowed with any physical properties everything that is endowed with the electromagnetic field.

Though yeah, the electromagnetic field in mainstream physics is endowed with/has energy density and momentum, in addition, has a stress tensor, which is responsible for the transfer of energy from body to body.

The last in the ,mainstream about the electromagnetic field at least at statics fundamentally isn’t correct, since electric field fundamentally doesn’t contain energy – as that is rigorously proven in the SS&VT 2007 initial Electric Force, if the [and any other fundamental Nature force field] field contains energy, then that violates the energy conservation law at interactions of electric charges, more see the link in the SS post above,

- however even in this case the field, energy, tensors, etc., are placed in the space, what is, in principle possible, but, again, the space itself absolutely fundamentally cannot have any parameters besides that it is by definition infinite “empty container”, where everything in Matter, including fields and their parameters, are placed.

If somebody endows space with physical properties, then he really fundamentally defines some physical entity in the space, in this case, the really existent fundamental Nature Gravity force field, but if he at that states also that he defines some parameters of the space, that looks as quite superfluous, if ridiculous; since introduces at elaboration of physical problems quite superfluous obstacles,

-first of all quite superfluous obstacles at development of the really scientific theory of Gravity Force, which must be based on the SS&VT initial Gravity model, again the link see the SS post above.

Though yeah, most of humans, including scientifically bothered populace, instinctively know that “space” and “time” are extremely fundamental things, and so if somebody claims that he discover some “properties and effects” in space/time/spacetime, - while populace instinctively – but in this case quite correctly - know that “space” and “time” compose only a banal empty container, the populace becomes be extremely admired …

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "the space itself absolutely fundamentally cannot have any parameters besides that it is by definition infinite “empty container""

The metric is the parameter of space. It allows that the space is finite.

(A 3-sphere has a finite volume and no surface)

1930s science find out that our universe has billions of galaxies, and it is not one galaxy universe. In the other hand, there is no single one dimension, flat and static equation exist to describe our billions galaxies that it is changing constantly.

We must think out the box, not follow last century ideology. Reading new think is the key.

I consider that there is alternatives to GR, but have not caught up with all phenomena

tackled by it yet. Say simple energy arguments are enough to explain why photons are kept inside a

the reach of a large enough mass.

In particular the orbit of mercury is hard to duplicate by alternative means, that are not simple perturbation

of a third body.

Perhaps gravity waves are not that far away?

Then GR is seems available to answer some questions, but avoid others. In particular a geometric description

of path, does not really compete yet with a fully dynamical image. Or at least not in suficiently simple way.

Then the notion of energy in it, is problematic.

So I call on competitors, the need for a relatively simpler fully dynamic theory, do not give up!

(I would not care to copy the same math)

Javad Fardaei "We must think out the box, not follow last century ideology. Reading new think is the key."

Your point is to ignore any existing knowledge and begin new from scratch. But this is the strategy of a small child which has no existing knowledge. A much better approach is to consider existing knowledge as valuable but incomplete.

Wolfgang Konle

“…[SS quote] "the space itself absolutely fundamentally cannot have any parameters besides that it is by definition infinite “empty container"" [end quote]

The metric is the parameter of space. It allows that the space is finite. (A 3-sphere has a finite volume and no surface)….”

Your passage in in italic looks as too vague, and can be rationally commented only is you write an equation for a 3-sphere that has a finite volume and no surface; and how it relates to Matter’s spacetime.

Cheers

Preprint The Positron-Electron Sea

Only torsion balance instrument sets with a large difference in mass size have recorded gravitation. Experimental work by elaborating different cases of interactive mass ratios, shown the minimum gravitational force between equal masses. Measurements made with equal masses have also been dismissed as wrong measurements because everyone believes that gravity arises from the mass itself.

Measurements show that the nonlinear charge gradient in towards the surface of the Earth is very large. A potential difference of 300 000 volts has been measured. This nonlinear charge gradient may give rise to gravitation. Two equal masses have the same electrical gradient, so therefore exist no force of attraction. The measurements are reported in a book by Richard Feynman

Masses with same sizes have therefore no attractive force between each other. Newton’s law of gravitation is only a special case, which applies to the attraction of small masses towards very large masses.

The statements above show that it is important to accept measurement data that contradicts accepted hypotheses. I agree with previous answers that it is important to think outside the box.

"Two equal masses dont attract" "It is only for a large mass and a small mass" (near quotes)

Thats about the most antiphysics comment I have heard in a long time.

Good you recognize

how strange it sounds. It sounds you do not involve gravity alone.

However the gravity alone will just not go away. The other is not gravity nor produces it.

Atoms remain basically neutral, so on a planetary scale electric forces do not matter.

Sergey Shevchenko "...you write an equation for a 3-sphere that has a finite volume and no surface"

Writing an equation is not necessary because a 3-sphere also known as S³ is a well known geometrical formation in differential geometry. It is described as the surface of a four dimensional ball.

Juan Weisz. Can you give an example of a scientific research that shows that two equal masses have a gravitational force between them and that has been verified by measurements. (There are many measurements reported for large masses in relation to small masses.)

What in the mass does gravity give?

All major breakthroughs in physics have been questioned! Think outside the box (Newton's and Einsein's box).

Most stars do not appear alone (like our sun). They are binary systems. Im sure the astronomers have followed the

dynamics of such systems fairly closely. None report very strange behaviour, that I know about.

Gravity emerges as the effect of attraction between astronomical objects, plus the experiments you mention.

Mass alone is enough for gravity.

Valery Borisovich Morozov [A significant result was obtained recently (2021):

Article Gravitational Field Equation and the Structure of Black Holes

Preprint New version of General Relativity and the Structure of "Black Holes"]

This is no "significant" result at all!!! Such claims unfortunately are conscious or unconscious opportunism to gain prominence. The so-called "Black Holes" formation is impossible even in theory, according to the father of the theories of relativity himself: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_medium_is_curving_in_General_Relativity#view=657c4b37f3268a818d0aca43/146/145/146/147/147/148, and links in the post, are relevant to this thread question.

To the above add here, that in rather numerous SS posts on RG it is pointed that the 2007 SS&VT initial model of Gravity Force is first of all the base for development of whole theory of Gravity,

- and now some theory is accepted in Physica Scripta, where the author uses some points in the SS&VT model, but don’t refer to the model, more see last comment inhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force/comments, claiming as that is his own finding

- what is a rather popular practice in recent scientific community. this “finding” really is a rather strange mental construction, though …

Cheers