This is the claim of the suggested discussion. Using this concept in astronomical calculations leads to wrong results. Why this concept is wrong is justified with the following:
Force fields contain an energy density. In the inertial reference system of its source, they are co-moving with its source. The source can do nothing to maintain the field because that would cost energy and then exhaust the source. The underlying idea, that field sources would permanently renew their field and that this renewal propagates with the speed of light is the cause of the problem.
Only if the source gets accelerated it radiates. The energy needed for the radiation is taken from the energy which accelerates the source. The radiation contains a spherical field, oriented tangential to a sphere around the source. This field moves outwards with the speed of light. Before the field has passed, the radial static field is oriented according to the original inertial reference system before the acceleration. After the field pulse has passed, the radial static field is then oriented according to the new inertial reference system, reached after the acceleration.
Therefor the direct impact of moving field sources on other distant field sources happens without retardation. Only the impact of accelerations on far away other distant field sources is retarded.
The primary aim of the discussion is to verify the claim about co-moving force fields. The claim applies to electric and gravitational fields.
The secondary aim is to estimate the damage the application of this false concept has caused in astronomic simulations.
@ Preston Guynn "Your claim involving potentials, retarded or otherwise, linked to force fields, is an incomplete view of the physics which you are trying to understand.
The Pysical Basis of.... Thomas Precession.... Electromagnetic effects..."
The claim suggested here for discussion, is of course incomplete because a complete consideration of theoretical physics is not feasible.
But your various articles cited in your contribution only have one thing in common: They have nothing to do with retarded potentials, the discussion issue suggested in that thread.
If you want to discuss about the subjects considered in your articles, you should generate an according special thread.
For a static source, its proper field has enough time to spread around, whence there is no difference between its retarded and instantaneous action. So, you may be right, but the classical field theory is correct, as well.
In quantum electrodynamics there is no classical retardation, and Feynman propagator differs from zero outside the light cone. There is also a Coulomb gauge of the photon propagator, in which the scalar potential of the electromagnetic field propagates instantaneously, whereas the vector potential does not (being responsible for radiation). But that is only noticeable at distances of the order of Compton wavelength, not at astronomical ones.
Miccola Bondarenco "So, you may be right, but the classical field theory is correct, as well."
As long as retardation only is applied for the impact of acceleration the theory is correct.
"There is also a Coulomb gauge of the photon propagator, in which the scalar potential of the electromagnetic field propagates instantaneously,"
An instantaneous propagation is incorrect if a mixture between a constant movement and an accelerated movement of a field source is considered. It is also incorrect if the field propagation did not have enough time since the last acceleration to reach the considered location.
Expressed in short terms, the classical field theory is wrong if it does not apply the principle of co-moving fields. The classical field theory is also wrong if it does not accept that the emission of radiation from an accelerated field source is the only existing radiation mechanism. This principle applies to gravitation and electromagnetism.
Mind that retardation of electromagnetic potentials may proceed without retardation of energy (until the source is static). As for the Coulomb gauge in QED, all the gauges are equivalent, so long as the photon propagator is sandwiched between conserved current. So, the Coulomb gauge eventually gives the same results and is no worse than the others.
Take care and good luck to your investigations.