new draft: theories reducing to Newtonian gravity, general relativity doesn't
Juan R.
This 50+ pages /Research/ draft analyzes the internal consistency of
different theories of gravity, their compatibility with Newtonian
gravity, and their confrontation with experiments and observations.
The current theories of gravitation considered in this /Research/ draft
are: the geometric approach given by general relativity, nonlinear
relativistic field theory promoted by Yurij V. Baryshev, Eugene V.
Stefanovich relativistic theory of gravity, the Weber & Mach action-at-a-
distance theory by André K. T. Assis & Peter Graneau, Yuriy Sergeyevich
Vladimirov's relational approach, and Stückelberg, Horwitz, & Piron
relativistic action-at-a-distance theory worked by Matthew A. Trump &
William C. Schieve.
This /Research/ draft also introduces readers to the new *post-
relativity* theory.
Textbook derivations of the Newtonian limit of general relativity are
showed to be mathematically inconsistent. Moreover, it is showed that
only three theories give the exact Newtonian limit in a consistent way.
Among the theories that fail to reduce to Newtonian gravity, general
relativity is the poor of all the analyzed theories.
The impossibility of rigorous reduction of general relativity to
Newtonian gravity implies that tests of Newtonian gravity are not in
support of general relativity. General relativity is no longer a covering
theory of all gravitational experiments and observations, but a disjoint
theory valid for certain kind of relativistic effects! Their disjoint,
non-covering, character is illustrated in this /Research/ draft when
showed that general relativity fails to correctly account for the
observed cosmological boundaries, whereas Newtonian gravity -and other
non-geometrical theories- are compatible with last observations.
It is also showed that the common assertions that "general relativity has
both a geometrical and a non-geometrical formulation" or that "general
relativity is equivalent to a spin-2 field theory over flat spacetime" do
not hold upon close inspection. The work of authors as Thirring, Deser,
Straumann, and others is revised and analyzed. Straumann's assertions
that flat Minkowskian metrics are not observable and become "a kind of
unobservable ether" and his 'renormalization' process are analyzed and
also discredited.
This /Research/ draft finishes with a brief summary on how the new *post-
relativity* theory provide us high-speed and strong-gravity many-body
solutions are not available in any other theory. The theory also solves
relativistic difficulties associated to divergent self-actions and
radiation reactions; first investigations suggest it would solve both the
acceleration discrepancy at galactic scales and the mystery of dark
energy.
An executive summary -8 pages- have been distributed among renowned
experts in general relativity, field theory, relational theory, Newtonian
limits, relativistic dynamics, and others.
*Referees*, *collaborators*, and Center's *Premium* members can access -
using their usernames and passwords- to last knowledge for pre-
publication review and assimilation before its access was universal as
final publication.
NEWS LINK:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencetoday/20090416.html
DRAFT LINK:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/drafts.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
Usenet Guidelines:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
This NG is, amonbg others, to present new ideas; passing them does not necessarily means agreeing with them
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> This 50+ pages /Research/ draft analyzes the internal consistency of
> different theories of gravity, their compatibility with Newtonian
> gravity, and their confrontation with experiments and observations.
[...]
I just realized, after reading this in another thread, that this is a /
massive/ reinvention of the wheel. The PPN formalism was _specifically
created_ (Dicke, as I recall) to act as a go-between for the many
theories of gravitation and current observation.
One can't help but wonder if it will be anywhere near as comprehensive
as http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 + http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5670/547?ck=nck
....
Juan, would you mind telling us how your lone re-invention is superior?
Juan R.
> I just realized, after reading this in another thread,
I just realized that your attacks to me in sci.astro and other non-
moderated newgroups, received response by Y.Porat.
> that this is a /
> massive/ reinvention of the wheel.
You do not understand science. If you did, you would grasp why new
theories of gravity have been proposed (and why many more will be in
future years).
For instance, the relational theory built over previous ideas of Dirac,
Fock, Wheeler, and Feynman is the latest theory published I know
Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Gravitation and
Cosmology 14(1), 41-52.
> The PPN formalism was _specifically
> created_ (Dicke, as I recall) to act as a go-between for the many
> theories of gravitation and current observation.
You do not understand PPN formalism. The PPN formalism is useful for
comparison between metric theories of gravity and for comparison with
metric data.
Moreover, there is discussion of PPN formalism and PPN parameters of
geometric (re)formulations of alternative theories are given in the
report.
> One can't help but wonder if it will be anywhere near as comprehensive
> as http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 +
Your cite of Will preprint is also unuseful. His last update of his paper
in Living reviews Relativity is one of references used in my work.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5670/547?ck=nck
The topic of strong gravity is also addressed in the report. There is one
brief analysis of binary pulsars in the report, which includes relevant
quotations of a 2004 review paper by Taylor and Weisberg.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
Usenet Guidelines:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Dear all, please refrain from claims about the capabilities of others!
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:39:53 -0600:
>
> > I just realized, after reading this in another thread,
>
> I just realized that your attacks to me in sci.astro and other non-
> moderated newgroups, received response by Y.Porat.
I could make a face at Y. Porat and get an equivalent response. You
have to admit the barrier is pretty low.
[....]
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please stop this discussion now!