Graviton?
Starblade Darksquall
one place to another through gravitons? Couldn't it just as easily be
that timespace curvature cannot simply GET from one place to another
unless there is a form of energy that is transferred between the two
places?
Rather than assuming that energy anywhere will somehow influence the
timespace some time and place in the future, why not make ALL of GR's
effects 100% local, and then try to figure the equations for some form
of energy that is passing from the first point to all the space around
it?
This is easily reconcilable with GR, and quantizing the field might be
a bit easier. So has anybody done this?
I am a bit skeptical of gravitons. I know my ideas seem a bit crazy,
but trust me, I'm going somewhere with this. But, just wondering, what
are the difficulties with such an approach? And if you claim it won't
work, then can you tell me exactly why it wouldn't? I am eager and
curious to know. Maybe we won't have to worry about quantizing
timespace just yet!
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Uncle Al
>
> Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> one place to another through gravitons?
They don't.
[snip]
> (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
(...Dullknife Spewed Dookiedrop...)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Starblade Darksquall
> Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> >
> > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> > one place to another through gravitons?
>
> They don't.
>
Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
alternate theories to the graviton?
> [snip]
>
> > (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
> (...Dullknife Spewed Dookiedrop...)
You know, I'd laugh if that was even funny. Which it is not.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Mark Fergerson
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
>
>>Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>>
>>>Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
>>>one place to another through gravitons?
>>
>>They don't.
>>
>
>
> Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
> alternate theories to the graviton?
Look, I realize you hate Unc's guts, but have you ever
clicked the link he keeps giving to his Eotvos page(s)? It's
all about gravity, and has references and links up the
wazoo. Occasionally he puts Google to shame.
Mark L. Fergerson
Gregory L. Hansen
Starblade Darksquall <Starb...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
>one place to another through gravitons? Couldn't it just as easily be
>that timespace curvature cannot simply GET from one place to another
>unless there is a form of energy that is transferred between the two
>places?
Quantization of a field basically means that DeBroglie's relation applies.
It works for light, it works for electrons, it's thought to work for
gravity, too. You can use a Fourier transform to represent a classical
field as a sum of plane waves, and you can use something like a Fourier
transform to represent a quantum field as a sum of photons.
Imagine a stretched string. Wiggle it and you can get a standing wave
with one bump, two bumps, or more. Any wave on the string can be
represented as a sum of standing waves, the Fourier transform.
Quantization means that the amplitude of each standing wave is not
arbitrary but an integral multiple of something, and also that when the
string interacts (e.g. hits something) which mode it interacts with
is statistical, it's not simply the sum of all modes.
It's thought that DeBroglie's relation must also apply to gravitational
radiation, and that there should be a way to represent a gravitational
field as a sum of gravitons. It doesn't matter whether we're talking
about a field of force or a curvature of spacetime. Think of normal modes
on the rubber sheet analogy of gravity.
>Rather than assuming that energy anywhere will somehow influence the
>timespace some time and place in the future, why not make ALL of GR's
>effects 100% local, and then try to figure the equations for some form
>of energy that is passing from the first point to all the space around
>it?
GR is already local. What happens at a particular spacetime point depends
only on what happened in the space immediately around it and the time
immediately before. Non-local means action at a distance.
>
>This is easily reconcilable with GR, and quantizing the field might be
>a bit easier. So has anybody done this?
>
>I am a bit skeptical of gravitons. I know my ideas seem a bit crazy,
>but trust me, I'm going somewhere with this. But, just wondering, what
>are the difficulties with such an approach? And if you claim it won't
>work, then can you tell me exactly why it wouldn't? I am eager and
>curious to know. Maybe we won't have to worry about quantizing
>timespace just yet!
Quantum gravity is not really my thing, so I can't say much more about it
than I already have.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
> > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> > >
> > > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> > > one place to another through gravitons?
> >
> > They don't.
> >
>
> Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
> alternate theories to the graviton?
Quantum gravity is really my thing, so I can say much more about it
than I already have:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3AF0CDB3%40MailAndNews.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Starblade Darksquall,
From my point of view, so called "Quantum Gravity" is one from numerous
Mathematical Chimeras of XX Century.
Please, give audience criticism of my article from a point of view of a
scientific methodology (is adduced below).
It is interesting to learn, how you came to connection between
a gravitation and quantum theory?
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr Timofeev
Sprouts of New Gravitation Without Mathematical Chimeras of XX Century
. Table of contents
1. Empirical gravitational regularities of a symmetry in the Solar System
1.1. Magic ratios of linear combinations of planetary masses
1.2. Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses
1.3. Formula for pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations.
1.4. Gravitational correlations for groups of four planets.
1.5. Principles of ratio selection
2. Revision of classical statement of a many bodies problem
2.1. Analogies between kinds of chemical and gravitational connections
. or gravitational chemistry
2.2. Reduction of a symmetry in a gravitational many bodies problem
2.3. PHYLLOTAXIS AND THE EXPONENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM REGULARITIES
. BASE UPON IRRATIONAL PHY
3. Predictions on trans-pluto planets
4. Conclusions
5. References
=============================================================
. THE SYMMETRY INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM
GRAVITATION. THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS AND PREDICTIONS
Abstract. The empirical law connecting values of planetary masses in the
Solar system is demonstrated and is analyzed. A characteristic property
of this law is the existence of groups consisting from four planets. The
law allows to predict existence and properties of three unknown planets
inside the Solar system. This law can serve the useful tool for a research
of extra-solar planetary systems.
1. Empirical gravitational regularities of a symmetry in the Solar System
1.1. Magic ratios of linear combinations of planetary masses
Here are the most reliable values of the Solar System [1] planetary
masses that can be experimentally obtained by celestial mechanics:
Table I
Planetary masses and Ratios of linear combinations of masses
Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded
used for value | considered value ratio
each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio
. |
Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13
Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10
Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3
Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24
Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8
Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39
Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33
Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5
The difference between computed values of ratios and the closest
integer can possibly be explained by an effect similar (Francis Aston 1920)
to mass modification caused by dense packing in atom nucleii. The planetary
masses are measured with some errors also.
1.2. Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses
When organised graphically, the ratios [2] of linear combinations of
the planetary masses considered, reveal a chain of gravitational
correlations between triples of planets possessing chiral symmetry:
Table II
Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses
10
I<----------->|
I 13 |
I<==============>I
I | I
? 39 I | I
|<----------------->I 33 |<---------------->I 24 | I
| |<------------------>I |<----------------->I
| | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I
| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I
I | | I | | I | | I | | I
I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI
I I I I I
10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1
ln(mass)
- - -------------------------------------------------------------->
The following symbols here are used in this graphic:
MSA + MJU <-> 2 + 1; MUR + MNE <-> 4 + 3;
MVE + MTE <-> 6 + 5; MME + MMA <-> 8 + 7;
MJU <-> 1; MSA <-> 2; MNE <-> 3; MUR <-> 4;
MTE <-> 5; MVE <-> 6; MMA <-> 7; MME <-> 8;
5
Direct gravitational correlation - <====>;
33
Reverse gravitational correlation - <---------->
Note: Here it is necessary to understand exclusive importance of
the numbers Fibonacci for gravitational regularities inside
the Solar system in common case:
If you look at direct gravitational connections than you will see the
following numbers: 3, 5, 8, 13.
For the third hypothetical quad there should be now following numbers
accordingly: 21 and 34.
1.3. Formula for pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations.
We shall name "pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations" the
following pairs of values that can be identified on the previous graph:
33,5 39,8 24,3 10,13
We shall now consider relating of sums of those pairs of conjugate
gravitational correlations with squares of natural numbers:
33+5=6^2+2 39+8=7^2-2 24+3=5^2+2 10+13=5^2-2
+2 -2 +2 -2
From these relations, a common formula for the sums of the pairs
of conjugate direct and reverse gravitational correlations can be
established:
(value of reverse correlation)+(value of direct correlation)=n^2 +/- 2
To some extent, this formula is analog to Balmer's formula for
spectral series of the Hydrogen atom. The analysis of the chained series
of conjugate gravitational correlations clearly reveals here a periodic
alternance of the sign before number 2.
1.4. Gravitational correlations for groups of four planets.
For a long time astronomers have been aware of dynamic relations
in celestial bodies in groups of four, in the stable gravitational
system which the Solar System presents us with. On this specific
criterion and on some other dynamic criterions stemming from celestial
mechanics, we can select two groups of four planets in the Solar System.
The planets of the Terrestrial group are: Earth, Venus, Mars and
Mercury. The planets of the Jovian group are: Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune
and Uranus. The empirical facts discovered here indirectly confirm the
existence of further relations.
For the group of planets Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercury
((n^2 + 2);(n ^ 2 - 2)) the relationship is established in the
following manner:
( 33 + 5) + (39 + 8) = 6 ^ 2 + 7 ^ 2 = 9 ^ 2 + 2 ^ 2 = 85
For the group of planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus
((n ^ 2 + 2); (n ^ 2 - 2)) the relationship is established in the
following manner:
( 10 + 13) + (24 + 3) = 5 ^ 2 + 5 ^ 2 = 7 ^ 2 + 1 ^ 2 = 50
In each of the groups considered, there is a higher pair
(n ^ 2-2) and lower pair of planets (m ^ 2 + 2). Therefore, a
possibility seems to exist to derivate various combinations of these
pairs to obtain mixed combinations from these two groups of four
planets. In our particular case, only the combination of the two lower
pairs ((n ^ 2 + 2); (m ^ 2 + 2)) Neptune, Uranus, Mars and Mercury,
forming a mixed group, allows a correlation to be determined:
( 33 + 5) + (24 + 3) = 7 ^ 2 + 4 ^ 2 = 8 ^ 2 + 1 ^ 2 = 65
Some conclusions:
The considered relations can be expressed as the following formula:
(sum values of all correlations of the given group) = k^2+l^2=m^2+n^2
What is remarkable in these correlations by groups of four planets, is
that the sum of the pairs of conjugate gravitationnal correlations are
equal in each case to natural numbers (50, 65, 85) which are the first
terms of a sequence of natural numbers, which are the sum of two pairs
of squares of natural numbers. Please look Diophantus's theorem of a
number theory (III, 19). Here is the beginning of this series:
! ! !
number 1 25 50 65 85 100 125 130 145 169 170 185 200 205 221 225 250 260
1 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16
pair 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 0 1 4 2 3 5 0 5 2
2 0 4 5 7 7 8 10 9 9 12 11 11 10 13 11 12 13 14
pair 1 3 5 4 6 6 5 7 8 5 7 8 10 6 10 9 9 8
1.5. Principles of ratio selection
As we examine Table I, we might wonder why these specific ratios were
selected, among the many combinations that are mathematically possible.
Here are the principles that guided the choice of ratios. All these
principles should be fulfilled simultaneously.
From a mathematical point of view, the problem gravitational
interaction between planets of the Solar System is the nonlinear
n-body problem. Principles 1,2,3,4 and 5 are the physical restrictions
superimposed on the mathematical formalism of ratioes of linear
combinations of planetary masses. The given method has analogs in
radiophysical, atomic and molecular spectral researches. The considered
method is not statistical, it leans on properties nonlinear stationary
systems.
Principle 1. The ratios having the least difference in value from
integers are chosen.
Principle 2. The ratios containing only three bodies are chosen
(there is one elemination stipulated by a Principle 4).
Principle 2 leans on existence of the closed solution of the three-body
problem. The three-body problem was solved by Karl Fritiof Sundman [3].
This solution has a very complicated structure and that one does not give
direct tie between coordinates and time, i.e. there is a full analogy to
the solution for the two-body problem.
Principle 3. The ratios containing the planets, closest on masses are
chosen.
These ratios are the most essential and reliable from the physical point
of view. The Principle 3 integrates in a ratio those planets which have
the greatest potential energies of gravitational interaction. The
Principle 3 take into account also that the absolute errors in masses of
large planets can exceed masses of small planets.
Principle 4. The ratios ensuring existence of a symmetry of a high
level are chosen.
For the first time in the world the French mathematician and physicist
Henry Poincare has paid attention to a symmetry of the physical laws [4].
The fundamental physical laws have properties tightly connected with a
symmetry [5]. In the given work the properties of a symmetry of the
Solar System are studied.
Principle 5. Only main terms of the ratios are chosen.
When the significant ratioes satisfying to Principles 1,2,3 and 4 are
sorted in ascending order, the following sequence of natural numbers are
obtained:
3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39...
Only these terms (except for number 7) are main in gravitational
interaction between planets of the Solar System. These terms represent
the main nonlinear process of the Solar System. The remaining ratioes are
the causal corollary of the main terms, therefore they are excluded from
the analysis in the given paper.
2. Revision of classical statement of a many bodies problem
2.1. Analogies between kinds of chemical and gravitational connections
or gravitational chemistry
Let's consider analogies between steady chemical substances and fixed
gravitational systems.
The varieties of symmetries of crystals of various minerals is a
corollary of a varieties of chemical elements and various versions of
their spatial packing, which generate a delightful symmetry of an exterior
form and symmetry of physical properties of crystals.
The varieties of chemical substances is a corollary of a varieties of
chemical elements and various combinations of their spatial packing. The
stationarity of a structure of steady chemical substances is provided with
various kinds of chemical connections. By analogy, the stationarity of
structures to gravitational systems should be provided with various kinds
of gravitational connections. Here authors shall specify on the following
kinds of gravitational connections:
1 - connection in groups of bodies, each of which has not a satellite or
satellites;
2 - connection in groups of bodies, each of which has of a satellite or
satellites;
3 - mixed connections in groups of bodies, the part of which bodies has
of a satellite or satellites and other part of bodies has not a satellite
or satellites;
4 - other possible or probable unknown kinds of connections in groups of
bodies, for which detection there are no necessary experimental data or
which are not identified in the given moment.
In the given article are considered only 2 and 3 types of connections
accordingly for the Jove group of planets and for the Earth group of
planets.
2.2. Reduction of a symmetry in a gravitational many bodies problem
Methods of the solution of a many bodies problem in its conventional
statement and various versions finally come into dock. The researches in
this direction have not fundamentally new outcomes already very long time.
The authors adhere points of view about necessity of revision of classical
statement of a many bodies problem.
1. In a classical problem the collisions between bodies are considered.
The authors offer to limit by consideration of stationary problems, in which
there are no collisions. This limitation contains a broad class of systems
widespread observed (observable) in a nature.
2. In a classical problem all bodies have identical dynamic properties,
i.e. they are considered equivalent apriorly. The empirical observations of
stationary systems contradict this supposition. In the Solar system, for
example, we have obvious properties of "multiplicity" - join of bodies in
groups in four bodies in each group. Inside such group of four bodies the
division on two groups in two bodies in each is brightly expressed. Each
body in group of two bodies has distinguished from other dynamic property.
Whether want to recognize this fact whether or not orthodox experts in the
theory of a gravitation, there should be at least one (unknown now)
fundamental gravitational law adequate (answering) for a property of
"multiplicity". The group property of "multiplicity" removes degeneration
for values of bodies masses of inherings to different groups of bodies.
The account of a property of "multiplicity" - join of bodies from a system
in groups expresss in reduction of a symmetry of a problem for a system as
a whole. For each group of bodies in a stationary system (presumably) there
should be, at the present unknowns, integrals of motion.
2.3. PHYLLOTAXIS AND THE EXPONENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM REGULARITIES
BASE UPON IRRATIONAL PHY
An interesting fact is that, for ALL series that are formed from adding
the latest two numbers to get the next, and, starting from any two values
(bigger than zero), the ratio of successive terms will always tend to Phi!
Phi is a more universal constant than the Fibonacci series itself. [13]
The golden ratio and the Fibonacci series, the Fibonacci Spiral and
sea shell shapes, seeds and flower petal, branching plants, leaves and
petal arrangements, leaf and pine cones arrangements: all involve the
Fibonacci numbers - why? Just what causes plants to grow in tendency accord
with the dictates of the irrational Phi remains a mystery after more than
100 years of study.
In his research "Spira Solaris" [12] real genius John N. Harris wrote:
"It has long been recognized that the Phi and the Fibonacci Series are
intimately related to the subject of natural growth. The Phi, the Fibonacci,
Lucas and related series, far from being confined to plant and animal
natural growth alone, occur in numerous diverse contexts over an enormous
range that extends from the structure of quasi-crystals out to the very
structure of spiral galaxies. And this being so, should there really be any
great surprise if Phi should also prove to be an underlying element in the
structure of planetary systems?".
In research "Spira Solaris", J. N. Harris has opened the exponential law
connecting mean periods circulation and mean distances for planets of the
Solar system, which leans on the irrational Phi series. The research,
considered in the given article, confirms existence of correlation with
the Fibonacci series for direct gravitational correlation (see 1.2).
Just what causes plants to grow and planets to coordinate their motions and
their values of masses in tendency accord with the dictates of the
irrational Phi remains a mystery till now.
See into [14] " The Keplerian Harmony of the Planets and Their moons "
by Lothar Komp.
3. Predictions on trans-pluto planets
" The Voyagers 1 and 2 trajectories give negative evidence about
possible planets beyond Pluto. " [8]
" The mystery of the tiny unexplained acceleration towards the sun
in the motion of the Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and Ulysses spacecraft remains
unexplained. " [7]
" The positional measurements do not bode too well for the existence
of Planet X. They do not entirely rule out the existence of a Planet X,
but they do indicate that it will not be a large body. " [6]
Here will be used the new analytical method, considered in chapter 1,
for the prediction of the unknown new planets. This method is not based on
classical positional measurements. This method concerns to qualitative
methods of a classical celestial mechanics. It can predict common dynamic
properties of unknown planets, but it can not predict exact coordinates
(like QM) of these unknown planets.
Prediction 1. The total number of planets in the solar system should
be equal 12. There are three groups and in each group there are 4 planets.
If to lean on empirical theory described above in chapter 1 item 1.5,
in each group of planets there should be four planets. Now group of Pluto
consists of one known planet, which has the title Pluto. For this reason
there should be three unknown planets which together with Pluto will make
full group of four planets. These planets are not members of the Kuiper
Belt, they are far behind Pluto. These planets have distinguishing masses
close on value to the mass of Pluto.
Closely consider the symmetry of the mass distribution of planets
inside group of the Jove. In the pair the Jove - Saturn the heavier planet
the Jove is closer to the Sun. On the contrary in the pair Uranus - Neptune
the heavier planet Neptune is further from the Sun.
Closely consider the symmetry of the mass distribution of planets
inside group of the Earth. In the pair the Earth - Venus the heavier
planet the Earth is further from the Sun. In a pair the Mars - Mercury
the heavier planet the Mars also is further from the Sun. Here has the
difference of group of the Earth from group of the Jove.
For compensating the mass distribution in group the Earth, by analogy
to group of the Jove is necessary that in pairs of planets of Pluto group
the heavier planets in pairs were closer to the Sun!:
Table 3
The symmetry of the mass distribution in pairs of planets
planet mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------>
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
...
Asteroid Belt
Jupiter
Saturn
the line of the symmetry inside the Solar planetary system
=========================================================
Mirror
Uran +the mirror reflection of Saturn;
Neptun +the mirror reflection of Jupiter;
.......
Kuiper Belt +the mirror reflection of Asteroid Belt;
Pluto(?) +the mirror reflection of Mars;
Planet X (pseudo Earth) +the mirror reflection of Earth;
Planet X1 (pseudo Venus) +the mirror reflection of Venus;
Planet X2 (pseudo Mercury) +the mirror reflection of Mercury;
Prediction 2. The mass of unknown planet pseudo Earth (the mirror
reflection of Earth) is more than the mass of Pluto. The planet pseudo
Earth has a satellite or more. The planet pseudo Earth rotates about the
axis faster than planet Pluto. It is very weak object, it has very small
sizes.
Prediction 3,4. There are two unknown planets pseudo Venus and pseudo
Mercury. The mass of unknown planet pseudo Venus is more than the mass of
Pluto but its mass is less than the mass of pseudo Earth. The mass of
unknown planet pseudo Mercury is less than the mass of Pluto. Similarly
to the Mercury and the Venus these planets have not satellites, i.e. these
two unknown planets are "bald". These unknown planets have rather slow
axial rotation.
Prediction 5. Similarly to the Mercury, Venus and Earth these three
planets have resonances.
Note. The additional foundation for these Predictions is served with
the following prerequisites:
1. There is the law which links periods of axial rotation of planets.
2. There is the law which links potential energies of planets.
These laws make essentially reduce number of theoretically possible
solutions for dynamic parameters of hypothetical planets.
These unknown planets can be detected in an infra-red telescope.
If to consider the mass distribution of planets of the Solar System with
acceptance in attention of the predicted masses of unknown planets then
the mass distribution of planets becomes surprising symmetrical concerning
pairs of planets.
4. Conclusions
The General Theory of Relativity was created by transactionses Henri
Poincare, D. Hilbert and A. Einstein, when the base of
experimental data for the Solar system was very poor, therefore this
theory has many hypothetical suppositions in the base concepts and
the GTR creators were in main mathematics. It is paradoxical, but this
theory does not give useful outcomes for practical needs of research of
circum-solar space. The precisiouly gravitational measurements are
accessible extremely within the limits of a Solar system. Now base of
experimental data for Solar system is vast, but we have not the good
theory of gravitation till now.
The Nobel Laureate, Irving Langmuir, coined the term "pathological
science" for "the science of things that aren't so".
Einstein warned: "Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality".
5. References
1. William B. Hubbard - PLANETARY INTERIORS, (Professor of Planetary
Sciences University of Arisona), Van Nostrand Reinhold Company 198?;
2. A.N. Timofeev, V.A. Timofeev, L.G. Timofeeva Gravitational mass - some
properties, Russia, Podolsk, 1996
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/
3. Sundman, Karl Fritiof Nouvelles recherches surle probleme des trois
corps, Acta Societatis scientiarum fennicae, T 35, N 9, Helsingfors, 1909
and other papers 1910-1912
4. Henri Poincari:
1. La Science et l'hypothhse (1903; Science and Hypothesis),
2. La Valeur de la science (1905; The Value of Science),
3. Science et mithode (1908; Science and Method), Paris,
Flammarion, 13 mille 1914, 14 mille 1918
These three writings can be found in:
The Foundations of Science,
containing Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science,
and Science and Method, trans. by George Bruce Halsted,
Lancaster(Pa), Science press, cop. 1946
4. Dernihres pensies (1913); This writing can be found in:
Mathematics and Science: Last Essays, trans. by John W. Bolduc,
New York, Dover, cop. 1963
5. Richard Feynman "THE CHARACTER OF PHISICAL LAW";
A series of lectures recorded by the BBC at Cornell University USA;
Cox and Wynman LTD, London, 1965
6. [sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions)
http://www.deja.com/threadmsg ct.xp?AN=606966502
Subject: E.11.1 What about a planet (Planet X) outside Pluto's orbit?
7. http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space Projects/pioneer/PNStat.html
8. http://www.seds.org/billa/tnp/spacecraft.html#pioneer10
9. Theoretical Motivation for Gravitation Experiments on Ultra-Low Energy
Antiprotons and Antihydrogen
Michael Martin Nieto, T. Goldman, John D. Anderson, Eunice L. Lau,
J. Perez-Mercader
http://xxx.lanl.gov/cits/hep-ph/9412234 Citations for hep-ph/9412234
10. The Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration of
Pioneer 10 and 11
Slava G. Turyshev, John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau,
Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto
http://xxx.lanl.gov/cits/gr-qc/9808081 Citations for gr-qc/9808081
11. The Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration
of Pioneer 10 and 11
Slava G. Turyshev, John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau,
Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024 Citations for gr-qc/9903024
12. Harris, J. "Projectiles, Parabolas, and Velocity Expansions of the
Laws of Planetary Motion," Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of
Canada, Vol. 83, No.3 (June 1989):207-218.
http://www3.telus.net/JNHDA/index.htm
http://www3.telus.net/JNHDA/sbb4c.htm
13. Ron Knott, "Fibonacci Numbers and Golden sections in Nature";
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#pinecones
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html
14. Komp, Lothar, " The Keplerian Harmony of the Planets and Their moons ",
21st Century, Spring 1997:28-41, translated by Rick Sanders and
David Cherry from the original article first published in FUSION,
April-May-June 1996.
15. Aleksandr N. Timofeev, Vladimir A. Timofeev, Lubov G. Timofeeva
"GRAVITATION. THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS AND PREDICTIONS", proceeding of
congress-2000
"FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENGINIRING", St.Petersburg
University, Russia, 2000 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru
------------------------------------------------------------
Timo Nieminen
> Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> one place to another through gravitons?
They don't. However, without gravitons, gravity is fundamentally different
from the other known forces - problematic for unification.
> Couldn't it just as easily be
> that timespace curvature cannot simply GET from one place to another
> unless there is a form of energy that is transferred between the two
> places?
>
> Rather than assuming that energy anywhere will somehow influence the
> timespace some time and place in the future, why not make ALL of GR's
> effects 100% local, and then try to figure the equations for some form
> of energy that is passing from the first point to all the space around
> it?
Is this not already the case in GR?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Timo Nieminen
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
> > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> > >
> > > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> > > one place to another through gravitons?
> >
> > They don't.
>
> Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
> alternate theories to the graviton?
Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
Starblade Darksquall
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>
> > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> > one place to another through gravitons?
>
> They don't. However, without gravitons, gravity is fundamentally different
> from the other known forces - problematic for unification.
>
> > Couldn't it just as easily be
> > that timespace curvature cannot simply GET from one place to another
> > unless there is a form of energy that is transferred between the two
> > places?
> >
> > Rather than assuming that energy anywhere will somehow influence the
> > timespace some time and place in the future, why not make ALL of GR's
> > effects 100% local, and then try to figure the equations for some form
> > of energy that is passing from the first point to all the space around
> > it?
>
> Is this not already the case in GR?
I don't know. They always explained to me that the rate at which
'gravity' moves from one place to the other is at the speed of light.
But how can this be if all gravitational effects are local?
Furthermore, how can the timespace curvature of a place change if the
stress energy tensor doesn't? That has never been explained to me.
Basically, they're treating space as if it was a flat rubber sheet and
that gravity is because particles rest on it, and when particles move
they create elastic disturbances.
I never liked this description, but it seems to be the type of
thinking that they're engaging in when they explain how timespace
curvature gets from one place to the other.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Starblade Darksquall
That's about timespace curvature vs timespace torsion. I haven't yet
seen anything about how gravity gets from one place to the other.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Starblade Darksquall
>
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> > > > one place to another through gravitons?
> > >
> > > They don't.
> >
> > Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
> > alternate theories to the graviton?
>
> Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
But it's hardly better. Timespace curvuatre gets from one place to
another in GR because of 'elastic ripples in timespace'. Something
that they believe happens just because they had to have SOME way of
making the local timespace curvature get from one place to the other.
We've already tested GR, and we know it's correct, but we have not yet
done a test that can verify exactly how timespace curvature gets from
Starblade Darksquall
So why exactly does timespace curvature somewhere cause timespace
curvature elsewhere? How exactly does timespace know how fast the
timespace curvature elsewhere was going?
Now that I think of it, my objections to elastic gravity are lessened,
but I still don't understand how you can have a wavefunction of
timespace when most other wavefunctions are in timespace. And how does
it know to follow null geodesics? If it's creating timespace then
which geodesics does it follow?
> >
> >This is easily reconcilable with GR, and quantizing the field might be
> >a bit easier. So has anybody done this?
> >
> >I am a bit skeptical of gravitons. I know my ideas seem a bit crazy,
> >but trust me, I'm going somewhere with this. But, just wondering, what
> >are the difficulties with such an approach? And if you claim it won't
> >work, then can you tell me exactly why it wouldn't? I am eager and
> >curious to know. Maybe we won't have to worry about quantizing
> >timespace just yet!
>
> Quantum gravity is not really my thing, so I can't say much more about it
> than I already have.
Well, thanks anyways. I think I have a better understanding of it now.
I still don't see why the gravitational radiation doesn't carry energy
though.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> >
> > > Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
> > > alternate theories to the graviton?
> >
> > Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
>
> But it's hardly better. Timespace curvuatre gets from one place to
> another in GR because of 'elastic ripples in timespace'. Something
> that they believe happens just because they had to have SOME way of
> making the local timespace curvature get from one place to the other.
>
> We've already tested GR, and we know it's correct, but we have not yet
> done a test that can verify exactly how timespace curvature gets from
> one place to the other.
Ah, you don't like classical field theories because they "only" give the
field equations (the Maxwell eqns for classical EM, the Einstein eqns for
GR) rather than explaining "why" these are the field equations? Or perhaps
I misunderstand your objection?
Of course, there is no fundamental conceptual problem with classical EM,
since it is just the classical limit of the quantum theory of EM. Lack of
a quantum theory of gravitation means we can't say the same for gravity.
Perhaps it might be possible that gravity is purely classical? However,
given that nothing else is ...
Timo Nieminen
> I still don't see why the gravitational radiation doesn't carry energy
> though.
But it does carry energy. And momentum, and angular momentum. For eg, see
Landau & Lifshitz.
Starblade Darksquall
>
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> > > > one place to another through gravitons?
> > >
> > > They don't.
> >
> > Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
> > alternate theories to the graviton?
>
> Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
Yeah, but it's almost using gravitons. I just don't like gravitons
because they're particles. Now if it was some other kind of energy
that happened to curve space that was transferred, or if gravitation
was carried by timespace vibrating like a string, then that would be
one thing. But having a particle on timespace which is timespace
itself is just absurd.
How do you put gravitons in the universe that way without assuming a
fixxed background metric? Simple: You can't!
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
>
> Yeah, but it's almost using gravitons. I just don't like gravitons
> because they're particles.
Not at all. GR is a classical field theory - continuous fields and all
that.
> Now if it was some other kind of energy
> that happened to curve space that was transferred, or if gravitation
> was carried by timespace vibrating like a string, then that would be
> one thing.
ie a classical field theory like GR
> But having a particle on timespace which is timespace
> itself is just absurd.
>
> How do you put gravitons in the universe that way without assuming a
> fixxed background metric? Simple: You can't!
Note the lack of existence of a quantum theory of gravity. Note that
assuming a fixed background metric linearises the theory. Note past posts
noting that nonlinearity of GR makes quantisation problematic.
So, yes. So far, anyway.
Starblade Darksquall
>
> > I still don't see why the gravitational radiation doesn't carry energy
> > though.
>
> But it does carry energy. And momentum, and angular momentum. For eg, see
> Landau & Lifshitz.
Then why not just do as I did before and say that timespace curvature
and energy are pretty much the same thing, except very locally, and
perhaps on more than 4 timespace dimensions?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Gregory L. Hansen
The field at point B isn't directly affected by the source at point A, but
rather by the field at points B+e, 0<|e|<<1. It's like the
electromagnetic field in that respect. Wiggle a charge at point A, and
nothing happens at point B until something happens to the field
immediately adjacent to point B.
I don't think I can say more than that without going metaphysical.
>
>Now that I think of it, my objections to elastic gravity are lessened,
>but I still don't understand how you can have a wavefunction of
>timespace when most other wavefunctions are in timespace. And how does
>it know to follow null geodesics? If it's creating timespace then
>which geodesics does it follow?
>
>> >
>> >This is easily reconcilable with GR, and quantizing the field might be
>> >a bit easier. So has anybody done this?
>> >
>> >I am a bit skeptical of gravitons. I know my ideas seem a bit crazy,
>> >but trust me, I'm going somewhere with this. But, just wondering, what
>> >are the difficulties with such an approach? And if you claim it won't
>> >work, then can you tell me exactly why it wouldn't? I am eager and
>> >curious to know. Maybe we won't have to worry about quantizing
>> >timespace just yet!
>>
>> Quantum gravity is not really my thing, so I can't say much more about it
>> than I already have.
>
>Well, thanks anyways. I think I have a better understanding of it now.
>I still don't see why the gravitational radiation doesn't carry energy
>though.
Oh, it does carry energy! Enough energy can be radiated away that the
orbits of some binary stars have a detectable decay. I think it seemed to
people that you were asking about static fields. They have an energy
density, not an energy flux.
Gregory L. Hansen
Starblade Darksquall <Starb...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:<Pine.LNX.4.50.03100...@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>...
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>>
>> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
>> > > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
>> > > > one place to another through gravitons?
>> > >
>> > > They don't.
>> >
>> > Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
>> > alternate theories to the graviton?
>>
>> Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
>
>Yeah, but it's almost using gravitons. I just don't like gravitons
>because they're particles.
I think the virtual particle picture is unfortunate because it gives
people the impression of little billiard balls flying around. They're
excitations of a field; modes of vibration, so to speak. Study phonons,
the "quasiparticle" vibrations of matter. Photons are phonons in a field
rather than a solid. Then make an analogy to gravity.
>Now if it was some other kind of energy
>that happened to curve space that was transferred, or if gravitation
>was carried by timespace vibrating like a string, then that would be
>one thing. But having a particle on timespace which is timespace
>itself is just absurd.
>
>How do you put gravitons in the universe that way without assuming a
>fixxed background metric? Simple: You can't!
How do you put photons in the universe without assuming a fixed
background? Sources of a field have a rest frame, but the field itself
doesn't. Boost an electric field and you get electric and magnetic
fields, the same thing from a different point of view and neither can be
considered the "correct" one or at rest. Redshifted radiation is
indistinguishable from radiation that just has a lower frequency.
Paul R. Mays
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starb...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.03100...@posting.google.com...
Did too... I told you my postulate a while back....
Its covers the where's and whys and how's ...just a bit light
on the provability aspect.... ;)
>
> (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Timo Nieminen
Why say that? Not the same thing at all. "I see what I eat", "I eat what I
see" and all that.
Specifically, you know that EM radiation carries energy, momentum, and
angular momentum? That doesn't mean that EM radiation and energy are the
same thing, or that EM fields and energy are the same thing. So why would
you say that gravitational fields are the same thing as energy?
George Wilkie
> Then why not just do as I did before and say that timespace curvature
> and energy are pretty much the same thing, except very locally, and
> perhaps on more than 4 timespace dimensions?
>
> (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Gravitational radiation is not the same thing (as far as we know now)
as the graviton of quantum gravity. GR's gravitational radiation does
carry energy, which is why binary neutron stars (and, after a damn
long time, all orbiting bodies) eventually spiral into eachother, they
lose orbital energy due to emitting gravitational waves.
Another major difference is no static body emmits gravitational waves.
Our sun doesn't emit gravitational waves just because its sitting
there, it emmits gravitational radiation by slowly wobbling due to the
pull of the orbiting planets (these gravitational waves are
*extremely* weak).
Einstein's field equations already say that spacetime curvature and
energy are essentially equivalent.
Y.Porat
> > Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But it's hardly better. Timespace curvuatre gets from one place to
> > another in GR because of 'elastic ripples in timespace'. Something
> > that they believe happens just because they had to have SOME way of
> > making the local timespace curvature get from one place to the other.
> >
> > We've already tested GR, and we know it's correct, but we have not yet
> > done a test that can verify exactly how timespace curvature gets from
> > one place to the other.
you are going to spend the rest of your life dealing with
'timespce'
and after that there will be another thousand years waited on
that 'spacetime'
spacetime is one of the greatest 'flops' of the 20th century
it is not working.
space is nothing therefore cannot have no curvature and no shmervature.
instead try the suggestion of a specific basic particle
that it (and only that) is
*moving naturally in closed circles* (or part of circles
if not alowed to finish its orbit by colliding another
felow )
i call it temporarily 'The circlon'
and that is the second Porat postulation.
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Starblade Darksquall
So, what's this I hear about the curvature and energy tensors not
having enough terms, or the right amount of terms, and such? I do know
that GR is missing terms of SOME sort, but I think the terms it's
missing have to do with QFT and not having to do with the enstein
curvature tensor or the stress energy tensor.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Igor
Darksquall) wrote:
Well, it's certainly not something that occurs instantaneously. There
is no action at a distance in either SR or GR. Something that happens
here can only affect something that is happening there with a delay.
This is most easily summed up as saying that two points in the
geometry can only be causally connected if they are separated by a
time-like interval. That's basically how the evolution occurs (as it
does with any of the fields that could be considered in GR). This is
related to the principle of local causes. Influences spread out in
local time about a particular point, but it's much easier to think in
terms of time-like intervals to understand which sections of the
geometry are connected.
Igor
wrote:
>Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.50.03100...@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>...
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>> > Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > But it's hardly better. Timespace curvuatre gets from one place to
>> > another in GR because of 'elastic ripples in timespace'. Something
>> > that they believe happens just because they had to have SOME way of
>> > making the local timespace curvature get from one place to the other.
>> >
>> > We've already tested GR, and we know it's correct, but we have not yet
>> > done a test that can verify exactly how timespace curvature gets from
>> > one place to the other.
>---------------------
>you are going to spend the rest of your life dealing with
>'timespce'
>and after that there will be another thousand years waited on
>that 'spacetime'
>spacetime is one of the greatest 'flops' of the 20th century
>it is not working.
>space is nothing therefore cannot have no curvature and no shmervature.
>
I suggest that you try to explain that to practically every
mathematician since Gauss and Riemann. I'm sure they'd be surprised
to hear it!
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear Timo Nieminen
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
> > > > one place to another through gravitons?
> > >
> > > They don't.
> >
> > Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
> > alternate theories to the graviton?
>
> Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
Direct experimental refutation of the theory, indicated by you is
given below.
From my point of view, so called "the theory", indicated by you is one
from numerous Mathematical Chimeras of XX Century.
Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my article from
point
of view of a scientific methodology (is adduced below):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0310080641.6aadf4a1%40posting.google.com
It is interesting to learn, how you came to connection between
a gravitation and so called "spacetime curvature" and/or quantum
Igor
Darksquall) wrote:
>Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.50.03100...@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>...
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>>
>> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F83635C...@hate.spam.net>...
>> > > Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
>> > > > one place to another through gravitons?
>> > >
>> > > They don't.
>> >
>> > Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
>> > alternate theories to the graviton?
>>
>> Well, there is the general theory of relativity.
>
>Yeah, but it's almost using gravitons. I just don't like gravitons
>because they're particles. Now if it was some other kind of energy
>that happened to curve space that was transferred, or if gravitation
>was carried by timespace vibrating like a string, then that would be
>one thing. But having a particle on timespace which is timespace
>itself is just absurd.
Actually, GR never postulates the existance of a graviton. The
gravitational wave is a predicted consequence of GR, one that still
has yet to be observed, but I believe we may be getting close. The
graviton is property of those field theorists who are out there trying
to put together the ultimate theory of everything. Quantizing gravity
is thought to be necessary to unite GR with the standard model. So
much work has been done on this subject in the past 40 or so years and
still no working model. I'm not sure what that means. It could mean
that it isn't possible. Or it could mean that it's out there, but we
just haven't been clever enough yet to figure it out. All in all, GR
says nothing about gravitons, only about curved spacetime manifolds
and how they evolve.
>How do you put gravitons in the universe that way without assuming a
>fixxed background metric? Simple: You can't!
>
Well, that's probably one of the reasons no one has yet come up with a
valid working model. All of the other interactions assume a fixed
background metric over which the action occurs. GR provides a
variable metric that IS the interaction. But, let's not kid
ourselves. If there truly is a grand unification, all of the other
interactions probably work this way too, at least at very high
energies. Fortunately, those other fields have nice, well behaved low
energy limits that we can understand. And so, that's the assumption
with quantum gravity also. Unfortunately, there may be alot more to
it than that.
Aleksandr Timofeev
given below.
From my point of view, so called "the theory", indicated by you is one
from numerous Mathematical Chimeras of XX Century.
Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my article from
point
of view of a scientific methodology (is adduced below):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0310080641.6aadf4a1%40posting.google.com
It is interesting to learn, how you came to connection between
a gravitation and so called "spacetime curvature" and/or quantum
theory?
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr Timofeev
> >This is easily reconcilable with GR, and quantizing the field might be
Igor
Darksquall) wrote:
>Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.50.03100...@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>...
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:
>>
>> > Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
>> > one place to another through gravitons?
>>
>> They don't. However, without gravitons, gravity is fundamentally different
>> from the other known forces - problematic for unification.
>>
>> > Couldn't it just as easily be
>> > that timespace curvature cannot simply GET from one place to another
>> > unless there is a form of energy that is transferred between the two
>> > places?
>> >
>> > Rather than assuming that energy anywhere will somehow influence the
>> > timespace some time and place in the future, why not make ALL of GR's
>> > effects 100% local, and then try to figure the equations for some form
>> > of energy that is passing from the first point to all the space around
>> > it?
>>
>> Is this not already the case in GR?
>
>I don't know. They always explained to me that the rate at which
>'gravity' moves from one place to the other is at the speed of light.
>But how can this be if all gravitational effects are local?
But that's exactly what we mean by local. Because information travels
at a finite speed, it will reach points within the local neighborhood
long before it reaches points much further away.
>Furthermore, how can the timespace curvature of a place change if the
>stress energy tensor doesn't? That has never been explained to me.
This could conceivably occur, if the the metric tensor were dependent
on the local time coordinate. Otherwise, the solution is said to be
static and hence unchanged locally.
>Basically, they're treating space as if it was a flat rubber sheet and
>that gravity is because particles rest on it, and when particles move
>they create elastic disturbances.
Such analogies usually leave a lot to be desired.
>I never liked this description, but it seems to be the type of
>thinking that they're engaging in when they explain how timespace
>curvature gets from one place to the other.
>
Disturbances propagate. Again principle of local causes.
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear Starblade Darksquall, do not evade.
Direct experimental refutation of the theory, indicated by you
is given below:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0310080641.6aadf4a1%40posting.google.com
1. Here SPACE and TIME are eliminated from the given EMPIRICAL THEORY.
2. THE GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given
EMPIRICAL THEORY.
3. The given EMPIRICAL THEORY demonstrates EXPERIMENTALLY QUANTIZATION
of a GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE.
Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my article from
point of view of a scientific methodology.
Do not evade.
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr Timofeev
>
> (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Y.Porat
1 ok go ahead and show us what is acheived by that theory.
2 it has nothing to do with mathematics
matematiciance will not do the physics breakthoughs that are
now needed
do you know why ?
1 because they didnt do it untill now
2 mathematics is just a machine
you get out of it no more than you put into it.
and if your basic physical assumptions are wrong
the results will be wrong aqnd no mathemathics will save you.
all the best
Y.Porat
ps one of the disasters of modern scince is that mathematicians
whithout the minimal 'physics sense' took it over.
in such a way (just a little example) the W Boson could be born.!
---------------
--------------------------
Timo Nieminen
> So, what's this I hear about the curvature and energy tensors not
> having enough terms, or the right amount of terms, and such? I do know
> that GR is missing terms of SOME sort, but I think the terms it's
> missing have to do with QFT and not having to do with the enstein
> curvature tensor or the stress energy tensor.
If it's a QFT thing, then what does that have to do with GR?
However, you might wish to google for belinfante and rosenfeld (and
possibly other suitable keywords), or look on arxiv, where there is some
stuff. Can't offer detailed suggestions for reading, as I only run into
this stuff where it intersects with EM theory.