General relativity

[unameus]

Continued from Orbital Precession topic under Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers thread – now closed.

Thanks to Tensor for the figures and recommendations. Now I will try to predict Earth’s orbital precession rate. I have to collect some data re the famous Binary Pulsar before I venture there. Once I have completed my calculations, I will report the results.

The new model has three constants: gravitational-wave speed; momentum-field range coefficient; and dynamic gravitational constant. I will explain later the non-constancy of the classical gravitational constant; it’s too detailed for the space here.

If any one of you wants to critic my model, please let me know. I don’t know the Forum rules well, so I can’t attach the paper here. I have become “blind” to the model; someone needs to scrub it.

I used Mercury’s orbital precession rate (575 arc-secs) to estimate the speed of gravitational wave and the static gravitational constant. I agree with you that Venus’ orbit is too circular.

P. S. I thought you would like to know what motivated me to finding an alternative to general relativity.

1. Many physicists quote 43 arc-secs as predicted by GR and also as the observed value. This is just incorrect. If the space-time around Mercury is warped, it is warped (period). GR should account for the total observed precession (575, 5600, or whatever arc-sec/century). Maybe GR does and I don’t know about it.

2. GR predicted the gravitational deflection of light at the sun to be 1.74 arc-secs. The 1919 expedition reported its confirmation; Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast. Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs. I am not aware of any observation replicating the GR predicted figure of 1.74 arc-secs. I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained. The solar atmosphere is especially violent to electro-magnetic waves!

3. How come a gravitational interaction, which is 10**40 times weaker than an electromagnetic interaction, can generate gravitational waves propagating at the speed of light?

4. I doubt that gravity can be unified with the strong, the weak, an electromagnetic forces by clinging to GR. (I would be wrong if gravity were too unique to be unified. It may be not necessary to unify gravity with the three fundamental forces.)

These reasons have motivated me to find an alternative. I want to try mass (gravitational charge) and momentum (gravitational current) properties of matter and the associated mass field and momentum field respectively. Mass-momentum field is similar to start with but different further down. A noteworthy difference with electro-magnetic field: Whereas a probe moving with a charge detects the charge field but no magnetic field; a probe moving with a mass detects the momentum field but no mass field.

[grapes]

Previous question is here, along with a link to the precession values:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....t=#post1990852

arc-sec/century). Maybe GR does and I don’t know about it.

Of course, GR accounts for the full precessional value, not just the anomalous portion--but that is the portion of most interest.

[utesfan100]

Now I will try to predict Earth’s orbital precession rate. I have to collect some data re the famous Binary Pulsar before I venture there. Once I have completed my calculations, I will report the results.

The moon about the earth might be a better test.

The new model has three constants: gravitational-wave speed; momentum-field range coefficient; and dynamic gravitational constant. I will explain later the non-constancy of the classical gravitational constant; it’s too detailed for the space here.

P. S. I thought you would like to know what motivated me to finding an alternative to general relativity.

1. Many physicists quote 43 arc-secs as predicted by GR and also as the observed value. This is just incorrect. If the space-time around Mercury is warped, it is warped (period). GR should account for the total observed precession (575, 5600, or whatever arc-sec/century). Maybe GR does and I don’t know about it.

GR does. 575 is the precession relative to the fixed frame defined by distant objects. 5600 is from a frame that includes a rotation due to the motion of earth's orbital plane.

43 arcseconds is the remainder of the 575 after the classical perturbative effects of the rest of the solar system are considered. The differences in these perturbations from the classical values are negligible compared to the 43 arcseconds.

2. GR predicted the gravitational deflection of light at the sun to be 1.74 arc-secs. The 1919 expedition reported its confirmation; Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast. Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs. I am not aware of any observation replicating the GR predicted figure of 1.74 arc-secs. I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained. The solar atmosphere is especially violent to electro-magnetic waves!

While I find sources suggesting that the uncertainty bars of the 1919 experiment might have been unable to discern between GR and a Newtonian model, far more precise measurements since then. In particular, radio sources from quasar observations reached a level of conclusiveness in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

Also, satellite communications using multiple frequencies now allow for atmospheric effects to be accounted for.

3. How come a gravitational interaction, which is 10**40 times weaker than an electromagnetic interaction, can generate gravitational waves propagating at the speed of light?

In SR, Massless is massless, no matter the magnitude of the energy level.

4. I doubt that gravity can be unified with the strong, the weak, an electromagnetic forces by clinging to GR. (I would be wrong if gravity were too unique to be unified. It may be not necessary to unify gravity with the three fundamental forces.)

These reasons have motivated me to find an alternative. I want to try mass (gravitational charge) and momentum (gravitational current) properties of matter and the associated mass field and momentum field respectively. Mass-momentum field is similar to start with but different further down. A noteworthy difference with electro-magnetic field: Whereas a probe moving with a charge detects the charge field but no magnetic field; a probe moving with a mass detects the momentum field but no mass field.

GR includes frame dragging, which is the standard terminology for the effect you are describing here.

Though I think you have explained it wrong. I have a mass, am moving with the Earth, and clearly detect a mass field.

[Strange]

3. How come a gravitational interaction, which is 10**40 times weaker than an electromagnetic interaction, can generate gravitational waves propagating at the speed of light?

Can you explain your thinking here? Why would the strength of the interaction be relevant to the speed of propagation?

[korjik]

Continued from Orbital Precession topic under Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers thread – now closed.


P. S. I thought you would like to know what motivated me to finding an alternative to general relativity.

1. Many physicists quote 43 arc-secs as predicted by GR and also as the observed value. This is just incorrect. If the space-time around Mercury is warped, it is warped (period). GR should account for the total observed precession (575, 5600, or whatever arc-sec/century). Maybe GR does and I don’t know about it.

The 43 arc seconds is what cant be explained using newtonian physics. A full GR treatment takes all the newtonian physics into account and then explains what the newtonian theory cant. It dosent just explain the anomalous precession. Studying up on this should have told you that.

2. GR predicted the gravitational deflection of light at the sun to be 1.74 arc-secs. The 1919 expedition reported its confirmation; Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast. Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs. I am not aware of any observation replicating the GR predicted figure of 1.74 arc-secs. I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained. The solar atmosphere is especially violent to electro-magnetic waves!

Incorrect on all counts. The effects that the solar atmosphere has on passing electromagnetic waves is well described in plasma theory. I would be quite willing to bet that taking that into account would give you the seen deflection.

And by the way, the solar atmosphere is a good vacuum that does very little to the passing waves.

3. How come a gravitational interaction, which is 10**40 times weaker than an electromagnetic interaction, can generate gravitational waves propagating at the speed of light?

oddly enough, theory gives that the waves should be around 10⁴⁰ times weaker. Funny how that works. Wave theory is also well developed.

4. I doubt that gravity can be unified with the strong, the weak, an electromagnetic forces by clinging to GR. (I would be wrong if gravity were too unique to be unified. It may be not necessary to unify gravity with the three fundamental forces.)

Only remotely correct reason. Also not ATM in the slightest, cause it is the belief of every physicist who has ever thought about it.

These reasons have motivated me to find an alternative. I want to try mass (gravitational charge) and momentum (gravitational current) properties of matter and the associated mass field and momentum field respectively. Mass-momentum field is similar to start with but different further down. A noteworthy difference with electro-magnetic field: Whereas a probe moving with a charge detects the charge field but no magnetic field; a probe moving with a mass detects the momentum field but no mass field.

Except that the probe detects the mass field. Trying to apply field theory to gravity is more than a century old and dosent work as well as GR.

[Nereid]

2. GR predicted the gravitational deflection of light at the sun to be 1.74 arc-secs. The 1919 expedition reported its confirmation; Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast. Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs. I am not aware of any observation replicating the GR predicted figure of 1.74 arc-secs. I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained. The solar atmosphere is especially violent to electro-magnetic waves!

Others have already asked about this, albeit somewhat indirectly.

N1. Please provide a source, or sources, for this: "Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast".

N2. Please provide a source, or sources, for this: "Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs".

N3. Do you have any evidence for this, beyond your personal doubts? "I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained."

N4. How familiar are you with Clifford Will's various papers in Living Reviews in Relativity, for example this one?

[Tensor]

Continued from Orbital Precession topic under Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers thread – now closed.

Thanks to Tensor for the figures and recommendations.

Thanks, for some reason it is difficult finding the total precession for planets other than Mercury.

Now I will try to predict Earth’s orbital precession rate. I have to collect some data re the famous Binary Pulsar before I venture there.

Both my reference in the previous thread (Will 2006) and the link in Nereid's Question N4 are are the same paper and have the data for the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar (B1913+16). Section 5.1 (page 58) has the data for the Hulse-Taylor binary. Section 5.2 ( page 62) has references to the data for six other binary pulsars. A shortened list of data is in Table 7 on page 64, along with a reference to current data (well at least current in 2006, I'm not sure how updated it is now), for a catalog of binaries.

Once I have completed my calculations, I will report the results.

The new model has three constants: gravitational-wave speed; momentum-field range coefficient; and dynamic gravitational constant. I will explain later the non-constancy of the classical gravitational constant; it’s too detailed for the space here.

I'd be willing to trust you for now on a value for a changing G, with a explanation later. I only ask that question, as I provided you several papers that indicate that G has not been changing, along with the error bars in those experiments. I'd be interested to see where your changing G lined up with those experiments.

P. S. I thought you would like to know what motivated me to finding an alternative to general relativity.

1. Many physicists quote 43 arc-secs as predicted by GR and also as the observed value. This is just incorrect. If the space-time around Mercury is warped, it is warped (period). GR should account for the total observed precession (575, 5600, or whatever arc-sec/century). Maybe GR does and I don’t know about it.

In a perfect universe, there would be no precession. Let's start with the assumption that Mercury's perihelion doesn't precess. We observe that the Earth precesses ~5025 arc second/century. So if Mercury's perihelion doesn't move, we should see it move ~5025 arc-seconds/century. We don't. We see it move 5600 arc-seconds/century. Which means Mercury's perihelion moves 575 arc-seconds/century. If we plug in all the perturbations of the other planets, and anything else big enough to cause a perturbation, we find that this causes ~532 arc-seconds/century. This is based on Newtonian Gravitation and when considering the planets, the speeds, masses, and energies within the solar system, the results for General Relativity are the same. This leaves us 43 arc-seconds per century short, that the non-linearity of the General Relativistic equations accounts for. And to pedantic, there is also a term for the oblateness of the sun, but this is less than 1 arc-second/century.

2. GR predicted the gravitational deflection of light at the sun to be 1.74 arc-secs. The 1919 expedition reported its confirmation; Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast. Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs. I am not aware of any observation replicating the GR predicted figure of 1.74 arc-secs. I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained. The solar atmosphere is especially violent to electro-magnetic waves!

As far as not being aware or doubting the non-gravitational effects, I suggest you look here . Not only do they provide the test results (γ = 1.0 theory, γ = 0.9998 ± 0.0003 (68% confidence level) note they are measuring the parameterized post Newtonian (PPN) gamma) they also give references to quite a few different experiments that confirm GR.

3. How come a gravitational interaction, which is 10**40 times weaker than an electromagnetic interaction, can generate gravitational waves propagating at the speed of light?

Why shouldn't it be able to? Be specific please. And incredulity is not a reason.

[unameus]

I posted responses. For some reasons, they did not show up.
Here are a few selected responses.
* References requested:
T. Biswas, Special relativistic Newtonian Grvity, Foundations of Phydics, v 24, n4, 1994.
D Barwacz, Orbital precession without GR, General Science Journal.
E. Freudlich, H.v. Kluber, and A.v. Brun, Zs. f. Astrophys., 3, 171, 1931.
C.L. Poor, The deflection of light as observed at total Solar eclipse, JOSA, v 20, n 4, 1930.
Adler, Bazin, and Schier, Introduction to general relativity, (p. 129, 193, ...) McGraw Hill, 1965.
M.P. Price and W.F. Rush, Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury's perihelion precession, Am. J. Phys., v 47, n 6, 1979.
* Gravitational-wave speed:
Looking at various waves, such as acoustic, gravity, surface tension, light, etc., I see that their speeds are different. Why? Because the generation processes (interactions) and the media are not the same. Generation of gravitational and electromegnetic waves are from different interactions and in diffeent media Iincluding vacuum). As a physicist, I think the two speeds should not be equal. Moreover, nobody has even detected gravitational waves; why to talk about their speed? GR has simply assumed that it's c.

I WILL RESUME AFTER THIS SET OF RESPONSES IS POSTED.

[Swift]

I posted responses. For some reasons, they did not show up.

unameus,

All posts by "Newbies" are held in a "moderation queue" until they can be approved by a moderator. We have to do this as part of our anti-spam measures. I have now approved your last post. I didn't see anything else from you waiting to be approved; if you posted something else, some software bug or something else killed them (it happens). Please go ahead and post your other things, we'll try to approve them as fast as we can.

With a few more posts (we deliberately keep the number vague), you will no longer have to await for this approval.

Thanks,

[Nereid]

I posted responses. For some reasons, they did not show up.
Here are a few selected responses.
* References requested:
T. Biswas, Special relativistic Newtonian Grvity, Foundations of Phydics, v 24, n4, 1994.
D Barwacz, Orbital precession without GR, General Science Journal.
E. Freudlich, H.v. Kluber, and A.v. Brun, Zs. f. Astrophys., 3, 171, 1931.
C.L. Poor, The deflection of light as observed at total Solar eclipse, JOSA, v 20, n 4, 1930.
Adler, Bazin, and Schier, Introduction to general relativity, (p. 129, 193, ...) McGraw Hill, 1965.
M.P. Price and W.F. Rush, Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury's perihelion precession, Am. J. Phys., v 47, n 6, 1979.
* Gravitational-wave speed:
Looking at various waves, such as acoustic, gravity, surface tension, light, etc., I see that their speeds are different. Why? Because the generation processes (interactions) and the media are not the same. Generation of gravitational and electromegnetic waves are from different interactions and in diffeent media Iincluding vacuum). As a physicist, I think the two speeds should not be equal. Moreover, nobody has even detected gravitational waves; why to talk about their speed? GR has simply assumed that it's c.

I WILL RESUME AFTER THIS SET OF RESPONSES IS POSTED.

Thanks.

I'm not 100% sure, but it seems you have answered at least my questions N1 and N2 (if not, would you please be kind enough to provide answers to those questions).

You did not answer my question N4 ("How familiar are you with Clifford Will's various papers in Living Reviews in Relativity, for example [Will, 2006]?"). I strongly recommend that you read it, especially - with respect to the gravitational deflection of light by the Sun - section 3.4.1 ("The deflection of light"). In that section you will find references to many observations of the gravitational deflection of light by the Sun, and estimates of the extent to which these match the expected GR values.

[unameus]

N1. Please provide a source, or sources, for this: "Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast".
C.L. Poor, The deflection of light as observed at total Solar eclipse, JOSA, v 20, n 4, 1930.

N2. Please provide a source, or sources, for this: "Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs".
Adler, Bazin, and Schier, Introduction to general relativity, (p. 188-193, ...) McGraw Hill, 1965. (1.5 - 3 secs.)
E. Freudlich, H.v. Kluber, and A.v. Brun, Zs. f. Astrophys., 3, 171, 1931. (Reported 2.2 secs.)

N3. Do you have any evidence for this, beyond your personal doubts? "I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained."
Adler, Bazin, and Schier, Introduction to general relativity, (p. 129-130) McGraw Hill, 1965. (1.5 - 3 secs.)

N4. How familiar are you with Clifford Will's various papers in Living Reviews in Relativity, for example this one?
I am not familiar with those. I have read so many on GR, more than on any physics topics. BUT I will retrieve and read.

Addendum.
It may be a good idea to refresh with the Standard Model of Elementary particles. (I admit that gravity may not be a fundamental force. I also admit that there could be one or more fundamental forces between the weak and gravity.) I discern that that there are only two realities in Nature: matter and energy and their interactions. Space is there. Time has its genesis in interactions. BUT this is what I arrived at after a long, long view of physics. I may be wrong. But who can judge?

[utesfan100]

N4. How familiar are you with Clifford Will's various papers in Living Reviews in Relativity, for example this one?
I am not familiar with those. I have read so many on GR, more than on any physics topics. BUT I will retrieve and read.

I can vouch for the informitive value of this work. It is available in an HTML format here:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...6-3/index.html

[Nereid]

N1. Please provide a source, or sources, for this: "Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast".
C.L. Poor, The deflection of light as observed at total Solar eclipse, JOSA, v 20, n 4, 1930.

N2. Please provide a source, or sources, for this: "Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs".
Adler, Bazin, and Schier, Introduction to general relativity, (p. 188-193, ...) McGraw Hill, 1965. (1.5 - 3 secs.)
E. Freudlich, H.v. Kluber, and A.v. Brun, Zs. f. Astrophys., 3, 171, 1931. (Reported 2.2 secs.)

N3. Do you have any evidence for this, beyond your personal doubts? "I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained."
Adler, Bazin, and Schier, Introduction to general relativity, (p. 129-130) McGraw Hill, 1965. (1.5 - 3 secs.)

N4. How familiar are you with Clifford Will's various papers in Living Reviews in Relativity, for example this one?
I am not familiar with those. I have read so many on GR, more than on any physics topics. BUT I will retrieve and read.

Addendum.
It may be a good idea to refresh with the Standard Model of Elementary particles. (I admit that gravity may not be a fundamental force. I also admit that there could be one or more fundamental forces between the weak and gravity.) I discern that that there are only two realities in Nature: matter and energy and their interactions. Space is there. Time has its genesis in interactions. BUT this is what I arrived at after a long, long view of physics. I may be wrong. But who can judge?

Thanks for this.

I think you'll find, when you've had a chance to read the Will (2006) material, that the early (1920s-1940s) published solar eclipse estimates of the gravitational deflection of light due to the Sun are quite inconsistent with the much later published estimates, derived using techniques that have far greater precision and accuracy.

[John Mendenhall]

Continued from Orbital Precession topic under Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers thread – now closed.

Thanks to Tensor for the figures and recommendations. Now I will try to predict Earth’s orbital precession rate. I have to collect some data re the famous Binary Pulsar before I venture there. Once I have completed my calculations, I will report the results.

The new model has three constants: gravitational-wave speed; momentum-field range coefficient; and dynamic gravitational constant. I will explain later the non-constancy of the classical gravitational constant; it’s too detailed for the space here.

If any one of you wants to critic my model, please let me know. I don’t know the Forum rules well, so I can’t attach the paper here. I have become “blind” to the model; someone needs to scrub it.

I used Mercury’s orbital precession rate (575 arc-secs) to estimate the speed of gravitational wave and the static gravitational constant. I agree with you that Venus’ orbit is too circular.

P. S. I thought you would like to know what motivated me to finding an alternative to general relativity.

1. Many physicists quote 43 arc-secs as predicted by GR and also as the observed value. This is just incorrect. If the space-time around Mercury is warped, it is warped (period). GR should account for the total observed precession (575, 5600, or whatever arc-sec/century). Maybe GR does and I don’t know about it.

2. GR predicted the gravitational deflection of light at the sun to be 1.74 arc-secs. The 1919 expedition reported its confirmation; Prof. Poor of Columbia clearly refuted it and became an outcast. Later expeditions reported figures from 2.2 to 3 arc-secs. I am not aware of any observation replicating the GR predicted figure of 1.74 arc-secs. I doubt that the non-gravitational effects of the solar atmosphere could be ascertained. The solar atmosphere is especially violent to electro-magnetic waves!

3. How come a gravitational interaction, which is 10**40 times weaker than an electromagnetic interaction, can generate gravitational waves propagating at the speed of light?

4. I doubt that gravity can be unified with the strong, the weak, an electromagnetic forces by clinging to GR. (I would be wrong if gravity were too unique to be unified. It may be not necessary to unify gravity with the three fundamental forces.)

These reasons have motivated me to find an alternative. I want to try mass (gravitational charge) and momentum (gravitational current) properties of matter and the associated mass field and momentum field respectively. Mass-momentum field is similar to start with but different further down. A noteworthy difference with electro-magnetic field: Whereas a probe moving with a charge detects the charge field but no magnetic field; a probe moving with a mass detects the momentum field but no mass field.

I think, with all due respect, that you misunderstand the magnitude of the Standard Model, and GR in particular. See the wonderful quote from korjik below. IIRC, parts of GR are known to be correct to eight orders of magnitude. None of GR is demonstrably wrong. And I emphasize ‘demonstrably’. It doesn’t matter if you think it is wrong; you must be able to demonstrate that it is wrong. You are up against 100 years of careful observation, theorizing, predicting, and analysis of results, demonstrated (again that word) by people who can actually understand those 10 differential equations. Your items 1 to 4 above have already been shown to be either wrong, insufficient, or meaningless by others. I suggest it’s back to the books and the drawing board.

Regards, John M.

[unameus]

Okay, If you say I am wrong, I accept it.

Let's start over, as now I am lost. Let's start with one question at a time.

Question 1. Where in the literature I will find general relativity predicting Mercury's total orbital rate to be 575 arc-secs/century, incluiding the anaomalous 43 arc-secs/century?
Please answer this question and only this question in as few words as possible.

After this we will go the light bending path.
Then redshifting of light.
Then gravitational waves.
Then ...

Thanks so much.


Thank you.

[Nereid]

Okay, If you say I am wrong, I accept it.

Let's start over, as now I am lost. Let's start with one question at a time.

Question 1. Where in the literature I will find general relativity predicting Mercury's total orbital rate to be 575 arc-secs/century, incluiding the anaomalous 43 arc-secs/century?
[...]
Thank you.

There is no need for you to ask this here, it's a perfectly good, ordinary question that you can ask in the Q&A section.

In fact, I asked it already (though not explicitly on your behalf; I also phrased it in my own way): Anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury - first GR publication?

[pzkpfw]

...
Let's start over, as now I am lost. Let's start with one question at a time.
...

No.

This section of the forum is for you to propose some non-mainstream idea, and then defend it against questioning.

If you have questions to ask, then (as noted by Nereid) please ask them in the Q&A section of the forum.

(One of the strong bits of advice for members wishing to have an ATM thread is that they should fully understand the standard science first.)

[unameus]

Thanks, pfkpfw ...
I will read Wills' work and see what I find.

Meanwhile here is my against-mainstream idea:
The strong, the weak, and electromagnetic interactions are mediated respectively by the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic fields associated respectively with the color, the weak, and electrical charges of matter and antimatter. These charges are specific properties of matter and antimatter, and, in motion, contribute to the interactions. The strong and the weak interactions occur at only microscopic levels; electromagnetic interactions occur at both microscopic and macroscopic levels; and gravitational interactions are known to be effective at only macroscopic levels. (At macroscopic levels, fields are continuous with values at each space-time point.)
Gravitational interaction between entities should be similarly reformulated in terms of their pertinent properties (mass and monentum) and associated fields (mass field and momentum field) at the macroscopic level without coordinate systems and observers.

[Hornblower]

Thanks, pfkpfw ...
I will read Wills' work and see what I find.

Meanwhile here is my against-mainstream idea:
The strong, the weak, and electromagnetic interactions are mediated respectively by the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic fields associated respectively with the color, the weak, and electrical charges of matter and antimatter. These charges are specific properties of matter and antimatter, and, in motion, contribute to the interactions. The strong and the weak interactions occur at only microscopic levels; electromagnetic interactions occur at both microscopic and macroscopic levels; and gravitational interactions are known to be effective at only macroscopic levels. (At macroscopic levels, fields are continuous with values at each space-time point.)
Gravitational interaction between entities should be similarly reformulated in terms of their pertinent properties (mass and monentum) and associated fields (mass field and momentum field) at the macroscopic level without coordinate systems and observers.

My bold. Can you show us, in appropriate mathematical detail, why you think so? Can you show us step-by-step comparisons with the calculations according to the standard theory?

[Tensor]

Gravitational interaction between entities should be similarly reformulated in terms of their pertinent properties (mass and monentum) and associated fields (mass field and momentum field) at the macroscopic level without coordinate systems and observers.

Without coordinate systems? This should be interesting as mass is coordinate invariant, but momentum is coordinate dependent.

This may be interesting in another way as gravity is dependent on Energy, not just mass. At least as far as experiment has shown.

It will be interesting to see how you reformulate this.

[unameus]

To Nereid and utesfan:

N4. I just read Will's section 3.4 Tests of the papameter (gamma). Sorry, I am late.

3.4.1 The dflection of light. Will still does not answer my question. My problem is NOT with the accuracy of a specific measurement. My problem is how those experimentalists filtered out non-gravitational effects from electromagnetic waves. (Photons do not travel; electromagnetic waves do. Stellar atmospheres are extremely violent on travelling electrmagnetic waves, which are oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Moreover, how does one know that the sun's atmosphere is not effective at the impact parameter? I am not the only who is raising these question; many have!

3.5 The perihelion shift of Mercury. Again, no answer. Will arrives at 43 arc-secs/century rate for Mercury's orbital precession. If gravity is due to matter warping space-time geometry field, then GR MUST account for all 575 rate. I can rationalize: Newton (572) + Newton (43); Newton (572) + SR (43); GR (572) + SR (43); or, ideally, GR (572) + GR (43). But I have problems justifying Newton (572) + GR (43). Unless, of course, the 572 part is due to some non-gravitational effects. But, classical mechanics accounts for that with the help of Newton's gravity.

If you know a reference in which GR explains all 575 rate, please let me know. I will be grateful.

To Hornblower and Tensor.

Regarding the fundamental forces, that 's what I observe in the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic interactions. A physicist does not have to start with mathematics all the time. By my physics intinct, I think gravity, if it is a fundamental force, must be mediated by the fields associated with the pertinent properties of matter (antimater). The only static and dynamic properties I can come with sensibly are respectively mass and momentum. (If mass is gravitational charge, then momentum is graviitational current.) I have had just little success. If any one wants to review my work (9 pages), I will be glad to e-mail it to you. I don't think I can post it here -- against the Forum's rules.

(Mathematics. I recall the great Feynman: The glory of mathematics is that you don't have to say what you are talking about.)

I hope to arrive at some answers. Please help me with my work. Thank you.

[Nereid]

To Nereid and utesfan:

N4. I just read Will's section 3.4 Tests of the papameter (gamma). Sorry, I am late.

3.4.1 The dflection of light. Will still does not answer my question. My problem is NOT with the accuracy of a specific measurement. My problem is how those experimentalists filtered out non-gravitational effects from electromagnetic waves. (Photons do not travel; electromagnetic waves do. Stellar atmospheres are extremely violent on travelling electrmagnetic waves, which are oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Moreover, how does one know that the sun's atmosphere is not effective at the impact parameter? I am not the only who is raising these question; many have!

[...]

If you would like answers to these questions, I recommend that you start a thread in the Q&A section.

N5: You state "Photons do not travel; electromagnetic waves do." Would you please explain what you mean?

N6: Concerning this: "Stellar atmospheres are extremely violent on travelling electrmagnetic waves": in your ATM idea, what is the extent of the Sun's atmosphere? Specifically, does it extend to the Earth's orbit (and beyond)?

Please help me with my work.

The best help I can give you, by far, is asking you direct questions, pertinent to the ATM ideas you have posted here, as posted.

If you check the rules of this special section of BAUT, I think you'll find that that's about the only help any BAUT member can give you, in the form of posts.

[unameus]

Thanks, nereid.
That's a great answer.

I hope you forgive me for taking so much of time.

I am going for my eye surgery. Please pray for me.

[Nereid]

Thanks, nereid.
That's a great answer.

You're welcome.

I hope you forgive me for taking so much of time.

It's my pleasure. If I didn't enjoy participating here, I wouldn't post here.

I am going for my eye surgery.

Good luck with that.

I look forward to reading your responses to my questions ...

[Tensor]

To Nereid and utesfan:

N4. I just read Will's section 3.4 Tests of the papameter (gamma). Sorry, I am late.

3.4.1 The dflection of light. Will still does not answer my question. My problem is NOT with the accuracy of a specific measurement.

Well, I'm puzzled on how you don't have a problem with the accuracy of the measurement, but then go on to describe what you believe to be problems with the way the measurement was taken.

My problem is how those experimentalists filtered out non-gravitational effects from electromagnetic waves.

What specific non-gravitational effects and can you point out some papers that quantify those effects?

(Photons do not travel; electromagnetic waves do.

Interesting. This raises several different questions, but I'll point out the most obvious misconception. Photons and EM waves are different models. Photons are part of Quantum Field Theory(QFT), specifically Quantum Electrodynamics(QED). EM waves are part of classical Electrodynamics Theory. QED has been shown to be more accurate than classical EM theory and QED can explain observations that classical EM theory can't. Classical EM theory can be explained using QED, but QED cannot be explained using classical EM theory. As far as photons not traveling, Perhaps you can then explain why this experiment was able to detect individual photons that were created. Or, this one , or any of the numerous experiments trying to develop single photon sources for communications or quantum computing. Not to mention any of the older experiments that used single photons in the double slit experiments. If photons didn't travel, then obviously they wouldn't have made it to the detector. Unless, of course, you have a completely different theory on EM also.

Stellar atmospheres are extremely violent on travelling electrmagnetic waves, which are oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

And this affects the measurements exactly, how?

Moreover, how does one know that the sun's atmosphere is not effective at the impact parameter?

Well, if it was a completely effective impact parameter, we wouldn't see any of the targets behind the sun's atmosphere, would we?

I am not the only who is raising these question; many have!

I'm not aware of any active scientists, who are competent in the field of gravitation, that are raising these questions. Could you provide us with some names?

3.5 The perihelion shift of Mercury. Again, no answer. Will arrives at 43 arc-secs/century rate for Mercury's orbital precession. If gravity is due to matter warping space-time geometry field, then GR MUST account for all 575 rate. I can rationalize: Newton (572) + Newton (43); Newton (572) + SR (43); GR (572) + SR (43); or, ideally, GR (572) + GR (43). But I have problems justifying Newton (572) + GR (43). Unless, of course, the 572 part is due to some non-gravitational effects. But, classical mechanics accounts for that with the help of Newton's gravity.

If you know a reference in which GR explains all 575 rate, please let me know. I will be grateful.

Ok, lets go over this. The first 532 Arc-sec/cent(not 572 BTW) are the perturbations from the other planets. In this (and in many other applications such as plotting trajectories for planetary missions), the difference between Newtonian gravity and GR, is simply too small to bother with. You have to remember, at the speeds, energies, and gravitational strengths found in the solar system, GR reduces to Newtonian gravity. So why spend time using the GR math, when you can use simple algebra? The rate for Mercury is Newton or GR 532 + GR 43 (if you want it broken out) or simply GR 575.[/QUOTE]

To Hornblower and Tensor.

Regarding the fundamental forces, that 's what I observe in the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic interactions. A physicist does not have to start with mathematics all the time. By my physics intinct, I think gravity, if it is a fundamental force, must be mediated by the fields associated with the pertinent properties of matter (antimater). The only static and dynamic properties I can come with sensibly are respectively mass and momentum. (If mass is gravitational charge, then momentum is graviitational current.) I have had just little success.

Let's go back to your "that's what I observe", statement. What's observed is that mass is observer (or frame) invariant and momentum is observer (or frame) dependent. Those are experimental observations. So if you want to try and do away with observers, then both would seemingly be in the same frame and that leads to a contradiction.
.