Letters from Vic


Letters from a friend.

I am quite happy to have received this email from my dear friend Victor.

Victor runs the sciprint.org, a preprint repository which lacks the nice black-listing amenities that Los Alamos Arxives takes so much pride.

Please, feel free to contact Vic to ask questions about the repository either by email: [email protected] or through the repository site URL: www.sciprint.org.

Please, visit the www.sciprint.org and delve deep into the astrophysics section. It is one of the few places where people with new ideas are allowed to post them.

This means that scientists are allowed to present preprints and receive feedback, positive or negative.

I am quite happy to say that the tone of discussion is quite polite and I have this letter to prove that feedback can be enlightening.

Below I present the very useful information I received from Vic when I asked the silly question about the existence of other non-GR theories that were consistent with the GR tests:
  • Precession of Mercury Perihelion
  • Gravitational Lensing
He sent me links to many papers with many theories. I will not cover them or rebut them here - some of them do not satisfy energy and/or momentum conservation, others have been discredited (Whitehead) by others...:)

Eventually, I will read everything and find out what seems to be the problem.

There was a review paper which was especially interesting since it described certain things which I deemed incorrect.  One of them are:
  • An scalar theory - a theory when the Gravitational potential is an scalar- if it succeeds in satisfying the Precession test it will fail on the Gravitational Red Shift test.
It just happens that my theory provides an scalar gravitational field and it is consistent with the Precession and Gravitational Lensing tests.  

In the derivations for those Gravitational Lensing test, I mentioned that light cannot be accelerated nor decelerated by gravity (dilaton field), only scattered within the 3D Shockwave Universe.

The failure in reasoning by the author is due to the consideration that light is emitted with the appropriate frequency and that frequency is later changed as the photon travels outwards through the gravitational field.

Under those conditions only shifting the speed of light would result in a change of wavelength (red shifting).  In the derivation of Gravitational Lensing, I mentioned that Light cannot be accelerated or decelerated only scattered, thus light speed is always constant...:)

My theory proved that on a twisted Fabric of Space, all motions (dynamics, chemistry, fluorescence, coherences) are slowed down yielding lower frequencies.  The gravitational field (dilaton field) provides this underlying twist on which the electronic coherences associated with light emission takes place.  

This means that the red shifting is not due to effects as the photons traveled outwards from the gravitational center but they are created RED...:) and are more red-shifted the closer their originators are from the gravitational source. 

This means that one wouldn't use potential energy postulate to excise energy from the photon, as if the photon were to get tired as it escapes from the gravitational pull...:)  In my theory, the photon is red-shifted because Gravitational field (dilaton field) locally deforms the Fabric of Space.

I will address that paper later.

Victor also wrote:
Thank you MP, you're welcome. Btw, IMO it would be necessary to somehow presents your idea in the 'language' that astrophysics can understand, i.e. I offer you some references/citation to flat metric. 
For instance, if --let say- I can predict Mercury precession from purely quantum jumps, but without a 'metric', then chance is the idea will be ignored by astrophysics.  
If you use /introduce a kind of metric, then others can begin to 'test' your idea with standard proposition. (just read the fate of Hal Puthoff with his PV-theory as alternative to GTR, most physicists ignore his idea, only because it is different from GTR)
But of course, it is up to you.
These last few comments are enligthning not about science but about inertia..:)  and I am not speaking of Mach's Principle...:)

Inertia in the sense that people (astrophysicists) are so happy calculating their Ricci tensors, guessing their metrics or Lagrangians that they would make a tremendous effort to avoid anything that is not written in those terms.

My theory is different from others because I place the Universe in motion at the speed of light..:)  That is might scary...:) Then through the introduction of the Fundamental Dilator paradigm, I eliminated the difference between Gravitation and Electromagnetism with the side effect of quantizing the ligthspeed hyperspherical expansion.  The de Broglie step is the Compton wavelenght of a Hydrogen Atom...>:)

The fundamental dilator creates an stroboscopic universe.

These are the fundamental aspects of my theory!!!

When I think about how to express this using a terminology that astrophysicist might be happy with, I face the reality that my metric is trivial.  Little is in the metric.  There is no Action...:) In fact, the standard Action only means that all particles (bodies) are flying with the shockwave Universe...:)

I added another Lagrangian Principle...:)  There is no action - I've just stated that dilators do not want to dilate out-of-phase with the others...:)  They are an agreeable bunch..:) thus creating a Cosmological Coherence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not mathematics.  It is just pure physics.

I would have a hard time making it unintelligible such that astrophysicists can read it...:)

In addition, the more complex it is the more difficult it is to improve upon or to see the forest for the trees...

Maybe some brilliant astrophysicist out there can send me a letter and help me find the correct lingo...:)

Below is the letter and the links.




Dear MP

Thanks for reply, yeah there is chance to explain Mercury precession within flat metric, but not very sure which is 'better' post-diction (not prediction) of the phenomenon.

You may try with googling, perhaps begin with Whitehead's theory . There is also recent article by Nishikawa on unification which includes such Mercury prediction for flat metric:

NISHIKAWA: arXiv:hep-th/0407057
unification without assuming a phase transition nor a Higgs particle. ........ i.e., the angle of perihelion precession during a period is −2πγ ...

[PDF] arXiv:gr-qc/0611006 v1 1 Nov 2006
assumes the presence of a flat background metric η ..... on the perihelion advance of Mercury, and so Whitehead’s theory agrees with the data...

secular motion of the perihelion of Mercury, are relevant. ... Given Whitehead’s interest in separating the metric of GTR from the physics of GTR, ...

Alternatives to General Relativity (GR)
In Whitehead (1922), the physical metric g is constructed algebraically from the ..... conflict with the perihelion precession of Mercury and gravitational ...

Do any theories of gravity exist other than general relativity that are capable of explaining the perihelion of mercury's orbit? In particular, I would like ...

Whitehead’s Theory of Gravity
two metric, global flat background interpretation. .... post-Newtonian effects ( such as the additional perihelion shift of Mercury), viable theories ...

Up to know, my own belief is that this issue is closed, i.e. it is not only GTR that can explain the precession, although this problem is some kind of 'prerequisite' for anyone who is willing to compete with the standard GTR, such as yours ;-)

IMO, it would be a good idea if you write a paper discussing such a comparison between your own approach and other flat-metric theories toward Mercury precision. I mean with comparison, is head-to-head compare table down to minute until Pluto precession, and then let the readers see which one is the champion.

For a journal who may be willing to consider your work, you may begin with Apeiron (redshift.vif.com), or Progress in Physics (ptep-online.com). Not sure with other journals, but chance is you will get dismissed if trying to send to standard journals like Phys. Rev. Letter...no hope with them.

Best wishes

Victor C

ps: Sometime ago Mr Kerr also explains this precession with his own method. you can dig for his article in sciprint.orgm if you wish. I forward this letter to him.

Currently unrated


There are currently no comments

New Comment


required (not published)








RSS / Atom