Q-reeus

While it's true VTG hypothesizes fundamental (but evidently quite different) Fermionic components for both the photon and graviton, in each case these 'primitive' and massless Fermions are in VTG always coupled in Fermion-antiFermion pairs to give net spin-1 composite entities (photon and graviton) each obeying spin-1 Bose-Einstein statistics: See point 4 under 2 - Postulates of the vector theory of gravity, and 11.3 - Photon as composite particle. I suppose one rough analogy is Cooper pairing of electrons in superconductors. Also in VTG it's only transverse GW's that are quantized as Fermion-antiFermion pair gravitons. The static/quasi-static 'longitudinal' gravitational field is unquantized i.e. purely classical. Seems odd maybe but Svidzinsky makes the case. But yes any final settlement may be (unfortunately) much further out than what might be reasonably hoped.

Thanks for a bit of thumbs up michel123456. My neg points were iirc initially earned in another thread. Whether justly so not worth arguing now that water has flowed under the bridge. Anyone can check back over my posting history if really interested. I don't covet points but find it perplexing as to any presumed criteria and voting rights. Will just use this occasion to emphasize one thing. Regardless of any opinion of VTG, it's viability vs GR will all be decided decisively on just one issue - probably later in 2019. Namely, whether further multi-messenger NS-NS merger events continue to support, or contradict, Svidzinsky & Hillborn's critique as per https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520 https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02604 Until someone of significance, probably from LIGO_Virgo collaboration, provides a detailed direct response, might as well just sit back and wait.

OK understood. Best with your further studying there.

I'm about ready to just walk away from this place. There is just so little positive feedback, no 'thank you's' for providing useful inputs and links. And a VERY strange pattern of scoring that makes me wonder what the rules are.

There is no event horizon because the exponential metric of VTG has no logical room for one! Redshift is not being 'suppressed' at all in VTG. It's naturally there and only in the entirely unphysical limit as r -> 0 would redshift approach infinite value, unlike the pathological GR Schwarzschild solution where it happens at r = 2M. According to Matt Visser et. al., an exponential metric has an inbuilt fail-safe feature that amounts to it being a 'traversible wormhole' with maximum curvature at r = M. I gave the link in Q3 back in my first post here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117068-vector-theory-of-gravity/?do=findComment&comment=1081799 If one really wants a straightforward, first-principles rigorous derivation of why exponential redshift is THE correct form, take a look at Appendix A here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417

Highlighted are the only words that matter in that rambling and disjointly worded piece. Since Svidzinsky's theory is in your mind so below par, why the continued aggressive posting? Show your disdain by ignoring VTG. Give this thread a rest.

Nothing useful will come from my tearing your distortions apart one by one. But above red highlighted is a hint of just how wrong you are in general. Kindly inform yourself of the easily verified fact that Svidzinsky's paper necessarily underwent very extensive peer review before being published!

Well if some mathematically challenged GR devotee-enthusiast can't personally poke an actual hole in VTG, why not do some shotgun emailing with the hope of netting at least one presumably GR expert figure, who actually replies and encouragingly suggests a hole or two are sort of there for real? Of course if said GR expert has been given a distorted picture (VERY likely!) of what unnamed 'anti-GR protagonist' (me) is actually claiming about VTG vs GR, there is a double issue at stake. But let's initially assume said GW expert's response is based on an accurately pitched query. Itemizing: 1: "If your forum member thinks this paper means GR is dead, they are either lying or don’t understand the paper." That the respondent was accurately informed of my true position is right there severely in doubt. 2: "The paper presents an alternative gravity model known as a “background independent” model. These kinds of models have been studied for decades, usually in the hopes that they might provide some way to quantum theory. Nothing particularly new here." What?! GR itself is THE quintessential example of a background independent theory! VTG is actually best characterized as a fixed prior geometry metric theory. And which has an effective background independence. 3: "The author of the paper states explicitly that the gravity wave results are consistent with the predictions of GR, and points out that his model is also consistent with the data." Half true. Consistent with GR wrt e.g. the gross energy-loss and perihelion advance of an in-spiraling binary e.g. the famous Hulse-Taylor results. And with all but perhaps the final moments of detected merger event waveforms. Dramatically different wrt GW character, polarizations, and angular distribution patterns for amplitude/intensity. 4: "In short, the paper doesn’t say GR is wrong. It actually says its right, and this model could also be right." Again, half true at best. Certain gross features of cosmological structure are equivalent e.g. FLRW metric, but in certain other respects there are fundamental differences. For instance how to naturally account for initial inflationary phase, and presently observed accelerated expansion are novel features of VTG. 5: "It also doesn’t say black holes don’t exist, but instead claims that black holes wouldn’t have an event horizon. They would have an apparent horizon, which is basically an event horizon (except for really technical differences I won’t go into)." Huh? An event horizon is THE distinguishing characteristic of a BH! VTG's exponential metric contrasts sharply with GR's Schwarzschild metric. But only 'close up'. No horizons of any kind exist in VTG. Which is perfectly consistent with a VTG quiescent 'BH imitator' looking very black. 6: "The paper in no way makes GR dead, nor does it make the gravitational wave results invalid." This comes full circle - back to point 1 above! I can only hope the respondent's mistakes were owing to a hurried skimming of Svidzinsky's paper. Email campaigns can be risky. Point taken that vectors can have a much more general nature than that relevant to the physical description of Svidzinsky's VTG. You want expert input then why not do as I suggested and contact Svidzinky directly? His university webpage with contact details shown there: http://iqse.tamu.edu/faculty.php?uname=asvidzinsky

LISA more sensitive - in it's own bandwidth of operation? Well obviously. Apples and oranges again. If on the other hand you are again insisting on applying that arcane third criteria for sensitivity while excluding the other two, that's your choice. The remainder of your post there is unfortunately too confused to be worth further replying to. In essence I sense an unwillingness to concede when proven wrong earlier on several quite mistaken and/or totally irrelevant claims. First, please note I didn't carte blanche tar everyone with the same brush. Second, your own words here seem to be encouraging further negative scoring! Go check the continued hostility from one poster here in particular, who keeps up a barrage of negative commentary yet without incurring any negative scoring on his part. Interesting - no? Now, wrt your 'axioms' issues, on checking back to your first post here, I note you stated the following: "I was particularly interested in his distinction between 'vector' and 'tensor' (midway down the abstract) so my first task is to find out what he means by this, as tensors are technically vectors but only some vectors are tensors and GR relies on this." That has it backwards - vectors are a rank 1 subset of tensors. I note on p2 here you complained: "So no response to my vector field question then, and we still have to go offsite to read any replies?" But I found no earlier specific question just a vague appeal for discussion on it. If the well structured manuscript itself is not sufficiently clear for your needs, consider emailing the author directly for further expert clarification. I'm a layman btw not claiming expert understanding of it's content.

I knew your understanding back there was quite wrong, but had to search around to find simple formulae clearly proving it. Check out the expression for energy transport rate (i.e. power density) for a plane monochromatic GW under 'Energy transport' here: http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/%7Eteviet/Waves/gwave_details.html Clearly no dependency on frequency, just ~ h^2. In complete analogy to the dependence on square of E field for power density of a plane monochromatic EM wave owing to an electric quadrupole oscillator. For instance compare eqn (76) to (77) p22 here: www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/ELECTRODYNAMICS/Chap9/chap9.pdf No unphysical f^2 factor tacked on there either. (That power always goes as E^2 or H^2 for an EM wave is independent of source multipole moment) So what GW 'power density' is it that varies as f^2h^2? I don't particularly care since it has zilch to do with what actually matters re detection - strain amplitude. However because it is for whatever arcane reason actually sometimes used as a 3rd 'measure of detector sensitivity', one can guess it refers to a hypothetical 'accessible power density'. Based on some peculiar criteria evidently of some academic interest. Here is a nice site with a calculator to compare the two actually useful, non-misleading sensitivity criteria: http://gwplotter.com/ Last part is wrong - see above. And what is the point in trying to compare sensitivity of one detector way outside its design bandwidth with another one in the middle of its bandwidth? What does the Planck relation between energy and frequency for a single photon have to do with power density in classical unquantized GW's? Nothing. They are unrelated quantities. Random stabs are not making you look good. See above. Irrelevant comparisons are just that - irrelevant. Don't distort my position! Which has consistently been here and elsewhere that Svidzinsky's VTG lists a range of potential advantages compared to GR or similar alternatives, but that the crucial decider will be nature. The still unresolved issue of actual GW mode type. I jumped in here to a thread now vacated by the OP, to provide useful links to articles not previously covered. A waste of time in hindsight given the continued almost universal negativity in response. So I learn about how it is to be even slightly non-mainstream at ScienceForums.net the hard way. I'm not comfortable with everything Svidzinsky advocates - his rather peculiar NS EOS that supposedly allows much larger than usual masses being one. Anyway, try searching for 'evidence of ring down echoes in black hole merger events' or similar. There are papers out there claiming GR is already in trouble because the detailed merger waveforms hint against pure BH-BH mergers. Given your own slew of mistaken and/or misdirected notions here, I have little faith in your lack of faith.

Actually I don't think you do. Or certainly don't care to present it accurately if you do know it. Forget what you were told earlier. LISA will be less sensitive not more, and will likely add little more than a stamp collecting catalog of 'SMBH' merger events. The crucial confirmation of either tensor or vector GW's will almost certainly have been long settled by the time it gets up and running. There is NO reference, direct or indirect, to Svidzinsky's VTG in the article proper. so what are you talking about? Never mind, there is just a single reference, in the comments: https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/#comment-3905481088

Without till now ever stating that. So now revealed as a personal made up term of a quasi-generic nature. Learn to distinguish between an assertion - as made above - and a proven established statement. NONE in respect of what I wrote last post. But feel free to dredge up an exception (in the technical literature) I'm not aware of. Need I point out nothing in that article has 'brutally and pitilessly murdered' Svidzinsky's Vector Theory of Gravity? Evidently so.

This situation is different for one reason in particular. Svidzinsky and Hilborn have questioned the very basis of how to properly analyze GW detections: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02604 Such a serious challenge surely demands a spirited response. Not silence. You refer often to a 'GV4'. Maybe confusion with Carver Mead's G4v: https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04866 Which shares features with and may be styled a rudimentary contemporary of Svidzinsky's Vector Theory of Gravity. But a web search reveals no such animal as 'GV4' gravity.

Every objection there has been comprehensively dealt with in either the main published article, or subsequently in the updated arXiv article challenging validity of LIGO_Virgo analysis of NS-NS merger event GW170817. I find it telling that afaik no spokesperson(s) for LIGO_Virgo team have to date publicly responded to that challenge. Which imo is extraordinary.

Would you care to provide detailed, technically relevant reasons for that assessment?

I could strongly dispute the correctness and/or relevance of every single statement made there, but am content to let it stand as a record against your name - assuming special editing permissions are not exercised later on. Best imo to now end this sidetrack off of main topic. Hopefully the disputed GR vs Vector Gravity GW results referred to earlier will be unambiguously resolved sooner rather than later - to both parties mutual agreement.

Er sorry yes I did miss that, maybe because the content in relevant email notification was what I responded to, and that had not included a later edit. But I'm puzzled why you now evidently claim LIGO (currently - aLIGO) is overall less sensitive than what LISA is projected to be. You dispute accuracy of that chart in Wikipedia article I linked to earlier? All contributions to final detection sensitivity are implicitly contained in those curves. No?! [PS - re seismic interference. I know they should have, but wonder how well LISA crowd have allowed for e.g. micro-meteorite bombardment, or random solar flares.]

I'd have to guess. Both aLIGO and LISA will try their best to deal with it. Is this your way of a backdoor admission that my reference to 'factors other than arm length' re greater peak strain sensitivity of aLIGO vs LISA is obviously true? So how well shot noise is handled will be one key factor in overall sensitivity. And without my wasting a lot of time pouring over technical data, it's a fair bet aLIGO can do it a lot better than LISA can. For whatever technical reasons. There are other charts available that illustrate the various contributions to overall sensitivity for the different GW detectors, but I'm not interested in chasing one down right now.

There is no disputing the obvious fact measured strain is defined as fractional length change, or that, all other things being equal, it's directly proportional to incident GW amplitude (not power density i.e. intensity). However laser interferometers are not built on a resonance principle like the earlier generation resonant bar and similar detectors.

As can be easily seen from the chart shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_astronomy current aLIGO actually has a peak GW strain detection sensitivity around an order of magnitude greater than that projected for the vastly larger and still future LISA array. So factors other than arm length evidently play a crucial role in actual instrument capabilities.

You know perfectly well what my point was, and that I obviously have had no confusion whatsoever over the fact of a magnetic field contributing to gravitation thus to light deflection. And btw your method of reproduction of maths in that Quora article has introduced various artifacts that make it look somewhat nonsensical. Best to have just provided the link.

I don't see the relevance of that 'more correctly' bit, but certainly the above references agree with my earlier quoted comments. Point I was making was that your originally cited reference was poorly written. First stating a magnetic field has no effect on light. Then after the blah blah blah middle portion, introduced a caveat towards the end that contradicted the first stated position. Far less confusing and potentially misleading, would be to have presented the correct relevant picture at the outset.

Of course not. I'm not the one here proposing a possible optical test of gravitational deflection by a magnatar magnetic field. Everyone agrees it would be tiny compared to the primary gravitational influence namely magnatar mass. Just how small and how much other competing factors will potentially mask it is - to keep repeating - subject to many specifics, all in the realm of specialist astophysicists! I'm not a specialist astrophysicist.

I'm not that specialist astrophysicist that would have a good handle on the answer. Just the quadrupole moment itself would depend on such specifics as spin rate and mass and detailed EOS for starters. All I pointed out was perturbing influences other than an ab initio assumed dipolar form magnetic field will be present and need to be considered. Any disagreement there?

Because a quantitative evaluation of one influence has to be somehow extracted from that of existent competing ones. Even the very spatial form of a given magnatar magnetic field might evolve drastically over time and be very different at a given time to the naive expectation of a simple dipolar distribution.