Newton also predicts Gravity Waves

[[Tycho?]]

There is no flaw in that argument. It is something that has been known for centuries' date=' and there's ABSOLUTELY nothing new or revolutionary about it.

 

But in the Newtonian framework, you only have a temporal oscillation in the gravitational field - the field here changes with time, and so does the field out there. In the framework of Relativity, you have a real wave that oscillates in space and time. The aplitude out here is different from the amplitude out there, and the wave has a finite wavelength.

 

To have a wave, you need a finite propagation velocity. In the Newtonian framework, gravity propagates instantaneously (with infinite wavelength - so it's not a wave).[/quote']

 

Oh right, forgot about the whole instant propogation thing. Thanks.

[MetaFrizzics]

But this isn't quite true now.

 

When Newtonian gravitation is reformulated as a field theory, it is quite reasonable to have waves after the electromagnetic model. In fact GR is

an example of a 'field theory' version of gravity, albiet not Newtonian.

 

But Minkowski Space is a natural consequence of Newtonian Mechanics.

 

Velocity addition Isomorphic in Newtonian and SRT

 

There is nothing wrong with a modern formulation of Newtonian Space-time that allows for gravitational forces (waves) propagating over time.

 

Galilean & Newtonian Space-time

 

In fact there are several models that postulate gravity as an electromagnetic side-effect.

[DQW]

MetaFrizzics, do you have references to stuff that actually got published in peer reviewed journals ? People are going to be much less likely to take the effort to read through stuff if there is no guarantee that it's been through peer review.

 

And since you insist on pushing your non-mainstream ideas, would you please go through at least the basic minimum of :

(i) citing experiments that show the superiority of these models over accepted models (such as GR, SR, the Std Model, etc.)

(ii) showing mathematically, the differences in some key results from those predicted by the mainstream formulation, and estimate the numerical order of these differences, and

(iii) state the postulates upon which your model is built.

 

What I'm saying is this : Instead of making completely unsubstantiated claims like you did in the OP, or resorting to rhetoric (the Oktoberfest comment), or making half-baked statements (Pauli Spin Matrices for a diatomic gas), please at least do a thorough job and give your model a chance.