A Constructive Model of Gravitation

[Oldman]

I made several responses. For some reasons, they were not posted?!

 

I few points are in order.

I respect General Relativity. I studied it and researched it ever since I was a graduate student. But GR is not the issue, nor is the issue of comparing the Constructive Model with GR.

A theory is just a theory. For a brief epoch of time, experiments may keep it alive. But no one can predict how the theory would hold against future observations.

A theory, including its math, has no meaning, but the predictions it makes are what counts. A new theory must make a new prediction that the previous theories did not make. And, then, .. the decisions are made based upon the confirmstion or falsification of the predictions. That's how I believe physics worked. I worked under such a framework. But something has happened to physics. Multi-dimensions, super stuff, dark stuff, et al., don't work. GR has its own problems.

The Constructive model makes one significant prediction: that Gravity exists in repulsion and attraction. Repulsion is inherent; attraction is acquired. It is this prediction that we physicists must discuss, not the theory itself.

 

Right now I don't even know what kind of a force is gravity: gauge force, specetime curvature force, or some thing very unique. As i said before I am working on the quantization of mass-momentum field. I have succeeded with forming a Lagrangian. See what happend next. I will keep you posted.

 

I appreciate your comments. I am making the paper clearer based on your comments. But for the foreseable future, it may be a good idea to drop this paper from the Forums. I got what I wanted. Thank you.

 

Unamuno: The sole purpose of reasoning is to cast doubt upon its iown validity.

[ajb]

A theory is just a theory.

 

That sounds like something the anti-relativists would say!

 

 

Right now I don't even know what kind of a force is gravity: gauge force, specetime curvature force, or some thing very unique. As i said before I am working on the quantization of mass-momentum field. I have succeeded with forming a Lagrangian.

 

I would like to know what the mass-momentum field is, including it's Lagrangian and equations of motion. Quantisation maybe very straightforward or it could be impossible using standard methods. It depends on the dimensions of the coupling constants, the nature of the interactions etc...

 

Anyway, good luck!

[Oldman]

I added several replies. Have you decided to drop this topic? Please let me know.

[ajb]

I added several replies. Have you decided to drop this topic? Please let me know.

 

I await the details of the mass-momentum field and its quantisation.

[Oldman]

To the moderator:

I have responded several times; none were shown! If you have decided to drop this topic, please let me know. There is point in wasting time.

 

Response to swansont:

These numbers tell us that gravity is lopsided: its strength is feeble by many orders and its interaction rate is slow by many orders. It could mean: There may be other forces between the weak and gravity; gravity may not be an exchange force; and if gravity is a gauge force, related symmetry breaking would be huge!

 

Response to others:

(1) General relativity does not decide whether another gravitational theory is right or wrong. Only Nature tells us.

(2) A theory's life is usually limited. There is usually something newly observed that the old theory can't explain. GR does not explain inertia. (Please see my draft paper on this subject on www.wbabin.net.) GR has so many mathematical singularities.

(3) The predictions that a theory makes are more meaningful and significant than the theory itself.

(4) A new theory must make a new prediction that older theories have not. Then Nature tells us whether the new prediction is there or not. The Constructive Model makes a couple of new predictions.

 

FYI:

(1) The Constructive Model tells me that an electromagneic wave and a material rod behave similarly in gravitational field: they both get longer!

(2) I am working on the quantization of mass-monentum field. I succeeded in forming a Lagrangian. I hope I make it, but I doubt it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To the moderator:

I have responded several times; none were shown! If you have decided to drop this topic, please let me know. There is point in wasting time.

We have not deleted anything. Please be sure you press "Add Reply" after composing your response; I don't know any other reason why a post might not appear.

[ajb]

(1) General relativity does not decide whether another gravitational theory is right or wrong. Only Nature tells us.

 

Well, as general relativity has passed all the tests asked of it, I find it difficult to believe that another supposedly more powerful theory of gravity does not contain general relativity in some limit.

 

This is in the same philosophy as the relation between Newtonian gravity and general relativity. As Newtonian gravity seems a good theory of gravity for most applications Einstein knew that he would have to have Newton's theory in some "weak" or "nonrelativistic" limit. If not then it would be very hard to understand why Newtonian gravity works at all! Or general relativity is in error.

 

So, my advice would be to understand how GR relates to your theory. It maybe possible that phenomenologically they both agree with the classical tests. For instance, we know that teleparallel gravity (just torsion) can be phenomenologically identical to GR. Then it is difficult, if not impossible to decide which theory models nature closest.

Edited March 9, 2011 by ajb

[Oldman]

I don't understand! I have answered these several times. They are not being posted?!

 

Q. But why do those numbers mean anything? Why are they reasonable?

A. The relative strengths of the fundamental forces are pretty mush experimentally verified. So are the emission rates of in the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic. They tell us that for some reason, gravity is way lopsided. This could be one good reason to leave gravity out of the superunification effort. They could also hint that there could be other forces between gravity and the weak. Also, the possibility of gravity being an exchange force. Also, why there would a so violent symettry breaking to develop gravity?

 

Q. Wait for the description of mass field.

A. I am also figuring out the form of mass-momentum field. To fit the observation, I think mass field is infinite ranged, but somehoe developes into momentum field when the mass is in motion. By the way, for lack of observations, I am guessing that momentum field range is very short. I have formed a Lagrangian for mass-momentum field as a first step toward quantization. But there is problem.

Take two electrons in (parallel) motions. They repel due to charges, but attract due to magnetic fields. This is not the situation in the Constructive Model. I a sure you know that by reading the paper.

 

Note:

I am quite pleased that the CMG being a linear model, it very well predicts the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Also, the model tells me that both em wave and a rod would get elongated in gravitational field! I don't know what that means for the rod!

 

I HOPE THIS RESPONSE GETS POSTED.

iF YOU, THE MODERATOR, HAVE DECIDED TO DROP THIS TOPIC, THIS WOULD BE THE GOOD TIM TO DO SO. THERE IS NO POINT WASTING THE TIME.

[swansont]

I HOPE THIS RESPONSE GETS POSTED.

iF YOU, THE MODERATOR, HAVE DECIDED TO DROP THIS TOPIC, THIS WOULD BE THE GOOD TIM TO DO SO. THERE IS NO POINT WASTING THE TIME.

 

Cap'n Refsmmat already answered this. Nothing has been deleted. If there is an issue with posting, it is likely at your end. Make sure you hit the "add reply" button; you should see your post immediately, at the bottom of the posts, and it should be numbered.

 

Response to swansont:

These numbers tell us that gravity is lopsided: its strength is feeble by many orders and its interaction rate is slow by many orders. It could mean: There may be other forces between the weak and gravity; gravity may not be an exchange force; and if gravity is a gauge force, related symmetry breaking would be huge!

 

I'm not seeing the connection between the decay time to the time it takes to emit a virtual particle. If you have a reference, please post it.