beecee 503 Posted January 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mordred said: −18 It would be impossible for LIGO to detect them or any other ground based detector however LISA has an extremely remote chance judging from this paper. Thanks for that. Just received a reply via E-Mail on the Svidzinsky paper thus..... From: Brian Koberlein <brian.koberlein@gmail.com> Date: 1/9/2019 1:09:45 PM Subject: Re: General Relativity and Vector gravity Barry, If your forum member thinks this paper means GR is dead, they are either lying or don’t understand the paper. 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. 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. He does this because background independent models have been known to disagree with GR in ways we can now prove experimentally. So basically, this is a “this alternative model isn’t dead yet!” He goes on to talk about dark energy as a way to argue that maybe we should look at the model further. Again, this is pretty standard for a speculative theoretical physics paper. It’s what we do. Come up with ideas to see if they work, because someday hopefully one of them will. There are literally thousands of papers like this out there, and none of them have disproved GR so far. In short, the paper doesn’t say GR is wrong. It actually says its right, and this model could also be right. 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). The paper in no way makes GR dead, nor does it make the gravitational wave results invalid. Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On the reply, the claim re BH's that Brian detailed are exactly what I had in mind. I remember the sensationalist headlines a few years ago, re Hawking supposedly claiming BH's did not exist, based on similar quantum detail re the EH. from the previous reply E-Mail....."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". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence Edited January 9 by beecee 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

studiot 1647 Posted January 9 15 hours ago, Q-reeus said: 20 hours ago, studiot said: I haven't distorted anything. In fact I have repeated offered you discussion about fundamental assumption or 'axioms' proposed by Svidzinsky Discussion which you have steadfastly avoided. Added to attitude like that displayed in the above quote you are likely to receive negative responses anywhere. Further I observe that many of my earlier posts in this thread welcomed both the OP (who has now let us) and the subject here for adult debate, not playgrund catcalls. 1)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? 2)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." 3)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?" 4)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. 1) But you continue to complain about a 'negative response'; I looked back and confirmed that not only did I welcome warmly your first post, but you received several upvotes for it. 2 & 3) I am an applied mathematician, not a cosmologist so I am more interested in the maths behind it than the cosmology itself. I would have thought that someone who is 'new to this' would have asked what was meant when someone who has been studying and applying maths for more than 60 years made the comments I did. Certain (mathematical) events stand out in that time. Several times I have had to unlearn what I was taught as 'gospel' in order to progress to more advanced Mathematics. Vector theory was one of those times. Physicists are prone to deploy a very simple version of mathematical vector theory, and neglect to say that their theories mostly need to be extended to affine spaces to be of any real use. Integrals are vectors, continuous functions are vectors, and yes tensors are vectors. Which is why the tensor - vector- scalar heirarchy is an unfortunate classification. A vector is a member of one the two sets that are needed to make up a minimal vector space. Useful vector spaces also often contain extra structure, by way of adding extra sets along with perhaps a few extra axioms. It is this extra structure that distinguished one vector space from another. Relationships between the members of the two or more sets in the vector space conform to a basic set of between 8 and 10 vector space axioms. 4) I am sorry if you found the quoted question vague, I thought it simple and direct. On 11/21/2018 at 11:31 PM, studiot said: Has no one any thoughts on the postulated vector field? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Mordred 1185 Posted January 9 (edited) With regards to your quote, I've had plenty of thoughts on the [latex]A_k[/latex] vector field. Which as you mentioned would be a rank 1 tensor. I'm still going through his math with regards to his weak field approximation. The [latex]F_{ik}[/latex] replacement to [latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] isn't a problem as its straight substitution. Where I am having difficulties is the structure of the [latex] h_{ik}[/latex] tensors with regards to the [latex] A_k[/latex] vector. Though its highly likely I may be overthinking the problem lmao its a bad habit of mine. Anyways to answer a previous question he has the particle velocity as a function of time and is utilizing the scalar quantities V and G to generate the new vector field from the Euclid field. However he is still using the spacetime coordinate system of the Minkowskii metric. Anyways the mathematics doesn't stray as far from GR as one might be inclined to believe from the descriptives. In many ways it amounts to whether or not one can reduce the GR rank 2 tensor to deal specifically with the permutations to the Euclid background to a rank 1 vector/tensor field from what I have determined thus far Edited January 9 by Mordred 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 10 On 1/9/2019 at 1:44 PM, beecee said: Thanks for that. Just received a reply via E-Mail on the Svidzinsky paper thus..... From: Brian Koberlein <brian.koberlein@gmail.com> Date: 1/9/2019 1:09:45 PM Subject: Re: General Relativity and Vector gravity Barry, If your forum member thinks this paper means GR is dead, they are either lying or don’t understand the paper. 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. 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. He does this because background independent models have been known to disagree with GR in ways we can now prove experimentally. So basically, this is a “this alternative model isn’t dead yet!” He goes on to talk about dark energy as a way to argue that maybe we should look at the model further. Again, this is pretty standard for a speculative theoretical physics paper. It’s what we do. Come up with ideas to see if they work, because someday hopefully one of them will. There are literally thousands of papers like this out there, and none of them have disproved GR so far. In short, the paper doesn’t say GR is wrong. It actually says its right, and this model could also be right. 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). The paper in no way makes GR dead, nor does it make the gravitational wave results invalid. Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On the reply, the claim re BH's that Brian detailed are exactly what I had in mind. I remember the sensationalist headlines a few years ago, re Hawking supposedly claiming BH's did not exist, based on similar quantum detail re the EH. from the previous reply E-Mail....."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". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence 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. 15 hours ago, studiot said: 1) But you continue to complain about a 'negative response'; I looked back and confirmed that not only did I welcome warmly your first post, but you received several upvotes for it. 2 & 3) I am an applied mathematician, not a cosmologist so I am more interested in the maths behind it than the cosmology itself. I would have thought that someone who is 'new to this' would have asked what was meant when someone who has been studying and applying maths for more than 60 years made the comments I did. Certain (mathematical) events stand out in that time. Several times I have had to unlearn what I was taught as 'gospel' in order to progress to more advanced Mathematics. Vector theory was one of those times. Physicists are prone to deploy a very simple version of mathematical vector theory, and neglect to say that their theories mostly need to be extended to affine spaces to be of any real use. Integrals are vectors, continuous functions are vectors, and yes tensors are vectors. Which is why the tensor - vector- scalar heirarchy is an unfortunate classification. A vector is a member of one the two sets that are needed to make up a minimal vector space. Useful vector spaces also often contain extra structure, by way of adding extra sets along with perhaps a few extra axioms. It is this extra structure that distinguished one vector space from another. Relationships between the members of the two or more sets in the vector space conform to a basic set of between 8 and 10 vector space axioms. 4) I am sorry if you found the quoted question vague, I thought it simple and direct. 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

beecee 503 Posted January 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, Q-reeus said: 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. Hya Q-reeus! Whatever conspiracy you chose to muddy the waters, is your problem...he was given a link to the relevant paper and he gave a judgement based on that paper, nothing more nothing less. And of course at least I am supporting my mathematically challenged position with that of expert opinion. That's what experts are for q-reeus! Quote 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. Whatever you chose to fabricate in your mind does not alter the position of GR being the overwhelmingly supported and evidenced theory of gravity that holds pride of place still. You disagreeing with that fact, and in conflict with the mainstream model, is neither here nor there, and affects nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence Quote 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. Again, your opinion and your take on things, not what the professional interpreted of the paper. The H/T results also supported the existence of GR gravitational waves from that observation, as well as many other modes evidencing BH's, GW's and GR. Quote 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. More fabricated excuses. What you say re VTG and certain features, are features that are not within our ability to observe and validate or otherwise. GR and its overwhelming predictive ability, is why it is generally the gravity theory of choice. Quote 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. Huh, indeed! As most know, the EH's have been a talking point for many years, particularly with regards to quantum effects. And despite sensationalistic headlines a few years ago, re BH,s, and claims Hawking supposedly saying they didn't exist, other then that quantum nature of the EH, the vast mountains of evidence point to GR BH's as evidenced,which you seem to ignore in favour of sensationalism that may or may not support the cause you seem to be pushing. Quote 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. So to can many forms of agenda that can affect logical thinking. If there are any mistakes, I suggest its in your interpretations for whatever reasons. Oh and yes another couple of E-Mail replies are still being waited on and will be reproduced when received, without fear nor favour. Quote 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 So you conduct your own E-Mail campaigns and yet question my actions E-Mailing professionals that just happen to show Svidzinky's paper in its true light. I would suggest when you conduct your own campaign, you try and contact experts other then the author of the paper and the obvious interests he has in it. Perhaps you need also as I mentioned previously, understand that despite the short comings of Svidzinky's paper, as pointed out by Koberlein, it is still being researched and evaluated by scientists all round the world, as well as aLIGO and VIRGO, and will be evaluated independently and without any recalcitrance with regards to the incumbent GR. That's how science works q-reeus, that's the scientific method q-reeus and that's the way it should be. You seem for some unknown reason, to want this accepted, after "you" who has already admitted you are not a professional, has passed judgement on it! Why? Anyway, I suggest you stay tuned, as I have more replies forthcoming, from impartial professionals, to evaluate this still hypothetical, yet to be peer reviewed paper. Evaluations I hope that you are able to learn from, as well as myself. Edited January 10 by beecee 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 10 14 minutes ago, beecee said: Anyway, I suggest you stay tuned, as I have more replies forthcoming, from impartial professionals, to evaluate this still hypothetical, yet to be peer reviewed paper.... 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! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

beecee 503 Posted January 10 51 minutes ago, Q-reeus said: 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 about as much usefulness of your fabricated interpretated criticisms of Koberlein's evaluation. I'll accept my "No peer review" error, but we all nkow q-reeus that literally thousands of papers every year, most peer reviewed, are never heard of again, to be lost in cyber space. I'm always puzzled though why you have never commented on the fact that his paper is being researched by many scientists in many quarters, without any fear or favour, and as erroneously denied by the author of the OP. And of course your recognition of the scientific method in that his paper, like any paper, needs to "run the gauntlet" is also unknown. These are facts. It does not nor has not invalidated GR in Koberlein's evaluation, and whether the aLIGO and VIRGO research around the world find likewise is not as yet known. So again, why can't you accept these facts, rather then making excuses? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 10 46 minutes ago, beecee said: Well about as much usefulness of your fabricated interpretated criticisms of Koberlein's evaluation. I'll accept my "No peer review" error, but we all nkow q-reeus that literally thousands of papers every year, most peer reviewed, are never heard of again, to be lost in cyber space. I'm always puzzled though why you have never commented on the fact that his paper is being researched by many scientists in many quarters, without any fear or favour, and as erroneously denied by the author of the OP. And of course your recognition of the scientific method in that his paper, like any paper, needs to "run the gauntlet" is also unknown. These are facts. It does not nor has not invalidated GR in Koberlein's evaluation, and whether the aLIGO and VIRGO research around the world find likewise is not as yet known. So again, why can't you accept these facts, rather then making excuses? 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. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

beecee 503 Posted January 10 35 minutes ago, Q-reeus said: 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. What is in my mind matters not, as what is in yours. I have continually spoke of mainstream academia which you continue to fail to remark on. Why? Plus my posts are not aggressive but good try anyway. Perhaps review your own, not only to me but others? Just in case you do have any doubts, or any suggestions of conspiracies or recalcitrance by mainstream, here's a piece from your own link a while back......... http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a9/meta extract: "For example, one of the primary concerns expressed in the review process is that, as a pure vector theory, with the metric constructed algebraically from the vector, the theory would have a hard time passing standard experiments, especially tests of preferred frame effects. In a controversial situation like this, especially where possible uncertainties involve the correctness, an Editorial Board would tend to reject the manuscript without review. Despite this, we decided to attempt to get the manuscript reviewed to provide the author with feedback on the work, and ultimately, taking into account the mixed reception by the reviewers, we decided that as the author had responded diligently to all of the criticisms raised, although not all reviewers were convinced of the validity of the theory, the paper should be published so that the community as a whole can consider it. This Editorial serves to explain the context in which the decision to publish was made. It also provides a preamble". ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Playing the devil's advocate at this time here q-reeus, if by the slimmest of chances this is recognised as a replacement to GR, I'll suck it all in, and advocate the Physics Nobel for Svidzinsky with all my heart and soul!! But I won't hold my breath as yet. OK? You have a good day and let's both sit back, relax and let the scientific method take its course! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Mordred 1185 Posted January 11 (edited) Well I now have a decent grasp of what he is doing in this paper. In essence he has taken GR spacetime geometry and broken down the action of that field into two separate fields field's. The Minkowskii field [latex] \eta_{\mu\nu}[/latex] with witch he has changed the dummy indices to ik. Nothing wrong with that they are dummy indices. His metric is done in covariant terms. He keeps the Minkowskii field Euclidean flat and overlaps it with a curved 4 vector field ([latex]A_k[/latex] that describes the multi particle motion. Naturally when you do this you require the transformation between them which can then and is described as another field. [latex](f_{ik})[/latex].Which is the the metric replacement for GR's metric tensor [latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] The action of the field [latex] A_k[/latex] follows the principle of least action. However the particle motion does not follow the geodesics of the background geometry [latex] \eta_{ik}[/latex] which can readily be considered a preferred frame of reference as it is the most invariant reference. From my point of view... however be that as it may.. Instead of the particle following the metric tensor [latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] as per GR his particles follow a metric independent path. The one performs a transform to correlate the differences between the metric and the particle motion. The [latex]A_k[/latex] 4 vector forms the (I usually call it the permutation tensor) [latex]h_{ik}[/latex] The singularity issues I am still working through however if my understanding is correct could amount to a similar technique used in LQC (Though LQC uses a wicks rotation) that of the advantage that anytime two lines cross ([latex] \eta_{ik}[/latex] and [latex] A_k[/latex] cross they form finite and determinable points of reference. Hence closing the group set to one of finite points only viable. This has an advantage on renormalization as finite sets are renomalizable by nature. Hence a commonly used methodology in applying an effective cut-off prior to singularity conditions. He doesn't have event horizons as he keeps the photon particle energy constant at the EH in so far as his redshift doesn't suggest the particle loses energy due to redshift but preserves its energy. This in turn has the consequence that the Chandrasekhar limit doesn't apply the same. However occurs at 35M. He has numerous solutions of GR and his theory as to numerous different situations where the two do not match and several that do. I can foresee another point of contention in that in this model the particle is not a field excitation from what I have discerned which can conflict from the QFT view. However only time will tell lmao side note he still follows the Einstein summation rules for the covariant and contravariant terms (as indicated by the indices). Quote The background metric is independent of the particle motion, this is likely the background independency mentioned by Brian Koberlain. He could literally be referring to the distinction between this and the GR view that the particle motion depends upon the metric. The photon not losing energy at the EH therefore could have sufficient energy (according to the paper) to escape the GR EH is probably what Brian termed the apparent horizon in reference to. Its two mathematical methodologies to describe the same measurable events. This model relies on the tenets of SR and its use of a rest reference frame. Whereas GR removed the rest frame requirement. and developed the geometry in this manner. (all frames are inertial). Both can make accurate predictions however not the same in all cases giving us a means of testablility as to which is more accurate overall. Edited January 11 by Mordred 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 11 2 hours ago, Mordred said: ...He doesn't have event horizons as he keeps the photon particle energy constant at the EH in so far as his redshift doesn't suggest the particle loses energy due to redshift but preserves its energy.... 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 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Mordred 1185 Posted January 11 (edited) I will study the math directly from Svidzinsky's articles on my own thank you very much. Everything I have stated is implicit in his equations. I will use my own chosen methodology of researching his views and sharing my understanding of such. The equations are there... The words used to describe how a theory works in an interpretation of what can be mathematically supported. Far too often they distract from the inner workings of a theory and can lead to garden paths. Edited January 11 by Mordred 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 11 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. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Mordred 1185 Posted January 11 I for one care little about the reputation system. I do thank you for sharing the article but give me the pleasure of examining it my own way. I have learned over 35 years of studying physics that one never understands a theory until he understands the mathematics of such. I don't ever follow the hype often accompanying a theory. Its far too distracting, when the real fun is actually studying it yourself in detail. How else can one truly understand the mind of the author who wrote it. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 11 27 minutes ago, Mordred said: I for one care little about the reputation system. I do thank you for sharing the article but give me the pleasure of examining it my own way. I have learned over 35 years of studying physics that one never understands a theory until he understands the mathematics of such. I don't ever follow the hype often accompanying a theory. Its far too distracting, when the real fun is actually studying it yourself in detail. How else can one truly understand the mind of the author who wrote it. OK understood. Best with your further studying there. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

beecee 503 Posted January 11 (edited) Not sure if this has been posted before....... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.00364.pdf Dated: November 20, 2018 The recent discovery by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo of a gravitational wave signal from a binary neutron star inspiral has enabled tests of general relativity (GR) with this new type of source. This source, for the first time, permits tests of strong-field dynamics of compact binaries in presence of matter. In this paper, we place constraints on the dipole radiation and possible deviations from GR in the post-Newtonian coefficients that govern the inspiral regime. Bounds on modified dispersion of gravitational waves are obtained; in combination with information from the observed electromagnetic counterpart we can also constrain effects due to large extra dimensions. Finally, the polarization content of the gravitational wave signal is studied. The results of all tests performed here show good agreement with GR. CONCLUSIONS: Using the binary neutron star coalescence signal GW170817, and in some cases also its associated electromagnetic counterpart, we have subjected general relativity to a range of tests related to the dynamics of the source (putting bounds on deviations of PN coefficients), the propagation of gravitational waves (constraining local Lorentz invariance violations, as well as large extra dimensions), and the polarization content of gravitational waves. In all cases we find agreement with the predictions of GR. The upcoming observing runs of the LIGO and Virgo detectors are expected to result in more detections of binary neutron star coalescences [84]. Along with electromagnetic observations, combining information from gravitational wave events (including binary black hole mergers) will lead to increasingly more stringent constraints on deviations from general relativity [25, 26], or conceivably potential evidence of the theory’s shortcomings.- Edited January 11 by beecee 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Mordred 1185 Posted January 11 46 minutes ago, Q-reeus said: OK understood. Best with your further studying there. Thanks 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

beecee 503 Posted January 11 While waiting for a couple of more E-Mail replies, I found another paper detailing GW150914...................... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03841v2.pdf Tests of general relativity with GW150914: 9 Jun 2016 The LIGO detection of GW150914 provides an unprecedented opportunity to study the two-body motion of a compact-object binary in the large velocity, highly nonlinear regime, and to witness the final merger of the binary and the excitation of uniquely relativistic modes of the gravitational field. We carry out several investigations to determine whether GW150914 is consistent with a binary black-hole merger in general relativity. We find that the final remnant’s mass and spin, as determined from the low-frequency (inspiral) and high-frequency (post-inspiral) phases of the signal, are mutually consistent with the binary black-hole solution in general relativity. Furthermore, the data following the peak of GW150914 are consistent with the least-damped quasi-normal mode inferred from the mass and spin of the remnant black hole. By using waveform models that allow for parameterized general-relativity violations during the inspiral and merger phases, we perform quantitative tests on the gravitational-wave phase in the dynamical regime and we determine the first empirical bounds on several high-order post-Newtonian coefficients. We constrain the graviton Compton wavelength, assuming that gravitons are dispersed in vacuum in the same way as particles with mass, obtaining a 90%-confidence lower bound of 1013 km. In conclusion, within our statistical uncertainties, we find no evidence for violations of general relativity in the genuinely strong-field regime of gravity. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

michel123456 510 Posted January 11 5 hours ago, Q-reeus said: OK understood. Best with your further studying there. Disgression about the reputation points. FYI as an external observer and simple user I noticed that the OP has minus 80 points. That is not good because it shows incivility or worse. Then you jumped in, with neg points also (for some to me unknown reason). After following your posts I came to the conclusion that you are simply unfamiliar with the Forum. For that reason I gave you some rep points so that you appear as neutral.IMHO there is good stuff in your posts. Interesting at least. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 11 28 minutes ago, michel123456 said: Disgression about the reputation points. FYI as an external observer and simple user I noticed that the OP has minus 80 points. That is not good because it shows incivility or worse. Then you jumped in, with neg points also (for some to me unknown reason). After following your posts I came to the conclusion that you are simply unfamiliar with the Forum. For that reason I gave you some rep points so that you appear as neutral.IMHO there is good stuff in your posts. Interesting at least. 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. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 6906 Posted January 11 33 minutes ago, michel123456 said: Disgression about the reputation points. FYI as an external observer and simple user I noticed that the OP has minus 80 points. That is not good because it shows incivility or worse. Then you jumped in, with neg points also (for some to me unknown reason). After following your posts I came to the conclusion that you are simply unfamiliar with the Forum. For that reason I gave you some rep points so that you appear as neutral.IMHO there is good stuff in your posts. Interesting at least. 4 minutes ago, Q-reeus said: 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. ! Moderator Note Correction: not worth arguing ever in a scientific thread. Any discussion about reputation points is off-topic. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Mordred 1185 Posted January 11 9 minutes ago, Q-reeus said: 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 perhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520https://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. Thanks for the additional articles, I figured there would be some results in terms of this model in regards to the measured GW waves. There always typically is papers and counter papers whenever you have any two competing theories where testable results come forth. In an earlier comment I made I had already noted that current datasets should already provide some of those tests. The issue will most likely take several years to resolve, in many cases the time it takes to prove or disprove a new theory can take several decades. I will read the additional articles after work. They also help confirm my understanding on the mathematic end. As previously mentioned the most thorough means to understand a theory is by direct study of its underlying math. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

beecee 503 Posted January 11 (edited) 7 hours ago, Q-reeus said: 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 perhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520https://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. Agreed, [other then your time frame], and I don't believe anyone has indicated its a totally done deal one way or the other. GR is the accepted incumbent model still and it will require extraordinary evidence supporting any other model to change that. Just as I said, and you have iterated, we'll all sit back and wait and let the professional experts work things out. 7 hours ago, Mordred said: In an earlier comment I made I had already noted that current datasets should already provide some of those tests. The issue will most likely take several years to resolve, in many cases the time it takes to prove or disprove a new theory can take several decades. That's more along the time frame line I would have envisaged. Quote I will read the additional articles after work. They also help confirm my understanding on the mathematic end. As previously mentioned the most thorough means to understand a theory is by direct study of its underlying math. Thanks for the input. Let's hope that I can also add the thoughts of other experts I have E-mailed to your own expertise. 7 hours ago, Mordred said: Thanks for the additional articles, I figured there would be some results in terms of this model in regards to the measured GW waves. There always typically is papers and counter papers whenever you have any two competing theories where testable results come forth. In an earlier comment I made I had already noted that current datasets should already provide some of those tests. The issue will most likely take several years to resolve, in many cases the time it takes to prove or disprove a new theory can take several decades. I found two more papers that you may like to comment on quickly, specifically for my own edification...My apologies for adding to your workload! https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.03306.pdf On the Potential Observation of False Deviations from General Relativity in Gravitational Wave Observations from Binary Black Holes: 9 Feb 2018: Detections of gravitational waves emitted by binary black holes allow for tests of General Relativity in the strong-field regime. In particular, deviations from General Relativity can be observed by comparing incoming signals to waveform templates that include parametrized deviations from General Relativity. However, it is essential that the General Relativity sector of these templates accounts for all predictable physics. Otherwise, missing physics might be mimicked by the “beyond General Relativity” sector of the templates, leading the analysis to report apparent deviations from General Relativity. Current parametrized tests implement templates that omit physical phenomena such as orbital eccentricity and higher-order modes. In this paper, we show how the omission of higher modes can lead to false deviations from General Relativity when these effects are strong enough. We study the extent of these deviations as a function of the mass ratio and the orbital orientation. We find that significant false deviations can arise when current tests are performed on signals emitted by asymmetric binaries whose orbital angular momentum is orthogonal to the line-of-sight. We estimate that the Advanced LIGO-Virgo network operating at its design sensitivity can observe false violations with a significance above 5σ as often as once per year. Similar results are expected for other tests of General Relativity that use modified waveform models. Hence, we stress the necessity of accurate waveform models that include physical effects such as higher-order modes to trust future tests of General Relativity. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and this..... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.02123.pdf Measuring stochastic gravitational-wave energy beyond general relativity: 5 Jul 2018: Gravity theories beyond general relativity (GR) can change the properties of gravitational waves: their polarizations, dispersion, speed, and, importantly, energy content are all heavily theory dependent. All these corrections can potentially be probed by measuring the stochastic gravitational wave background. However, most existing treatments of this background beyond GR overlook modifications to the energy carried by gravitational waves, or rely on GR assumptions that are invalid in other theories. This may lead to mistranslation between the observable cross-correlation of detector outputs and gravitational-wave energy density, and thus to errors when deriving observational constraints on theories. In this article, we lay out a generic formalism for stochastic gravitational wave searches, applicable to a large family of theories beyond GR. We explicitly state the (often tacit) assumptions that go into these searches, evaluating their generic applicability, or lack thereof. Examples of problematic assumptions are: statistical independence of linear polarization amplitudes; which polarizations satisfy equipartition; and which polarizations have well-defined phase velocities. We also show how to correctly infer the value of the stochastic energy density in the context of any given theory. We demonstrate with specific theories in which some of the traditional assumptions break down: Chern-Simons gravity, scalar-tensor theory, and Fierz-Pauli massive gravity. In each theory, we show how to properly include the beyond-GR corrections, and how to interpret observational results Edited January 11 by beecee 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Mordred 1185 Posted January 12 (edited) Thanks as well to Beecee for the additional links also to Q-Reeuss for the additional link regarding Svidzinsky's papers. All of them have been helpful. I had already made the connection from reading the original paper of this thread that the vector gravity model would have spin 1 statistics. As opposed to the spin 2 of GR. As mentioned earlier in this thread vectors are rank 1 tensors which corresponds, also according to how the opening paper is presented the Graviton would need to follow the spin 1/2 rules being in his paper of the fermion family this would correspond to the SU(2) group under the Pauli matrixes. Fermions anticommute (antisymmetric) while bosons commute.(Symmetric) as per the Pauli exclusion principle. This will correspond the position and momentum operators of QM (QFT has different creation and annihilator operators) with which one being the field itself. Its easy to see that the challenges to a vector theory of gravity becoming fully validated as the more correct one will take a considerable amount of evidence. However be that as it may this is part of the scientific method to explore every possible method regardless of how remote until proven as not viable. The use of GW data is still in its early stages, it will take a considerable amount of time to develop well studied and fine tuned datasets. By fine tuned I mean well understood in terms of calibration issues, white-noise, false signals etc. The papers are all examining a limited dataset so there will be a period of contention as to how to account for all factors to get the most accurate readings. Alternative models actually enhance the rate this will develop as it places those datasets under a multitude of different examinations. One of the advantages of exploring all possibilities. Anyways all of Svidzinsky's papers are nowhere near conclusive enough with the available data to overturn GR at this time nor is it likely to occur too soon. The preponderance of proper examination process is lengthy, even with huge and long developed datasets, let alone a dataset with a limited duration such as GW measurement data. That being said its still enjoyable for me to examine a variation of a spin 1 field in this case applied to gravity. I have come across numerous variations of this over the years its part of the process. Edited January 12 by Mordred 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Q-reeus 18 Posted January 12 4 hours ago, Mordred said: ...I had already made the connection from reading the original paper of this thread that the vector gravity model would have spin 1 statistics. As opposed to the spin 2 of GR. As mentioned earlier in this thread vectors are rank 1 tensors which corresponds, also according to how the opening paper is presented the Graviton would need to follow the spin 1/2 rules being in his paper of the fermion family this would correspond to the SU(2) group under the Pauli matrixes. Fermions anticommute (antisymmetric) while bosons commute.(Symmetric) as per the Pauli exclusion principle. This will correspond the position and momentum operators of QM (QFT has different creation and annihilator operators) with which one being the field itself... 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. 4 hours ago, Mordred said: 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites