# GR is a Static Gravity Model

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by TonyYuan, May 28, 2021.

1. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Have you noticed that no matter what the sun's revolution speed is, GR tells us that the sun's gravitational force on the surrounding space is the same. GR is a static gravity model.

The gravity model under the influence of gravitational waves can explain everything that GR can explain.

Gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun will affect the surrounding gravity. In the same way, the rotation of the sun will also cause gravitational waves, but it will be much smaller.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves

3. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,256
Although it is a static model... mass still includes inertia. So the bending of space time includes the rotation of the sun. The sun spinning faster would just increase its mass.

5. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
The essence of space-time distortion is the uneven distribution of gravitational waves in space caused by the motion of objects. This uneven distribution is caused by the Doppler effect of gravitational waves.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350617258_Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HS41PnkTAivCpjgD6

7. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
I have not bothered studying your theory but note the illustration you link to in #3: https://photos.app.goo.gl/HS41PnkTAivCpjgD6
has relevance only to Doppler shift of the Sun's luminous intensity, nothing else. What you term 'gravitational field' there are incorrectly illustrated lines or rather surfaces of gravitational equipotential. SR requires the actual distortion to be from spherical surfaces to oblate spheroids, centered about the sun. You reject SR then?
Sun's rotation cannot generate gravitational waves by reason of it's axial symmetry. Something that should be patently obvious.

8. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
I think SR is a contradictory theory. I no longer want to talk about SR.
The essence of the Doppler effect is the chasing effect caused by the relative velocity between objects. As long as there is relative velocity, there is a Doppler effect.
The density of gravitational waves around the sun is approximately symmetrical with respect to the direction of the sun's revolution velocity . You can clearly observe this from the graph I provided.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HS41PnkTAivCpjgD6

9. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
Well that 'bow shock' graphic looks nice but that's as far as it goes for me. Good luck with gaining any traction with your theory. If it does, I will fall over with shock.

TonyYuan likes this.
10. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Newton's universal gravitation will once again become the mainstream force in our study of the universe.
We will reopen the door to universe exploration.

According to my theory, the planet’s orbit will continue to accelerate and expand. The entire universe will continue to accelerate expansion.
According to my theory, the orbit of the planet can be accurately calculated.
My theory is not complicated, it is Newtonian universal gravitation, plus gravitational waves, plus the chasing effect between objects.
The space-time distortion described by GR is essentially describing the gravitational force under the influence of gravitational waves. But GR is a static gravity model, it is not accurate.

Last edited: May 30, 2021
11. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
I made a lazy assumption in #4 that needs correcting. Even in electrodynamics a steadily moving charge in some inertial frame cannot be described simply by a distorted equipotential field - nonconservative potentials enter the picture. It gets more complicated again in the gravitational case. One has to work with the full field equations and apply the relativistic transforms to get correct answers.

12. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
In my opinion, there is no difference between gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun and water waves caused by submarine sailing in the water.
GR complicates things and adds paradoxical interference from SR, GR make very simple things extremely complicated.

13. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
What kind of responses have you had from presumed correspondence with recognized GR experts and/or reputable physics journal editors/referees?

14. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Two scholars of gravity research in China asked me a lot of questions, and I answered them one by one, and finally suggested that I submit the paper to scientific journals. I also tried, but the editor rejected the manuscript.

I have been in contact with Richard for 2 years. He tried hard to refute my theory. At the beginning, he succeeded and I planned to give up my theory, but in the end I found the key point.
He read my paper very carefully, and carefully read the source code of my program, he could no longer find any problems, but he said that my theory has obvious conflict of interest to him, and he cannot give formal support.

I also invited physics professors from Nanjing University in China, but they still couldn't point out any mistakes, and they were unwilling to give a right or wrong evaluation. A professor said that if my paper is published in SCI, it will cause a sensation. But it will be very difficult because I challenged GR.

Last edited: May 30, 2021
15. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
Sorry for all the frustration you have experienced. The common failing with outsider alternative theories is inability to explain all not just some of the observational evidence. Trying to be one's best critic is easy to say but hard to enact. All I can suggest is to think up a whole range of thought experiment and rigorously check for full self-consistency in ALL of them. Might turn out to be be a tough exercise.

16. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
I accurately calculated the orbits of the eight planets in the solar system, which is enough to explain the problem.
Only the orbital precession deviation of Venus is different from GR. Regarding this difference, I have asked the most authoritative physicist, he is partial to my calculation results!

The failure of GR in the calculation of Venus precession deviation is that GR is a static gravitational model.

A GR professor in Russia claimed that they accurately measured the planetary precession deviation, but unfortunately, after I repeatedly asked, she admitted that they had never measured it. The data came from the Internet.

17. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Who knows what the true Venus precession deviation is? Has anyone ever performed accurate calculations and measurements.
8.6" vs 240"

I looked for clues on the Internet, but I couldn't find them. A Russian organization claimed that they had accurate data, but finally told me that their data also came from the United States and France. But I consulted a physicist in the United States and told me that there is no such data in the United States.

18. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Newtonian gravity and the Doppler effect of gravitational waves can perfectly illustrate various astronomical phenomena.

19. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
Read the first paragraph of section 2 of his paper. He states his equation for gravitational force: $F(t)=\frac{GMm}{(r+vt)^2}$. The $vt$ term grows without bound and his gravitational force falls towards zero over time. He then uses some bizarre process to get rid of the time dependence (not make it implicit, get rid of it). That must be illegitimate because the force is either time dependent or it's not, but he has it being both. And the model is inconsistent in other ways. He claims that his "gravitational waves" propagate at c, but has his gravitational force point through the ellipse focus. That is the gravitational force is directed at where the Sun currently is and not where it was when the "gravitational waves" now arriving at Mercury left the Sun. So he's assuming a finite speed in order to get his "Doppler" factor and simultaneously assuming an infinite speed to get his force direction.

That's all I bothered to read. So what do you think the comments of anyone who knew what they were talking about were?

I bet he used an Euler integrator in his simulation too.

Bonus: he could correct the inconsistent propagation speeds so that the force points at where the Sun was and not where it is. If he does he'll run into the same problem real physicists ran into when they tried this kind of fix to Newtonian gravity over a century ago. Orbits are unstable on time scales of a century or so and the solar system shouldn't exist (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087).

Last edited: Jun 1, 2021
20. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Thank you very much for reading my paper carefully, but obviously you did not understand it. The paper is divided into several parts:
1. Deduced the relationship between gravity and the velocity of the object under the premise of hypothesis.
2. Demonstrated that the speed of the gravitational field on physics will be much greater than the speed of light c.
3. The influence of gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun on the surrounding gravity.
4. The influence of gravitational waves on planetary orbits.

21. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
I didn't read it carefully. As I said I gave up after I realised it was pointless trying to read more.

What are $v$ and $t$ in your expression $F(t)=\frac{G_0Mm}{(r+vt)^2}$?

22. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
v is the velocity of m movement.
t is the elapsed time.

23. ### SsssssssRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
302
$t$ is the elapsed time since when?