# GR is a Static Gravity Model

$$t$$ is the elapsed time since when?
Start when the distance between m and M is r.
This is basic physics knowledge. If you lack basic physics knowledge, it is difficult to understand this paper.

This is basic physics knowledge.
No mate. This is you using terms and not bothering to define them properly.

So $$p$$ in your equation 1 is supposed to be the impulse provided by gravity as the object moves from altitude $$r$$ to altitude $$r+vT$$?

So ppp in your equation 1 is supposed to be the impulse provided by gravity as the object moves from altitude rrr to altitude r+vTr+vTr+vT?
Yes.

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).
Ha ha ha. I agree with your final summary there but the initial part is a bit unfair imo. For that initially static arrangement scenario he specifies the v to be strictly radial in which case the impulse expression is correct. BUT he then goes on to derive in some contorted fashion I don't care to investigate, a quasi-Newtonian not actually Newtonian gravity theory that ostensibly accounts for the anomalous perihelion advance of Venus. Which is passing strange given Mercury's advance is much greater than that of Venus but presumably he has no disagreement with the value for Mercury! Given Newtonian gravity predicts zero advance for any co-orbiting spherically symmetric masses, proclaiming Newtonian gravity will 'resume it's rightful place' is a non-starter.

Full disclosure: I am a lay person GR heretic. The only possible self-consistent classical theory of gravity imo MUST for a spherically symmetric mass distribution yield intrinsically isotropy in it's spatial metric components. Which GR with it's anisotropic Schwarzschild exterior metric does not. I set out the arguments for that, which contrary to mainstream thought, departures from standard GR are not to be found in the supposed extreme high gravity 'singularity' limit but rather appear most clearly in the weak gravity regime, here:
https://vixra.org/abs/1407.0130
The one weakness there is a failure to fully reconcile the conundrum of the well known 'isotropic' coordinate transformation apparently undermining my argument. Actually if that transformation were legitimate it would lead to genuine paradox which is impossible. For years I could not find a satisfactory answer, till stumbling on this article:
https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/{\$cat_name}/View/1738
The crucial issue covered there is what Keilman terms 1-point vs 2-point transformations. That crystalized my intuitive feeling that the usual transformation from standard anisotropic to 'isotropic' coordinates was 'fake' in that an expansion of the 'isotropic' coordinates over some finite region is NOT physically equivalent to the equivalent expansion using standard Schwarzschild coordinates. I probably should get round to revising my viXra article accordingly, but have many other paths to pursue and felt there was sufficient there regardless of that apparent conundrum. And elsewhere here at SF I have pointed to astronomer/astrophysicist Stanley Robertson's rigorous derivation of the horizonless exponential metric in appendix A here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417
Some time back I started having doubts that metric is more than the asymptotic limiting form at very large r from some gravitating mass. I haven't got round to try and work out the fully self-consistent form correctly incorporating positive energy density contribution from the field itself, but it doesn't seem to me it will be a simple exponential. But nevertheless still horizonless by way of the spatial isotropy requirement of my viXra article. Much more could be added and maybe a new thread is in order. But I will not initiate such!

Edit: LaTeX nightmare. I'll try again.

Last edited:
But in your calculation for $$p$$ you treat $$v$$ as constant so you are not considering a body in free fall. Why is this relevant to planetary motion?
he specifies the v to be strictly radial in which case the impulse expression is correct.
Not for a body in free fall it's not. If the mass $$m$$ passes radius $$r$$ at velocity $$v$$ and it arrives at $$r+vT$$ with a velocity I'll call $$u$$ then conservation of energy says$\frac 12mv^2-\frac{GMm}{r}=\frac 12mu^2-\frac{GMm}{r+vT}$The change in radial momentum moving from $$r$$ to $$r+vT$$ is $$\Delta p=mv-mu$$ and you can use the conservation of energy expression to find $$u$$ and get $\Delta p=mv-mv\sqrt{1-\frac{2GMT}{rv(r+vT)}}$You can Taylor expand the square root to recover his expression for $$p$$ as a leading order approximation to the exact $$\Delta p$$ but to neglect the next term in the series is to say that$\frac{GM}{2vr}\frac{T}{r+vT}\ll 1$Do you notice anything about that statement when $$v=0$$? That happens twice per orbit.

But in your calculation for ppp you treat vvv as constant so you are not considering a body in free fall. Why is this relevant to planetary motion?
What we care about is the effect of gravity on an object, and what we care about is the change in the momentum of the object. So we set m to keep the speed constant. (You can think of m as a powered object that keeps v unchanged).
If you cannot accept the above point of view, then you can understand it like this: For a short time T, the speed of m can also be approximately regarded as constant.

Q-reeus said: he specifies the v to be strictly radial in which case the impulse expression is correct.
Not for a body in free fall it's not...
Err yes you are correct assuming free fall applies. I've read enough further to now understand he has been trying to develop a theory where relative velocity changes big G! All the time relying on Newtonian gravity to 'prove' it! A conflict of logical interest.

What we care about is the effect of gravity on an object, and what we care about is the change in the momentum of the object. So we set m to keep the speed constant. (You can think of m as a powered object that keeps v unchanged).
But a planet isn't powered so why would you care what a powered object does? A free falling object moves at a different speed to a powered one so it won't move from $$r$$ to $$r+vT$$ in time $$T$$ so your integration limits in your calculation for $$p$$ are wrong for a free falling object even if you're happy to ignore that you're counting momentum that comes from a rocket that Mercury doesn't have.
For a short time T, the speed of m can also be approximately regarded as constant.
That is a way of saying that the difference between your approximation and my accurate calculation is negligible. I proved that wrong in the post you quoted.

Last edited:
But a planet isn't powered so why would you care what a powered object does? A free falling object moves at a different speed to a powered one so it won't move from $$r$$ to $$r+vT$$ in time $$T$$ so your integration limits in your calculation for $$p$$ are wrong for a free falling object even if you're happy to ignore that you're counting momentum that comes from a rocket that Mercury doesn't have.

That is a way of saying that the difference between your approximation and my accurate calculation is negligible. I proved that wrong in the post you quoted.
What we care about is the effect of gravity on an object, and what we care about is the change in the momentum of the object. So we set m to keep the speed constant.
M and m are two objects, you don’t need to regard them as planetary models

Last edited:
So we set m to keep the speed constant.
So you agree that you are adding momentum from a rocket and including it in your calculation.
M and m are two objects, you don’t need to regard them as planetary models
They don't have to be planets but they do have to be unpowered if you want to study gravity separate from the influence of a power source. You are mixing up the gravity and the power source.

Lubomir Vicek reminded us of the opinion of the first Nobel laureates in physics, who believed that “the theory of relativity is a mathematical and not a physical theory, and this theory of contradicts the fundamental ideas about space and time: the Euclidean space and the usual ideas of time must remain binding”. Like Oliver Milatovich, I believe that the catastrophe of modern physics (lack of understanding of the physical essence of quantum mechanics, gravitation, dark energy and dark matter, the problem of the cosmological constant or the problem of "120 orders") can be resolved by returning to physics the ether associated with quantum fluctuations of the vacuum. Here I will briefly present my understanding of this problem (see also arXiv: 1107.1799v8 [physics.gen-ph]).
The main postulate is accepted: the electromagnetic component of the physical vacuum – EM vacuum is introduced as a basic medium ("ether") and as a frame of reference in our expanding Universe, which arose at the moment of absolute time t = 0 (Big Bang). Simultaneously the concept of the Casimir polarization of the EM vacuum in the vicinity of all material objects, specifically, in the vicinity of their atomic nuclei (the characteristic size of the space for a proton cm) and electrons ( cm) is introduced. This polarization determines the binding energy ("frozen-in") of a particle with the mass in the EM vacuum. It is the changes of sizes of the Casimir polarization of the EM vacuum with the relativistic motion of these particles relative to the base frame of reference that determine the increase in the potential binding energy of these particles with the EM vacuum determines a relativistic increase in mass.
On this basis, some questions of quantum mechanics (the essence of the consept wave-particle, physical essence of tunnel effect) were resolved, ideas about the physical essence of gravity were developed, phenomenological equations of the dynamics of the Universe ("analogue of Friedman's equations") were proposed with the disclosure of the physical essence of dark energy and dark matter, the problem of "120 orders" was solved.
Serge Timashev

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RAfMhZhvNPqFVNXo8

You see, the space-time warping model established by GR is so similar to the gravitational model under the Doppler effect of gravitational wave, but GR is static, and GR's space warping model is symmetrical relative to the center of the ball, but our gravitational model is a dynamic gravitational model, which is axisymmetric relative to the direction of the planet's motion, which is the real physical essence.

You see, the space-time warping model established by GR is so similar to the gravitational model under the Doppler effect of gravitational wave, but GR is static, and GR's space warping model is symmetrical relative to the center of the ball, but our gravitational model is a dynamic gravitational model, which is axisymmetric relative to the direction of the planet's motion, which is the real physical essence.
So you're not going to acknowledge that your maths is wrong just post a rant and a picture of your made up field around a moving Earth and an embedding of GR's spatial plane around a stationary Earth and say they look alike.

Right.

So you're not going to acknowledge that your maths is wrong just post a rant and a picture of your made up field around a moving Earth and an embedding of GR's spatial plane around a stationary Earth and say they look alike.

Right.
Last year, some scholars have done data verification for my mathematical derivation, which is completely correct in the end. If you are interested, you can also use the data to verify.

Russian astronomers claimed that they had accurately observed the orbits precession deviation of the planets in the solar system. I wrote to ask. Finally, they told me that their data were not from their observations, but from other conturies.
As for my question, the author keeps alert. Later, I also consulted Professor Richard, who told me that Newton's gravitational calculation of planetary precession itself is an approximate calculation, which is crazy for those scholars who publicize accurate observation of planetary precession deviation.
Due to the special orbit of Venus, it is more vulnerable to external interference, so its precession deviation will be greater.

Further confirmation Venus anomalous precession conforms to GR prediction:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0176
I also saw their article on academia.edu, from India, and their data also came from the fitting of GR. I wrote to the author, but I didn't get a response

Russian astronomers claimed that they had accurately observed the orbits precession deviation of the planets in the solar system. I wrote to ask. Finally, they told me that their data were not from their observations, but from other conturies.
As for my question, the author keeps alert. Later, I also consulted Professor Richard, who told me that Newton's gravitational calculation of planetary precession itself is an approximate calculation, which is crazy for those scholars who publicize accurate observation of planetary precession deviation.
Due to the special orbit of Venus, it is more vulnerable to external interference, so its precession deviation will be greater....
As table 2 in first linked article in #36 shows, the observed perihelion advances of Earth, Mars, and especially Saturn, are much greater than for Venus. Which makes sense given the first three's relative orbital proximities to that of massive Jupiter. These values match detailed Newtonian gravity predictions except for the slight GR corrections.
I also saw their article on academia.edu, from India, and their data also came from the fitting of GR. I wrote to the author, but I didn't get a response
From that you seem to infer they were massively fudging their published results. Yet without any sign of a backlash from the wider GR/astronomical community. As in published rebuttal articles. How reasonable would that conclusion be?

Last edited:
I haven't revised my paper for a long time. No matter what you think, it's there. I have also gained some supporters. I am very grateful to them for their recognition of my work, and I am also very grateful to sciforums. I have met many scholars here, whether they are supporters or opponents. I am very happy to discuss with you here.

I once asked a famous physics professor: If there is no GR, what would you think of my theory? He replied : Unfortunately, GR already exists.

I haven't revised my paper for a long time.
So you are saying that you don't stand by it anymore?
I once asked a famous physics professor: If there is no GR, what would you think of my theory? He replied : Unfortunately, GR already exists.
A neat way of avoiding having to waste time commenting on your ideas.

Last edited: