# GR is a Static Gravity Model

Tony;

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).

I understood v as an initial impulse, propelling m radially, which is nullified by g after a short time interval.
Given this new requirement, you add an acceleration a, equal to -g.

x=x_0 +vt +.5at^2 -.5gt^2

In the graphic, x0=0.
Path p1 (green) is with an initial impulse of v.
Path p2 (black) is with an acceleration of a=-g.
P2 is an inertial path (constant velocity) with NO net forces acting upon m.
There is no change of mometum.

1. No matter how fast the object
is, gravity will act on the object instantaneously.
...
2. In a very short time slice dt, we can assume that m is stationary and the gravity received
is constant,

1. Because the gravitational energy from M, moving at c, has conditioned the surrounding space before the object m has reached any specific location.
2. Not unless you want to rehash Zeno's motion paradox, which is solved by 'the motion is constant', thus cannot be zero.

Forward:

Einstein's attempt at a general theory is not valid, because he approached the project believing that general relativity would just be a simple generalisation of special relativity's physics.

And it's not. A general theory is based on fundamentally different assumptions to the special theory.
• Under a general theory, all observer-masses must have associated curvature, and any relative motion of observers must then physically alter the shape of spacetime (=shape of the light-metric), due to gravitomagnetic effects.
• Under special relativity, we assume perfectly empty space, and we assume that the introduction of observers does not affect the status of that space as perfectly empty. All observers can move how they like without affecting the shape of spacetime.
So SR observers have zero curvature and zero effect on the metric, while GR observers must have curvature and their motion must affect the metric, otherwise the general principle doesn't work.

"SR" and "GR" observers are mutually incompatible, and GR observers cannot obey the physics derived for SR observers. GR observer-masses cannot obey SR equations of motion. These are different geometries.

Consequently, Einstein's general theory is riddled with logical faultlines and inconsistencies, that we are only able to deal with by avoiding exact solutions (which would expose the mismatches) and embracing approximations, or by arguing that certain irresolvable problems will have to wait until a theory of quantum gravity comes along.

Currently, Einstein;s general theory doesn't even work properly for the simplest possible idealised mass (a spherically-symmetrical mass whose specific details are hidden behind a curvature horizon), moving inertially, in a straight line at constant speed, against an arbitrarily-flat background, arbitrarily-distant from any other disturbing matter.
Preprint Gravitomagnetic horizons and the comprehensive failure of Ei...

If a gravity-well has any motion at all with respect to a distant observer then ... pooft ... Einstein's general theory self-destructs.

Currently, Einstein;s general theory doesn't even work properly for the simplest possible idealised mass (a spherically-symmetrical mass whose specific details are hidden behind a curvature horizon), moving inertially, in a straight line at constant speed, against an arbitrarily-flat background, arbitrarily-distant from any other disturbing matter.
Preprint Gravitomagnetic horizons and the comprehensive failure of Ei...

If a gravity-well has any motion at all with respect to a distant observer then ... pooft ... Einstein's general theory self-destructs.
A nineteen page paper claims to show the inconsistency of SR and/or GR has one equation. That looks totally legit.

Forward:
I understand that Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) and all its variants are regarded as the main physical experiments that support Special Theory of Relativity. However, I have shown a conceptual mistake in the design of MMX .
Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley Type Experiments. Applied Physics Research; Vol. 8, No. 3; 2016 https://tinyurl.com/h996hq9
Relativity: a pillar of modern physics or a stumbling block. Proc. of SPIE Vol. 8121, 812109 (2011). https://tinyurl.com/ybez4v2h

Tony;

1. So SR observers have zero curvature and zero effect on the metric, while GR observers must have curvature and their motion must affect the metric, otherwise the general principle doesn't work.
...
2. If a gravity-well has any motion at all with respect to a distant observer then ... pooft ... Einstein's general theory self-destructs.

1. The observers motion affects their perception in any theory.
'Curved spacetime', 'moving in time', are figures of speech. Some scientists want to become poets. The space around a mass redirects an object's motion, i.e. the trajectory is curved, same for light. Images from distant sources show little if any distortion (excluding gravitational lensing). Space and time distortion is mostly local for any system of objects, SR or GR.
The gravitational effect of any mass does not extend to 'infinity'. It becomes insignificant
and lost in the background of gravitational noise at astronomically large distances .
Einstein stated in his 'ether and relativity' talk, 1920, that mass conditioned the surrounding space, (possibly interpreted as curved space). The 1919 eclipse another example.

2. LIGO detected gravity waves, resulting from a high frequency change in the positions of two large masses.

I read the paper 'Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley Type Experiments' by Gurcharn S. Sandhu.

In page 50, he seems confused when comparing the effects of light propagation for the lab ref. frame with those of an outside ref. frame with a relative velocity.

If he understood the motion induced effects of td and lc within SR, the explanation only requires 2 or 3 pages.
Einstein's SR was based on the work of others in addition to the MMX.

Here is a pdf with the rotation in the MMX replaced with 360° light propagation.

#### Attachments

• reflecting circle.pdf
53.9 KB · Views: 2
Let's wait for the precession deviation of Venus orbit. One day someone will calculate this data accurately. I can do this work with my theory, but I hope someone can do it. I prove my theory is correct and lack of credibility.

240" vs 8.6"

A physicist from Italy helped me point out an error in my paper, and I have corrected it. This part of the wrong description is redundant in the paper, and I have deleted it.

Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves 4 0

Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves(2.0).pdf
Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves(2.0).pdf
Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves 2 0
Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves 2 0
Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves 2.0

Leaps from 2.1 to 4.0 version with *no* 3.0 version in between! And the list itself has no chronological ordering. All very strange.

Can you logically explain why there is no 30. version?
My God, why is there no 3.0? And not 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.31? Why?
This is the most boring question I have ever seen.

My God, why is there no 3.0? And not 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.31? Why?
This is the most boring question I have ever seen.
There is a v2.1. You don't seem to be up with your own posting history there. Where else would one find a leap from v2.1 to v4.0 with nothing in between? That's not boring question imo.

If I point two laser pointers in opposite directions are they still confined by light speed?

I would assume so

Discuss:
1. The speed of the gravitational field is much greater than the speed of the gravitational wave
2. The influence of gravitational waves on the surrounding gravity
3. How the gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun affect the surrounding gravitational force
4. The influence of gravitational waves on planetary orbital precession
5. Thinking about the expansion of the universe

My paper was rejected, but the review comments made me feel that this reviewer lacks the most basic knowledge of physics.

The following is the reviewer comments. Reviewer #1: .This paper should not be published. It is based on a misconception of the structure of classical mechanics. Equation (1) is not a solution of the equation of motion. If one takes the Newtonian force equation together with the gravitaton force then everything is included: moving particles as well as particles at rest. The method to include the motion of particles in order to represent Newtons gravity acting on moving ojects is wrong. It is already included in the equations of motion properly applied. Since mM/r^2 is a scalar, then v is the only vector in Equation (2). One cannot add a scalar and a vector. There are many other points like this in this paper. In Equation (20) theta is an angle and r a radial coordinate. Therefore, r theta has the diension of length. Is is not allowed to take the exponental of a quantiy possessing a dimension. It is also not stadard to base a scientific work solely on wikipedia articles and a few other web pages. This paper does not meet scientific standards, It should not be published.

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

My paper was rejected, but the review comments made me feel that this reviewer lacks the most basic knowledge of physics.
No doubt the feeling is mutual.

No doubt the feeling is mutual.
James R,
You'd better look at the review comments before making such remarks.

The editor-in-chief of this SCI journal has accepted my appeal, and he will arrange for other reviewers to review the manuscript.

You'd better look at the review comments before making such remarks.
I did. You published them here, remember? What did you think I was commenting on?

I did. You published them here, remember? What did you think I was commenting on?
James, u are the best reviewer.