This is just your fringe misinterpretation.
Considering the case with Planet Mercury, do you think the "interplanetary gravitational interactions" are "attractive" from "the Sun" point of view?
Also see this link.
This is just your fringe misinterpretation.
Let us not talk about hypothetical(graviton) things. Let us talk practical things. Can a gravity-field exist in isolation without its mass?
Considering the case with Planet Mercury, do you think the "interplanetary gravitational interactions" are "attractive" from "the Sun" point of view?
See post #717. It is explained there, how repulsive forces(from the Sun point of view) causes perihelion precession of Planet Mercury.
You can also see this link where a 'repulsive force' is predicted for anomaly of Mercury perihelion precession.
A quote from the link is as follows:
I presume you mean whether or not a field can exist without a mass as its source, since the field itself obviously does not have mass. The answer is yes - one can construct metrics which are "held together" by their own self-interaction without the presence of any other sources; such topological constructs are called geons, and where first studied by Wheeler in the 1950s. See here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)
Whether or not such constructs would be stable is an entirely different issue again - but the very fact that they are valid solutions to the EFEs demonstrates the self-interaction of gravity in GR, since there are no other explicit sources of gravity present in these solutions ( i.e. the stress-energy tensor vanishes everywhere, both inside and outside the geon ). It is interesting to note that these geons are investigated as candidates for a purely geometric model of elementary particles; to the best of my knowledge though without much success.
wiki said:In theoretical general relativity, a geon is an electromagnetic or gravitational wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. They were first investigated theoretically in 1955 by J. A. Wheeler, who coined the term as a contraction of "gravitational electromagnetic entity."[1]
Since general relativity is a classical field theory, Wheeler's concept of a geon does not treat them as quantum-mechanical entities, and this generally remains true today. Nonetheless, Wheeler speculated that there might be a relationship between microscopic geons and elementary particles. This idea continues to attract some attention among physicists, but in the absence of a viable theory of quantum gravity, the accuracy of this speculative idea cannot be tested. However recently Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Fotini Markopoulou, and Lee Smolin, in the context of Loop Quantum Gravity discovered some objects very similar to the Wheeler idea of geon.
Wheeler did not exhibit explicit geon solutions to the vacuum Einstein field equation, a gap which was partially filled by Brill and Hartle in 1964 by the Brill-Hartle geon.[2] This is an approximate solution which exhibits the features expected by Wheeler—at least temporarily. A major outstanding question regarding geons is whether they are stable, or must decay over time as the energy of the wave gradually "leaks" away. This question has not yet been definitively answered, but the consensus seems to be that they probably cannot be stable, which would lay to rest Wheeler's initial hope that a geon might serve as a classical model for stable elementary particles.
References
Why do you keep talking and quoting about "forces" and Newtonian mechanics, if we are dealing with GR ?
There are no forces in GR, neither repulsive nor attractive. The perihelion precession is simply the result of a geometry which differs from the Newtonian one. It's that simple. The entire discussion is meaningless and a waste of time, simply because the cause of aforementioned precession has nothing to do with any kind of force.
Considering the case with Planet Mercury, do you think the "interplanetary gravitational interactions" are "attractive" from "the Sun" point of view?
yes.
See this link.
There are no forces in GR,
This is true, because GR ignores gravitationally induced pressures, where pressure = force/area. This pressure is missing from GR because GR is not concerned with the entire observed gravity phenomena, only space-time.
If you look at a star, the deepest point in the space-time well is where time is supposed to be the slowest due to time dilation. Yet the fastest frequency transitions within the star occur at the deepest point of the space-time well; nuclear reactions and gamma radiation. Time is supposed to slow as we go down the well, but material transitions get faster and faster, with faster and faster transitions out pacing space-time contraction.
This paradox is connected gravity induced pressure, which can alter the phases of matter regardless of the direction of space-time. In this case, gravity provides the force/area. GR cannot predict solid iron in the core of the earth since that is a function of pressure not space-time. When you talk about mass attracting mass, GR is not enough unless a first approximation is all you hope to achieve.
but material transitions get faster and faster, with faster and faster transitions out pacing space-time contraction.
Geon is not yet proven.
This proves, GR has a repulsive effect.
If some 'physical phenomena' fits well with the 'standard definition' of "force", whats wrong in calling this a "force".
This is true, because GR ignores gravitationally induced pressures, where pressure = force/area. This pressure is missing from GR because GR is not concerned with the entire observed gravity phenomena, only space-time.
If you look at a star, the deepest point in the space-time well is where time is supposed to be the slowest due to time dilation. Yet the fastest frequency transitions within the star occur at the deepest point of the space-time well; nuclear reactions and gamma radiation. Time is supposed to slow as we go down the well, but material transitions get faster and faster, with faster and faster transitions out pacing space-time contraction.
This paradox is connected gravity induced pressure, which can alter the phases of matter regardless of the direction of space-time.
GR cannot predict solid iron in the core of the earth since that is a function of pressure not space-time.
When you talk about mass attracting mass, GR is not enough unless a first approximation is all you hope to achieve.
Talking of geons, Wheeler was getting warm with that. Pity he didn't think of electromagnetic wave confined in a region by something a bit stronger than gravity.
But we know that a concentration of energy causes gravity
See this link.
There is nothing about a "repulsive force". You clearly do not understand physics.
We present here a calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury due to the perturbations from the outer planets. The time‐average effect of each planet is calculated by replacing that planet with a ring of linear mass density equal to the mass of the planet divided by the circumference of its orbit. The calculation is easier than examples found in many undergraduate theoretical mechanics books and yields results which are in excellent agreement with more advanced treatments. The perihelion precession is seen to result from the fact that the outer planets slightly change the radial period of oscillation from the simple harmonic period usually calculated for small displacements from equilibrium. This new radial period therefore no longer matches the orbital period and the orbit consequently does not exactly retrace itself. The general question of whether a given perturbation will cause the perihelion to advance or regress is shown to have the following answer: if a perturbing force is central and repulsive and also becomes stronger as the distance from the force center increases, the perihelion will advance. If the central perturbing force is attractive and also becomes stronger as the distance from the force center increases, the perihelion will regress.
Wrong. Geons are valid solutions to the field equations, which can be proven quite easily; that is all that matters, since the question was whether or not those equations describe a self-interacting field. This is also precisely what the article says which I linked for you. I understand that geons may not physically exist, but that is irrelevant in this case since all we are talking about are mathematical properties of the field equations, i.e. self-interaction. If you don't wish to use geons, there are many other solutions to the field equations which demonstrate the same principle; I just picked geons as an intuitive example to illustrate what I meant to say.
No it doesn't. You really don't want to understand, do you.
But that is exactly the point; the phenomena of perihelion precession does NOT fit the standard forced-based model, being Newtonian mechanics. Only GR gives the correct prediction, and GR does not involve forces in the precession calculation. Why is this so difficult to understand ?
hansda said:If some 'physical phenomena' fits well with the 'standard definition' of "force", whats wrong in calling this a "force".
See the following quote from the abstract of the above link. I have highlighted where "repulsive force" is mentioned.