Skwinty
4th March 2009, 09:34 AM
I am currently reading "Black hole paradoxes" by Mario Rabinowitz at Armor Research. It deals with EGR (Einstein), YGR (Yilmaz), DGR (Dicke) and BDGR (Brans-Dicke).
Points of interest.
EGR - predicts black holes but the theory breaks down at these extremes.
YGR - Uses a gravitational stress tensor which eliminates black holes, but makes the same predictions as EGR (minus the black holes). YGR claims to be an N-body theory as opposed to EGR which is a 1-body theory. He claims that the best reason to question EGR is it's mathematical over determinations and that the Hubble redshift does not imply that the universe is expanding, but rather gravitational redshift.
DGR - Polarizable vacuum (aether?) which is euclidean with no spacetime curvature. It derives gravitation as a manifestation of electromagnetism and this would, if correct, be a huge leap forward to a unified field theory.
BDGR - Incorporates Machs principles in that mass in the universe generates a scalar potential field in addition to spacetime curvature.
Now, Rabinowitz also claims that these theories should be judged in the same spirit as Schrodingers equation which makes highly accurate predictions even though Schrodingers equations clearly omit spin and relativity.
It seems to me that these alternate brands of GR are purely to remove mathematical complexities, which IMO is not a bad idea.
But, have these alternate theories contributed anything meaningful to science or is it just a form of mental masturbation? :eek:
Points of interest.
EGR - predicts black holes but the theory breaks down at these extremes.
YGR - Uses a gravitational stress tensor which eliminates black holes, but makes the same predictions as EGR (minus the black holes). YGR claims to be an N-body theory as opposed to EGR which is a 1-body theory. He claims that the best reason to question EGR is it's mathematical over determinations and that the Hubble redshift does not imply that the universe is expanding, but rather gravitational redshift.
DGR - Polarizable vacuum (aether?) which is euclidean with no spacetime curvature. It derives gravitation as a manifestation of electromagnetism and this would, if correct, be a huge leap forward to a unified field theory.
BDGR - Incorporates Machs principles in that mass in the universe generates a scalar potential field in addition to spacetime curvature.
Now, Rabinowitz also claims that these theories should be judged in the same spirit as Schrodingers equation which makes highly accurate predictions even though Schrodingers equations clearly omit spin and relativity.
It seems to me that these alternate brands of GR are purely to remove mathematical complexities, which IMO is not a bad idea.
But, have these alternate theories contributed anything meaningful to science or is it just a form of mental masturbation? :eek: