Theories reducing to Newtonian gravity: general relativity doesn't

__________________________________________________ _____________________

NEW CANONICAL SCIENCE REPORT

Theories reducing to Newtonian gravity: general relativity doesn't
__________________________________________________ _____________________


Scientific knowledge is accumulative. Theoretical and fundamental
scientists require a "single comprehensive theory applying to all
physical phenomena". Newtonian gravity is used for a broad range of
gravitational phenomena. This implies that any theory of gravity, to
be taken seriously, would reduce to Newtonian gravity in some limit.

It has been broadly thought since its born in 1916 that general
relativity reduces to the theory of Newton. However, articles as "On
the Newtonian limit of general relativity" published in journals as
Comm. Math. Phys. still revise the issue about eight decades after.

Experts on the Newtonian limit of general relativity as Joy Christian
openly accept that Newtonian theory is not the Galilean limit of
general relativity. Numerical relativists as Miguel Alcubierre Moya
recognize that "Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in
GR". Unfortunately both of them failed to see the deep implications
this has for the physics of gravity, some of which are noticed below.

This Research report studies the Newtonian limit of six theories,
presenting the difficulties and inconsistencies found when rigorously
revised using new techniques. The theories considered a general
relativity; nonlinear field theory; Stefanovich theory; the Weber &
Mach relational theory by Assis & Graneau; Vladimirov's relational
theory; and Stückelberg, Horwitz, & Piron action-at-a-distance theory
worked by Trump & Schieve.

This Research report shows that (i) the assertion that general
relativity reduces to the theory of Newton as well as (ii) the
assertion that the quadratic-'field'-low-velocity geodesic equation of
motion is identical to the Newtonian equation of motion do not hold
upon close inspection. It is also demonstrated that some observational
difficulties of relativistic theories of gravity —such as the
unphysical boundaries imposed in general relativity— are related to
their lack of compatibility with Newtonian gravity.

One of the main findings of this Research report is that all current
theories of gravity revised belong to one of two incompatible classes,
extending and generalizing the incompatibility between quantum
electrodynamics and quantum mechanics denounced by Dirac. The main
pros and cons for each kind are presented.

Moreover, it is showed that the assertions of complete equivalence
between general relativity and the field theory over flat spacetime
are unfounded. Quasi-equivalence in a weak limit is showed.

Finally, this Research report introduces the new post-relativity
theory and discusses its possibilities and advantages over current
theories. Cosmological and astrophysical puzzles, and specially the
topics of dark matter and dark energy, would be solved in this new
gravitational approach.

This Research report starts a new era in our understanding
of the physics of interactions, beyond the profound cultural divide
between the relativity and the particle physicists' community in
dealing with spacetime. It is a shock for astrophysicists and
cosmologists who believed that our understanding of classical gravity
was already complete. It is also a strong shock for some subfields of
quantum gravity, specially for attempts like loop theory —deeply
rooted into the geometrical language of general relativity—. It turns
into a historical curiosity the premature claims about the end of
science advanced on that famous book —with the same apocalyptic title—
by John Horgan.

Field theorists and particle physicists find satisfactory that the
non-geometrical approach to gravity works better, letting us to
advance in the task of unification of interactions. The relativistic
field theorist and fractal cosmologist Yurij Barishev writes: "yes it
is important problem that even Newtonian limit is badly defined in
geometrical approach". We only can speculate that this result would
fascinate even to Richard Feynman, one of the most celebrated
promoters of a non-geometrical approach to gravity.

Whereas this work has been well received by theoretical physicists
working in generalizations of general relativity and of superstring
theory, general relativists have found repugnant the idea that general
relativity is not a complete theory of gravitation and that the
geometrical picture is not more a fundamental part of physics —in one
sense, their position is not different from that of the 20th century
physicists who strongly rejected the development of quantum mechanics
and its revolutionary change of picture—.

Moreover, general relativists have confirming also that the usual
derivations given in textbooks on general relativity are flawed.


NEWS AND BLOG:
______________

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p.../20091005.html

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...encetoday.html


METADATA, REFERENCES, AND DOWNLOAD:
___________________________________

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...rts/20092.html

On Oct 8, 10:48*am, ---- wrote:
....
Theories reducing to Newtonian gravity: general
relativity doesn't

Explicit lie.

This message has been spammed individually to many newsgroups. Since
the poster has no intention / history of replying in all these
newsgroups, this is spam, and violates the code of conduct of this
place. Just because "dicks" do it... does not make it right.

David A. Smith

On Oct 8, 8:19 pm, dlzc wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:48 am, ---- wrote:
...

Theories reducing to Newtonian gravity: general
relativity doesn't

Explicit lie.

This message has been spammed individually to many newsgroups. Since
the poster has no intention / history of replying in all these
newsgroups, this is spam, and violates the code of conduct of this
place. Just because "dicks" do it... does not make it right.

David A. Smith

Dear David,

All of us are starting to realize that the crackpot
Juan R. is also becoming a professional spammer,
what a pity :-(