Hello Mr. Petkov,

I believe that I found humbly. Of course I must test and expermiment.But my equations can help.The gravitational waves have several answer. The quantum gravitation can be linked with my spheres and their rotations more their volumes. The quantum theory of fields and the GR converge when we insert two different main senses of rotations differenciating the bosons and fermions.

Good luck in this contest

    Dear Petkov

    Wonderful and well written essay. I enjoyed it a lot and I would not hesitate to put it in the list of the top scores. I agree with your view in the physical foundations of gravity. In this respect, my essay, essentially points out the physical source of the puzzle in contemporary physics.

    You said: relativists who are more accustomed to solving technical problems than to examining the physical foundation of general relativity which may involve no calculations.

    I sympathize with this view, I hold that philosophical reasoning should not be disregarded in physics as a tool to understand the foundations of physical phenomena.

    From your essay I could figure out that you realize that the falling of a body is not caused by a force. Indeed, it is easy to conclude from careful analysis and observation of gravitational phenomena that objects are neither pulled nor pushed towards the source of gravity but they simply follow the law of inertia.

    This being said, I would like to quote some of your phrases to base some of my forthcoming comments:

    determining the true nature of gravitational phenomena is the experimental fact that particles falling towards the Earth's surface offer no resistance to their fall.

    What also warrants such an examination is that an experimental (fact falling bodies do not resist their apparent acceleration) turns out to be crucial for determining the true nature of gravitational phenomena, but has been effectively neglected so far...

    That gravity is not really a force has been considered several times during several moments in the history of physics. Descartes was one of the pioneers. In his treatise, the World, he considered that gravity was the result of the dynamics of the aether. He conceived a model in which space was filled with a continuous material medium and the motion of celestial and terrestrial bodies was based on the generation of vortices in the aether. For this reason his theory was known as the vortex theory. Unfortunately, the consummation of a mathematical model for vortices seemed an impossible task that Descartes' view was difficult to handle.

    Years later, Newton firmly supported Descartes' view of gravity, in this sense, Newton was more Cartesian than Newtonian. He realized however that the Cartesian dynamics of gravity was impossible to model and decided not to consider it in the famous Principia. In his mathematical formulation he simply assumed that space was "EMPTY" (even though he knew it wasn't and that the aether existed) and apply the four laws along with Euclidean geometry. Due to the omission of the aether as the medium to transmit gravity among material bodies he was severely criticized by his contemporaries. In defense, he simply replied with the famous phrase: I do not feign hypothesis. After Newton's dead, most physicists believed that space was really empty and that gravity was an attractive force acting at a distance. The General Relativity got rid of instantaneous interactions, replaced empty space with space-time and reinterpreted (to a certain degree) the notion of gravity. Nonetheless, the conception of gravity as an attractive force still prevails nowadays.

    You conclude:

    that there is no gravitational interaction and therefore there is nothing to quantize.

    Indeed, as Newton and Descartes held, gravity is not a force and thus there is nothing to quantize. In my essay, I explained the physical gap that the mathematical representation of gravity has overlooked since Newton and Descartes. I think that Descartes ideas should be reconsidered to explain physical phenomena. I would be glad if you take a look at my work and let me know your opinion.

    Good luck in the contest

    Israel

      Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

      I think physics is of ultimate importance - if there exists experimental evidence to rule out a hypothesis, any new theory must take that into account.

      We have unambiguous experimental evidence that gravity is not a force - falling bodies DO NOT RESIST their (apparent) acceleration, which proves that no gravitational force is accelerating them downwards; a force would exist only if the bodies resisted their fall (the force would be needed to overcome that resistance).

      So any theory that explicitly or implicitly treats gravity as a force contradicts the existing experimental evidence. This explanation applies to Robert L. Oldershaw's question as well.

      All the best.

      Thank you for your comments, Israel. And also for the nice summary of Descartes' and Newton's views of gravity. I guess you did not want to make your post too long and did not include another famous quote from Newton; I will give it here since I find it quite relevant:

      "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it." [Newton's fourth letter to Richard Bentley of 25 February 1692]

      I will read your essay but it may take some time. In the coming days the Minkowski Institute Press (MIP) will be officially announced and it takes a lot of time and effort. All who would like to receive the MIP Newsletter can contact me at vpetkov@minkowskiinstitute.org.

      Good luck in the contest too.

      Vesselin,

      There is something very pure and beautiful in the concept of inertia when one hears it expressed with such expert familiarity. Reading your essay, I think I almost understand now why Einstein said that he had experienced his theory "kinesthetically."

      Great essay! Best wishes in the contest. (And I do hope you get a chance to visit my site, too -- thanks.)

      Tom

        Dear Azzam AlMosallami,

        As I suspected the only similarity between your paper and my essay is that we discuss gravitation. You regard gravity as a force, whereas I stressed in my essay that not only general relativity but most importantly the experimental evidence (discussed in the essay) demonstrate that no gravitational force is involved in the gravitational phenomena.

        Thank you for your comments and good luck in the contest.

        Dear Vesselin Petkov,

        I'm really appreciate your comment. I named it as a gravitational force according to the classical concept of the force. But actually it is a field, and this field strength is not constant, it is changing according to the distance from the center of mass. In my theory http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 the meaning of force is different from the classical meaning, it produced when the particle is transformed from a state to another state with different vacuum energy. The concept of vacuum energy in my theory is same as interpreted in quantum field theory, and thus what I proposed in the gravitational field is agreed with what is resulted in quantum field theory, which leading to unifying between GR and quantum gravity. according to my My MGRT I could solve the Pioneer anomaly exactly http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 According to my MGRT I could solve the faster than light in cosmology (wormholes) with violation to the Lorentz transformation or causality http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018 and thus unifying quantum theory with relativity

        Hi Vesselin:

        I enjoyed reading your paper and agree with your conclusion: "...quantum gravity as quantization of gravitational interaction is Impossible.."

        However, I do not completely agree with your reason that gravity is not an interactive force just because general relativity says so. Since general relativity has failed to predict 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and has been paralyzed with the Big Bang singularity, it can hardly be acclaimed as a universal theory and it would be not only be premature but also incorrect to declare the Newtonian interaction as non-existent. Also, I have demonstrated in my posted paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe", that integrating the missing physics of spontaneous decay of particles with Newtonian gravitational energy plus specific relativity, the ills of general relativity can be cured and observed expansion of the universe and galaxies as well as quantum/classical behaviors can be predicted without any singularities. This approach also resolves quantum mysteries and explains inner workings of quantum mechanics eliminating the need for quantum gravity.

        I would greatly appreciate your comments on my posted paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".

        Best Regards

        Avtar Singh

          Hello Avtar,

          Thank you for your comments. It seems it is now my turn to disagree with what you wrote:

          "I do not completely agree with your reason that gravity is not an interactive force just because general relativity says so."

          My argument is not at all that "general relativity says so." It is the ultimate judge (the experimental evidence) that says so and I tried to stress it as strongly as possible in the essay and also on this page (above):

          "We have unambiguous experimental evidence that gravity is not a force - falling bodies DO NOT RESIST their (apparent) acceleration, which proves that no gravitational force is accelerating them downwards; a force would exist only if the bodies resisted their fall (the force would be needed to overcome that resistance).

          So any theory that explicitly or implicitly treats gravity as a force contradicts the existing experimental evidence."

          So Newton's view of gravity as a force is directly contradicted by the experimental evidence and I think Newton would understand and accept that fact since it is based on the very essence of the concept of force introduced by Newton himself in his second law - by the second law a force is only necessary to OVERCOME the resistance a body offers to its acceleration (by overcoming the resistance the force accelerates the body); the experimental fact that a falling body does not resist its fall (acceleration) proves that no force is accelerating it, because a force would be present only if the body resisted its acceleration (the force would be solely needed to overcome that resistance; briefly: no resistance => no gravitational force).

          Now your essay is also on my "to read" list, but as I explained in my answer to Israel's post above it would take some time.

          Best wishes and good luck.

          Hi Vesselin:

          Thank you for your comments.

          If you read my paper, you will know that my model has been vindicated by several sets of data from quantum to galactic to cosmic scale observations. Hence, you cannot prejudge it to be wrong just based on the isolated example of falling bodies. Then again, you are discounting all the numerous well-known data that supports Newtonian gravity model including the solar system motion.

          Moreover, if there was no resistance to motion provided by mass inertia, the experienced acceleration of falling bodies would be infinite (due to zero mass inertia) and not limited to a constant gravitational acceleration.

          I would welcome your reading and commenting on my paper.

          Regards and best of Luck

          Avtar

          Dear Vesselin Petkov,

          I am just now reading your essay. I feel certain that I need to re-read it to be certain that I understand your arguments. However, with regard to this quote:

          "What is crucial for testing both the geodesic hypothesis and the generalized definition of a free particle in spacetime and for determining the true nature of gravitational phenomena is the experimental fact that particles falling towards the Earth's surface offer no resistance to their fall. This essential experimental evidence has been virtually neglected so far, which is rather inexplicable especially given that Einstein regarded the realization of this fact - that "if a person falls freely he will not feel his own weight" - as the "happiest thought" of his life which put him on the path towards general relativity [8].

          This experimental fact unambiguously confirms the geodesic hypothesis be-cause free falling particles, whose worldtubes are geodesics, do not resist their fall (i.e. their apparent acceleration) which means that they move by inertia and therefore no gravitational force is causing their fall. It should be particu-larly stressed that a gravitational force would be required to accelerate particles downwards only if the particles resisted their acceleration, because only then a gravitational force would be needed to overcome that resistance."

          Selecting out just this portion: "the experimental fact that particles falling towards the Earth's surface offer no resistance to their fall. This essential experimental evidence has been virtually neglected so far, which is rather inexplicable especially given that Einstein regarded the realization of this fact -that "if a person falls freely he will not feel his own weight" - as the "happiest thought" of his life which put him on the path towards general relativity [8]."

          Concentrating on:

          "if a person falls freely he will not feel his own weight"

          We do not feel acceleration if it is applied evenly to a body. Any object would show no significant indication of the force of gravity so long as it is applied very close to evenly. The force of gravity does closely approximate the condition of applying a force evenly. Therefore, in my opinion, your reference does not support your argument that gravity is not a force. We do feel the effects of a force that is un-equally applied. The effects are un-equal compression causing bodily distortion.

          Your rebuttel is of course welcome. Thank you.

          James

            Hello Avtar,

            Thanks again for your comments.

            I can't believe you questioned an experimental fact - that falling bodies do not resist their acceleration. In my essay I even gave a concrete example - a falling accelerometer reads zero acceleration, i.e. zero resistance. This experimental evidence proves that gravity is not a force (whose anticipation led Einstein to general relativity) and no other experiment could prove the opposite (that gravity is a force). Nature does not contradict herself. Indeed, none of what you called "the numerous well-known data that supports Newtonian gravity model" proves that gravity is a force.

            All the best.

            Dear James Putnam,

            Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to read carefully my essay.

            Unfortunately, what you wrote - "We do not feel acceleration if it is applied evenly to a body" - is simply not so, if by "We do not feel acceleration" you mean "We do not feel resistance" (what you wrote after this sentence indicates to me that you meant precisely that).

            Not only does this statement contradict all existing experimental evidence, but it contradicts even everyday experience. For instance, the acceleration of a car is evenly applied to the body of a person in the car, but the person tangibly feels the acceleration, i.e. the resistance his/her body offers (sometimes in cases of sudden deceleration that feeling is tragically tangible).

            A piece of all existing experimental evidence (mentioned above) is the resistance individual particles (e.g. electrons) offer when accelerated in particle accelerators.

            Good luck in the contest.

            Vesselin Petkov,

            "Unfortunately, what you wrote - "We do not feel acceleration if it is applied evenly to a body" - is simply not so, if by "We do not feel acceleration" you mean "We do not feel resistance" (what you wrote after this sentence indicates to me that you meant precisely that). ..."

            Yes I did mean that.

            "... Not only does this statement contradict all existing experimental evidence, but it contradicts even everyday experience. For instance, the acceleration of a car is evenly applied to the body of a person in the car, but the person tangibly feels the acceleration, i.e. the resistance his/her body offers (sometimes in cases of sudden deceleration that feeling is tragically tangible). "

            We feel a push in the back or front because it causes uneven acceleration resulting in deformation of our shapes. The example given is not an example of evenly applied force or acceleration. It is an example of unevenly applied force and acceleration.

            "... A piece of all existing experimental evidence (mentioned above) is the resistance individual particles (e.g. electrons) offer when accelerated in particle accelerators."

            This resistance demonstrates that particles have mass. We also have mass. My point is that objects with mass will not feel force or acceleration if it is applied equally over the entire body. The experience of undergoing evenly applied force or acceleration will not cause a feeling by which to know it.

            I can let this go. It is your blog. I made my point and I stick by it. Good luck to you also.

            James