I am quite happy to have received this email from my dear friend Victor.
Victor runs the sciprint.org, a preprint repository which lacks the nice black-listing amenities that Los Alamos Arxives takes so much pride.
Please, feel free to contact Vic to ask questions about the repository either by email: email@example.com or through the repository site URL: www.sciprint.org.
Please, visit the www.sciprint.org and delve deep into the astrophysics section. It is one of the few places where people with new ideas are allowed to post them.
This means that scientists are allowed to present preprints and receive feedback, positive or negative.
I am quite happy to say that the tone of discussion is quite polite and I have this letter to prove that feedback can be enlightening.
Below I present the very useful information I received from Vic when I asked the silly question about the existence of other non-GR theories that were consistent with the GR tests:
- Precession of Mercury Perihelion
- Gravitational Lensing
Eventually, I will read everything and find out what seems to be the problem.
There was a review paper which was especially interesting since it described certain things which I deemed incorrect. One of them are:
- An scalar theory - a theory when the Gravitational potential is an scalar- if it succeeds in satisfying the Precession test it will fail on the Gravitational Red Shift test.
Thank you MP, you're welcome. Btw, IMO it would be necessary to somehow presents your idea in the 'language' that astrophysics can understand, i.e. I offer you some references/citation to flat metric.For instance, if --let say- I can predict Mercury precession from purely quantum jumps, but without a 'metric', then chance is the idea will be ignored by astrophysics.If you use /introduce a kind of metric, then others can begin to 'test' your idea with standard proposition. (just read the fate of Hal Puthoff with his PV-theory as alternative to GTR, most physicists ignore his idea, only because it is different from GTR)
But of course, it is up to you.
Thanks for reply, yeah there is chance to explain Mercury precession within flat metric, but not very sure which is 'better' post-diction (not prediction) of the phenomenon.
You may try with googling, perhaps begin with Whitehead's theory . There is also recent article by Nishikawa on unification which includes such Mercury prediction for flat metric:
unification without assuming a phase transition nor a Higgs particle. ........ i.e., the angle of perihelion precession during a period is −2πγ ...
[PDF] arXiv:gr-qc/0611006 v1 1 Nov 2006
assumes the presence of a flat background metric η ..... on the perihelion advance of Mercury, and so Whitehead’s theory agrees with the data...
secular motion of the perihelion of Mercury, are relevant. ... Given Whitehead’s interest in separating the metric of GTR from the physics of GTR, ...
Alternatives to General Relativity (GR)
In Whitehead (1922), the physical metric g is constructed algebraically from the ..... conflict with the perihelion precession of Mercury and gravitational ...
Do any theories of gravity exist other than general relativity that are capable of explaining the perihelion of mercury's orbit? In particular, I would like ...
Whitehead’s Theory of Gravity
two metric, global flat background interpretation. .... post-Newtonian effects ( such as the additional perihelion shift of Mercury), viable theories ...
Up to know, my own belief is that this issue is closed, i.e. it is not only GTR that can explain the precession, although this problem is some kind of 'prerequisite' for anyone who is willing to compete with the standard GTR, such as yours ;-)
IMO, it would be a good idea if you write a paper discussing such a comparison between your own approach and other flat-metric theories toward Mercury precision. I mean with comparison, is head-to-head compare table down to minute until Pluto precession, and then let the readers see which one is the champion.
For a journal who may be willing to consider your work, you may begin with Apeiron (redshift.vif.com), or Progress in Physics (ptep-online.com). Not sure with other journals, but chance is you will get dismissed if trying to send to standard journals like Phys. Rev. Letter...no hope with them.
ps: Sometime ago Mr Kerr also explains this precession with his own method. you can dig for his article in sciprint.orgm if you wish. I forward this letter to him.