ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
One other thought, Bill. Your model, at least as it pertains to planetary motions (i.e., anything that "goes around the earth"), is going to have to match the predictions of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitation exactly, because any difference between the two will falsify your model. This is, of course, because Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitation describes those orbits perfectly. If your model predicts something different, it's going to be wrong—Q.E.D.
So—how are we going to distinguish between the two? How will we know which one is right? (Which is kind of a strange thing to say, since we already know N/E gravitation is right—maybe your model is "more" right, somehow?)
All being able to match the predictions of N/E gravitation does is get your model out of the starting blocks. Then, you're going to have to find some observation that GTR mispredicts, which will be hard, because for any macroscopic phenomena, there really aren't any. So I guess you're back to finding something quantum mechanics mispredicts, but…well, there really aren't any observations there, either. I guess you'll have to try to find something at the junction of the two, i.e., phenomena at really high energies, really tiny scales, or both. Which will be a tough sell, because you're going to have to point to observations that aren't well-defined and/or confirmed yet.
Well, I guess if your model had the correct value for the cosmological constant fall naturally out of it, that would be a major selling point. Maybe Nobel material. But, of course, if you want that prize, you're going to have to get it to convince someone a bit less numbskull-ish than moi. And besides, doesn't your model call for a universe that's static (i.e., neither expanding nor contracting)? If that's true, then your cosmological constant value is incorrect.
So I guess the only thing left, really, is to come up with a model that is vastly simpler and easier to comprehend than GTR, but at the same time matches observation exactly. And so far, I'd say you're getting further and further away from that goal with every "iteration" of your model.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
