In this thread the 'Reciprocal System' (RST) theory of Dewey Larson is re-introduced. The theory has been introduced on this forum before,most notable by member Excal but with little focus on the astronomical implications of the theory.

A general introduction of the theory was borrowed from K.V.K.Nehru:

GLIMPSES OF A NEW PARADIGM

For centuries mankind has held implicitly the view that we live in a universe of matter contained in space and time. All scientific theories hitherto have been built on this paradigm. Dewey B. Larson has introduced a new paradigm that motion is the basic and sole constituent of the physical universe, and space-time is the content—not the container—of the universe.

Introduction
The objective of this article is to introduce the physical theory being called The Reciprocal System. Its originator, Dewey Larson, starting from two Postulates as regarding the nature of the basic constituents of the physical universe and the mathematics applicable thereto, builds a cogent theoretical structure that lays claim to being a general theory. It is impossible to outline the whole theory in the short space of an article though.

Space, Time and Progression
The first of the two fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is

“The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.”

Larson considers speed, which is the relation of space and time, s/t, as the measure of motion and points out that a unit of speed is the minimum quantity that can exist in the universe of motion, since fractional units are not permitted by the Postulate of his theory. Since one unit of speed is the minimum quantity admissible, both space and time have to be quantized: unit speed must therefore be the ratio of a unit of space to a unit of time, each of which is the minimum possible quantity. Certain corollaries follow.

Corollary (1)
Firstly, we see that space and time are reciprocally related to speed: that doubling the space with constant time, for example, has the same effect on speed as halving the time at constant space.

Corollary (2)
At the unit level, not only is one unit of space like all other units of space, but a unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time. Larson postulates a total uniformity in the properties of space and of time, except for the fact that they are reciprocal aspects of motion. Thus he concludes that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that space, like time, progresses.

Now it is important to recognize that there is absolutely nothing space-like in the three dimensions of time: they are entirely temporal parameters. The common belief that time is one-dimensional is an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity in the equations of motion lies in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space.

The idea that space progresses in the same manner as time might look more weird than the idea of multi-dimensional time. Our immediate experience is that of stationary space. But history has repeatedly shown that our immediate experience of space has always proved to be a bad guide in understanding the true nature of the universe.

He points out that our experience of space as stationary is valid only locally (that is, in the context of a gravitationally-bound system). The true nature of space is to progress, to expand ceaselessly outward. Wherever gravitation (an inward motion) becomes negligible, weakened by distance, the inherent progression of space becomes apparent. The observed recession of the distant galactic systems stems directly from this space progression, not from any hypothetical ‘big bang.’ In fact, the observed Hubble’s law is derivable from the postulates of the Reciprocal System.

Since a universe of motion cannot exist without the existence of motion, the most primitive condition of the universe is the steady progression of space coupled with the progression of time: in other words, a motion at unit speed. Thus unit speed, and not zero speed, turns out to be nature’s starting point. Larson refers to this background space-time progression as the ‘natural reference frame,’ and identifies the unit speed with the speed of light, c.

Emergence of Physical Phenomena
By virtue of the fact that either the space unit or the time unit could progress inward, rather than outward as they do in the case of the space-time progression, speeds other than unity become possible. Larson points out that it is these deviations (or ‘displacements’) from the unit speed that constitute observable phenomena, namely, radiation, gravitation, electricity, magnetism and all the rest. These are autonomous, independent motions in contra-distinction to the ever-present background progression.

Some astronomical phenomena explained
Our state of knowledge thus far has disposed us to assume tacitly that motion means motion in space; the possibility of motion in time has never been imagined, much less investigated. While such motion cannot be truly represented in the conventional, spatial reference frame, it has nevertheless some observable features by virtue of the inverse relationship between space and time. For example, in a supernova explosion, if sufficient energy is available, Larson points out that some of the constituent matter of the star gets propelled to greater-than-unit speeds. The less-than-unit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding in space. On the other hand, the greater-than-unit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding in time (since it is a motion in time). In view of the reciprocal relation between space and time referred to above, this expansion in time manifests itself to us as contraction in space and we observe this component as a superdense and compact star. Thus we have the red giant/white dwarf combination so frequently found as supernova product.

Larson’s theoretical investigations show that the same concept of motion in time can explain every other type of superdense astronomical phenomena, not just the white dwarfs. He shows that as age advances, the central regions of massive galaxies keep on accumulating motion in time (since greater than unit speeds do not involve movement in space, this matter does not leak out). When enough energy accumulates, it results in a stupendous explosion in which the central part(s) of a galaxy gets ejected and is found as a superdense star system, which, of course, is observed as a quasar. All the strange and unconventional characteristics of quasars—like their high density, large redshift, stupendous luminosity, jet-structure, peculiar radiation structure, evolution—can be deduced from the theory.

We have seen that the null condition of the universe of motion is unit speed and that a ‘displacement’ from this condition takes the form of either less than unit speed (s/t) or greater than unit speed (the latter being equivalent to less than unit inverse speed, t/s). Larson identifies this displaced speed with radiation, and the speed displacement with its frequency. While the photon gets detached from the background space-time progression in the dimension of its oscillation, it does not have any independent motion in the dimension of space perpendicular to the dimension in which the vibratory motion occurs. Thus the photon is permanently situated in the space unit of the space-time progression in which it is created. But from the context of the stationary spatial reference frame any location of the space-time progression appears to progress outward (away) at unit speed. Thus, while actually the photon is stationary in the natural reference frame, ostensibly it appears to move away at unit speed. Incidentally we might note that, when in a single process a photon pair happens to be created, while the individual photons seemingly appear to fly off in space in opposite directions, they continue to be connected in time. This results in a correlation between them that is not representable in three-dimensional space (the EPR paradox).

Once photons are available, the possibility of a compound motion appears wherein the photon could be subjected to a rotational displacement in two dimensions (covering all the three dimensions of space). Larson identifies such units of compound motion with the atoms of matter. Because of the two facts that the maximum possible speed is unity and that the background space-time progression is already taking place at that speed in the outward (away from each other) direction, all autonomous (independent) motions (speeds) have to take place in the inward (toward each other) direction only. Thus the units of rotational displacement start moving in the inward direction, reversing the pattern of space-time progression. Larson identifies this inward motion with gravitation. We now see that there is no propagation involved in gravitation, nor it can be screened off: it is the inherent motion of each atom toward every other atom—in fact, toward every other location of the space-time progression, whether or not occupied by an atom. The non-existence of propagation time and the seeming action-at-a-distance, both owe their origin to the above fact.

The Regions of the Physical Universe
An interesting fact that needs special mention is that the rotational displacement that constitutes the atoms could be either of the less-than-unit-speed type or the greater-than-unit-speed type. In either case gravitation acts inward (in opposition to the outward progression of space-time). But in the case of the former type of atoms, since less-than-unit speeds produce motion in space, gravitation acts inward in space, resulting in the formation of aggregates in the three-dimensional spatial reference frame. Larson calls this portion of the universe the material sector. On the other hand, the atoms constituted of greater-than-unit speeds manifest motion in time. The resulting gravitation acts inward in time, and produces aggregates in the three-dimensional temporal reference frame. Larson refers to this matter as cosmic matter, their inward motion in time cosmic gravitation, and this portion of the physical universe the cosmic sector. We therefore discover another half of the physical universe where all the phenomena pertaining to our sector are duplicated, but with the roles of space and time interchanged. Even though cosmic matter occurs as ubiquitously and abundantly as ordinary matter we do not encounter it readily. Firstly, the atoms of the cosmic stars and galaxies are aggregated in three-dimensional time but are randomly distributed in space, so that we see a cosmic star not as a spatial aggregate, but atom by atom. Secondly, while the cosmic gravitation moves the cosmic atoms inward in time, our own matter progresses outward in time. Thus, even the chance of encounters of atoms with cosmic atoms do not last for more than one natural unit of time (about one-seventh of a femtosecond).

CMB
A further fact of interest is that while the radiation emitted by the stars of our sector is at a high temperature, that emitted by the cosmic stars would be at a high inverse temperature, that is, at a low temperature. Since radiation moves at unit speed, unit speed being the border between both the sectors of the universe, it is observable from both the sectors, in whichever sector it originates. Therefore, the radiation emitted by the cosmic stars, as it comes from a region not localized in space, is received in the material sector (that is, the three-dimensional spatial reference frame) with an absolutely uniform and isotropic distribution. We observe this as the low-temperature, cosmic background radiation. In the Reciprocal System, we find no necessity to reconcile the absolute isotropy of this background radiation with the clumpiness of the spatial distribution of the material aggregates.

The Grand Cycle of the Universe
We have already mentioned that quasars are the high (greater than unit) speed explosion products of aged galaxies. When gravitation in space is attenuated by distance (time) and becomes negligible, the quasar as a whole shifts from the region of less than unit speed (conventional spatial reference frame) to the region of greater than unit speed (the three-dimensional temporal reference frame). Gravitation ceases to act in space and starts acting in time. This leaves the outward progression of space-time without check (as there is no inward progression of gravitation in space) and the constituents of the quasar start flying out in space at unit speed. Eventually the quasar ceases to exist as a spatial aggregate and disappears altogether from the material sector. In other words, the atoms of the erstwhile quasar emerge into the three-dimensional temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector at totally random locations (in time).

The corollary is that similar set of events occurs in the cosmic sector—cosmic atoms aggregate in three-dimensional time forming cosmic stars and galaxies, parts of which explode on attaining a size limit and eject cosmic quasars, which eventually exit the cosmic sector and end up entering the material sector. Since they come from a region not localized in space, these incoming cosmic atoms would be uniformly and isotropically distributed throughout the three-dimensional space. Since the transfer occurs at the unit speed we ought to observe these particles at unit or near-unit speed. These, of course, are the observed cosmic ray primaries.

The Reciprocal System traces out in detail how these cosmic atoms, being greater-than-unit-speed structures in a less-than-unit-speed environment, promptly decay, ejecting speed (energy) and ‘cosmic mass’ (that is, inverse mass), finally ending up as the most primitive atomic structures of the material sector, namely, hydrogen. Then the entire cycle of aggregation in space and eventual ejection begins. In the long run, as much matter comes from the cosmic sector as it leaves the material sector. Thus the dual sector universe as a whole is in equilibrium and steady state, while each sector continues to expand in space or in time as the case may be. There is no necessity to assume the singularity of a ‘big bang’ nor to breaking of any conservation laws as in ‘continual creation.’

No space left for conclusion... Hopefully enough introduction of the theory is given to start a discussion with a focus on one of the highlighted phenomena.

You might want to check out this thread.

I personally like this idea.

I've called it supersupersymmetry in the past. And we've had threads about Larson's work before, as you note. But we will check out those old threads to make sure that there is new material here. Here are some links:

Hybrid Fisson/fusion Reaction Engine
Universe of Motion-Unified Theory and Astrophysics
FINAL SOLUTIONS For MOST Astrophysical Mysteries
The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory
Supernova vs. Condensation (narrow RST/Larson focus)

I've found a couple of websites, and a wikipedia article too:
http://rstheory.com/
http://reciprocalsystem.com/

Will you show how this model can successfully replace things such as General Relativity, or Quantum Electro-Dynamics? By providing quantitative predictions?

Sure, no problem. In this theory there is no need for General Relativity as gravity and inertia are an intrinsic scalar motion of mass that offsets the progression of space as shown in the given introduction.

The predictions from GR are easily repeated with this theory, for instance gravitational deflection of light: the following article shows that the results from GR should actually be corrected with a factor 3/pi: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/deflect.htm .
and this article show that the results for the precession of planetary perihelia are identical between this theory and GR: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/c...planetperi.htm

As for quantum theories, I have left that out of the introduction, but that is caused by motion in time instead of space. A nice introduction to that is given here: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/qmtr.htm

Sure, no problem. One liner explanations:

GR: In this theory gravity and inertia are an inward scalar motion of matter that offsets the expansion of space, so there is no need for a GR theory though the predictions from GR can be easily repeated and corrected.

QM: Quantum phenomena in this theory emerge from the mechanics of the time region (that is motion inside a unit of space). The Schroding equation and others can be easily derived.

Made a post about that with some links, but that is awaiting approval by a moderator.

I'll chime in here, not as a defender of this theory, but that I like it so far also. It has the same sort of elegance to it that Einsteins work does.

Mostly I like it as it goes in line with my thoughts that somehow gravity and repulsion are linked. And also that gravity/repulsion are simply a property of space time, and not a force.

It seems to address the issue that Gravity has never been unified with the other forces. (Which has always been a good indicator to me that treating Gravity as a Force, while it works, is barking up the wrong tree)

I'll be watching this thread with interest.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

I hope it's acceptable to ask question about ATM stuff, not related to proving or disproving it.

I've gone through the paper the hhEb09'1's original post linked too. And something jumped out at me right away.

On Table 1, of page 3, the chart of the elementary particle's. If I'm reading this whole thing correctly, it literally predicted the three forms of the neutrinos. (Well 7 forms actually, but as neutrinos are their own anti-particle this reduces them to three)

My question is, am I reading that correctly?

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Great. So can you show how you obtain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury? The time dilation observed by GPS? The bending of star-light by the Sun? I'm looking for quantitative answers.
Will you be showing this?

Yes, that is shown in the second link I posted before. The results of GR and RST are identical.

I thought that was done with both SR and GR. The Lorentz formula's come out of RST theory identically. Difference between SR and RST is that RST holds that the Force term goes to zero at c and not that the relative mass goes to infinity. The mass value remains constant. The gravitional dilation from GR will come out identical too as shown in the second link I posted.

That is shown in the first link I posted. RST shows that GR is off by a constant factor 3/pi. To quote from the article: "The value calculated from the Reciprocal System formula, for the sun, is 1.67 arcsec, whereas the General Relativity value is 1.75 arcsec. The reported values vary from 1.5 to 1.8 arcsec."


Will you be reading the links I posted? I'll be happy to explain terminology or refer to more theory basics.

Typically, you can assume nothing read but what you have posted in this thread. ATM is for advocacy, not for advertising a website.

That being said, I think you'll find that BAUT has a lot of people who are happy to spend many hours critiquing and studying ATM ideas, even on other websites.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Same for me tusenfem.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

The elegance in the theory comes from the postulate that the role of space and time is exactly (point) symmetrical. The mental hurdle that has be taken is to realize that the theory postulates that the sole constituent of the universe is motion, so the natural reference system is also dynamic. It means the vacuum is defined as space and time moving in a unit(lightspeed) scalar(all directions) ratio. This is the motion we observe in far away galaxies that are out of the influence of other galaxies gravity. No need to postulate a Big Bang with all its complications.
In the theory motion comes before forces. Motions can be interpreted as forces through the Newton formulas when mass is involved.

I'm having problems as well.

Thank you. It is nice to find an unequivocal claim in ATM that we can compare to observation.

If you look at this page, you will see that using modern techniques, the deflection matches GR to within 0.01%. As this lies well away from the value predicted by RST (this differs from the GR prediction by more than 4%), can we agree that RST is wrong?

That's fine if those are the rules and everyone adheres to that, but it will definitely slow down the discussion.

Let's start with an explanation of excess planet perihelion procession by fast moving planets in RST theory.

PRECESSION OF THE PLANETARY PERIHELIA DUE TO CO-ORDINATE TIME

1. Introduction
The first of the two Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is:

“The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.” [1]

The primary implication of the Postulate is that the properties of either space or time are the properties of both space and time, except that space and time are reciprocally related as motion. This means, inter alia, that space is a progression like time is, and that time is three-dimensional. While the space progression is observable as the recession of distance galaxies, the three-dimensionality of time is not so directly apparent.

It is essential to note that the three dimensions of time are not the spatial dimensions: nor is there anything space-like in them. In any situation, the total time comprises of two components: (i) the clock time, which is a uniform progression and (ii) the three-dimensional coordinate time(analogous to the three-dimensional coordinate space of a stationary reference system).

Besides other things, the concept of coordinate time in the Reciprocal System explains and derives the characteristics of supernovae, the white dwarfs, the pulsars, the quasars, the compact X-ray sources and the cosmic rays–without taking recourse to concepts like degenerate matter, the curvature of space-time, etc... All the so-called Relativistic effects come out, in the Reciprocal System, of the existence of this additional time component.

In fact, the effect of the excess advance of the perihelion of an orbiting planet arises out of the accumulation of the coordinate time from its orbital motion. “As long as the orbital velocity is low, the difference between the clock time and the total time is negligible, but the velocity of Mercury is great enough to introduce an appreciable amount of coordinate time and during this added time the planet travels through an additional distance.”[2]

2. The Theoretical Evaluation
According to the Reciprocal System, an independent motion (like gravitation) of speed v has associated with it an increase of coordinate time amounting to v²/c² unit per each unit of clock time (c being the speed of light). In order to calculate the excess orbital movement, Larson argues like this: “Since the gravitational motion is inward(=towards any point of reference), the scalar space-time direction of the orbital motion is outward, and the computed time increase is radial. To obtain the circumferential space equivalent of this linear time increase, we must multiply by ¶.”[4]

Thus, according to Larson the total coordinate time increase is ¶ v²/c² s/s. In the quotation just cited, what Larson states regarding the scalar direction of the orbital motion as being outward, is understandable. But what the expression “the computed time increase is radial” is expected to connote is difficult to see. For, “...no matter how many dimensions it may have, time has no direction in space.” [5] To be sure, it is true that time has a property called ‘direction in time’, but this is a purely temporal property and ‘directions in time’are not in any way determined by directions in space. Consequently, the coordinate time increase associated with gravitation (or with any independent motion) is a scalar addition. The words “...to obtain the circumferential space equivalent of this linear time increase, we multiply by ¶,” do not, therefore, depict the truth, except pointing out that the necessity of having to include in the calculations a factor amounting to ¶ has been recognized.

The true state of affairs can be understood if we recall that gravitation is a three-dimensional scalar motion. If v is the gravitational speed, then the coordinate time increase per each scalar dimension is v²/c². The total coordinate time increase, therefore, is 3 v²/c². The orbital motion of the planet is one-dimensional (scalar). As such, the effective coordinate time increase, as applied to the orbital motion, is 3 v²/c². The same is true in any other case where the motion is one-dimensional, like, for example, that of a photon grazing the sun. On the other hand, if we are considering the effect of the coordinate time increase due to gravitation on an atom situated in the gravitational field, the result is different. Since the atomic rotation is three-dimensional, the coordinate time increase effective per dimension is 3 v²/c² / 3 = v²/c² only. This is the value which causes the gravitational redshift, for instance.

Thus, the rate of coordinate time increase at any speed v is given by:

dt_c/dt = 3 v²/c² s/s (Eqn. 1)

where t_c represents the coordinate time and t the clock time.

Now, consider the elliptical orbit of a planet around the sun, with the sun situated at the focus. The equation of the ellipse in polar coordinates, with the center at the focus is given by

l = r(1- e cos(ø)) (Eqn. 2)

Where:

• r = the radial distance of the planet, at any angle ø measured from the perihelion
• l = the semi-latus rectum = a (1 - e²) (2-a)
• e = the eccentricity of the ellipse
• a = the semi-major axis

In an earlier article [6] K.V.K. Nehru has pointed out that (derived from the escape velocity) the gravitational speed, v, at a distance r outside of a mass M is given by:

v² = GM/r (Eqn. 3)

where G is the gravitational constant.

Using equations (1), (2), & (3), we have the rate of coordinate time increase at a given location on the orbit as:

dt_c/dt = 3 GM/rc² = (3 GM/lc²)(1+e cos(ø)) (Eqn. 4)

in units of s/s or radians/radians. The incrase over an angle of dø radians is:

dt_c/dt dø = 3 GM/rc² = (3 GM/lc²)(1+e cos(ø)) dø radians (Eqn. 5)

Therefore, the total increase from ø = 0 to 2 ¶ radians (that is, one revolution) is the integral of Eqn 5, which reduces to:

3 GM/lc² 2 ¶ radians / rev = 3 GM/lc² rev/rev (Eqn.7)

(Note that equation (7) is applicable to parabolic, as well as hyperbolic orbits with l as the semi-latus rectum). Finally, using relation (2-a), the perihelion advance, according to the Reciprocal System, is given by:

dRS = 3 GM/ac²(1-e²) rev/rev (Eqn.8)

The corresponding formula from the General Relativity is:

dGR = 12 ¶²a²/P²c²(1-e²) rev/rev (Eqn.9)

where P = the orbital period of the planet. In order to compare the two formulae, we use the relation:

GM = 4 ¶²a³/P² (Eqn. 10)

for the solar system. Then equation (8) becomes identical to the Relativity expression, given in equation (9).

References

1. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1979), page 30.
2. Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1964), page 85.
3. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., pages 99-100.
4. Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton, op. cit., page 126.
5. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., page 73.
6. Nehru, K.V.K., “Gravitational Deflection of Light Beam in the Reciprocal System,” Reciprocity XI (1), Spring 1981, page 28.

I'll be happy to anwers any questions regarding the differences between scalar and vectorial motion and different systems of reference to e.g. clear up terminology.

Please show me where I can find the 1.75 number in the articles. Also, I have no opportunity to read paid journals so please do not refer to them or copy the material, just like I have to do here.

There is difference of interpretation on the correction factor 3/pi as you can read in the article I listed just before this post. It has to do with the correct geometric interpretation of the time region when viewed from the space region. In case the correction factor is an incorrect interpretation the deflection results would be identical to GR, just like in the formula for precession of planet perihelia. I'll have to consult the current experts on that since the listed article is from 28 years ago.

Here is a more recent paper (well, it's the preprint version of the paper that was/soon will be published) that includes a wide review of many tests of GR, not only the deflection of light: Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Recent Progress and Future Directions (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract).

There's a lot in that paper, but I think you'll find enough in the way of summaries of references to learn that modern estimates of the deflection are within ~0.01% of that predicted by GR, as Fortis said.

To repeat the question: in light of these many, precise and accurate, results, can we agree that RST is wrong?

If you have any more questions on any of these observations or experiments, why not start a thread in the Q&A section? There are more people who read threads there than here, and you're pretty sure of getting answers to well-posed questions that are as extensive and detailed as you need.

So, to get any theory openly discussed on the ATM threads, I first have to prove GR wrong? Here is one: RST predicts that there are no gravitional waves since gravitation does not have to propagate. Now show me a measurement of the propagation speed of gravitational waves within <5% error.

You claimed that RST's prediction differed from GR's by a factor of 3/Pi. Observational evidence (thank you Nereid for the link to the paper), shows that this is is not correct. Do you want to withdraw this claim? If you do, then what does that imply about RST?

We don't have a direct detection of gravitational radiation, but we do have the observations of binary pulsar systems. The orbital period of two pulsars was measured by Hulse and Taylor. They found that the orbital period was decreasing within 0.2% of what would have been expected if they were radiating gravitational waves exactly as predicted by GR. They won the Nobel prize for this work.

Does RST do as well?

I don't think so; may I ask how you formed that opinion?

All that Fortis asked* was could you show that your ATM idea could match the observational and experimental results, to within the estimated errors/uncertainty of those results, where 'results' means (something like) 'as they appear in relevant, peer-reviewed papers'. All I did was find a paper that you can obtain for free (modulo the cost of your time on the internet, etc) which presents at least some of these results, and contains references (which you can obtain easily, using ADS for example) where more such results may be read.

In addition to the observations Fortis mentioned (and there have been many since, of several binary pulsars, including one double pulsar), there is - I think - at least one paper on an estimate of 'the speed of gravity', from observations made using solar system objects (I may be mis-remembering, of course).

* at least, that's my understanding

As Nereid comments, you don't have to prove GR wrong to discuss anything here, you are expected to support your claims. It's reasonable to assume that if you are proposing a theory that will replace GR it can at least do all that GR can and more.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

That's no measurement of gravitional waves. That is a match of energy loss.
So, now the next hurdle for any ATM theory is to repeat all Nobel prices?

I have another one: RST can qualitatively and quantitatively predict the behaviour of quasars and pulsars. Actually, Dewey Larson predicted quasars in 1959 as the exploding cores of galaxies before they were identified as such. Now can GR do that?

I have told that there is a geometric difference of interpretation on the 3/pi correction factor, so let's withdraw that claim until that discussion is resolved after consulting with the experts.

The implication for RST is that the appropriate geometry of the combined space/time regions is still under discussion. There are three schools of thought:

1. pure Euclidian (Larson's, conceptually difficult wrt. to combined scalar/vectorial motions)
2. Projective geometry (Peret's, the most promising one)
3. 3D scalar/pseudoscalar oscillations (Bundy's, in initial stage of development)

Since the theory is still in development this is quite natural.

So RST doesn't match the GR predictions for the binary pulsar system?

This leads to a question of my own, although it's just another way of asking one of Fortis', I think.

To what extent can your ATM idea match the sets of observations of pulsars, particularly the binary pulsars?

For avoidance of doubt, by 'match' I mean quantitatively, within the estimated errors; and by 'observations' I mean the timing data, from radio telescopes.

I was not aware that quasars had been identified "as the exploding cores of galaxies". Do you have some online material on this, that I may read?

What "behaviour of quasars and pulsars" can RST predict, quantitatively? As in, what are the predicted observables?

I too am rather curious about your comment that you can successfully reproduce all observed features of quasars. Does that include the >20,000 km/s broad line emission from optical and UV lines (Hβ, C IV, Mg II, etc.) seen in some objects? Does it include broad, blue-shifted absorption lines? Does it include high-ionization iron emission? What about narrow-line quasars? What about low redshift (z<0.1) quasars, or high redshift (z>5) galaxies?

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

The peculiar characteristics of white dwarfs, quasars and pulsars come from motion in time, which is motion in excess of lightspeed.

Larson's work on quasars and pulsars can be found here:
http://library.rstheory.org/books/qp