Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by TonyYuan, Apr 2, 2020.
Unity based on , after the debate .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes, I look forward to GR scholars expressing their views. Three gravitation professors in my country were surprised after reading my paper. They tried to find the mistakes in the paper and had a long discussion with me, but they all failed in the end.
One professor asked me why we need your theory when we have GR. Can you point out GR’s mistakes?
My answer: GR is a mathematical model, mine is a physical model, and my theory is simple, clear and correct. In the calculation of the orbit of Venus, GR is wrong.
I hope my theory is wrong, otherwise it will challenge GR.
So because your theory will challenge GR , you hope it is wrong ? Why ?
Because if my theory is right, then GR will become history. This will affect the work of many GR scholars. Of course we will also open up a whole new era of physics.
There will be huge resistance to the renewal of the times, but once the obstacles are broken, science will develop rapidly.
Your point ?
New thinking has been going on for centries . Thousands of years . Science thinking evolves . In all ologies .
Newtonian gravity and GR have been recognized as correct theories in the world. Now someone has proposed a new theory. This theory has changed the Newtonian gravity equation and challenged GR.
If I were a bystander, I would think this is impossible.
Yet to you it is not impossible .
Yes, there have been 3 famous gravity professors trying to find the mistakes in my theory, but they have all failed.
The theory I put forward last year was finally rejected by Professor Richad of Austin, Texas. I discussed a lot with Richard, he is a dedicated physics professor, and he will always point out the mistakes in your thesis very quickly.
But this year, I proposed a new physical model of gravity, and he could no longer find any convincing mistakes.
The following is Richard's home page, I believe he belongs to one of the most authoritative GR scholars in the world.
Richard also believes that the eccentricity of Venus is very small and its orbit is very susceptible to external interference, but GR does not consider the eccentricity of Venus.
I asked Richard why GR didn’t need to think about it, but he still couldn’t give an answer!
Tony keep on devoloping your theory .
Yes, I will. Research Square has officially posted my paper. I am also trying to publish in journals, but the resistance from editors is very high.
No surprise .
You mean he chose not to reply to you.
I wonder why. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Research Square is a preprint service that does no peer review.
They are very clear that agreeing to print something does not endorse the content in any way.
I calculated that the Moon precession data due to the Earth's gravitational waves is 5500" per century.
Can anyone tell me the value calculated by GR ?
If you believe that the 8.6" figure is incorrect, it is up to you to show that. You need to compare your figure and GR's figure to the observational data. Until you've done that, you have no grounds for claiming that your theory is superior to GR.
The basis of my theory is gravitational waves, the gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun. The circular orbit of Venus is very susceptible.
I hope GR scholars can answer: If the orbital plane of Venus and the ecliptic plane are perpendicular, will the precession of Venus still be 8.6"?
The sun's rotation can also cause gravitational waves, but since the sun's revolution speed of 240km/s is much greater than its rotation speed of 2km/s, my physical model does not consider the influence of gravitational waves caused by rotation. If you need more precise calculations, you need to consider this factor.
Separate names with a comma.