[Fearther69]

I’m a newcomer. I was reading through the “commonly asked questions” part. I just wanted to ask what gravity is? Because in that section, it explains “why gravity doesn’t pull the earth into a spherical shape” and so I just wanted to clarify what the definition of gravity is in regard to that. 

[sandokhan]

I’m a newcomer. I was reading through the “commonly asked questions” part. I just wanted to ask what gravity is? Because in that section, it explains “why gravity doesn’t pull the earth into a spherical shape” and so I just wanted to clarify what the definition of gravity is in regard to that.

Terrestrial gravity is the absorption of aether by dextrorotatory subquarks (electrons/gravitons). The weight of an object is given by the amount of aether which is being absorbed. Antigravity is the activation of the laevorotatory subquarks (antigravitons/positrons) using the Biefeld-Brown effect, acoustic levitation or double torsion physics (implosion of the atom).

The formula W = mg is completely wrong: it reads W = V x D, where V is volume and D = 9.86 x d.

The 9.86 figure is the true DENSITY of the atom, nine subquarks and the connecting lines.

When the quark was discovered in the 60s, the formula W = 9.86m should have been modifed at once, as it was based on a 1x density concept. Since the proton (and the electron) is made up of at least three components, the three quarks/preons, the density becomes 3x, since a quark consists of three subquarks the density becomes 9x (+ the connecting strings).

AI (artificial intelligence) is the interface between the astral plane and the physical plane using extremely advanced microchips which can capture (using superconductivity) the information on the astral plane.

[Everette Graham]

Terrestrial gravity is the absorption of aether by dextrorotatory subquarks (electrons/gravitons).

Fairly certain that the aether was debunked in 1887. Not one serious person in modern physics uses the concept of aether. It's a dead idea and you're dragging its rotting corpse into this discussion. And what the hell even are subquarks? As far as I'm concerned, quarks are elementary particles. I don't see how claiming the existence of dextrorotatory subquarks is any more credible or worth entertainment than the claim that unicorns are the primary energy source for your toaster.

Antigravity is the activation of the laevorotatory subquarks (antigravitons/positrons) using the Biefeld-Brown effect

What does the Biefeld-Brown effect have to do with antigravity? It's electrohydrodynamics. Yes, because I will name this random phenomenon I found relating to charged particles creating motion in a dielectric medium and then act like it makes sense with what I'm talking about and it will make me sound smart!! And yeah I guess it would be something that'd be useful for small-scale propulsion systems, but I don't see where there's any relevance to antigravity or your subquarks. You're REALLY giving me the raging impression you're slapping a scientific term into your statement to make it sound credible.

The formula W = mg is completely wrong

No, it isn't. Not in the slightest. That has been confirmed countless times. Do you understand just how many fields of science and engineering depend on it? Satellites and rockets and weighing scales depend on that exact formula. You're rejecting all of modern engineering and physics right now.

W = V x D, where V is volume and D = 9.86 x d.

This is absurd. Volume and density determine mass, not weight. What's more ridiculous to me is that you're claiming that D = 9.86 x d. Where does this magic number 9.86 come from? Did you mean 9.81? Even if you did, multiplying it by "d" (which you haven't defined) doesn't create a meaningful formula. It's not tied to any physical constant, property of matter, or any actual measurement that I'm aware of.

The 9.86 figure is the true DENSITY of the atom

I don't even know what this means. Are you suggesting there's some universal atomic density? The density of an atom depends on its nucleus, electron cloud, and quantum mechanical properties. And it will be different for each element. Atoms are not, and cannot be, uniform blocks of matter. Sorry.

Antigravity is the activation of the laevorotatory subquarks (antigravitons/positrons) using the Biefeld-Brown effect, acoustic levitation or double torsion physics (implosion of the atom).

Again, just another jumble of unrelated and misunderstood terms. And for the second time, Biefield-Brown is ion wind propulsion, not antigravity. Acoustic levitation doesn't defy gravity. It uses physics to balance forces. It counteracts gravity on a very very small scale. Not sure what double torsion physics is. Possibly another meaningless term thrown in to sound sophisticated? Never have I heard of atoms imploding either. No experimental evidence or theoretical basis for antigravity as described here.

When the quark was discovered in the 60s, the formula W = 9.86m should have been modifed at once

Why? It had no impact on the formula. It didn't rewrite the laws of gravity. And what justification do you have for W = 9.86m being a replacement for W = mg?

AI (artificial intelligence) is the interface between the astral plane and the physical plane

You're seriously going to bring actual mysticism into this forum where people are trying to have honest discussions? AI operates ENTIRELY in the realm of compsci. There is no connection. None. Not one connection between AI and any "astral plane" or whatever the hell that is. AI, if you haven't forgotten, is also a human invention. It's algorithm and silicon. Please at least come in here with evidence. And goodness gracious, answer the question instead of ranting about your hypotheticals.

[sandokhan]

The Michelson-Morley interferometer is a Sagnac interferometer with almost zero area.

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141):



Dr. Patrick Cornille (Advanced Electromagnetism and Vacuum Physics, 2003, pg. 150-157) has provided a thorough examination of the fact that the Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer with zero area:




The positive (slight deviations) from the null result are due to a residual line/path/curve followed by the multiple path beam (the Coriolis effect registered by a Sagnac interferometer).


Subquarks have been discovered at Fermilab back in 1996:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”

You must accept that preons make up an electron, they are the "subquarks" of the electron.

Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, derived by Hermann Weyl in 1917 using the aether hypothesis:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2207577#msg2207577


Why 9.86 and not 9.81?

https://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/pratt_aether_grav.php#g3




Before 1964, the weight of an object is given as mg, where m = V x D (atomic level). After 1964, the weight of the object is mg/3, where m = V x D1 (quark level), D1 = 3D. After 1996 (when the subquark was detected at Fermilab), the formula becomes: W = V x D2, where D2 = 9.86D.

The density of an atom depends on its nucleus, electron cloud, and quantum mechanical properties.

As soon as the quarks had been discovered theoretically (1964) and experimentally (1967-1973), the density formula should have been changed at once. It is beyond belief and beyond understanding that not one of the physicists at that time had thought to himself: protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, that means that the density formula must change as well by a factor of 3.

This is from the chemistry and physics textbooks:

The density of an object is the mass of the object compared to its volume. The equation for density is: Density = mass/volume or D = m/v. Each substance has its own characteristic density because of the size, mass, and arrangement of its atoms or molecules.

The density of elements in the periodic table is a measure of the number of atoms and their mass when they occupy a certain volume of space.

And if that "arrangement" of atoms is modified, should not the density formula  be changed as well? Protons and neutrons consist of quarks, electrons are made up of preons.

W = mg = V x D x g in 1963

W = mg = V x D1 x g/3 where D1 = 3D in 1964 (1967-1973)

The remaining factor of g/3 = 3.28666 should have immediately reminded the physicists that quarks themselves are also made up of three smaller physical entities and that the connecting strings account for the decimal part (0.28666 or the 0.86 factor in 9.86).

Why? It had no impact on the formula. It didn't rewrite the laws of gravity. And what justification do you have for W = 9.86m being a replacement for W = mg?

But the discovery of quarks did modify, fundamentally, the notion of the density of an atom.

The density of an object is the mass of the object compared to its volume. The equation for density is: Density = mass/volume or D = m/v. Each substance has its own characteristic density because of the size, mass, and arrangement of its atoms or molecules.

The density of elements in the periodic table is a measure of the number of atoms and their mass when they occupy a certain volume of space.

That definition was given in terms of PROTONS! Density of 1x was conjured up thinking of protons as a single unit.

But then quarks were discovered: a proton actually consists of three quarks. It is right there and right then that the density formula must have been modified at once: we now have a 3x density, three quarks for each proton.

That is the atomic density is now 3x instead of 1x.

Since a quark has three subquarks, the density is now 9x. The connecting lines contribute the 0.86 factor:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2412867#msg2412867


Not Feynman, not even Miles Mathis have noticed this fundamental discrepancy in physics.

Protons, you have the pre-1964 notion of density, 1x.

However, in 1964 it was found out that protons have three quarks, at once then the density becomes 3x.

[RonJ]

I’m a newcomer. I was reading through the “commonly asked questions” part. I just wanted to ask what gravity is? Because in that section, it explains “why gravity doesn’t pull the earth into a spherical shape” and so I just wanted to clarify what the definition of gravity is in regard to that. 

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.  The larger the mass the slower that mass moves thru space time.  If you are standing on the earth the mass of your body is trying to go thru space-time at one velocity while the earth is going thru space-time at a slower velocity.  An inertial force is applied to your feet continuously to keep your velocity the same as the earth's.  The more your body mass, the more inertial force will be applied to reduce your velocity to that of the object with the higher mass (the earth).   

[sandokhan]

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.

There is no mechanism by which mass can affect space-time.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.


"The graviton particle is chosen with the right mathematical characteristic to quantize gravity in accordance with quantum field theory and general relativity. These attempts however, fail to account for the origin of space-time curvature. Specifically, how does a graviton produce curvature when propagating from one mass to another? Does the graviton move in an already existing 4D space-time curvature? If it does, how is the space-time produced by the graviton? If not, how is 4D space-time curvature produced? In other words, if the 4D space-time curvature is not caused by the graviton exchanges, then what is the cause?"


That is why Dr. Hermann Weyl, a mathematician ranks higher than Einstein or Dirac, had introduced non-riemannian geometry.

Weyl’s new geometry was much richer than the Riemannian geometry in both its mathematical and philosophical content. Mathematically, the new geometry introduced new quantities into space that had no analogy in other geometries. Philosophically, these new quantities, unaccounted for by Riemannian geometry and thus unaccounted for in General Relativity, were used by Weyl to represent electromagnetic phenomena. Every point in space, represented by a vector having both magnitude and direction, could be displaced to another point in the same space yielding electromagnetism. When only the direction of the vector was taken into account, ignoring the vector’s magnitude, there remained a parallel displacement of the kind described by Levi-Civita, which accounted for gravity. The difference with Weyl’s geometry lay in the fact that it was no longer necessary for a vector’s magnitude or length to remain constant while being displaced between points in space.

It is known that the metric component g44 acts like a gravitational potential used in Newtonian mechanics. For a static system (where gravity and electromagnetism balance each other out), it is almost expected that there should be a functional relationship between the gravitational potential and the electric potential φ. Weyl’s classical paper in 1917 examined a static electric field in curved spacetime with axial symmetry. He found that, if there exists a functional relationship between g44 and, φ it must be in the form of:

g₄₄ (φ)= φ² + C1φ + C0

Any field with this relation is known as a Weyl-type field.

Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf


Terrestrial gravity can be increased or decreased by modifying the voltage:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2207577#msg2207577


Modern physics cannot explain how or why the mass of a proton is attained by its three quarks components:

https://profmattstrassler.com/2024/07/22/the-standard-model-more-deeply-how-the-proton-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/

They are invoking TSR which does not exist.

Here is the Kassner effect, from Sagnac interferometry, which destroys TSR at once:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2234871#msg2234871

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2235136#msg2235136


A proton has nine subquarks (and a set of connecting lines). Each of those subquarks is an antigraviton.

An electron has nine subquarks. Each of those subquarks is a graviton.

But science has stopped at the level of a proton while counting the atomic density of objects. However, a proton has NINE subquarks and a set of connecting lines (which transmit the flux of bosons between the subquarks). The total number amounts to 9.86 units.

Then, W = V X D (where D = 9.86d, where d is the atomic density based on protons/electrons).

Here is the latest research on the nature of antigravitons and gravitons:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9202054

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.

Anti-graviton = laevorotatory subquark = positron

Graviton = dextrorotatory subquark = electron


The fundamental unit of gravity is the graviton, or the dextrorotatory subquark. And an electron has nine such gravitons (plus 0.86 units of connecting lines).

The fundamental unit of antigravity is the antigraviton, or the laevorotatory subquark. A proton has nine such antigravitons (plus 0.86 units of connecting lines).

[RonJ]

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.

There is no mechanism by which mass can affect space-time.

Apparently, you are unaware of the Eddington Experiment.

[sandokhan]

https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states:


In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft. But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected that he would claim deferment from military service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in England during the war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was, in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts of Cambridge of those days Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and others felt that Cambridge University would be disgraced by having one of its distinguished members a declared conscientious objector. They therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army... In any event, at Dyson's intervention as the Astronomer Royal, he had close connections with the Admiralty Eddington was deferred with the express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919, he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection of light... The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: "The Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance. All Trains in the Country to Stop," and "Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown."

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper [49] titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars

https://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. It is clear from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einsteins theory; he was only interested in confirming it. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant corruption of science, may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century and probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of all times.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

[sandokhan]

Modern physics claims that the electron has a charge of negative 1 or -1. Having seen that an "electron" is made up of preons, it then stated that those preons have "fractional charge".

However, as we have seen in the previous messages, the graviton itself (the right handed subquark) has a charge of -1. Which means that the "electron" actually has a charge of -9. When it is convenient to them, physicists will immediately state that the electron has a charge of -1, yet when they are confronted with the "fractional charge" problem, they will simply ignore the issue.

The same thing is occurring with the proton: we are told it has a charge of +1. Yet, when scientists see that quarks and subquarks have fractional charges, they again ignore the issue. However, theoretical physicists have found out that the smallest possible vortex (graviton/antigraviton loop) itself has the charge of +1 (left handed vortex) or a charge of -1 (right handed vortex)..

So, there are NINE individual "electrons" and NINE separate "protons" in the atom. Nine gravitons, each with a charge of -1, make up the "electron". Nine antigravitons, each with a charge of +1, make up the "proton". Nine separate charges. That is where the 9.86 figure comes from when describing atomic density: nine subquarks + 0.86 (the connecting lines). Each has a separate +1 or -1 charge.

[RonJ]

To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. It is clear from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einsteins theory; he was only interested in confirming it. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant corruption of science, may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century and probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of all times.

Even if you don't like Eddington for all kinds of irrelevant reasons the basic objectives of his original experiment have been independently verified multiple times over the years.  This last time was this year (MEE2024) using modern equipment.   

[sandokhan]

It's not what I might not like, it's the definite proofs that Eddington cooked the data (multiple sources).

Now, for someone to say that they have performed an experiment confirming Eddington's data would be to actually confirm his errors. So, the title of the experiment "Modern Eddington X" is somewhat unfortunate.

Problems with the MEE2024:

They used RE stellar parallax and proper motion data, not to mention differential relativistic aberration, using an outside source, namely the US Naval Observatory NOVAS program.

Moreover, FET also states that light will be affected by gravitational waves: both light (e/m) waves and gravitational waves propagate/travel together in double torsion fashion:



If the gravitational wave is influenced by any outside factors, so will the light wave, since they propagate together.


There is only one way to see if the MEE2024 also was arranged in such a way as to "confirm" Einstein's relativity equations. Are the Einstein field equations correct? If they are incorrect, then the data flies out the window at once.

More to the point, do the Einstein field equations apply to dynamical or only static problems? To make the analysis even easier, is there a bounded dynamical solution?


For the dynamic case when gravitational waves are involved, it has been proven in 1995 that the Einstein equation does not have any bounded dynamic solution. This has far reaching consequences.

A. Gullstrand, Chairman (1922-1929) of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics, did suspect that Einstein‘s equations are invalid because they cannot be derived from the approach of a solution for many-body problems.

he Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf


Incompleteness of General Relativity, Einstein's Errors, and Related Experiments

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc3d/acc6c279bbee452fd190067f1a50e0825414.pdf

General relativity is incomplete since it does not include the gravitational radiation reaction force and the interaction of gravitation with charged particles.  Moreover, there is no bounded dynamic solution for the Einstein equation. Note that the Einstein equation with an electromagnetic wave source has no valid solution unless a photonic energy-stress tensor with an anti-gravitational coupling is added. Thus, the photonic energy includes gravitational energy.

Historically, Einstein's confidence on his theory was based on that he obtained the remaining of the perihelion of Mercury from his equation. However, since the calculation of perihelion of Mercury is based on a perturbation approach to get the influence of other planets, Einstein must show that the perturbation approach is valid. Nevertheless, Gullstrand suspected that the Einstein equation does not have such a solution. Thus, Einstein was awarded a Nobel Prize for his photo-electric effects instead of general relativity as many theorists expected.


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf


https://www.scribd.com/document/159984022/On-the-Question-of-Dynamic-Solution-in-General-Relativity

The reason, as shown, is that bounded dynamic solutions actually do not exist. For the dynamic case, the non-linear Einstein equation and its linearization also cannot have compatible solutions.

The existence of a dynamic solution requires an additional gravitational energy-momentum tensor with an antigravity coupling.

The issue of dynamic solutions in general relativity existed from the beginning of this theory until currently. The question started with the calculation of the perihelion of Mercury. In 1915 Einstein obtained the expected value of the remaining perihelion with his theory, and thus was confident of its correctness. The subsequent confirmation of the bending of light, further boosted his confidence. However, unexpectedly the base of his confidence was questioned by Gullstrand, the Chairman of the Nobel Prize for Physics. The perihelion of Mercury is actually a many-body problem, but Einstein had not shown that his calculation could be derived from such a necessary step. Thus, Mathematician D. Hilbert, who approved Einstein's initial calculation, did not come to its defense.


The Errors in the Fields Medals, 1982 to S. T. Yau and 1990 to E. Witten

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e43d/4ca7c2c872d6cbe924ff0de77596670c7bc7.pdf


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253111937_Compatibility_with_Einstein's_Notion_of_Weak_Gravity_Einstein's_Equivalence_Principle_and_the_Absence_of_Dynamic_Solutions_for_the_1915_Einstein_Equation


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328719305_The_Weight_Reduction_of_Charged_Capacitors_Charge-Mass_Interaction_and_Einstein's_Unification


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307855795_On_the_Test_of_Newton's_Inverse_Square_Law_and_Unification_of_Gravitation_and_Electromagnetism_--_the_questionable_accurate_gravitational_constant_of_J_Luo_--


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234454208_Einstein's_Radiation_Formula_and_Modifications_to_the_Einstein_Equation


THE NECESSITY OF UNIFYING GRAVITATION AND ELECTROMAGNETISM, MASS-CHARGE REPULSIVE EFFECTS, AND THE FIVE DIMENSIONAL THEORY

https://web.archive.org/web/20170809101844/http://www.cqfyl.com/20080220.pdf


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289230809_The_Question_of_Validity_of_the_Dynamic_Solutions''_Constructed_by_Christodoulou_and_Klainerman


The Question of Space-Time Singularities in General Relativity and Einstein's Errors

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f37e/0331ac59feb7e5101f98da743f419a2b1d90.pdf
 

The American Physical Society and Errors in Gravitation

https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume17/3-The-American-Physical-Society.pdf


Comments on “Unification of Gravity and Electromagnetism by Mohammed A. El-Lakany” & Einstein’s Unification

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2530/bb8b8a98bba6feabeec908051bbb03e1d404.pdf


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252591908_Radiation_reaction_force_and_unification_of_electromagnetic_and_gravitational_fields


The non-locality of the gravitational wave reflects that the Einstein equation misses a term, the energy-momentum tensor with the anti-gravity coupling.  This missing term is
also the reason that the Einstein equation does not have any dynamic solution.

Dr. C.Y. Lo
PhD Mathematics, Queen's University
PhD Physics, MIT













On the question of a dynamic solution in general relativity

https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/magnetoacoustic-resonance-modes-in-coler-type-apparatus.pdf


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf


The Gravitational Wave and Einstein Equation

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354


https://www.scribd.com/document/122817396/Errors-of-Wald-on-General-Relativity

Dr. C.Y. Lo


A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf


The anti-gravitational coupling term for the Biefeld-Brown effect was derived for the first time by H. Weyl in 1917:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177793#msg2177793

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf


KHARUK-PASTON-SHEYKIN-OBUKHOV-PONOMAREV-KRECHET UFT: UNIFICATION OF THE GRAVITATIONAL AND ELECTROMAGNETIC POTENTIALS

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://www.academia.edu/16201568/Finishing_Einstein_Point_by_Point_The_unification_of_quantum_and_relativity
 

[RonJ]

There is no mechanism by which mass can affect space-time.

Even if you don't like MEE2024 and think that all the teams 'fake it till they make it' there are also lots of observations of gravitational lensing out there that illustrate the bending of electro-magnetic waves in the presence of very massive objects.

[sandokhan]

A. Gullstrand recognized the fact that the Einstein field equations are applicable only to static systems and not dynamical systems. That is why Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for TGR.

As early as 1917 experts in tensor calculus had found out about the flaws in TGR:

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

That is why, in that same year (1917), H. Weyl extended TGR by using non-riemannian geometry:

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

TGR is an incomplete, subluminal theory. What we need and want is a superluminal theory, which unifies electrodynamics with gravity.