Discussion on the Referee’s Report on
Fundamental problems in gravitation and cosmology fixed from experiment facts
Article sent for publication in the Proceedings of the 5th Alexander Friedmann International Seminar on Gravitation and Cosmology,
Joao Pessoa 24-30 April 2002
The single relevant arguments of the referee’s are:
The paper ends with some remarkable conclusions, which, however, have
no observational support, as, e.g., every particle would expand in the same
proportion as the universe. Thus the relative distances and cosmological red
shifts cannot change with time'. This conclusion is basic for the author's
conception.
It is not true that the final conclusions of my article have no observational support.
On the contrary, we must sum up the observational support of the two gravitational approaches and the one of the new cosmological scenario.
For example:
a) The experimental relationships are supported by the results of all of the experiments done for testing the EP and the G theories (See references also).
b) The particle model used in the theoretical approach accounts for the basic relationships of special relativity and quantum mechanics and the G tests. Then the observational support of such theories can be added to the present work. (See the references).
c) The best observational support of the new cosmological scenario comes from the global consistency of the astronomical facts with the new cosmological scenario, given in the article and in the references.
d) The most important one seems to be the high proportion of black galaxies that should be absorbing energy from the space. They are obvious from the higher density of the universe, derived from (1), and compared with average density of luminous galaxies. They are obvious, also, from the radiation coming from the intergalactic space (Low temperature blackbody radiation, cosmic and gamma radiation), and with the anomalous velocities of luminous galaxies. Sooner or later the dark galaxies and the cumuli should be resolved in infrared light.
e) The lack of energy of the G fields is consistent with the failure of detection of the G waves. The black galaxies could not exist if their “uncharged” bodies could emit G waves. Notice that binary pulsars cannot be used for testing G waves because they must emit electromagnetic waves instead of G waves. Its bodies must be become electrically charged by the combinations of fields generated by the dynamical capture of plasmas. So far, quantum gravity has not given positive results.
It is obvious that the space given for the article was not long enough to give a detailed list of the observational support.
He believes that "the global increase of G potential should produce a G expansion of every particle, in just the same proportion, i.e., every ratio would remain invariable. Thus, the universe must look the same after the time." This, however, is incorrect. The author forgets that except of gravitational interaction there are the other forces of Nature, i.e., electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions. These forces fix the sizes of the units of length and time practically independently of the gravitational interaction. As a result the whole conception presented in the paper under consideration fails.
This argument, aside of being ambiguous, is not true in many respects:
1. The general phenomenon of “gravitational expansion” of matter produced by an increase of the G potentials does not come from any “belief”. It was precisely determined, exclusively, from the results of the most accurate experiments done for testing the Equivalence Principle (EP) and the gravitational (G) Time Dilation (GTD) phenomenon.
2. The referee assumes, as most people do, that the other kinds of “local” forces that exist between its particles can prevent the absolute expansion of particles.
This is not true because the results of the above mentioned experiments are entirely independent on the nature and strength of the internal forces that exist in the atoms and clocks. Then the phenomenon of G expansion of matter, derived from such experiments, does not depend on the variables mentioned by the referee. This is an experimental fact, not a belief.
3. It is not true that I have forgotten that “the local forces are independent on the G potential” This is obvious from the fact that my work is based on the EP, According to it, the forms of the “local” physical laws are independent on the G potential of the local system.
The referee has forgotten that “the local units are well defined only for strictly local conditions in which the differences of G potential between the object and the observer can be neglected”. This is because
1. The EP has been specifically tested only for such strictly “local” conditions, i.e., within small regions of constant potential (in which the differences of G potential are negligible.).
2. The GTD experiments prove that the frequencies of the standard clocks do change after a change of G potential, regardless of the strong forces that exist in the atomic and nuclear structure.
Consequently, “local” units defined by the local standards of one observer cannot be legally used for relating quantities measured by other observers that are located in different G potentials. This is because such observers have clocks that run with different frequencies.
The problem is similar to the one of the money unit of some country. The local coin cannot be directly used to buy in another country. The coin of each country is well-defined unit only in the corresponding country.
The referee has not proved that
that my work is incorrect. The same holds of the words “obscure and senseless” used in other parts
of his report.
It is obvious that the referee, the same as most of the referees do, does not accept the experimental facts just because they are in contradiction with the traditional hypotheses used in gravitation and cosmology. He does not realize that experimental facts have a priority against the current “beliefs” or hypotheses. The truth is not a matter of democracy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article, corrected for minor errors, was sent back for further consideration.
Here is the answer:
Subject: Friedmann Proc.
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:29:23 -0300 (BRT) Status: Normal
From: <[email protected]>
Dear Prof. Vera,
We have received and printed the third version of your contribution, thank you. However, it contains a lot of deviations of style and errors. Please, correct them
and send us the file once more. The main points to correct are the following.
1. After your name on p.1 there is "Fsica" for two times. Is it correct in Spanish, not Fisica?
2. In line 6 of the Abstract "consistent them" sounds strange. Do you mean "consistent with them"?
3. In line 11 of the abstract "rather infinite" sounds strange. Do you mean "more probably infinite" or "more likely infinite"? This is repeated also in the main text.
4. Only the first word in the Keywords start from a capital letter, the other ones from small letters.
5. The terminology G energy, G field should be explained at first appearance.
6. In the footnote to p.1 the address should be deleted and only e-mail address left: e-mail [email protected]
7. On p.2 and all the next pages the numeration of the sections
must be changed: 1.2 for 2 etc. Now all your sections are the
subsections of 1. Then your paper consists off 1 section only
that is strange.
8. All references on p.9 are prepared in violation with
WSPC style for references. Please, correct them in accordance
with the WSPC/Guidelines-IJMPA, p.5 (there you will find the examples
for all kinds of references).
I hope to hear from you soon.
Best regards
Vladimir Mostepanenko
Unfortunately my answer, with the corrected article, did not come on time for the printing.
However I enclose it here for didactical purposes.