Discussion on the article on Conflict between the gravitational field energy and the experiments
Article Sent to Physical Reviews
Discussion on the referee’s report
Referee. This is a lengthy paper (29 pages), a follow up to an old, also long paper published in 1981 in Int. J. of Found. Phys.
Author. The present paper is not a follow up of the old one because there are fundamental differences between the two approaches. The old one is a theoretical approach based on a particle-model while the present one is an experimental approach based on the EEP and the GTD experiments. Of course, the results of these papers are consistent to each other. They are necessarily lengthy because they cover a wide range of subjects.
Referee. In a very confusing reasoning the author claims to give a new foundation to the physics of gravitation different from Einstein's General Relativity.
Author. On the contrary, I find that the referee’s seasonings are very confused because they are based on the current theory based on a Newtonian (classical) hypothesis) that is not consistent with the experimental facts. The sole elimination of this classical error, itself, provides a new and more reliable base to the physics of gravitation.
Referee. He bases his arguments on the concepts of "local experiments", defined as those in which observer and objects are located at the same gravitational potential (p. 3), and on the gravitational frequency shift. The definition of locality is wrong: the gravitational potential can assume at an event any value, according the frame one chooses.
In the Equivalence Principle two events at a distance r are "near" if the product of r^2 by the curvature is small. Generally speaking, we know well that the gist of gravitation is the geometry of space-time; if this is neglected, as the author does, great errors arise.
Author. It is clear that the referee has twisted the original meanings of my words. Because when I say, “observer and objects are located at the same gravitational potential” it is clearly equivalent to say that there is not a difference of G potential between the observer and objects. Since no specific potential has been specified, then it is not necessary to state that they can be located in “any” G potential. It is assumed that the readers are intelligent enough to make unnecessary to say, very time, obvious remarks.
Therefore the referee’s arguments have nothing to do with anything wrong in my article. His obvious intention was to make believe to the editor in that everything in the paper is wrong.
The last part of his observation has nothing to do with my paper. However, from it, it is clear that he has sentenced to the ex-communion to most of the authors in the current literature just because they have not explicitly used space-time when it is not necessary to do so.
In the last part of the first sentence, the referee says that my work is based on the concept of “gravitational frequency shift”. This is literally true. But not conceptually true. He assumes, like Einstein did, that this shift occurs during their trips of photons. In my work I have not assumed anything. On the contrary, I have proved from reliable experiments, that such phenomenon is a consequence of different eigen-frequencies of atoms and clocks located in different potentials. Such changes do not occur during their trips between such places. They already exist before atoms and clocks may travel between the two rest positions.
Referee. No clear conclusion is given, nor there is any formal development needed to describe such a complex set of phenomena as gravitation in space-time. It is difficult to review a paper like this, so far from our current understanding and I'll confine myself to a few particular criticisms.
Author. For the referee the conclusions cannot be clear because he did not accept the experimental facts. Instead of that, he has insisted in using the theory on GR to interpret experiments that are clearly inconsistent with such theory. He does not understand that I cannot use the formalism used in GR because such formalism is incomplete, it cannot describe the true changes occurring to the bodies because it is inconsistent with the true experimental facts.
In the same paragraph the referee clear recognizes that the current “gravitation in space-time” is a “complex subject”. He has not realized in that such complexities come out just from the non-linearity that comes form the wrong hypothesis that is implicit in the traditional formalism. Without the G field energy the equations are linear so that most of the problems and complexities vanish.
However I understand his difficulty for reading my paper. This is because he is always thinking in that bodies are strictly invariable i.e., without admitting the slight possibility in that all of the bodies may change in the same proportion after the common change of G potential thus keeping every local ratio invariable.
He has not accepted the fact that in the GTD experiments do show that that the clocks located in different G potential run with different frequencies. This fact has nothing to do with eventual photons travelling between the clocks. He has not realized that wave continuity, which is the base of conservative properties of radiation, cannot be violated for the sake of conserving the mainstream of currently accepted theories, no matter ho popular or well accepted they are.
Referee. On p. 9 a position-dependent velocity of light is introduced, product of frequency by wavelength. I challenge the author to show how these two quantities can be separately measured; in effect, lengths are secondary and the time intervals primary. The velocity of light is one.
Author: Let us device the following thought experiment:
Assume that an observer is at rest in the surface of a static earth, without atmosphere.
The observer has two identical clocks in which there is a wave-cavity with a standing wave that has the proper frequency of some standard atom,
Assume that the observer A sends upward the clock, whose local rest mass is m, with some well-defined energy DE. Such clock would stop when its difference of absolute G potential with respect to the observer is Df = DE/m.
An observer B moving altogether with the clock does not detect, locally, any local change. So he assigns to his “local” speed of light, with respect to his local clock at B, the numerical value of:
cB(r) = nB(r) lB(r) = 1
Assume that some GTD experiments are made up just when the clock is in such new NL rest position. Assume that this sends signals after intervals of one million of cycles of the standing waves. According to them, all of the frequencies and wavelengths of the NL clock B and the wave cavity are blue-shifted in the proportion given in (4)(5) or (6)
Df (r) = Dn(r)/nA = Dl(r)/lA = (1/2)Dc(r)/cA =DE/mA(A)
Then the differences of frequency of the NL atoms and standing waves with respect to atoms and standing waves of the observer A can be directly verified either from GRS or GTD experiments.
The differences of the NL wavelengths can be directly verified from experiments on the deviation of light (G refraction.) or by interferometer methods.
The changes of the NL speed of light can be directly verified from time delays of electromagnetic waves, like light signals or radar pulses
Referee. On p. 4 it is said, "experiments prove that the eigen-frequencies of clocks at rest in different potentials are different". No: rates of good clocks are not different from each other (experiments to detect differences have given negative results.).
Author. This is not what I said in the article. I wrote: “the GTD experiments prove that the eigen-frequencies of clocks at rest in different potentials are different from each other”, which has a radically different meaning.
Thus I am not saying that “good clocks are different from each other”. This is an ambiguous statement invented by the referee. What is clear in my words is that “when clocks located in different G potentials are compared to each other, it is found that they are different compared to each other “
Notice that the referee took advantage of the ambiguity introduced by him to deny the positive results of the GTD experiments.
The referee forgets that the positive results have been confirmed everywhere in the current literature. Then it is false to say that such experiments have given negative results.
Referee. What happens is that an electromagnetic signal controlled by clock A generally arrives at B with a frequency different from the frequency of the same type of clock there; photons must do some work in moving around and their frequency changes.
Author. Here the referee has not demonstrated anything. In a very ambiguous way, he is tacitly using the theory on GR to explain the observed facts.
On the contrary, this statement shows several fundamental errors
The referee has forgotten that GR is also based on the hypothesis on the absolute invariability of matter after G potential change. Then, the positive results of the GTD prove that matter is not absolutely invariable and, therefore, all of the theories based on the classical hypothesis are inexact. This includes GR. Then he cannot use a questioned theory to deny an experimental fact that proves that such theory is wrong.. Notice, also, that he tacitly assumes that he believes more in GR than in the experimental facts, i.e., that GR is the last work,
He also forgets that the readings of the clocks do not depend on the frequency of any photon that may or may not travel between them. This fact is most clear in the Hafele-Keating experiments in which the readings of the clocks have been directly compared, before and after the experiment, at that same place. Thus no photons are used at all. The same is true for other experiments that use electromagnetic signals.. It is simple to prove that the measured time intervals between the signals do not depend on the frequency of the photons travelling between the clocks.
Independently of the above errors, his argument itself is also wrong because the presumed change of frequency of the photons is not consistent with the most fundamental and the best-tested property of radiation, which is “wave continuity”. According to it, the number of waves travelling between two static observers is conserved during their trips. Then, the static G field itself cannot be the source or the sink of new waves. Thus, in steady conditions, the same number of waves must cross each plane between the object and the observer. Then the frequency of NL wave, with respect to a clock in a constant G potential, is necessarily constant (Conservation law for the frequency of NL radiation with respect to well-defined observers).
This conservation law can also be verified by comparing the results of the experiments on GTD made up with clocks and GRS made with its atoms.
According to the EEP the “ratios” between the eigen-frequencies of a clock and of its atoms, located in a common G potential, are universal constants. Then the eigen-frequencies of the NL clocks and its NL atoms must be shifted in just the same proportion compared with the ones of the local clock at the observer’s potential. This occurs before any photon is emitted, Then the NL atoms must emit photons with such initial frequency shift with respect to the observer.
Since this is just the value measured at the end of the trip, then it is concluded that
“during the trip of radiation, its frequency, with respect to an observer in a constant G potential, is conserved”
Notice that the referee has made the dirty trick of replacing the well-defined GTD experiments made up with quasi-static clocks by other experiments done with photons travelling with the speed of light. Since the GTD experiments cannot possibly be consistently interpreted according to GR, then he substituted them for GRS experiments done with photon with the clear purpose of using the traditional misinterpretations of the GRS experiments. The last ones are obviously done according to the theory on GR.
Referee, I do not see how any part of this paper can be saved.
Author. I do not see how any part of the referee’s report can be fairly saved.
The referee has not fairly proved anything against the article.
Science is not a matter of faith. The referee’s arguments are based on his “faith” on the Einstein’s theory on gravitation. Thus he does not accept the experimental facts because it is opposed to the theory on GR. He clearly uses a VICIOUS CIRCLE that started, long ago, from the classical hypothesis that Einstein tacitly adopted in GR..
In spite of its errors, this referee’s report is a very valuable document. Because a careful analysis of it, can help to understand some of the main reasons for which these traditional errors in physics have been conserved for about one century (Conservation laws for the traditional errors?)