The issue is whether Raju's semi-empirical model based only on special relativity is really new physics i.e. is it a new independent test of Einstein's 1916 GR or is it in fact something at GR can completely explain when properly applied?
Remember Einstein failed to make an SR theory of gravity in the early days. He was forced to using accelerated local frames (LNIFs).
Lorentz-invariant models (1905–1910)
Based on the principle of relativity, Henri Poincaré (1905, 1906), Hermann Minkowski (1908), and Arnold Sommerfeld (1910) tried to modify Newton's theory and to establish a Lorentz invariant gravitational law, in which the speed of gravity is that of light. However, like in Lorentz's model the value for the perihelion advance of Mercury was much too low.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
So I don't see how Raju's model will pass the classic tests?
On Apr 10, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:
As a former Mission Planning Engineer on Voyager, I find this very interesting.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:57 PM, JACK SARFATTI
I spent more time on your paper. It's very nicely written and needs to be taken seriously by the experts at NASA working on the flyby anomaly as well as astrophysicists working on galactic stellar rotation curves. It's still not clear to me that your equations differ from what GR would give in the post-Newtonian approximation. GR definitely has retardation time delays built in as well as rotational terms from the sources. What happens if you add Wheeler-Feynman advanced effects? - another line of inquiry.
On Apr 9, 2011, at 6:48 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Quick question (I have not yet studied your paper in depth) - are you sure that Einstein's GR in the post-Newtonian approximation does not already contain the new terms you use? Retardation is part of GR and there is a Lorentz force gravity analog as well as inertial frame drag near rotating masses. Magnetic fields are analogous to vorticity in a fluid and rotating masses cause gravity tornados so to speak. Are you claiming these GR effects will be too weak to account for the anomaly so there is some really new physics beyond the ken of GR? What about torsion for example?
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:57 PM,
Hello Jack,
Take a look at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.2945v2. If this is right (as I naturally think it is) there is definitely no need of dark matter, and probably no need of dark energy either. It is so simple, and done using only retardation. Comments welcome!
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.2945v2