Joy Christian wrote:Q-reeus, as I pointed out in my previous post and what you yourself noted, the vector theory is not generally covariant, or background independent. That is all one has to know...

Right about Ssidvinsky's vector theory assuming a preferred background, but I never mentioned and you are wrong in claiming lack of general covariance. Evidently you never even got to read much of the Editorial, because if you had, here's what a few obviously GR qualified reviewers noted there (emphasis added):

It is indeed surprising that such a fundamentally different theory also passes the available tests of gravity without any free parameters, as is shown by the author with all necessary details. If true, this fact alone would make vector gravity a viable alternative to GR. In addition, vector gravity provides an explanation of the dark energy as the energy of the longitudinal gravitational field induced by the expansion of the Universe, and, with no free parameters, yields a value of the cosmological constant that is consistent with observations. Thus, according to this reviewer, vector gravity essentially resolves the dark energy problem. This is what we expect from a correct theory of gravity. Vector gravity also suggests a mechanism of/for matter generation at the Big Bang without involving additional fields and is free of space–time singularities, which is also remarkable.

A substantial part of the paper is devoted to comparisons of vector gravity with available tests. The comparisons are made according to Clifford Will’s book on ‘Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics’ with detailed calculations. The equivalence of vector gravity and GR in the post-Newtonian limit is shown, as is the lack of the preferred frame effects. The Cosmology section clearly demonstrates that vector gravity appropriately models universe evolution and gives a value for the cosmological constant consistent with observations...

How does it feel being part of the GR Mafia Joy - stonewalling and misrepresenting an 'upstart' with his, by all valid measures as per above, not only a viable but markedly superior alternative theory?

Ring a Bell? He he - I'm sure you won't take that bit too hard. I'm just a nobody after all, with a personal observation that sees an ironic twist.

...The calculation you have noted is irrelevant, even if correct.

How you can honestly write that is hard to fathom. Let me be clear - that finding of exponential form for redshift (previously done by others btw - including 1907 Einstein) is absolutely water-tight. And logically demands an exterior metric having that exponential form not GR's Schwarzschild metric, for a spherically symmetric mass.

Even if one tries to claim it only has relevance in SR setting, which would be a claim weak equivalence principle is invalid, it has a direct bearing on non-existence of so-called Rindler horizons. Therefore non-existence of Unruh-Davies effect. That alone would be no small deal.

I still prefer btw Yilmaz theory as it has no fixed background. But fully accept the final arbiter is agreement with experiment and/or observation. Feynman again:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rich ... man_160383As things stand though, Shidvinsky's vector theory is already shaping up to be the new champ. The dust has still to fully settle, but whatever the final verdict re GW results, only a theory with an exponential not Schwarzschild-type metric will triumph in the end. I won't quote Schopenhauer - but will link to one

:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arth ... uer_103608
[quote="Joy Christian"]Q-reeus, as I pointed out in my previous post and what you yourself noted, the vector theory is not generally covariant, or background independent. That is all one has to know...

[/quote]

Right about Ssidvinsky's vector theory assuming a preferred background, but I never mentioned and you are wrong in claiming lack of general covariance. Evidently you never even got to read much of the Editorial, because if you had, here's what a few obviously GR qualified reviewers noted there (emphasis added):

[quote]It is indeed surprising that such a fundamentally different theory [color=#FF0000]also passes the available tests of gravity without any free parameters, as is shown by the author with all necessary details.[/color] If true, this fact alone would make vector gravity a viable alternative to GR. In addition, vector gravity provides an explanation of the dark energy as the energy of the longitudinal gravitational field induced by the expansion of the Universe, and, with no free parameters, yields a value of the cosmological constant that is consistent with observations. Thus, according to this reviewer, vector gravity essentially resolves the dark energy problem. This is what we expect from a correct theory of gravity. Vector gravity also suggests a mechanism of/for matter generation at the Big Bang without involving additional fields and is free of space–time singularities, which is also remarkable.[/quote]

[quote]A substantial part of the paper is devoted to comparisons of vector gravity with available tests. The comparisons are made according to Clifford Will’s book on ‘Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics’ with detailed calculations. The equivalence of vector gravity and GR in the post-Newtonian limit is shown, [color=#FF0000]as is the lack of the preferred frame effects.[/color] The Cosmology section clearly demonstrates that vector gravity appropriately models universe evolution and gives a value for the cosmological constant consistent with observations...[/quote]

How does it feel being part of the GR Mafia Joy - stonewalling and misrepresenting an 'upstart' with his, by all valid measures as per above, not only a viable but markedly superior alternative theory?

Ring a Bell? He he - I'm sure you won't take that bit too hard. I'm just a nobody after all, with a personal observation that sees an ironic twist.

[quote]...The calculation you have noted is irrelevant, even if correct.[/quote]

How you can honestly write that is hard to fathom. Let me be clear - that finding of exponential form for redshift (previously done by others btw - including 1907 Einstein) is absolutely water-tight. And logically demands an exterior metric having that exponential form not GR's Schwarzschild metric, for a spherically symmetric mass.

Even if one tries to claim it only has relevance in SR setting, which would be a claim weak equivalence principle is invalid, it has a direct bearing on non-existence of so-called Rindler horizons. Therefore non-existence of Unruh-Davies effect. That alone would be no small deal.

I still prefer btw Yilmaz theory as it has no fixed background. But fully accept the final arbiter is agreement with experiment and/or observation. Feynman again:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/richard_p_feynman_160383

As things stand though, Shidvinsky's vector theory is already shaping up to be the new champ. The dust has still to fully settle, but whatever the final verdict re GW results, only a theory with an exponential not Schwarzschild-type metric will triumph in the end. I won't quote Schopenhauer - but will link to one :lol: :

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_schopenhauer_103608