Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
You Need To Study GR...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Bruce on June 22, 2003 01:25:51 UTC

because r_rest is a meaningless term and you didn't answer my question. I'm going to leave it by saying a 'new way' to describe gravity is fine as long as the 'new way' makes predictions which are testable and subsequently verified by experiment and observation. In this case it better make the same predictions that GR makes in GR's domain of applicability. As far as arxiv.org. They used to review [check for gross errors] submitted papers but they eventually discontinued this practice due to lack of resources. Now you must be affiliated with an institution of higher learning or have somebody who is affiliated sponsor you. Apparently the affiliation, or sponsorship, must be wrt the field your paper discusses. A gross error would be deriving strong field physics from Newton's equation.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins