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.

• I meant to suggest... - bruce - June 22, 2003 - 01:30 UTC
• I read GR many times... - william_cao - June 22, 2003 - 13:17 UTC
  • Two PHD... - bruce - June 22, 2003 - 20:32 UTC
    • Well, I will try to answer... - william_cao - June 22, 2003 - 22:28 UTC
      • The orbit is a function of two things.. - bruce - June 22, 2003 - 23:45 UTC
        • OK...I was mowing the lawn... - bruce - June 23, 2003 - 00:15 UTC
          • It left out.... - bruce - June 23, 2003 - 00:17 UTC
          • NO... - william_cao - June 23, 2003 - 11:13 UTC
        • NO.. - william_cao - June 23, 2003 - 11:55 UTC
          • No.. - bruce - June 23, 2003 - 23:52 UTC
• Define r_rest - william_cao - June 22, 2003 - 13:31 UTC
  • No - bruce - June 22, 2003 - 20:11 UTC
    • Try to explain r_rest - william_cao - June 22, 2003 - 22:40 UTC
• Bruce... - william_cao - June 22, 2003 - 13:50 UTC