Talk:Nonsymmetric gravitational theory

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Reasons for the necessity of gravitational theory being a non symmetric[edit]

The simple reason is that a theory with symmetric metric tensor does not explain the dynamical friction of photons which in Riemannian geometry is exactly zero. Exactly zero (photons moving without any loss of energy which contradicts the conservation of energy) is obviously a non physical fact which means that Riemannian geometry can't be used as an exact theory of gravitation (though it can approximately describe Newtonian gravitation, as it does).

It turns out that the dynamical friction of photons can be exactly described by equation $H_{0}=c/R_{E}$ , where $H_{0}$ is Hubble constant, $c$ is speed of light, $R_{E}$ is the radius of curvature of space a.k.a. Einstein's radius of the universe. BTW, it is also the reason why all the attempts to explain Hubble redshift with Newtonian attractive forces through tired light effect failed. The Newtonian gravitational forces are the result of the time dilaton and not directly of the curvature of space. To make the curvature of space working in Newtonian approximation one has to apply the conservation of energy and only then the Newtonian approximation turns out to be sufficient to show the influence of the curvature of space on the redshift of photons. As we know the results are that in Einstein's universe there shows up the Hubble constant of order of 70km/s/Mpc, and so of order of Hubble constant of our universe, and with the same (apparent) "acceleration of expansion" ( $dH/dt=-H_{0}^{2}/2$ ).

Now, the dynamical friction of photons requires loss of energy during photon's travel around a closed loop, which is not possible in space with symmetric metric tensor of spacetime. That's why Einstein was forced to propose non symmetric metric tensor to separate himself from the silly idea of the Big Bang since it must have been obvious to him that with such good results as existence of right value of Hubble constant in stationary space the expansion of the universe make no sense. It also turned out that metric tensor of spacetime must be degenerate to resist diagonalization. And that's why we need a non Riemannian theory to describe gravitation. However even without it we understand gravitation sufficiently to explain all "mysterious" phenomena like "anomalous" accelertion of Pionieers. So we can turn to more interesting things than gravitation. Jim (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who thought this stuff is legitimate science, just take a look at the gibberish of the poster above. Moffat himself is lovely old man, and fits description of a mad scientist, but not exactly a crank. In his youger days he published many legit papers on gravitation and particle physics. But this stuff is borderline... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.240.157.37 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can judge scientific work on the basis of crank postings on discussion pages. Or on the basis of the author's personality for that matter, be it a "lovely old man", a "mad scientist", or a grumpy old man for that matter. There are many issues with Moffat's NGT/STVG/MOG that may or may not be resolvable, but they have nothing to do with his age or personality. Not to mention that NGT is one of those areas of physics about which he has published "legit papers" in his younger days, too. vttoth (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]