Can you give a link to those please.
Puthoff took up an idea of Dicke's from 1957. "The claims have not been accepted in mainstream physics. [...] Mainstream physicists agree that PV is not viable as a unification of gravitation and electromagnetism not a "reformulation" of general relativity, not a viable theory of gravitation, since it violates observational and theoretical requirements." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizable_vacuumSee wikipedia references for reviews of PV, especially Ibizon. "The theory predicts a radiation power from a binary system that is 2/3 that predicted by GR, and so incompatible with observed orbital decay rate of PSR 1913+16." https://arxiv.org/pdf/astroph/0302273And Puthoff says just that immediately after equation (11).
Exact, I missed that. But it doesn't change the substance, see below. As I read it his PV approach is just another way of looking at GR and it gives results that agree with measurements to first order, as do other approaches.Wrong in what way? He acknowledges the role of the potentials. Isn't the gravitational potential at the position of the clock a "physical condition"?That may be your view but it is not mine. Smudge
The twin paradox is solved not only by special relativity, but also by general relativity. In this case the twin who turns around is subjected to centripetal acceleration, and by the principle of acceleration/gravity equivalence, its clock is seen by the twin at rest in the same way as if it were subjected to the same gravity value as the acceleration. Thus the difference in "gravitational" potential between the two will determine the clocks time lag. How does Puthoff explain this case, and the compatibility of PV with the principle of equivalence in general?
« Last Edit: 20190527, 07:52:54 by F6FLT »

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
