Please note this article is under review. It is not yet approved by the editorial committee, which reserves the right not to publish.
Astrophysics at the Galactic Center appears to counter General Relativity
Observed emissions of stars orbiting about Sagittarius A* appear to contradict General Relativity. Time resolved images exhibit no evidence of gravitational distortions due to gravitational light bending effects, as predicted by General Relativity. Findings show that fundamental principles of Mathematical Physics may have been seriously misapplied to the conventional understanding of gravitational lensing.
For an abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AN....328..186D
The findings reveal serious flaws in the design of modern lensing tools and gravitational lensing concepts frequently used by the astrophysicists to estimate the gravitational effect on light rays. Fundamental principles of Mathematical Physics have been found to be either misapplied to the gravitational Lensing concepts or just simply ignored. This has apparently lead to flaws in the understanding of the gravitational bending effect on rays of light from sources in the vicinity of the "point-like" super massive object at Sagittarius A*, believed to be a black hole. The astrophysical evidence clearly shows that General Relativity is contradicted as can be seen in time resolved images of the rapidly moving stars orbiting about the super massive core of the Milky Way galaxy recorded since 1992.
The important points here are that the fundamental principles of Mathematical Physics, namely,
1) the fundamental principle of the analytical Gaussian Surface Law, applied to gravitation, the analogy to its application to electromagnetism, and
2) the fundamental principle of optical reciprocity applied to rays of light, an essential tool for the understanding of and the design of complex optical systems,
all have been virtually ignored or misapplied to gravitational lensing concepts. These fundamental principles clearly show that a co-linear alignment of the observer, the lens and the source is totally unnecessary for any observation of a light bending effect, as would be predicted by the light bending rule of General Relativity.
The most significant finding of this research is that this astrophysical phenomenon appears to counter the gravitational light bending rule of General Relativity and does not appear to exhibit any evidence of lensing of any rays of light emitted from the rapidly moving stars orbiting about the super massive galactic center. The findings clearly show that fundamental principles of Mathematical Physics, Gravitation and Electromagnetism may have been either misapplied to conventional concepts of gravitational lensing or just simply ignored. Details may be found at: http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
-
24/01/10
The Known Universe
-
11/09/08
Large Hadron Rap
-
02/04/08
Meteorites Rich in Amino Acids
-
01/04/08
New Organic Molecule in Space
-
06/12/07
LHC: The Six Billion Dollar Questions
As far as I can tell the article on which the posting is based is not of sufficient academic standard, nor has it been published in a reputable scientific journal. I would therefore reccommend that this article is not suitable for discussion.
[Response] Dear Dr Roberto Trotta: In all due respect, why not give others the opportunity to examine important results. As I wrote as response on the site: The renown journal, Astronomische Nachrichten (English title: Astronomical Notes) is a reputable scientific journal. It is as reputable as you can get. Noted people and Einstein peers published in this journal. You can see for yourself, ASTRACT: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AN....328..186D Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Date: February 2007, Pages 186-191. The paper can be accessed on-line at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/search/allsearch search under author: Dowdye However, I don't think you could dare say to the highly estemed Astronomische Nachrichten that they are NOT a reputable scientific journal. Comment by Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr - 1 Aug, 2007 08:38 pm Press Releases already available. Use any search engine. Regards, Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center edward.h.dowdye@NASA.gov ehdowdye@extinctionshift.com 301-286-2650 voice and voice-mail 202-294-2664 mobile Code 554, Laser and Electro-Optics Branch Greenbelt, MD 20771
Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Date: February 2007, Pages 186-191. The paper can be accessed on-line at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/search/allsearch search under author: Dowdye
The publish paper, "Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity", Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Date: February 2007, Pages 186-191, is based entirely on recorded observations in Astrophysics since 1992 and addresses only the profound fundamentals in Mathematical Physics. The paper has gone through a refereed process in a refutable refereed journal. The subject matter of this paper has nothing at all to do with my Alternative to Special and General Relativity on my website www.extinctionshift.com. My theory predicts the findings I right about in the paper. It gave me the tip off. That's it.
The paper addresses "exceptional observational evidence in Astrophysics" As you say Dr. Trotta, "exceptional claims must be backed up by exceptional levels of evidence". Enormous evidence is given and well at hand.
You say also, "Now this particular claim goes against an enormous amount of observational evidence, that it would not be appropriate to review here." In all do respect of your position as a reviewer, I must totally disagree with you Dr. Roberto Trotta. This shows that, either you haven't bothered to take a look at the published paper or you probably do not appreciate the enormous Optical Physics of the astrophysical experiment taking place in NATURE staring you right in the face. Sadly to say, what's really so unfortunate about all this is that you attempt deny the readers of SCITEZEN to examine the findings for themselves and apply the Mathematical Physics fundamentals taught in academia.
Respectfully,
Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr., Physicists, Optical Laser Scientist
You said:
I realize that my comment may sound harsher and sharper than it could have been, so let me elaborate on that and clarify what I meant: exceptional claims must be backed up by exceptional levels of evidence. Now this particular claim goes against an enormous amount of observational evidence, that it would not be appropriate to review here. It also comes from somebody who appears to run a website making a whole lot of extraordinaty claims about the true nature of electromagnetism and gravity, again very much against scientific facts that have been well established for over a century now. It seems to me that this forum should be about discussion and sharing with the public the best scientific knowledge and research available - this does NOT mean that we should restrict the discussion to mainstream points of view, but that alternative, out-of-the-box theories and claims must adhere to a minimum level of scientific standard. In my opinion, this is not the case for the article under discussion (as an aside, the article is not publicly accessible, since a subscription is required to obtain the full text from the publisher. The author has never posted a single article on the public archive where preprints of artcles in cosmology and astrophysics are usually held for reference of other scientists and the public). Regarding the journal: I did not mean to be dismissive, there is nothing wrong with Astronomische Nachrichten, but the fact is, that such an extraordinary claim, if backed up by appropriate levels of evidence, would (should) have been published in Nature, not in a relatively minor journal (whose impact factor - a measure of the influence of articles published in a journal - is 0.5, compare with about 7 for Physical review Letters). I hope this clarifies the issue.
Comment by Dr Roberto Trotta - 2 Aug, 2007 10:02 am
The author gives no physical argument to base his claims.
Published work is no guarantee of veracity. I suggest the author should write a concise and clear account of his claims before dismissing a whole field as that of Gravitational Lensing based mainly on Geometrical Properties of Spacetime manifolds, more than on General Relativity.
A concise clear account is given in the paper published by Aronomische Nachrichten, a refutable journal, and is based entirely on the physical evidence observed at Sagittarius A*. Atrophysicists claim the Gravitational Lensing is based on General Relativity which is obviously contradicted in the time resolved images collected since 1992 on events at the galactic center. The paper applies profound Fundamental Principles taught in academia to the astrophysical observational evidence, using data collected by astrophysicists since 1992. The evidence clearly shows the Fundamentals have obviously been misapplied to the observation evidence. A reading of the paper and a review of the collected data on the orbiting stellar objects would clearly reveal this.
Respectfully,
Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr., Physicists, Optical Laser Scientist
we thank you for your contribution.
Unfortunately, following the 2 negative reviews, we can't publish your article.
Sincerely,
Gilles Prigent (the editor)