Posted: Jul 05, 2011 8:01 pm
philippe.fullsack wrote:The question asked here is extremely interesting and I decided to register here in order to have a chance to post a reply.
I am a mathematician and have read the page of Jacky Jerome (discussed here), with a mixed sense of suspicion and wonder:
It takes guts -or arrogance- to stand alone against an army of -often if not always- humble mainstream physicists.
As already noticed in several of the replies to the original post here, it is not difficult to realize that the theory presented is not substantial.
However, I would be interested in a more quantitative criticism.
It could for example take the form of an experience suggested to falsify the suggested theory.
If the theory is naive and wrong, there must be a clear and quantitative way to identify the source(s) of error(s), and convince, may be in a few lines, the majority of 'rational readers' that JJ's theory cannot hold.
To be honest, I have not tried hard to create such an argument.
It may be that the theory has already been explored by others, or that
there is simply not enough formalism to put the ideas to test, in which case there is no theory (i.e. any reader/experimenter would need to fill the gaps themselves...)
If any one among you - e.g. a physics teacher- would be willing to provide such a proof, I would be delighted.
I'm not a physicist, just a physics hobbyist, but when you read statements like this (right at the beginning):
The same phenomenon also exists in spacetime. Contrary to preconceived ideas, it is the volume of elementary particles, and not their mass, which deforms spacetime.
It displays such an ignorance of established physics that it's hard to know where to begin. But for starters:
1) Even in general relativity, the source of the gravitational field is Energy-Momentum, not just mass. He should at least understand the theory he's trying to replace. Also, how would his theory possibly cope with the gravitational field generated by, for example, pressure, or electromagnetic radiation ?
2) What on earth is the "volume of an elementary particle" ?
3) He presents a "derivation" of the Schwarszchild metric based on some sort of elasticity idea. There are many much more reasonable non general-relativistic derivations of the Schwarzschild solution http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0611104