Perhaps you could point out where somebody suggested that this was farsight's work?

Yes. The theory is testable. In fact, a number of the predictions derived from it have been confirmed lately. For instance see the http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -dynamics/.

campermon wrote:

DanielLBurnstein wrote:A theory falls or fly of its own. Let the theory speak for itself. It is a waste of time to try and discuss a theory without having at lease some basic understanding of it.

As I said, whatever position one wants to take in regards to QGD, it must be rational. QGD is not ideology or a belief system.

Is your theory testable?

...ticipation.

Yes. The theory is testable. In fact, a number of the predictions derived from it have been confirmed lately. For instance see the http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -dynamics/.

... that gravity is instantaneous (which would prohibit gravitational waves and would explain why they have never been directly observed or ever will be)

The speed of gravity has been measured for the first time. The landmark experiment shows that it travels at the speed of light, meaning that Einstein's general theory of relativity has passed another test with flying colours.

New Scientist, 2003

BICEP2, next Planck release...)

... icipation

Bicep2 results have been reevaluated (google for later articles on the subject). As of today, any expert in the field will tell you that gravitational waves have not been detected. The Hulse-Taylor binary star system provides indirect evidence supporting the existence of gravitational waves when the orbital decay is attributed to loss of energy due to gravitational waves. But the orbital decay can be explained without them. An alternative explanation that is consistent with observation can be found in my An Axiomatic Approach to Physics which you can read at http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/blog/an-axiomatic-approach-to-physics/.

It is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between data and the theoretical interpretation of data or what we call theoretical bias.

I rarely post (as my 4 year delayed reply may suggest), but for people interested in the subject there's a group on Facebook with 200+ members. The majority of the members are mathematicians and physicists, but the public is welcome. Anyone can post as long as the criteria set in the "about" description of the group are respected.

What in the data shows gravity propagating > c ? Accelerating Universal expansion or ?

Presently the data in inconclusive. It neither supports nor refutes the prediction that gravity moves at the speed of light. That said, if the result from the experiment I described at http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -dynamics/ are confirmed independently, it would be strong evidence in support of instantaneous gravity. Wikipedia seems to have caught on to that after I wrote the article. Their article headed "Speed of Gravity" states:

If Coulomb propagation speed exceeded light, it might have implications for the speed of gravity propagation. In late 2012, experimenters the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati in Frascati performed an experiment which indicated that there was no measurable delay in propagation of the force between a beam of electrons and detectors. This was taken as indicating that the field seemed to travel with the beam of electrons as if it were a rigid structure preceding the beam. Though awaiting corroboration, the results indicate that aberration is not present in the Coulomb force.

You might find interesting to know that using QGD, the results of this experiment were predicted two full years before it was performed. Also, no current theories predicted, much less explains, the observations.