Thank you MP, you're welcome. Btw, IMO it would be necessary to somehow presents your idea in the 'language' that astrophysics can understand, i.e. I offer you some references/citation to flat metric.
For instance, if --let say- I can predict Mercury precession from purely quantum jumps, but without a 'metric', then chance is the idea will be ignored by astrophysics.
If you use /introduce a kind of metric, then others can begin to 'test' your idea with standard proposition. (just read the fate of Hal Puthoff with his PV-theory as alternative to GTR, most physicists ignore his idea, only because it is different from GTR)
But of course, it is up to you.
These last few comments are enligthning not about science but about inertia..:) and I am not speaking of Mach's Principle...:)
Inertia in the sense that people (astrophysicists) are so happy calculating their Ricci tensors, guessing their metrics or Lagrangians that they would make a tremendous effort to avoid anything that is not written in those terms.
My theory is different from others because I place the Universe in motion at the speed of light..:) That is might scary...:) Then through the introduction of the Fundamental Dilator paradigm, I eliminated the difference between Gravitation and Electromagnetism with the side effect of quantizing the ligthspeed hyperspherical expansion. The de Broglie step is the Compton wavelenght of a Hydrogen Atom...>:)
The fundamental dilator creates an stroboscopic universe.
These are the fundamental aspects of my theory!!!
When I think about how to express this using a terminology that astrophysicist might be happy with, I face the reality that my metric is trivial. Little is in the metric. There is no Action...:) In fact, the standard Action only means that all particles (bodies) are flying with the shockwave Universe...:)
I added another Lagrangian Principle...:) There is no action - I've just stated that dilators do not want to dilate out-of-phase with the others...:) They are an agreeable bunch..:) thus creating a Cosmological Coherence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not mathematics. It is just pure physics.
I would have a hard time making it unintelligible such that astrophysicists can read it...:)
In addition, the more complex it is the more difficult it is to improve upon or to see the forest for the trees...
Maybe some brilliant astrophysicist out there can send me a letter and help me find the correct lingo...:)
Below is the letter and the links.
Thanks for reply, yeah there is chance to explain Mercury precession within flat metric, but not very sure which is 'better' post-diction (not prediction) of the phenomenon.
You may try with googling, perhaps begin with Whitehead's theory . There is also recent article by Nishikawa on unification which includes such Mercury prediction for flat metric:
unification without assuming a phase transition nor a Higgs particle. ........ i.e., the angle of perihelion precession during a period is −2πγ ...arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407057.pdf
v1 1 Nov 2006
assumes the presence of a flat background metric η ..... on the perihelion advance of Mercury, and so Whitehead’s theory agrees with the data...arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0611006
secular motion of the perihelion of Mercury, are relevant. ... Given Whitehead’s interest in separating the metric of GTR from the physics of GTR, ...www.phil-inst.hu/~szekely/PIRT_Budapest/ft/Desmet_ft.pdf
Alternatives to General Relativity (GR)
In Whitehead (1922), the physical metric g is constructed algebraically from the ..... conflict with the perihelion precession of Mercury and gravitational ...freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hallsofjamaica/Gravity_not_GR.pdf
Do any theories of gravity exist other than general relativity that are capable of explaining the perihelion of mercury's orbit? In particular, I would like ...www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-194045.html
Whitehead’s Theory of Gravity
two metric, global flat background interpretation. .... post-Newtonian effects ( such as the additional perihelion shift of Mercury), viable theories ...ls.poly.edu/~jbain/papers/Whitehead.pdf
Up to know, my own belief is that this issue is closed, i.e. it is not only GTR that can explain the precession, although this problem is some kind of 'prerequisite' for anyone who is willing to compete with the standard GTR, such as yours ;-)
IMO, it would be a good idea if you write a paper discussing such a comparison between your own approach and other flat-metric theories toward Mercury precision. I mean with comparison, is head-to-head compare table down to minute until Pluto precession, and then let the readers see which one is the champion.
For a journal who may be willing to consider your work, you may begin with Apeiron (redshift.vif.com), or Progress in Physics (ptep-online.com). Not sure with other journals, but chance is you will get dismissed if trying to send to standard journals like Phys. Rev. Letter...no hope with them.
ps: Sometime ago Mr Kerr also explains this precession with his own method. you can dig for his article in sciprint.orgm if you wish. I forward this letter to him.