Anatoly Logunov has set out a relativistic theory of gravity that is not the same as the orthodoxy of the “general theory of relativity”. What do we make of this?
Logunov, like Alfred North Whitehead, thinks that Minkowski geometry is fundamental to the theory of gravity. Logunov’s arguments are much more detailed and extensive than Whitehead’s, and of course take account of the Shapiro delay that had not been observed when Whitehead was writing.
There are those who think that the orthodoxy of the “general theory of relativity” takes into full account the physical implications of Minkowski geometry. On the other hand, Logunov thinks not.
I have written in another thread (https://scienceblog.com/cms/einsteins-time-dilation-and-length-contraction-real-15445.html#comment-29497)a proposal that a simple consideration, of the question of the “reality” or otherwise of “Einstein’s time dilation and length contraction” illustrated by the twin clock scenario, leads to thoughts about Minkowski geometry and the “general theory of relativity”. Perhaps if anyone replies to that proposal, here might be a place to do so.
Christopher
ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.
Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.
If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.