Peer review is not some magic perfect process, and nonsense sometimes gets through. In fact, there has been research on the peer review process, and a disturbing number of publications were willing to publish auto-generated gibberish. Clearly this was not actually reviewed carefully, since the paper in the first link is so blatantly unprofessional. (They end a paragraph with "Wow...")
With " stronger dependecies " I mean a force that goes as r-4 or e-r. In those cases the effect could easily go unnoticed.
your specific claim here is that the power level of light does not decrease proportional to 1/r^2
Quote your specific claim here is that the power level of light does not decrease proportional to 1/r^2No, I was referring to the gravitational filed generated by the light source.
Since the experimental evidence seems to contradict General Relativity we need a new theory but to create a new theory we need experimental data: so the law must be experimentally determined.
It's a matter of simply collect the data and found the function that produce the best fit.
If the light source is moving between the setups in their experiments, then the experiments are basically just invalid.
The experimental data does not contradict general relativity, again the experimenters have demonstrated incompetence.
Quote If the light source is moving between the setups in their experiments, then the experiments are basically just invalid.False. I reformulate:" If r is the module of the distance between the center of the photon gas and the test mass (that we assume point-like) the force that acts on the test mass depends on r-4 or e-r "It's trivial to show that, in the case of a light source that emit light with spherical symmetry, this statement is equivalent to the previous one.
QuoteThe experimental data does not contradict general relativity, again the experimenters have demonstrated incompetence.Again you cannot say. The only way to prove them wrong is to re-do the experiment and find a result different from the result found by them.