--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 1:46 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/"Randy Poe"
wrote in message

...
On Apr 3, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez



wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:

On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip paper
(section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
one
would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

| And yet in actual measurements of transit time over
| measured distance, it is found to be c.

I'm pleased to note you've discovered that at last.
Collect one brownie point.
Your crank fellow confessed troll, Phuckwit Duck, says it's one
second per second, he has a ruler that measures distance in seconds.
Now, what is it when the measured distance is changing as a function of
time?

| Raising the usual question: Are you as stupid as
| you pretend to be?

Non sequitur and don't change the subject, crank troll.

Now, what is it when the measured distance is changing as a function of
time?