Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:10:34 +0000:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
[...]

This is clearly going nowhere -- all you have are insults and evasions.
Don't expect me to respond until and unless you say something
substantive.

Tom: one cannot measure gravitational forces

Juan: could you write the expression for the gravitational force?

Tom: No, but i can insult you crackpot.

Crackpot: If one person makes strong claims about electromagnetic forces
we wait that person can write the expression for the force at
least. You did very bold statements about gravitational forces
Tom, can you write the expression for the gravitational force?

Tom: No, but i can lye writing the right hand side of the geodesic
equation of motion.

Crackpot: But that is a geometric equation. Multiplying it by m does not
transform into a physical force. Can you write the expression
for the force that *you* said could *not* be measured?

Tom: No, but i can be lying about this. Gravitational forces cannot be
measured because they are coordinate independent.

Crackpot: But that is *your* mistake Tom. You are taking the equation of
motion from GR, which is coordinate dependent, and misapplying
it to a well-defined problem. The expression for the force in a
non-geometrical formulation is coordinate independent.
Astronomers are promoting a improved version of Stevinus-
Grotius-Galileo experiment, would detect deviations df/f of
order 10^-13 and would provide another independent
falsification of geometric GR.

Tom: No, no, no, no, i do not trust you. You cited a paper on
instantaneous interactions I read and it says nothing about that. I
do not trust you now.

Crackpot: The authors make clear in the title, in the abstract, in the
body, and in the conclusions of the paper that EM interactions
are not retarded by c but contain an instantaneous component.

Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and
retarded interactions in classical electrodynamics. 1999: Int.
J. of Mod. Phys. A 14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E;
Vlaev, Stoyan J.

For instance in the conclusions they say: "The explicit
dependence of *E* and *B* on t mean that, contrary to the
implicit time dependence, /there is not/ a retarded time for
electromagnetic perturbation /to reach/ the point of
observation."

Your 'criticism' was they would compute instantaneous
interactions by taking the LW potentials at present time t.
This nonsense, repeat NONSENSE, deserves a "Yours is a
statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts"

I cannot explain you more advanced stuff -neither gravitational
forces- if you show that misunderstanding of an elementary
paper on a linear vector theory: electrodynamics.

Tom: all you have are insults and evasions. You are acting as a crackpot.

Crackpot: Tom you are doing a fine job at educating people about
elementary questions on relativity. Keep it up! But avoid to
reply to advanced research questions, specially in those topics
you NEVER studied or did any contribution.



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

Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:07:49 +0000:

One of the major lessons of modern physics is that if you cannot measure
a quantity, you must be VERY careful in discussing it, and you probably
cannot claim it to be "real" at all.

That is why the geometrical approach to general relativity is considered
to belong more to mathematics than to the physical world.

That is also why astronomers, and experimentalists in general, prefer non-
geometrical formulations of gravity. Those formulations are more close to
real measurement apparatus on real life laboratories.


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

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote in message

Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:10:34 +0000:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
[...]

This is clearly going nowhere -- all you have are insults and evasions.
Don't expect me to respond until and unless you say something
substantive.

Tom: one cannot measure gravitational forces

Juan: could you write the expression for the gravitational force?

Tom: No, but i can insult you crackpot.

Crackpot: If one person makes strong claims about electromagnetic forces
we wait that person can write the expression for the force at
least. You did very bold statements about gravitational forces
Tom, can you write the expression for the gravitational force?

Tom: No, but i can lye writing the right hand side of the geodesic
equation of motion.

Crackpot: But that is a geometric equation. Multiplying it by m does not
transform into a physical force. Can you write the expression
for the force that *you* said could *not* be measured?

Tom: No, but i can be lying about this. Gravitational forces cannot be
measured because they are coordinate independent.

Crackpot: But that is *your* mistake Tom. You are taking the equation of
motion from GR, which is coordinate dependent, and misapplying
it to a well-defined problem. The expression for the force in a
non-geometrical formulation is coordinate independent.
Astronomers are promoting a improved version of Stevinus-
Grotius-Galileo experiment, would detect deviations df/f of
order 10^-13 and would provide another independent
falsification of geometric GR.

Tom: No, no, no, no, i do not trust you. You cited a paper on
instantaneous interactions I read and it says nothing about that. I
do not trust you now.

Crackpot: The authors make clear in the title, in the abstract, in the
body, and in the conclusions of the paper that EM interactions
are not retarded by c but contain an instantaneous component.

Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and
retarded interactions in classical electrodynamics. 1999: Int.
J. of Mod. Phys. A 14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E;
Vlaev, Stoyan J.

For instance in the conclusions they say: "The explicit
dependence of *E* and *B* on t mean that, contrary to the
implicit time dependence, /there is not/ a retarded time for
electromagnetic perturbation /to reach/ the point of
observation."

Your 'criticism' was they would compute instantaneous
interactions by taking the LW potentials at present time t.
This nonsense, repeat NONSENSE, deserves a "Yours is a
statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts"

I cannot explain you more advanced stuff -neither gravitational
forces- if you show that misunderstanding of an elementary
paper on a linear vector theory: electrodynamics.

Tom: all you have are insults and evasions. You are acting as a crackpot.

Crackpot: Tom you are doing a fine job at educating people about
elementary questions on relativity. Keep it up! But avoid to
reply to advanced research questions, specially in those topics
you NEVER studied or did any contribution.



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

"Guidelines for evading a question and fabricating quotes":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...uidelines.html

It follows Guidelines:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...uidelines.html

Dirk Vdm

Raghar wrote in message

On Apr 16, 4:58 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Prime Mover wrote in message


Are you saying, for example, that what this astronomer is saying in
this discussion (speed of gravity) is based on fraud?

What he is saying in
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...iles/proof.asp
shows that he is a astronomy fraud.

Does that mean that just because I have a computer library that could
divide by 0, I could be excellent in poetry?

Silly question #1.

What you link to looks
like his personal pet project, basically his hobby. Or have you seen
him posting this to physics letters?

Silly question #2.


Sometimes it's great idea to post valid theory between articles you
wrote for beginners, or just for fun. Jerks would concentrate on that
articles you wrote for fun, and you know who is person.

Silly remarks #1 and #2


What he is saying in
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...TVFSeries.html
shows that he has no idea about basic mathematics.

He used quotation marks, so what's the problem?


Silly question #3.

Dirk Vdm

Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:56:02 -0500:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:47:56 +0000:
[Chubykalo and Vlaev sbiw no "instantaneous interaction] Look for a
place where they evaluate [eq. 2] at time t rather than the retarded
time t0. THAT is what an "instantaneous interaction" would involve,
not their subtleties about differentiating with respect to
implicitly-defined variables (which may well be valid).

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008

Rather than quoting somebody else's insult, why is it you cannot show
any "instantaneous interaction" in their paper (except for the title)?


Tom Roberts

Title, abstract, pages 3790, 3795, 3796, and conclusions.

And also on the reply

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205041v1

They write

{BLOCKQUOTE
our interpretation of the explicit time-dependence
as a certain manifestation of instantaneous action-at-a-distance and on
the other hand the implicit time-dependence (i.e. exclusively through
the relation (3)) as a well-known short-range action. From the generally
accepted formal mathematical point of view our work is faultless.
}

Stop from lye Tom. You already lost all credibility.


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

Mike wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:44 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Bottom line: one should TEST THEORIES, and not attempt to measure things
and compare those measurements to APPROXIMATIONS of theories.

I have asked you numerous times in the past to present the equations
of GR for a spring-mass system in a gravitational field and solve
them. All you can do is point to the Newtononian equations.

Yes. I cannot help it if what you want is not simple. It is not possible
to solve the equations for such a system. It is not even possible to
write them down except in the most general terms. But we do know that in
the appropriate limit GR reduces approximately to the Newtonian
equations; for most purposes that is sufficient, and the equations are
simple and solvable.


Some of GR predictions have been shown false and some have not been
shown at manifest at all

None have been DIRECTLY refuted. Yes, For some situations if one insists
that GR is correct one must hypothesize "dark matter" and/or "dark
energy". And it's not yet clear how the anomalies observed in spacecraft
trajectories will be resolved. And gravitational waves have not yet been
observed, even though GR predicts them and reasonable astrophysical
models imply they should be visible to existing detectors. These are all
current topics of research, and the final chapter is not yet known for
any of them.

Nothing in THIS THREAD has shown anything about GR to be "false".


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:01:51 -0500:

But we do know that in
the appropriate limit GR reduces approximately to the Newtonian
equations

Usual literature on Newtonian limits of GR is not correct and confound
time-implicit and time explicit potentials. E.g. Wald and Carroll
textbooks are completely wrong at this point.

Moreover GR has not many-body system solution (numerical or not). The
equations of motion in monograph

http://order.ph.utexas.edu/mtrump/manybody/

are not reducible to GR because the field equations do not work for a
many-body system (except in some trivial cases, Schwarzschild...).

Schieve is a world expers on relativistic chaos:

http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html

Some of GR predictions have been shown false and some have not been
shown at manifest at all

None have been DIRECTLY refuted.

Do not true: Newtonian limits, 1% excess on binary pulsars, the
unphysical island universe boundary, speed of gravity, barion density for
LCDM, equivalence principle and self-force...

GR [alone] predictions have been also show wrong at galactic level.

It is true that distributing a hypothetical -never observed- dark matter
you can partially fit galactic data, but cannot explain fine details

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html

and several predictions from GR+DM were also falsified: first WMAP peak,
bullet cluster velocities, stability for LSBs.

Look for the X (= prediction falsified) on the Dark matter column

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html


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

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:10:25 +0200:

Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:56:02 -0500:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:47:56 +0000:
[Chubykalo and Vlaev sbiw no "instantaneous interaction] Look for a
place where they evaluate [eq. 2] at time t rather than the retarded
time t0. THAT is what an "instantaneous interaction" would involve,
not their subtleties about differentiating with respect to
implicitly-defined variables (which may well be valid).

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008

Rather than quoting somebody else's insult, why is it you cannot show
any "instantaneous interaction" in their paper (except for the title)?


Tom Roberts

Title, abstract, pages 3790, 3795, 3796, and conclusions.

Moreover, in my message of Thu, 17 Apr 2008 in this same thread i typed
next quotation from the conclusions of paper

Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in classical electrodynamics. 1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A
14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev, Stoyan J.

{BLOCKQUOTE
The explicit dependence of *E* and *B* on t mean that, contrary to the
implicit time dependence, /there is not/ a retarded time for
electromagnetic perturbation /to reach/ the point of observation.
}

All emphasis in the original. Stop from lye Tom.


And also on the reply

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205041v1

They write

{BLOCKQUOTE
our interpretation of the explicit time-dependence as a certain
manifestation of instantaneous action-at-a-distance and on the other
hand the implicit time-dependence (i.e. exclusively through the
relation (3)) as a well-known short-range action. From the generally
accepted formal mathematical point of view our work is faultless.
}

Stop from lye Tom. You already lost all credibility.


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

On Apr 17, 8:01*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Mike wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:44 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Bottom line: one should TEST THEORIES, and not attempt to measure things
and compare those measurements to APPROXIMATIONS of theories.

I have asked you numerous times in the past to present the equations
of GR for a spring-mass system in a gravitational field and solve
them. All you can do is point to the Newtononian equations.

Yes. I cannot help it if what you want is not simple. It is not possible
to solve the equations for such a system. It is not even possible to
write them down except in the most general terms. But we do know that in
the appropriate limit GR reduces approximately to the Newtonian
equations; for most purposes that is sufficient, and the equations are
simple and solvable.

So how can one prove a theory wrong when, as you admit, even simple
problems cannot be formulated and solved in that theory?

It is evident to even a monkey that GR is a qualitative theory - or
philosophy in the absence of a better word - and its prediction are
compansated against falsification by observation and experiment using
auxiliary variables, like the example dark matter.




Some of GR predictions have been shown false and some have not been
shown at manifest at all

None have been DIRECTLY refuted. Yes, For some situations if one insists
that GR is correct one must hypothesize "dark matter" and/or "dark
energy". And it's not yet clear how the anomalies observed in spacecraft
trajectories will be resolved. And gravitational waves have not yet been
observed, even though GR predicts them and reasonable astrophysical
models imply they should be visible to existing detectors. These are all
current topics of research, and the final chapter is not yet known for
any of them.

Nothing in THIS THREAD has shown anything about GR to be "false".

Yes, how can you show GR to be false, when GR cannot even solve any
real world problems?

Most predictions of GR at the cosmological level cannot be falsified
by experiments since no experiments can be done at that level.

How in the world can you worship a theory that claims to be an
advancement over Newton, yet to solve a simple two-body problem it
must be reduced to (approximately) Newtonain equations?

After all is said and done, what do you believe is the most important
contribution of GR to dynamics? I can see none, because I cannot solve
any problems with it. I cannot consider curved spacetime, geodesics,
causeless motion, bending of light, etc. major contributions. GR
remains a philosophy of space and time and should be taught only in
philosophy departments not in physics.

Mike



Tom Roberts

Mike wrote on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:18:52 -0700:

It is evident to even a monkey that GR is a qualitative theory - or
philosophy in the absence of a better word - and its prediction are
compansated against falsification by observation and experiment using
auxiliary variables, like the example dark matter.

Dark matter is odd but I find the case of binary pulsars to be more
interesting. Relativists claim that GR has passed binary pulsars tests
(e.g. PSR1913+16) with honors. But before the confrontation between the
observed value and the computed value from General Relativity,
relativists apply a series of *corrections* to the observed value.

The *big* issue is not that corrections are a bit /ad hoc/ but that the
correction term depends on several rather poorly known quantities,
including the distance and proper motion of the pulsar and the radius of
the Sun's galactic orbit.

People as Clifford M. Will does not mention those important points about
the 'corrections' when writing about the confrontation of GR to
experiment.

After all is said and done, what do you believe is the most important
contribution of GR to dynamics? I can see none, because I cannot solve
any problems with it.

The current opinion between many-body theoreticians experts (There was a
thread about this in sci.physics.research) is that GR is not a many-body
theory and only can explain motion inside certain limits:

http://order.ph.utexas.edu/mtrump/manybody/

Schieve is a world expert on relativistic chaos:

http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html


In that monograph the motion of many-bodies is studied using a
relativistic gravitational force with action at a distance potentials.

It may be *not* still the correct post-relativistic theory but at least
authors are not so naive to believe that many-body gravitational motion
can be modeled using Einstein field equations and its interactions
retarded by c.


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