On Apr 19, 6:29*am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:


Hello psycho....long time no see. Are you still on meds? Still can't
get a job teaching high school physics?

Immortal fumbles by Dirt of ther Mootel:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...2?dmode=source

The folowing is a gem:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...b?dmode=source

That is currently examined by top psychiatrists around the world.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeeeeeeeeeee is Dork
in action, you know where? at alt.jokes, demonstrating his racist
natu

http://groups.google.gr/group/alt.jo...6?dmode=source

More funny, that was cross-posted by the idiot to:
alt.music.kylie.minogue

hahahahahahahahah


But hey, the man has class, he plays chess all day:

http://groups.google.gr/group/rec.pu...e?dmode=source

hahahahahahaha: rec.puzzles, rec.games.chess.computer


Mystery of the day: what do Erica Gissa and Dirt of ther Mootel have
in common?

I mean besides being the same person.

Mike

On Apr 19, 2:56*am, Mike wrote:

[snip]

Mystery of the day: what do Erica Gissa and Dirt of ther Mootel have
in common?

I mean besides being the same person.

Another sad little person who doesn't understand the concept of
"headers" or how to use them.

I know what your response is going to be since I haven't seen you give
me another yet. Don't disappoint me.


Mike

carlip-nospam wrote on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:09:19 +0000:

That's garbage, Tom.

It is language of this kind which raised you to be cited like academic
flamer in several dictionaries and encyclopedias dealing with flames.

I used the term "gravitational influence" simply to avoid getting into a
pointless debate about whether gravity in GR is "really" or force or
not.

But still your claims about "gravitational influence" are completely
wrong.

What Low shows is the following:

Let R be an arbitrary region in space (at a fixed time, say t=0)
containing some sources of gravitation. Let p be a point outside R, at
a distance d from R -- that is, for which the closest point in R is a
distance d away.

At time t=0, change conditions in R any way you want -- move the masses
around, add more masses, take some away, anything at all, as long as you
don't change anything outside R. What happens at p? Low shows that it
is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous prediction of GR that nothing
whatsoever changes at p until a time d/c has passed.

Fine. But as said this does *not* prove that "gravitational influences"
are limited to c.

As stated during a early message that kind of theorems are *only* valid
for the local time explicit potentials (or related metrics g_ab if you
prefer the geometrical approach to GR).

Once you introduce the non-local time implicit component (MISSED in the
geometric approach to GR), the conclusion is that there exists no
retardation time d/c, but "gravitational influence" are detected at
arbitrary point p at *exactly* time t=0.

Very rigorous mathematical description of this instantaneous interaction
for "electrodynamical influence" has been proved using Maxwell equations
in recent papers:

Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The
basis and application of the separated-potentials method. 1996: Phys.
Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

Erratum: Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell
equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method
[Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373 (1996)] 1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793. Chubykalo,
Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

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.

With purely mathematical papers also published elsewhere.

I have generalized those results to gravitation in two papers i am
writing.

I use a Liouville space extension of dynamics for delineating the
specific range of validity of theorems as that by Low.

Those theorems *and geometric GR* are only valid for first order [}
classical bracket [#] in the pure-state approximation with no correlation
SIGMA = PROD DELTA.

Those recent findings about speed of interactions have been also verified
by different researchers using QED and alternative descriptions.

The conclusion is always the same:

{STATEMENT
The speed of gravitational and electromagnetic influences is not
retarded by c but both contain an *instantaneous* component.
}


I will discuss in both sci.physics.research and sci.physics.foundations
in brief.

To repeat: change the source of gravity in R any way you want.
According to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p outside R until the
time for a light signal to reach p from R has passed. By any sensible
definition of "speed" I can imagine, that means that gravity propagates
at the speed of light.

But your *repeated* confusion [##] is that only applies to *geometric GR*
which uses g_ab = g_ab(x,t) and not to *gravity* as we understand the
concept in a more *general* approach.

Actually, your papers about 'speeds' as that on PLA (Aberration...) have
no validity and may be just ignored.


[#] I.e. first order in the interaction Liouvillian L_V with Balescu
Prigogine diagram

__1
1__/
\__2


[##] Repeating a mistake during years do not transform it into right.


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

On Apr 19, 8:24*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 19, 2:56*am, Mike wrote:

[snip]

Mystery of the day: what do Erica Gissa and Dirt of ther Mootel have
in common?

I mean besides being the same person.

Another sad little person who doesn't understand the concept of
"headers" or how to use them.

You know my response:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...24a9cdf16c4daf

You do not know the difference between an ODE and a mom-linear DE.
Moreover, that you think the free-fall equation is an ODE and that you
are " bored, walking to the toilet and peeing takes longer, and
required the same amount of mental horsepower."

I guess the only use of your mental horse power is for going to the
toilet. You said it, not me.


Mike


I know what your response is going to be since I haven't seen you give
me another yet. Don't disappoint me.



Mike- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 19, 10:26*am, Mike wrote:
On Apr 19, 8:24*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 19, 2:56*am, Mike wrote:

[snip]

Mystery of the day: what do Erica Gissa and Dirt of ther Mootel have
in common?

I mean besides being the same person.

Another sad little person who doesn't understand the concept of
"headers" or how to use them.

You know my response:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...g/dd24a9cdf16c...

You do not know the difference between an ODE and a mom-linear DE.
Moreover, that you think the free-fall equation is an ODE and that you
are " bored, walking to the toilet and peeing takes longer, and
required the same amount of mental horsepower."

I guess I was right, you are missing a "mom-linear DE", not a non-
liner DE I intended to say.

hahahahahaha

Mike




I guess the only use of your mental horse power is for going to the
toilet. You said it, not me.

Mike



I know what your response is going to be since I haven't seen you give
me another yet. Don't disappoint me.

Mike- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This replies to Koobee Wublee, Tom Roberts, and Steve Carlip.


"Koobee Wublee" writes:

[Wublee]: As you have correctly pointed out, LR does not manifest the
twin's paradox. However, it manifests the time dilation.

You have not understood Lorentzian relativity (LR). See Ref. [1] below.
The effect of velocity on clocks represented by the Lorentz transformations
is extremely well-verified by GPS, among many other modern experiments. But
in LR, the transformations operate in only one direction, from the local
gravitational potential field to the moving frame. They do not work in
reverse.

The significance of that difference is that velocity affects only the
rates of *clocks* moving relative to the local gravitational potential
field. Motion has no effect on *time* (the dimension for measuring change).
So LR has no time dilation and no paradoxes. Motion simply makes atomic
clocks slow down, the way increasing temperature makes pendulum clocks slow
down.

That said, LR agrees with all 11 independent experiments that tested
special relativity (SR) [see Ref. 6 for list], and can also accept gravity
propagating faster than light, which SR cannot do.

You also seem to object to general relativity (GR), another
well-verified theory. But once you realize that the math has more than one
interpretation, and that the "field interpretation" requires no "curved
space-time" or other forms of magic, you will find GR much more acceptable.

Most of what is important about GR can be understood in the context of a
light-carrying medium. (Any wave phenomenon requires a medium.) That medium
is like an atmosphere filling space. Naturally, the gravity of large masses
makes the medium denser as one gets closer, just as it would for an
atmosphere comprised of gases. Then as light tries to propagate through a
medium with a density gradient, it bends, slows, and redshifts by ordinary,
classical refraction in the exact amount the GR equations predict.

Moreover, this interpretation has been known for a long time, back to at
least Eddington's 1920 book. See Ref. [2]. A review of the "refraction in an
optical medium" model as a simple replacement for Riemann curvature of
spacetime, together with citations to many previous authors who knew about
this, may be found in Ref. [3].


and "Tom Roberts" writes:

[Prime Mover]: As many published experiments have demonstrated,
gravitational forces cannot possibly propagate at c.

[Roberts]: True, _IF_AND_ONLY_IF_ one assumes that they propagate at all.

With the standard classical physics definition of "force" = the time
rate of change of (3-space) momentum, it instantly follows that orbiting
bodies are experiencing a force by definition. With the further caveat that
no magic is allowed in physics, then it follows that the (3-space) momentum
transferred to the target body by the force must be the force's own
momentum. But the force could not have momentum unless it was propagating.
Therefore, gravitational force must propagate. Q.E.D.

The "geometric interpretation" of GR gets around this by changing the
definition of "force" and arguing that the new momentum of orbiting target
bodies can arise spontaneously from nothing. That is acceptable only to the
extent that one is willing to base physics on magic.

[Roberts]: In GR, the gravitational fields "here and now" do not propagate
from any source "over there". The fields "here and now" depend ONLY on the
fields "right near here a short time ago". So there is no need for
propagation from a source.

That claim is factually in error. Ref. [4] proves that the acceleration
of a source mass (as in a binary pulsar) is felt by a target body in much
less than the light-time between the two stars. Many people have examined
this proof in the standard literature and no actual or suspected fault has
appeared.

Just as you and others had to give up on the naïve notion that the
gravitational force between two bodies might propagate at the speed of
light, you must also give up the notion that the gravitational field is
projected one light-time ahead along the velocity vector (as is claimed
about charge fields), because that still gives orbits that spiral outward.
Because you seem disinclined to check the proof for yourself, take note that
relativity experts such as Steve Carlip do not dispute this, and accept that
your understanding of relativity is incomplete in this important way.

[Prime Mover]: As Tom Van Flandern has said, gravitational potential and
gravitational force are two distinct concepts and as such their speeds
does not have to be the same.

[Roberts]: I disagree. If "gravitational force" is to be the spatial
gradient of "gravitational potential", then they cannot have different
"propagation
speeds".

The gravitational potential field can be thought of as an optical
medium. Disturbances in it propagate at the speed of light. But forces
applied to it, including forces that create a gradient in it, can have any
speed. The connection you imagine does not exist.

Consider the gradient of air in Earth's atmosphere. The force creating
that gradient is gravity. Disturbances in the gradient (such as winds or
sound waves) propagate at speeds that have nothing to do with the speed of
gravity. Yet air is analogous to the gravitational potential field, which is
likewise shaped by gravitational forces. So the speeds of potential changes
and of gravitational forces are unrelated.

[Roberts]: When different people use different meanings of words, the
discussion can extend forever, as they talk right past each other. TVF
seems to be incapable of recognizing the puns he uses, even when pointed
out to him, so he repeats his same invalid claims.

I carefully define my terms to avoid ambiguity. What do you do?

[Prime Mover]: By the way, I read his papers on the subject and I saw no
apparent fraud, quite the contrary. They were fairly conducted, in my
opinion.

[Roberts]: Including his nonsense about Cydonia? Any "astronomer" who
writes such drivel is not trustworthy in my book. I don't mean the fact
that he is demonstrably wrong, for that can happen to anybody -- I mean
the fact that he claims "proof", and was as strident in claiming that as
he is
"speed of gravity".

That cannot be relevant unless there is a flaw in either argument that
might apply to the other. If you cannot see or even imagine a flaw in the
reasoning, and are left with nothing but ad hominem arguments ("such
drivel"), you must decide whether you are a scientist or a "believer at any
cost".

I belong to an organization that looks into puzzles and anomalies, helps
to eliminate most of them, and focuses on those that remain standing as the
areas for potential breakthroughs in physics/astronomy. So it is no
coincidence that our rigorous standards have been applied to numerous
unrelated anomalies. Although most have mundane explanations,
unsurprisingly, more than one has survived this scrutiny.

But there is a definite and obvious logical flaw in your linkage of
unrelated anomalies as if the probabilities in one case affected
probabilities in the other. So if you cannot justify your claim that one
case is "obvious drivel", or even articulate why you think that, then you
are exposed as a believer posing as a scientist.

[Albertito]: It is very easy to measure the gravitational force. You can
measure a force F, if you know the mass of the body and the acceleration
that force exerts on that body.

[Roberts]: That is a measurement of the acceleration, not the force.

You are ignoring definitions again. "Force" in this discussion is the time
rate of change of (3-space) momentum. "Momentum" is mass times velocity. For
constant mass, the time rate of change of momentum is mass times
acceleration, a.k.a. Newton's second law of motion. That is a perfectly
valid way of measuring "force" by its standard definition. Only when you
change the definition, as in geometric GR, is the force concept suppressed
and we would have no means of measuring a true force.

This discussion is about real classical forces operating in Euclidian
flat space, where the observations and orbit computations used to test the
theories are made. Deal with it, if you are able.


and Steve Carlip writes:

[Tom VF]: no one is disputing that changes in gravitational potential
(the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of light, c.
I am always careful to state that "the speed of gravity" measured by the
six available experiments always means the 3-space propagation speed of
gravitational force, and has nothing to do with changes in gravitational
potential.

[Carlip, summarizing Low's paper]: change the source of gravity in R any
way you want. According to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p outside
R until the time for a light signal to reach p from R has passed. By any
sensible definition of "speed" I can imagine, that means that gravity
propagates at the speed of light.

I agree completely with Low's mathematical reasoning that you summarize
here, and have never claimed anything different from that. I must also agree
that your imagination is limited just as you describe. Indeed, what you
describe is nothing more than a wordy description of the retarded potential
field in GR, similar to the Lienard-Wiechert potentials. See Ref. [5]. In
fact, I just conceded the very point you made in my remarks above that you
quoted. Yet you make a big deal about an obvious point that is totally
irrelevant to this discussion or to the "speed of gravity" issue in general.

I have no issue with the speed of gravitational potential field updates
being c.

Now, consider the 2-body problem with one source mass and one (nearly)
massless target body. By construction, the source mass represents Low's R, a
collection of smaller masses that are the source of a gravitational
potential field. We all agree that changes in the potential field propagate
or update at speed c. So there is no issue there. Now let's look at the
gravitational force generated outside R, assuming R is a single, fixed
mass - the simplest case. Even with nothing changing at the field source, we
still have a problem about the force applied to the target body.

The one and only mathematical question of importance here to the speed
of gravity issue is this: For a target body with a transverse motion
relative to the source mass, should we use the retarded gradient or the
instantaneous gradient to get the force? (Here again I stress that the
"force" applied to the target body means the time rate of change of its
3-space momentum. And there can be no dispute that the 3-space momentum of
target bodies in a gravitational field is changing, so a force exists by
definition.)

If this force, or "gravitational influences" (your term), propagates
from source mass to target body at speed c, then we must use the retarded
gradient, which leads to wrong answers (outward spiraling orbits). If
force/gravitational influences propagate c, as in GR, then we get the
correct orbits.

I have read all the papers you have cited over the years, and read them
with understanding. Please do me the courtesy of reading my papers, which
have corrected your consistent misunderstanding of the issue. If you had
ever computed a real orbit in an n-body simulation, it would be obvious even
to someone taught only the geometric interpretation of GR that perturbing
forces must be applied to all n bodies instantaneously, without light-time
delay. And the reason for that is a physics issue deserving attention and
crying out for an explanation.

[Carlip]: If you accept this, then we are merely arguing over semantics
...

If you consider the physics question of whether or not "gravitational
influences" propagate FTL to be a semantic one, then you are entitled to
your opinion. Nonetheless, the main gravitational influence, the force that
keeps planets in their orbits around the Sun, must propagate much faster
than the speed of light, according to all experiments sensitive to that
speed.

[Carlip]: You just demonstrate that you don't understand the math,
and that you don't know the difference between speed and direction.

That is a non-sequitur and is patronizing in the extreme. And typical of
this "hit and run" tactic, you provide no explanation or specifics, so no
readers can judge the worth of your claim for themselves. -|Tom|-


REFERENCES:

[1] "Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics? (A
primer on Lorentzian relativity)", Infinite Energy 59, 31-33 (2005); also at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp.

[2] Sir Arthur Eddington, "Space, Time & Gravitation", Cambridge Univ.
Press, first published 1920, reprinted 1987, p. 109.

[3] Fernando de Felice, "On the gravitational field acting as an optical
medium", Gen.Rel.&Grav. 2#4:347-357 (1971). Einstein himself first suggested
the idea that gravitation is equivalent to an optical medium. From the paper's
abstract, ". Maxwell's equations may be written as if they were valid in a
flat space-time in which there is an optical medium . this medium turns out
to be equivalent to the gravitational field. . we find that the language of
classical optics for the 'equivalent medium' is as suitable as that of
Riemannian geometry."

[4] "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say", Phys.Lett.A 250:1-11
(1998); also at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp. The
cited proof appears in the section "Electromagnetic Analogies and
Gravitational Radiation / 1. Myth: Gravity from an accelerating source
experiences light-time delay".

[5] Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, "Gravitation", Freeman & Co., p. 1080 (1973).

[6] "What the GPS tells us about relativity" in "Open Questions in
Relativistic Physics", F. Selleri, ed., Apeiron, Montreal, pp. 81-90 (1998);
also at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp.


Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org

Tom Van Flandern wrote in message

This replies to Koobee Wublee, Tom Roberts, and Steve Carlip.


"Koobee Wublee" writes:

[Wublee]: As you have correctly pointed out, LR does not manifest the
twin's paradox. However, it manifests the time dilation.

You have not understood Lorentzian relativity (LR).

Neither have you, imbecile:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V10N1TVF.pdf

Dirk Vdm

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:27:15 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

Tom Van Flandern wrote in message

This replies to Koobee Wublee, Tom Roberts, and Steve Carlip.


"Koobee Wublee" writes:

[Wublee]: As you have correctly pointed out, LR does not manifest the
twin's paradox. However, it manifests the time dilation.

You have not understood Lorentzian relativity (LR).

Neither have you, imbecile:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V10N1TVF.pdf


Hey, Van de merde. I see you're still suppressing your homosexual
tendencies. ahahaha... Just tell the man you love him. AHAHAHA...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Apr 21, 11:17 am, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:

"Koobee Wublee" writes:
[Wublee]: As you have correctly pointed out, LR does not manifest the
twin's paradox. However, it manifests the time dilation.

You have not understood Lorentzian relativity (LR). See Ref. [1] below..
The effect of velocity on clocks represented by the Lorentz transformations
is extremely well-verified by GPS, among many other modern experiments. But
in LR, the transformations operate in only one direction, from the local
gravitational potential field to the moving frame. They do not work in
reverse.

It is very clear from the following that LR manifests time dilation.

** dt’ = dt / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

I don’t know how you can argue otherwise.

The significance of that difference is that velocity affects only the
rates of *clocks* moving relative to the local gravitational potential
field. Motion has no effect on *time* (the dimension for measuring change)..
So LR has no time dilation and no paradoxes. Motion simply makes atomic
clocks slow down, the way increasing temperature makes pendulum clocks slow
down.

In your LR equations, there is no mention of gravitational potential.
Thus, what you believe in does not really apply to the equations of LR
which you have published. shrug

That said, LR agrees with all 11 independent experiments that tested
special relativity (SR) [see Ref. 6 for list], and can also accept gravity
propagating faster than light, which SR cannot do.

Because of the twin’s paradox, SR does not agree with anything. It is
utterly absurd of a conjecture. LR is very much so. LR does not even
degenerate to the Galilean transform at low speeds. Please allow me
to be more blunt with you. LR is a total nonsense. Any hypothesis
must degenerate to the Galilean transform. shrug Do you think the
Galilean transform is false at low speeds? LR does not even allow the
flat spacetime first published by Minkowski. Do you think the
equation of Minkowski spacetime is wrong? LR and (ds^2 = c^2 dt2 –
dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2) cannot coexist. shrug

You also seem to object to general relativity (GR), another
well-verified theory. But once you realize that the math has more than one
interpretation, and that the "field interpretation" requires no "curved
space-time" or other forms of magic, you will find GR much more acceptable..

It does not matter how you want to interpret GR. The end of the day
is determined by the mathematics involved. This is the case because
math cannot lie. However, there are a few gross abuses in
interpretation of the geodesic motions. The geodesics actually have
nothing to do with the field equations and thus GR. Mercury’s orbital
anomaly is based on the geodesic model where any event takes place
following the path with the least amount of accumulated spacetime.
The photon deflection deal is modeled after the geodesics with the
least amount of accumulated time. It is different for photons because
the accumulated spacetime for a photon is always zero. This is an
example where GR seems to agree with the believed experimental through
internal inconsistencies. There are more such internal
inconsistencies in GR and SR.

Most of what is important about GR can be understood in the context of a
light-carrying medium. (Any wave phenomenon requires a medium.) That medium
is like an atmosphere filling space. Naturally, the gravity of large masses
makes the medium denser as one gets closer, just as it would for an
atmosphere comprised of gases. Then as light tries to propagate through a
medium with a density gradient, it bends, slows, and redshifts by ordinary,
classical refraction in the exact amount the GR equations predict.

Yes, the Aether model of GR does seem to explain a great deal.
However, in this model, you will find the deflected angle of a photon
follows Snell’s law. Thus, it is only the Newtonian result not what
you are expecting of GR result of twice the Newtonian. What you have
described does not work for the curvature in spacetime. This is why
it was quickly abandoned by the founding fathers of GR which does not
include Einstein. Einstein was a nobody. He was a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar.

Moreover, this interpretation has been known for a long time, back to at
least Eddington's 1920 book. See Ref. [2]. A review of the "refraction in an
optical medium" model as a simple replacement for Riemann curvature of
spacetime, together with citations to many previous authors who knew about
this, may be found in Ref. [3].

From what I have gathered, Eddington was also a nitwit. shrug The
whole mess of GR was engineered from the ground up by the greatest
mathematician known to man --- David Hilbert. In 1915, he had been
working with the curvature in spactime for at least 7 years and had
not gotten anywhere. Deriving the field equations was his last
resort. Most physicists do not know how the field equations are
derived. I suppose you do not know either. shrug

On Apr 21, 10:42*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip arrogant stupidity]

You and TvF make a great couple - neither of you know what you are
talking about, yet are willing to argue about it endlessly.