Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:44:38 +0000:

Albertito wrote:
There are evidences showing that in Solar system, the speed of gravity
is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.

Sure. But this is MODEL DEPENDENT. In the model of Newtonian
gravitation, gravity propagates INSTANTLY (i.e. with infinite speed).

Being a AAAD theory, nothing propagates in Newtonian gravitation.
speaking about infinite speed is misleading also. Infinite speed of what?

In
the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all,

Gravitational waves travel at c like changes in spacetime geometry do.

but changes in
gravity propagate with speed c. The GR model agrees with all these
"evidences", and indeed it accounts MUCH more accurately than the
Newtonian model for measurements in the solar system (including the
perihelions of Mercury and other planets, the Shapiro time delay, the
bending of EM radiation by the sun, the operation of the GPS, the frame
dragging measured by the LAGEOS satellites, etc.).

GR gives better results (i would not say "MUCH") for purely relativistic
effects. Since NG is non-relativistic, this is not kind of surprising.

The problem with NG is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit. GR
literature is incorrect at this point.

Moreover, NG is free from several difficulties affecting GR: energy
problem, systems of reference problems, unphysical boundaries,
quantization, N-body theory...



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

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:44:38 +0000:
In the model of Newtonian
gravitation, gravity propagates INSTANTLY (i.e. with infinite speed).

Being a AAAD theory, nothing propagates in Newtonian gravitation.
speaking about infinite speed is misleading also. Infinite speed of what?

Infinite speed of gravity, of course. You are just saying the same thing
using different words (AAAD == infinite speed of propagation of influence).


In
the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all,

Gravitational waves travel at c like changes in spacetime geometry do.

Of course -- gravitational waves _ARE_ changes in spacetime geometry.


The GR model agrees with all these
"evidences", and indeed it accounts MUCH more accurately than the
Newtonian model for measurements in the solar system (including the
perihelions of Mercury and other planets, the Shapiro time delay, the
bending of EM radiation by the sun, the operation of the GPS, the frame
dragging measured by the LAGEOS satellites, etc.).

GR gives better results (i would not say "MUCH") for purely relativistic
effects. Since NG is non-relativistic, this is not kind of surprising.

Hmmm. If you mean NG is accurate in the non-relativistic regime, then
sure. But such a statement carries no information. And the usual meaning
of "relativistic effects" does not apply to any of the measurements I
mentioned. In any case, my "MUCH" is certainly justified -- NG fails to
predict ANY of them anywhere close to correctly (why else do you suppose
I chose them?):

Measurement NG GR
---------------------- ----------- ---------
Perih. of Mercury et al zero correct
Shapiro time delay zero * correct
Bending of EM radiation zero * correct
operation of GPS hopeless correct
frame dragging zero correct

Where "correct" means within the appropriate experimental resolution.

* For NG applied to EM waves, I use the fact that
such waves are massless in making the NG prediction.


The problem with NG is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit. GR
literature is incorrect at this point.

If this is not a typo it makes no sense. If it is a typo, writing "NG"
when you meant "GR", then you are wrong -- there is nothing "inadequate"
about the Newtonian limit of GR.


Moreover, NG is free from several difficulties affecting GR: energy
problem, systems of reference problems, unphysical boundaries,
quantization, N-body theory...

Some of those "difficulties" are merely complications that are
inescapable: energy problem, systems of reference problems. Some are (as
best I can tell) figments of your imagination: unphysical boundaries,
N-body problem. Yes, quantization is a problem for GR and severely
limits its domain of applicability, but NG has much worse problems
(disagreement with numerous experiments within its domain of applicability).


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:11:31 +0000:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:44:38 +0000:
In the model of Newtonian
gravitation, gravity propagates INSTANTLY (i.e. with infinite speed).

Being a AAAD theory, nothing propagates in Newtonian gravitation.
speaking about infinite speed is misleading also. Infinite speed of
what?

Infinite speed of gravity, of course.

Gravity in AAAD has not a property called "speed", of course.

You are just saying the same thing
using different words (AAAD == infinite speed of propagation of
influence).

No, i am just saying the contrary: in AAAD nothing propagates including
"influences".

You would not confound AAAD models with field-metric models.

In
the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all,

Gravitational waves travel at c like changes in spacetime geometry do.

Of course -- gravitational waves _ARE_ changes in spacetime geometry.

Of course "like... do" could be emphasized as "_LIKE_... _DO_".

GR gives better results (i would not say "MUCH") for purely
relativistic effects. Since NG is non-relativistic, this is not kind of
surprising.

Hmmm. If you mean NG is accurate in the non-relativistic regime, then
sure. But such a statement carries no information.

Hmmm. Crizing a non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic
regimes is very old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.

And the usual meaning
of "relativistic effects" does not apply to any of the measurements I
mentioned.

Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects, if
one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.

"Relativistic effects" had certain restricted meaning in 1908 because
then only SR was known...

In any case, my "MUCH" is certainly justified -- NG fails to
predict ANY of them anywhere close to correctly (why else do you suppose
I chose them?):

As explained before NG does not exactly fail to explain relativistic
effects. That is wrong claim. NG does not apply to relativistic phenomena
because is a non-relativistic theory.

Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand SCIENCE.

But that is another point...

Measurement NG GR ----------------------
----------- --------- Perih. of Mercury et al zero
correct Shapiro time delay zero * correct Bending
of EM radiation zero * correct operation of GPS
hopeless correct frame dragging zero
correct

Where "correct" means within the appropriate experimental resolution.

* For NG applied to EM waves, I use the fact that
such waves are massless in making the NG prediction.

This table has been clearly done to confound readers.

Computes total values for entries making *sense* and try next ratio

NG value
_________________________________________

NG value + relativistic correction


You will find most of ratios are very small. Rest is so unfair as a table
comparing quantum gravity with GR.

The problem with NG is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit. GR
literature is incorrect at this point.

If this is not a typo it makes no sense. If it is a typo, writing "NG"

Only a genious could see it is a typo, thanks by kindly correction!

"The problem with GR is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit."

when you meant "GR", then you are wrong -- there is nothing "inadequate"
about the Newtonian limit of GR.

You are wrong. The NG limit does not exist and the several Newtonian-like
limits tried on relativistic literature are not actually working (lacking
mathematical rigor, unphysical boundaries,...).

Moreover, NG is free from several difficulties affecting GR: energy
problem, systems of reference problems, unphysical boundaries,
quantization, N-body theory...

Some of those "difficulties" are merely complications that are
inescapable: energy problem, systems of reference problems.

They they are "inescapable" when you decide to introduces it on physics,
i.e. when you insist on a geometrical interpretation of gravity.

Some are (as
best I can tell) figments of your imagination: unphysical boundaries,
N-body problem.

Those problems are well-known and studied on literature. Several
proposals are done to correct eliminate them.

Yes, you are not aware of them but as is known from sci.physics.research

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

Yes, quantization is a problem for GR and severely
limits its domain of applicability

But NG can be quantized without the further problems of GR!


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

On Mar 8, 3:51 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
[...]

Hmmm. Crizing a non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic
regimes is very old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.

Yes, criticizing a theory because it fails to account for observation
is a pretty old tactic. Not surprising that a crank has a problem with
that concept.

[...]
[...]


"The problem with GR is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit."

Exercising that lying muscle again? Everyone involved knows you are
lying.


when you meant "GR", then you are wrong -- there is nothing "inadequate"
about the Newtonian limit of GR.

You are wrong. The NG limit does not exist and the several Newtonian-like
limits tried on relativistic literature are not actually working (lacking
mathematical rigor, unphysical boundaries,...).

The Newtonian limit does exist - it does not matter whether you accept
or understand the presentation or not. The only complaint that is
remotely similar to being reasonable is that the conservation of the
stress-energy tensor is inconsistent with the first order nature of
the weak field limit, but even that has an acceptable resolution.
Maybe not to you, but you don't matter.

[snip]


But NG can be quantized without the further problems of GR!

NEWTON IS WRONG, INEDUCABLE CRANK.


--
I applyhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

Supertroll Eric Gisse trolled:

Not surprising that a Eric crank has a problem with that
concept.

Exercising that lying muscle again? Everyone involved knows Eric is
lying.


but Eric don't matter.

NEWTON IS WRONG, INEDUCABLE CRANK.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

--
Dono is concubine Lady Chacha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodo-Dono

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:11:31 +0000:
Hmmm. Crizing a non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic
regimes is very old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.

Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with experiments
is not "unfair" at all. This is supposed to be science, and YOU are the
one pushing NG.


And the usual meaning
of "relativistic effects" does not apply to any of the measurements I
mentioned.

Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects, if
one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.

Hmm. The usual meaning of "relativistic effects" is that they are
important only for speeds approaching c (SR) or very strong fields (GR).
None of the experiments I mentioned have either.

You seem to mean "relativistic effects" when the non-relativistic theory
fails. That's silly, and useless -- for good enough measurement
resolution the non-relativistic theory is completely useless. Several of
the experiments I mentioned have extraordinarily good resolutions, and
_that_ is why they are important.


As explained before NG does not exactly fail to explain relativistic
effects. That is wrong claim. NG does not apply to relativistic phenomena
because is a non-relativistic theory.

There is no "relativistic phenomena" involved in ANY of the experiments
I mentioned, unless one uses your silly meaning.


Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand SCIENCE.

Ok. I'm not the one pushing NG, you are. Note its "range of validity"
depends on one's measurement accuracy, and for good enough accuracy its
"range" is essentially empty. Certainly such accuracy is common today (a
$200 GPS receiver), and will be even more common in the future as
measurement techniques improve.


[my list of experiments, totally corrupted and now unreadable]

This table has been clearly done to confound readers.

The "confounding" is all yours.

Computes total values for entries making *sense* and try next ratio
NG value
_________________________________________

NG value + relativistic correction

That is a very silly way to do this. And your denominator is outrageous
-- it should at least be "GR value".

Note, however, the CORRECT way to do this is to compare the theories via
these two ratios:
|NGvalue - Experiment| / sigma_experiment
|GRvalue - Experiment| / sigma_experiment

[sigma_experiment is the experimental resolution.]

When one does that, one finds that for EVERY ONE of the experiments I
mentioned the NGvalue is so different from the experimental value that
NG is soundly refuted; the GR value is quite reasonable for all of them.


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

I merely remark that neither Uncle Al nor you have ever responded to my
followup -- in the physics community it is quite common to consider
one's understanding of a subject to be measured by the ability to
explain it to a graduate student or postdoc not expert in the field. You
both fail that criterion, and instead rely on "dense spews of jargon
indistinguishable from nonsense" [Tom Roberts to Uncle Al, in the thread
you quoted].


But NG can be quantized without the further problems of GR!

Whyever would that matter? -- who cares about a demonstrably incorrect
and soundly refuted theory like NG?

That's like claiming 2+2=5 can be generalized without the
"problems" of number theory.


Tom Roberts

On Mar 7, 2:56 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 2:16 am, Albertito wrote:


[...]
What is spacetime but a kind of ether?

Spacetime in no way resembles ether. Learn what both the concepts
represent.


Like all words, each of these will represent a different concept for
all listeners. I'd like to take your advice and learn just what these
concepts represent.

In no way do they resemble one another?
How about the following ways:

1) they can both be used to describe something that in some way "fills
all space"
2) they both can be used as what is the medium for electromagnetic
radiation
3) they can both be described by spatial and temporal coordinates
4) when "empty", these terms can represent in some way a vacuum
5) we can speak of "curvature" of both things
6) they are both physics concepts emerging from our understanding of
electromagnetism
7) they both frequent this newsgroup
8) neither one can be directly physically "measured" (?)

Of course it wouldn't be fair to not list some obvious differences

1) spacetime a new term, ether an older word from when people didn't
know as much
2) spacetime can refer to descriptions of coordinates and
computational methodology (3+1 dimensions, transformations), aether
not so much
3) ether is in common parlance used as a description for an
information manifold, e.g. the EM spectrum or sending emails out to
the ether, spacetime not so much


Cheers -

Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:26:21 +0000:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:11:31 +0000: Hmmm. Crizing a
non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic regimes is very
old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.

Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with experiments
is not "unfair" at all.

English may be not your natural language.

I said

Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with relativistic
experiments is "unfair" at all.

Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects,
if one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.

Hmm. The usual meaning of "relativistic effects" is that they are
important only for speeds approaching c (SR) or very strong fields (GR).
None of the experiments I mentioned have either.

Completely wrong. E.g. anomaly Mercury perihelion is explained by two
relativistic corrections.

But since you only look to "how" instead "why" you lack understanding.

Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand
SCIENCE.

Ok. I'm not the one pushing NG, you are.

One of your usual FALSE accusations tactics. Read i exactly said.

[my list of experiments, totally corrupted and unreadable]

When one does that, one finds that for EVERY ONE of the experiments I
mentioned the NGvalue is so different from the experimental value that
NG is soundly refuted; the GR value is quite reasonable for all of them.

No SERIOUS scientist would apply a theory outside its range of
applicability waiting meaningful answers. Tom, that is not how science
works.

And no HONEST scientist would use those answers to attack that theory he
DISLIKE/HATES. Science is a dialog with Nature Tom.

in the physics community it is quite common to consider
one's understanding of a subject to be measured by the ability to

In the physics community it is rather common to provide detailed replies
when one is sure the other can understand it. One aloso usually ignores
unfair queries That is because you received that reply in
sci.physics.research.

Whyever would that matter? -- who cares about a demonstrably incorrect
and soundly refuted theory like NG?

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



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

On Mar 9, 8:13 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:26:21 +0000:

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:11:31 +0000: Hmmm. Crizing a
non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic regimes is very
old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.

Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with experiments
is not "unfair" at all.

English may be not your natural language.

I said

Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with relativistic
experiments is "unfair" at all.

Why? If a theory fails to account for experiment, it is a fault of the
theory.


Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects,
if one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.

Hmm. The usual meaning of "relativistic effects" is that they are
important only for speeds approaching c (SR) or very strong fields (GR).
None of the experiments I mentioned have either.

Completely wrong. E.g. anomaly Mercury perihelion is explained by two
relativistic corrections.

A new and interesting way of misunderstanding relativity. Do explain
why you think there are two corrections.


But since you only look to "how" instead "why" you lack understanding.

Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand
SCIENCE.

Ok. I'm not the one pushing NG, you are.

One of your usual FALSE accusations tactics. Read i exactly said.

[my list of experiments, totally corrupted and unreadable]
When one does that, one finds that for EVERY ONE of the experiments I
mentioned the NGvalue is so different from the experimental value that
NG is soundly refuted; the GR value is quite reasonable for all of them.

No SERIOUS scientist would apply a theory outside its range of
applicability waiting meaningful answers. Tom, that is not how science
works.

And no HONEST scientist would use those answers to attack that theory he
DISLIKE/HATES. Science is a dialog with Nature Tom.

...and no SERIOUS or HONEST scientist would use domains of application
as a shield to protect it against the observational fact that it is
wrong.


in the physics community it is quite common to consider
one's understanding of a subject to be measured by the ability to

In the physics community it is rather common to provide detailed replies
when one is sure the other can understand it. One aloso usually ignores
unfair queries That is because you received that reply in
sci.physics.research.

Whyever would that matter? -- who cares about a demonstrably incorrect
and soundly refuted theory like NG?

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

--
I applyhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

On 7 mar, 13:56, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 2:16 am, Albertito wrote:



On 6 mar, 23:02, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:41 am, Albertito wrote:

There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
than the speed of light.

No, there is not. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is true.

But, what must we understand
by speed of gravity?. Aetherists often claim that gravity
are longitudinal waves, whereas light are transverse
waves through the aether.

Why even mention this? Ether has been ruled out as a viable concept
EVERY SINGLE TIME for the last hundred and thirty years. Nobody but
cranks in the fringe take ether seriously anymore.

What is spacetime but a kind of ether?

Spacetime in no way resembles ether. Learn what both the concepts
represent.



We know that in any medium
longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves.

Only if the medium is anisotropic. Where are the calculations in which
you actually derive the things you write?

Wrong. Anisotropy is not a requirement for the speed of longitudinal
waves were higher than the speed of transverse ones. In isotropic
and homogenous medium that difference in speed holds too.

Show me the derivation.

[snip spew]

You are not listening. You write down a bunch of equations but you
don't justify or derive any of them.

Look at these equations,
c_L^2 = (2G/d_0)(1-v)/(1-2v)
c_S^2 = G/d_0

c_L is longitudinal speed
c_S is transverse speed,
d_0 is mass density,
G is G is shear modulus, and
v is Poison's ratio

For an isotropic medium, the Poison's ratio is the same
in any direction. Therefore, c_L = c_S only in the case
v = 0. This case can only occurs for a medium
which were perfectly compressible. So, it is clear
that the factor (1-v)/(1-2v) can only be greater or
equal to 1, yieding always c_L = c_S.