Hi Juan, TVF, Eugene et al.

On May 28, 4:16 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 14:26:29 -0700:

Steve Carlip writes:
We have been discussing this issue for nearly 15 years now.
Sometimes,
you get frustrated and use the occasional ad hominem remark. But I've
never seen you so insulting and off-topic as this.

Dr. Carlip is a well-known academic flammer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

Consider a body on a circular orbit. Its gravitational potential is
constant. Yet the gradient of that potential (a vector) is
ever-changing. Your claim is wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with
the physics of gradients, having learned only the trivial math.

As Juan has already pointed out, "force" is the time rate of change
of
momentum.

Neither Carlip nor Roberts seem to know this standard definition.

A gravitational force creates a gradient in the density of the
"space-time medium" that we now call gravitational potential. But there
is no requirement in physics or logic for the gradient in the potential
to be created with the same speed as the propagation speed of the force.
Any medium may take a finite time to respond to the action of a force.
The gravitational potential medium is apparently synonymous with the
light-carrying medium", and changes at the speed of light. Meanwhile,
the force that creates that gradient propagates at speeds c,
according to all existing experimental evidence.

Tom, an important problem here is that Steve Carlip is really confused
even about the very basic stuff on interactions.

For instance, Carlip does not know what is the expression for the
Newtonian potential.

Carlip confounds the Newtonian potential phi(R(t)), with the
nonrelativistic limit of a gravitational 'Lienard-Wiechert' phi(r,t),
which is derived from g_00 in the geometrical formulation.

His confusion about functions explains why Carlip fails to understand how
to take the gradients correctly and also explain why he confounds the
speed of the interaction with the speed c. And also explains several
flagrantly wrong physical comments by Carlip regarding boundaries.

As is well-known Carlip repeats mistakes in his famous paper on
aberration in PLA.

Carlip mistakes about electromagnetic interactions and speed are
corrected in

1996: Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda,
Roman.

1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

and also in

1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A 14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev,
Stoyan J.

All recent works (and others i have not cited here) show that
electromagnetic interactions are *not* retarded by c, which is Carlip
wrong *belief*.

The cited papers point a number of well-known mistakes that Carlip and
other relativists are doing about interactions.

Regarding the issue of the speed of gravity, Carlip just repeats same
mistakes.

The electromagnetic dualism recently introduced in (1996: Phys. Rev. E
53, 5373; 1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793; 1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683) has
been generalized and applied to gravity in my paper "Newtonian limit
difficulties of General Relativity" which i am close to finish a new and
improved version 3.

Dualism implies gravitational generalization of geometric GR

h_ab(r,t) -- h_ab(r,t) + h_ab(R(t))

It is showed that h_ab(R(t)) reduces exactly to Newtonian potential
whereas the geometric solution h_ab(r,t) does *not*.

It is showed that the geometric approach to gravity is *broken* whereas
the field formulation (FTG) and the direct particle formulation (DPI)
like (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019) are not.

I would also point that it seems recent papers have provided experimental
electromagnetic measurements of v 10 c.

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 102, 013529 2007

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 101, 023532 2007

See figure 6 on the latter. But i am still studying those papers.

Of interest for students is also "Classical Relativistic Many-Body
Dynamics. 1999: Springer. Trump, Matthew A; Schieve, William C."

Where the authors also point to the correct two-body Newtonian potential
as function

phi(R(t)) (just i said :-))

and then generalize relativistically it as

phi(\rho(\tau))

where \rho is a generalized distance and \tau and multi-body time (it is
not proper-time in general).

That generalized relativistic potential is very popular but does not
satisfies some requirements i consider needed By that reason i am
developing an different relativistic many-body dynamics.

However at least the authors of the monograph know what *is* the
Newtonian potential :-)

Carlip decided to label me as "crank" last time i remarked his confusion
about Newtonian potentials.

I find interesting that one of the world experts in the field of
relativistic chaos

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

has obtained the same conclusion about potentials i obtained and works
with the exactly the same functional expression i am working.

Is Prof. Schieve (and Stuckelberg, Feynman, Piron, Horwitz...) also a
crank dear Carlip? :-)

Dr. Carlip has arrived at the same conclusion
as I have, though by different means. My way
is presented to be simpler and more accessible,
and I have previously posted diagrams in this
thread and a geodesic solution example.

Back in 1908, Minkowski wrote an article
"Space and Time", (Dover's PoR has it).
In that is a Group denoted G(oo), that you
Juan, TVF and Eugene subscribe to and another
group G(c) that supersedes G(oo) that Minkowski
proves (to my satisfaction) is necessary
for the Lorentz Transformation.

I've personally checked and certified
"Modern SpaceTime" at this link,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
and find it fully compatible with related
branches of SpaceTime, with those briefs
here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
Therein, you can see an independantly derived
confirmation of Group G(c), over a wide range
of physics, carefully done, with minimalistic
assumptions, and of course, in accord with the
ISU's 1983 Length-Time decision, that has
International acceptance.

The year is 2008, I see no physical evidence
to go back to 1907 to embrace G(oo), thereby
discarding G(c) and a century of hard work.

Neither Juan, TVF or Eugene has provided a
shred of physical evidence to cancel a century
of hard work, and move us back to G(oo).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt8

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 12:55:31 -0700:

Neither Juan, TVF or Eugene has provided a shred of physical evidence to
cancel a century of hard work, and move us back to G(oo). Regards
Ken S. Tucker

This is a clear misreading i have said.

If you had read i said then you would understand i am speaking about an
*extension* of SR, GR, CEM, and QFT.

The model of interactions retarded by c is not fundamental. That is now
known and the mistakes you are doing already were corrected in print
during last 10 years (see references cited). I do not see your point to
repeat the same mistakes again. Science advances.

Both Special Relativity and Classical Electrodynamics are recovered as
special case when next *approximation* holds

A^b(R(t)) + A^b(R(t)) -- A^b(r,t)

Both Field Theory of Gravity and General Relativity are recovered as
special case when next *approximation* holds

h^ab(R(t)) + h^ab(R(t)) -- h^ab(r,t)

In those approximations it can be shown that interactions are retarded by
c.

Of course. From a fundamental and general point of view the speed of
interactions is not c :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Thu, 29 May 2008 14:10:23 +0200:

Both Special Relativity and Classical Electrodynamics are recovered as
special case when next *approximation* holds

A^b(R(t)) + A^b(R(t)) -- A^b(r,t)

That is wrong. It is

A^b(R(t)) + A^b(r,t) -- A^b(r,t)


Both Field Theory of Gravity and General Relativity are recovered as
special case when next *approximation* holds

h^ab(R(t)) + h^ab(R(t)) -- h^ab(r,t)

That is wrong. It is

h^ab(R(t)) + h^ab(r,t) -- h^ab(r,t)

In those approximations it can be shown that interactions are retarded
by c.

Of course. From a fundamental and general point of view the speed of
interactions is not c :-)



--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

On May 29, 5:10 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 12:55:31 -0700:

Neither Juan, TVF or Eugene has provided a shred of physical evidence to
cancel a century of hard work, and move us back to G(oo). Regards
Ken S. Tucker

This is a clear misreading i have said.

If you had read i said then you would understand i am speaking about an
*extension* of SR, GR, CEM, and QFT.

The model of interactions retarded by c is not fundamental. That is now
known and the mistakes you are doing already were corrected in print
during last 10 years (see references cited). I do not see your point to
repeat the same mistakes again. Science advances.

Theoretical physics does advance and the Group(oo)
died a century ago, replaced by Group(c) in 1908,
based on experimental science.
Provide us with your best experimental evidence
to suggest G(oo) exists, and please make it a link,
I don't feel like being sold magazines.
Regards
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 29 May 2008 08:41:49 -0700:

On May 29, 5:10 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 12:55:31 -0700:

Neither Juan, TVF or Eugene has provided a shred of physical evidence
to cancel a century of hard work, and move us back to G(oo). Regards
Ken S. Tucker

This is a clear misreading i have said.

If you had read i said then you would understand i am speaking about an
*extension* of SR, GR, CEM, and QFT.

The model of interactions retarded by c is not fundamental. That is now
known and the mistakes you are doing already were corrected in print
during last 10 years (see references cited). I do not see your point to
repeat the same mistakes again. Science advances.

Theoretical physics does advance and the Group(oo) died a century ago,
replaced by Group(c) in 1908, based on experimental science.
Provide us with your best experimental evidence to suggest G(oo) exists,
and please make it a link, I don't feel like being sold magazines.
Regards
Ken

If you cannot understand what "extension of SR and GR" means and
illogically returns to off-topic comments about year 1908. Then this
debate is deceased.

If you are unaware or recent theoretical and experimental advances
published in main journals during last 10 years and refuse to read
references i have cited then the debate is also deceased.


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

On May 29, 9:54 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 29 May 2008 08:41:49 -0700:



On May 29, 5:10 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 12:55:31 -0700:

Neither Juan, TVF or Eugene has provided a shred of physical evidence
to cancel a century of hard work, and move us back to G(oo). Regards
Ken S. Tucker

This is a clear misreading i have said.

If you had read i said then you would understand i am speaking about an
*extension* of SR, GR, CEM, and QFT.

The model of interactions retarded by c is not fundamental. That is now
known and the mistakes you are doing already were corrected in print
during last 10 years (see references cited). I do not see your point to
repeat the same mistakes again. Science advances.

Theoretical physics does advance and the Group(oo) died a century ago,
replaced by Group(c) in 1908, based on experimental science.
Provide us with your best experimental evidence to suggest G(oo) exists,
and please make it a link, I don't feel like being sold magazines.
Regards
Ken

If you cannot understand what "extension of SR and GR" means and
illogically returns to off-topic comments about year 1908. Then this
debate is deceased.

If you are unaware or recent theoretical and experimental advances
published in main journals during last 10 years and refuse to read
references i have cited then the debate is also deceased.

Ok, I'll remain open minded to your Juan's, TVF's
and Eugenes G(oo) conjecture pending online
available data for the group, if such experimental
proof becomes available.
In the meantime, I'll respectably accept your
resignations.
Good Luck & Cheers.
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 29 May 2008 10:50:15 -0700:

On May 29, 9:54 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 29 May 2008 08:41:49 -0700:



On May 29, 5:10 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 12:55:31 -0700:

Neither Juan, TVF or Eugene has provided a shred of physical
evidence to cancel a century of hard work, and move us back to
G(oo). Regards Ken S. Tucker

This is a clear misreading i have said.

If you had read i said then you would understand i am speaking about
an *extension* of SR, GR, CEM, and QFT.

The model of interactions retarded by c is not fundamental. That is
now known and the mistakes you are doing already were corrected in
print during last 10 years (see references cited). I do not see your
point to repeat the same mistakes again. Science advances.

Theoretical physics does advance and the Group(oo) died a century
ago, replaced by Group(c) in 1908, based on experimental science.
Provide us with your best experimental evidence to suggest G(oo)
exists, and please make it a link, I don't feel like being sold
magazines. Regards
Ken

If you cannot understand what "extension of SR and GR" means and
illogically returns to off-topic comments about year 1908. Then this
debate is deceased.

If you are unaware or recent theoretical and experimental advances
published in main journals during last 10 years and refuse to read
references i have cited then the debate is also deceased.

Ok, I'll remain open minded to your Juan's, TVF's and Eugenes G(oo)
conjecture pending online available data for the group, if such
experimental proof becomes available.
In the meantime, I'll respectably accept your resignations.
Good Luck & Cheers.

Already replied :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

On May 27, 11:26 pm, "Tom Van Flandern"
wrote:
Steve Carlip writes:
[Carlip]: I've had an intermittent connection to USENET recently, and
missed this when it first appeared.

I give you credit for your belated respond. That is better than ignoring
the issues on the table.

[Carlip]: Still, though, there's not too much to say, since Tom Van
Flandern is merely exhibiting his basic ignorance of GR. ... Your
statement here exhibits a profound lack of understanding of basic
mathematics. ... This is elementary undergraduate calculus. ... This is
again elementary mathematics. ... if you want to claim to agree with GR,
you need to learn some math.

We have been discussing this issue for nearly 15 years now. Sometimes,
you get frustrated and use the occasional ad hominem remark. But I've never
seen you so insulting and off-topic as this.


I've been following the interesting debate!

I'm going to snip the rest of this, sorry...

As I understand it the math of GR needn't scare anyone away because
the same physics applies to the Lienard-Weichert potential of E&M. Of
course, that might be scary enough already for some but..

Let me try to make a layman's explanation of Carlip's argument.. is
the idea that the space-time ahead of the Earth, where the Earth has
not yet reached in its orbit, has already been affected by
gravitational force of the sun, and therefore the force is in a
slightly different direction making our orbit stable?

Cheers -

saul wrote on Thu, 29 May 2008 14:23:08 -0700:

Let me try to make a layman's explanation of Carlip's argument..

It is difficult to understand how a layman's explanation of a wrong
argument (has been proved to be wrong in print in several top journals of
physics and maths) would help :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
Steve Carlip writes:

[Carlip]: Now, at time t=0, make the following change in R: stop the
motion of M. You apparently agree that this change will have no affect
at p until the time for a light signal to reach p from R.

[TomVF]: What I agreed to was that the gravitational potential field at p
would not change until one light-time later than t = 0. However, it is
clear from logic, observation, and computer experiments that the force
operating at point p changes almost instantly,

[Carlip]: The "force" is the gradient of the potential. If the potential
doesn't change, its derivatives don't, either.

Consider a body on a circular orbit. Its gravitational potential is
constant. Yet the gradient of that potential (a vector) is ever-changing.
Your claim is wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with the physics of
gradients, having learned only the trivial math.

This is silly. The potential at the location of the object (not "its potential"
-- the potential is not a characteristic of the orbiting object, but of the
gravitational source) is never constant. For Newtonian gravity, the
derivative of the potential *in the direction of the orbiting object* is zero,
which is why there is no tangential force. But at each point in the orbit,
the derivative of the potential in the direction perpendicular to the
orbit is nonzero. To call such a potential "constant" is a word game.

Note that when the orbiting object is at a position (x,y,z), the force is
determined by the gradient of the potential at (x,y,z), at the time the
object is at that location.

That's what the gradient is. Please tell me what the "retarded gradient"
is. For example, here's a function:

F(x,y,z,t) = 1/sqrt{ (x-at)^2 + (y-bt)^2 + (z-ct)^2}

I know how to compute its gradient at any position and time. Please write
down its "retarded gradient."

[...]
[Carlip]: Write down the exact solution of the Einstein field equations
for a mass M that initially moves at a constant velocity and then
abruptly stops. ... Now just compute the acceleration at p. ... This is
not a question of an "interpretation" -- it is a direct, unambiguous
mathematical prediction.

[TomVF]: You can only say that because you have apparently not understood
the real issue. (More below.)

[Carlip]: Nonsense. This is not a question of interpretation. It is a
*calculation*. General relativity tells you exactly how to do the
computation, first to determine the metric from the source mass and then
to determine the geodesics in that metric. Nothing is ambiguous.

Why did you stop there, when the issue of how to determine the
acceleration of the target body doesn't arise until the next step? *After*
you determine the geodesics in that metric, you must still compute a
gradient (or take the equivalent spatial partials) to get the 3-space
force/acceleration.

This statement demonstrates clearly that you don't understand basic
general relativity. The geodesics of the metric *are* the paths of the target
bodies. Once you know the path -- the position as a function of time -- you
can use any coordinate system you like, and any definition of acceleration
you like. The answer is uniquely determined.

To do that, you must make a new *assumption*: that the
retarded potential causes the gravitational force operating on the target
body, or vice versa. In the former case, the force is retarded and gives the
wrong orbit. Geometric GR hides behind the math of 4-space, and never faces
this purely 3-space issue.

The geodesic *is* the path. It's (x(t),y(t),z(t)). Once you give an initial position
and velocity, this path is completely and uniquely determined by the geodesic
equation. No further assumptions are needed.

We have a plain ambiguity in the physics there, with no counterpart in
the math. One cannot solve problems and advance understanding by letting
equations do the thinking.

The equations give a unique, unambiguous solution. If you think that solution
is physically wrong, then you think the equations are wrong. If you think the
equations of general relativity are wrong, then you think general relativity
is wrong. If that's what you think, fine -- but stop pretending otherwise, and
claiming that you're just "reinterpreting."

[TomVF]: 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?

[Carlip]: There is no such thing as a "retarded gradient." The gradient
of a function is the vector of its spatial derivatives. Time doesn't
come into it.

[TomVF]: Here you make an elementary mistake. It takes two points (or one
point and a direction) to determine a vector. So there is most definitely
a "time" issue because there is no remote simultaneity in relativity.
That means if the two points are synchronized in M's frame, they are not
synchronized in p's frame; and vice versa. So the "gradient" cannot be
the same for both frames if they have a relative transverse motion.

[Carlip]: "Gradient" is a mathematical operation. Given a function, the
gradient is the vector whose components are its derivatives. The gradient
of a function at position x and time t is determined by the value of the
function at x (and in its infinitesimal neighborhood) at time t, period.

It is common in physics to use gradients in dynamic situations, and not
just in static ones. If a field is fixed with respect to a coordinate system
(the only case you consider),

I cerainly don't only consider such a case.

then there is no difference between retarded
and instantaneous gradients. But if the field moves relative to the
coordinate system (as it does for target bodies with transverse motion
relative to a source mass), then the instantaneous and the retarded
gradients differ in direction.

You claim that there is a mathematical operation called "retarded gradient."
Define it! Given a field, as a function of position and time in a given
coordinate system, tell me the mathematical procedure for computing its
"retarded gradient."

[...]
But then, my paper with Vigier in Foundations of Physics is now six
years old, and already back then showed the definition of gradient and how
to apply it to the case of a dynamic target body.

I have looked at that paper, but apparently missed the definition. Please give
me the equation number for the equation in that paper that defines the
"retarded gradient" of a function.

Steve Carlip