On Aug 28, 2:26*pm, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
Steve Carlip writes:

snip

[Carlip]: The geodesic equations are ... [equations omitted]. According to
theorems for ordinary differential equations that date back to the late
1800s, given initial data -- that is, the initial position and velocity of
the test body -- the solution is unique.

* * The solution is unique for any fixed point in the field. The solution
and its history ignore that a moving point will experience gravitational
aberration of the source mass. You can call this an error in the deviation
if you are so inclined, because the math omitted consideration of important,
non-optional physics.

* * However, it happens that aberration is zero if and only if the
propagation speed of gravitational force is infinite. So the error in the
derivation of the equations of motion is self-healing because the real,
physical speed of gravity is so fast that "infinite" is still a fully
adequate approximation. The error of omission in the derivation of the
equations of motion is rendered moot because gravitational aberration is in
fact indistinguishable from zero. That lucky accident leaves the equations
of motion correct despite the derivation error. Otherwise, GR would have
been long-ago falsified by observations.

* * However, the missing step in the derivation (i.e., explicit
consideration of gravitational aberration) is apparently keeping you from
seeing that it is a required step, the omission of which is the physics
equivalent of adopting infinite gravitational propagation speed -- which is
the only reason that GR can reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field,
low-velocity limit. And we all agree Newtonian gravity has infinite gravity
propagation speed.

* * It would be nice if you could explain in physics terms (no math) why a
spacecraft in a circular orbit around the Sun at a distance of 1200 au
(surely weak field and low velocity) has an infinite gravity propagation
speed by Newton's rules, has gravity propagating at the speed of light in
GR, yet the two are equivalent? The light-time to that distance is about a
week, so the propagation delay would cause the orbit to spiral under Newton's
rules. Why doesn't it do the same in GR? (My answer: GR also has infinite
gravity propagation speed in its equations of motion, which is evident when
they reduce to the same as Newton's equations for this example.)

I thought that the only difference between Newtonian Gravity (NG) and
General Relativity (GR) as far as the math goes is that the speed
limit established by Special Relativity (SR) has to apply to General
Relativity, otherwise the theories (GR and SR) would be in conflict.
If GR is using infinite gravity force propagation speed, then why were
the predictions of GR versus NG different?

Vern

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
The only things we delete from our Meta Research message board are
insults, way-off-topic postings, and ads or spam. Our Board welcomes
and encourages criticism and dissent. We never "censor".

False. The cited case is a clear counter-example. The posting was
censored solely because the moderator didn't like the way the
discussion was progressing (i.e., presenting clear, simple, and
irrefutable disproofs of the main pseudo-scientific claims presented
on that web site). There were even some follow-up questions by other
posters, asking about why the censorship had taken place.

I rely on the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment, which demonstrated that the
propagation speed of Coulomb forces is indeed strongly faster than the
speed of light. [See "Electromagnetic mass and the inertial
properties of nuclei", C.W. Sherwin and R.D. Rawcliffe, Report I-92 of March
14, 1960 of the Consolidated Science Laboratory, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana...

Report I-92 of the Consolidated Science Lab, from 1960? This is your
"source" for a claim that is utterly contradictory to everything known
and demonstrated countless times each day regarding electromagnetism?
As any rational person realizes, a claim that the Coulomb force (or
anything else that could convey information) propagates faster than
light would not languish in "Report I-92 of the Consolidated Science
Lab" since 1960 if it had even a SHRED of scientific credibility. Why
did this major scientific discovery with earth-shattering consequences
not appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Answer: It was
rejected by all such journals for being "not suitable for our
publication" (the polite way of dispositioning such papers).

accelerators rely explicitly on an electrostatic field to accelerate the
particles, and of course the resulting acceleration is asymptotic to the
speed of light.

This is actually an interesting subject, where the science is by no
means settled.

Translation: Tom has yet to fabricate one of his trademark
pseudo-scientific rebuttals to this clear and simple refutation of his
claims.

Needless to say, the science of how particle accelerators work is not
"unsettled", it simply contradicts Toms pseudo-scientific claims, and
he has no answer to this. His only defense is censorship on his
message board, but USENET is less controllable, which one presumes is
why Tom prefers his message board. It's so much easier to make
refutations of his ideas disappear there.

Vern writes:

[TomVF]: GR also has infinite gravity propagation speed in its equations
of motion, which is evident when they reduce to the same as Newton's
equations...

[Vern]: I thought that the only difference between Newtonian Gravity (NG)
and General Relativity (GR) as far as the math goes is that the speed
limit established by Special Relativity (SR) has to apply to General
Relativity, otherwise the theories (GR and SR) would be in conflict. If GR
is using infinite gravity force propagation speed, then why were the
predictions of GR versus NG different?

Good question, Vern. GR introduces the concept of a "gravitational
(potential) field". This field is the physical equivalent of the
light-carrying medium, and changes in it (electromagnetic waves) propagate
at the speed of light. The field is an add-on to NG because the field is
responsible for the new effects predicted by GR that do not occur in NG:
light-bending, gravitational redshift, Shapiro delay, and perihelion
advance. We now know that, rather than "space-time curvature", a simpler
physical understanding of these effects is that they are simply refraction
effects in the light-carrying medium, which is made denser near masses by
gravitational forces. The field itself has nothing to do with ordinary
gravitational forces, but is affected by them.

Any "conflict" between SR and GR is moot because GR is based on
Lorentzian relativity (LR), a variant of SR with the same mathematics but
different physics in which there is no universal speed limit. See
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp for further
details. -|Tom|-


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

Roger Shore writes:

[TomVF]: The only things we delete from our Meta Research message board
are insults, way-off-topic postings, and ads or spam. Our Board welcomes
and encourages criticism and dissent. We never "censor".

[Shore]: False. The cited case is a clear counter-example. The posting was
censored solely because the moderator didn't like the way the discussion
was progressing (i.e., presenting clear, simple, and irrefutable disproofs
of the main pseudo-scientific claims presented on that web site). There
were even some follow-up questions by other posters, asking about why the
censorship had taken place.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time, but
no longer. I don't know of any such incident in our Message Board's six-year
history, and I keep an eye on what the other Moderators are doing. Your
claim is either fictitious or the result of a bad memory. But if it refers
to anything real, those questions by other posters and the answer explaining
our Moderator's actions will still be present. Find them and cite the link
so we can all see what happened and be sure you are not simply trying to
trash our Board's reputation with false, fictitious accusations.

As to your disingenuous use of the expression "irrefutable disproofs",
such an exaggeration already costs you credibility because I explained in my
last post how there is no inconsistency. Apparently, having the physics
explained to you makes you angry instead of satisfied. Why is that?

[TomVF]: I rely on the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment, which demonstrated
that the propagation speed of Coulomb forces is indeed strongly faster
than the speed of light. [See "Electromagnetic mass and the inertial
properties of nuclei", C.W. Sherwin and R.D. Rawcliffe, Report I-92 of
March 14, 1960 of the Consolidated Science Laboratory, Univ. of Illinois,
Urbana...]

[Shore]: Report I-92 of the Consolidated Science Lab, from 1960? This is
your "source" for a claim that is utterly contradictory to everything
known and demonstrated countless times each day regarding
electromagnetism?

Again, you are flailing, exaggerating, and blustering. The cited
experiment shows that electrodynamic force propagates faster than c when
charges accelerate, something never before tested.

[Shore]: As any rational person realizes, a claim that the Coulomb force
(or anything else that could convey information) propagates faster than
light would not languish in "Report I-92 of the Consolidated Science Lab"
since 1960 if it had even a SHRED of scientific credibility. Why did this
major scientific discovery with earth-shattering consequences not appear
in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Answer: It was rejected by all such
journals for being "not suitable for our publication" (the polite way of
dispositioning such papers).

Publication of experiments funded in-house is often published in-house
at most major science agencies because that enhances the agency's
reputation. These are still peer-reviewed papers. In-house editorial boards
are usually stricter than journal referees because they feel the reputation
of their home institution is at stake.

A better question is, given the importance of this result and the lack
of any other experiment to justify what is in the textbooks, why has no one
else ever attempted to replicate it, even just to refute Sherwin and
Rawcliffe? (Sherwin, BTW, has a pretty good reputation in the experimental
physics area.) My guess is because too few physicists have the courage to
publish a finding that challenges conventional wisdom, because it risks
their funding and the funding of their home institution.

[Shore]: Tom has yet to fabricate one of his trademark pseudo-scientific
rebuttals to this clear and simple refutation of his claims. ... it simply
contradicts Toms pseudo-scientific claims, and
he has no answer to this. His only defense is censorship on his message
board, but USENET is less controllable, which one presumes is why Tom
prefers his message board. It's so much easier to make refutations of his
ideas disappear there.

Your anger is unjustified and misdirected. Most of my work appears in
peer-reviewed journals. Your pointless ad hominem character assassinations
can only exist in a wide-open environment such as non-moderated USENET
newsgroups. They would never be tolerated in any moderated forum anywhere
because they interfere with the free and open discussion of science.

I hope your attempts to intimidate (and those of others using ad hominem
attacks) will not in fact dissuade any other potential posters from weighing
in on this or other issues of interest. Scientific arguments should never be
swayed by such tactics. -|Tom|-


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

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
Roger Shore wrote:
The posting [on Tom's message board] was censored solely because
the moderator didn't like the way the discussion was progressing (i.e.,
presenting clear, simple, and irrefutable disproofs of the main pseudo-
scientific claims presented on that web site)... There were even some
follow-up questions by other posters, asking about why the censorship
had taken place.

...I don't know of any such incident in our Message Board's six-year
history, and I keep an eye on what the other Moderators are doing. Your
claim is either fictitious or the result of a bad memory. But if it refers to
anything real, those questions by other posters and the answer explaining
our Moderator's actions will still be present. Find them and cite the link
so we can all see what happened and be sure you are not simply trying to
trash our Board's reputation with false, fictitious accusations.

I just checked Tom's message board, and now even the messages from the
other participants commenting on the censorship have been removed.
Those messages originally appeared approximately where there are now
two messages listed as "Deleted by moderator LB for duplication". The
interested reader can still (as of Thursday night) find the early part
of the discussion in the thread entitled "Physical Axioms and
Attractive Forces", located in the "Meta Science" sub folder, from
about Feb 26 to Mar 23, 2007, at which point the criticism of Tom's
claims suddenly and mysteriously comes to a halt.

Originally there were several other messages in this thread around Mar
24, the last of which was intercepted, edited, and censored by the
moderator "Larry Burford". This was followed by a brief message from
the censored poster, stating that since the message board had decided
to censor and edit his messages, he would no longer be participating.
Then one of the other participants asked if it was true that the
critic's message had been censored, and the moderator said that the
poster had not answered the questions that he [the moderator] had
posed to him, but had instead posted a critique of those questions,
and the moderator had decided that he would not allow the poster to
"get away with this". These follow-up messages appeared at least for a
short time, but they've obviously been removed to cover up the
censorship.

This gives a good idea of the character of Tom's message board.
Hopefully this will save others from being tempted to waste any time
there. As I said before, Tom has forfeited any presumption of good
faith.

On Sep 5, 8:03*am, (Roger Shore) wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:

Roger Shore wrote:
*The posting [on Tom's message board] was censored solely because
the moderator didn't like the way the discussion was progressing (i.e.,
presenting clear, simple, and irrefutable disproofs of the main pseudo-
scientific claims presented on that web site)... There were even some
follow-up questions by other posters, asking about why the censorship
had taken place.

...I don't know of any such incident in our Message Board's six-year
history, and I keep an eye on what the other Moderators are doing. Your
claim is either fictitious or the result of a bad memory. But if it refers to
anything real, those questions by other posters and the answer explaining
our Moderator's actions will still be present. Find them and cite the link
so we can all see what happened and be sure you are not simply trying to
trash our Board's reputation with false, fictitious accusations.

I just checked Tom's message board, and now even the messages from the
other participants commenting on the censorship have been removed.
Those messages originally appeared approximately where there are now
two messages listed as "Deleted by moderator LB for duplication". The
interested reader can still (as of Thursday night) find the early part
of the discussion in the thread entitled "Physical Axioms and
Attractive Forces", located in the "Meta Science" sub folder, from
about Feb 26 to Mar 23, 2007, at which point the criticism of Tom's
claims suddenly and mysteriously comes to a halt.

Originally there were several other messages in this thread around Mar
24, the last of which was intercepted, edited, and censored by the
moderator "Larry Burford". This was followed by a brief message from
the censored poster, stating that since the message board had decided
to censor and edit his messages, he would no longer be participating.
Then one of the other participants asked if it was true that the
critic's message had been censored, and the moderator said that the
poster had not answered the questions that he [the moderator] had
posed to him, but had instead posted a critique of those questions,
and the moderator had decided that he would not allow the poster to
"get away with this". These follow-up messages appeared at least for a
short time, but they've obviously been removed to cover up the
censorship.

This gives a good idea of the character of Tom's message board.
Hopefully this will save others from being tempted to waste any time
there. As I said before, Tom has forfeited any presumption of good
faith.

This Tom Van Flandern plays the role of the "defeated most important
anti-relativist" in Einstein criminal cult. Due to Flandern's extreme
stupidity, both leading Einsteinians and journalists-sycophants
regularly expose his "heretical ideas", gloriously refute them and so
both refuters and refuted gain popularity:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

Unfortunately this tactic works and I see silly Flandern among the
organizers of the important, in my view, CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY
CONFERENCE:

http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 5, 12:45*am, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
Vern writes:
[TomVF]: GR also has infinite gravity propagation speed in its equations
of motion, which is evident when they reduce to the same as Newton's
equations...
[Vern]: I thought that the only difference between Newtonian Gravity (NG)
and General Relativity (GR) as far as the math goes is that the speed
limit established by Special Relativity (SR) has to apply to General
Relativity, otherwise the theories (GR and SR) would be in conflict. If GR
is using infinite gravity force propagation speed, then why were the
predictions of GR versus NG different?

* * Good question, Vern. GR introduces the concept of a "gravitational
(potential) field". This field is the physical equivalent of the
light-carrying medium, and changes in it (electromagnetic waves) propagate
at the speed of light. The field is an add-on to NG because the field is
responsible for the new effects predicted by GR that do not occur in NG:
light-bending, gravitational redshift, Shapiro delay, and perihelion
advance. We now know that, rather than "space-time curvature", a simpler
physical understanding of these effects is that they are simply refraction
effects in the light-carrying medium, which is made denser near masses by
gravitational forces. The field itself has nothing to do with ordinary
gravitational forces, but is affected by them.

* * Any "conflict" between SR and GR is moot because GR is based on
Lorentzian relativity (LR), a variant of SR with the same mathematics but
different physics in which there is no universal speed limit. Seehttp://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.aspfor further
details. -|Tom|-

TomVanFlandern- Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy
research athttp://metaresearch.org

OK, when GR was first developed it was said that the theory had
different predictions from NG, but did GR really distinguish between a
gravitational (potential) field being limited by the speed of light
and the gravitational force still using NG equations? I thought GR
was just a field theory and the math of a field theory determines
whether the forces (radially inward forces?) are acting
instantaneously or with a speed limit, but a field theory cannot have
both. In other words, the field is the force, so it can only have one
speed.

I'll take a look at the link you provided when I can find time to see
if it helps clear this up for me.

Thanks,

Vern

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
Roger Shore writes:
[Shore]: As any rational person realizes, a claim that the Coulomb
force (or anything else that could convey information) propagates
faster than light would not languish in "Report I-92 of the
Consolidated Science Lab" since 1960 if it had even a SHRED of
scientific credibility. Why did this major scientific discovery with
earth-shattering consequences not appear in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal? Answer: It was rejected by all such journals for being "not
suitable for our publication" (the polite way of dispositioning such
papers).

Publication of experiments funded in-house is often published
in-house at most major science agencies because that enhances the
agency's reputation. These are still peer-reviewed papers. In-house
editorial boards are usually stricter than journal referees because they
feel the reputation of their home institution is at stake.

Nonsense. That may be the policy of YOUR "Meta-Research organization",
but it most definitely is not the policy of any major university --
"publish or perish" applies....

Though it is QUITE CLEAR that the in-house "peer review"
of metaresearch.org is ludicrous and/or involves "peers"
who do not understand relativity.

In my experience, internal reports such as that are usually either
drafts of papers destined for publication, or reports of internal
interest only (e.g. many of Fermilab's internal reports are about
details of the machine, not of general physics interest). This has, of
course, evolved considerably since 1960....

Note that Sherwin and Rawcliffe have published articles in journals,
essentially contemporary with that one.


A better question is, given the importance of this result and the
lack of any other experiment to justify what is in the textbooks, why
has no one else ever attempted to replicate it, even just to refute
Sherwin and Rawcliffe?

Probably for the simple reason that essentially nobody knows about it.
It is not listed in SPIRES, and the only reference that
scholar.google.com lists for it is yours.

That's why such internal publications are so useless -- virtually nobody
knows about them. except, of course, for the people of the organization
that use them (that is their purpose, after all). If this were a valid
result, any major physics journal would print it, and any SENSIBLE
author would know that. No such journals have done so. This also
indicates how "sensible" TVF actually is.

Another possibility, of course, is that the result and/or the procedure
is invalid. And perhaps the authors themselves realized that, or perhaps
it is clear to any competent researcher who investigated. It is not
possible to assess this for such an obscure and unavailable paper.


My guess is because too few physicists
have the courage to publish a finding that challenges conventional
wisdom, because it risks their funding and the funding of their home
institution.

Your "guess" is hopelessly naive and uninformed. Any scientist would
LOVE to publish a REAL result that "challenges conventional wisdom" --
why do you think there are so many PUBLISHED experiments testing
relativity (both SR and GR)???? Publishing a valid result that
"challenges conventional wisdom" would not "risk their funding", QUITE
THE CONTRARY. But only if it is valid, and can be shown to be valid.
Apparently TVF has no experience with valid results. Or of actual
funding agency procedures.


Tom Roberts

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
Steve Carlip writes:
[Carlip]: it's hard to know how to respond to someone who doesn't even
understand the math well enough to recognize that there's a disagreement.
You are confining your arguments, and apparently your thinking, to
the math of GR.

Yes, because you CLAIMED to agree with the math of GR. That ought to
give you and Steve common ground on which to agree. But it's become
quite clear that you do not actually understand the math of GR.


[TomVF]: The derivation of equations of motion from those [solutions
of the field] equations is not unique until one specifies the speed
of interactions. That speed has always been taken as instantaneous by
GR, which is the correct assumption.

[Carlip]: Nonsense.

That's your argument? Nonsense? You don't even say what point you
consider nonsense: that the equations of motion depend on an assumption
about the interaction speed, or that GR makes the correct assumption.

Both (sort of) -- in GR the equations of motion for a test particle have
no dependence whatsoever on any "interaction speed". All one needs to do
is LOOK AT THE MATH to see this is so. GR makes "the correct
assumption", not about "interaction speed" (which does not exist in GR),
but about the form of the equations themselves (shown by the agreement
between theory and experiment/observation).


You will have to do better.

No, the problem is yours, and YOU will have to understand the
mathematics of GR. It is quite different from what you try to discuss.


[Carlip]: The geodesic equations are ... [equations omitted].
According to theorems for ordinary differential equations that date
back to the late 1800s, given initial data -- that is, the initial
position and velocity of the test body -- the solution is unique.

The solution is unique for any fixed point in the field.

No. You keep showing that you simply do not understand the math. The
entire solution is unique, giving the trajectory of the test body. This
holds for every point the test body ever occupies, not just some "fixed
point".


The solution
and its history ignore that a moving point will experience gravitational
aberration of the source mass.

Not true. There is no "aberration of the source mass" in ANY of the
equations. All you need to do is LOOK AT THE MATH to see this is so.


You can call this an error in the
deviation if you are so inclined, because the math omitted consideration
of important, non-optional physics.

No, we call this an error in YOUR understanding.


However, it happens that aberration is zero if and only if the
propagation speed of gravitational force is infinite.

No. There is no "aberration" in the geodesic equation of GR. All you
need to do is LOOK AT THE MATH to see this is so.


You seem to be claiming that "the math omitted consideration of
important, non-optional physics", specifically aberration. But if you
put that aberration in by hand you get the wrong answer; using the
actual equations of GR gets results in agreement with observation. So
such a claim is simply wrong -- the "omissions" are in your
understanding, not in the equations or physics of GR.


It would be nice if you could explain in physics terms (no math) why
a spacecraft in a circular orbit around the Sun at a distance of 1200 au
(surely weak field and low velocity) has an infinite gravity propagation
speed by Newton's rules, has gravity propagating at the speed of light
in GR, yet the two are equivalent?

You ask a invalid question -- in GR there is no "propagation speed of
gravity".

In fact, the solution of the geodesic equation in GR for such an object
is OBSERVATIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from the solution of Newton's
equations for the same physical situation. This does not mean they are
"the same", it merely means that they are observationally
indistinguishable. shrug

This is basically how you manage to fool yourself into thinking you are
correct -- NONE of the experiments you cite are sensitive enough to
resolve the difference between the predictions of Newton and GR.

Well, except for the binary pulsar -- Newton predicts
stability, but GR predicts a small instability due to the
emission of gravitational radiation. This is observed.


The light-time to that distance is
about a week, so the propagation delay would cause the orbit to spiral
under Newton's rules.

You are arguing against a straw-man. You are attempting to use "Newton's
rules" and a propagation delay -- THAT IS NOT GR. It is also not
Newtonian gravity.

And the fact that you repeatedly attempt to do this shows
how little you actually know about GR. And how little you
read what other people write.


As has been said many times here, there is an APPROXIMATION to GR that
has a propagation delay of c, and in which the orbit does not "spiral"
significantly; it does not use "Newton's rules", it uses the correct
rules of GR for such an approximation. And the orbit actually does
spiral in by an unobservably-small amount....


Why doesn't it do the same in GR?

Because GR is different from your silly straw-man.


(My answer: GR
also has infinite gravity propagation speed in its equations of motion,
which is evident when they reduce to the same as Newton's equations for
this example.)

This is plain and simply not true. There is no "gravity propagation
speed" in GR. To see this is true, just LOOK AT THE EQUATIONS OF GR.

And the equations of GR reduce to Newton's equations ONLY
approximately, and ONLY for situations in which gravity is
static -- with no changes to gravity one can consider it
to have "infinite gravity propagation speed", even though
there is no such propagation in GR itself. Yes, this applies
to this example.


And has been explained several times, in the appropriate approximation
to GR, the "gravitational force" does NOT point at the instantaneous
position of the source, it points at the EXTRAPOLATED position of the
retarded source, using the retarded position, retarded velocity, and
retarded acceleration. But this is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the
instantaneous position for this and for all other cases you consider.

Indeed, Steve Carlip has discussed a case for which an
exact computation in GR shows the direction of the
3-acceleration of a test body does not point to the
instantaneous position of the source.


[...]

There's no point in continuing. I made the "mistake" of visiting
metaresearch.org and looking at some of the papers there. It is QUITE
CLEAR that Tom Van Flandern does not understand either SR [@] or GR [%].

[@] One of his papers attempts to use the GPS satellites to
"prove" that the term -xv/c^2 does not appear in the Lorentz
transform for t=t', thus showing he does not understand the
basics of SR, what an inertial frame is, or how they apply
(in a very limited way) to the GPS.

[%] See this thread. Especially his discussions above and
his response to Vern about the difference between NG and GR.
In the latter he claims that GR "introduces the concept of a
'gravitational (potential) field'", which would certainly
surprise Laplace, Poisson, and many others -- in fact, GR
ABANDONS that concept....


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote in message

Tom Van Flandern wrote:

[snip something]

There's no point in continuing. I made the "mistake" of visiting
metaresearch.org and looking at some of the papers there. It is QUITE
CLEAR that Tom Van Flandern does not understand either SR [@] or GR [%].

[@] One of his papers attempts to use the GPS satellites to
"prove" that the term -xv/c^2 does not appear in the Lorentz
transform for t=t', thus showing he does not understand the
basics of SR, what an inertial frame is, or how they apply
(in a very limited way) to the GPS.

That must be this world famous fumble:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V10N1TVF.pdf
Extremely painful :-(

Dirk Vdm


[%] See this thread. Especially his discussions above and
his response to Vern about the difference between NG and GR.
In the latter he claims that GR "introduces the concept of a
'gravitational (potential) field'", which would certainly
surprise Laplace, Poisson, and many others -- in fact, GR
ABANDONS that concept....


Tom Roberts