On Apr 3, 1:46 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
On Apr 3, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez



wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:

On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip paper
(section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as one
would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

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

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

| And yet in actual measurements of transit time over
| measured distance, it is found to be c.

I'm pleased to note you've discovered that at last.
Collect one brownie point.
Your crank fellow confessed troll, Phuckwit Duck, says it's one
second per second, he has a ruler that measures distance in seconds.
Now, what is it when the measured distance is changing as a function of
time?

Raising the usual question: Are you as stupid as
you pretend to be?

You can't really be so ignorant that you think
"one second per second" has anything to do with
this experiment:

| And yet in actual measurements of transit time over
| measured distance, it is found to be c.

... can you?

- Randy

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:47:58 -0700:

On Apr 3, 1:49 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:
On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip
paper (section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
one would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

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

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

Is that paper available online?

I do not know i have in print.

(who are the authors?)

Was cited in my message of day 2. Any case i cite it again:

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.

Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.

I know the principles of radio transmission and RADAR, and the EM speed
"c" made me alot of money. I used to install TV rotators to eliminate
the phenomena known as ghosting. This is apart from relativity.

Ken, i got "Sobresaliente" (9 in a scale from 0 to 10 points) when took
the course on classical Electrodynamics and optics in University. It was
the only "Sobresaliente" when i did the exam, therefore i also know
'something' about EM and speed c.

When i first meet that paper i said myself "That may be wrong". Then i
tried hard to find the mistake and i did not. Then i tried still more
hard to understand their work and actually i have derived the dualism
principle from a generalized theory based in a Liouville space extension
of mechanics.

The work also extend dualism to gravitation.

In both cases interactions are not retarded by c except as
*approximation*.

Or said otherwise the Lienard-Wiechert potentials used by Carlip in his
paper arise after doing several approximations from a more fundamental
theory.

I've posted on the explanation of speed of gravity being "c", if you're
interested I'll repost it. It's *fairly* straightforward in GR, if
anything can be :-).

As explained before GR is *derived* after making approximations. The
retarded potentials associated to GR are valid only in that approximation.

Of course, for GR the result obtained is that speed of gravity is c but,
i remark again, this is only valid in a first approximation to the
physics of interactions.


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

Randy Poe wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:29:01 -0700:

On Apr 3, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:



On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip
paper (section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
one would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

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

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

And yet in actual measurements of transit time over measured distance,
it is found to be c.

First one would know that is being measured before repeating the mistakes
done by relativists.

How do you reconcile the actual measurement with these "proofs" that
Nature can't be doing what Nature is doing?

Exactly on the well-explained form one can find in the papers cited.
Moreover, as remarked before the new theory corrects the traditional
problems with the relativist approach.


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

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 1:46 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/"Randy Poe"
wrote in message

...
On Apr 3, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez



wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:

On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip paper
(section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
one
would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

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

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

| And yet in actual measurements of transit time over
| measured distance, it is found to be c.

I'm pleased to note you've discovered that at last.
Collect one brownie point.
Your crank fellow confessed troll, Phuckwit Duck, says it's one
second per second, he has a ruler that measures distance in seconds.
Now, what is it when the measured distance is changing as a function of
time?

| Raising the usual question: Are you as stupid as
| you pretend to be?

Non sequitur and don't change the subject, crank troll.

Now, what is it when the measured distance is changing as a function of
time?

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" wrote in message
news
| Of course, for GR the result obtained is that speed of gravity is c but,
| i remark again, this is only valid in a first approximation to the
| physics of interactions.


Jump into a swimming pool and you get wet.
What's the speed of wetness according to
1) GR,
2) Your crank theory?

On Apr 3, 10:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:47:58 -0700:



On Apr 3, 1:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:
On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip
paper (section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
one would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

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

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

Is that paper available online?

I do not know i have in print.

(who are the authors?)

Was cited in my message of day 2. Any case i cite it again:

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.

Thanks, I reviewed some of their work,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0205041v1.pdf

Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.

I know the principles of radio transmission and RADAR, and the EM speed
"c" made me alot of money. I used to install TV rotators to eliminate
the phenomena known as ghosting. This is apart from relativity.

Ken, i got "Sobresaliente" (9 in a scale from 0 to 10 points) when took
the course on classical Electrodynamics and optics in University. It was
the only "Sobresaliente" when i did the exam, therefore i also know
'something' about EM and speed c.

Then you know how RADAR works, it uses "c".
I've seen that in my experience.

When i first meet that paper i said myself "That may be wrong". Then i
tried hard to find the mistake and i did not. Then i tried still more
hard to understand their work and actually i have derived the dualism
principle from a generalized theory based in a Liouville space extension
of mechanics.

The work also extend dualism to gravitation.

In both cases interactions are not retarded by c except as
*approximation*.

Or said otherwise the Lienard-Wiechert potentials used by Carlip in his
paper arise after doing several approximations from a more fundamental
theory.

I confirmed Dr. Carlips theory on *speed of gravity*
= "c" by independant means. It's a matter choice
which theory you choose.

I've posted on the explanation of speed of gravity being "c", if you're
interested I'll repost it. It's *fairly* straightforward in GR, if
anything can be :-).

As explained before GR is *derived* after making approximations. The
retarded potentials associated to GR are valid only in that approximation.

I recently derived 2nd set of Maxwell's equations
from GR, using "c", works ok for me.

Of course, for GR the result obtained is that speed of gravity is c but,
i remark again, this is only valid in a first approximation to the
physics of interactions.

Well, I find 99.999% of theory consistent
with physical evidence provides the "c".
You're asking me (us) to look for a .001%
probability of error.
((I have God on speed dial, and he told me
that :-)).
I think I'm finished here, pending evidence.
Regards
Ken S.Tucker

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:21:30 -0700:

On Apr 2, 3:35 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:51:36 -0700:

Professor Carlip addressed your claim that the speed of gravity being
several billion times the speed of light in the following article. I
have seen no public refutation to his work.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
As pointed several times in this newsgroup Carlip is wrong about
interactions.

Carlip paper received a formal reply by van Flandern on:

Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational,
Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions. 2002: Found. Phys. 32,
1031. Van Flandern, T; Vigier, J.P.
Yes, I found it in his website now. So, after Professor turned Dr. Van
Flandern's claim of infinite speed of gravity on its head, Dr. Van
Flandern reversed the favor by turning Professor Carlip's claim in
aberration of gravity on its very own head. It looks like Professor
Carlip has somehow ignored the speed of one star in his aberration
consideration. Has Professor Carlip offered any graceful retreat from
that mistake?

Carlip is at this newsgroup now, why do not ask him directly?



We've seen Steve Carlip's views on this before, this has been rehashed
many times. I suggest you use search to find the answers. You won't like
them though.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 3, 2:28 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Randy Poe wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:29:01 -0700:



On Apr 3, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:

On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip
paper (section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
one would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

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

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

And yet in actual measurements of transit time over measured distance,
it is found to be c.

First one would know that is being measured before repeating the mistakes
done by relativists.

Time when a pulse leaves a transmit location.
Time when a pulse arrives at a detector.
Total travel distance from transmitter to
detector.


How do you reconcile the actual measurement with these "proofs" that
Nature can't be doing what Nature is doing?

Exactly on the well-explained form one can find in the papers cited.
Moreover, as remarked before the new theory corrects the traditional
problems with the relativist approach.

What is the "traditional problem" with the experiment
I describe above?

- Randy

On Apr 3, 10:28*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Randy Poe wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:29:01 -0700:



On Apr 3, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:

On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:

The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip
paper (section on gravitation) are highlighted.

I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
one would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).

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

I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
"speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".

And yet in actual measurements of transit time over measured distance,
it is found to be c.

First one would know that is being measured before repeating the mistakes
done by relativists.

How do you reconcile the actual measurement with these "proofs" that
Nature can't be doing what Nature is doing?

Exactly on the well-explained form one can find in the papers cited.
Moreover, as remarked before the new theory corrects the traditional
problems with the relativist approach.

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

Relativist this...relativist that...do you think you are actually
fooling anyone when you refer to scientists by what you think is a
pejorative?

On Apr 3, 9:59*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snip idiocy, unread]

How can someone who cannot do even the most simple computations be so
sure of himself?