--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
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.

" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event
at A with an event at B." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

Not possible, ******.

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:19:30 -0700:

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

Sure, the *same* theory that explain why the relativist model of EM
interaction being retarded by c is not correct also explain why radar
signals travel at c.

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.

It is not a matter of choice, Carlip uses LW potentials (which are known
to be experimentally invalid) and uses a series of mathematically invalid
mathematical derivations to achieve the conclusions that EM signals may
be retarded by c.

Then Carlip basically repeats the same misguided analysis on a
gravitational framework getting the same conclusion for gravitational
interactions.

When you correct the potentials and when you correct the mathematical
manipulations (e.g. Carlip is unable to differentiate time explicit local
and nonlocal time implicit potentials) the conclusion is, I repeat last
time, that EM and gravitational interactions are NOT retarded by c.

Does this mean that the EM and GR models of interactions are wrong? No,
they continue to be valid but only valid as approximation.


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

Randy Poe wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:10:14 -0700:

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.

Precisely one of common relativists mistakes is the confusion between
wave travel and the speed of interactions.

This confusion has been corrected in papers cited. It is also easy to
derive the velocity of the 'pulse' from the new theory.

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?

I wrote "new theory corrects the traditional problems with the relativist
approach." This is a list of the problems that the new approach solves:

- Pointing vector paradoxes

- correct non-relativistic limit

- continuity between Poisson and D'alembert solutions

- solves indefiniteness of field energy

- remove self-energy

- cluster decomposition principle for matter and free fields

- precise condition for non-radiation

- time-simmetry

- N-body solution


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

On Apr 3, 10:26 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, 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.

" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event
at A with an event at B." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

Not possible, ******.

"... without further assumption". Which was contained
in the passage shortly afterward which you quote in
nearly every post.

I know it's difficult for you to retain more than
a sentence or two at a time, and so this one has
chased that other one out of your brain. But the
issue of synchronizing to distant clocks (which
are stationary relative to the local clock) was
actually handled by Einstein in that paper, and
you frequently quote the relevant passages.

- Randy

Hi Juan and all.

On Apr 4, 2:00 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Randy Poe wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:10:14 -0700:

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.

Precisely one of common relativists mistakes is the confusion between
wave travel and the speed of interactions.

This confusion has been corrected in papers cited. It is also easy to
derive the velocity of the 'pulse' from the new theory.

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?

I wrote "new theory corrects the traditional problems with the relativist
approach." This is a list of the problems that the new approach solves:

From the list below, Juan pick the one below
that is most readily understandable to us,
and we'll learn from an analysis.

- Pointing vector paradoxes

- correct non-relativistic limit

- continuity between Poisson and D'alembert solutions

- solves indefiniteness of field energy

- remove self-energy

- cluster decomposition principle for matter and free fields

- precise condition for non-radiation

- time-simmetry

- N-body solution

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 10:26 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, 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.

" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is
not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an
event
at A with an event at B." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

Not possible, ******.

"... without further assumption".

It is of course quite possible to compare, in respect of time, an event at A
with an event at B, the time when a pulse leaves a transmit location such as
Cassini at Saturn is well known, it carries a time stamp, Einstein's
drooling
assumptions are ridiculous.
Not only does such a common-place "experiment" disprove Einstein's third
postulate, it destroys all the crap he wrote following it.

Scientists do not make assumptions, ****wit, or anything is possible.
I do not need to assume you are a fool, it is evident for all to see,
******.

On Apr 4, 10:47 am, "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, 10:26 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, 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.

" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is
not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an
event
at A with an event at B." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

Not possible, ******.

"... without further assumption".

It is of course quite possible to compare, in respect of time, an event at A
with an event at B, the time when a pulse leaves a transmit location such as
Cassini at Saturn is well known, it carries a time stamp, Einstein's
drooling
assumptions are ridiculous.

It carries a clock which is designed to keep Earth
time regardless of what the local time is. Just
as GPS does.

Assuming those are the same is an additional assumption
you introduce.

- Randy

On Apr 4, 1:47 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:19:30 -0700:

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

Sure, the *same* theory that explain why the relativist model of EM
interaction being retarded by c is not correct also explain why radar
signals travel at c.

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.

It is not a matter of choice, Carlip uses LW potentials (which are known
to be experimentally invalid) and uses a series of mathematically invalid
mathematical derivations to achieve the conclusions that EM signals may
be retarded by c.

Then Carlip basically repeats the same misguided analysis on a
gravitational framework getting the same conclusion for gravitational
interactions.

When you correct the potentials and when you correct the mathematical
manipulations (e.g. Carlip is unable to differentiate time explicit local
and nonlocal time implicit potentials) the conclusion is, I repeat last
time, that EM and gravitational interactions are NOT retarded by c.

I used the basic same principle to explain
how GR accounts for the aberrated position
of the Sun, assuming the vector of g-force
is directed at the Sun's apparent position
relatively to Earths rotation, magnetic
fields in SR and most recently "spin", in
QM. That's a very broad cross-check of the
phenomena, that are accurately measured.

Simply because you or anyone needs to use
more effort to solved some problem relativ-
istically just means that. It's sometimes
hard work.

Does this mean that the EM and GR models of interactions are wrong? No,
they continue to be valid but only valid as approximation.

Ok, that's agreeable. In physics HUP applies.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 10:47 am, "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, 10:26 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, 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.

" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is
not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an
event
at A with an event at B." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

Not possible, ******.

"... without further assumption".

It is of course quite possible to compare, in respect of time, an event at
A
with an event at B, the time when a pulse leaves a transmit location such
as
Cassini at Saturn is well known, it carries a time stamp, Einstein's
drooling
assumptions are ridiculous.

| It carries a clock which is designed to keep Earth
| time regardless of what the local time is. Just
| as GPS does.

Yes. So out goes Einstein's crank assumption 'the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from
B to A', because A (Earth) and B (Saturn) are in relative motion and
it takes over an hour to get from A to B but less to return when A is
approaching B, more when A is receding from B, both of which occur
each year.
Einstein's third postulate is just plain wrong and the idiot's mathematics
he built on it are ridiculously incompetent anyway, just like you,
Draper and Roberts; all of you too stupid to read it, the closest any of
you ever got to it is "Spacetime Physics". Einstein's idiot assumption
makes Cassini's clock wrong by 30 seconds. I'll believe the clock,
not the crank.

On Apr 4, 12:53 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 4, 10:47 am, "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, 10:26 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, 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.

" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is
not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an
event
at A with an event at B." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

Not possible, ******.

"... without further assumption".

It is of course quite possible to compare, in respect of time, an event at
A
with an event at B, the time when a pulse leaves a transmit location such
as
Cassini at Saturn is well known, it carries a time stamp, Einstein's
drooling
assumptions are ridiculous.

| It carries a clock which is designed to keep Earth
| time regardless of what the local time is. Just
| as GPS does.

Yes. So out goes Einstein's crank assumption 'the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from
B to A', because A (Earth) and B (Saturn) are in relative motion and
it takes over an hour to get from A to B but less to return when A is
approaching B, more when A is receding from B, both of which occur
each year.

No, it has nothing to do with the claim that the
speed of light is isotropic. However, the speed of
light is found experimentally to actually *be*
isotropic, so there's not much point in disagreeing
with that assumption.

Einstein's third postulate is just plain wrong and the idiot's mathematics
he built on it are ridiculously incompetent anyway, just like you,
Draper and Roberts; all of you too stupid to read it, the closest any of
you ever got to it is "Spacetime Physics". Einstein's idiot assumption
makes Cassini's clock wrong by 30 seconds. I'll believe the clock,
not the crank.

Cassini's clock is designed to read earth time. It
isn't "wrong". It isn't attempting to measure local
time. What do you mean you believe Cassini's clock?
Cassini's clock is just an earth-synchronized clock,
and by design has nothing to do with local time.

- Randy