Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:24:17 -0700:

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

The current theory of fields confound the non-relativistic limit of LW EM
potentials, with the Coulomb potential. This is explained an corrected in
[1].

This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound the GR
'weak-field' equation

a = - GRAD PHI

with the Newtonian equation

a = - GRAD PHI

Why? Because they are using the same notation "PHI" for two different
physical and mathematical terms!!

In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be rewritten
like

a = - GRAD PHI^*

and

a = - GRAD PHI_0

And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.

By confounding both equations, relativists think that they derived
Newtonian gravity when in fact, they did not. A similar confusion for
electromagnetism was also recently corrected on [1].

The physics and mathematics for both equations is *completely* different
but relativists have mixed both without sound basis.

I remember a funny discusion in this newsgroup with 'expertise' Steve
Carlip about those issues.

For instance, Carlip confounded the selection of physical boundaries for
the PHI^* potential with the selection of energy scale for the PHI_0
potential.

And then Carlip started to claim that the problem of unphysical
boundaries of the GR potential was also present on the Newtonian term.
But that was plain wrong.

From a mathematical point of view Carlip confounds solutions for the
Poisson equation (time implicit dependence) with solutions for the
stationary D'alembert equation (time explicit dependence).

Carlip makes this mistake for both electromagnetism and gravity. I tried
to correct him several times but...

Fortunately, the authors of the references cited do not make those
mistakes, neither did the referees of the main journals where the works
got published...


[1] Action at a distance as a full-value solutions of Maxwell equations:
The basis and application of the separated-potentials method. Phis. Rev.
E 1996: 53(5), 5373. Chubykalo, A.E; Smirnov-Rueda, R.

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

On Apr 3, 10:59*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has been
discussed, here is the bottom line:

* * *Scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things. None of
* * *the experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR -- THAT is what is
* * *important, not the fact that he can use other models to interpret
* * *them as measuring "speed of gravity".

Physicists come up with conjectures --- mostly nonsense. *Both SR and
GR are such nonsensical conjectures. *They do not make any
mathematical sense applying to the actual world. *The validity of
these conjectures can only be determined through the mystic nature.
shrug

** *SR is rendered nonsense through the twin's paradox. *Only through
these several flavors of mystic resolutions where one contradicts
another, that the paradox can be resolved.

** *GR is built on top of more mystical mathematics. *Physicists are
able to play shaman by turning an ordinary matrix into a tensor just
saying 'abracadabra'.

In other words, you have no argument. (Just stating "X is nonsense"
carries no weight.)

--
Jan Bielawski

On Apr 4, 9:21 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:24:17 -0700:

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

The current theory of fields confound the non-relativistic limit of LW EM
potentials, with the Coulomb potential. This is explained an corrected in
[1].

This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound the GR
'weak-field' equation

a = - GRAD PHI

with the Newtonian equation

a = - GRAD PHI

Why? Because they are using the same notation "PHI" for two different
physical and mathematical terms!!

In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be rewritten
like

a = - GRAD PHI^*

and

a = - GRAD PHI_0

And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.

What we do is take PHI = q/s = invariant,
then project two ways to form vectors,

PHI'^v = PHI (dx^v/ds)
(velocity potential)

PHI^u = PHI(x^u/s)
(positional potential).

You need relativity to do both, and you
want to keep the "prime" on the moving
"velocity" potential as it is transforming.

So you need the relativity of two charges.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker
...
PS: I suggest you discuss what works than
every dang paper that confuses you Juan.
You Juan could cite a gaxillion papers that
*you don't understand* and then expect some
SOB like me to hold your hand threw all the
minutae detail.
My rate is $100/hr. (That's a discount).
Ken S. Tucker

Professor Carlip's suggestion of including the aberration into the
effect of gravity can be refute by the mathematics of vector additions
and the Galilean transform. After all, GR must degenerate into the
Newtonian law of gravity at low gravitation and low speed such as the
solar system and the binary stars. Consider two objects orbiting each
other. Let the following be the position vectors of interest.

** [s] = Position vector form the common center to the unprimed NOW
** [s'] = Position vector from the common center to the primed NOW
** [s'_-T] = Position vector of the primed THEN (retarded position)
** T = Retarded time

[s] and [s'] should then form a straight line through their common
center at the moment NOW. If the speed of gravity is finite (say V),
the retarded position of the primed becomes the gravitating distance
for the unprimed to feel the effect in gravitation of the primed. The
position vector of the primed as observed by the unprimed becomes the
following.

[s''] = [s'_-T] - [s]

If the speed of the primed has not changed much from THEN to NOW, then
we have the following simplification.

[s'_-T] = [s'] - T d[s'_-T]/dt

Where

** T = s'' / V
** V = Speed of gravity

The effective gravitating distance [s''] becomes the following.

[s''] = [s'] - [s] - T d[s'_-T]/dt

With the effective gravitating distance of [s''] and V = c, the solar
system would fly apart in a few short centuries. Yet, it does not.
That enabled Laplace to calculate V to be several million times c.

All of a sudden, Professor Carlip came along and suggested that
gravitational effect is subject to aberration. According to him, the
effect of aberration will nullify the effect of the retarded position
up to the first few orders. So, applying the effect of aberration to
the effective gravitating distance [s''], we have the following under
the Galilean transform.

[s'''] = [s''] + [v] T

Where

** [v] = Velocity of the primed THEN as observed by the unprimed

So, this velocity is

[v] = d[s'_-T]/dt - d[s]/dt

The effective gravitating distance with aberration correction [s''']
become the following.

[s'''] = [s'_-T] - [s] + T (d[s'_-T]/dt - d[s]/dt)

Or

[s'''] = [s'] - [s] - T d[s]/dt

Comparing the effective gravitating distances [s''] and [s'''], the
effect of [s'''] is more dramatic if the mass of the primed the
mass of the unprimed. This is obvious not according to observation.
Thus, Professor Carlip's suggestion of aberration in gravity is only a
myth. This is a fine example where mysticism plays a major role in
GR. shrug


On Apr 3, 10:59 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has been
discussed, here is the bottom line:

Scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things. None of
the experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR -- THAT is what is
important, not the fact that he can use other models to interpret
them as measuring "speed of gravity".

Physicists come up with conjectures --- mostly nonsense. Both SR and
GR are such nonsensical conjectures. They do not make any
mathematical sense applying to the actual world. The validity of
these conjectures can only be determined through the mystic nature.
shrug

** SR is rendered nonsense through the twin's paradox. Only through
these several flavors of mystic resolutions where one contradicts
another, that the paradox can be resolved.

** GR is built on top of more mystical mathematics. Physicists are
able to play shaman by turning an ordinary matrix into a tensor just
saying 'abracadabra'.

Binary pulsars are an obvious example, as I demonstrated (without any
dissent) in Reference B below.

To claim you demonstrated it is wrong, and to claim "without dissent" is
a bald-faced lie. You even published a comment on the major dissenting
paper.

With the mysticism in aberration of gravitational effect fails
miserably, the anomaly in the orbit of a binary system can be
interpreted that the propagating speed of gravitational effect is much
higher than committee-accepted. This is scientific discussion not a
sermon. shrug

No, it is not. But to understand this one must actually use GR, which
you quite clearly do not understand (more on this below).

But even the simplest orbit computation
program can show the same thing. If you use light-time-retarded
positions of bodies to compute orbits, the computed orbits are open
spirals, in contradiction to observations.

How silly can you get???? The subject here is GR and its relation to
experiments. To address that you must use GR, and not whatever it is you
have cobbled together with "light-time-retarded positions".

I repeat: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
changes in gravity propagate with speed c. You have said NOTHING that
addresses this, much less refutes it as you claim.

So, through your own interpretation of GR, you do not allow gravity to
propagate. What you are saying is the-speed-of-gravity-is-infinite in
disguise.

Nor do the
field equations describe ordinary orbital motion.

You need to LEARN what GR actually is. Yes indeed, the field equation of
GR does describe "ordinary orbital motions".

You are still making the same mistake again. You are confusing the
Einstein field equations with geodesic equations. These two sets of
equations are independent from each other.

For instance, any GR
textbook will derive the equations of orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime.

Yes, you need to read these GR textbooks more carefully, and
understanding the mathematics also helps. The solutions to the field
equations are the elements to the metric. That is all. It does not
tell you how an object is going to behave in motion.

HINT: the field equation is G=T; the covariant divergence of
G is identically 0, and the equation obtained from setting
the covariant divergence of T to zero does indeed yield
the equations of motion.

You don't know what you are talking about. Setting G to zero,
allowing you to solve for spacetime in free space. It is equivalent
to the Laplace equation or the Poisson equation setting to zero.
These equations do not tell you the geodesic motion.

When T describes objects orbiting,
those equations describe the orbits. Yes, nobody knows
how to solve those equations analytically, but various
approximations are applicable, and numerical solutions have
been performed; both are in excellent agreement with
observations.

Here is mysticism talking, on the contrary, yours truly have gone
through several metric derived from the field equations personally.
You can solve them.

one must
take a gradient of the potential (or its equivalent) to get what you
like to call an "approximation" theory.

The approximation is MUCH more involved than that. I repeat: you REALLY
need to learn what GR actually is, and how it is applied -- your guesses
are just plain wrong.

To derive the geodesic equations, you must define your mathematical
model of motion. All motions obey the principle of stationary
action. In doing so, if you decide the only path through spacetime
from one fixed point to another is the one path that would allow you
to accumulate the least amount of spacetime, you have a set of
geodesic equations based on this mathematical model of motion. Also,
I have been telling you this model of motion is utterly absurd because
it would not allow photons to propagate. This is because for a photon
every single path always accumulate an amount in spacetime of exactly
zero. This was a mistake carried over from the Goettingen group of
mathematicians including Hilbert, Klein, Schwarzschild, and
Minkowski. They did not think properly applying the mathematics to
real life. They just extended what Christoffel did.

The "speed of gravity" is not a model-dependent concept except at the
level of parts per 100 million, any more than "perihelion motion" is
model-dependent.

NONSENSE. None of the experiments you cite actually measure any speed
(see above). And to relate their measurements to speed requires EXPLICIT
model dependence. GR does not fit that model, and does explain those
measurements without any "propagation of gravity", at any "speed".

You have basically decided that the speed of gravity is infinite by
your own interpretation of gravity-never-moves-nonsense. In doing so,
you are not either reading and comprehending the opposing point of
view or just being unreasonable.

As I have said befo scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure
things. None of the experiments you cite refute GR -- THAT is what is
important, not the fact that you can use other models to interpret them
as measuring "speed of gravity".

So, engineers are mere technicians for your disposal. You are the
smart one able to understand the physics. Well, the GPS episode shows
that you are utterly wrong here.

Relativists like to redefine the concept to refer to the speed of
changes in the gravitational potential field, which everyone agrees is
c. But that refers to gravitational waves, and avoids the issue of the
propagation speed of gravitational force for determining the ordinary
orbital motion of two masses around a common center of mass. One must
either give up the causal link to a source mass, or agree that the force
propagates from the source mass to the target body faster than c.

Not true -- there is a third possibility, the one the usual
approximation to GR uses: propagation is at c, but the force at distant
locations depends on position, velocity, and acceleration of the source
mass. They combine to make the gravitational force not be central, and
to point approximately to where the source mass is located at the time
of observation (and for many cases the approximation is excellent).

Here is another myth. The field equations do not tell you about
gravitational waves propagate. Let alone the myth about the field
equations tell you how fast gravity should propagate.

Regardless of how you may personally feel about it, GR is the mainstream
theory of gravitation today. It is ridiculous that you attempt to write
about gravity without understanding the first thing about GR. And it's
even sillier that you attempt to "describe" what GR says or how it applies.

Yes, GR is a main stream conjecture in understanding how gravity
behaves. The notion is not much better than Christianity is the main
stream religion in the western civilization. shrug

Bottom line: scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things.
None of the experiments you cite refute GR -- THAT is what is important,
not the fact that you can use other models to interpret them as
measuring "speed of gravity".

Here we go again about you being the king of wisdom. Yet, you do not
even understand the difference between the field and the geodesic
equations. shrug

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

I said "Yes." to agree with you. Now you dispute yourself.
Have a nice day, crank.

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"JanPB" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 10:59 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has been
discussed, here is the bottom line:

Scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things. None of
the experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR -- THAT is what is
important, not the fact that he can use other models to interpret
them as measuring "speed of gravity".

Physicists come up with conjectures --- mostly nonsense. Both SR and
GR are such nonsensical conjectures. They do not make any
mathematical sense applying to the actual world. The validity of
these conjectures can only be determined through the mystic nature.
shrug

** SR is rendered nonsense through the twin's paradox. Only through
these several flavors of mystic resolutions where one contradicts
another, that the paradox can be resolved.

** GR is built on top of more mystical mathematics. Physicists are
able to play shaman by turning an ordinary matrix into a tensor just
saying 'abracadabra'.

| In other words, you have no argument. (Just stating "X is nonsense"
| carries no weight.)

In other words, Einstein has no argument. (Just stating 'we establish by
definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals
the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' carries no weight.)

But wait... you read it, checked it all out and found nothing wrong.
That makes you a ******, doesn't it?

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:29:57 -0700:

On Apr 4, 9:21 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:24:17 -0700:

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

The current theory of fields confound the non-relativistic limit of LW
EM potentials, with the Coulomb potential. This is explained an
corrected in [1].

This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound the
GR 'weak-field' equation

a = - GRAD PHI

with the Newtonian equation

a = - GRAD PHI

Why? Because they are using the same notation "PHI" for two different
physical and mathematical terms!!

In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be
rewritten like

a = - GRAD PHI^*

and

a = - GRAD PHI_0

And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.

What we do is take PHI = q/s = invariant, then project two ways to form
vectors,

PHI'^v = PHI (dx^v/ds)
(velocity potential)

PHI^u = PHI(x^u/s)
(positional potential).

You need relativity to do both, and you want to keep the "prime" on the
moving "velocity" potential as it is transforming.

So you need the relativity of two charges.


You completely misunderstand the whole point Ken.

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

Hi Juan, understood.

On Apr 5, 10:15 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:50:42 -0700:



On Apr 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:29:57 -0700:

On Apr 4, 9:21 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:24:17 -0700:

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

The current theory of fields confound the non-relativistic limit of
LW EM potentials, with the Coulomb potential. This is explained an
corrected in [1].

This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound
the GR 'weak-field' equation

a = - GRAD PHI

with the Newtonian equation

a = - GRAD PHI

Why? Because they are using the same notation "PHI" for two
different physical and mathematical terms!!

In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be
rewritten like

a = - GRAD PHI^*

and

a = - GRAD PHI_0

And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.

What we do is take PHI = q/s = invariant, then project two ways to
form vectors,

PHI'^v = PHI (dx^v/ds)
(velocity potential)

PHI^u = PHI(x^u/s)
(positional potential).

You need relativity to do both, and you want to keep the "prime" on
the moving "velocity" potential as it is transforming.

So you need the relativity of two charges.

You completely misunderstand the whole point Ken.

Juan, that's probably true.
It's unscientific statements like this you wrote,

"For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking ... confound the
GR 'weak-field' equation"

Ken you may gain little from 'misquoting'. I said was:

{BLOCKQUOTE
This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound the GR
'weak-field' equation

[...]

with the Newtonian equation

[...]

}

Referees have found my work on gravitation ok and it is ready to publish.
My work also proves that the geometric formulation of GR holds only
limited applicabiltiy. I have been also formally invited by one of
organizers to explain my GR work in a recent cosmology conference.

A similar confusion on electromagnetism have been recently corrected in
top journals like Physical Review, see cited references.

In all published papers and my recent work the conclusion is that
interactions are not retarded by c. All papers I have cited also explain
why the Lienard Wiechert potentials are not adequate for modeling
interactions and explain some of the mistakes on papers as that of Carlip.

Actually i am working with one mathematician who published one of the
papers i have cited in previous messages.

It is obvious that i have miserable failed to explain those points in
some 'plain' language. I'm sorry by that.

To avoid further misunderstandings here in thereafter i will submit
topics directly from hot research with all the math in bulk and academic
references.

Maybe someone can take the recent advances in research and then explain
them to broad audiences in a plain language.

I can do that,

1 = 5-4
1 = 6-5

are NOT the same equations.
A link to your work would be fine.
I have a brief web-site here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
Do you have anything to add?

Regards.
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:28:50 -0700:

Hi Juan, understood.

Doesn't seem.

In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be
rewritten like

a = - GRAD PHI^*

and

a = - GRAD PHI_0

And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.

I can do that,

1 = 5-4
1 = 6-5

are NOT the same equations.

But in you above trivial equations the right hand sides are equivalent

5-4 = 6-5

However the righ hand sides of the recently derived equations of motion
verify

PHI^* =/= PHI_0

The first is a local time explicit potential (with usual retardation t_0).

The second is a nonlocal time implicit potential (without retardation).

The physics and the math are different for both equations. That is the
reason they (and me) use a different notation for both potentials.

Relativist literature confound both. Mistakes have been recently
corrected in literature.

In one of papers cited (the Physical Review paper) the authors
mathematically proved that four-vectors A^*b and A_0^b are irreducible
forms.

They are components of a more general representation contains a complete
solution for the combined Poisson and D´alembert mathematical problems
with *continuous* transition between steady and nonsteady solutions.

You also failed to understand that the new *instantaneous* potentials
PHI_0 and A_0 cannot be derived from relativistic electrodynamics.

Relativistic electrodynamics only accounts for the retarded component of
the interactions. That is reason that everyone relativist will say you
that the speed of EM is c. But that is not longer true. Science advances.

I remark again the new theory contains relativistic electrodynamics and
special relativity as a particular case.

As said before their work have been generalized to gravitation by me.

The new instantaneous gravitational tensor h_0^ab (in Chubykalo and
Smirnov-Rueda notation) cannot be obtained from General Relativity.

General Relativity only can explain the h^*ab tensor. It is this term
which is retarded by c. That is reason that general relativists will say
you that the speed of gravity is c. But that is not longer true in the
light of recent advances.

Moreover, we know that the h^*ab = h^ab term has geometric interpretation

g^ab = n^ab + h^ab

And this gives the geometric formulation of General Relativity.

Interestingly the new term h_0^ab has no geometric interpretation as i
have proven in my last work.

Geometry (and the own concept of spacetime) may be derived as a special
case.

We start from the first-order extension of a Liouville space extension of
classical dynamics. When one applies a pure state approximation in the (+)
semigroup one derives spacetime, geometry, Maxwell electrodynamics...
after some pages of nontrivial computations.

Since the new theory reduces to the former theories on the local limit,
the new theory also explains all the experimental results were well-
explained by former theories.

One big advantage of the new theory is that eliminates traditional
difficulties and paradoxes of relativistic formulations. E.g. the
traditional inconsistencies of Maxwell electrodynamics were eliminated in
the Physical Review paper cited, take a look.

Another big advantage of the new theory is that can explain phenomena
cannot be explained by usual relativistic theories (SR, relativistic
electrodynamics, GR...).

For instance my work on gravitation eliminates several known difficulties
with General Relativity regarding the role of cosmological boundaries.
Probably that was the reason which people who read the draft invited me
to explain my recent research work on the international conference on
experimental cosmology i cited in another part.

The techniques i have developed are completely general and can be also
applied to other formulations as 8N Stuckëlberg mechanics.

See Ken again you failed to understand everything: potentials, equations
of motion, retardation, speed of interactions, radars, geometry...

I have learn the lesson; I have decided i am not good explaining stuff on
'plain' terms. Also i will not waste time replying trivial questions as
that of RADARS. Here in thereafter i will restrict to academic/research
postings.

The below guidelines will be updated, eliminating the point "use a plain
language".


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

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:27:16 +0200:

You also failed to understand that the new *instantaneous* potentials
PHI_0 and A_0 cannot be derived from relativistic electrodynamics.

Relativistic electrodynamics only accounts for the retarded component of
the interactions. That is reason that everyone relativist will say you
that the speed of EM is c. But that is not longer true. Science
advances.

Before anyone may misunderstand the whole topic again and feel the
tentaption to write some message remarking that one may derived some form
of instantaneous interactions from relativistic electrodynamics, I will
correct that misunderstanting.

If you apply the c-- infinite limit on retarded local potentials PHI^*
A^* you get instantaneous versions of both. But those instantenous local
potentials are not reducible to the instanteous nonlocal terms PHI_0 and
A_0.

This is the reason that PHI_0 and A_0 are *beyond* relativistic physics.
I call this post-relativity.

Similar comments for h and GR.

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