On Apr 6, 6:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:28:50 -0700:

Hi Juan, understood.

Doesn't seem.

Hi Juan.
There is a huge amount of technology that
I see based on GR, and the speed of light
"c".
Suppose I'm a technologist's with lots of
money, anxious to invest in new theory as
you have. What do you recommend?

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.

Of course I don't understand, what's new?

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.

Ok, that's fair enough as a conjecture.

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.

Good for you sir.

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...

Hey I understand "retardation" :-).

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.

Ok, I posted a few clarifying articles here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
pretty simple really.

I suggest you set-up a little site, with an
essay that some of us can understand.

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

To what, "use unplain language", join the
crowd!
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

"Tom Roberts" writes:

[Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has
been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the experiments Van
Flandern cites refute GR ...

I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've said
here is in any way a refutation of GR.

But equations can have many different physical interpretations. Even the
biggest names in the field (Einstein, Dirac, Feynman) agree GR has at least
two different physical interpretations. The experiments and physical
principles have now eliminated one of those - the geometric interpretation.
But that still leaves us with the field interpretation of GR, the one those
great physicists preferred anyway.

So unless you are unable to unlearn something you were once taught, you
just need to switch the physical interpretation you support, leaving the
math of GR as it is, and you will again be in accord with experiments and
physical principles. Do you have some problem with going back to the way
Einstein taught GR (field interpretation), instead of the unphysical
geometric interpretation that became popular from the 1970s forward?

[Roberts]: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
changes in gravity propagate with speed c.

[TomVF]: That is directly in contradiction to experiment and
observations.

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

You are making a fool of yourself. I cited a detailed set of experiments
from the published, peer-reviewed literature; while you make unbacked claims
without an ounce of attempted justification. You seem to know only the
geometric interpretation of GR, which lacks causality for new motion and
momentum conservation between source mass and target body.

When you repeat geometric GR statements such as "gravity does not
propagate at all", that requires redefining the word "gravity" to mean just
the refraction effects the field has on electromagnetic signals and
eliminating the main *force* that governs the orbital motions of planets,
moons, satellites, and spacecraft. In normal physics, "force" means the time
rate of change of (3-space) momentum by definition. (Consult any dictionary
or encyclopedia that gives definitions by field of application). So orbital
motion represents a force by definition of the word. And linear momentum
involves a propagation velocity by definition. So there is no physics issue
in that claim, just an issue of the definition of words. With your
re-definitions, there is no longer an active connection between a source of
gravity and the effect it is currently having on target bodies, which makes
no sense in real physics.

In our many exchanges, you have shown extensive unfamiliarity with
celestial mechanics, the field that tests GR against astronomical
observations. But that doesn't seem to cause you to hesitate to make claims
about what the experiments and observations show. For example:

All the experiments I cited demonstrate that gravity propagates faster
than c. The Taylor-Hulse binary pulsar demonstrates that *changes* in
gravity also propagate much faster than c. This flatly contradicts your
claim. Therefore, the burden is now on you to point out the exact error in
my proof in the cited published paper, or to concede the point. Just
pontificating is not a valid, scientific response.

[TomVF]: Binary pulsars are an obvious example, as I demonstrated
(without any dissent) in Reference B

[Roberts]: 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.

Now you are just being a twerp. (If you have any doubt about whether
that is a counter-insult, look up the definition. I use them so rarely that
I wouldn't want you to miss one.) Reference B contains a proof, using binary
pulsars, that changes in gravity propagate much faster than c. You obviously
did not even look at it or you wouldn't be saying there is something wrong
with it, then quickly attempting to change the subject by calling me a liar
so no one will notice that you neglected to give any clue about what is
wrong with this published and now-widely-accepted proof, or even that you
understand the proof. Your "hit and run" tactic did not work.

Regarding the "lie" part, I must presume you are referring to Kopeikin's
failed Jupiter-quasar appulse experiment. Several of the leading names in
relativity today commented that his experiment had no bearing on the speed
of gravity, but merely measured the speed of electromagnetic signals (c) as
that speed enters any light-bending experiment. You don't need to rely on my
refutation of Kopeikin because your senior colleagues have done that job for
me. But Kopeikin wasn't talking about gravitational force or "changes in
gravity". So even if he had been right, his result would not support your
claim.

In fact, you won't find a single knowledgeable relativist on USENET who
can support your claim that "changes in gravity propagate at speed c". When
binary pulsars accelerate, that is a change in the gravity they exert on one
another, and those changes act on the other body much faster than the
light-time between them. You might still find someone who will mistake this
claim to mean that changes in gravity are gravitational waves. But that too
is physical nonsense. When I walk around a room and trigger a response in a
sensitive gravimeter, I am indeed changing the gravitational force I exert
on the gravimeter, but I am not generating gravitational waves at any
detectable level. And no one who knows what he/she is talking about would
claim otherwise. Gravitational waves have never yet been detected within our
solar system.

[TomVF]: 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.

[Roberts]: 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".

How exactly do you propose to learn anything about the "relation of GR
to experiments" without computing orbits from GR equations of motion (i.e.,
celestial mechanics, my professional specialty)? I have to agree that this
is getting very silly indeed. But then, for some reason you feel compelled
to pretend you know something about fields in which you know nothing.

I have previously given you the references to the three main papers
converting the Schwarzschild solution into 3-space equations of motion:
Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman, Robertson-Noonan, and Damour-Deruelle. Have you
read these papers yet? Do you have any idea what their meaning is? Yet this
step is crucial to understanding the comparison of GR with observations, and
indeed to understanding the whole "speed of gravity" issue.

[Roberts]: 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.

I gave you specific references to prove the points I made. You provide
nothing but exaggerated claims and insults. Are you unable to read published
papers with understanding, or is it beneath you? My Reference B proves what
I said it proves. The other references support my other statements. Read and
learn. Only then can you be qualified to criticize.

[TomVF]: There is no way known to any person on this planet to avoid the
conclusion that gravitational force propagates c without invoking some
kind of physical miracle, such as an effect without a cause or the
creation of new momentum out of nothingness.

[Roberts]: That a GROSS overstatement. What you clearly mean is "Tom Van
Flandern does not know how to do this". And it's also clear that your lack
of knowledge is at fault, as the current primary theory of gravitation
does PRECISELY this.

The pattern continues. I mention observations, experiments, reasoning,
and citations, such as the Foundations of Physics article Vigier and I
published. You say I'm wrong and ignorant and offer *nothing* of any
substance, just unsupported claims and accusations. So which of us is
displaying his ignorance?

[TomVF]: GR is a field theory and describes only the field.

[Roberts]: Then how is it that GR is applied to all those experiments and
measurements? Clearly GR describes more than the "field" -- it describes
THOSE EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS.

The field equations describe only the field and the field effects:
light-bending, gravitational redshift, etc. The field itself is
unobservable. So to make comparisons with astronomical observations made in
a Euclidean coordinate system, solutions to the field equations must be
converted to 3-space equations of motion, then numerically integrated, then
used to make predictions, which may then be compared to observations.

The field equations and their solutions use the speed of light. But in
the step where they are converted to 3-space equations of motion (which are
expressions for *gravitational force*), instant force propagation must be
assumed because delayed forces, even delays just for changes in forces, lead
to total failure of the theory to agree with observations.

Why do you choose to resist learning, and to hurl insults, instead of
educating yourself? Are you afraid there might be something to what I have
published about several times now? Or are you just afraid of what your
colleagues might do if you found something I wrote that you agreed with?

[Roberts]: Speed is measured by using two synchronized clocks to measure
the travel time along a path measured with standard rulers at rest in the
same frame the clocks are synchronized in. Which of the experiments you
reference have done that? -- NONE.

Two of the experiments use actual speed as you just defined. Three
others use aberration, which is the ratio of transverse orbital speed to
force propagation speed. So, all these experiments allow us to determine the
actual propagation speed of gravitational forces in a model-independent way
using the classical meaning of "speed". You just needed to know the meaning
of "aberration" to realize that.

You spend countless hours dealing with some uneducated and
unknowledgeable people on USENET. I've seen you research topics and give
reasoned responses, as for example when dealing with the few remaining folks
still touting Miller's 1930s data allegedly showing anisotropies of light
speed of ~ 8 km/s when GPS has set upper limits to such anisotropies more
than 1000 times smaller.

Yet how many of the people you deal with are professionals who publish
regularly in the major, peer-reviewed journals and deal with every objection
to the satisfaction of neutral parties? What exactly do you want to see to
move you to take this material seriously? Or are you one of those physicists
about whom it is said that "physics advances one funeral at a time"?

Your utterances reflect badly on your reputation because of your
unwillingness to read published works and either learn new things, or at
least discuss the substantive issues they raise instead of using denial,
loud claims, and insults. -|Tom|-


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

On Apr 6, 7:45 pm, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
"Tom Roberts" writes:

[Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has
been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the experiments Van
Flandern cites refute GR ...

I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've said
here is in any way a refutation of GR.

Both you and Professor Roberts are wrong here. Claiming the speed of
gravity exceeding the speed of light in free space violates relative
simultaneity as demanded by the Lorentz transform and thus SR. Since
GR is built on top of SR, GR is falsified in the process. I don't
what your position on GR is, but it looks like you do embrace it as
well. Professor Roberts will vigorously challenge your claim because
it is his sanity at stake here in which you have not yet realized the
consequence of your own claim. shrug

On Apr 6, 9:06*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:45 pm, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:

"Tom Roberts" writes:
[Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has
been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the experiments Van
Flandern cites refute GR ...

* * I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've said
here is in any way a refutation of GR.

Both you and Professor Roberts are wrong here. *Claiming the speed of
gravity exceeding the speed of light in free space violates relative
simultaneity as demanded by the Lorentz transform and thus SR. *Since
GR is built on top of SR, GR is falsified in the process. *I don't
what your position on GR is, but it looks like you do embrace it as
well. *Professor Roberts will vigorously challenge your claim because
it is his sanity at stake here in which you have not yet realized the
consequence of your own claim. *shrug

SR is only locally true in GR, idiot.

Koobee Wublee wrote on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:06:51 -0700:

Claiming the speed of
gravity exceeding the speed of light in free space violates relative
simultaneity as demanded by the Lorentz transform and thus SR.

As showed in a recent paper the speed of electromagnetism exceed the
speed of light in free space:

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.

This paper correct some traditional mistakes by relativists.

for instance that paper shows why Carlip computation

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087

of retarded EM fields from the LW [retarded] potentials is incorrect. The
paper shows how the whole EM interaction is not retarded by c and why the
claim that EM forces are retarded is incorrect.

I have generalized the work to gravitation in recent days with a similar
conclusion:

"Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in relativistic gravity."

There exists a important difference between the work on EM and the work
on gravity.

The EM equation of motion may be generalized with a nonlocal time
implicit component (a force F_0 on Chubykalo notation).

Relativistic electrodynamics is recovered in the limit when F_0 -- 0.

The GR equation of motion may be also generalized with a nonlocal time
implicit component. But then the geometric description breaks out [#] and
only a force/field description of gravity is available.

Thus the description of GR as geoemtry is only valid as approximation and
the claim that the speed of gravity is c is based in incorrect
computations.


[#] Geometric GR is recovered (Chubykalo notation) in the limit

h_ab^* + h_ab_0 -- h_ab^*

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

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
"Tom Roberts" writes:

[Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time
this has been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the
experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...

I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing
I've said here is in any way a refutation of GR.

There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:

Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
(1999) 543, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. If you really "agree[d] with
GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.

Steve Carlip

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

wrote in message
...
| Tom Van Flandern wrote:
| "Tom Roberts" writes:
|
| [Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time
| this has been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the
| experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...
|
| I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
| umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing
| I've said here is in any way a refutation of GR.
|
| There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and
not
| just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
| that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:
|
| Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
| (1999) 543, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. If you really "agree[d]
with
| GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.
|
| Steve Carlip

Hey crank Mr. Rigorous Proof!
Produce a foundation for the postulate 'the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

|

On Apr 7, 12:39*pm, wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

"Tom Roberts" writes:
[Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time
this has *been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the
experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...
* * I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing
I've said here is in any way a refutation of GR.

There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:

Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
(1999) 543,http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. *If you really "agree[d] with
GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.

Steve Carlip

Neat!

Thanks, I'll keep this ref in mind for future uses.

On Apr 7, 1:39 pm, wrote:

There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:

Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
(1999) 543,http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. If you really "agree[d] with
GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.

The whole paper is promoting mysticism which equates to wisdom in the
general knowledge of GR. It starts out spreading the myth

"It is well known that in the limit of small perturbations, such
disturbances travel along null geodesics, and so gravitational waves
travel at light speed."

And then, of course, the "warp drive" is the central theme.

I know there is an actor named Rob Lowe, and he should be much closely
related to the "warp engines" of Startrek.

It is sad that after failing miserably with the aberration in gravity
to nullify the speed of gravity, you are resorting to Hollywood to
resolve your issues. With the speed of gravity being infinite, there
is no hope for GR. Thus, are you getting desperate or something?

Unless this is your April fool day joke which you are only a week
behind. shrug

On Apr 7, 9:19*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 7, 1:39 pm, wrote:

There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:

Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
(1999) 543,http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. *If you really "agree[d] with
GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.

The whole paper is promoting mysticism which equates to wisdom in the
general knowledge of GR. *It starts out spreading the myth

"It is well known that in the limit of small perturbations, such
disturbances travel along null geodesics, and so gravitational waves
travel at light speed."

Of course kooby thinks otherwise, but damned if he can prove it.


And then, of course, the "warp drive" is the central theme.

Awwwww guess who failed to even read the abstract! Hint: you.


I know there is an actor named Rob Lowe, and he should be much closely
related to the "warp engines" of Startrek.

It is sad that after failing miserably with the aberration in gravity
to nullify the speed of gravity, you are resorting to Hollywood to
resolve your issues. *With the speed of gravity being infinite, there
is no hope for GR. *Thus, are you getting desperate or something?

Unless this is your April fool day joke which you are only a week
behind. *shrug