On Apr 7, 11:50 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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.

Prove what? Prove mysticism?

Well, shrug

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

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

Guess who has not read the paper? Hint: you. shrug

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, 11:34*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:50 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.

Prove what? *Prove mysticism?

To people who can't learn, I suppose something as complex as general
relativity would appear to be mysticism.


Well, shrug

shrug indeed - your stupidity is not my problem.


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

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

Guess who has not read the paper? *Hint: *you. *shrug

The central theme isn't warp drive, idiot. Read the paper.


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

carlip-nospam wrote on Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:39:10 +0000:

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.


Claiming that to be a rigorous proof "that gravitational influence
propagates at the speed of light" may be some kind of joke.

At the one hand, that 'rigorous proof' is ignoring the difficulties
associated to the use of only retarded (or only advanced) sources.

At the other hand, the 'rigorous proof' uses only local time explicit
structure for g_ab missing so one important aspect that the whole proof
is invalid.

At least people working in electromagnetism corrected their views some
years ago. That is one advance.


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

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:28:48 -0700:

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

To what, "use unplain language", join the crowd!
Regards

Guidelines updated. Also i am not longer following open threads at this
newsgroup.

I mainly will post the recent research advances in spr and spf.

This will include recent papers proving that speed of gravity is not c
and why the usual GR theorems and proofs are incorrect with clarification
of *what* is being mesaured to travel at c.

Maybe I will submit some informative message to this group but discussion
would be followed in moderated spr and spf.


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

Hi Juan.

On Apr 8, 11:29 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:28:48 -0700:

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

To what, "use unplain language", join the crowd!
Regards

Guidelines updated. Also i am not longer following open threads at this
newsgroup.

I mainly will post the recent research advances in spr and spf.

This will include recent papers proving that speed of gravity is not c
and why the usual GR theorems and proofs are incorrect with clarification
of *what* is being mesaured to travel at c.

Maybe I will submit some informative message to this group but discussion
would be followed in moderated spr and spf.

Ok, I thought I'd post this (below) as
a demonstration of how the Equivalence
Principle is calculated in rotating CS's,
but if you not interested, please do not
read it. It's very complicated.
Best to you.
Ken S. Tucker

Speed of Gravity Theory.
According to Newton the Speed of Gravity (Gs)
is infinite. Fig.1 shows the balance of the g-force
and centrifugal force and looks like,

Centrifugal Acceleration
/|\
|
|
|
--------(E)----- Orbital Direction of Earth
| (Circular orbit)
|
|
\|/
Solar Gravitational Acceleration Fig.1
...................(S)

Where (E) is the Earth and (S) is the Sun.

According to Einstein's GR, Gs=c, hence the
acceleration vector is directed toward the apparent
(aberated) position of the sun (s) as in this Fig.2
((seeing is believing))...

Centrifugal Acceleration
/\
/
/
/
----(E)----- Orbital Direction of Earth
/ (Circular orbit)
/
/
\/
Solar Gravitational Acceleration Fig.2
............ (s) (S)
.........image^

IMO, the centrifugal acceleration is directly opposite
the g-acceleration, as shown in Fig.2. This is based on
the Principle of Equivalence, whereby the gravitational
acceleration and the inertial acceleration (centrifugal in
this example) precisely balance to produce a "freefall",
so that no acceleration can be detected on Earth due
to the sun's gravity.

A common misconception is to align the acceleration
vectors on (E) as in Fig.3

Centrifugal Acceleration
/|\
|
|
At |
-----------(E)----- Orbital Direction of Earth
/ (Circular orbit)
/
/
\/
Solar Gravitational Acceleration Fig.3
(s) (S)

This unbalanced gravitational and centrifugal
acceleration would produce a residual acceleration
and velocity accumulation "At" in the direction of
orbital velocity if it were true, and would lead to a
gross failure of Energy conservation as well as a
sense of acceleration on Earth, this doesn't happen.

But we now have a situation that needs to be
explained in terms of GR, specifically the
introduction of oblique X-Y axes relating the
sun's image and Earth as in Fig.4a,

Y-axis
/\
/
/
/
--------(E)----- X-axis
/
/
/
\/
(s) Fig.4a

Of course, it follows, if the direction of Earth's
velocity around the Sun were to reverse then
the X-Y axes obliqueness would also reverse
and produce Fig.4b,

Y-axis
/\
\
\
\
----(E)---- X-axis
\
\
\
\/
(s) Fig.4b

Mathematically, a unit vector e1 on X and e2 on Y
produces the following results,
(assuming V=dx/dt when y=r),

Fig 4a g12 = e1.e2 = -V/c (set c=1)

Fig 4b g'12 = e'1.e'2 = -V'

and g12 = -g'12 because V = -V' . (Eqs.1)

This understanding of the non-orthogonality
of the X-Y axes is adequate to solve the speed
of gravity problem, but it does not address
magnetism. For example let's be more clear
on the definition of rotational velocity V.

Set the rotational velocity defined wrt an
inertial system to,

V12 = (x1/r)*(dx2/dt) - (x2/r)*(dx1/dt)

where x1 == x and x2 == y,

then V12 = - V21.

One can see g12 == V12 but

g12 = -V21

At this point *I presume* V12 defines g12 and thus
g12 is anti-symmetrical and, of course, non-orthogonal.

In view of this developement, we might liken the anti-
symmetrical portion of g12 to the EM field tensored
by the magnetic force q*F12 as an asymmetrical stress
on the spacetime field.

I think anyone who has played with a pair of bar
magnetics has noticed weird attactions and repulsions
as these magnetics twist in relative orientation.
Aside from exotic theory, the medium connecting
these bar magnetics is only a spacetime field.


Suppose the earth is in a circular orbit around the sun, (xy plane),
with an orbital speed V, then we should expect an aberration of
V/c in the apparent postion (image) of the Sun.

The aberration of light (and gravity when gravity
is postulated to be directed at the apparent
position of the Sun as GR suggests) is given by,

g12 = (y/r)*(dx/cdt) - (x/r)*(dy/cdt).

With x=r and y=0, g12 = -dy/cdt, and describes clockwise
motion.
If x=-r then g12 = dy/cdt and is also clockwise motion,
(anti-clockwise motion is given by g21=-g12).

The term -dy/cdt is equal to (orbital velocity)/c, = -V/c,
and accounts for aberration of light and gravity, and
g12 (and g21) account for revolution in either direction.
The quantity g12 is defined by the relation (aberration)
of light signals from the sun to the earth, and so can be
regarded as a component defining a relating spacetime
metric.

The Earth and Sun remain the same distance apart therefore,
du^i/ds = 0, where u^i is the relative 3-velocity.

There is no specific need to consider covariancy or
contravariancy details for the accuracy required, the
coordinate acceleration from the usual geodesic equation
(previously linked to in my last post),in direction x
can be written (without using "^" and "_"),

du1/ds = 0 = -1/2*g11*(g10,0 + g01,0 - g00,1)*u0*u0

Let g11~1 and u0~1, which provides,

du1/ds = 0 = 1/2*g00,1 - g10,0
(g10 is considered symmetrical herein.)

where

1/2*g00,1 = gravitational acceleration

g10,0 = inertial (centrifugal) acceleration.

Now lets calculate the coordinate acceleration in
the direction y, (these are the aberration terms
when x=r and y=0),

du2/ds = - 1/2*g21*(2*g10,0 - g00,1)

and use

g12 = (y/r)*(dx/dt ) - (x/r)*(dy/dt), (c=1) .

(since x,y is the orbital plane, for this set-up,
g12= - dy/dt = -V and g21 = V).

Break out the following,
Aberrated gravitation acceleration = 1/2*V*g00,1
(an acceleration in direction y),
This is the term that *presumeably* causes the Earth to
respond to the aberrated position of the sun, except it is
exactly balanced by inertial acceleration.

Aberrated centrifugal acceleration = - V*g10,0
(an acceleration equal in magnitude to gravitational
acceleration in direction -y)

Recall x=r, and the sum of accelerations in the
direction 'y' are,

du2/ds = 1/2*V*g00,1 - V*g10,0 = 0

These are the equal and opposite terms that nullify
the aberrated gravitational acceleration.

The above is a transparent example of the Principle of
Equivalence demonstrated using the geodesic equation
and including the aberrating effects of the rotational
metric (g12).

Frankly, I think it's a tribute to Einstein's GR that such a
complex problem can be so simplified and easily applied.
Ie. applying generally covariant equations (the geodesic)
involving gravity, inertia and rotation be expressed more
clearly, and applied so directly to find speed of gravity=c.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt8

Change in mass density changes gravity. Changes in gravity propagate
at the speed of light.

Mitch Raemsch

[I'm picking just the main points.]

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
"Tom Roberts" writes:
... None of the
experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...

I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've
said here is in any way a refutation of GR.

As Carlip said, if you really understood what you just said, this
argument would be over.

Experiments can test theories. They cannot possibly test interpretations
of those theories. This is so because the way an experiment and a theory
are compared is to take the equations of the theory, apply the
experimental setup to them (e.g. as boundary conditions), and use the
equations of the theory to predict (compute) the values that the
experimental detectors measure. Nowhere in that is any interpretation of
the equations used.

The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
"geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific measurements).

[#] This is not really an "interpretation" as the word is
normally used in science, because in GR the geometry is
DYNAMIC, and this is fundamental to the theory. TVF does
not realize this, because in the APPROXIMATION he uses
this aspect of the theory has been approximated away.


[...]orbital motion represents a force by definition of
the word.

That is just plain wrong. Here is how you can see that it is wrong: try
to describe how one could MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an
orbiting satellite. If you cannot do that, you cannot define "force"
this way. And you CLEARLY cannot do it (if anyone had ever done it, GR
would have been unnecessary, irrelevant, and almost certainly wrong).

Note you must measure the force itself, not any geometrical
aspects of the physical situation -- that would be geometry,
and you're claiming this is not geometry.


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.

Ah! There's your problem: you do not understand how approximations work
in physics. There is no "must be assumed" in APPROXIMATING (not
"converting") the equations of GR to become equations in linearized GR
using a background Minkowski frame, because that is PART OF THE
APPROXIMATION.

Putting in "delayed forces" as you state above, is DOWNRIGHT WRONG. To
test GR, one must use the equations of GR, or a valid approximation to
them, not some cobbled-together equations into which you put "delayed
forces". The linearized GR approximation is well known to give equations
in which propagation delays don't appear.

You claim these are "expressions for *gravitational force*", but that is
really a misnomer -- the MEASUREMENTS do not include a single
measurement of "gravitational force". The actual experiments measure
GEOMETRICAL ASPECTS of the apparatus (etc.). It simply is not possible
to measure "gravitational force", all one can do is measure various
effects of such a "force". (If this last were not true, GR could not
possibly model gravitation as geometry, without any "gravitational force".)

Even standing on a bathroom scale does not measure
"gravitational force": it CLEARLY measures an UPWARD
force on your body and a downward force on the floor,
neither of which can possibly be the attractive force
of gravity.

But the real challenge is to measure "gravitational force"
on an orbiting satellite -- the issue is clearer there.


[...]

No point in repeating....


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote in message

[I'm picking just the main points.]

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
"Tom Roberts" writes:
... None of the
experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...

I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've
said here is in any way a refutation of GR.

As Carlip said, if you really understood what you just said, this
argument would be over.

Experiments can test theories. They cannot possibly test interpretations
of those theories. This is so because the way an experiment and a theory
are compared is to take the equations of the theory, apply the
experimental setup to them (e.g. as boundary conditions), and use the
equations of the theory to predict (compute) the values that the
experimental detectors measure. Nowhere in that is any interpretation of
the equations used.

The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
"geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific measurements).

[#] This is not really an "interpretation" as the word is
normally used in science, because in GR the geometry is
DYNAMIC, and this is fundamental to the theory. TVF does
not realize this, because in the APPROXIMATION he uses
this aspect of the theory has been approximated away.


[...]orbital motion represents a force by definition of
the word.

That is just plain wrong. Here is how you can see that it is wrong: try
to describe how one could MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an
orbiting satellite. If you cannot do that, you cannot define "force"
this way. And you CLEARLY cannot do it (if anyone had ever done it, GR
would have been unnecessary, irrelevant, and almost certainly wrong).

Note you must measure the force itself, not any geometrical
aspects of the physical situation -- that would be geometry,
and you're claiming this is not geometry.


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.

Ah! There's your problem: you do not understand how approximations work
in physics.

He doesn't even understand how they work in mathematics:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...TVFSeries.html
We know this since just about 5 years now ;-)

Dirk Vdm


There is no "must be assumed" in APPROXIMATING (not
"converting") the equations of GR to become equations in linearized GR
using a background Minkowski frame, because that is PART OF THE
APPROXIMATION.

Putting in "delayed forces" as you state above, is DOWNRIGHT WRONG. To
test GR, one must use the equations of GR, or a valid approximation to
them, not some cobbled-together equations into which you put "delayed
forces". The linearized GR approximation is well known to give equations
in which propagation delays don't appear.

You claim these are "expressions for *gravitational force*", but that is
really a misnomer -- the MEASUREMENTS do not include a single
measurement of "gravitational force". The actual experiments measure
GEOMETRICAL ASPECTS of the apparatus (etc.). It simply is not possible
to measure "gravitational force", all one can do is measure various
effects of such a "force". (If this last were not true, GR could not
possibly model gravitation as geometry, without any "gravitational force".)

Even standing on a bathroom scale does not measure
"gravitational force": it CLEARLY measures an UPWARD
force on your body and a downward force on the floor,
neither of which can possibly be the attractive force
of gravity.

But the real challenge is to measure "gravitational force"
on an orbiting satellite -- the issue is clearer there.


[...]

No point in repeating....


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:36:41 -0500:

I imagined this had been all well explained before.

The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
"geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific
measurements).

None current experiment verifies:
a1) gravity is due to spacetime curvature
b1) interactions are retarded

because same experiments can be explained using
a2) gravity like a force
b2) instantenous fundamental interactions

However, recent experiments and theoretical advances are neither
supporting the idea of retarded interactions nor the idea of gravity as
geometry.

Both (geometry and retardation) are approximated concepts.

Thus geoemtric GR is an approximation to a more general description of
classical graviational phenomena.

try
to describe how one could MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an
orbiting satellite. If you cannot do that, you cannot define "force"
this way.

This is done in standard astronomic and celestial mechanics literature.
The definition of force is also standard and agrees with standard
definitions used on other branches of physics.


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

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
I imagined this had been all well explained before.

Only if one accepts at face value your claims that most of classical
physics is wrong. I have not yet read your references....

In any case, that's not relevant to Van Flandern's mistakes.


Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:36:41 -0500:
The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
"geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific
measurements).

None current experiment verifies:
a1) gravity is due to spacetime curvature
b1) interactions are retarded
because same experiments can be explained using
a2) gravity like a force
b2) instantenous fundamental interactions

Sure. As I said before, experiments cannot distinguish between
interpretations like this.

[That assumes your second theory is GR in disguise.
If not, it merely shows that the two theories cannot
be distinguished by these experiments.]


However, recent experiments and theoretical advances are neither
supporting the idea of retarded interactions nor the idea of gravity as
geometry.

But they aren't refuting it, either, which is the relevant point.


Both (geometry and retardation) are approximated concepts.

Almost certainly -- it's highly likely that GR itself is an
approximation. But to what?


Thus geoemtric GR is an approximation to a more general description of
classical graviational phenomena.

Except that to date nobody has presented such a "more general description".


try
to describe how one could MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an
orbiting satellite. If you cannot do that, you cannot define "force"
this way.

This is done in standard astronomic and celestial mechanics literature.
The definition of force is also standard and agrees with standard
definitions used on other branches of physics.

In other words: you cannot do so, either.

My point is that one cannot possibly MEASURE the "gravitational force"
on an orbiting satellite. One can certainly measure geometrical aspects
of its path and INFER a "gravitational force". But that's insufficient
to the task you and Van Flandern have set out for yourselves, because
the geometry of GR can also explain such measurements.


Tom Roberts