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

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".


Tom Van Flandern wrote:
Tom Roberts" writes:
[Roberts]: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
changes in gravity propagate with speed c.

That is directly in contradiction to experiment and observations.

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


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.


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.


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.

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.

To do this, apply GR. Or more likely, the appropriate approximation to
GR. Yes, in that approximations the equations behave AS IF
"gravitational force propagates c", but in the theory itself NOTHING
propagates faster than c. You confuse an artifact of an approximation
with an attribute of the theory.


[Roberts]: The GR model agrees with all these "evidences", and indeed
it accounts MUCH more accurately than the Newtonian model for
measurements in the solar system (including the perihelia of Mercury
and other planets, the Shapiro time delay, the bending of EM radiation
by the sun, the operation of the GPS, the frame dragging measured by
the LAGEOS satellites, etc.).

True but irrelevant because GR is a field theory and describes only
the field.

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. After all, that is the goal of
science: to develop theories that accurately describe the experiments,
and to test them with additional experiments.

I repeat: you need to learn what GR actually is. Your guesses are just
plain wrong.


The gravitational potential field causes all the effects on
your list.

You state that like a God-given "truth". In fact, it is a
MODEL-DEPENDENT statement. Yes, certain models of "gravitational
potential field" can reproduce the experiments and measurements as well
as GR can do so. To claim that is the "cause" of those effects is pure
sophistry.


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

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. 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.


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.


Try computing an orbit with GR just once in any system with at least
two significant masses, and you will discover that you cannot do it
without adopting near-infinite gravitational force propagation speed
between bodies applying forces to one another.

Again, your knowledge of GR is completely lacking. One does not "adopt"
ANYTHING. What one does is make approximations to the equations of GR,
and use them. One need make no assumption at all about "speed of
propagation" of gravitational force -- it comes out of the approximation
technique; yes, for the most applicable approximations it is
"near-infinite".


Then the dawn will come,
and you will finally understand what the "speed of gravity" issue is about.

The "speed of gravity issue" you discuss is merely about the meanings of
words. You use a non-standard meaning of "speed". shrug

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. Most
people will accept a measurement of speed that can be related
in a model-independent way to that definition; how many can
do that? -- NONE. The experiments you cite cannot be related
to "propagation speed" in any model independent way. In
particular, you must assume a central force to do it, and
models like GR, which have no such central force, are explicit
counterexamples to your claims. shrug


[Roberts]: it is MUCH better to discuss models and their agreement
with experiments than to discuss MODEL-DEPENDENT quantities like
"speed of gravity".

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".

What _IS_ model independent are the actual MEASUREMENTS. Those, of
course, are not measurements of any type of speed, they are measurements
of the direction of gravitational force (etc.). GR can reproduce those
MEASUREMENTS, and is a model in which there is no "speed of gravity". So
it is an explicit counterexample to your claims.

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".


Its simple meaning is: When a source mass accelerates,
the speed of gravity is the ratio of the distance of a target body to
the time elapsed before the target body responds. And every known
experiment measures that elapsed interval to be zero within experimental
error, making the speed of gravity c and approximately infinite.

I repeat: GR can explain such measurements, and in GR nothing propagates
faster than c. Your claims are all based on the assumption that the
gravitational force "propagates" directly and centrally from the source
mass -- in GR that is not true. In the appropriate approximation to GR
the effect of gravity here from that source mass over there depends not
only on its position at the retarded time, but also on its velocity and
acceleration at the retarded time; these components conspire to make the
gravitational force here and now point APPROXIMATELY to where the source
mass is located at the non-retarded time (and the approximation is far
better than experimental resolutions). You claim that is "approximately
infinite propagation speed", but it in this approximation to GR it isn't
-- it is propagation at c from the retarded position, but the force is
not central.

This is not happenstance -- without it GR would never have been accepted
as a theory of gravitation. I repeat: you REALLY need to learn what GR
actually is.


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).

That, of course, is an APPROXIMATION. In GR itself, there is no "causal
link" to a "source mass" -- for the case of two masses orbiting each
other, they BOTH contribute to the geometry, and they BOTH respond to
the geometry in their motions. The equations are NON-LINEAR and there
can be no possible separation into "source mass" and "acted-upon mass",
there is just BOTH masses and the geometry.


Tom Van Flandern does not understand the real issues, and uses
egregious PUNs to promulgate his claims. In particular, what he calls
"speed" is not what anybody else would call "speed". The experiments
he cites do NOT measure speed (usual meaning), and their actual
measurements are fully consistent with GR, in which nothing propagates
faster than c.

Quit making up nonsense. The published papers are in references (A),
(B), (C), and (D) below. "Speed" has its unambiguous, classical meaning
in all of them, as the editors, reviewers, and readers have all understood.

In which of those experiments were two synchronized clocks used? -- NONE

In which of those experiments was ANY sort of speed actually MEASURED?
--NONE

In which of those experiments can the actual measurements be related to
speed in a model-independent way? -- NONE

And finally: which of those experiments refute GR (in which nothing
propagates faster than c)? -- NONE


This has all been said before, in the pages of Physics Letters A, and
around here. You seem utterly unable to learn about GR. Or about the
common meanings of words.

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.


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".


Tom Roberts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.

In my present work i extend their work to gravity and the conclusion is
the same: the speed of gravity cannot be "c".

The model of interactions being retarded by c arises as an approximated
model of interactions, valid only in the field/metric limit.

A great advantage of the new models of interactions is that they
eliminate all traditional problems of the field/metric models: self-
action, energy, nonrelativistic limits, many-body effects...


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

Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:21:30 -0700:

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

Professor Carlip addressed your claim that the speed of gravity being
several billion times the speed of light in the following article. I
have seen no public refutation to his work.

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

As pointed several times in this newsgroup Carlip is wrong about
interactions.

Carlip paper received a formal reply by van Flandern on:

Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational,
Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions. 2002: Found. Phys. 32,
1031. Van Flandern, T; Vigier, J.P.

Yes, I found it in his website now. So, after Professor turned Dr. Van
Flandern's claim of infinite speed of gravity on its head, Dr. Van
Flandern reversed the favor by turning Professor Carlip's claim in
aberration of gravity on its very own head. It looks like Professor
Carlip has somehow ignored the speed of one star in his aberration
consideration. Has Professor Carlip offered any graceful retreat from
that mistake?

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


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

Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:13:25 -0500:

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008


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

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




Engineers BUILD things, you ****in' cretin.

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.

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

- Randy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that paper available online?
(who are the authors?)

Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.

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

In my present work i extend their work to gravity and the conclusion is
the same: the speed of gravity cannot be "c".

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

The model of interactions being retarded by c arises as an approximated
model of interactions, valid only in the field/metric limit.

A great advantage of the new models of interactions is that they
eliminate all traditional problems of the field/metric models: self-
action, energy, nonrelativistic limits, many-body effects...

I suppose a model using *near instanteous*
action is useful at a primitive level.
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, 5:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 more 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