On May 7, 12:27 am, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
Koobee Wublee writes:

All thanks to Professor Carlip. If not for him, I would not have
noticed this post from Dr. Van Flandern.

[Wublee]: Your LR does not satisfy the principle of relativity. Your
clock slowing but no time dilation is spooky.

Actually, LR does satisfy the principle of relativity.

So, you do not even understand the basic algebra. shrug

Even though the
local gravitational potential field is a preferred frame locally,

You are violating the very essence of the principle of relativity. I
am very confident that you do not understand it. shrug

one cannot
use it to define a universal preferred frame. So all motion is still only
relative motion.

You are still confused. shrug

"Spooky" is a rather subjective description.

Yes, it appears to be so to the one who is very spooked like
yourself. shrug

Do you consider pendulum
clocks "spooky" because they slow down with a temperature increase?

If I cannot find the cause, yes is to your question. shrug

How is
the natural slowing of an atomic clock immersed in a denser local
gravitational potential field any different in principle?

You tell me. shrug

Don't all waves
slow down when propagating in a denser medium?

No, sound travels faster in solid. Isn’t solid denser than air?

[Wublee]: Apparently, you have not thought out all the mechanisms that can
cause a perfectly working clock to slow down.

Suppose we built a clock that ticked off one microsecond every time a
sound wave in its chamber was sent to a deflector and returned. If we then
placed that clock in a denser atmosphere, it would slow its rate of ticking.

Think again. shrug

This is a good analogy for what happens to the oscillating
electromagnetic signals in an atomic clock when it is in a stronger
gravitational potential field, as for example when it is near a mass. Lots
of people have given lots of thought to the mechanisms that change clock
rates in potential fields, and this remains the best idea on the table.

So, you believe in the Aether. Why don’t you just say so instead of
giving subtle signs of going against the main-stream physicists? What
are you afraid of? More bad reputation to your already tarnished
reputation?

[Wublee]: This is nonsense. SR manifests the twin's paradox.

I gave you a reference explaining how to resolve the twin's paradox in
SR.

Yes, you gave me a reference that proposed a wrong result. shrug

You simply need to abandon your intuitive notion that distant time is
unique for all frames.

Do you mean abandoning my scientific methodology and going back to
mysticism where one can practice casting spells in his leisure time?

In SR, there is no remote simultaneity.

If you mean simultaneity is relative, then yes. Poincare had already
pointed that out about 100 years ago. shrug

The time
right here, right now in Tokyo depends on our state of motion, and will be
different for different observers.

Well, it depends on your understanding of your physical world and
somewhat of your own intelligence. shrug If you know how the
physical laws work, you can deduce what time it is in Tokyo at this
very moment. However, if you choose to accept the stupidity of SR,
God helps you. shrug

Read Ref.[1], unless you really are not interested in understanding SR
the way the relativists do.

I read it. It is a total garbage. That reflects the intellectual
might of the author. shrug

But if not, you will never succeed in communicating with them.

If they cannot even understand the Lorentz transform, why would I even
bother to communicate with them? The analogy is that why would I even
bother to communicate with amoebas?

[Wublee]: OK, what is the reason that Einstein thought black holes are not
possible?

Did I really ask that question? Well, I really don’t care about why
that nitwit, that plagiarist, and that liar thinks, and I have no
reason to be jealous of that nitwit, that plagiarist, and that liar,
Einstein. shrug

Einstein's 1939 paper (see Ref. [2]) showed that during collapse,
entities of a collection of bodies with non-zero angular momentum would be
forced to exceed the speed of light, which is impossible in SR. Therefore,
he concluded, singularities ("black holes") are impossible in GR.

Well, I have not read you reference [2] because of your reference [1]
was so absurd. shrug Again, that suggestion by Einstein does not
seem to be logical. shrug

[Wublee]: There is no such physical quantity as spacetime. Spacetime is
merely a mathematical creation. It is a 4-dimensional expansion to how

Riemann described curved space.

Yes, he did after Gauss’s suggestion of the possibility of curved
space. shrug

All efforts to develop a theory around curved space failed, as Misner,
Thorne and Wheeler remind us on p. 32 of "Gravitation".

If you mean ‘to develop a theory of gravity based on curved space
alone’, then yes what you are saying is correct. Riemann was the
first person to explore the possibility of gravitation as a
manifestation of curved spaced. He failed.

Gravity only exist through gravitational time dilation regardless how
space is curved. That is according to the mathematics of spacetime
first developed by the Goettingen group of mathematicians including
Klein, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski.

Please read the references I cite as justification. If you just respond
with declarations unbacked by observation, experiment, reasoning, or
citation, your views can't communicate well to me or to others.

I have read your absurd reference [1]. It really does me no good to
read reference [2]. shrug After all, you do not even understand
the Galilean transform. In doing so, you even try to promote a
transform that does not degenerate to the Galilean transform at low
speeds. In case if you have missed out, the Galilean transform has
adequately described the laws of physics for speeds much lower that
the speed of light. shrug The idea to propose your LR is so
absurd.

[Wublee]: I thought you are quite intelligent after correcting professor
Carlip's error on the aberration of gravity, but now I do not think so.

Commenting on the intelligence of others is rude.

Yes, I do agree that it is rude, yes, but we are discussing physics.
So, please don’t use that a lack of intelligence as an excuse to
launch alchemical physics or voodoo mathematics. shrug

Assuming that you are
smart enough to be the judge of who is "intelligent" and who is not is
egotistical.

Well, I am one of the very few who understands the stupidity in the
Lorentz transform because of the twin’s paradox. I don’t suppose I am
very intelligent compared to you, Professors Carlip, Roberts, or
Draper, but these gentlemen are believing in something utterly stupid
in logic and consistency. shrug

Learn to "show off" by sticking to the subject and coming up
with better arguments where you can, and by conceding points where that is
merited.

It helps if the ones reading my work understand where I am coming
from. shrug

[Wublee]: By the way, were you that engineer who showed the physicists
that by solving four equations with four unknowns, you can retrieve
altitude, latitude, longitude, and time information from four GPS
satellites?

No. I worked with the Air Force data taken continuously at the Monitor
Stations around the globe (having known locations),

I thought you work with the Navy. Just because the Navy also have
airplanes, it does not make Navy Air Force.

with atomic clocks at
both ends (satellite and ground). GPS receivers are good for determining
ground locations, but not for studying relativity or clock behavior.

Yes, we have already known that. Thank you.

The raw
pseudo-ranges and Doppler data are excellent for such studies. A description
of the Monitor Station data and what can be done with it appears in Ref.
[4].

Oh, shrug

[Wublee]: With four acquisitions instead of original proposal of three,
there is no more need to have time flow of the satellites to synchronize
with the ground.

Conclusions drawn from receiver data are worthless for relativity
purposes.

If you can only draw the conclusion from 3 satellites, then you are
very wrong here.

You need to read up on GPS data analysis if you wish to make
informed statements about that subject.

Yes, I did. Because the receiver gets its data from 4 satellites
instead of 3, relativity becomes non-essential in the development of
GPS.

I call the original ones who proposed only 3 satellites short-sighted,
but I have to call the ones who do not understand the benefit of using
4 satellites extraordinarily mentally challenged. These folks should
not be involved in any engineering development at all. shrug

and Albertito writes:

You seem to be very good at multi-tasking. You must be a manager of
some sort who does not have to understand anything in details.
However, you are at the mercy of the ones feeding you data, analyses,
and conclusions. If you surround yourself with baboons, you will
behave like one --- even if you are the most intelligent among them.

There is no more need for any more correspondence. I thank you for
taking your precious time to do so with me. The pleasure is mine.

On May 23, 6:01 pm, wrote:

I've had an intermittent connection to USENET recently, and missed
this when it first appeared.

Being a professor, you must have heard of all the excuses of not
turning in homeworks, but this time I will believe you. No more
excuses going forward, OK?

Still, though, there's not too much to
say, since Tom Van Flandern is merely exhibiting his basic ignorance
of GR.

Why are you so surprising? Most physicists fall into that category.
shrug

Tom Van Flandern wrote:

Nonsense. What I agreed to was that the gravitational potential field at
p would not change until one light-time later than t = 0. However, it is
clear from logic, observation, and computer experiments that the force
operating at point p changes almost instantly,

The "force" is the gradient of the potential. If the potential doesn't change,
its derivatives don't, either. Your statement here exhibits a profound lack of
understanding of basic mathematics.

You too are not listening to each other. Working in the same
scientific field, you two must put all these hatchets out of reach.
You two must try to understand each other better. I would not go that
far as a married couple though.

You can only say that because you have apparently not understood the
real issue. (More below.)

Nonsense. This is not a question of interpretation. It is a *calculation*.
General relativity tells you exactly how to do the computation, first to
determine the metric from the source mass and then to determine the
geodesics in that metric. Nothing is ambiguous.

Yes, you are very correct. There is nothing ambiguous about the field
equations. Each solution to the field equations represents a universe
so different from the others. Please stop denying that.

Here you make an elementary mistake. It takes two points (or one point
and a direction) to determine a vector. So there is most definitely a "time"
issue because there is no remote simultaneity in relativity. That means if
the two points are synchronized in M's frame, they are not synchronized in p's
frame; and vice versa. So the "gradient" cannot be the same for both frames
if they have a relative transverse motion.

"Gradient" is a mathematical operation. Given a function, the gradient is
the vector whose components are its derivatives. The gradient of a function at
position x and time t is determined by the value of the function at x (and in its
infinitesimal neighborhood) at time t, period. This is elementary undergraduate
calculus.

You two are not understanding each other. Is there a marriage counsel
equivalent in your field of research?

In accord with the relativity principle, you are not entitled to adopt
the source mass frame as special and ignore the view from the target body
frame, or vice versa.

The statement I made is frame-independent. This is again elementary mathematics.

Tom, if you want to claim to agree with GR, you need to learn some math. You
are making things up here out of whole cloth.

I should not have interfered.

carlip-nospam wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 01:01:07 +0000:

I've had an intermittent connection to USENET recently, and missed this
when it first appeared.

(snipped inadequate language)

Tom Van Flandern wrote:

Nonsense. What I agreed to was that the gravitational potential
field at
p would not change until one light-time later than t = 0. However, it
is clear from logic, observation, and computer experiments that the
force operating at point p changes almost instantly,

The "force" is the gradient of the potential.

But that is not its general definition. The force (or 'force') is the
gradient of the potential only for some simple cases.

tvf is using the standard definition of force F as rate of change of
momentum p. You may consult any general physics textbook for it.

If not any at hand take a look to online Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

(\blockquote
Isaac Newton is the first person known to explicitly state the first,
and the only, mathematical definition of force—as the time-derivative of
momentum
)

You may be confusing F with f or maybe you are unaware that gradient form
is a special case derived from more general expressions.

(snipped inadequate language)

[TomVF]: The one and only mathematical question of importance here
to the speed of gravity issue is this: For a target body with a
transverse motion relative to the source mass, should we use the
retarded gradient or the instantaneous gradient to get the force?

[Carlip]: There is no such thing as a "retarded gradient." The
gradient of a function is the vector of its spatial derivatives. Time
doesn't come into it.

Here you make an elementary mistake. It takes two points (or one
point
and a direction) to determine a vector. So there is most definitely a
"time" issue because there is no remote simultaneity in relativity.
That means if the two points are synchronized in M's frame, they are
not synchronized in p's frame; and vice versa. So the "gradient" cannot
be the same for both frames if they have a relative transverse motion.

"Gradient" is a mathematical operation. Given a function, the gradient
is the vector whose components are its derivatives. The gradient of a
function at position x and time t is determined by the value of the
function at x (and in its infinitesimal neighborhood) at time t, period.
This is elementary undergraduate calculus.

I wonder why mathematicians have recently found some inconsistencies on
traditional calculus and generalized with the new concept of whole-
partial derivatives and other useful mathematical extensions already on
the physicist (except in your own :-)) arsenal

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503207



--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

On May 24, 3:36*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 01:01:07 +0000:

I've had an intermittent connection to USENET recently, and missed this
when it first appeared.

(snipped inadequate language)

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
* * Nonsense. What I agreed to was that the gravitational potential
* * field at
p would not change until one light-time later than t = 0. * However, it
is clear from logic, observation, and computer experiments that the
force operating at point p changes almost instantly,

The "force" is the gradient of the potential.

But that is not its general definition. The force (or 'force') is the
gradient of the potential only for some simple cases.

tvf is using the standard definition of force F as rate of change of
momentum p. You may consult any general physics textbook for it.

If not any at hand take a look to online Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

(\blockquote
*Isaac Newton is the first person known to explicitly state the first,
*and the only, mathematical definition of force—as the time-derivative of
*momentum
)

You may be confusing F with f or maybe you are unaware that gradient form
is a special case derived from more general expressions.

(snipped inadequate language)





[TomVF]: The one and only mathematical question of importance here
to the speed of gravity issue is this: For a target body with a
transverse motion relative to the source mass, should we use the
retarded gradient or the instantaneous gradient to get the force?

[Carlip]: There is no such thing as a "retarded gradient." The
gradient of a function is the vector of its spatial derivatives. Time
doesn't come into it.

* * Here you make an elementary mistake. It takes two points (or one
* * point
and a direction) to determine a vector. So there is most definitely a
"time" issue because there is no remote simultaneity in relativity.
That means if the two points are synchronized in M's frame, they are
not synchronized in p's frame; and vice versa. So the "gradient" cannot
be the same for both frames if they have a relative transverse motion.

"Gradient" is a mathematical operation. *Given a function, the gradient
is the vector whose components are its derivatives. *The gradient of a
function at position x and time t is determined by the value of the
function at x (and in its infinitesimal neighborhood) at time t, period.
*This is elementary undergraduate calculus.

I wonder why mathematicians have recently found some inconsistencies on
traditional calculus and generalized with the new concept of whole-
partial derivatives and other useful mathematical extensions already on
the physicist (except in your own :-)) arsenal

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503207

--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)http://canonicalscience.org- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Changes in gravity propagate at light speed. A space push is toward
center.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

mitch.nicolas.raemsch wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 14:26:32 -0700:

On May 24, 3:36Â*am, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 01:01:07 +0000:

I've had an intermittent connection to USENET recently, and missed
this when it first appeared.

(snipped inadequate language)

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
Â* Â* Nonsense. What I agreed to was that the gravitational
Â* Â* potential field at
p would not change until one light-time later than t = 0. Â* However,
it is clear from logic, observation, and computer experiments that
the force operating at point p changes almost instantly,

The "force" is the gradient of the potential.

But that is not its general definition. The force (or 'force') is the
gradient of the potential only for some simple cases.

tvf is using the standard definition of force F as rate of change of
momentum p. You may consult any general physics textbook for it.

If not any at hand take a look to online Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

(\blockquote
Â*Isaac Newton is the first person known to explicitly state the first,
Â*and the only, mathematical definition of force—as the time-derivative
Â*of momentum
)

You may be confusing F with f or maybe you are unaware that gradient
form is a special case derived from more general expressions.

(snipped inadequate language)





[TomVF]: The one and only mathematical question of importance
here to the speed of gravity issue is this: For a target body
with a transverse motion relative to the source mass, should we
use the retarded gradient or the instantaneous gradient to get
the force?

[Carlip]: There is no such thing as a "retarded gradient." The
gradient of a function is the vector of its spatial derivatives.
Time doesn't come into it.

Â* Â* Here you make an elementary mistake. It takes two points (or
Â* Â* one point
and a direction) to determine a vector. So there is most definitely
a "time" issue because there is no remote simultaneity in
relativity. That means if the two points are synchronized in M's
frame, they are not synchronized in p's frame; and vice versa. So
the "gradient" cannot be the same for both frames if they have a
relative transverse motion.

"Gradient" is a mathematical operation. Â*Given a function, the
gradient is the vector whose components are its derivatives. Â*The
gradient of a function at position x and time t is determined by the
value of the function at x (and in its infinitesimal neighborhood) at
time t, period.
Â*This is elementary undergraduate calculus.

I wonder why mathematicians have recently found some inconsistencies on
traditional calculus and generalized with the new concept of whole-
partial derivatives and other useful mathematical extensions already on
the physicist (except in your own :-)) arsenal

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503207

--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)http://canonicalscience.org- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Changes in gravity propagate at light speed. A space push is toward
center.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Even Nobel Laureates get some things wrong :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

Steve Carlip writes:

[Carlip]: I've had an intermittent connection to USENET recently, and
missed this when it first appeared.

I give you credit for your belated respond. That is better than ignoring
the issues on the table.

[Carlip]: Still, though, there's not too much to say, since Tom Van
Flandern is merely exhibiting his basic ignorance of GR. ... Your
statement here exhibits a profound lack of understanding of basic
mathematics. ... This is elementary undergraduate calculus. ... This is
again elementary mathematics. ... if you want to claim to agree with GR,
you need to learn some math.

We have been discussing this issue for nearly 15 years now. Sometimes,
you get frustrated and use the occasional ad hominem remark. But I've never
seen you so insulting and off-topic as this.

It was your responsibility to read and understand the latest publication
on this topic if you planned to remain an expert in this field. Certainly, I've
cited it enough times for you: "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for
Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", T. Van
Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32:1031-1068 (2002). Preprint under
title "The speed of gravity - Repeal of the speed limit" available at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gr...peed_limit.asp. The citation
provides details about the mathematical definition and physical meaning of
"gradient". If you never learned about the physics behind gradients, you
should be asking questions, not handing out insults.

[Carlip]: Now, at time t=0, make the following change in R: stop the
motion of M. You apparently agree that this change will have no affect
at p until the time for a light signal to reach p from R.

[TomVF]: What I agreed to was that the gravitational potential field at p
would not change until one light-time later than t = 0. However, it is
clear from logic, observation, and computer experiments that the force
operating at point p changes almost instantly,

[Carlip]: The "force" is the gradient of the potential. If the potential
doesn't change, its derivatives don't, either.

Consider a body on a circular orbit. Its gravitational potential is
constant. Yet the gradient of that potential (a vector) is ever-changing.
Your claim is wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with the physics of
gradients, having learned only the trivial math.

As Juan has already pointed out, "force" is the time rate of change of
momentum. A gravitational force creates a gradient in the density of the
"space-time medium" that we now call gravitational potential. But there is
no requirement in physics or logic for the gradient in the potential to be
created with the same speed as the propagation speed of the force. Any
medium may take a finite time to respond to the action of a force. The
gravitational potential medium is apparently synonymous with the
light-carrying medium", and changes at the speed of light. Meanwhile, the
force that creates that gradient propagates at speeds c, according to all
existing experimental evidence.

[Carlip]: Write down the exact solution of the Einstein field equations
for a mass M that initially moves at a constant velocity and then
abruptly stops. ... Now just compute the acceleration at p. ... This is
not a question of an "interpretation" -- it is a direct, unambiguous
mathematical prediction.

[TomVF]: You can only say that because you have apparently not understood
the real issue. (More below.)

[Carlip]: Nonsense. This is not a question of interpretation. It is a
*calculation*. General relativity tells you exactly how to do the
computation, first to determine the metric from the source mass and then
to determine the geodesics in that metric. Nothing is ambiguous.

Why did you stop there, when the issue of how to determine the
acceleration of the target body doesn't arise until the next step? *After*
you determine the geodesics in that metric, you must still compute a
gradient (or take the equivalent spatial partials) to get the 3-space
force/acceleration. To do that, you must make a new *assumption*: that the
retarded potential causes the gravitational force operating on the target
body, or vice versa. In the former case, the force is retarded and gives the
wrong orbit. Geometric GR hides behind the math of 4-space, and never faces
this purely 3-space issue.

We have a plain ambiguity in the physics there, with no counterpart in
the math. One cannot solve problems and advance understanding by letting
equations do the thinking.

[TomVF]: The one and only mathematical question of importance here to
the speed of gravity issue is this: For a target body with a transverse
motion relative to the source mass, should we use the retarded gradient
or the instantaneous gradient to get the force?

[Carlip]: There is no such thing as a "retarded gradient." The gradient
of a function is the vector of its spatial derivatives. Time doesn't
come into it.

[TomVF]: Here you make an elementary mistake. It takes two points (or one
point and a direction) to determine a vector. So there is most definitely
a "time" issue because there is no remote simultaneity in relativity.
That means if the two points are synchronized in M's frame, they are not
synchronized in p's frame; and vice versa. So the "gradient" cannot be
the same for both frames if they have a relative transverse motion.

[Carlip]: "Gradient" is a mathematical operation. Given a function, the
gradient is the vector whose components are its derivatives. The gradient
of a function at position x and time t is determined by the value of the
function at x (and in its infinitesimal neighborhood) at time t, period.

It is common in physics to use gradients in dynamic situations, and not
just in static ones. If a field is fixed with respect to a coordinate system
(the only case you consider), then there is no difference between retarded
and instantaneous gradients. But if the field moves relative to the
coordinate system (as it does for target bodies with transverse motion
relative to a source mass), then the instantaneous and the retarded
gradients differ in direction.

It should be obvious to you that, if you set up your coordinate system
with origin fixed in the moving target body, then the partials that define
the gradient are time-varying. So from the perspective of the target body
(the only one that matters for determining target body motion), the
direction of the gradient of the potential depends on whether one wants the
instantaneous or the retarded direction, because there is no question that
the direction is time-varying.

[Carlip]: The statement I made is frame-independent.

Math is about equations. Physics is about reality. Equations normally
tell us nothing about cause and effect. Physics cares very much about
sorting out causes and effects, and determining how they relate to one
another. In the case in point, force is the cause and gradient is the
effect. But there is no way to tell that from the math of GR.

[Carlip]: Tom, if you want to claim to agree with GR, you need to learn
some math. You are making things up here out of whole cloth.

Because mathematical GR is unconcerned with the cause/effect issue, it
is not surprising that the same math works either way. But in physics, the
only way to make sense of gravitational force propagating nearly instantly
and gravitational potential suffering light-speed delay is to make force the
cause and potential gradients the effect.

But then, my paper with Vigier in Foundations of Physics is now six
years old, and already back then showed the definition of gradient and how
to apply it to the case of a dynamic target body. You should read the latest
publications in the field if you wish to stay current. If you disagree, then
technical comment or criticism is in order. But ignoring published advances
in your own field is never a wise policy. -|Tom|-


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

On Mar 7, 7:11*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Measurement NG GR
---------------------- ----------- ---------
Perih. of Mercury et al zero correct
Shapiro time delay zero * correct
Bending of EM radiation zero * correct
operation of GPS hopeless correct
frame dragging zero correct

Hi Tom,

you are certainly right that Newtonian gravity fails miserably in
predictions of relativistic gravitational effects. However, is the
reason of this failure the instantaneous propagation of interaction or
something else? I believe that the reason is in simplified
representation of the gravitational potential (1/r) in NG. One can
build an alternative theory [1] in which the gravitational potential
still propagates instantaneously, but contains velocity-dependent
corrections (in addition to the 1/r term). Then the comparison with
experiment is much improved:

Measurement NG GR Ref. [1]
---------------------- ----------- --------- ----------
Perih. of Mercury et al zero correct correct
Shapiro time delay zero * correct correct
Bending of EM radiation zero * correct correct
operation of GPS hopeless correct correct
frame dragging zero correct no data yet

[1] E. Stefanovich, "A Hamiltonian approach to quantum gravity"
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019

Regards.
Eugene.

eugene_stefanovich wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 15:55:53 -0700:

On Mar 7, 7:11Â*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Measurement NG GR ----------------------
----------- --------- Perih. of Mercury et al zero
correct Shapiro time delay zero * correct Bending
of EM radiation zero * correct operation of GPS
hopeless correct frame dragging zero
correct

Hi Tom,

you are certainly right that Newtonian gravity fails miserably in
predictions of relativistic gravitational effects. However, is the
reason of this failure the instantaneous propagation of interaction or
something else? I believe that the reason is in simplified
representation of the gravitational potential (1/r) in NG. One can build
an alternative theory [1] in which the gravitational potential still
propagates instantaneously, but contains velocity-dependent corrections
(in addition to the 1/r term). Then the comparison with experiment is
much improved:

Measurement NG GR Ref. [1]
---------------------- ----------- --------- ---------- Perih.
of Mercury et al zero correct correct Shapiro time
delay zero * correct correct Bending of EM radiation
zero * correct correct operation of GPS
hopeless correct correct frame dragging zero
correct no data yet

[1] E. Stefanovich, "A Hamiltonian approach to quantum gravity"
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019


It is also possible to show that generalized theory with instantaneous
potentials predicts delays for wavelike phenomena :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

Tom Van Flandern wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 14:26:29 -0700:

Steve Carlip writes:

We have been discussing this issue for nearly 15 years now.
Sometimes,
you get frustrated and use the occasional ad hominem remark. But I've
never seen you so insulting and off-topic as this.

Dr. Carlip is a well-known academic flammer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

Consider a body on a circular orbit. Its gravitational potential is
constant. Yet the gradient of that potential (a vector) is
ever-changing. Your claim is wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with
the physics of gradients, having learned only the trivial math.

As Juan has already pointed out, "force" is the time rate of change
of
momentum.

Neither Carlip nor Roberts seem to know this standard definition.

A gravitational force creates a gradient in the density of the
"space-time medium" that we now call gravitational potential. But there
is no requirement in physics or logic for the gradient in the potential
to be created with the same speed as the propagation speed of the force.
Any medium may take a finite time to respond to the action of a force.
The gravitational potential medium is apparently synonymous with the
light-carrying medium", and changes at the speed of light. Meanwhile,
the force that creates that gradient propagates at speeds c,
according to all existing experimental evidence.

Tom, an important problem here is that Steve Carlip is really confused
even about the very basic stuff on interactions.

For instance, Carlip does not know what is the expression for the
Newtonian potential.

Carlip confounds the Newtonian potential phi(R(t)), with the
nonrelativistic limit of a gravitational 'Lienard-Wiechert' phi(r,t),
which is derived from g_00 in the geometrical formulation.

His confusion about functions explains why Carlip fails to understand how
to take the gradients correctly and also explain why he confounds the
speed of the interaction with the speed c. And also explains several
flagrantly wrong physical comments by Carlip regarding boundaries.

As is well-known Carlip repeats mistakes in his famous paper on
aberration in PLA.

Carlip mistakes about electromagnetic interactions and speed are
corrected in

1996: Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda,
Roman.

1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

and also in

1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A 14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev,
Stoyan J.

All recent works (and others i have not cited here) show that
electromagnetic interactions are *not* retarded by c, which is Carlip
wrong *belief*.

The cited papers point a number of well-known mistakes that Carlip and
other relativists are doing about interactions.

Regarding the issue of the speed of gravity, Carlip just repeats same
mistakes.

The electromagnetic dualism recently introduced in (1996: Phys. Rev. E
53, 5373; 1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793; 1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683) has
been generalized and applied to gravity in my paper "Newtonian limit
difficulties of General Relativity" which i am close to finish a new and
improved version 3.

Dualism implies gravitational generalization of geometric GR

h_ab(r,t) -- h_ab(r,t) + h_ab(R(t))

It is showed that h_ab(R(t)) reduces exactly to Newtonian potential
whereas the geometric solution h_ab(r,t) does *not*.

It is showed that the geometric approach to gravity is *broken* whereas
the field formulation (FTG) and the direct particle formulation (DPI)
like (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019) are not.

I would also point that it seems recent papers have provided experimental
electromagnetic measurements of v 10 c.

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 102, 013529 2007

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 101, 023532 2007

See figure 6 on the latter. But i am still studying those papers.

Of interest for students is also "Classical Relativistic Many-Body
Dynamics. 1999: Springer. Trump, Matthew A; Schieve, William C."

Where the authors also point to the correct two-body Newtonian potential
as function

phi(R(t)) (just i said :-))

and then generalize relativistically it as

phi(\rho(\tau))

where \rho is a generalized distance and \tau and multi-body time (it is
not proper-time in general).

That generalized relativistic potential is very popular but does not
satisfies some requirements i consider needed By that reason i am
developing an different relativistic many-body dynamics.

However at least the authors of the monograph know what *is* the
Newtonian potential :-)

Carlip decided to label me as "crank" last time i remarked his confusion
about Newtonian potentials.

I find interesting that one of the world experts in the field of
relativistic chaos

http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html

has obtained the same conclusion about potentials i obtained and works
with the exactly the same functional expression i am working.

Is Prof. Schieve (and Stuckelberg, Feynman, Piron, Horwitz...) also a
crank dear Carlip? :-)


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

On May 28, 4:16 am, "Juan****o

http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

How are the "conferences" going, Juan****o?