On Jun 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:16 -0700:



On Jun 3, 3:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an *extension*
of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are recovered in a well-
defined limit of a more general and sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of gravity in GR
coincides with the speed of gravity. However this is not true in the
generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in mathematics and
physics developed in last few years. Technically it is a nongeometrical
DPI many-body theory in Liouville space with universal evolution
parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and the limits
of geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus completely
irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair :-)

Ok, who is your target market, (evidentally not me, as you Juan insist).

Simple, people who do not make unfair criticisms about works he never
read first :-)

Take a look at this article and provide a
criticism, (it's a couple of straightforward
pages),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

Also, people who take five minutes to read references provided instead
repeating mistakes were corrected in print :-)

Well Juan, I have looked, so far I find your
mathematics and physics ambiguous. Why don't
you write up a synopsis/essay as I have demo'd
above, as a link for the group.



I'm interested in the new predicticts your theory makes, apart from our
classicals. Ken

Oh, i am too :-)

The dual theory make several interesting predictions (for both
electrodynamics and gravity) and also solves well-known difficulties with
the former theory (when interactions travel at c).

That is, the new theory gives right answers for questions that former
theory gives us wrong.

If you had taken a look to references cited you would already know at
least this part :-)

Good, we are looking forward to a synopsis.
Regards
Ken

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:40:03 -0500:
Let me repeat that: there is no ambiguity whatsoever in taking the
gradient at point P and time T, because the potential was evaluated at
time T for every point within the spatial neighborhood of P. In
particular, properties of the source are evaluated only in an
infinitesimal neighborhood of the retarded time T-R(T)/c.

There exists difficulties to evaluate the E field derived from L&W
potentials. This is revised with mathematical detail (just details you
ignore) in
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.

So you claim. But an examination of that paper shows that nowhere does
it evaluate any source parameter EXCEPT AT THE RETARDED TIME. There is
no "instantaneous interaction" in that paper except in the title. Their
claims, and thus your claims, are not supported by this paper. And their
response to similar comments by J.D.Jackson (yes, THAT Jackson), seem
woefully inadequate to me.


[... further elaboration and references]

I may find time to look at them. But the fact that your first reference
does not support your claims makes me less inclined to spend the time
and effort.


In GR itself, without approximation, there is no general
Green's-function method to solve the field equation, because it is
nonlinear.

Next is the standard solution to the field equation in *full* (nonlinear)
GR obtained using *Green methods*
h^ab = 4 Int (\tau / r) d^3x
where the source, of course, is evaluated using the past light cone.

You'll have to explain what this means. A reference would help. But I
don't see how an integral can possibly represent a solution to nonlinear
differential equations -- an integral inherently superimposes values
from different sources, and the field equation of GR does not have such
superposition.

Is it possible that like TVF you are confusing an approximation to GR
with GR itself? Your remarks sure seem to do so. Certainly various
approximations have Green's function solutions....


Well, I know *for sure* that Vigier was aware that a pure scalar theory
of gravity is not enough. Vigier itself was working a non-scalar theory,
and i think Tvf knows that also.

But saying that cannot be scalar "gravitational potential" is completely
false.

The scalar is usually identified with h_00. Take a look to Moller
textbook or to Weinberg section in PPN formalism or just ask some
astronomer (e.g. TvF) on how they have tested GR using potentials :-)

h_00 cannot possibly be a scaler, unless h itself is not a tensor. And
the other components of h make it be more than a scaler, don't they? You
seem to be making self-inconsistent statements here, unless your
notation is WILDLY nonstandard.

Yes, in various APPROXIMATIONS to GR this is valid, and
the other components of h are typically negligible
compared to h_00, and the "scalar" with which it is
identified is a NEWTONIAN scalar on space, not a
true scalar field on spacetime.
But an approximation is NOT the theory. shrug

Weinberg's section on PPN is indeed an APPROXIMATION.

Yes, astronomers use approximations to GR that involve potentials -- the
full theory is too difficult to compute their physical situation(s). So
what? This does not affect the theory itself (which I remind you is what
I was discussing here).


In some sense the metric can be considered
to be a "generalized gravitational potential", and the analogy to the
gradient is the Christoffel symbols -- this has the necessary property
that the "generalized gravitational force" is zero when evaluated in
locally-inertial coordinates.
Once more again, Tom, *you* confound the field formulation with the
geometrical formulation.

I have said nothing whatsoever about the "field formulation". But if it
is indeed EQUIVALENT to GR, then what I have said about GR applies to
it. If it is not truly equivalent to GR than it is something else, and I
am not discussing it at all.


Astronomers are not so ignorant and unlike you
they know they are speaking.

Sure, for many/most astronomers. But not TVF and his claims about GR.
And not you or Chubykalo and Vlaev about "instantaneous interactions" in
classical E&M (unless you can show where in their paper they evaluate
source parameters at the NON-retarded time; I certainly found no such
evaluation).


Tom Roberts

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:12:35 -0700:

On Jun 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:16 -0700:



On Jun 3, 3:49 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an
*extension* of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are
recovered in a well- defined limit of a more general and
sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of gravity in
GR coincides with the speed of gravity. However this is not true in
the generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in mathematics
and physics developed in last few years. Technically it is a
nongeometrical DPI many-body theory in Liouville space with
universal evolution parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and the
limits of geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus
completely irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair :-)

Ok, who is your target market, (evidentally not me, as you Juan
insist).

Simple, people who do not make unfair criticisms about works he never
read first :-)

Take a look at this article and provide a criticism, (it's a couple of
straightforward pages),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

Also, people who take five minutes to read references provided instead
repeating mistakes were corrected in print :-)

Well Juan, I have looked, so far I find your mathematics and physics
ambiguous. Why don't you write up a synopsis/essay as I have demo'd
above, as a link for the group.



I'm interested in the new predicticts your theory makes, apart from
our classicals. Ken

Oh, i am too :-)

The dual theory make several interesting predictions (for both
electrodynamics and gravity) and also solves well-known difficulties
with the former theory (when interactions travel at c).

That is, the new theory gives right answers for questions that former
theory gives us wrong.

If you had taken a look to references cited you would already know at
least this part :-)

Good, we are looking forward to a synopsis. Regards
Ken

Oh, but was done, including equations that have not spacetime
representation and need of a more *general* relativistic theory.

If you did not read before replying is a different question :-)


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

Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:15:46 -0500:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:40:03 -0500:
Let me repeat that: there is no ambiguity whatsoever in taking the
gradient at point P and time T, because the potential was evaluated at
time T for every point within the spatial neighborhood of P. In
particular, properties of the source are evaluated only in an
infinitesimal neighborhood of the retarded time T-R(T)/c.

There exists difficulties to evaluate the E field derived from L&W
potentials. This is revised with mathematical detail (just details you
ignore) in
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.

So you claim. But an examination of that paper shows that nowhere does
it evaluate any source parameter EXCEPT AT THE RETARDED TIME. There is
no "instantaneous interaction" in that paper except in the title. Their
claims, and thus your claims, are not supported by this paper.

But it was done clear then that you did not understand the paper.

Try to learn why they wrote "Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of
instantaneous and retarded interactions in classical electrodynamics" and
why interactions are *not* retarded.

[... further elaboration and references]

I may find time to look at them. But the fact that your first reference
does not support your claims makes me less inclined to spend the time
and effort.

Authors supported their claims with a *rigorous* mathematical analysis,
which you completely ignore.

They proved you are wrong but of course you will continue to say they are
not right whereas you will be *unable* to write a rebuttal paper showing
they really did mistake.

It is also fine you decide to ignore the rest of references. That may be
how science works according to *you* :-)

In GR itself, without approximation, there is no general
Green's-function method to solve the field equation, because it is
nonlinear.

Next is the standard solution to the field equation in *full*
(nonlinear) GR obtained using *Green methods*
h^ab = 4 Int (\tau / r) d^3x
where the source, of course, is evaluated using the past light cone.

You'll have to explain what this means. A reference would help. But I
don't see how an integral can possibly represent a solution to nonlinear
differential equations -- an integral inherently superimposes values
from different sources, and the field equation of GR does not have such
superposition.

Ha ha ha ha ha :-)

Well, above equation is completely standard, well-known, and explained in
many textbooks and papers on GR.

Astronomers as TvF solve it when testing GR, but a self-claimed expertise
as you may perfectly ignore that minor point :-)

Is it possible that like TVF you are confusing an approximation to GR
with GR itself?

It would be possible except by a small detail you igno

"Above equation is an exact solution to full nonlinear field GR equations"

Learn some GR Tom :-)

(next misunderstandings sniped)

Weinberg's section on PPN is indeed an APPROXIMATION.

Read i have really said Tom.

Yes, astronomers use approximations to GR that involve potentials -- the
full theory is too difficult to compute their physical situation(s). So
what? This does not affect the theory itself (which I remind you is what
I was discussing here).

The *full* theory of GR never has been tested Tom. Its main principles as
existence of a dynamical and generally curved spacetime never has been
tested. And the speed of gravity never has been measured Tom.

Your castle is all in the air :-)

Once more again, Tom, *you* confound the field formulation with the
geometrical formulation.

I have said nothing whatsoever about the "field formulation". But if it
is indeed EQUIVALENT to GR, then what I have said about GR applies to
it. If it is not truly equivalent to GR than it is something else, and I
am not discussing it at all.

The geometric and the field formulation are equivalent for many tests
astronomers have worked. But and this is the part you ignore forever they
have tested gravitation *using the field formulation*.

Or you do *not* read TvF?

I also recommend you that would go to next Conference

http://ppc08.astro.spbu.ru/sci_program.html#S_IV

where astronomers will be discussing some novel observational tests
differentiating geometric for the field formulation.

My last knowledge on that topic is that the field formulation is favored
over the geometric one.

(more ad hominem snipped)


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

On Jun 6, 3:52 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:12:35 -0700:



On Jun 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:16 -0700:

On Jun 3, 3:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an
*extension* of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are
recovered in a well- defined limit of a more general and
sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of gravity in
GR coincides with the speed of gravity. However this is not true in
the generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in mathematics
and physics developed in last few years. Technically it is a
nongeometrical DPI many-body theory in Liouville space with
universal evolution parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and the
limits of geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus
completely irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair :-)

Ok, who is your target market, (evidentally not me, as you Juan
insist).

Simple, people who do not make unfair criticisms about works he never
read first :-)

Take a look at this article and provide a criticism, (it's a couple of
straightforward pages),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

Also, people who take five minutes to read references provided instead
repeating mistakes were corrected in print :-)

Well Juan, I have looked, so far I find your mathematics and physics
ambiguous. Why don't you write up a synopsis/essay as I have demo'd
above, as a link for the group.

I'm interested in the new predicticts your theory makes, apart from
our classicals. Ken

Oh, i am too :-)

The dual theory make several interesting predictions (for both
electrodynamics and gravity) and also solves well-known difficulties
with the former theory (when interactions travel at c).

That is, the new theory gives right answers for questions that former
theory gives us wrong.

If you had taken a look to references cited you would already know at
least this part :-)

Good, we are looking forward to a synopsis. Regards
Ken

Oh, but was done, including equations that have not spacetime
representation and need of a more *general* relativistic theory.
If you did not read before replying is a different question :-)

I sometimes have a problem understanding
what your trying to say, but anyway, I wish
you good luck with your new book, and please
post reviews of it, and I'm looking forward
to reading it.
Regards
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:01:14 -0700:

On Jun 6, 3:52 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:12:35 -0700:



On Jun 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:16 -0700:

On Jun 3, 3:49 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an
*extension* of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are
recovered in a well- defined limit of a more general and
sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of gravity
in GR coincides with the speed of gravity. However this is not
true in the generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in
mathematics and physics developed in last few years. Technically
it is a nongeometrical DPI many-body theory in Liouville space
with universal evolution parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and the
limits of geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus
completely irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair
:-)

Ok, who is your target market, (evidentally not me, as you Juan
insist).

Simple, people who do not make unfair criticisms about works he
never read first :-)

Take a look at this article and provide a criticism, (it's a couple
of straightforward pages),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

Also, people who take five minutes to read references provided
instead repeating mistakes were corrected in print :-)

Well Juan, I have looked, so far I find your mathematics and physics
ambiguous. Why don't you write up a synopsis/essay as I have demo'd
above, as a link for the group.

I'm interested in the new predicticts your theory makes, apart
from our classicals. Ken

Oh, i am too :-)

The dual theory make several interesting predictions (for both
electrodynamics and gravity) and also solves well-known difficulties
with the former theory (when interactions travel at c).

That is, the new theory gives right answers for questions that
former theory gives us wrong.

If you had taken a look to references cited you would already know
at least this part :-)

Good, we are looking forward to a synopsis. Regards Ken

Oh, but was done, including equations that have not spacetime
representation and need of a more *general* relativistic theory. If you
did not read before replying is a different question :-)

I sometimes have a problem understanding what your trying to say, but
anyway, I wish you good luck with your new book, and please post reviews
of it, and I'm looking forward to reading it.

What book Ken?

Are you sure you are replying me? or who you are? or do you just dream
that and typed? :-)


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

On Jun 7, 5:01 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:01:14 -0700:



On Jun 6, 3:52 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:12:35 -0700:

On Jun 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:16 -0700:

On Jun 3, 3:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an
*extension* of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are
recovered in a well- defined limit of a more general and
sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of gravity
in GR coincides with the speed of gravity. However this is not
true in the generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in
mathematics and physics developed in last few years. Technically
it is a nongeometrical DPI many-body theory in Liouville space
with universal evolution parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and the
limits of geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus
completely irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair
:-)

Ok, who is your target market, (evidentally not me, as you Juan
insist).

Simple, people who do not make unfair criticisms about works he
never read first :-)

Take a look at this article and provide a criticism, (it's a couple
of straightforward pages),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

Also, people who take five minutes to read references provided
instead repeating mistakes were corrected in print :-)

Well Juan, I have looked, so far I find your mathematics and physics
ambiguous. Why don't you write up a synopsis/essay as I have demo'd
above, as a link for the group.

I'm interested in the new predicticts your theory makes, apart
from our classicals. Ken

Oh, i am too :-)

The dual theory make several interesting predictions (for both
electrodynamics and gravity) and also solves well-known difficulties
with the former theory (when interactions travel at c).

That is, the new theory gives right answers for questions that
former theory gives us wrong.

If you had taken a look to references cited you would already know
at least this part :-)

Good, we are looking forward to a synopsis. Regards Ken

Oh, but was done, including equations that have not spacetime
representation and need of a more *general* relativistic theory. If you
did not read before replying is a different question :-)

I sometimes have a problem understanding what your trying to say, but
anyway, I wish you good luck with your new book, and please post reviews
of it, and I'm looking forward to reading it.

What book Ken?

I think you're best to postpone a book
until you have things clarified.

Are you sure you are replying me? or who you are? or do you just dream that and typed? :-)

Oh, I stand corrected, I thought you were
publishing a book.
Ken

"Tom Roberts" writes:

[Roberts]: [I ignore the embroidery and only discuss Van Flandern's
primary confusion.]

You make a mistake no scientist should ever make. You believe in a
theory (GR) just as you have been taught it instead of continuing the effort
to improve your understanding of it. As a result, you know only the
geometric interpretation of GR, and are ignorant of the field interpretation
and its physical meaning. To maintain your belief, you remain in a state of
denial about what the experiments say. Anyone who truly understands the
physics and the meaning of the relevant experiments can no longer justify a
belief that gravitational force propagates at the speed of light, or that
the geometric interpretation of Einstein’s theory remains viable.

[Roberts]: Your question "does the field gradient point toward the
instantaneous or retarded position of the source?" is SUPERFLUOUS AND
MAKES AN INVALID ASSUMPTION -- the math is unambiguous, and the answer is:
NEITHER, the field gradient points to the retarded source position
EXTRAPOLATED LINEARLY to the time at which the gradient is evaluated.

Your belief in unambiguous math is in direct contradiction to the
existence of two different physical interpretations of the math, and to what
the experiments tell us. I have previously cited Feynman’s statement about
the two interpretations and the fact that the geometric interpretation is
not needed. Do you think that Feynman is also “confused�? And using GR, my
1998 article analyzed binary pulsar orbits to prove that, in a strong-field
case, the “retarded source position extrapolated linearly to the time when
the gradient is evaluated� is grossly insufficient to account for their
orbital motion, which would rapidly spiral outward if your claim were true.
See Ref. [1].

Even for electrodynamic forces, the linear extrapolation is
insufficient, as was proven by the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment. See Ref.
[2]. These experiments prove that both gravitational and electrodynamic
forces propagate much faster than light.

And there is no longer any legitimate reason to doubt that forces can do
that because special relativity (SR)’s conclusion, “faster-than-light
propagation in forward time is impossible�, is falsified by the mere
existence of Lorentzian relativity (LR). See Refs. [3] on LR, and [4] on why
SR is now falsified in favor of LR.

[Roberts]: The correct way to use the L-W potential for a single point
source, and to compute the E field from its gradient, is as follows: ...
there is no ambiguity whatsoever in taking the gradient at point P and
time T, because the potential was evaluated at time T for every point
within the spatial neighborhood of P.

Your claims here are true only if P is a point fixed in the field
relative to the source mass. When P is moving, the direction of the gradient
is affected by that motion because the instantaneous and retarded positions
of the source mass then differ. Your description ignores this critical
point, and is therefore wrong when applied to orbital motion.

[Roberts]: I'm saying nothing new, and this is explained in every
graduate-level textbook on classical E&M.

And history is the only point you can cite in your favor. However,
history is history and the modern experiments now favor a different
interpretation. So be wary that you are not one of those that Max Planck
complained about when he said: “Science advances one funeral at a time.�

[Roberts]: In the weak-field linear approximation to GR the situation is
more complicated, but basically the same. The gravitational force vector
at point P and time T points to the QUADRATICALLY EXTRAPOLATED position of
the source at time T. That is, the position, velocity, and acceleration of
the source are involved in an infinitesimal neighborhood of the retarded
time.

Let’s gloss over the fact that GR does not have the difference you
describe between weak-field and strong-field approximations, which you just
made up wholesale to justify your argument. And I’ve already made the point
that your argument holds only for non-moving target bodies, but not for
orbits.

That said, what really amazes me is you saying with a straight face that
a quadratic extrapolation is required, just to avoid admitting that the
gradient is directed toward the (nearly) instantaneous source position. When
future observations require it, you won’t blink an eye when you have to say
that really an octopole extrapolation is required. And so on. This is
Ptolemy’s game: adding epicycles so the leaders of the times could continue
to claim that planets move on circles with Earth at the center, when reality
is motion on a simple ellipse with the Sun at the focus.

Originally, there was a weak rationale for the linear extrapolation
idea: A propagating force might somehow acquire the sideways momentum of the
source it came from. That’s wrong because it doesn’t work for moving target
bodies either; but it was at least a possible reason. No one has ever
proposed a physical mechanism for a quadrupole extrapolation. Moreover, such
an advanced extrapolation amounts to saying that nature can predict orbital
motion and act in anticipation of it. No one with any common sense about
physics could take that seriously.

[Roberts]: Apparently you don't actually have the requisite background:
this E&M is very basic physics taught to every graduate student of physics
(ditto for the GR, but not every graduate student takes that course).

I already understand and agreed that some of what you said is indeed
what is still being taught. You act as thought you don’t not have the
requisite background to understand a challenge to the courses and textbooks
when they are shown to be wrong for good cause, even after the challenge is
peer-reviewed, published in major journals, and supported by many if the
field. And that is a great shame because the “we’ve always done it that way�
attitude impedes progress in science.

[Roberts]: [Your problem seems to be that you cannot imagine that the
gradient does not point at the source. ...

And your problem is that you were not taught the priority of physics
over mathematics; in particular, the causality principle: every effect has
an antecedent, proximate cause. The force of gravity, as represented by the
gradient of the potential, must point at the exact source mass at the time
the force originates because the source mass is the ultimate cause of the
force.

[Roberts]: ... It doesn't – this is NOT a central force, and your notion
that retardation screws up planetary orbits is just plain wrong. ...

You display your ignorance of dynamics. Everyone on this planet who
knows orbit computation knows that GR uses central forces, and that
non-central forces do not conserve angular momentum, normally resulting in a
spiraling motion. Eddington made a simple argument proving that in 1920. See
Ref. [5].

[Roberts]: ... Indeed, the quadratic extrapolation is PRECISELY what is
needed to make such orbits almost but not quite stable (e.g. the
precession of perihelia).]

Again, you show you are unfamiliar with dynamics. You really should
crack a book on celestial mechanics. The quadratic extrapolation just makes
the force indistinguishable from a central force for practical purposes. If
that were the only deviation from Newtonian mechanics that mattered,
planetary orbits would be non-precessing ellipses. There is no connection
between “quadratic extrapolation� and precession of perihelia. See Ref. [6]
to see what does affect the perihelion formula.

Whom else do you talk to in these newsgroups who can cite such a strong
set of published papers and experimental facts to back up his position? And
where are your publications? If observations, experiments, reasoning, and
citations don’t raise doubts in your mind about your position, what
could? -|Tom|-


REFERENCES:

[1] “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say�, T. Van Flandern,
Phys.Lett.A 250:1-11 (1998). Also at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp.

[2] “Electromagnetic mass and the inertial properties of nuclei�, C.W.
Sherwin and R.D. Rawcliffe, Report I-92 of March 14, 1960 of the
Consolidated Science Laboratory, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana; obtainable from
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical
Information, document AD 625706.

[3] “Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics? (A
primer on Lorentzian relativity)�, Infinite Energy 59:31-33 (2005).
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp.

[4] “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.

[5] Sir Arthur Eddington, “Space, Time & Gravitation�, Cambridge Univ.
Press, first published 1920, reprinted 1987, p. 94: “If the Sun attracts
Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards
its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But
if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S’, and Jupiter
attracts the Sun towards its previous position J’, when the force of
attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple.
This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and,
acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period,
disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of
light.�

[6] “The perihelion advance formula from Lorentzian principles�,
MetaRes.Bull. 8:1-9 & 24-30 (1999); also at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gr...a-combined.asp.


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

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:00:21 -0700:

On Jun 7, 5:01 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:01:14 -0700:



On Jun 6, 3:52 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:12:35 -0700:

On Jun 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:16 -0700:

On Jun 3, 3:49 am, "Juan R." González-�lvarez
As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an
*extension* of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are
recovered in a well- defined limit of a more general and
sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of
gravity in GR coincides with the speed of gravity. However
this is not true in the generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in
mathematics and physics developed in last few years.
Technically it is a nongeometrical DPI many-body theory in
Liouville space with universal evolution parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and
the limits of geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus
completely irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair
:-)

Ok, who is your target market, (evidentally not me, as you Juan
insist).

Simple, people who do not make unfair criticisms about works he
never read first :-)

Take a look at this article and provide a criticism, (it's a
couple of straightforward pages),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

Also, people who take five minutes to read references provided
instead repeating mistakes were corrected in print :-)

Well Juan, I have looked, so far I find your mathematics and
physics ambiguous. Why don't you write up a synopsis/essay as I
have demo'd above, as a link for the group.

I'm interested in the new predicticts your theory makes, apart
from our classicals. Ken

Oh, i am too :-)

The dual theory make several interesting predictions (for both
electrodynamics and gravity) and also solves well-known
difficulties with the former theory (when interactions travel at
c).

That is, the new theory gives right answers for questions that
former theory gives us wrong.

If you had taken a look to references cited you would already
know at least this part :-)

Good, we are looking forward to a synopsis. Regards Ken

Oh, but was done, including equations that have not spacetime
representation and need of a more *general* relativistic theory. If
you did not read before replying is a different question :-)

I sometimes have a problem understanding what your trying to say, but
anyway, I wish you good luck with your new book, and please post
reviews of it, and I'm looking forward to reading it.

What book Ken?

I think you're best to postpone a book until you have things clarified.

What book Ken? I did not speak about any book. I think you dream that
sometimes as you dream the nonsense of 1908 :-)

Are you sure you are replying me? or who you are? or do you just dream
that and typed? :-)

Oh, I stand corrected, I thought you were publishing a book.

Ha ha ha :-)

I recommend you to read other's posts *before* replying.


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

On Jun 9, 3:57 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:00:21 -0700:



On Jun 7, 5:01 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:01:14 -0700:

On Jun 6, 3:52 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:12:35 -0700:

On Jun 5, 5:28 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:16 -0700:

On Jun 3, 3:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
As i already pointed here several times, I am working in an
*extension* of both SR and GR. The theories of SR and GR are
recovered in a well- defined limit of a more general and
sophisticated theory.

The theory reduces to GR and explains *why* the speed of
gravity in GR coincides with the speed of gravity. However
this is not true in the generalized theory.

The new theory is a sophisticated formulation based in
mathematics and physics developed in last few years.
Technically it is a nongeometrical DPI many-body theory in
Liouville space with universal evolution parameter.

As already said GR results are obtained as special case and
the limits of geometry and spacetime fixed :-)

Your accusation of using 1908 physics and maths looks thus
completely irrelevant and your re-accusations look very unfair
:-)

Ok, who is your target market, (evidentally not me, as you Juan
insist).

Simple, people who do not make unfair criticisms about works he
never read first :-)

Take a look at this article and provide a criticism, (it's a
couple of straightforward pages),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

Also, people who take five minutes to read references provided
instead repeating mistakes were corrected in print :-)

Well Juan, I have looked, so far I find your mathematics and
physics ambiguous. Why don't you write up a synopsis/essay as I
have demo'd above, as a link for the group.

I'm interested in the new predicticts your theory makes, apart
from our classicals. Ken

Oh, i am too :-)

The dual theory make several interesting predictions (for both
electrodynamics and gravity) and also solves well-known
difficulties with the former theory (when interactions travel at
c).

That is, the new theory gives right answers for questions that
former theory gives us wrong.

If you had taken a look to references cited you would already
know at least this part :-)

Good, we are looking forward to a synopsis. Regards Ken

Oh, but was done, including equations that have not spacetime
representation and need of a more *general* relativistic theory. If
you did not read before replying is a different question :-)

I sometimes have a problem understanding what your trying to say, but
anyway, I wish you good luck with your new book, and please post
reviews of it, and I'm looking forward to reading it.

What book Ken?

I think you're best to postpone a book until you have things clarified.

What book Ken? I did not speak about any book. I think you dream that
sometimes as you dream the nonsense of 1908 :-)

So you never studied Minkowski's 1908 SPACETIME
article. Where did you study science?

Are you sure you are replying me? or who you are? or do you just dream
that and typed? :-)

Oh, I stand corrected, I thought you were publishing a book.

Ha ha ha :-)
I recommend you to read other's posts *before* replying.

LOL, when I see evidence that you understand
physics, I'd be happy to review your article
whatever it is.
There are a lot of kooks who can never under-
stand relativity and therefore regard it as
wrong. OTOH Juan, you seem rather bright, so
I'm willing to review your work, as it compares
to Minkowski's 1908 analysis, etc.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker