Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

http://physics.trak4.com/

I've been aware of the unusual consequences
of that decision for sometime, and have, in the
past years posted about it in this group.

Most basically I recognize, because of General
Covariance, the viablity of the completely positive
metric signature (++++) that is compatible with
the ISU 1983 decision. This leads to upsetting
traditionalist's who argue for a signature like,
(+ - - -) or (- +++) which is an indecisive GC.

Surprisingly, the arguments in favor of the ISU's
decision can be swayed by experiments like
Gravity Probe-b and more deeply, LIGO.

We published those briefs to show that we can retain
the General Principles of Relativity even though the
traditional General *Theory* of Relativity may need
revising if indeed GP-b and LIGO null, of course the
jury is still out on those conclusions, so I refrain
from promoting the ISU's 1983 decision.

Recently we've been reviewing the Unified Field
Theory in view of Quantum Field Theory, focused
on magnetic fields, photon emission and rotating
Coordinate Systems.

We're working for a cheap n' easy foundation for
those relations that are clear to physicist's.

From my chair, things are looking good.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

http://physics.trak4.com/

You don't know what you are talking about.


I've been aware of the unusual consequences
of that decision for sometime, and have, in the
past years posted about it in this group.

Most basically I recognize, because of General
Covariance, the viablity of the completely positive
metric signature (++++) that is compatible with
the ISU 1983 decision. This leads to upsetting
traditionalist's who argue for a signature like,
(+ - - -) or (- +++) which is an indecisive GC.

See? You don't know what you are talking about.


Surprisingly, the arguments in favor of the ISU's
decision can be swayed by experiments like
Gravity Probe-b and more deeply, LIGO.

We published those briefs to show that we can retain
the General Principles of Relativity even though the
traditional General *Theory* of Relativity may need
revising if indeed GP-b and LIGO null, of course the
jury is still out on those conclusions, so I refrain
from promoting the ISU's 1983 decision.

GP-B didn't null, idiot.


Recently we've been reviewing the Unified Field
Theory in view of Quantum Field Theory, focused
on magnetic fields, photon emission and rotating
Coordinate Systems.

WOW, rotating coordinate systems. You have finally touched on
undergraduate mechanics, Ken.

[...]

On Jun 19, 5:21 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

http://physics.trak4.com/

You don't know what you are talking about.

Gurly, you're NOT in KANSAS anymore, playing
with your TOTO, place your bet's or shut the
**** up.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

Sorry Ken but I'm not familiar with that decision. What does "ISU" stand
for?


http://physics.trak4.com/

You don't know what you are talking about.

Is there a need to say this to Ken? Is this a sincere response, an attempt
to correct what you see as an error or are you simply being sarcastic and
insulting him??

I've been aware of the unusual consequences
of that decision for sometime, and have, in the
past years posted about it in this group.

Most basically I recognize, because of General
Covariance, the viablity of the completely positive
metric signature (++++) that is compatible with
the ISU 1983 decision. This leads to upsetting
traditionalist's who argue for a signature like,
(+ - - -) or (- +++) which is an indecisive GC.

See? You don't know what you are talking about.


Surprisingly, the arguments in favor of the ISU's
decision can be swayed by experiments like
Gravity Probe-b and more deeply, LIGO.

We published those briefs to show that we can retain
the General Principles of Relativity even though the
traditional General *Theory* of Relativity may need
revising if indeed GP-b and LIGO null, of course the
jury is still out on those conclusions, so I refrain
from promoting the ISU's 1983 decision.

GP-B didn't null, idiot.


Recently we've been reviewing the Unified Field
Theory in view of Quantum Field Theory, focused
on magnetic fields, photon emission and rotating
Coordinate Systems.

WOW, rotating coordinate systems. You have finally touched on
undergraduate mechanics, Ken.

Rotating coordinates in relativity is a difficult thing to deal with. Its
hardly undergraduate mechanics.

Pete (aka PMB)

On Jun 20, 10:29 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

Sorry Ken but I'm not familiar with that decision. What does "ISU" stand
for?

International Standards of Units, see Oct 1983,
how the metre (length) was set to c*time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
Been studying that since the early 70's.
....

Rotating coordinates in relativity is a difficult thing to deal with. Its hardly undergraduate mechanics.
Pete (aka PMB)

GR geodesics treats orbits so beautifully,
especially using MST, it could become high
school stuff, but right now it remains
controversial, and thus difficult.
Best Regards
Ken

On Jun 20, 9:29 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

Sorry Ken but I'm not familiar with that decision. What does "ISU" stand
for?



http://physics.trak4.com/

You don't know what you are talking about.

Is there a need to say this to Ken? Is this a sincere response, an attempt
to correct what you see as an error or are you simply being sarcastic and
insulting him??

Yes, there is a need. If he is never challenged, he will think what he
is posting is without error. On the other hand, correcting the error
is a waste of my time because a) he will not understand and b) will
not change his actions.

[...]

On 2007-06-21, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:29 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

Sorry Ken but I'm not familiar with that decision. What does "ISU" stand
for?

International Standards of Units, see Oct 1983,
how the metre (length) was set to c*time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
Been studying that since the early 70's.

There is no deep mystery here, ken. The reason that was done is because
the measurement of the second is more precise than than the meter and
since the speed of light is known to be constant with better precision than
it is possible to physically measure a standard meter bar, the most
precise definition of a meter possible is c x 1 sec.

Rotating coordinates in relativity is a difficult thing to deal with.
Its hardly undergraduate mechanics. Pete (aka PMB)

GR geodesics treats orbits so beautifully,
especially using MST, it could become high
school stuff, but right now it remains
controversial, and thus difficult.

Get real, ken. You might think you look cool or like a genius
by referring to general relativity as potential high school stuff
(your implication being that it's so easy), but the fact is, you
couldn't find the geodesics on a sphere, much less do the exercise
in 4-d spacetime. You're lucky this is usenet where no one can put
you on the spot without access to something you can copy from
a website, or you'd be up **** creek without a paddle.

On 2007-06-21, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:29 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

Sorry Ken but I'm not familiar with that decision. What does "ISU" stand
for?



http://physics.trak4.com/

You don't know what you are talking about.

Is there a need to say this to Ken? Is this a sincere response, an attempt
to correct what you see as an error or are you simply being sarcastic and
insulting him??

Yes, there is a need. If he is never challenged, he will think what he
is posting is without error. On the other hand, correcting the error
is a waste of my time because a) he will not understand and b) will
not change his actions.

Ken will never learn. He thinks that bluster and posturing are
a substitute for content - same as the rest of the kooks any time
they are asked to actually calculate something.

On Jun 20, 11:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:29 pm, "Pmb" wrote:

Rotating coordinates in relativity is a difficult thing to deal with. Its hardly undergraduate mechanics.
Pete (aka PMB)

GR geodesics treats orbits so beautifully,
especially using MST, it could become high
school stuff, but right now it remains
controversial, and thus difficult.
Best Regards
Ken

Hi Pete, in s.p.Foundations, May 26th I posted
"GTR analysis of a circular orbit"....
+++++++++++++
In studying a number threads, noteably
"Inertial and Gravitational mass", I thought
it might be helpful to review a classical
problem, using the usual GTR geodesic,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesi...nnian_geometry

that I'll ascii rewrite as,

dU^u/ds = -Gamma ^u _ab U^a U^b, Eq.(1)

U^u = dx^u/ds.

In the case of a circular orbit, let the index "u"
represent radius in the x-direction, (the CS is
rotating, but for now that is a secondary correction),
then,

dU^1/ds = 0,

which means the radius x^1 is constant.

Given the effect of spatial velocities are small
then Eq.(1) becomes,

dU^1/ds= 0 = Gamma^1_00 U^0 U^0,

and U^0 ~ 1.

Exploding the Gamma term gives,

0 = [g_01,0 + g_10,0 - g_00,1]

and therefore, assuming g_01=g10,

g_01,0 = (1/2) g_00,1 , Eq.(2)

That is a most basic simplified form of the
problem, where the "inertial" accelerations
are on the LHS and the gravitational on the
RHS.
Eq.(2) is the embodiment of the Equivalance
Principle in this simple application.

From Eq.(9) in this ref,

http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf

we find g_01 = -dx^i/dx^0 , (simplified).

From Eq.(2) using (& is partial),

(1/2) g_00,1 ~ -&PHI /&x

(where PHI is gravitational potential)

and

g_01,0 = - &V(x)/&t

provides the result,

&V(x)/&t = &PHI/&x (3)

for a circular orbit.

The point of that exercise is the need to explain
circular orbits, which is important in GTR apps,
too reduce to a Newtonian approximaton.

Furthermore, various more detailed understanding
of studying circular GTR orbits provide better
understanding of the subtle effects of GTR,
so this is 1st start.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
------------------------------

Eq.(3)'s meaning is introduced in Public School,
- centrifugal force balancing gravitation -
then calculus is introduced in high school,
with the simplest problems being circular
orbit ballistics, which is addressed in (2).

When time permits, I'll add that splendid
application of MST to the website.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 20, 9:29 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 19, 10:47 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hello Mr. Peter Brown.
I've been examining the ISU's 1983 decision
on equating Length to c*Time in a series of
preliminary brief's here...(see Modern SpaceTime),

Sorry Ken but I'm not familiar with that decision. What does "ISU" stand
for?



http://physics.trak4.com/

You don't know what you are talking about.

Is there a need to say this to Ken? Is this a sincere response, an
attempt
to correct what you see as an error or are you simply being sarcastic and
insulting him??

Yes, there is a need. If he is never challenged, he will think what he
is posting is without error. On the other hand, correcting the error
is a waste of my time because a) he will not understand and b) will
not change his actions.

Then it appears to me that your best action would be to either kill file him
or never read his posts again. Do you disagree?

Pete