On Jan 13, 12:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:50 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
[snip clutter]

The value of 43 arc second per century was measured before GR was
developed. It was the goal of the team of mathematicians developing GR
to arrive at this value.

Not really. GR is a consequence of SR's
E=mc2, the CoE (Conservation of Energy)
required, that gravitation works on light,
and gravity itself.
It all hangs together consistently.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Dr. Tucker,

I have read many of your posting and I have developed a good deal of
respect for your knowledge on GR. I would not pretend to have as deep
an understanding as you on the subject. I did some searching and found
the following article by a couple of well respected physicist. This
article is in line with my understanding of energy conservation in GR.
I would greatly appreciate your comments should you find time in what
must be a busy schedule.

Here's a link to the article: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html

Regards,
db

Hi Dr. Strangelove and all.

On Jan 13, 10:05 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
On Jan 13, 12:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jan 13, 8:50 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
[snip clutter]

The value of 43 arc second per century was measured before GR was
developed. It was the goal of the team of mathematicians developing GR
to arrive at this value.

Not really. GR is a consequence of SR's
E=mc2, the CoE (Conservation of Energy)
required, that gravitation works on light,
and gravity itself.
It all hangs together consistently.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Dr. Tucker,

I have read many of your posting and I have developed a good deal of
respect for your knowledge on GR. I would not pretend to have as deep
an understanding as you on the subject.

I respect you're posts too, it was this statement,

"It was the goal of the team of mathematicians
developing GR to arrive at this value."

That sounds like GR is contrived.
The same basic GR principles produce a more
accurate prediction of the *deflection of
light* , account for Pound-Rebka and the
Shapiro results.

Shoe-horning Newton with a splash of SR
was tried by those guys between 1905-1911,
and it didn't work out too well.
Sometimes in specific situations it works.

I did some searching and found
the following article by a couple of well respected physicist. This
article is in line with my understanding of energy conservation in GR.
I would greatly appreciate your comments should you
find time in what must be a busy schedule.

Yes, wifes need for romance is postponed
10 minutes :-), so I'll blame you.

Here's a link to the article: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html

The 1st paragraph of that article, creates
too much ambiguity that even an experienced
GRist would be challenged to answer.
I think it's easier to understand that space-
time is defined by measuring using light-rays.

In Newtons universe, light-rays were all
straight and where unaffected by gravity.

SR found Light is an E=mc2 effect and thus
subject to g-fields, and eventually the
over-all solution is close to the Schwartz-
schild Solution, when the energy of light
is accounted for.

If you're interested, we could discuss the
"weight" of a gravitational field.

Regards,
db

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Jan 13, 8:31 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:50 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
[snip clutter]

The value of 43 arc second per century was measured before GR was
developed. It was the goal of the team of mathematicians developing GR
to arrive at this value.

Not really. GR is a consequence of SR's
E=mc2, the CoE (Conservation of Energy)
required, that gravitation works on light,
and gravity itself.
It all hangs together consistently.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

No, Ken. None of this is true.

On Jan 13, 9:05 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
On Jan 13, 12:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jan 13, 8:50 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
[snip clutter]

The value of 43 arc second per century was measured before GR was
developed. It was the goal of the team of mathematicians developing GR
to arrive at this value.

Not really. GR is a consequence of SR's
E=mc2, the CoE (Conservation of Energy)
required, that gravitation works on light,
and gravity itself.
It all hangs together consistently.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Dr. Tucker,

He is NOT.


I have read many of your posting and I have developed a good deal of
respect for your knowledge on GR. I would not pretend to have as deep
an understanding as you on the subject. I did some searching and found
the following article by a couple of well respected physicist. This
article is in line with my understanding of energy conservation in GR.
I would greatly appreciate your comments should you find time in what
must be a busy schedule.

Here's a link to the article: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html

Regards,
db

On Jan 13, 7:46 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
On Jan 12, 10:12 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jan 12, 5:26 pm, dr_strangelove wrote:

On Jan 1, 11:53 am, Dono wrote:

On Jan 1, 8:34 am, dr_strangelove wrote:

After all the negative postings you are now saying that you never even
read the paper?

I put a link on the very first message in this topic.

Here is the sane treatment of the problem in Newtonian mechanics:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node116.html

Here is mainstream explanation for the DIFFERENCE between the
Newtonian prediction and the observation (and GR prediction):

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node117.html

The Dave&Shawn zombies don't even understand that the Dave-crank
"paper" "calculates" pure garbage. This is why it got rejected.

According to the second site you refference, dono, the additional
precession due to GR is: .43 arc seconds per year. That is 43 acr
seconds per century!!

You have to admit I get the same value as GR.

Because you knew the answer beforehand. You do a LOT of handwaving.
There is a reason you will never see this paper published.

You purposefully mix SR and Newton. That is enough to get it thrown
out.

Equation 1.30 is ONLY TRUE for the GM/r^2 central force.

The Lagrangian operators are, quite simply, wrong. The Lagrangian is T
- V in classical mechanics - nothing else. Everything you did with
"Lagrangian operators" is bull****.

Why don't you go away?

Thanks for the support.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Calm down Eric. Mathematics is a free intellectual science. I am using
the same operators in a different way. I could have called them the
Dono and Gisse operators, and it would have no effect on the validity
of the mathematics. I show that my approach can be made, under
limiting cases, equvalent to the conventional LaGrangian equation. I
have had, at a financial cost to myself, an independant mathematical
review done and tthe result a

"With the exception of a couple of typo errors, we can find no flaw in
the mathematical reasoning used by Barwacz. I must stress that I have
evaluated the paper only on the merits its mathematical validity and
not on the physics contained therein. My method was as follows:

I replaced all the variables in all equations with x,y,z etc. I took
out all references to physics and asked 3 associates to find any and
all mathematical errors. The associates met afterwards and compared
results. After a discussion it was concluded unanimously that no
mathematical flaws existed.

The final bill for services is attached."

Too bad you can't justify any of the mathematics. Picking a series of
arbitrary functions is a poor theory.

On Jan 13, 7:50 am, dr_strangelove wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:46 am, dr_strangelove wrote:



On Jan 12, 10:12 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jan 12, 5:26 pm, dr_strangelove wrote:

On Jan 1, 11:53 am, Dono wrote:

On Jan 1, 8:34 am, dr_strangelove wrote:

After all the negative postings you are now saying that you never even
read the paper?

I put a link on the very first message in this topic.

Here is the sane treatment of the problem in Newtonian mechanics:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node116.html

Here is mainstream explanation for the DIFFERENCE between the
Newtonian prediction and the observation (and GR prediction):

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node117.html

The Dave&Shawn zombies don't even understand that the Dave-crank
"paper" "calculates" pure garbage. This is why it got rejected.

According to the second site you refference, dono, the additional
precession due to GR is: .43 arc seconds per year. That is 43 acr
seconds per century!!

You have to admit I get the same value as GR.

Because you knew the answer beforehand. You do a LOT of handwaving.
There is a reason you will never see this paper published.

You purposefully mix SR and Newton. That is enough to get it thrown

One more point Eric,



out.

Equation 1.30 is ONLY TRUE for the GM/r^2 central force.

The Lagrangian operators are, quite simply, wrong. The Lagrangian is T
- V in classical mechanics - nothing else. Everything you did with
"Lagrangian operators" is bull****.

Why don't you go away?

Thanks for the support.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One more point Eric,

The value of 43 arc second per century was measured before GR was
developed. It was the goal of the team of mathematicians developing GR
to arrive at this value.

Rather than argue about another person with a poor understanding of
history, I'll just ask for the literature reference supporting your
point then let the silence do the work for me.

Even if it were, so what? You don't see a mix of two incompatible
theories along with many insertions of arbitrary functions in its'
derivation.