A new GToR?
Ken S. Tucker
A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
We find the GPoR (General Principle of
Relativity) to be true, when the logic of
tensor applications is strictly understood
and applied to a re-invigorated GToR.
The logic of tensor analysis, invented and
developed for the purposes of static surveys,
applied by Einstein et al, to the dynamical
spacetime, imported prejudices from those
static surveys.
The foundation of tensor analysis, if it is to
extended to rotational and dynamic systems,
will require a firmer mathematical basis, upon
which we can build a renewed GToR.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
> GToR =General Theory of Relativty.
>
> A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
> the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
> unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
> are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
This is what is known as "lying". The result is not ambiguous, as you
very well know after many years of repeating lies about observations
of frame dragging.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/25/11/114002
LIGO, given that there is ample indirect evidence of gravitational
waves, means nothing right now as it only recently hit design
sensitivity.
>
> We find the GPoR (General Principle of
> Relativity) to be true, when the logic of
> tensor applications is strictly understood
> and applied to a re-invigorated GToR.
>
> The logic of tensor analysis, invented and
> developed for the purposes of static surveys,
> applied by Einstein et al, to the dynamical
> spacetime, imported prejudices from those
> static surveys.
This is both wrong and stupid, as relativity imported no such
nonsense. Your inability to demonstrate said 'prejudices' is ample
proof.
Ken S. Tucker
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:df9473d7-8121-4c2e...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> GToR =General Theory of Relativty.
>
> A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
> the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
> unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
> are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
Horse manure. These were based on *approximations* to GR, not GR
itself. The tools we know how to apply, in ways that the
researrchers wanted to apply it, predicted the results not
obtained.
Gravitational waves are moving angular momentum out of binary
pulsar systems. LAGEOS did obtain frame dragging.
David A. Smith
Sue...
Where charged particles and near fields are involved,
one can gain some confidence in pseudo tensors
and imaginary operators from this sort of musing.
Tensors and pseudo-tensors
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node120.html
I.E. It is OK to loosen the lug nuts for a limited
purpose.
So many theorists seem unaware that imaginary
operators are part of the spacetime it is difficult
to find confidence that anyone remembered that
the lug nuts were loose before the car went
back on the road as a neutrally charged particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor#Electromagnetic_stress-energy_tensor
The continual conflation of charged particle and
neutral particle experiments as support for the
so called ~time dilation~ effect, further erodes
any confidence that anyone in the GR community
can even balance a cheque book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation#Production_of_neutrons_at_a_spallation_neutron_source
And there is this little problem.
<< A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial by equivalence] field. >>
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> Dear Ken S. Tucker:
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:df9473d7-8121-4c2e...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > GToR =General Theory of Relativty.
>
> > A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
> > the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
> > unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
> > are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
>
> Horse manure. These were based on *approximations* to GR, not GR
> itself. The tools we know how to apply, in ways that the
> researrchers wanted to apply it, predicted the results not
> obtained.
>
> Gravitational waves are moving angular momentum out of binary
> pulsar systems. LAGEOS did obtain frame dragging.
>
> David A. Smith
My standards of science are somewhat high.
Call me old fashioned, but I DO use the
scientific method, is that understood?
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
Ken
> Tensors and pseudo-tensorshttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node120.html
>
> I.E. It is OK to loosen the lug nuts for a limited
> purpose.
>
> So many theorists seem unaware that imaginary
> operators are part of the spacetime it is difficult
> to find confidence that anyone remembered that
> the lug nuts were loose before the car went
> back on the road as a neutrally charged particle.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor#Electromagnetic_str...
>
> The continual conflation of charged particle and
> neutral particle experiments as support for the
> so called ~time dilation~ effect, further erodes
> any confidence that anyone in the GR community
> can even balance a cheque book.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation#Production_of_neutrons_at_a_s...
Ken S. Tucker
An additional problem that creeped into GToR is
using tensor operations AFTER a specialization
of the CS. This is a very tricky problem even
for the most expert of mathematicians.
For example, is the logic of tensor analysis
valid after specializing to 4D spacetime, and
inparticular, the setting of sqrt(-g) = +1,
that AE rationalized in GR1916 and has been aped
as truth since then, without mathematical proof.
We see an immediate requirement for a true General
Covariancy prior, even to the introduction of 4D
spacetime, as spacetime itself is a preception of
human imagination, necessitated by our need to
measure reality commonally, that follows from the
Generally Covariant Laws of Nature as a specialized
Coordinate System, that cannot be assumed aprior
for the preception of particles such as electrons
photons and atoms, that also occupy our universe.
Concepts such as time are obviously foreign to
normally immortal particles like the electron
and proton, although the transition of those said
particles to alternate states do happen, such as
when encountering it's antiparticle, or by creation
from photons (gamma+gamma => e- e+) .
Furthermore, the concept of a fixed whole numbered
integer dimensionality in tensor analysis is itself
an imported human prejudice, as was the obsolete
idea that exponents must be integers.
The above describes a specification for a renewed
General Covariance, and with it, a GToR revision.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
dlzc
On Feb 11, 5:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:06 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:df9473d7-8121-4c2e...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > GToR =General Theory of Relativty.
>
> > > A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
> > > the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
> > > unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
> > > are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
>
> > Horse manure. These were based on
> > *approximations* to GR, not GR itself. The
> > tools we know how to apply, in ways that the
> > researrchers wanted to apply it, predicted
> > the results not obtained.
>
> > Gravitational waves are moving angular
> > momentum out of binary pulsar systems.
> > LAGEOS did obtain frame dragging.
>
> My standards of science are somewhat high.
> Call me old fashioned, but I DO use the
> scientific method, is that understood?
I understand what you are saying, but do you?
GR descirbes what has been seen in the two observations I described.
*Approximations* to GR failed to work up in experiments. So let's
call GR "the baby", and the approximations "the bath water"...
Dumping GR because some approximations don't work, is throwing the
baby out with the bath water. (In case you did not see that coming.)
David A. Smith
Ken S. Tucker
> Dear Ken S. Tucker:
>
> On Feb 11, 5:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:06 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:df9473d7-8121-4c2e...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > GToR =General Theory of Relativty.
>
> > > > A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
> > > > the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
> > > > unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
> > > > are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
>
> > > Horse manure. These were based on
> > > *approximations* to GR, not GR itself. The
> > > tools we know how to apply, in ways that the
> > > researrchers wanted to apply it, predicted
> > > the results not obtained.
>
> > > Gravitational waves are moving angular
> > > momentum out of binary pulsar systems.
> > > LAGEOS did obtain frame dragging.
>
> > My standards of science are somewhat high.
> > Call me old fashioned, but I DO use the
> > scientific method, is that understood?
>
> I understand what you are saying, but do you?
Read my IP about GPoR.
> GR descirbes what has been seen in the two observations I described.
> *Approximations* to GR failed to work up in experiments. So let's
> call GR "the baby", and the approximations "the bath water"...
>
> Dumping GR because some approximations don't work, is throwing the
> baby out with the bath water. (In case you did not see that coming.)
GPoR + math(s) => GToR.
I'm suggesting our math(s) may need improvement.
Ken
dlzc
On Feb 11, 3:12 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 8:22 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> I'm suggesting our math(s) may need
> improvement.
Let's see what you said:
> A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
> the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
> unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
> are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
Do you see where you indicted the "math(s)"? Do you see where you
said GToR was OK? I don't.
The "math(s)" are fine, being simply applied logic systems. The
approximations behind said application of "math(s)" is the entire
problem. Well, that and the fact that GToR is a classical model...
David A. Smith
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> GR descirbes what has been seen in the two observations I described.
> *Approximations* to GR failed to work up in experiments. So let's
> call GR "the baby", and the approximations "the bath water"...
Just for the record, since various antirelativists seem to have spread
some confusion:
--The preliminary results from Gravity Probe B are completely consistent
with GR. Geodetic precession is seen at the expected value, with an
accuracy of about 1%. Frame-dragging is also seen, but due to an
unanticipated source of noise (electrostatic interactions of patches of
charge on the gyros), the error bars are quite large. Fortunately (and
because of good experimental design), the effects of these charges can
be extracted from the signal; it may still be possible to achieve an
accuracy of 3-6%.
--LIGO has only recently completed its first run at design sensitivity,
and the data analysis is underway. Whether or not it sees gravitational
waves on this run is largely a matter of luck -- it depends on things like
the number of nearby binary neutron stars, which we do not know. Since
we don't know the number of gravitational wave sources within the
present range (about 15 megaparsecs for binary neutron star inspirals,
I believe), we don't know how likely a signal is.
LIGO is currently undergoing an upgrade to "Enhanced LIGO," which
should give a factor of eight increase in the volume of space that can
be "seen." After that, there will be a major upgrade to "Advanced LIGO,"
which will see a thousand times the volume.
In neither case has GR failed, either exactly or in any approximation.
That is, neither experiment has given a result that is in any way
inconsistent with GR. Gravity Probe B currently has large error bars,
which are likely to be pushed down with further analysis; LIGO has not
yet seen anything, but there is no prediction that it should have, since
we don't know of any source close enough for it to have seen.
There are still places that GR could fail. The further analysis of the
Gravity Probe B data could yet give a value for frame-dragging that's
inconsistent with GR. Advanced LIGO could fail to see gravitational
waves (we *know* there are sources within its range), or the analysis
of the data from the current LIGO run could find a gravitational wave
with properties inconsistent with GR.
At the moment, though, there's just baby, no bath water...
Steve Carlip
Dono
The above reminds me about a very interesting story. The first non-
euclidian geometry was discovered by Gauss. He unveiled some partial
results into a letter to another mathematician (name escapes me but I
can find it, I have the book somewhere). When the other mathematician
urged Gauss to publish his results the great mathematician answered
"Se timeo Beotiae" (in Latin, "I am afraid of the Beotians"). This was
in reference of Gauss being concerned about the noisy reaction of the
uneducated. Just the same, the hordes of cranks populating the forums
who clamor for the "failure of GR". :-)
Ken S. Tucker
I may have been unclear.
GR is a *catch-all* acronym for General Relativity.
The acronym GPoR stands for "General Principle of
Relativity", that means the Laws of Nature are
valid for all Frames of Reference (FoR) undergoing
any motion, and the Laws of Nature apply to that
FoR and are valid when measured from that FoR,
that's also described as General Covariance (GC).
As far as I can determine, the above is self evident.
The next challenge is to describe the GPoR
mathematically to generate a *Theory*, which
we call the "General *Theory* of Relativity",
GToR. That operation is GPoR + Math(s) => GToR.
It's vital to sub-divide the problem into the
logical order the human mind employs, known as
philosophy, aka the study of problem solving,
using the human mind as an intelligence tool.
In the case of generating GToR is using the
Math(s) that becomes the mechanism defining the
GPoR.
In that order the Math(s) themselves become
subject to principles such as GC, that AE
specified in his GR1916 article, that was
compromised for the simplicity of the era.
Since then those *simplicties* have evolved
to become accepted as factual logic, in GToR,
that I suggest needs a revision.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> Concepts such as time are obviously foreign to
> normally immortal particles like the electron
> and proton, although the transition of those said
> particles to alternate states do happen, such as
> when encountering it's antiparticle, or by creation
> from photons (gamma+gamma => e- e+) .
You might want to look into quantum field theory in which such events
are described with ease. Oh, and time _is_ included.
>
> Furthermore, the concept of a fixed whole numbered
> integer dimensionality in tensor analysis is itself
> an imported human prejudice, as was the obsolete
> idea that exponents must be integers.
Observation says there are only 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Do
you have a particular reason to believe otherwise, or is this more
uninformed speculation?
>
> The above describes a specification for a renewed
> General Covariance, and with it, a GToR revision.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
From a position of complete ignorance, I suppose it would appear to be
the case.
Tom Roberts
> I may have been unclear.
> GR is a *catch-all* acronym for General Relativity.
This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. "GR" is the generally-accepted and well-known
acronym referring to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It is not
a "catch-all" at all. Due to translation from German, this theory is
also known as the General Theory of Relativity ("allgemeinen
Relativitaetstheorie").
It simply is not possible to have a "new theory of General Relativity",
because THAT NAME HAS ALREADY BEEN USED, and that theory is fully formed
without any "wriggle room".
If you want to create some new theory, you need a new name.
Let me not be unclear: You, Ken S Tucker, have no say whatsoever about
what "GR" means in the context of physics. That acronym has already been
defined and accepted by the community as a whole. Here the word
"general" is not an abstract adjective as you seem to think, it is a
definite part of the name.
> The next challenge is to describe the GPoR
> mathematically to generate a *Theory*, which
> we call the "General *Theory* of Relativity",
I repeat: YOU NEED A NEW NAME. That one is already taken ("General
Theory of Relativity"). You may wish this were not so, and might wish to
use this particular name, but your wishes are not able to change history.
Tom Roberts
Sue...
>
> As far as I can determine, the above is self evident.
>
> The next challenge is to describe the GPoR
> mathematically to generate a *Theory*, which
> we call the "General *Theory* of Relativity",
> GToR. That operation is GPoR + Math(s) => GToR.
You might step on some toes that way.
Why not call it "New Relativity" ?
When folks complain, change it to
"Classic Relativity"
In a few years everyone will forget that
you tried fix something that wasn't broke,
and you can just drop the word "Classic".
It is a proven technique.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ko
With less levity, Ya want name for this robust
looking collection?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html
(6166 bytes) for our dial-up bush buddies
that smoke nothing a caribou won't
eat... and not until it does eat it.
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 11, 3:02 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > GR descirbes what has been seen in the two observations I described.
> > *Approximations* to GR failed to work up in experiments. So let's
> > call GR "the baby", and the approximations "the bath water"...
>
> Just for the record, since various antirelativists seem to have spread
> some confusion:
>
> --The preliminary results from Gravity Probe B are completely consistent
> with GR. Geodetic precession is seen at the expected value, with an
> accuracy of about 1%. Frame-dragging is also seen, but due to an
> unanticipated source of noise (electrostatic interactions of patches of
> charge on the gyros), the error bars are quite large. Fortunately (and
> because of good experimental design), the effects of these charges can
> be extracted from the signal; it may still be possible to achieve an
> accuracy of 3-6%.
GP-b tests a Math of the logical sequence.
GPoR + Math(s) => GToR,
specifically the Kerr metric's g_0i AND the Mach
Principle giving rise to the "frame dragging".
See Weinberg's "Grav&Cosmo" pg. 240, and please
note Weinberg's use of *looks* in italics.
My studies, in agreement with Weinberg, consider
the Kerr metric to be a *conjectural math*, that
I find is inconsistent with the GPoR.
> --LIGO has only recently completed its first run at design sensitivity,
> and the data analysis is underway. Whether or not it sees gravitational
> waves on this run is largely a matter of luck -- it depends on things like
> the number of nearby binary neutron stars, which we do not know. Since
> we don't know the number of gravitational wave sources within the
> present range (about 15 megaparsecs for binary neutron star inspirals,
> I believe), we don't know how likely a signal is.
>
> LIGO is currently undergoing an upgrade to "Enhanced LIGO," which
> should give a factor of eight increase in the volume of space that can
> be "seen." After that, there will be a major upgrade to "Advanced LIGO,"
> which will see a thousand times the volume.
>
> In neither case has GR failed, either exactly or in any approximation.
> That is, neither experiment has given a result that is in any way
> inconsistent with GR. Gravity Probe B currently has large error bars,
> which are likely to be pushed down with further analysis; LIGO has not
> yet seen anything, but there is no prediction that it should have, since
> we don't know of any source close enough for it to have seen.
>
> There are still places that GR could fail. The further analysis of the
> Gravity Probe B data could yet give a value for frame-dragging that's
> inconsistent with GR. Advanced LIGO could fail to see gravitational
> waves (we *know* there are sources within its range), or the analysis
> of the data from the current LIGO run could find a gravitational wave
> with properties inconsistent with GR.
I could indeed suggest you Mr. Carlip, are an
"anti-relativist" ;-), why? Because neither
results of GP-b or LIGO, one way or the other
threaten the GPoR, as you imply. I've studied
advanced Math(s) applied to derive GToR, that
produce null results of those two experiments.
> At the moment, though, there's just baby, no bath water...
> Steve Carlip
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
[....]
> My studies, in agreement with Weinberg, consider
> the Kerr metric to be a *conjectural math*, that
> I find is inconsistent with the GPoR.
This is wrong, Ken.
You can find it to be whatever you want it to be but it does not
change the fact that the Kerr metric is a solution to the field
equations of general relativity.
[...]
> I could indeed suggest you Mr. Carlip, are an
> "anti-relativist" ;-), why? Because neither
> results of GP-b or LIGO, one way or the other
> threaten the GPoR, as you imply. I've studied
> advanced Math(s) applied to derive GToR, that
> produce null results of those two experiments.
This is what is known as "lying".
Were there no gravitational waves, PSR 1913+16 and other binary
systems would not be decaying exactly in accordance with general
relativity. Don't bother repeating the idiotic claim that it is
electromagnetic radiation - that's simply wrong.
Gravity Probe B did not null. You shouldn't be repeating the claims
proffered by the clueless, it reflects very poorly on you.
Furthermore, LAGEOS I & II verified the existence of frame dragging,
and lunar ranging verified the existence of geodetic precession.
Find something else to argue about.
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 11, 7:52 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 7:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > As far as I can determine, the above is self evident.
>
> > The next challenge is to describe the GPoR
> > mathematically to generate a *Theory*, which
> > we call the "General *Theory* of Relativity",
> > GToR. That operation is GPoR + Math(s) => GToR.
>
> You might step on some toes that way.
I have a foot fetish ;-).
> Why not call it "New Relativity" ?
Nope, orthodox GR is defined by the postulates
within the GPoR, later, a somewhat simplified
*cavalier* math was applied that evolved a
mathematical theory of the GPoR, that embraces
a body of notes termed GToR.
> When folks complain, change it to
> "Classic Relativity"
Let me get a pop from the fridge and ponder
your suggestion.
> In a few years everyone will forget that
> you tried fix something that wasn't broke,
> and you can just drop the word "Classic".
> It is a proven technique.http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ko
>
> With less levity, Ya want name for this robust
> looking collection?
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html
>
> (6166 bytes) for our dial-up bush buddies
> that smoke nothing a caribou won't
> eat... and not until it does eat it.
>
> Sue...
LOL, thanks Sue.
Ken
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> GP-b tests a Math of the logical sequence.
> GPoR + Math(s) => GToR,
> specifically the Kerr metric's g_0i AND the Mach
> Principle giving rise to the "frame dragging".
Goodness, no! The exterior field of the Earth is not described by the
Kerr metric -- if you want an exact solution, you want something like
a Neugebauer solution, with the multipole moments chosen to match
those of the Earth. But frame-dragging doesn't require anything
nearly so elaborate; for the Earth (as opposed to a rotating black
hole), you'll do fine with the post-Newtonian approximation, as
described, for instance, by Weinberg.
> See Weinberg's "Grav&Cosmo" pg. 240, and please
> note Weinberg's use of *looks* in italics.
> My studies, in agreement with Weinberg, consider
> the Kerr metric to be a *conjectural math*,
Weinberg thinks no such thing. He does, however, know that the Earth
is not a black hole, and that the Kerr solution is not the unique metric
for an axisymmetric rotating source.
> that I find is inconsistent with the GPoR.
OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?
[...]
> I could indeed suggest you Mr. Carlip, are an
> "anti-relativist" ;-), why? Because neither
> results of GP-b or LIGO, one way or the other
> threaten the GPoR, as you imply. I've studied
> advanced Math(s) applied to derive GToR,
Let m know when you publish.
> that produce null results of those two experiments.
OK, then. How do you explain the observed decay of binary pulsar orbits?
Start with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar -- you know, the one they won the 1993
Nobel Prize for. We now have 34 years of observations, which match, year
by year, the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy
due to gravitational radiation. Do you have an alternative explanation
(that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation
to a fraction of a percent)? Then explain PSR J0737-3039, a double pulsar
system with very different parameters from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, that
also (what a coincidence!) exhibits orbital decay that exactly matches
the GR prediction for gravitational radiation reaction.
Steve Carlip
Dono
>
> I could indeed suggest you Mr. Carlip, are an
> "anti-relativist" ;-), why? Because neither
> results of GP-b or LIGO, one way or the other
> threaten the GPoR, as you imply. I've studied
> advanced Math(s) applied to derive GToR, that
> produce null results of those two experiments.
>
> > At the moment, though, there's just baby, no bath water...
> > Steve Carlip
>
> Regards
:-) :-)
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 12, 3:51 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > GP-b tests a Math of the logical sequence.
> > GPoR + Math(s) => GToR,
> > specifically the Kerr metric's g_0i AND the Mach
> > Principle giving rise to the "frame dragging".
>
> Goodness, no! The exterior field of the Earth is not described by the
> Kerr metric -- if you want an exact solution, you want something like
> a Neugebauer solution, with the multipole moments chosen to match
> those of the Earth. But frame-dragging doesn't require anything
> nearly so elaborate; for the Earth (as opposed to a rotating black
> hole), you'll do fine with the post-Newtonian approximation, as
> described, for instance, by Weinberg.
A problem with that (Thomas precession),
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession)
in Weinberg's "G&C" Eq.(5.1.9) is the presumption
of orthogonality in a rotating system.
> > See Weinberg's "Grav&Cosmo" pg. 240, and please
> > note Weinberg's use of *looks* in italics.
> > My studies, in agreement with Weinberg, consider
> > the Kerr metric to be a *conjectural math*,
>
> Weinberg thinks no such thing. He does, however, know that the Earth
> is not a black hole, and that the Kerr solution is not the unique metric
> for an axisymmetric rotating source.
>
> > that I find is inconsistent with the GPoR.
>
> OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
> motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
> effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
> Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?
The Scientific Method requires repeatability
and verification by alternative experiments,
to conclude a spurious observation is a fact
of nature.
> > I could indeed suggest you Mr. Carlip, are an
> > "anti-relativist" ;-), why? Because neither
> > results of GP-b or LIGO, one way or the other
> > threaten the GPoR, as you imply. I've studied
> > advanced Math(s) applied to derive GToR,
>
> Let m know when you publish.
I (we) published a brief here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
and a few articles here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
but I'd like to do better prior to going to
hard copy to sell.
> > that produce null results of those two experiments.
>
> OK, then. How do you explain the observed decay of binary pulsar orbits?
> Start with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar -- you know, the one they won the 1993
> Nobel Prize for. We now have 34 years of observations, which match, year
> by year, the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy
> due to gravitational radiation. Do you have an alternative explanation
> (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation
> to a fraction of a percent)? Then explain PSR J0737-3039, a double pulsar
> system with very different parameters from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, that
> also (what a coincidence!) exhibits orbital decay that exactly matches
> the GR prediction for gravitational radiation reaction.
Sure, but we've solved the EFE's electrically,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
for instance do a partial diff w.r.t of Eq.(2)
and the emitted radiation appears as EMR.
We don't have the radio telescopes that operate
at that frequency to get a confirmation.
> Steve Carlip
Where "frame dragging" is concerned, a light
ray going from L to R will travel on a different
geodesic than going from R to L,
L <================>R
O
when massive Object O is rotating ?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > I may have been unclear.
> > GR is a *catch-all* acronym for General Relativity.
>
> This is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Hello Tom, please tell us your acronym for
General Relativity.
...
Ken
Eric Gisse
> Hi Steve.
>
> On Feb 12, 3:51 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > GP-b tests a Math of the logical sequence.
> > > GPoR + Math(s) => GToR,
> > > specifically the Kerr metric's g_0i AND the Mach
> > > Principle giving rise to the "frame dragging".
>
> > Goodness, no! The exterior field of the Earth is not described by the
> > Kerr metric -- if you want an exact solution, you want something like
> > a Neugebauer solution, with the multipole moments chosen to match
> > those of the Earth. But frame-dragging doesn't require anything
> > nearly so elaborate; for the Earth (as opposed to a rotating black
> > hole), you'll do fine with the post-Newtonian approximation, as
> > described, for instance, by Weinberg.
>
> A problem with that (Thomas precession),
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession)
> in Weinberg's "G&C" Eq.(5.1.9) is the presumption
> of orthogonality in a rotating system.
The orthogonality of the coordinates does not change just because you
move to a rotating coordinate system, Ken.
BTW, Thomas precession is _SR_ only, so I'm not clear why you are
whining about it in respect to linearized GR.
[...]
> > OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
> > motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
> > effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
> > Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?
>
> The Scientific Method requires repeatability
> and verification by alternative experiments,
> to conclude a spurious observation is a fact
> of nature.
Notice how he said "satellites"? In the English language, ending a
word that otherwise doesn't end in "s" means there is more than one of
them.
LAGEOS I and II verified frame dragging to something like 15% and 10%
if memory serves, lunar ranging verified geodetic precession to 1%, GP-
B verified frame dragging to [currently] 21%, and geodeic precession
to 1% as well.
Is that sufficiently repeatable, Ken? Or do you have another way you
would like to weasle out of being wrong all these years?
>
> > > I could indeed suggest you Mr. Carlip, are an
> > > "anti-relativist" ;-), why? Because neither
> > > results of GP-b or LIGO, one way or the other
> > > threaten the GPoR, as you imply. I've studied
> > > advanced Math(s) applied to derive GToR,
>
> > Let m know when you publish.
>
> I (we) published a brief here,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
You do seem to have problems with English, you say "we" even though
you are the only one involved. And you say "published" even though the
context clearly means "published in a peer-reviewed journal", not
"dropped on personal web space".
Why _do_ you keep citing an article that is wrong, Ken? You don't
actually solve the field equations, Einstein -or- Maxwell.
> and a few articles here,http://physics.trak4.com/
> but I'd like to do better prior to going to
> hard copy to sell.
Why on Earth do you feel anyone would purchase that crap?
>
> > > that produce null results of those two experiments.
>
> > OK, then. How do you explain the observed decay of binary pulsar orbits?
> > Start with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar -- you know, the one they won the 1993
> > Nobel Prize for. We now have 34 years of observations, which match, year
> > by year, the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy
> > due to gravitational radiation. Do you have an alternative explanation
> > (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation
> > to a fraction of a percent)? Then explain PSR J0737-3039, a double pulsar
> > system with very different parameters from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, that
> > also (what a coincidence!) exhibits orbital decay that exactly matches
> > the GR prediction for gravitational radiation reaction.
>
> Sure, but we've solved the EFE's electrically,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
...no, you have not.
> for instance do a partial diff w.r.t of Eq.(2)
> and the emitted radiation appears as EMR.
...no. Not only is this silly as electromagnetic radiation is
sensitive to changes in dipole mmoments whereas gravitational
radiation is sensitve to changes in quadrupole moments, but it is
wrong as YOU DO NOT SHOW WHAT YOU CLAIM.
You do not use either Einstein's or Maxwell's equations, though I'm
reasonably sure you are cribbing the linearized field equations from
Winberg even though you dishonestly do not show your source.
> We don't have the radio telescopes that operate
> at that frequency to get a confirmation.
...confirmation will never happen because you are wrong.
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> Where "frame dragging" is concerned, a light
> ray going from L to R will travel on a different
> geodesic than going from R to L,
>
> L <================>R
> O
>
> when massive Object O is rotating ?
I see a question mark but I do not see a question. English _is_ hard!
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
Read the sentence directly following.
Reading is fundamental, Ken.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> > OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
> > motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
> > effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
> > Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?
> The Scientific Method requires repeatability
> and verification by alternative experiments,
> to conclude a spurious observation is a fact
> of nature.
1. LAGEOS (to be further tested by the LARES mission)
2. Lunar laser ranging (repeatable, and repeated many times; look up
APOLLO for the best current work)
Add to that
3. Observed spin-orbit coupling for double pulsar PSR J0737???3039A/B
(see Breton et al., Science 321 (2008) 104, for instance)
How much more evidence would it take to convince you? Is there
*any* amount that would do?
[...]
> > OK, then. How do you explain the observed decay of binary pulsar orbits?
> > Start with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar -- you know, the one they won the 1993
> > Nobel Prize for. We now have 34 years of observations, which match, year
> > by year, the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy
> > due to gravitational radiation. Do you have an alternative explanation
> > (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation
> > to a fraction of a percent)? Then explain PSR J0737-3039, a double pulsar
> > system with very different parameters from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, that
> > also (what a coincidence!) exhibits orbital decay that exactly matches
> > the GR prediction for gravitational radiation reaction.
> Sure, but we've solved the EFE's electrically,
> http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> for instance do a partial diff w.r.t of Eq.(2)
> and the emitted radiation appears as EMR.
> We don't have the radio telescopes that operate
> at that frequency to get a confirmation.
So let me try to understand.
-- You believe pulsars are electrically charged (or else that uncharged
objects emit electromagnetic radiation?).
-- You believe that the charge happens to be exactly the right amount
that the energy carried off by dipole electromagnetic radiation matches
the GR predictions of energy carried off by quadrupole gravitational
radiation, to within a fraction of a percent.
-- You believe the charge of these pulsars is changing in time, in just
the right way that the radiated electromagnetic energy (with a power
that goes as the square of the velocity) continues to exactly match the
GR predictions for radiated gravitational energy (with a power that
goes as the fourth power of the velocity), even as the velocities change.
You believe that for the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, this carefully
tuned readjustment of the charge has continued over the last 34 years.
-- You believe that all of these coincidences hold for three binary pulsar
systems with very different parameters, and that they hold as well for
a pulsar-white dwarf binary (PSR J1141???6545 -- see Bhat et al., Phys.
Rev. D77 (2008) 124017, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0956). And that,
oddly enough, we've never seen a binary pulsar system in which these
coincidences didn't hold.
Is that about right?
A question, then: a new binary pulsar system, PSR J1738+0333, was
recently announced (see Freire et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 983 (2008) 488,
arXiv:0711.1880 [astro-ph]). So far, its orbital decay rate agrees with
the predictions of GR, but with large uncertainties because of the short
amount of time it's been observed. But the accuracy is expected to
increase by a factor of ten over the next five years.
What is your theory's prediction? Will the results agree with the GR
predictions for orbital decay by gravitational wave emission? If
so, why, given the huge physical difference between gravitational
radiation and the mechanism you propose? If not, what *will* the
result be?
(Please show your work -- let's see the numbers.)
Steve Carlip
Androcles
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:gn4fpu$5a6$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> (Please show your work -- let's see the numbers.)
>
> Steve Carlip
Here is the actual derivation of magic gamma:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
The papal bull:
magic gamma = 1/sqrt( [(c+v)*(c-v)] / (c*c) )
which is the first catechism of the Holey Church of Relativity,
continues to be flaunted daily in the face of true scientists.
Snivelling relativistic lying bastard trolls claim that c+v is not the
speed of anything or is a "closing speed", accusing mathematicians
of not being able to distinguish a "closing speed" from a "relative
speed" (which, with all honesty, I readily own that I cannot - what
is the difference between c+v and c+v ? ) as though this accusation
had some significance, yet the stupid shitheads go on preaching their
drivel without a word as to which hat magic gamma is miraculously
plucked from!
Name and shame the pompous snide cranks!
John Baez, full ass professor.
Steve Carlip, full ass professor.
Ben Green Ph.D. physics 1956, full ass.
James Black, full ass.
Alan Schwartz, big diamond merchant.
Tom Roberts, engineering drop-out.
Paul Draper, ASSistant professor.
Paul B. Andersen, ASSistant professor.
Harald van Lintel, grinning cretin.
Dirk Van de moortel, local village idiot.
Greg Neill, general moron.
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 13, 10:57 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 3:51 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
> > > motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
> > > effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
> > > Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?
> > The Scientific Method requires repeatability
> > and verification by alternative experiments,
> > to conclude a spurious observation is a fact
> > of nature.
>
> 1. LAGEOS (to be further tested by the LARES mission)
> 2. Lunar laser ranging (repeatable, and repeated many times; look up
> APOLLO for the best current work)
Yes, is this ref to be trusted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
You do of course understand "frame-dragging"
theory makes spacetime dependant upon the
velocity (direction) of light? The geodesic
will then depend on the rotation of the
gravitating body. Is that what you find?
> Add to that
>
> 3. Observed spin-orbit coupling for double pulsar PSR J0737???3039A/B
> (see Breton et al., Science 321 (2008) 104, for instance)
>
> How much more evidence would it take to convince you? Is there
> *any* amount that would do?
NASA has ruled out "frame dragging" as to
minute to measure and terminated funding,
(after spending 1/2 $Billion on GP-b).
> > > OK, then. How do you explain the observed decay of binary pulsar orbits?
> > > Start with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar -- you know, the one they won the 1993
> > > Nobel Prize for. We now have 34 years of observations, which match, year
> > > by year, the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy
> > > due to gravitational radiation. Do you have an alternative explanation
> > > (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation
> > > to a fraction of a percent)? Then explain PSR J0737-3039, a double pulsar
> > > system with very different parameters from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, that
> > > also (what a coincidence!) exhibits orbital decay that exactly matches
> > > the GR prediction for gravitational radiation reaction.
> > Sure, but we've solved the EFE's electrically,
> >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> > for instance do a partial diff w.r.t of Eq.(2)
> > and the emitted radiation appears as EMR.
> > We don't have the radio telescopes that operate
> > at that frequency to get a confirmation.
>
> So let me try to understand.
>
> -- You believe pulsars are electrically charged?
No.
>(or else that uncharged objects emit electromagnetic
> radiation?).
Yes, in the right circumstances, such as
we are using.
> -- You believe that the charge happens to be exactly the right amount
> that the energy carried off by dipole electromagnetic radiation matches
> the GR predictions of energy carried off by quadrupole gravitational
> radiation, to within a fraction of a percent.
Yes, but it's the difference between attraction
and repulsion, see below #.
> -- You believe the charge of these pulsars is changing in time, in just
> the right way that the radiated electromagnetic energy (with a power
> that goes as the square of the velocity) continues to exactly match the
> GR predictions for radiated gravitational energy (with a power that
> goes as the fourth power of the velocity), even as the velocities change.
> You believe that for the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, this carefully
> tuned readjustment of the charge has continued over the last 34 years.
>
> -- You believe that all of these coincidences hold for three binary pulsar
> systems with very different parameters, and that they hold as well for
> a pulsar-white dwarf binary (PSR J1141???6545 -- see Bhat et al., Phys.
> Rev. D77 (2008) 124017,http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0956). And that,
> oddly enough, we've never seen a binary pulsar system in which these
> coincidences didn't hold.
>
> Is that about right?
The GToR is a bit more complicated.
We're obligated to solve the EFE's using an
structure of any mass-energy storage, including
electrical configurations, that Purcell terms
"potential energy U of a system of charges"
(E&M pg.51...), consisting soley of massless
charges, that is defined by the well known
SIGMA sum in his Eq.(40).
All we need to do to solve that EFE spec is do
it for a single "charge couple", then SIGMA sum,
provided here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
over a bazillion charge couples relating two
*neutral bodies*, like the Earth and Moon.
> A question, then: a new binary pulsar system, PSR J1738+0333, was
> recently announced (see Freire et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 983 (2008) 488,
> arXiv:0711.1880 [astro-ph]). So far, its orbital decay rate agrees with
> the predictions of GR, but with large uncertainties because of the short
> amount of time it's been observed. But the accuracy is expected to
> increase by a factor of ten over the next five years.
>
> What is your theory's prediction? Will the results agree with the GR
> predictions for orbital decay by gravitational wave emission? If
> so, why, given the huge physical difference between gravitational
> radiation and the mechanism you propose? If not, what *will* the
> result be?
> (Please show your work -- let's see the numbers.)
My pleasure Mr. Carlip.
(please correct me if I'm wrong, I may sound a bit
pedantic, but there are other readers).
In a circular orbit the partial diff &g_00/&t is
zero, it is only when we have elliptic orbits
that &g_00/&t is non zero and varying.
In Eq.(2) of the linked ref above, you'll find
g_00 = 1-AB
as an electrical solution of the EFE's.
Doing the radiation mechanism yields,
-&g_00/&t = (&A/&t)*B + A*(&B/&t).
For convenience, using the notation from the link,
we can re-write that in terms of charges and
Electric fields as,
-&g_00/&t = b*(&E(a)/&t) + a*(&E(b)/&t).
Isn't that an awesome application of GToR, a
perfect emmision of EMR (the partials &E/&t),
from the charges "a" and "b" equally.
In a broader sense, that Electrical Solution
of the EFE's is the basis for radio-waves,
maybe there's a basis for a unified field
theory in that?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Feb 13, 10:57 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > On Feb 12, 3:51 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > > OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
> > > > motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
> > > > effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
> > > > Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?
> > > The Scientific Method requires repeatability
> > > and verification by alternative experiments,
> > > to conclude a spurious observation is a fact
> > > of nature.
> > 1. LAGEOS (to be further tested by the LARES mission)
> > 2. Lunar laser ranging (repeatable, and repeated many times; look up
> > APOLLO for the best current work)
> Yes, is this ref to be trusted?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
Sheesh! This is about one particular effect tested by Lunar laser ranging,
but not about frame-dragging. As I said earlier, "See for example Nordtvedt,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647."
If you're going to overthrow GR, don't you think you ought to first learn a bit
about the experimental evidence currently explained by GR, for which you're
going to need an alternative explanation?
Yeah. There's an argument between Iorio and Ciufolini about how
accurate a test the LARES mission will give -- Iorio would have
preferred a more accurate, but more expensive, experiment (as
would everyone, if the money had been there).
> You do of course understand "frame-dragging"
> theory makes spacetime dependant upon the
> velocity (direction) of light?
This is total nonsense.
> > Add to that
> > 3. Observed spin-orbit coupling for double pulsar PSR J0737???3039A/B
> > (see Breton et al., Science 321 (2008) 104, for instance)
> > How much more evidence would it take to convince you? Is there
> > *any* amount that would do?
> NASA has ruled out "frame dragging" as to minute to measure
No, it hasn't.
> and terminated funding, (after spending 1/2 $Billion on GP-b).
Yes, because the advisory committee felt that
During the long evolution of this experiment, constraints on
alternate theories of GR have developed and there have been a
number of measurements which have tested various aspects of
GR to very high precision. For this reason, the GP-B experiment
has been somewhat overtaken by events and now occupies a
diminished niche in the field of experimental tests of GR.
> > > > OK, then. How do you explain the observed decay of binary pulsar orbits?
> > > > Start with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar -- you know, the one they won the 1993
> > > > Nobel Prize for. We now have 34 years of observations, which match, year
> > > > by year, the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy
> > > > due to gravitational radiation. Do you have an alternative explanation
> > > > (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation
> > > > to a fraction of a percent)? Then explain PSR J0737-3039, a double pulsar
> > > > system with very different parameters from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, that
> > > > also (what a coincidence!) exhibits orbital decay that exactly matches
> > > > the GR prediction for gravitational radiation reaction.
> > > Sure, but we've solved the EFE's electrically,
> > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> > > for instance do a partial diff w.r.t of Eq.(2)
> > > and the emitted radiation appears as EMR.
> > > We don't have the radio telescopes that operate
> > > at that frequency to get a confirmation.
> > So let me try to understand.
> > -- You believe pulsars are electrically charged?
> No.
> >(or else that uncharged objects emit electromagnetic
> > radiation?).
> Yes, in the right circumstances, such as we are using.
OK, so reject not only general relativity, but Maxwell's theory, quantum
electrodynamics, and electroweak theory. (You are not only smarter
than Nobel Prize winners like Hulse and Taylor, but also smarter than
Nobel Prize winners like Weinberg, Glashow, Salam, 't Hooft, and
Veltman, right?)
Tell me... Electromagnetism is very well tested in the lab. Can you
cite any experimental evidence whatsoever for an uncharged body
radiating?
> > -- You believe that the charge happens to be exactly the right amount
> > that the energy carried off by dipole electromagnetic radiation matches
> > the GR predictions of energy carried off by quadrupole gravitational
> > radiation, to within a fraction of a percent.
> Yes, but it's the difference between attraction and repulsion, see below #.
And the numbers just happen to match, even though one is dipole radiation
and the other quadrupole, and even though the electromagnetic coupling
constant is 40 orders of magnitude different from the gravitational one?
> > Is that about right?
You didn't answer the question. Perhaps I used too many words.
Let me try again:
GR predicts the effect of gravitational radiation on neutron stars in
binaries. The predictions are extremely accurate, for a number of
systems with very different parameters.
If GR is wrong, and gravitational radiation doesn't exist, how come
it gets these predictions so right?
If your new theory, which has no gravitational radiation, is going to
agree with observation, how is it going to reproduce the quantitative
results of GR?
("Quantitative" here means "involving numbers": not "a" and "b", but
things like "-2.425x10^{-12}", the rate of change of the period of the
Hulse-Taylor pulsar.)
> g_00 = 1-AB
Perhaps you misread my question. Let me try again.
> > A question, then: a new binary pulsar system, PSR J1738+0333, was
> > recently announced (see Freire et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 983 (2008) 488,
> > arXiv:0711.1880 [astro-ph]). So far, its orbital decay rate agrees with
> > the predictions of GR, but with large uncertainties because of the short
> > amount of time it's been observed. But the accuracy is expected to
> > increase by a factor of ten over the next five years.
> > What is your theory's prediction? Will the results agree with the GR
> > predictions for orbital decay by gravitational wave emission?
In case this is not clear: GR computes a rate of orbital decay for
PSR J1738+0333. It can be expressed as a change in the period -- a
*number* that tells you how much the orbital period of the system
is predicted to change per second. The GR computation comes from
calculating the rate at which gravitational radiation reduces the
energy of the system; it then uses the equations of motion of the
two orbiting masses to compute the resulting change in the orbital
period.
What *number* for the rate of change of the period of PSR J1738+0333
does your theory predict? The answer will be of the form:
"The period of PSR J1738+0333, measured in seconds, should change by
X seconds per second."
What value do you predict for X? How do you compute it? Does the number
X that you get from your theory agree with the number obtained in GR or
not?
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 13, 5:39 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve.
> > On Feb 13, 10:57 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 3:51 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > > > OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
> > > > > motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
> > > > > effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
> > > > > Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?
> > > > The Scientific Method requires repeatability
> > > > and verification by alternative experiments,
> > > > to conclude a spurious observation is a fact
> > > > of nature.
> > > 1. LAGEOS (to be further tested by the LARES mission)
> > > 2. Lunar laser ranging (repeatable, and repeated many times; look up
> > > APOLLO for the best current work)
> > Yes, is this ref to be trusted?
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
>
> Sheesh! This is about one particular effect tested by Lunar laser ranging,
> but not about frame-dragging. As I said earlier, "See for example Nordtvedt,
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647."
Not sure where you're going with this 20 yo
1988 article. You should review "tidal geology"
(and Lunar tidal geology) in light of GPS.
Seems Earth's granite deforms a foot or two,
that is unpredictable. like as in earthquakes.
> If you're going to overthrow GR, don't you think you ought to first learn a bit
> about the experimental evidence currently explained by GR, for which you're
> going to need an alternative explanation?
I'm suggesting a revision of GToR, that may
require an addendum to a few text books that
the new bright GRist generation can consider.
>http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0264-9381/19/17/103/q217l3.pdf?
request-...
> Yeah. There's an argument between Iorio and Ciufolini about how
> accurate a test the LARES mission will give -- Iorio would have
> preferred a more accurate, but more expensive, experiment (as
> would everyone, if the money had been there).
> > You do of course understand "frame-dragging"
> > theory makes spacetime dependant upon the
> > velocity (direction) of light?
>
> This is total nonsense.
That is "nonsense" is what I find too, given that
the spacetime field is defined by light rays.
By transforming the metric, via GC, we arrive at,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
> > > Add to that
> > > 3. Observed spin-orbit coupling for double pulsar PSR J0737???3039A/B
> > > (see Breton et al., Science 321 (2008) 104, for instance)
> > > How much more evidence would it take to convince you? Is there
> > > *any* amount that would do?
> > NASA has ruled out "frame dragging" as to minute to measure
>
> No, it hasn't.
>
> > and terminated funding, (after spending 1/2 $Billion on GP-b).
>
> Yes, because the advisory committee felt that
>
> During the long evolution of this experiment, constraints on
> alternate theories of GR have developed and there have been a
> number of measurements which have tested various aspects of
> GR to very high precision. For this reason, the GP-B experiment
> has been somewhat overtaken by events and now occupies a
> diminished niche in the field of experimental tests of GR.
Well, that's a pretty way to pack-up a 1/2 $Billion
inconclusive experiment.
No one has yet, not even g-waves.
> > > -- You believe that the charge happens to be exactly the right amount
> > > that the energy carried off by dipole electromagnetic radiation matches
> > > the GR predictions of energy carried off by quadrupole gravitational
> > > radiation, to within a fraction of a percent.
> > Yes, but it's the difference between attraction and repulsion, see below #.
>
> And the numbers just happen to match, even though one is dipole radiation
> and the other quadrupole, and even though the electromagnetic coupling
> constant is 40 orders of magnitude different from the gravitational one?
Yes, that's to be expected from unified field thoery.
Because GR is coarsely correct, same radiation,
in EMR.
> If your new theory, which has no gravitational radiation, is going to
> agree with observation, how is it going to reproduce the quantitative
> results of GR?
Mr. Carlip, in accord with the EFE's, with respect
to Purcell, I (we) merely inserted electrical energy
into the EFE's to *confirm* they're consistent, that's
an application of the existing well tested theory.
That's a darn good idea Steve, thanks.
If LIGO remains silent we'll need to do that.
Have a look at the PS in this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_UFT.pdf
Given arbituary orbital parameters, I can get
the Watts (power emission).
Looks like enough theory to write a computer
program. The emission frequency is enigmatic.
> Steve Carlip
Thanks Again
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
[...]
I know you read what I write, Ken. I know because even though you
rarely respond to me anymore, you occasionally respond in a typical
incoherent but extremely angry manner.
> > Sheesh! This is about one particular effect tested by Lunar laser ranging,
> > but not about frame-dragging. As I said earlier, "See for example Nordtvedt,
> > Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647."
>
> Not sure where you're going with this 20 yo
> 1988 article. You should review "tidal geology"
> (and Lunar tidal geology) in light of GPS.
> Seems Earth's granite deforms a foot or two,
> that is unpredictable. like as in earthquakes.
Try reading, Ken.
The point is that Nordtvedt's lunar ranging observations are not
consistent with observation unless the effects which you dismiss - out
of hand - are used.
[snip]
> > This is total nonsense.
>
> That is "nonsense" is what I find too, given that
> the spacetime field is defined by light rays.
That is both wrong, and stupid. The metric is not defined through
light.
> By transforming the metric, via GC, we arrive at,http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
This is also wrong, and stupid. The Kerr solution is a solution to the
field equations.
[snip]
> > And the numbers just happen to match, even though one is dipole radiation
> > and the other quadrupole, and even though the electromagnetic coupling
> > constant is 40 orders of magnitude different from the gravitational one?
>
> Yes, that's to be expected from unified field thoery.
Wrong and stupid again!
The coupling constants for electromagnetism and gravitation are
different by 40 orders of magnitude and the charge multipole moments
are different. Rather than explain this AMAZING COINCIDENCE you squirt
some ink about "unified field theory" in the utterly pointless hope
that people won't see you are full of shit.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/17d7dda69010c5f4
5 years of stupidity! Congratulations.
[snip]
>
> Because GR is coarsely correct, same radiation,
> in EMR.
Wrong and stupid!
Gravitational radiation couples to the 2nd time derivative of the mass
quadrupole moment. Electromagnetic radiation couples to the 2nd time
derivative of the charge DIPOLE moment.
>
> > If your new theory, which has no gravitational radiation, is going to
> > agree with observation, how is it going to reproduce the quantitative
> > results of GR?
>
> Mr. Carlip, in accord with the EFE's, with respect
> to Purcell, I (we) merely inserted electrical energy
> into the EFE's to *confirm* they're consistent, that's
> an application of the existing well tested theory.
You (you) did no such thing. You did not solve the field equations,
you did not use Maxwell's equations, you didn't do shit.
I find it funny that after several years of me pointing this out, you
still have not responded to even one criticism of your inane
arguments. Crank alert.
[snip]
> Given arbituary orbital parameters, I can get
> the Watts (power emission).
THEN DO IT.
The derivation according to GR is a literal textbook exercise. Where's
your derivation?
[snip rest]
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
Let's focus a little.
> > GR predicts the effect of gravitational radiation on neutron stars in
> > binaries. The predictions are extremely accurate, for a number of
> > systems with very different parameters.
> > If GR is wrong, and gravitational radiation doesn't exist, how come
> > it gets these predictions so right?
> Because GR is coarsely correct, same radiation, in EMR.
Electromagnetic radiation is vectorial -- that is, the two independent
polarizations differ by a 90 degree rotation. It couples to charge
dipoles, and the strongest component of the radiation is dipolar. The
power radiated by a two-body system goes as the square of the velocity.
Gravitational radiation is tensorial -- the two independent polarizations
differ by a 45 degree rotation. It couples to mass quadrupoles -- there is
no coupling to dipoles -- and the strongest component of the radiation is
quadrupolar. The power radiated by a two-body system goes as the fourth
power of the velocity.
In addition, the gravitational coupling between a proton and an electron
is about 40 orders of magnitude smaller than the electromagnetic
coupling.
How can you possibly say that these are "coarsely" the same?
> > If your new theory, which has no gravitational radiation, is going to
> > agree with observation, how is it going to reproduce the quantitative
> > results of GR?
> Mr. Carlip, in accord with the EFE's, with respect
> to Purcell, I (we) merely inserted electrical energy
> into the EFE's to *confirm* they're consistent, that's
> an application of the existing well tested theory.
No, it's not. The existing well-tested theory says that orbits of binary
pulsar systems decay because gravitational radiation reaction. Looking
at electromagnetic energy as a source of gravity in the Einstein field
equations has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
(It has also been done already, in an exact form, not eith the rough
approximation you use. Look up the Reissner-Nordstrom solution.)
> > ("Quantitative" here means "involving numbers": not "a" and "b", but
> > things like "-2.425x10^{-12}", the rate of change of the period of the
> > Hulse-Taylor pulsar.)
[...]
> > In case this is not clear: GR computes a rate of orbital decay for
> > PSR J1738+0333. It can be expressed as a change in the period -- a
> > *number* that tells you how much the orbital period of the system
> > is predicted to change per second. The GR computation comes from
> > calculating the rate at which gravitational radiation reduces the
> > energy of the system; it then uses the equations of motion of the
> > two orbiting masses to compute the resulting change in the orbital
> > period.
> > What *number* for the rate of change of the period of PSR J1738+0333
> > does your theory predict? The answer will be of the form:
> > "The period of PSR J1738+0333, measured in seconds, should change by
> > X seconds per second."
> > What value do you predict for X? How do you compute it? Does the number
> > X that you get from your theory agree with the number obtained in GR or
> > not?
> That's a darn good idea Steve, thanks.
> If LIGO remains silent we'll need to do that.
Whatever happens with LIGO, you need to do this. This is a simple and
straightforward test of your claim. Don't chicken out -- work out the
numbers.
> Have a look at the PS in this brief,
> http://physics.trak4.com/MST_UFT.pdf
> Given arbituary orbital parameters, I can get the Watts (power emission).
OK, let's see it, for the binary pulsar system of your choice. Note that the
*observed* power loss depends on the masses, orbital periods, and velocities
in a particular way, which matches the predictions of GR. Let's see the
dependences you come up with.
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 16, 3:07 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Ok.
Meanwhile, I think the taxpayers will give us 12
maybe 18 months using LIGO to search for g-waves
before the apparatus is assigned to new experiments.
If LIGO is still dead, we can set up an EMR detector,
and look there, using a more refined GToR, possibly
much cheaper.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> > [...]
I take it you're not going to answer?
> > and velocitiesin a particular way, which matches the predictions of GR.
> > Let's see the dependences you come up with.
> Ok.
OK? Does that mean, "I'm working on it?" If so, please stop wasting
everybody's time with extravagent claims until you can show that your
new theory really does agree with observation. OK?
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
As I've explained, the claim is Einsteins FE's
and Purcell's potential energy of a system, that
I suggested, a few years ago, you solve for yourself
given the guidance provided, herein,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
(see Eq.(5)).
Two masses m1 and m2 are constructed solely
from NEUTRAL charge configurations.
Eq.(5) provides a residual attractive force,
as it should.
The "theory" is evidentially unique, otherwise
you would have heard of it, so call it Tuckers
(I'd be honored!) Unitivity.
About g-waves, how does this Power equation
look to you Steve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves#Power_radiated_by_the_Earth-Sun_system
Good enough, or would you perfer a better ref?
If so I'd appreciate a link.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
Showing that to Steve Carlip is a stupid move.
[...]
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> About g-waves, how does this Power equation look to you Steve?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves#Power_radiated_by_the_Earth-Sun_system
That's (an approximation for) the power radiated in gravitational waves,
according to general relativity. You can see by just looking at it that it's
gravitational, not electromagnetic: it depends on G, not epsilon_0. It's
quadrupole, not dipole: it goes as v^6/r^2 rather than v^4/r^2. And
it's spin 2: see the section just below the one you're citing.
Compare the Lamor formula for power radiated by electromagnetic
waves: go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula and put in
a set of charges in a circular orbit. You will find an expression that
involves epsilon_0 and not G, that depends on a different power of v,
and that has different numerical factors because of the differences in
spin.
Your claim is that gravitational radiation doesn't exist, and that somehow,
mysteriously, exactly the same amount of power is radiated by a binary
pulsar as electromagnetic radiation. To show this, you have to do a
*calculation* of the *electromagnetic power* radiated in *your* theory.
Note that "calculation" is not the same as "looking something up in
Wikipedia," and is certainly not the same as "looking something that's
completely different up in Wikipedia and then claiming it has something
to do with your theory, even though it's a calculation of a phenomenon
that you claim doesn't exist."
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 19, 9:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > About g-waves, how does this Power equation look to you Steve?
>
> That's (an approximation for) the power radiated in gravitational waves,
> according to general relativity.
Good (as a approximation), we all have a common ref.
> You can see by just looking at it that it's
> gravitational, not electromagnetic: it depends on G, not epsilon_0. It's
> quadrupole, not dipole: it goes as v^6/r^2 rather than v^4/r^2. And
> it's spin 2: see the section just below the one you're citing.
> Compare the Lamor formula for power radiated by electromagnetic
> waves: go tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formulaand put in
> a set of charges in a circular orbit. You will find an expression that
> involves epsilon_0 and not G, that depends on a different power of v,
> and that has different numerical factors because of the differences in
> spin.
Reality check, comments invited:
1) Circular orbits do NOT radiate.
((dg00 = 0)).
2) A variation of radius is required to emit
radiation. ((dg00 =/=0)).
Thus (3), a velocity in direction "r", required
for emission uses a velocity proportional to
1/sqrt(r), ((from escape velocity^2 = 2GM/r)),
Ve = sqrt(2GM/r).
In place of Ve we can change the apogee, perigee,
over the necessary radius, at a rate in some
proportion to angular velocity (cyclicity).
> Your claim is that gravitational radiation doesn't exist, and that somehow,
> mysteriously, exactly the same amount of power is radiated by a binary
> pulsar as electromagnetic radiation. To show this, you have to do a
> *calculation* of the *electromagnetic power* radiated in *your* theory.
> Note that "calculation" is not the same as "looking something up in
> Wikipedia," and is certainly not the same as "looking something that's
> completely different up in Wikipedia and then claiming it has something
> to do with your theory, even though it's a calculation of a phenomenon
> that you claim doesn't exist."
I'd be happy to collaborate on a paper with you.
((Emotionally I'd perfer LIGO works as a new means
to observe the universe, however science is objective,
so what people want from the absolute zero of the laws
of physics that extend from -eternity to +eternity is
what I'm studying)).
> Steve Carlip
Thanks and Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
> Hi Steve.
> On Feb 19, 9:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > About g-waves, how does this Power equation look to you Steve?
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves#Power_radiated_by_th...
>
> > That's (an approximation for) the power radiated in gravitational waves,
> > according to general relativity.
>
> Good (as a approximation), we all have a common ref.
>
> > You can see by just looking at it that it's
> > gravitational, not electromagnetic: it depends on G, not epsilon_0. It's
> > quadrupole, not dipole: it goes as v^6/r^2 rather than v^4/r^2. And
> > it's spin 2: see the section just below the one you're citing.
> > Compare the Lamor formula for power radiated by electromagnetic
> > a set of charges in a circular orbit. You will find an expression that
> > involves epsilon_0 and not G, that depends on a different power of v,
> > and that has different numerical factors because of the differences in
> > spin.
>
> Reality check, comments invited:
> 1) Circular orbits do NOT radiate.
> ((dg00 = 0)).
Interestingly, the unpopular induced gravity
model might actually have a dipolar mechanism for
radiating from a binary system.
<< The phase Φ of the photons in the coherent modes
and hence their position being essentially uncertain
because of a fixed N and ωο, an infinite red-shift at
a finite effective distance causes the electronic
and partonic Zitterbewegung frequencies of far away
matter to acquire wavelengths larger than R’, so
that its evanescent radiative field is felt here,
in direct proportion to its energy. This is in
agreement with the equivalence principle. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Sue...
jonas.t...@hotmail.com
> On Feb 11, 4:35 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Concepts such as time are obviously foreign to
> > normally immortal particles like the electron
> > and proton, although the transition of those said
> > particles to alternate states do happen, such as
> > when encountering it's antiparticle, or by creation
> > from photons (gamma+gamma => e- e+) .
>
> You might want to look into quantum field theory in which such events
> are described with ease. Oh, and time _is_ included.
>
>
>
> > Furthermore, the concept of a fixed whole numbered
> > integer dimensionality in tensor analysis is itself
> > an imported human prejudice, as was the obsolete
> > idea that exponents must be integers.
>
> Observation says there are only 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Do
> you have a particular reason to believe otherwise, or is this more
> uninformed speculation?
I am such a fool i thought you SRians used three for every inertial
frame hmmmm.
So the 3 extra dimensions your closing speed take place in do not
really exist. What exactly are they then in your theory....
Poor poor Gisse god forgot to equip him suitably.
JT
>
> > The above describes a specification for a renewed
> > General Covariance, and with it, a GToR revision.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> From a position of complete ignorance, I suppose it would appear to be
> the case.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Feb 19, 9:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > About g-waves, how does this Power equation look to you Steve?
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves#Power_radiated_by_th...
> > That's (an approximation for) the power radiated in gravitational waves,
> > according to general relativity.
> Good (as a approximation), we all have a common ref.
> > You can see by just looking at it that it's
> > gravitational, not electromagnetic: it depends on G, not epsilon_0. It's
> > quadrupole, not dipole: it goes as v^6/r^2 rather than v^4/r^2. And
> > it's spin 2: see the section just below the one you're citing.
> > Compare the Lamor formula for power radiated by electromagnetic
> > waves: go tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formulaand put in
> > a set of charges in a circular orbit. You will find an expression that
> > involves epsilon_0 and not G, that depends on a different power of v,
> > and that has different numerical factors because of the differences in
> > spin.
> Reality check, comments invited:
> 1) Circular orbits do NOT radiate.
Nonsense. Of course they do.
> ((dg00 = 0)).
Oh, come on! Think about the Newtonian approximation, even. Do you
really think the gravitational potential of the Earth-Sun system is will
be the same in six months, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the
Sun, as it is now?
The Earth *moves*, silly. And that means that the gravitational field
of the Earth-Sun system changes. Those changes propagate out at the
speed of light -- that's what gravitational radiation is.
> 2) A variation of radius is required to emit radiation. ((dg00 =/=0)).
A variation in mass distribution is needed -- specifically, a change in
the mass quadrupole moment. That requires variation of the position
of the masses (you know, "Eppure si muove"), but that happens just fine
in a circular orbit.
[...]
> > Your claim is that gravitational radiation doesn't exist, and that
> > somehow, mysteriously, exactly the same amount of power is
> > radiated by a binary pulsar as electromagnetic radiation. To
> > show this, you have to do a *calculation* of the *electromagnetic
> > power* radiated in *your* theory. Note that "calculation" is not
> > the same as "looking something up in Wikipedia," and is certainly
> > not the same as "looking something that's completely different
> > up in Wikipedia and then claiming it has something to do with
> > your theory, even though it's a calculation of a phenomenon that
> > you claim doesn't exist."
> I'd be happy to collaborate on a paper with you.
Hey, it's your theory, not mine. I think it's nuts. If you don't, it's
*your* job to show that it agrees with observation.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Interestingly, the unpopular induced gravity
> model might actually have a dipolar mechanism for
> radiating from a binary system.
> << The phase ?? of the photons in the coherent modes
> and hence their position being essentially uncertain
> because of a fixed N and ????, an infinite red-shift at
> a finite effective distance causes the electronic
> and partonic Zitterbewegung frequencies of far away
> matter to acquire wavelengths larger than R???, so
> that its evanescent radiative field is felt here,
> in direct proportion to its energy. This is in
> agreement with the equivalence principle. >>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
I get it! This is a sociology experiment to see how people on
Usenet react to doubletalk and gibberish, right?
(Oops, I guess I wasn't supposed to give it away.)
Steve Carlip
Eric Gisse
[...]
> I'd be happy to collaborate on a paper with you.
This is what is known as "hubris".
[...]
Sue...
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Interestingly, the unpopular induced gravity
> > model might actually have a dipolar mechanism for
> > radiating from a binary system.
> > << The phase ?? of the photons in the coherent modes
> > and hence their position being essentially uncertain
> > because of a fixed N and ????, an infinite red-shift at
> > a finite effective distance causes the electronic
> > and partonic Zitterbewegung frequencies of far away
> > matter to acquire wavelengths larger than R???, so
> > that its evanescent radiative field is felt here,
> > in direct proportion to its energy. This is in
> > agreement with the equivalence principle. >>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
>
> I get it! This is a sociology experiment to see how people on
> Usenet react to doubletalk and gibberish, right?
>
> (Oops, I guess I wasn't supposed to give it away.)
No, Dr. Carlip,
Ya don't "get it".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22coherent+matter%22&btnG=Search
Sue...
>
> Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 19, 3:58 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 9:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > About g-waves, how does this Power equation look to you Steve?
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves#Power_radiated_by_th...
> > > That's (an approximation for) the power radiated in gravitational waves,
> > > according to general relativity.
> > Good (as a approximation), we all have a common ref.
> > > You can see by just looking at it that it's
> > > gravitational, not electromagnetic: it depends on G, not epsilon_0. It's
> > > quadrupole, not dipole: it goes as v^6/r^2 rather than v^4/r^2. And
> > > it's spin 2: see the section just below the one you're citing.
> > > Compare the Lamor formula for power radiated by electromagnetic
> > > waves: go tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formulaandput in
> > > a set of charges in a circular orbit. You will find an expression that
> > > involves epsilon_0 and not G, that depends on a different power of v,
> > > and that has different numerical factors because of the differences in
> > > spin.
> > Reality check, comments invited:
> > 1) Circular orbits do NOT radiate.
>
> Nonsense. Of course they do.
> > ((dg00 = 0)).
>
> Oh, come on! Think about the Newtonian approximation, even. Do you
> really think the gravitational potential of the Earth-Sun system is will
> be the same in six months, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the
> Sun, as it is now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves#Sources_of_gravitational_waves
"A spinning disk will not radiate."
We apply a rotating CS to the geometry, in
which the geometry is at rest, and the effects
of centrifugal acceleration are found in the
stress tensor.
Further tests include a rotating bar magnet's
emission, or H, (p + e), the later emits photonically
until base state, then ceases.
Without graviton emission theory, g-wave
emission is fundamentally flawed.
> The Earth *moves*, silly.
Not sure, maybe the moon makes it move silly.
>And that means that the gravitational field
> of the Earth-Sun system changes. Those changes propagate out at the
> speed of light -- that's what gravitational radiation is.
>
> > 2) A variation of radius is required to emit radiation. ((dg00 =/=0)).
>
> A variation in mass distribution is needed -- specifically, a change in
> the mass quadrupole moment. That requires variation of the position
> of the masses (you know, "Eppure si muove"), but that happens just fine
> in a circular orbit.
Steven, when dg00=0, where is the source of energy
for the emission? I think we need a binary elliptical.
> > > Your claim is that gravitational radiation doesn't exist, and that
> > > somehow, mysteriously, exactly the same amount of power is
> > > radiated by a binary pulsar as electromagnetic radiation. To
> > > show this, you have to do a *calculation* of the *electromagnetic
> > > power* radiated in *your* theory. Note that "calculation" is not
> > > the same as "looking something up in Wikipedia," and is certainly
> > > not the same as "looking something that's completely different
> > > up in Wikipedia and then claiming it has something to do with
> > > your theory, even though it's a calculation of a phenomenon that
> > > you claim doesn't exist."
> > I'd be happy to collaborate on a paper with you.
>
> Hey, it's your theory, not mine. I think it's nuts.
Well, let's wait until the facts are in before
commiting to a subjective conclusion.
> If you don't, it's
> *your* job to show that it agrees with observation.
> Steve Carlip
I've done that "job", it was snipped, the
Power emission follows from what was snipped.
I'll add, the decay of the orbit of PSR1913
should be easier to read in the EMR spectrum
anyway, because we can hetrodyne and amplify,
so if it turns out that LIGO is silent, we
can look forward to a revolution in ultra
low Radio Frequency astronomy, has that
been done before?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
> "A spinning disk will not radiate."
That's because a spinning disk has an unchanging quadrupole moment. A
planet orbiting around a star...does not.
>
> We apply a rotating CS to the geometry, in
> which the geometry is at rest, and the effects
> of centrifugal acceleration are found in the
> stress tensor.
This is silly and wrong.
> Further tests include a rotating bar magnet's
> emission, or H, (p + e), the later emits photonically
> until base state, then ceases.
This is irrelevant!
>
> Without graviton emission theory, g-wave
> emission is fundamentally flawed.
An excuse for every occasion, eh Ken? Explain to us the gravition - a
construct that only exists in attempts to quantize linearized general
relativity - is a relevant topic here.
[...]
> Steven, when dg00=0, where is the source of energy
> for the emission? I think we need a binary elliptical.
You keep referring to "dg00=0" like it is supposed to mean something.
[...]
> > Hey, it's your theory, not mine. I think it's nuts.
>
> Well, let's wait until the facts are in before
> commiting to a subjective conclusion.
Uh, the facts /are in/. Your theory is nuts as it demands that
electromagnetic radiation exactly mimic what general relativity
predicts for gravitational radiation even though the coupling
constants differ by 40 orders of magnitude and the charge moment for
the two are wildly different.
>
> > If you don't, it's
> > *your* job to show that it agrees with observation.
> > Steve Carlip
>
> I've done that "job", it was snipped, the
> Power emission follows from what was snipped.
Quoting Wikipedia does not qualify.
>
> I'll add, the decay of the orbit of PSR1913
> should be easier to read in the EMR spectrum
> anyway, because we can hetrodyne and amplify,
> so if it turns out that LIGO is silent, we
> can look forward to a revolution in ultra
> low Radio Frequency astronomy, has that
> been done before?
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
YOU ARE WRONG. Your theory doesn't stand up to even the most basic of
analysis, which is gravy considering it is massively self-inconsistent
and based on the misunderstandings and confusions of Ken Tucker.
At least you aren't inventing claims of plaigarism against Steve, or
claiming you have a doctorate. Thank heavens for small mercies.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > Reality check, comments invited:
> > > 1) Circular orbits do NOT radiate.
> > Nonsense. Of course they do.
> > > ((dg00 = 0)).
> > Oh, come on! Think about the Newtonian approximation, even. Do you
> > really think the gravitational potential of the Earth-Sun system is will
> > be the same in six months, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the
> > Sun, as it is now?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves#Sources_of_gravitational_waves
> "A spinning disk will not radiate."
So you say the Earth is a disk, spread evenly around the Sun? Funny,
I always thought it was pretty nearly a sphere, and that it moved
around the Sun.
[...]
> >And that means that the gravitational field
> > of the Earth-Sun system changes. Those changes propagate out at the
> > speed of light -- that's what gravitational radiation is.
> > > 2) A variation of radius is required to emit radiation. ((dg00 =/=0)).
> > A variation in mass distribution is needed -- specifically, a change in
> > the mass quadrupole moment. That requires variation of the position
> > of the masses (you know, "Eppure si muove"), but that happens just fine
> > in a circular orbit.
> Steven, when dg00=0, where is the source of energy
> for the emission? I think we need a binary elliptical.
For someone who argues that covariance is so crucial, you're awfully
fond of noncovariant expressions. You can, in fact, *always* choose
coordinates in which g_{00}=1 (Gaussian normal coordinates), and
you can always choose other coordinates in which it changes in time.
Suppose, though, that you choose harmonic coordinates and look
at the weak field approximation. Then g_{00} is (approximately)
related to the Newtonian potential. The Newtonian potential depends
on the location of the masses. In a circular orbit, the location of the
masses is changing in time. Therefore the Newtonian potential is
changing.
Since you seem to be having a hard time with this, let me draw a
picture. Suppose you're an observer at location x, the Earth is at o,
and the Sun is at O. Here are three different configurations:
spring:
O o x
summer
O x
o
fall:
o O x
Tell me: do you really think the Newtonian potential at x is the same in
all three of these configurations?
> > > > Your claim is that gravitational radiation doesn't exist, and that
> > > > somehow, mysteriously, exactly the same amount of power is
> > > > radiated by a binary pulsar as electromagnetic radiation. To
> > > > show this, you have to do a *calculation* of the *electromagnetic
> > > > power* radiated in *your* theory. Note that "calculation" is not
> > > > the same as "looking something up in Wikipedia," and is certainly
> > > > not the same as "looking something that's completely different
> > > > up in Wikipedia and then claiming it has something to do with
> > > > your theory, even though it's a calculation of a phenomenon that
> > > > you claim doesn't exist."
> > > I'd be happy to collaborate on a paper with you.
> > Hey, it's your theory, not mine. I think it's nuts.
> Well, let's wait until the facts are in before
> commiting to a subjective conclusion.
> > If you don't, it's
> > *your* job to show that it agrees with observation.
> I've done that "job", it was snipped, the
> Power emission follows from what was snipped.
No, it doesn't. If you think it does, go ahead and show us. Pick your
favorite binary pulsar system and *compute* the power. Give your
answer in Watts, and derive the dependence on orbital velocity,
masses, and period.
Show your work.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Feb 19, 7:06 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Interestingly, the unpopular induced gravity
> > > model might actually have a dipolar mechanism for
> > > radiating from a binary system.
> > > << The phase ?? of the photons in the coherent modes
> > > and hence their position being essentially uncertain
> > > because of a fixed N and ????, an infinite red-shift at
> > > a finite effective distance causes the electronic
> > > and partonic Zitterbewegung frequencies of far away
> > > matter to acquire wavelengths larger than R???, so
> > > that its evanescent radiative field is felt here,
> > > in direct proportion to its energy. This is in
> > > agreement with the equivalence principle. >>
> > >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
> > I get it! This is a sociology experiment to see how people on
> > Usenet react to doubletalk and gibberish, right?
> > (Oops, I guess I wasn't supposed to give it away.)
> No, Dr. Carlip,
> Ya don't "get it".
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22coherent+matter%22&btnG=Search
More evidence for my hypothesis. Thanks. (Though perhaps I should
add to "doubletalk and gibberish" an extra category of "random Internet
citations that have nothing to do with anything in a discussion.")
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:58 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > Reality check, comments invited:
> > > > 1) Circular orbits do NOT radiate.
> > > Nonsense. Of course they do.
> > > > ((dg00 = 0)).
> > > Oh, come on! Think about the Newtonian approximation, even. Do you
> > > really think the gravitational potential of the Earth-Sun system is will
> > > be the same in six months, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the
> > > Sun, as it is now?
> > "A spinning disk will not radiate."
>
> So you say the Earth is a disk, spread evenly around the Sun? Funny,
> I always thought it was pretty nearly a sphere, and that it moved
> around the Sun.
Did you get the new Memo? Apparently we can
sub-divide the disk into segments, dilineated
by Delta r, from that proto-solar system, we
have planetary coalescence and evolution to
form wonderful life forms like ME, (oh and you
too :-).
> > >And that means that the gravitational field
> > > of the Earth-Sun system changes. Those changes propagate out at the
> > > speed of light -- that's what gravitational radiation is.
> > > > 2) A variation of radius is required to emit radiation. ((dg00 =/=0)).
> > > A variation in mass distribution is needed -- specifically, a change in
> > > the mass quadrupole moment. That requires variation of the position
> > > of the masses (you know, "Eppure si muove"), but that happens just fine
> > > in a circular orbit.
> > Steven, when dg00=0, where is the source of energy
> > for the emission? I think we need a binary elliptical.
>
> For someone who argues that covariance is so crucial,
Nice to read Steven, I'm happy you read the note
on GC as it relates to quantized values I prepared
for Mr. Yablon.
> you're awfully
> fond of noncovariant expressions. You can, in fact, *always* choose
> coordinates in which g_{00}=1 (Gaussian normal coordinates), and
> you can always choose other coordinates in which it changes in time.
>
> Suppose, though, that you choose harmonic coordinates and look
> at the weak field approximation. Then g_{00} is (approximately)
> related to the Newtonian potential. The Newtonian potential depends
> on the location of the masses. In a circular orbit, the location of the
> masses is changing in time. Therefore the Newtonian potential is
> changing.
Any potential relates to two points, (gauge invariance).
> Since you seem to be having a hard time with this, let me draw a
> picture. Suppose you're an observer at location x, the Earth is at o,
> and the Sun is at O. Here are three different configurations:
>
> spring:
>
> O o x
>
> summer
>
> O x
>
> o
>
> fall:
>
> o O x Stevens Fig1.
> Tell me: do you really think the Newtonian potential at x is the same in
> all three of these configurations?
Be careful NOT to confound g-wave emission conjecture
with tidal effects. You can play with configurations,
but first understand Weinbergs, G&C Eq.(6.10.1).
Also, available in the public press is Bergmann's
"Theory of Relativity" pg.187, "Gravitational waves",
that (IMO) is refined without compromise, and
according to that, the g-wave emission from Steven's
Fig1 is conjected to be in the direction into or out
of the screen, that's rather simple.
Unfortunately, the spacetime field does NOT
do that (yet).
> > > > > Your claim is that gravitational radiation doesn't exist, and that
> > > > > somehow, mysteriously, exactly the same amount of power is
> > > > > radiated by a binary pulsar as electromagnetic radiation. To
> > > > > show this, you have to do a *calculation* of the *electromagnetic
> > > > > power* radiated in *your* theory. Note that "calculation" is not
> > > > > the same as "looking something up in Wikipedia," and is certainly
> > > > > not the same as "looking something that's completely different
> > > > > up in Wikipedia and then claiming it has something to do with
> > > > > your theory, even though it's a calculation of a phenomenon that
> > > > > you claim doesn't exist."
> > > > I'd be happy to collaborate on a paper with you.
> > > Hey, it's your theory, not mine. I think it's nuts.
> > Well, let's wait until the facts are in before
> > commiting to a subjective conclusion.
> > > If you don't, it's
> > > *your* job to show that it agrees with observation.
> > I've done that "job", it was snipped, the
> > Power emission follows from what was snipped.
>
> No, it doesn't. If you think it does, go ahead and show us. Pick your
> favorite binary pulsar system and *compute* the power. Give your
> answer in Watts, and derive the dependence on orbital velocity,
> masses, and period.
> Show your work.
I began to. Steven you wanted v^6, so I provided
1/r^3 => v^6 via v(escape) == 1/sqrt(r), but it
got snipped, no problem.
Our current problem is dg00 creating EM radiation.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> > > > in a circular orbit.
> > > Steven, when dg00=0, where is the source of energy
> > > for the emission? I think we need a binary elliptical.
>
> > For someone who argues that covariance is so crucial,
>
> Nice to read Steven, I'm happy you read the note
> on GC as it relates to quantized values I prepared
> for Mr. Yablon.
Nice job on missing the point completely. Writing "dg00=0" is not only
clumsy and sloppy notation but it is not covariant. You also totally
missed [or never learned, even after just being told] that you can
always locally choose a coordinate system such that the metric has no
first derivatives.
[...]
>
> Any potential relates to two points, (gauge invariance).
That is not guage invariance.
[...]
> Be careful NOT to confound g-wave emission conjecture
> with tidal effects. You can play with configurations,
> but first understand Weinbergs, G&C Eq.(6.10.1).
I find it amusing that you endlessly cite specific equations of only
one textbook on GR but never quite seem to actually *understand*
anything.
[...]
>
> I began to. Steven you wanted v^6, so I provided
> 1/r^3 => v^6 via v(escape) == 1/sqrt(r), but it
> got snipped, no problem.
That's because it is irrelevant.
There is no way to make gravitational radiation mimic electromagnetic
radiation, or vice versa. Your multi-year crank quest to show
otherwise is quite amusing though.
> Our current problem is dg00 creating EM radiation.
How is it anyone's problem but yours? I have not seen you yet make -
literally - even one reference to Maxwell's equations in any of your
arguments.
After several years you still don't reference Maxwell yet you insist
on repeating your claims!
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Why don't you sign it "Dr." ? You were so happy to claim you had a PhD
not too long ago, and suddenly you stop talking about it!
Sue...
> 1/r^3 => v^6 via v(escape) == 1/sqrt(r), but it
> got snipped, no problem.
> Our current problem is dg00 creating EM radiation.
There is a plausible mechanism in the induced gravity
model but it appears dipolar ( 1/r^2 ) rather that quadrupolar.
As you well know 1/r^2 emitters don't do well keeping
their power at home.
Sue...
Sue...
>
> After several years you still don't reference Maxwell yet you insist
> on repeating your claims!
Maxwell is 1 axis of symmetry.
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/train-brain/gedaechtnistrainer_mind_map_maxwell/gedaechtnistrainer_gedaechtnistraining_maxwell_hand-Dateien/maxhand2_400_eq.JPG
Molecular dynamics is no axes of symmetry.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Casimir?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v178/n4546/abs/1781339b0.html
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
For interest, I thought we might evolve an
incremental understanding.
I find dg00=0 (d grav potential=0) in a
circular orbit would NOT emit radiation,
because there is NO useful energy potential
that is utilized.
Given a circular orbit in plane x,y ;Steven
et al, holds the *notion* a g-wave emission
occurs in the z direction.
I am hoping in the near-to-sub-near future
to discuss the possiblity of EMR.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
> Hi Sue, good to see you.
> On Feb 20, 4:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 6:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > I began to. Steven you wanted v^6, so I provided
> > > 1/r^3 => v^6 via v(escape) == 1/sqrt(r), but it
> > > got snipped, no problem.
> > > Our current problem is dg00 creating EM radiation.
>
> > There is a plausible mechanism in the induced gravity
> > model but it appears dipolar ( 1/r^2 ) rather that quadrupolar.
> > As you well know 1/r^2 emitters don't do well keeping
> > their power at home.
> > Sue...
>
> For interest, I thought we might evolve an
> incremental understanding.
> I find dg00=0 (d grav potential=0) in a
> circular orbit would NOT emit radiation,
> because there is NO useful energy potential
> that is utilized.
If gravity is a fundamental force, I agree.
But if it is a derivative of the Coulomb force
as in some induction gravity models, the
coherent atoms might be phase modulated by
by the same frequency shifts we see in
line-spectra.
I can certainly visualise Mercury's precession
easier from that mechanism than with Einstein's
formalism.
> Given a circular orbit in plane x,y ;Steven
> et al, holds the *notion* a g-wave emission
> occurs in the z direction.
I think Carlip may have renamed Newton's aether
to space-time-fabric and has it doing a
whirlpool thingy. I shouldn't speak for him tho
even if has no hesitation about speaking for me.
:-)
>
> I am hoping in the near-to-sub-near future
> to discuss the possiblity of EMR.
The longer FNAL and LHC remains Higgsless the
bigger discussion you can have.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-12&page=articlesu25.html
Regards,
Regardless &
Higgsless,
Sue...
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
> Hi Sue, good to see you.
> On Feb 20, 4:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 6:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > I began to. Steven you wanted v^6, so I provided
> > > 1/r^3 => v^6 via v(escape) == 1/sqrt(r), but it
> > > got snipped, no problem.
> > > Our current problem is dg00 creating EM radiation.
>
> > There is a plausible mechanism in the induced gravity
> > model but it appears dipolar ( 1/r^2 ) rather that quadrupolar.
> > As you well know 1/r^2 emitters don't do well keeping
> > their power at home.
> > Sue...
>
> For interest, I thought we might evolve an
> incremental understanding.
Learning would be a change of pace, eh Ken?
> I find dg00=0 (d grav potential=0) in a
> circular orbit would NOT emit radiation,
This is a pointless lie.
The radiated power is a function of the second derivative of the mass
_quadrupole moment_. The metric [perturbation] in linearized GR, fyi,
is directly a function of the stress energy tensor which is also 'not
constant'.
> because there is NO useful energy potential
> that is utilized.
What a laff.
> Given a circular orbit in plane x,y ;Steven
> et al, holds the *notion* a g-wave emission
> occurs in the z direction.
This is exactly wrong. The radiation is emitted in the x-y plane.
>
> I am hoping in the near-to-sub-near future
> to discuss the possiblity of EMR.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
What a laff.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Thank you for the requisite display of autism, Dennis.
Sue...
> On Feb 20, 3:37 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> [snip]
unsnip
> After several years you still don't reference Maxwell yet you insist
> on repeating your claims!
Maxwell is 1 axis of symmetry.
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/train-brain/gedaechtnistrainer_mind_map_...
Molecular dynamics is no axes of symmetry.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Casimir?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v178/n4546/abs/1781339b0.html
>
> Thank you for the requisite display of autism, Dennis.
Do I detect a note of "buyers remorse" in the
young student?
It may not be too late to earn some
money with your ?education? .
<< The bookmaking company Ladbrokes put
the odds of finding the Higgs before 2010 at 6-1. >>
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/kellettl/
http://www.ladbrokes.com/home/en
Sue...
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Thank you for the requisite display of autism, Dennis.
Ken S. Tucker
I think Steven is expressing the reasonable
objections of conventional GRist's.
But Sue, I agree with your gut feeling, that
we may not have all the theory we need to
understand how the spacetime field relates.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
Yes... Conventional GRists hurl insults.
Conventional SRists hurl bigger insults.
You take the reciprocal and it may be some measure
of what either theory is worth.
The "Madison Avenue" types would probably disagree
that there is anything "reasonable" about someone who
thinks that will cultivate an interest in their views.
Reasonable people assume there is some motive to
discourage interest or close scrutiny when insult
replaces explanation.
> But Sue, I agree with your gut feeling, that
> we may not have all the theory we need to
> understand how the spacetime field relates.
It models energy density nicely. Perhaps there
is something offensive to mathematicians when
pristine equations get cluttered up with real
matter that can do what the equations say it
should do.
I think the expression is:
"Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory"
;-)
Sue...
Education: That which reveals to the wise, and
conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of
their knowledge.
--Mark Twain
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
I think I understand your point(s) about how
physicists can become emotionally involved in
the outcome of their experiments.
IMO these are good experiments, LIGO (VIRGO GEO)
are unique in history, in that they needed very
precise apparatus (a large amount of time and
money) to start, whereas nearly every other type
of technology was able to have humble beginnings
and evolve. The commitment to g-wave detection is
unprecedented, and completely based on theory of
spacetime continuum field wave propagation, that
is actually under test.
Hard work usually requires an emotional commitment,
that's human nature, that's fine.
That said, we still should objectively include
theoretical research into other possibilities.
As a theoretician, I hold "g-waves" are NOT a fact,
and search for alternatives to account for orbital
changes in neutron binaries, still within GPoR,
but get the impression from average GRist's that
research is cranky, to quote Carlip, "nuts", though
that is fortunately a minority opinion.
(BTW, we published on the alternatives in 1996).
With the negative result of GP-b and 7 years of
silence from LIGO's, I think BIG GR experimental
science needs revision, using sharp pencils on
paper and a ground up re-evaluation of the GToR.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
> Hi Sue et al.
>
[...]
If gravity is a fundamental force, I can't get
the barycentres to do what they need to in a
3 + 1 space for dipolar, quadrupolar or anybody's
polar radiators. So I don't buy it.
It just struck me a few days ago that
the MD induced dipoles of Kouropoulos' mechanism could
get modulated and make an effective dipole radiator.
I think Kouropoulos is a Greek name and that may why
the excerpt is all Greek to Carlip. Surely it is
not because it presents some alternative to pushing
a wagon with a rope and a quadrupole. ;-)
Sue...
MD Grape
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Sue
> If gravity is a fundamental force, I can't get
> the barycentres to do what they need to in a
> 3 + 1 space for dipolar, quadrupolar or anybody's
> polar radiators. So I don't buy it.
What I find, in a nutshell logic,
Electrostatics + SR ==> Magnetism
Electrostatics + GR ==> Gravitation
Gravitation being a secondary electrical
effect, but it's harder to prove.
> It just struck me a few days ago that
> the MD induced dipoles of Kouropoulos' mechanism could
> get modulated and make an effective dipole radiator.
Would that permit binary neutron stars to
emit EMR?
...
> Sue...
>
> MD Grapehttp://www.research.ibm.com/grape/
That could become an exceptionally advanced tool.
It's worthy of applications.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
All this silliness over something trivially shown to be false. What's
the point, Ken?
[...]
Sue...
We are close but I don't like time components
where energy is conserved.
Electrostatics + triple integral ==> Magnetism
Electrostatics + ewald sum ==> Gravito-inertia
>
> Gravitation being a secondary electrical
> effect, but it's harder to prove.
There are some meso-atomic experiments under way
to that end. The Laue Langevin falling neutron
is suggestive.
>
> > It just struck me a few days ago that
> > the MD induced dipoles of Kouropoulos' mechanism could
> > get modulated and make an effective dipole radiator.
>
> Would that permit binary neutron stars to
> emit EMR?
In the induced gravity mechanism, EMR is what
coheres molecular domains of matter so that it clumps.
That energy is conserved on a grand scale however.
Just as fridge magnets don't radiate EMR unless
you move them wrt the fridge. Move them faster
they radiate more.
My hypothesis was that the cohering EMR from
the advancing star would be blue shifted
as seen by a distant body. The cohering EMR
from the receding star would be red shifted
as seen by a distant body.
So this induced gravity
mechanism gets skewed:
<< The phase Φ of the photons in the coherent
modes and hence their position being essentially
uncertain because of a fixed N and ωο, an infinite
red-shift at a finite effective distance causes
the electronic and partonic Zitterbewegung frequencies
of far away matter to acquire wavelengths
larger than R’, so that its evanescent radiative
field is felt here, in direct proportion to its
energy. This is in agreement with the equivalence
principle. How exactly is it felt ? Zitterbewegung
involves oscillatory motion at the speed of
light. For any observer at that speed, the
photon bath is infinitely shifted to the blue.
Zitterbewegung is oscillatory because
at light speed, a charge ends up being
back-scattered by such photons within a short
interval of time. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
The result in the fast binary wouldn't be
more or less EMR, (to avoid your question entirely)
It would be a different gravitational coupling
for the advancing and receding stars, shaking
distant matter around.
Results about 9,070 for UV-IR splitting gravity
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=UV-IR+splitting+gravity&btnG=Search
It is a nice tale for Mercury's precession as well
as anything quantitatively equivalent to GR should
be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
And it's Higgsless in case you have
any outstanding wagers.
===============================
MD Grape
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/
>
> That could become an exceptionally advanced tool.
> It's worthy of applications.
A lot of interesting simulations have been run
but I have lost track of the papers online.
Sue...
Results about 9,070 for UV-IR splitting gravity
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=UV-IR+splitting+gravity&btnG=Search
Oops... "Mixing" rather than "splitting" seems
the more common term if you are into mining.
Results 11 - 20 of about 17,400 for UV-IR mixing gravity
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=UV-IR+mixing+gravity&btnG=Search
Sue...
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> With the negative result of GP-b
Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
-- see http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html -- and
the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
> and 7 years of silence from LIGO's
LIGO has operated at design sensitivity for only one year.
Steve Carlip
Eric Gisse
[...]
> With the negative result of GP-b
This is a pointless lie.
> and 7 years of
> silence from LIGO's,
Another pointless lie. LIGO only recently reached design sensitivity,
and the data analysis of that run hasn't even been fully analyzed.
Eric Gisse
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > With the negative result of GP-b
>
> Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
> analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
> the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
> statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
No, he did originate it. He's been lying about frame dragging for
nearly a decade now.
RustyJames
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > With the negative result of GP-b
>
> Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
> analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
> the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
> statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
>
> > and 7 years of silence from LIGO's
>
> LIGO has operated at design sensitivity for only one year.
>
> Steve Carlip
I stuck on the whole induced gravity concept by intrinsic
oscillations from Machian inertia from bound coherent states through
tunneling electromagnetic radiation.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> I am hoping in the near-to-sub-near future
> to discuss the possiblity of EMR.
masses measured to be 1.3381+/-.007 and 1.2489+/-.0007 Solar masses.
The orbital period is measured to be 0.10225156248(5) days. The orbital
eccentricity is measured to be 0.0877775(9); that is, very nearly circular.
General relativity predicts that the orbital period should change at a
rate of 1.24787(13)x10^{-12} seconds per second due to loss of energy
from gravitational radiation. Observations as of mid-2006 show a change
of 1.252(17)x10^{-12}, in agreement with the theoretical predictions
at about a 1.4% level. The observations are expected to reach an accuracy
of .02% with more observing time.
When your "theory" can produce the number 1.25x10^{-12} for this
system from electromagnetic energy loss, let me know.
Steve Carlip
RustyJames
it's not my thoery it's other peoples allot smarter than me
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 24, 1:01 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > With the negative result of GP-b
>
> Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
> analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
> the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
> statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
Careful Steven, we may have different backgrounds
leading to differences in semantics.
A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
be something we could agree on.
Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
result scientifically speaking. We would have liked
to see the "frame drag" effect measured around the
orbit, day by day.
Steven, compared to that standard I could claim you
are a "liar", but I won't because you have lower
standards, that may be scientifically acceptable to
you, as you've been taught. Ugh, I've been raised
strictly.
> > and 7 years of silence from LIGO's
>
> LIGO has operated at design sensitivity for only one year.
We've detected some highly energetic Gamma Ray
Bursts (GRB's) recently, (visual), that LIGO was
not able to detect, that was highly apparent in
the EMR emission, rendering credence to Unitivity.
PD
> Hi Steven.
> On Feb 24, 1:01 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > With the negative result of GP-b
>
> > Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
> > analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
> > -- seehttp://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html--and
> > the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
> > statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
>
> Careful Steven, we may have different backgrounds
> leading to differences in semantics.
> A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
> by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
> be something we could agree on.
> Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
> result scientifically speaking.
No, that is disputable. A negative result is a *conclusive* result
that is in disagreement with the predictions of a theory. An
inconclusive result is just that -- inconclusive.
I'm not sure where you were taught otherwise.
doug
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hi Steven.
> On Feb 24, 1:01 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
>>Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>With the negative result of GP-b
>>
>>Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
>>analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
>>-- seehttp://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html-- and
>>the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
>>statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
>
>
> Careful Steven, we may have different backgrounds
> leading to differences in semantics.
> A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
> by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
> be something we could agree on.
> Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
> result scientifically speaking.
This is not true. An inconclusive result is an inconclusive
result otherwise it would be called something different.
A negative result has a specific meaning in that its
results lie outside the predicted values of a theory.
Results which are consistent with and include predictions
in their range of accuracy are inconclusive if they fail
to eliminate alternate interpretations.
Where you are getting confused is that you want to call
a THEORY inconclusive if the EXPERIMENT does not exclude
other explanations.
Eric Gisse
> Hi Steven.
> On Feb 24, 1:01 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > With the negative result of GP-b
>
> > Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
> > analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
> > -- seehttp://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html--and
> > the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
> > statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
>
> Careful Steven, we may have different backgrounds
> leading to differences in semantics.
Educated vs uneducated being the primary difference.
Steve Carlip is EDUCATED. Ken Tucker is UNEDUCATED.
> A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
> by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
> be something we could agree on.
Frame dragging has now been observed - repeatedly - in the LAGEOS I
and II spacecraft in addition to GP-B.
> Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
> result scientifically speaking. We would have liked
> to see the "frame drag" effect measured around the
> orbit, day by day.
Wrong again, Ken.
> Steven, compared to that standard I could claim you
> are a "liar", but I won't because you have lower
> standards, that may be scientifically acceptable to
> you, as you've been taught. Ugh, I've been raised
> strictly.
No, Ken. A liar is someone who says things that are not true.
Exhibits a, b, and c:
a) Ken Tucker claims to have a PhD. A lie.
b) Ken Tucker claims frame dragging has not been observed. This is -
unsurprisingly - a lie.
c) Ken Tucker claims I plaigarize [on 4 occasions now]. This is also a
lie.
>
> > > and 7 years of silence from LIGO's
>
> > LIGO has operated at design sensitivity for only one year.
>
> We've detected some highly energetic Gamma Ray
> Bursts (GRB's) recently, (visual), that LIGO was
> not able to detect, that was highly apparent in
> the EMR emission, rendering credence to Unitivity.
Really, Ken?
What is the expected strain and frequency of the gravitational wave
output of a GRB? Is it even close to LIGO's current sensitivity? Feel
free to ignore me, or respond in an incoherent and angry manner.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> leading to differences in semantics.
> A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
> by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
> be something we could agree on.
> Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
> result scientifically speaking.
Nonsense. If you're testing a theory, a negative result is one
that disagrees with the prediction.
> We would have liked
> to see the "frame drag" effect measured around the
> orbit, day by day.
And we have. See the new graphs at the GP-B site,
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html.
Steve Carlip
Tom Roberts
> an inconclusive result is a negative
> result scientifically speaking.
Just look at your words to see how incorrect they are. An inconclusive
result is inconclusive, not "negative" (and not "positive").
But in any case, no serious experimental scientist would use such
terminology TODAY.
If GPB had actually failed to see any frame dragging, they would have
either:
a) quoted limits or values with errorbars for various parameters in
the PPN formalism, derived from their measurements.
or
b) modeled frame dragging as k*(prediction of GR) and then
given an upper bound on k from their measurements.
or possibly
c) done something similar, providing values with errorbars or limits
on appropriate theoretical quantities based on their measurements.
Of course they actually do see frame dragging, and their report is
essentially (b), with a measured value k=1.0 +- 0.15 (plus some
additional systematic uncertainty). They are working to reduce the
errorbar, and believe they can do so from the data in hand.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
There is no sense in which this could reasonably be called "a negative
result". Their current result is CONFIRMATION of the prediction of GR,
not a refutation. There are now several measurements of frame dragging,
ALL of which are consistent with the prediction of GR.
Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. "Negative result" is merely a sound
bite from people who don't know how modern experimental science is
performed. Ditto for "scientific fact", unless perhaps it refers to a
direct measurement (in which case the first word is redundant).
Tom Roberts
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 24, 3:25 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Hi Steven.
> > On Feb 24, 1:01 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> >>Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> >>[...]
>
> >>>With the negative result of GP-b
>
> >>Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
> >>analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
> >>-- seehttp://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html--and
> >>the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
> >>statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
>
> > Careful Steven, we may have different backgrounds
> > leading to differences in semantics.
> > A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
> > by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
> > be something we could agree on.
> > Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
> > result scientifically speaking.
>
> This is not true. An inconclusive result is an inconclusive
> result otherwise it would be called something different.
> A negative result has a specific meaning in that its
> results lie outside the predicted values of a theory.
I think NASA, together with the USAF/USN find
"frame-drag" will NOT be promoted into the
engineering of Celestrial Mechanics, that's a
"fact", likely true for the rest of the century.
From the standpoint of Celestrial Mechanics it
DOES NOT EXIST.
> Results which are consistent with and include predictions
> in their range of accuracy are inconclusive if they fail
> to eliminate alternate interpretations.
These are 50% probabilities, it might exist,
I don't base scientific facts on coin flips,
but to each his own.
> Where you are getting confused is that you want to call
> a THEORY inconclusive if the EXPERIMENT does not exclude
> other explanations.
Defective (1/2 $billion) apparatus, is no excuse.
Do the experiment on the ground.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 24, 4:52 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Careful Steven, we may have different backgrounds
> > leading to differences in semantics.
> > A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
> > by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
> > be something we could agree on.
> > Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
> > result scientifically speaking.
>
> Nonsense. If you're testing a theory, a negative result is one
> that disagrees with the prediction.
In our labs, inconclusive means FAILED to verify
the theoretical expectations of the experiments
design. The negative part means *time and money*
was spent without result -> comes off the bottom
line.
> > We would have liked
> > to see the "frame drag" effect measured around the
> > orbit, day by day.
>
> And we have. See the new graphs at the GP-B site,http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html.
I read that thanks. If NASA or USAF or USN says
they will enter "frame-drag" into Celestrial Nav
equations for trajectories and missiles, then it
will be "above noise".
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > an inconclusive result is a negative
> > result scientifically speaking.
>
> Just look at your words to see how incorrect they are. An inconclusive
> result is inconclusive, not "negative" (and not "positive").
>
> But in any case, no serious experimental scientist would use such
> terminology TODAY.
>
> If GPB had actually failed to see any frame dragging, they would have
> either:
> a) quoted limits or values with errorbars for various parameters in
> the PPN formalism, derived from their measurements.
Last I read was +/- 300%, officially.
> or
> b) modeled frame dragging as k*(prediction of GR) and then
> given an upper bound on k from their measurements.
> or possibly
> c) done something similar, providing values with errorbars or limits
> on appropriate theoretical quantities based on their measurements.
>
> Of course they actually do see frame dragging, and their report is
> essentially (b), with a measured value k=1.0 +- 0.15 (plus some
> additional systematic uncertainty). They are working to reduce the
> errorbar, and believe they can do so from the data in hand.http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
>
> There is no sense in which this could reasonably be called "a negative
> result". Their current result is CONFIRMATION of the prediction of GR,
> not a refutation. There are now several measurements of frame dragging,
> ALL of which are consistent with the prediction of GR.
Tom, "frame-drag" is NOT a prediction of GR,
it is a prediction of MACH's Conjecture applied
to GR using Kerr's conjected metric, see Weinberg's
"G&C" pg. 239,41 for overview.
IMO, GP-b is a Celestrial Nav experiment designed
to test the Mach-Kerr Conjecture, and has NO impact
on the GPoR and only a minor impact on GToR, in that
it will help us, in the future, to refine GToR, so
it was a good experiment.
> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. "Negative result" is merely a sound
> bite from people who don't know how modern experimental science is
> performed. Ditto for "scientific fact", unless perhaps it refers to a
> direct measurement (in which case the first word is redundant).
>
> Tom Roberts
Thank you for your interest.
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> On Feb 24, 4:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Steven.
> > On Feb 24, 1:01 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > > Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > With the negative result of GP-b
>
> > > Gravity Probe B did not have a negative result. In fact, the data
> > > analysis is now good enough to very clearly show frame-dragging
> > > -- seehttp://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html--and
> > > the analysis is continuing. Ken, while you did not originate this
> > > statement, you are spreading an outright lie here.
>
> > Careful Steven, we may have different backgrounds
> > leading to differences in semantics.
> > A scientific fact is one that can be reproduced,
> > by experiment, beyond a *shadow of a doubt*, may
> > be something we could agree on.
> > Therefore an inconclusive result is a negative
> > result scientifically speaking.
>
> No, that is disputable. A negative result is a *conclusive* result
> that is in disagreement with the predictions of a theory. An
> inconclusive result is just that -- inconclusive.
>
> I'm not sure where you were taught otherwise.
Basically the Scientific Experimental Method is
Purpose/Method/Apparatus/Observations/Conclusions.
IMO, Science is a slave to Engineering, to
evolve the utility of knowledge for secure
application.
One could go back to the ancient Egyptian
Pyramids and Stellar surveying, through the
steam engine (thermodynamics) into nuclear
electronics.
I do a lot of design, and rarely depend on
obscure science - though I accept intuition
where the science is iffy - economically.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Greg Neill
> On Feb 25, 7:11 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> If GPB had actually failed to see any frame dragging, they would have
>> either:
>> a) quoted limits or values with errorbars for various parameters in
>> the PPN formalism, derived from their measurements.
>
> Last I read was +/- 300%, officially.
You need to read more, or at least read more recent information.
From: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
second paragraph begins
"The latest data analysis that includes a model for the "roll-polhode
resonance torque" yields a 15% statistical uncertainty for the Frame-
Dragging effect. This 15% uncertainty does not include all systematic
effects."
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> Defective (1/2 $billion) apparatus, is no excuse.
The experiment worked. Learn to read.
> Do the experiment on the ground.
You can't. Learn to read.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
PD
No, sir. That is the outline of a high school lab report. It is not a
good capsule of the scientific method.
>
> IMO, Science is a slave to Engineering, to
> evolve the utility of knowledge for secure
> application.
And I *completely* disagree. There is a reason why R and D in R&D are
distinct and both essential. What you are suggesting is that the only
worthwhile and defensible activity is D and not R. R conducts basic
research *without* a specific goal of, or justification by,
application -- though in the end, R eventually leads to D, though not
necessarily in the lifetimes of those conducting the R.
And as such, the rules for evaluating the success of R are different
then D. If you have a proposal to conduct D, then by all means there
is a lot of attention paid to efficacy of approach, both in terms of
time and money. There isn't so much of this in R, on purpose. In fact,
one of the criteria in science is that a new experimental finding
needs to be replicated by a complementary method by independent
investigators, *guaranteeing* that there will be at least a factor of
2 larger investment in that effort than what a company doing
engineering would support.
Stop trying to make science fit the practice and metrics of
engineering. Not a good idea.
Ken S. Tucker
Dave Williams speaks highly of you.
Right, the absence of the expected observation is
leading to the idea of dysfunctional apparatus, OR
the absence of the effect altoghter.
Our next problem would be to PROVE a complete
knowledge of said "dysfunction", that *might*
be entered into the observation, and then we have
the "systematic effects" to figure in.
We regard the MMX (negative or null result) as
being one of the most important experiments into
the 20th century, because it found "Aether wind"
to be undetectable, perhaps, the final results of
GP-b (and similiar experiments), may also be able
to provide new understanding of spacetime fields.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Last I read was +/- 300%, officially.
WHERE did you read that?
[...]
> Tom, "frame-drag" is NOT a prediction of GR,
That's a stupid lie.
> it is a prediction of MACH's Conjecture applied
> to GR using Kerr's conjected metric, see Weinberg's
> "G&C" pg. 239,41 for overview.
This is also stupid, as the Kerr metric has nothing to do with Mach.
> IMO, GP-b is a Celestrial Nav experiment designed
> to test the Mach-Kerr Conjecture, and has NO impact
> on the GPoR and only a minor impact on GToR, in that
> it will help us, in the future, to refine GToR, so
> it was a good experiment.
I find it hard to believe any experiment can 'refine' the product of
intellectual lazinesss.
Ken S. Tucker
If you'll agree, I understand, from your suggestion,
experiments are conducted for two purposes,
1) Goal Orientated. (an expectation), (D)
2) No Goals. (no expectation), (R)
The subject is GP-b, it fits in (1).
We're digressing, but I'm ok with (2) as long
as that's the definition of the experiment,
it has no purpose.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PD
No, I did not say that. Tell you what, I'll give you another chance to
reread what I actually said. If you still have trouble understanding
it, then tell me what part you're having difficulty with and I'll try
to explain it more simply.
> The subject is GP-b, it fits in (1).
GP-b is a scientific experiment, not an application-oriented
development project. It does not serve the business rules that apply
to the latter.
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, proceed.
> > The subject is GP-b, it fits in (1).
>
> GP-b is a scientific experiment, not an application-oriented
> development project. It does not serve the business rules that apply
> to the latter.
Paul, are you suggesting the results of GP-b
have NO impact on Celestrial Mechanics, and
therefore no applications to satelite orbits?
Regards
Ken S. Tucler
PD
What I said was:
R conducts basic research *without* a specific goal of, or
justification by, application.
This means two things:
R conducts basic research *without* a specific goal of application.
R conducts basic research *without* justification by application.
If I may be allowed to anticipate your response, "But that's CRAZY!"
then I would reply that this is why you are a D guy and not an R guy.
>
> > > The subject is GP-b, it fits in (1).
>
> > GP-b is a scientific experiment, not an application-oriented
> > development project. It does not serve the business rules that apply
> > to the latter.
>
> Paul, are you suggesting the results of GP-b
> have NO impact on Celestrial Mechanics, and
> therefore no applications to satelite orbits?
I didn't say that. If GP-b demonstrates that GR -- which is used in
celestial mechanics and satellite trajectory planning -- is wrong,
then by all means it might have an effect on them. However, *possible*
applications of the results either way are not necessary to justify
the experiment in the first place.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> "frame-drag" will NOT be promoted into the
> engineering of Celestrial Mechanics, that's a
> "fact", likely true for the rest of the century.
> From the standpoint of Celestrial Mechanics it
> DOES NOT EXIST.
As Ken Nordtvedt, who actually *does* celestial mechanics,
pointed out in Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27 (1988) 1395,
inertial frame "dragging"--both linear accelerative
dragging and rotational "Lence-Thirring" dragging--
are ubiquitous in gravitational phenomena already
observed and measured.
In fact, this effect is already incorporated in NASA orbital
computations and in the JPL ephemirides. You might also
take a look at a paper by Turyshev (who works at NASA JPL),
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9606063.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> it is a prediction of MACH's Conjecture applied
> to GR using Kerr's conjected metric,
Frame-dragging was first computed by Lense and Thirring in 1918.
The Kerr metric wasn't even discovered until 1963. Perhaps you
think Lense and Thirring could see 45 years into the future?
> see Weinberg's "G&C" pg. 239,41 for overview.
Start with p. 233-38, where Weinberg actually *calculates* the
effect. You will find absolutely no use of either the Kerr metric
or Mach's principle, just a straightforward calculation using
the weak field approximation of the Einstein field equation.
Steve Carlip
Eric Gisse
Or you could read the page or associated scientific papers in which
the effects are documented.
Greg Neill
Ken's policy seems to be that if there are error bars on a
measurement then the measured thing doesn't exist. Perhaps
if we were to measure his weight within 15% he'd cease to
exist.
Ken S. Tucker
Most budding astronomers respect this fella,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel
but that was an evolution, perhaps a quantum
leap in instrumentation. His discoveries aka
*observations* and *conclusions* are readily
reproducible, and are therefore scientific.
> > > > The subject is GP-b, it fits in (1).
>
> > > GP-b is a scientific experiment, not an application-oriented
> > > development project. It does not serve the business rules that apply
> > > to the latter.
>
> > Paul, are you suggesting the results of GP-b
> > have NO impact on Celestrial Mechanics, and
> > therefore no applications to satelite orbits?
>
> I didn't say that. If GP-b demonstrates that GR -- which is used in
> celestial mechanics and satellite trajectory planning -- is wrong,
> then by all means it might have an effect on them. However, *possible*
> applications of the results either way are not necessary to justify
> the experiment in the first place.
Agreed, let's verify using a ground based
experiment.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 25, 11:51 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I think NASA, together with the USAF/USN find
> > "frame-drag" will NOT be promoted into the
> > engineering of Celestrial Mechanics, that's a
> > "fact", likely true for the rest of the century.
> > From the standpoint of Celestrial Mechanics it
> > DOES NOT EXIST.
>
> As Ken Nordtvedt, who actually *does* celestial mechanics,
> pointed out in Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27 (1988) 1395,
>
> inertial frame "dragging"--both linear accelerative
> dragging and rotational "Lence-Thirring" dragging--
> are ubiquitous in gravitational phenomena already
> observed and measured.
Please check this article for accuracy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
"failed to find any evidence of the Nordtvedt effect"
> In fact, this effect is already incorporated in NASA orbital
> computations and in the JPL ephemirides. You might also
> take a look at a paper by Turyshev (who works at NASA JPL),http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9606063.
(Turyshev and I were (are) friends, did some com on
the Pioneer Anomally, also I was involved with MSFC
Advanced Concept Office, (via Lott Brantley), studying
gravitational attentuation via gravitomagnetism, that
produced a negative result).
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 25, 12:04 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Steve, I'll need some time to respond intelligently,
for example, Eq.(9.6.20), "hyperfine" needs a look.
> Steve Carlip
In the meantime, let me ask you about a parlor
puzzler, it's fairly straightforward and relevent.
Relatively to a *geosynchronized* satellite P the
spin S of the Earth is zero.
A satellite P' moving in the opposite direction
to P passes it exactly twice a day, (check that),
and measures Earth spin S' to be 2 rotations/day.
What is the altitude of P' compared to P ?
(Assume ideal circular orbits etc).
The "Hook" in the problem is whether or not the
angular energy of the Earth, relative to S',
contributes to the relative gravitation (stronger)
affecting the P'orbit.
Go ahead Steven, give it a shot for fun.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
Why can't you use the Kerr metric yourself to calculate this, Ken?