The speed of gravity revisited
Albertito
the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
than the speed of light. But, what must we understand
by speed of gravity?. Aetherists often claim that gravity
are longitudinal waves, whereas light are transverse
waves through the aether. We know that in any medium
longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves.
We can find that longitudinal speed, c_L, and transverse
c_S, in a medium, with Young's modules E, Poison's ratio
v and mass density d_0, are
c_L^2 = (E/d_0(1+v))(1-v)/(1-2v)
c_S^2 = (E/d_0(1+v))(1/2)
We also know there exists a relation between those
elastic constants, as
E=2G(1+v)=3K(1-2v),
where G is shear modulus and K is bulk modulus.
So, we have
c_L^2 = (2G/d_0)(1-v)/(1-2v)
c_S^2 = G/d_0
Therefore, for a Poison's ratio of v=1/2, it would result an
infinite longitudinal speed. In general we have
c_L^2 + c_S^2 = (G/d_0)(2(1-v)/(1-2v) + 1)
This quadratic relation suggests (G/d_0)(2(1-v)/(1-2v) + 1) is
a universal constant for vacuum. This suggests
(G/d_0)(2(1-v)/(1-2v) + 1) = (R/t_p)^2,
where R is a scale parameter and t_p is Planck time.
or
(G/d_0)(2(1-v)/(1-2v) + 1) = c^2 (R/l_p)^2,
where l_p is Planck length.
c_L^2 + c_S^2 = c^2 (R/l_p)^2,
So, for a speed of light being c_S=c, it would yield
c_L^2 + c^2 = c^2 (R/l_p)^2,
c_L = c sqrt((R/l_p)^2 - 1), which is roughly
c_L = c R/l_p,
if R is meaningfully larger than l_p.
If we define R = R_h (Hubble radius), then the speed
of gravity, there where the local speed of light is c,
would be
c_L = c R_h/l_p,
it is saying it would be a very superluminal speed
(i.e. infinite for practical purposes).
Sue...
> There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
> the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
> than the speed of light.
There is evidence of that when you push a car.
It pushes back instantly. But that doesn't
mean gravity moves faster than c.
The finite speed of light is in evidence
as the car begins to move forward and the
remainder of the universe shifts position just a bit
to make room for the car's field from
a new position. That realignment propagates
at less than c.
> But, what must we understand
> by speed of gravity?.
See above:
I can't find a source or destination in
your equations. I can with Koroupolis
and the light paths are identified.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
[...]
Eric Gisse
> There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
> the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
> than the speed of light.
No, there is not. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is true.
> But, what must we understand
> by speed of gravity?. Aetherists often claim that gravity
> are longitudinal waves, whereas light are transverse
> waves through the aether.
Why even mention this? Ether has been ruled out as a viable concept
EVERY SINGLE TIME for the last hundred and thirty years. Nobody but
cranks in the fringe take ether seriously anymore.
> We know that in any medium
> longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves.
Only if the medium is anisotropic. Where are the calculations in which
you actually derive the things you write?
> We can find that longitudinal speed, c_L, and transverse
> c_S, in a medium, with Young's modules E, Poison's ratio
> v and mass density d_0, are
>
> c_L^2 = (E/d_0(1+v))(1-v)/(1-2v)
> c_S^2 = (E/d_0(1+v))(1/2)
Stating the answer without derivation isn't acceptable anywhere, why
do you think we will accept what you write down without
rationalization?
[remaining snipped]
xxein
xxein: 'Knowing' doesn't appear reliable because it had already been
just a product of 'ifs' and 'suggestions'. Somewhere along the way a
chameleon math told the physic how it operated. Think of how stupid
that is. You can mathematically describe the physic in countless
ways, but you can't change the physic, itself. If each notion
associated with any line of math were taken as truth, the physic loses
its integrity. We know that can't happen and yet we continually will
it.
Albertito
Can't you find a source or destination in my equations?
It is easy to find. If you can find the source and destination
for electromagnetic waves, then you can for gravitational
waves, too, because the source is the same and so is
the destination. The difference is that there is a pair of
events, S_e and S_g. The electromagnetic event S_e
is delayed and the gravitational event is advanced, they
are not simultaneous events at the receiver. If you are
able to detect a gravitational wave at time t_0, then you
should be able to detect the associated electromagnetic
wave at time t_1 > t_0. If the difference (t_1 - t_0) is very
large, say of some centuries, you will be in serious troubles
to find the source. This is the issue that might be happening
with distant astronomical objects: a great observed shift
between gravitational an electromagnetic events.
Albertito
> On Mar 6, 11:41 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
> > the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
> > than the speed of light.
>
> No, there is not. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is true.
>
> > But, what must we understand
> > by speed of gravity?. Aetherists often claim that gravity
> > are longitudinal waves, whereas light are transverse
> > waves through the aether.
>
> Why even mention this? Ether has been ruled out as a viable concept
> EVERY SINGLE TIME for the last hundred and thirty years. Nobody but
> cranks in the fringe take ether seriously anymore.
>
What is spacetime but a kind of ether?
> > We know that in any medium
> > longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves.
>
> Only if the medium is anisotropic. Where are the calculations in which
> you actually derive the things you write?
>
Wrong. Anisotropy is not a requirement for the speed of longitudinal
waves were higher than the speed of transverse ones. In isotropic
and homogenous medium that difference in speed holds too.
> > We can find that longitudinal speed, c_L, and transverse
> > c_S, in a medium, with Young's modules E, Poison's ratio
> > v and mass density d_0, are
>
> > c_L^2 = (E/d_0(1+v))(1-v)/(1-2v)
> > c_S^2 = (E/d_0(1+v))(1/2)
>
> Stating the answer without derivation isn't acceptable anywhere, why
> do you think we will accept what you write down without
> rationalization?
>
I do not expect you will accept anything coming from me :-)
I know I've introduced some conjetures on my equations, without
rationalization. For example, to define the scale parameter
R = R_h (Hubble radius) is hand-waving. Actually that scale
parameter could be tuned to be exactly a Schwarzschild radius,
R = 2 GM/c^2
and the quadratic form c_L^2 + c_S^2 = c^2 (R/l_p)^2, would read
c_L^2 + c_S^2 = (2 GM/c l_p)^2,
Knowing that l_p = sqrt(h_bar G/c^3), it would get
c_L^2 + c_S^2 = 4 c G M^2/h_bar
But, a Planck mass is defined as m_p = sqr(h_bar c/G), so
c_L^2 + c_S^2 = 4 c^2 (M / m_p)^2
And, in a place where c_S = c, it would yield
c_L^2 + c^2 = 4 c^2 (M / m_p)^2,
c_L^2 = c^2 ( 4(M / m_p)^2 - 1),
c_L = c sqrt ( 4(M / m_p)^2 - 1).
If that value c_S = c is measured locally here on the Earth,
and M is the mass of the Sun, you can easily compute the
speed of gravity the Sun induces here on Earth. For practical
purposes, we can approximate that c_L to read
c_L = 2c (M / m_p).
Sue...
OK... at a glance, I'll give ya that.
> The electromagnetic event S_e
> is delayed and the gravitational event is advanced, [...]
What is your basis for that?
Hopefully not a null solution of Maxwell's equations:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html
Before you spend too much time trying to make that curve
fit, read my initial response about the reaction force.
The pushed car is *instantly* indistinguishable from
a brick wall. There is no Young's modulus that will
pull that out of Hubble-scale distances.
Hint:
Matter curves space-time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor#In_general_relativity
Sue...
sa...@space.unibe.ch
> There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
> the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
> than the speed of light. But, what must we understand
> by speed of gravity?. Aetherists often claim that gravity
> are longitudinal waves, whereas light are transverse
> waves through the aether.
I'm not sure I follow. Gravity are [sic] longitudinal waves??
Gravity is a force.. are you talking about gravitational waves?
Or are you saying that graviational forces are somehow carried out by
absorption and emission of some waves? That seems unlikely
considering gravitational lensing and other effects.
> We know that in any medium
> longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves.
Not "in any medium", but in a medium defined with elasticity/solid
stress parameters E,G,v and K you use below. Right?
Eric Gisse
> On 6 mar, 23:02, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:41 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
> > > the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
> > > than the speed of light.
>
> > No, there is not. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is true.
>
> > > But, what must we understand
> > > by speed of gravity?. Aetherists often claim that gravity
> > > are longitudinal waves, whereas light are transverse
> > > waves through the aether.
>
> > Why even mention this? Ether has been ruled out as a viable concept
> > EVERY SINGLE TIME for the last hundred and thirty years. Nobody but
> > cranks in the fringe take ether seriously anymore.
>
> What is spacetime but a kind of ether?
Spacetime in no way resembles ether. Learn what both the concepts
represent.
>
> > > We know that in any medium
> > > longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves.
>
> > Only if the medium is anisotropic. Where are the calculations in which
> > you actually derive the things you write?
>
> Wrong. Anisotropy is not a requirement for the speed of longitudinal
> waves were higher than the speed of transverse ones. In isotropic
> and homogenous medium that difference in speed holds too.
Show me the derivation.
[snip spew]
You are not listening. You write down a bunch of equations but you
don't justify or derive any of them.
Tom Roberts
> There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
> the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
> than the speed of light.
Sure. But this is MODEL DEPENDENT. In the model of Newtonian
gravitation, gravity propagates INSTANTLY (i.e. with infinite speed). In
the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but changes in
gravity propagate with speed c. The GR model agrees with all these
"evidences", and indeed it accounts MUCH more accurately than the
Newtonian model for measurements in the solar system (including the
perihelions of Mercury and other planets, the Shapiro time delay, the
bending of EM radiation by the sun, the operation of the GPS, the frame
dragging measured by the LAGEOS satellites, etc.).
Bottom line: it is MUCH better to discuss models and their agreement
with experiments than to discuss MODEl-DEPENDENT quantities like "speed
of gravity". That is, discuss science (experiments) rather than
engineering (measurements), and avoid unacknowledged puns (such as
model-dependent meanings of words that are treated as if they had a
single meaning) like "speed of gravity".
> [... further nonsense based on unrealistic models ("aetherists")...]
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
> Albertito wrote:
>> There are evidences showing that in Solar system, the speed of gravity
>> is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.
>
> Sure. But this is MODEL DEPENDENT. In the model of Newtonian
> gravitation, gravity propagates INSTANTLY (i.e. with infinite speed).
Being a AAAD theory, nothing propagates in Newtonian gravitation.
speaking about infinite speed is misleading also. Infinite speed of what?
> In
> the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all,
Gravitational waves travel at c like changes in spacetime geometry do.
> but changes in
> gravity propagate with speed c. The GR model agrees with all these
> "evidences", and indeed it accounts MUCH more accurately than the
> Newtonian model for measurements in the solar system (including the
> perihelions of Mercury and other planets, the Shapiro time delay, the
> bending of EM radiation by the sun, the operation of the GPS, the frame
> dragging measured by the LAGEOS satellites, etc.).
GR gives better results (i would not say "MUCH") for purely relativistic
effects. Since NG is non-relativistic, this is not kind of surprising.
The problem with NG is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit. GR
literature is incorrect at this point.
Moreover, NG is free from several difficulties affecting GR: energy
problem, systems of reference problems, unphysical boundaries,
quantization, N-body theory...
--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:44:38 +0000:
>> In the model of Newtonian
>> gravitation, gravity propagates INSTANTLY (i.e. with infinite speed).
>
> Being a AAAD theory, nothing propagates in Newtonian gravitation.
> speaking about infinite speed is misleading also. Infinite speed of what?
Infinite speed of gravity, of course. You are just saying the same thing
using different words (AAAD == infinite speed of propagation of influence).
>> In
>> the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all,
>
> Gravitational waves travel at c like changes in spacetime geometry do.
Of course -- gravitational waves _ARE_ changes in spacetime geometry.
>> The GR model agrees with all these
>> "evidences", and indeed it accounts MUCH more accurately than the
>> Newtonian model for measurements in the solar system (including the
>> perihelions of Mercury and other planets, the Shapiro time delay, the
>> bending of EM radiation by the sun, the operation of the GPS, the frame
>> dragging measured by the LAGEOS satellites, etc.).
>
> GR gives better results (i would not say "MUCH") for purely relativistic
> effects. Since NG is non-relativistic, this is not kind of surprising.
Hmmm. If you mean NG is accurate in the non-relativistic regime, then
sure. But such a statement carries no information. And the usual meaning
of "relativistic effects" does not apply to any of the measurements I
mentioned. In any case, my "MUCH" is certainly justified -- NG fails to
predict ANY of them anywhere close to correctly (why else do you suppose
I chose them?):
Measurement NG GR
---------------------- ----------- ---------
Perih. of Mercury et al zero correct
Shapiro time delay zero * correct
Bending of EM radiation zero * correct
operation of GPS hopeless correct
frame dragging zero correct
Where "correct" means within the appropriate experimental resolution.
* For NG applied to EM waves, I use the fact that
such waves are massless in making the NG prediction.
> The problem with NG is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit. GR
> literature is incorrect at this point.
If this is not a typo it makes no sense. If it is a typo, writing "NG"
when you meant "GR", then you are wrong -- there is nothing "inadequate"
about the Newtonian limit of GR.
> Moreover, NG is free from several difficulties affecting GR: energy
> problem, systems of reference problems, unphysical boundaries,
> quantization, N-body theory...
Some of those "difficulties" are merely complications that are
inescapable: energy problem, systems of reference problems. Some are (as
best I can tell) figments of your imagination: unphysical boundaries,
N-body problem. Yes, quantization is a problem for GR and severely
limits its domain of applicability, but NG has much worse problems
(disagreement with numerous experiments within its domain of applicability).
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:44:38 +0000:
>>> In the model of Newtonian
>>> gravitation, gravity propagates INSTANTLY (i.e. with infinite speed).
>>
>> Being a AAAD theory, nothing propagates in Newtonian gravitation.
>> speaking about infinite speed is misleading also. Infinite speed of
>> what?
>
> Infinite speed of gravity, of course.
Gravity in AAAD has not a property called "speed", of course.
> You are just saying the same thing
> using different words (AAAD == infinite speed of propagation of
> influence).
No, i am just saying the contrary: in AAAD nothing propagates including
"influences".
You would not confound AAAD models with field-metric models.
>>> In
>>> the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all,
>>
>> Gravitational waves travel at c like changes in spacetime geometry do.
>
> Of course -- gravitational waves _ARE_ changes in spacetime geometry.
Of course "like... do" could be emphasized as "_LIKE_... _DO_".
>> GR gives better results (i would not say "MUCH") for purely
>> relativistic effects. Since NG is non-relativistic, this is not kind of
>> surprising.
>
> Hmmm. If you mean NG is accurate in the non-relativistic regime, then
> sure. But such a statement carries no information.
Hmmm. Crizing a non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic
regimes is very old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.
> And the usual meaning
> of "relativistic effects" does not apply to any of the measurements I
> mentioned.
Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects, if
one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.
"Relativistic effects" had certain restricted meaning in 1908 because
then only SR was known...
> In any case, my "MUCH" is certainly justified -- NG fails to
> predict ANY of them anywhere close to correctly (why else do you suppose
> I chose them?):
As explained before NG does not exactly fail to explain relativistic
effects. That is wrong claim. NG does not apply to relativistic phenomena
because is a non-relativistic theory.
Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand SCIENCE.
But that is another point...
> Measurement NG GR ----------------------
> ----------- --------- Perih. of Mercury et al zero
> correct Shapiro time delay zero * correct Bending
> of EM radiation zero * correct operation of GPS
> hopeless correct frame dragging zero
> correct
>
> Where "correct" means within the appropriate experimental resolution.
>
> * For NG applied to EM waves, I use the fact that
> such waves are massless in making the NG prediction.
This table has been clearly done to confound readers.
Computes total values for entries making *sense* and try next ratio
NG value
_________________________________________
NG value + relativistic correction
You will find most of ratios are very small. Rest is so unfair as a table
comparing quantum gravity with GR.
>> The problem with NG is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit. GR
>> literature is incorrect at this point.
>
> If this is not a typo it makes no sense. If it is a typo, writing "NG"
Only a genious could see it is a typo, thanks by kindly correction!
"The problem with GR is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit."
> when you meant "GR", then you are wrong -- there is nothing "inadequate"
> about the Newtonian limit of GR.
You are wrong. The NG limit does not exist and the several Newtonian-like
limits tried on relativistic literature are not actually working (lacking
mathematical rigor, unphysical boundaries,...).
>> Moreover, NG is free from several difficulties affecting GR: energy
>> problem, systems of reference problems, unphysical boundaries,
>> quantization, N-body theory...
>
> Some of those "difficulties" are merely complications that are
> inescapable: energy problem, systems of reference problems.
They they are "inescapable" when you decide to introduces it on physics,
i.e. when you insist on a geometrical interpretation of gravity.
> Some are (as
> best I can tell) figments of your imagination: unphysical boundaries,
> N-body problem.
Those problems are well-known and studied on literature. Several
proposals are done to correct eliminate them.
Yes, you are not aware of them but as is known from sci.physics.research
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts. Feb 2008
> Yes, quantization is a problem for GR and severely
> limits its domain of applicability
But NG can be quantized without the further problems of GR!
Eric Gisse
<j...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
> Hmmm. Crizing a non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic
> regimes is very old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.
Yes, criticizing a theory because it fails to account for observation
is a pretty old tactic. Not surprising that a crank has a problem with
that concept.
[...]
[...]
>
> "The problem with GR is that lacks an adequate Newtonian limit."
Exercising that lying muscle again? Everyone involved knows you are
lying.
>
> > when you meant "GR", then you are wrong -- there is nothing "inadequate"
> > about the Newtonian limit of GR.
>
> You are wrong. The NG limit does not exist and the several Newtonian-like
> limits tried on relativistic literature are not actually working (lacking
> mathematical rigor, unphysical boundaries,...).
The Newtonian limit does exist - it does not matter whether you accept
or understand the presentation or not. The only complaint that is
remotely similar to being reasonable is that the conservation of the
stress-energy tensor is inconsistent with the first order nature of
the weak field limit, but even that has an acceptable resolution.
Maybe not to you, but you don't matter.
[snip]
>
> But NG can be quantized without the further problems of GR!
NEWTON IS WRONG, INEDUCABLE CRANK.
>
> --
> I applyhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Lady Chacha
> Not surprising that a Eric crank has a problem with that
> concept.
> Exercising that lying muscle again? Everyone involved knows Eric is
> lying.
> but Eric don't matter.
> NEWTON IS WRONG, INEDUCABLE CRANK.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
--
Dono is concubine Lady Chacha
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:11:31 +0000:
> Hmmm. Crizing a non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic
> regimes is very old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.
Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with experiments
is not "unfair" at all. This is supposed to be science, and YOU are the
one pushing NG.
>> And the usual meaning
>> of "relativistic effects" does not apply to any of the measurements I
>> mentioned.
>
> Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
> radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects, if
> one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.
Hmm. The usual meaning of "relativistic effects" is that they are
important only for speeds approaching c (SR) or very strong fields (GR).
None of the experiments I mentioned have either.
You seem to mean "relativistic effects" when the non-relativistic theory
fails. That's silly, and useless -- for good enough measurement
resolution the non-relativistic theory is completely useless. Several of
the experiments I mentioned have extraordinarily good resolutions, and
_that_ is why they are important.
> As explained before NG does not exactly fail to explain relativistic
> effects. That is wrong claim. NG does not apply to relativistic phenomena
> because is a non-relativistic theory.
There is no "relativistic phenomena" involved in ANY of the experiments
I mentioned, unless one uses your silly meaning.
> Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
> waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand SCIENCE.
Ok. I'm not the one pushing NG, you are. Note its "range of validity"
depends on one's measurement accuracy, and for good enough accuracy its
"range" is essentially empty. Certainly such accuracy is common today (a
$200 GPS receiver), and will be even more common in the future as
measurement techniques improve.
>> [my list of experiments, totally corrupted and now unreadable]
>
> This table has been clearly done to confound readers.
The "confounding" is all yours.
> Computes total values for entries making *sense* and try next ratio
> NG value
> _________________________________________
>
> NG value + relativistic correction
That is a very silly way to do this. And your denominator is outrageous
-- it should at least be "GR value".
Note, however, the CORRECT way to do this is to compare the theories via
these two ratios:
|NGvalue - Experiment| / sigma_experiment
|GRvalue - Experiment| / sigma_experiment
[sigma_experiment is the experimental resolution.]
When one does that, one finds that for EVERY ONE of the experiments I
mentioned the NGvalue is so different from the experimental value that
NG is soundly refuted; the GR value is quite reasonable for all of them.
> "Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
> --- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts. Feb 2008
I merely remark that neither Uncle Al nor you have ever responded to my
followup -- in the physics community it is quite common to consider
one's understanding of a subject to be measured by the ability to
explain it to a graduate student or postdoc not expert in the field. You
both fail that criterion, and instead rely on "dense spews of jargon
indistinguishable from nonsense" [Tom Roberts to Uncle Al, in the thread
you quoted].
> But NG can be quantized without the further problems of GR!
Whyever would that matter? -- who cares about a demonstrably incorrect
and soundly refuted theory like NG?
That's like claiming 2+2=5 can be generalized without the
"problems" of number theory.
Tom Roberts
luke...@space.unibe.ch
> On Mar 7, 2:16 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > What is spacetime but a kind of ether?
>
> Spacetime in no way resembles ether. Learn what both the concepts
> represent.
>
Like all words, each of these will represent a different concept for
all listeners. I'd like to take your advice and learn just what these
concepts represent.
In no way do they resemble one another?
How about the following ways:
1) they can both be used to describe something that in some way "fills
all space"
2) they both can be used as what is the medium for electromagnetic
radiation
3) they can both be described by spatial and temporal coordinates
4) when "empty", these terms can represent in some way a vacuum
5) we can speak of "curvature" of both things
6) they are both physics concepts emerging from our understanding of
electromagnetism
7) they both frequent this newsgroup
8) neither one can be directly physically "measured" (?)
Of course it wouldn't be fair to not list some obvious differences
1) spacetime a new term, ether an older word from when people didn't
know as much
2) spacetime can refer to descriptions of coordinates and
computational methodology (3+1 dimensions, transformations), aether
not so much
3) ether is in common parlance used as a description for an
information manifold, e.g. the EM spectrum or sending emails out to
the ether, spacetime not so much
Cheers -
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:11:31 +0000: Hmmm. Crizing a
>> non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic regimes is very
>> old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.
>
> Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with experiments
> is not "unfair" at all.
English may be not your natural language.
I said
Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with relativistic
experiments is "unfair" at all.
>> Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
>> radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects,
>> if one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.
>
> Hmm. The usual meaning of "relativistic effects" is that they are
> important only for speeds approaching c (SR) or very strong fields (GR).
> None of the experiments I mentioned have either.
Completely wrong. E.g. anomaly Mercury perihelion is explained by two
relativistic corrections.
But since you only look to "how" instead "why" you lack understanding.
>> Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
>> waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand
>> SCIENCE.
>
> Ok. I'm not the one pushing NG, you are.
One of your usual FALSE accusations tactics. Read i exactly said.
>>> [my list of experiments, totally corrupted and unreadable]
> When one does that, one finds that for EVERY ONE of the experiments I
> mentioned the NGvalue is so different from the experimental value that
> NG is soundly refuted; the GR value is quite reasonable for all of them.
No SERIOUS scientist would apply a theory outside its range of
applicability waiting meaningful answers. Tom, that is not how science
works.
And no HONEST scientist would use those answers to attack that theory he
DISLIKE/HATES. Science is a dialog with Nature Tom.
> in the physics community it is quite common to consider
> one's understanding of a subject to be measured by the ability to
In the physics community it is rather common to provide detailed replies
when one is sure the other can understand it. One aloso usually ignores
unfair queries That is because you received that reply in
sci.physics.research.
> Whyever would that matter? -- who cares about a demonstrably incorrect
> and soundly refuted theory like NG?
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts. Feb 2008
--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Eric Gisse
<j...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:26:21 +0000:
>
> > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> >> Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:11:31 +0000: Hmmm. Crizing a
> >> non-relativistic theory because fails on relativistic regimes is very
> >> old relativistic tactic but is clearly unfair.
>
> > Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with experiments
> > is not "unfair" at all.
>
> English may be not your natural language.
>
> I said
>
> Criticizing a non-relativistic theory for disagreeing with relativistic
> experiments is "unfair" at all.
Why? If a theory fails to account for experiment, it is a fault of the
theory.
>
> >> Sure perihelions for Mercury, the Shapiro time delay, bending of EM
> >> radiation by the sun, and GPS operation contain relativistic effects,
> >> if one takes the general meaning not just a kinematic meaning.
>
> > Hmm. The usual meaning of "relativistic effects" is that they are
> > important only for speeds approaching c (SR) or very strong fields (GR).
> > None of the experiments I mentioned have either.
>
> Completely wrong. E.g. anomaly Mercury perihelion is explained by two
> relativistic corrections.
A new and interesting way of misunderstanding relativity. Do explain
why you think there are two corrections.
>
> But since you only look to "how" instead "why" you lack understanding.
>
> >> Nobody would imagine one can apply NG *outside* its range of validity
> >> waiting adequate answer, unless that person does not understand
> >> SCIENCE.
>
> > Ok. I'm not the one pushing NG, you are.
>
> One of your usual FALSE accusations tactics. Read i exactly said.
>
> >>> [my list of experiments, totally corrupted and unreadable]
> > When one does that, one finds that for EVERY ONE of the experiments I
> > mentioned the NGvalue is so different from the experimental value that
> > NG is soundly refuted; the GR value is quite reasonable for all of them.
>
> No SERIOUS scientist would apply a theory outside its range of
> applicability waiting meaningful answers. Tom, that is not how science
> works.
>
> And no HONEST scientist would use those answers to attack that theory he
> DISLIKE/HATES. Science is a dialog with Nature Tom.
...and no SERIOUS or HONEST scientist would use domains of application
as a shield to protect it against the observational fact that it is
wrong.
Albertito
Look at these equations,
c_L^2 = (2G/d_0)(1-v)/(1-2v)
c_S^2 = G/d_0
c_L is longitudinal speed
c_S is transverse speed,
d_0 is mass density,
G is G is shear modulus, and
v is Poison's ratio
For an isotropic medium, the Poison's ratio is the same
in any direction. Therefore, c_L = c_S only in the case
v = 0. This case can only occurs for a medium
which were perfectly compressible. So, it is clear
that the factor (1-v)/(1-2v) can only be greater or
equal to 1, yieding always c_L >= c_S.
Albertito
Sorry, I made a mistake, I meant c_L = c_S can only occur
in the case (1-v)/(1-2v) = 1/2. But, that case can't occur for
any real value of v.
Eric Gisse
You are, once again, missing the point. I want a derivation of these
equations from first principles.
Albertito
From first principles? You're asking too much!
Even Einstein would be unable to derive the
speed of light from first principles!
You are kidding, aren't you? No, you do not want that.
You only want harassing. Although in this thread I realize
you are clueless, as usual. You are who is missing
the point here.
Eric Gisse
Only if your skill set isn't up to the task, which it appears to be.
What I ask of you would be one problem out of a larger classical
mechanics problem set. You don't have to go through it all, just write
down the important parts.
> Even Einstein would be unable to derive the
> speed of light from first principles!
I'm asking you to derive or show references for your primary working
equations because I believe they can not be simultaneously true in an
isotropic medium, much less be a part of your larger agenda of
disproving SR.
Plus, Einstein would be able to do what you say he couldn't. Deriving
the speed of propagation for a medium is a homework exercise in both
classical E&M and mechanics.
>
> You are kidding, aren't you? No, you do not want that.
> You only want harassing. Although in this thread I realize
> you are clueless, as usual. You are who is missing
> the point here.
I'm making some old Pentium 3 systems into cluster compute nodes. They
can't PXE, so I have to boot off a CD and do it the slow way. I'm
going to be here for a few hours while this churns, so I have nothing
better to do.
Your whole point is that - somehow, though you can't explain how - a
medium which not only supports transverse and longitudinal waves
manages to have speeds of propagation that are different despite being
isotropic. Then somehow - I have no idea how you do - you make the
assertion that this not only applies to the speed of gravity, which
you haven't justified, but that it applies to the speed of light as
well.
Even if your assertions about speeds of propagation were true [they
aren't], you have in no way substantiated the links you are making.
Science isn't about increasingly bold assertions - no matter how
absurd it looks to an outsider.
Lady Chacha
> Why?
because http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
> "Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
> --- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts. Feb 2008
>
Eric is http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
Tom Van Flandern
> [Roberts]: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
> changes in gravity propagate with speed c.
That is directly in contradiction to experiment and observations. Binary
pulsars are an obvious example, as I demonstrated (without any dissent) in
Reference B below. But even the simplest orbit computation program can show
the same thing. If you use light-time-retarded positions of bodies to
compute orbits, the computed orbits are open spirals, in contradiction to
observations.
But you've obviously never done the experiment yourself, or have used
only propagation delays in the potential field, which are irrelevant for
orbit computation. See Reference (C).
There is no way known to any person on this planet to avoid the
conclusion that gravitational force propagates >> c without invoking some
kind of physical miracle, such as an effect without a cause or the creation
of new momentum out of nothingness. Mathematical relativists don't seem
bothered by such miracles. Meanwhile, real world physicists know they must
not invoke miracles in their theories because that makes them
non-falsifiable, and therefore unscientific. [See Reference E.]
> [Roberts]: The GR model agrees with all these "evidences", and indeed it
> accounts MUCH more accurately than the Newtonian model for measurements in
> the solar system (including the perihelia of Mercury and other planets,
> the Shapiro time delay, the bending of EM radiation by the sun, the
> operation of the GPS, the frame dragging measured by the LAGEOS
> satellites, etc.).
True but irrelevant because GR is a field theory and describes only the
field. The gravitational potential field causes all the effects on your
list. But it does not cause ordinary orbital motion. Nor do the field
equations describe ordinary orbital motion. To get that, one must take a
gradient of the potential (or its equivalent) to get what you like to call
an "approximation" theory. In simple, classical physics lingo, that process
develops an expression for the 3-space (Euclidean) acceleration of bodies in
coordinate time, which gives the orbital motion, which is then compared
against astronomical observations made in Euclidean 3-space using proper
time clocks.
Try computing an orbit with GR just once in any system with at least two
significant masses, and you will discover that you cannot do it without
adopting near-infinite gravitational force propagation speed between bodies
applying forces to one another. Then the dawn will come, and you will
finally understand what the "speed of gravity" issue is about.
> [Roberts]: it is MUCH better to discuss models and their agreement with
> experiments than to discuss MODEL-DEPENDENT quantities like "speed of
> gravity".
The "speed of gravity" is not a model-dependent concept except at the
level of parts per 100 million, any more than "perihelion motion" is
model-dependent. Its simple meaning is: When a source mass accelerates, the
speed of gravity is the ratio of the distance of a target body to the time
elapsed before the target body responds. And every known experiment measures
that elapsed interval to be zero within experimental error, making the speed
of gravity >> c and approximately infinite.
Relativists like to redefine the concept to refer to the speed of
changes in the gravitational potential field, which everyone agrees is c.
But that refers to gravitational waves, and avoids the issue of the
propagation speed of gravitational force for determining the ordinary
orbital motion of two masses around a common center of mass. One must either
give up the causal link to a source mass, or agree that the force propagates
from the source mass to the target body faster than c.
> Tom Van Flandern does not understand the real issues, and uses egregious
> PUNs to promulgate his claims. In particular, what he calls "speed" is not
> what anybody else would call "speed". The experiments he cites do NOT
> measure speed (usual meaning), and their actual measurements are fully
> consistent with GR, in which nothing propagates faster than c.
Quit making up nonsense. The published papers are in references (A),
(B), (C), and (D) below. "Speed" has its unambiguous, classical meaning in
all of them, as the editors, reviewers, and readers have all understood.
Where are your publications on the subject?
>> [Juan]: For calculations of orbits we have to use the actual positions of
>> bodies and not the perceived locations.
> [Roberts]: True in Newtonian mechanics; irrelevant in GR.
The comparison of theory with observations is not relevant? How absurd!
You are disconnected from reality.
References:
** (A) "Possible new properties of gravity", Astrophys.&SpaceSci.
244:249-261 (1996);
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/possiblenewpropertiesofgravity.asp
** (B) "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say", Phys.Lett.A
250:1-11 (1998); http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
** (C) "Reply to comments on 'The speed of gravity'", Phys.Lett.A
262:261-263 (1999).
** (D) "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational,
Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", T. Van Flandern and J.P.
Vigier, Found.Phys. 32:1031-1068 (2002); preprint under title "The speed of
gravity - Repeal of the speed limit" at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp
** (E) "Physics has its principles", in Gravitation, Electromagnetism and
Cosmology, K. Rudnicki, ed., C. Roy Keys Inc., Montreal, 87-101 (2001);
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org
Koobee Wublee
> Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> > [Roberts]: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
> > changes in gravity propagate with speed c.
>
> That is directly in contradiction to experiment and observations. Binary
> pulsars are an obvious example, as I demonstrated (without any dissent) in
> Reference B below. But even the simplest orbit computation program can show
> the same thing. If you use light-time-retarded positions of bodies to
> compute orbits, the computed orbits are open spirals, in contradiction to
> observations.
>
> But you've obviously never done the experiment yourself, or have used
> only propagation delays in the potential field, which are irrelevant for
> orbit computation. See Reference (C).
>
> There is no way known to any person on this planet to avoid the
> conclusion that gravitational force propagates >> c without invoking some
> kind of physical miracle, such as an effect without a cause or the creation
> of new momentum out of nothingness. Mathematical relativists don't seem
> bothered by such miracles. Meanwhile, real world physicists know they must
> not invoke miracles in their theories because that makes them
> non-falsifiable, and therefore unscientific. [See Reference E.]
While Professor Roberts is struggling to understand how a binary
system still have to account for gravitational field varying with
time, Professor Carlip addressed your claim that the speed of gravity
being several billion times the speed of light in the following
article. I have seen no public refutation to his work.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
The aberration can also be simply explained by the good old Galilean
transformation. Any apparent distance must be corrected by the
Galilean transform. In this paper, Professor Carlip is suggesting the
gravitational distance between the stars must be corrected by this
aberration. In doing so, it will cause a first-order cancellation on
the issue of the speed of gravity. The argument between you and him
centers around if the aberration must be corrected. Do you have any
fundamental argument to suggest that the aberration should not be
corrected in this case?
Juan R.
> Professor Carlip addressed your claim that the speed of gravity being
> several billion times the speed of light in the following article. I
> have seen no public refutation to his work.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
As pointed several times in this newsgroup Carlip is wrong about
interactions.
Carlip paper received a formal reply by van Flandern on:
Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic,
and Quantum Field Interactions. 2002: Found. Phys. 32, 1031. Van
Flandern, T; Vigier, J.P.
First part of Carlip paper is a 'review' about electromagnetism. Carlip
mistaken claims about retarded electromagnetic interactions were
corrected in a number of papers. See for instance,
Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in classical electrodynamics. 1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A
14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev, Stoyan J.
Carlip mistakes about electromagnetic fields and nonrelativistic limit of
interactions have been also corrected in other published works.
In all papers, the conclusions are that electromagnetic interactions are
not retarded by c.
Actually i am finishing a draft on foundational issues of Chubykalo
dualism, the work includes an extension of dualism to gravitational
interactions.
The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip paper
(section on gravitation) are highlighted.
Of course, the model of retarded interactions of GR arises as a well
defined limit but it is not a fundamental model of interactions but one
of limited aplicability.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
> The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
> retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip paper
> (section on gravitation) are highlighted.
I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as one
would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
interactions are not retarded indeed).
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:51:36 -0700:
>
> > Professor Carlip addressed your claim that the speed of gravity being
> > several billion times the speed of light in the following article. I
> > have seen no public refutation to his work.
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
>
> As pointed several times in this newsgroup Carlip is wrong about
> interactions.
>
> Carlip paper received a formal reply by van Flandern on:
>
> Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic,
> and Quantum Field Interactions. 2002: Found. Phys. 32, 1031. Van
> Flandern, T; Vigier, J.P.
Yes, I found it in his website now. So, after Professor turned Dr.
Van Flandern's claim of infinite speed of gravity on its head, Dr. Van
Flandern reversed the favor by turning Professor Carlip's claim in
aberration of gravity on its very own head. It looks like Professor
Carlip has somehow ignored the speed of one star in his aberration
consideration. Has Professor Carlip offered any graceful retreat from
that mistake?
Ken S. Tucker
I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being
awkward, but I find the "speed of gravity"
to be "c", by independant means.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Tom Roberts
discussed, here is the bottom line:
Scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things. None of
the experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR -- THAT is what is
important, not the fact that he can use other models to interpret
them as measuring "speed of gravity".
Tom Van Flandern wrote:
> Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> [Roberts]: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
>> changes in gravity propagate with speed c.
>
> That is directly in contradiction to experiment and observations.
No, it is not. But to understand this one must actually use GR, which
you quite clearly do not understand (more on this below).
> Binary pulsars are an obvious example, as I demonstrated (without any
> dissent) in Reference B below.
To claim you demonstrated it is wrong, and to claim "without dissent" is
a bald-faced lie. You even published a comment on the major dissenting
paper.
> But even the simplest orbit computation
> program can show the same thing. If you use light-time-retarded
> positions of bodies to compute orbits, the computed orbits are open
> spirals, in contradiction to observations.
How silly can you get???? The subject here is GR and its relation to
experiments. To address that you must use GR, and not whatever it is you
have cobbled together with "light-time-retarded positions".
I repeat: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
changes in gravity propagate with speed c. You have said NOTHING that
addresses this, much less refutes it as you claim.
> There is no way known to any person on this planet to avoid the
> conclusion that gravitational force propagates >> c without invoking
> some kind of physical miracle, such as an effect without a cause or the
> creation of new momentum out of nothingness.
That a GROSS overstatement. What you clearly mean is "Tom Van Flandern
does not know how to do this". And it's also clear that your lack of
knowledge is at fault, as the current primary theory of gravitation does
PRECISELY this.
To do this, apply GR. Or more likely, the appropriate approximation to
GR. Yes, in that approximations the equations behave AS IF
"gravitational force propagates >> c", but in the theory itself NOTHING
propagates faster than c. You confuse an artifact of an approximation
with an attribute of the theory.
>> [Roberts]: The GR model agrees with all these "evidences", and indeed
>> it accounts MUCH more accurately than the Newtonian model for
>> measurements in the solar system (including the perihelia of Mercury
>> and other planets, the Shapiro time delay, the bending of EM radiation
>> by the sun, the operation of the GPS, the frame dragging measured by
>> the LAGEOS satellites, etc.).
>
> True but irrelevant because GR is a field theory and describes only
> the field.
Then how is it that GR is applied to all those experiments and
measurements? Clearly GR describes more than the "field" -- it describes
THOSE EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS. After all, that is the goal of
science: to develop theories that accurately describe the experiments,
and to test them with additional experiments.
I repeat: you need to learn what GR actually is. Your guesses are just
plain wrong.
> The gravitational potential field causes all the effects on
> your list.
You state that like a God-given "truth". In fact, it is a
MODEL-DEPENDENT statement. Yes, certain models of "gravitational
potential field" can reproduce the experiments and measurements as well
as GR can do so. To claim that is the "cause" of those effects is pure
sophistry.
> Nor do the
> field equations describe ordinary orbital motion.
You need to LEARN what GR actually is. Yes indeed, the field equation of
GR does describe "ordinary orbital motions". For instance, any GR
textbook will derive the equations of orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime.
HINT: the field equation is G=T; the covariant divergence of
G is identically 0, and the equation obtained from setting
the covariant divergence of T to zero does indeed yield
the equations of motion. When T describes objects orbiting,
those equations describe the orbits. Yes, nobody knows
how to solve those equations analytically, but various
approximations are applicable, and numerical solutions have
been performed; both are in excellent agreement with
observations.
> one must
> take a gradient of the potential (or its equivalent) to get what you
> like to call an "approximation" theory.
The approximation is MUCH more involved than that. I repeat: you REALLY
need to learn what GR actually is, and how it is applied -- your guesses
are just plain wrong.
> Try computing an orbit with GR just once in any system with at least
> two significant masses, and you will discover that you cannot do it
> without adopting near-infinite gravitational force propagation speed
> between bodies applying forces to one another.
Again, your knowledge of GR is completely lacking. One does not "adopt"
ANYTHING. What one does is make approximations to the equations of GR,
and use them. One need make no assumption at all about "speed of
propagation" of gravitational force -- it comes out of the approximation
technique; yes, for the most applicable approximations it is
"near-infinite".
> Then the dawn will come,
> and you will finally understand what the "speed of gravity" issue is about.
The "speed of gravity issue" you discuss is merely about the meanings of
words. You use a non-standard meaning of "speed". <shrug>
Speed is measured by using two synchronized clocks to measure
the travel time along a path measured with standard rulers at
rest in the same frame the clocks are synchronized in. Which of
the experiments you reference have done that? -- NONE. Most
people will accept a measurement of speed that can be related
in a model-independent way to that definition; how many can
do that? -- NONE. The experiments you cite cannot be related
to "propagation speed" in any model independent way. In
particular, you must assume a central force to do it, and
models like GR, which have no such central force, are explicit
counterexamples to your claims. <shrug>
>> [Roberts]: it is MUCH better to discuss models and their agreement
>> with experiments than to discuss MODEL-DEPENDENT quantities like
>> "speed of gravity".
>
> The "speed of gravity" is not a model-dependent concept except at the
> level of parts per 100 million, any more than "perihelion motion" is
> model-dependent.
NONSENSE. None of the experiments you cite actually measure any speed
(see above). And to relate their measurements to speed requires EXPLICIT
model dependence. GR does not fit that model, and does explain those
measurements without any "propagation of gravity", at any "speed".
What _IS_ model independent are the actual MEASUREMENTS. Those, of
course, are not measurements of any type of speed, they are measurements
of the direction of gravitational force (etc.). GR can reproduce those
MEASUREMENTS, and is a model in which there is no "speed of gravity". So
it is an explicit counterexample to your claims.
As I have said before: scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure
things. None of the experiments you cite refute GR -- THAT is what is
important, not the fact that you can use other models to interpret them
as measuring "speed of gravity".
> Its simple meaning is: When a source mass accelerates,
> the speed of gravity is the ratio of the distance of a target body to
> the time elapsed before the target body responds. And every known
> experiment measures that elapsed interval to be zero within experimental
> error, making the speed of gravity >> c and approximately infinite.
I repeat: GR can explain such measurements, and in GR nothing propagates
faster than c. Your claims are all based on the assumption that the
gravitational force "propagates" directly and centrally from the source
mass -- in GR that is not true. In the appropriate approximation to GR
the effect of gravity here from that source mass over there depends not
only on its position at the retarded time, but also on its velocity and
acceleration at the retarded time; these components conspire to make the
gravitational force here and now point APPROXIMATELY to where the source
mass is located at the non-retarded time (and the approximation is far
better than experimental resolutions). You claim that is "approximately
infinite propagation speed", but it in this approximation to GR it isn't
-- it is propagation at c from the retarded position, but the force is
not central.
This is not happenstance -- without it GR would never have been accepted
as a theory of gravitation. I repeat: you REALLY need to learn what GR
actually is.
> Relativists like to redefine the concept to refer to the speed of
> changes in the gravitational potential field, which everyone agrees is
> c. But that refers to gravitational waves, and avoids the issue of the
> propagation speed of gravitational force for determining the ordinary
> orbital motion of two masses around a common center of mass. One must
> either give up the causal link to a source mass, or agree that the force
> propagates from the source mass to the target body faster than c.
Not true -- there is a third possibility, the one the usual
approximation to GR uses: propagation is at c, but the force at distant
locations depends on position, velocity, and acceleration of the source
mass. They combine to make the gravitational force not be central, and
to point approximately to where the source mass is located at the time
of observation (and for many cases the approximation is excellent).
That, of course, is an APPROXIMATION. In GR itself, there is no "causal
link" to a "source mass" -- for the case of two masses orbiting each
other, they BOTH contribute to the geometry, and they BOTH respond to
the geometry in their motions. The equations are NON-LINEAR and there
can be no possible separation into "source mass" and "acted-upon mass",
there is just BOTH masses and the geometry.
>> Tom Van Flandern does not understand the real issues, and uses
>> egregious PUNs to promulgate his claims. In particular, what he calls
>> "speed" is not what anybody else would call "speed". The experiments
>> he cites do NOT measure speed (usual meaning), and their actual
>> measurements are fully consistent with GR, in which nothing propagates
>> faster than c.
>
> Quit making up nonsense. The published papers are in references (A),
> (B), (C), and (D) below. "Speed" has its unambiguous, classical meaning
> in all of them, as the editors, reviewers, and readers have all understood.
In which of those experiments were two synchronized clocks used? -- NONE
In which of those experiments was ANY sort of speed actually MEASURED?
--NONE
In which of those experiments can the actual measurements be related to
speed in a model-independent way? -- NONE
And finally: which of those experiments refute GR (in which nothing
propagates faster than c)? -- NONE
This has all been said before, in the pages of Physics Letters A, and
around here. You seem utterly unable to learn about GR. Or about the
common meanings of words.
Regardless of how you may personally feel about it, GR is the mainstream
theory of gravitation today. It is ridiculous that you attempt to write
about gravity without understanding the first thing about GR. And it's
even sillier that you attempt to "describe" what GR says or how it applies.
Bottom line: scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things.
None of the experiments you cite refute GR -- THAT is what is important,
not the fact that you can use other models to interpret them as
measuring "speed of gravity".
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
electromagnetism cannot be "c".
Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.
In my present work i extend their work to gravity and the conclusion is
the same: the speed of gravity cannot be "c".
The model of interactions being retarded by c arises as an approximated
model of interactions, valid only in the field/metric limit.
A great advantage of the new models of interactions is that they
eliminate all traditional problems of the field/metric models: self-
action, energy, nonrelativistic limits, many-body effects...
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
Carlip is at this newsgroup now, why do not ask him directly?
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_HZIj.701$Gq...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
| For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has been
| discussed, here is the bottom line:
|
| Scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things.
Engineers BUILD things, you fuckin' cretin.
Randy Poe
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:
>
> >> > The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
> >> > retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip paper
> >> > (section on gravitation) are highlighted.
>
> >> I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as one
> >> would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
> >> interactions are not retarded indeed).
>
> >> --http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
>
> > I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
> > "speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
> Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
> electromagnetism cannot be "c".
And yet in actual measurements of transit time over
measured distance, it is found to be c.
How do you reconcile the actual measurement with
these "proofs" that Nature can't be doing what
Nature is doing?
- Randy
Ken S. Tucker
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:
> > On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:
>
> >> > The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
> >> > retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip paper
> >> > (section on gravitation) are highlighted.
>
> >> I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as one
> >> would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
> >> interactions are not retarded indeed).
>
> >> --http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
>
> > I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
> > "speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
> Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
> electromagnetism cannot be "c".
Is that paper available online?
(who are the authors?)
> Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.
I know the principles of radio transmission
and RADAR, and the EM speed "c" made me alot
of money. I used to install TV rotators to
eliminate the phenomena known as ghosting.
This is apart from relativity.
> In my present work i extend their work to gravity and the conclusion is
> the same: the speed of gravity cannot be "c".
I've posted on the explanation of speed of
gravity being "c", if you're interested I'll
repost it. It's *fairly* straightforward in
GR, if anything can be :-).
> The model of interactions being retarded by c arises as an approximated
> model of interactions, valid only in the field/metric limit.
>
> A great advantage of the new models of interactions is that they
> eliminate all traditional problems of the field/metric models: self-
> action, energy, nonrelativistic limits, many-body effects...
I suppose a model using *near instanteous*
action is useful at a primitive level.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2d06ecdb-74d4-4549...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
I'm pleased to note you've discovered that at last.
Collect one brownie point.
Your crank fellow confessed troll, Phuckwit Duck, says it's one
second per second, he has a ruler that measures distance in seconds.
Now, what is it when the measured distance is changing as a function of
time?
Koobee Wublee
> For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has been
> discussed, here is the bottom line:
>
> Scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things. None of
> the experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR -- THAT is what is
> important, not the fact that he can use other models to interpret
> them as measuring "speed of gravity".
Physicists come up with conjectures --- mostly nonsense. Both SR and
GR are such nonsensical conjectures. They do not make any
mathematical sense applying to the actual world. The validity of
these conjectures can only be determined through the mystic nature.
<shrug>
** SR is rendered nonsense through the twin's paradox. Only through
these several flavors of mystic resolutions where one contradicts
another, that the paradox can be resolved.
** GR is built on top of more mystical mathematics. Physicists are
able to play shaman by turning an ordinary matrix into a tensor just
saying 'abracadabra'.
> > Binary pulsars are an obvious example, as I demonstrated (without any
> > dissent) in Reference B below.
>
> To claim you demonstrated it is wrong, and to claim "without dissent" is
> a bald-faced lie. You even published a comment on the major dissenting
> paper.
With the mysticism in aberration of gravitational effect fails
miserably, the anomaly in the orbit of a binary system can be
interpreted that the propagating speed of gravitational effect is much
higher than committee-accepted. This is scientific discussion not a
sermon. <shrug>
> No, it is not. But to understand this one must actually use GR, which
> you quite clearly do not understand (more on this below).
>
> > But even the simplest orbit computation
> > program can show the same thing. If you use light-time-retarded
> > positions of bodies to compute orbits, the computed orbits are open
> > spirals, in contradiction to observations.
>
> How silly can you get???? The subject here is GR and its relation to
> experiments. To address that you must use GR, and not whatever it is you
> have cobbled together with "light-time-retarded positions".
>
> I repeat: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
> changes in gravity propagate with speed c. You have said NOTHING that
> addresses this, much less refutes it as you claim.
So, through your own interpretation of GR, you do not allow gravity to
propagate. What you are saying is the-speed-of-gravity-is-infinite in
disguise.
> > Nor do the
> > field equations describe ordinary orbital motion.
>
> You need to LEARN what GR actually is. Yes indeed, the field equation of
> GR does describe "ordinary orbital motions".
You are still making the same mistake again. You are confusing the
Einstein field equations with geodesic equations. These two sets of
equations are independent from each other.
> For instance, any GR
> textbook will derive the equations of orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime.
Yes, you need to read these GR textbooks more carefully, and
understanding the mathematics also helps. The solutions to the field
equations are the elements to the metric. That is all. It does not
tell you how an object is going to behave in motion.
> HINT: the field equation is G=T; the covariant divergence of
> G is identically 0, and the equation obtained from setting
> the covariant divergence of T to zero does indeed yield
> the equations of motion.
You don't know what you are talking about. Setting G to zero,
allowing you to solve for spacetime in free space. It is equivalent
to the Laplace equation or the Poisson equation setting to zero.
These equations do not tell you the geodesic motion.
> When T describes objects orbiting,
> those equations describe the orbits. Yes, nobody knows
> how to solve those equations analytically, but various
> approximations are applicable, and numerical solutions have
> been performed; both are in excellent agreement with
> observations.
Here is mysticism talking, on the contrary, yours truly have gone
through several metric derived from the field equations personally.
You can solve them.
> > one must
> > take a gradient of the potential (or its equivalent) to get what you
> > like to call an "approximation" theory.
>
> The approximation is MUCH more involved than that. I repeat: you REALLY
> need to learn what GR actually is, and how it is applied -- your guesses
> are just plain wrong.
To derive the geodesic equations, you must define your mathematical
model of motion. All motions obey the principle of stationary
action. In doing so, if you decide the only path through spacetime
from one fixed point to another is the one path that would allow you
to accumulate the least amount of spacetime, you have a set of
geodesic equations based on this mathematical model of motion. Also,
I have been telling you this model of motion is utterly absurd because
it would not allow photons to propagate. This is because for a photon
every single path always accumulate an amount in spacetime of exactly
zero. This was a mistake carried over from the Goettingen group of
mathematicians including Hilbert, Klein, Schwarzschild, and
Minkowski. They did not think properly applying the mathematics to
real life. They just extended what Christoffel did.
> > The "speed of gravity" is not a model-dependent concept except at the
> > level of parts per 100 million, any more than "perihelion motion" is
> > model-dependent.
>
> NONSENSE. None of the experiments you cite actually measure any speed
> (see above). And to relate their measurements to speed requires EXPLICIT
> model dependence. GR does not fit that model, and does explain those
> measurements without any "propagation of gravity", at any "speed".
You have basically decided that the speed of gravity is infinite by
your own interpretation of gravity-never-moves-nonsense. In doing so,
you are not either reading and comprehending the opposing point of
view or just being unreasonable.
> As I have said before: scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure
> things. None of the experiments you cite refute GR -- THAT is what is
> important, not the fact that you can use other models to interpret them
> as measuring "speed of gravity".
So, engineers are mere technicians for your disposal. You are the
smart one able to understand the physics. Well, the GPS episode shows
that you are utterly wrong here.
> > Relativists like to redefine the concept to refer to the speed of
> > changes in the gravitational potential field, which everyone agrees is
> > c. But that refers to gravitational waves, and avoids the issue of the
> > propagation speed of gravitational force for determining the ordinary
> > orbital motion of two masses around a common center of mass. One must
> > either give up the causal link to a source mass, or agree that the force
> > propagates from the source mass to the target body faster than c.
>
> Not true -- there is a third possibility, the one the usual
> approximation to GR uses: propagation is at c, but the force at distant
> locations depends on position, velocity, and acceleration of the source
> mass. They combine to make the gravitational force not be central, and
> to point approximately to where the source mass is located at the time
> of observation (and for many cases the approximation is excellent).
Here is another myth. The field equations do not tell you about
gravitational waves propagate. Let alone the myth about the field
equations tell you how fast gravity should propagate.
> Regardless of how you may personally feel about it, GR is the mainstream
> theory of gravitation today. It is ridiculous that you attempt to write
> about gravity without understanding the first thing about GR. And it's
> even sillier that you attempt to "describe" what GR says or how it applies.
Yes, GR is a main stream conjecture in understanding how gravity
behaves. The notion is more better than Christianity is the main
stream religion in the western civilization. <shrug>
> Bottom line: scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things.
> None of the experiments you cite refute GR -- THAT is what is important,
> not the fact that you can use other models to interpret them as
> measuring "speed of gravity".
Here we go again about you being the king of wisdom. Yet, you do not
even understand the difference between the field and the geodesic
equations. <shrug>
Randy Poe
> --
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
Raising the usual question: Are you as stupid as
you pretend to be?
You can't really be so ignorant that you think
"one second per second" has anything to do with
this experiment:
> | And yet in actual measurements of transit time over
> | measured distance, it is found to be c.
... can you?
- Randy
Juan R.
> On Apr 3, 1:49 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:43:50 -0700:
>> > On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:35:26 +0200:
>>
>> >> > The conclusion is again that gravitational interactions are *not*
>> >> > retarded by c (as one would wait). Several mistakes of Carlip
>> >> > paper (section on gravitation) are highlighted.
>>
>> >> I mean that gravitational interactions are *not* retarded by c (as
>> >> one would wait in basis to recent works proving that electromagnetic
>> >> interactions are not retarded indeed).
>>
>> >> --http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
>>
>> > I might criticize Dr. Carlips paper as being awkward, but I find the
>> > "speed of gravity" to be "c", by independant means. Regards
>> > Ken S. Tucker
>>
>> Hi, Ken. In several papers (e.g. in the International Journal of Modern
>> Physics A paper i cited previously) it is proven that speed of
>> electromagnetism cannot be "c".
>
> Is that paper available online?
I do not know i have in print.
> (who are the authors?)
Was cited in my message of day 2. Any case i cite it again:
Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in classical electrodynamics. 1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A
14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev, Stoyan J.
>> Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.
>
> I know the principles of radio transmission and RADAR, and the EM speed
> "c" made me alot of money. I used to install TV rotators to eliminate
> the phenomena known as ghosting. This is apart from relativity.
Ken, i got "Sobresaliente" (9 in a scale from 0 to 10 points) when took
the course on classical Electrodynamics and optics in University. It was
the only "Sobresaliente" when i did the exam, therefore i also know
'something' about EM and speed c.
When i first meet that paper i said myself "That may be wrong". Then i
tried hard to find the mistake and i did not. Then i tried still more
hard to understand their work and actually i have derived the dualism
principle from a generalized theory based in a Liouville space extension
of mechanics.
The work also extend dualism to gravitation.
In both cases interactions are not retarded by c except as
*approximation*.
Or said otherwise the Lienard-Wiechert potentials used by Carlip in his
paper arise after doing several approximations from a more fundamental
theory.
> I've posted on the explanation of speed of gravity being "c", if you're
> interested I'll repost it. It's *fairly* straightforward in GR, if
> anything can be :-).
As explained before GR is *derived* after making approximations. The
retarded potentials associated to GR are valid only in that approximation.
Of course, for GR the result obtained is that speed of gravity is c but,
i remark again, this is only valid in a first approximation to the
physics of interactions.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
First one would know that is being measured before repeating the mistakes
done by relativists.
> How do you reconcile the actual measurement with these "proofs" that
> Nature can't be doing what Nature is doing?
Exactly on the well-explained form one can find in the papers cited.
Moreover, as remarked before the new theory corrects the traditional
problems with the relativist approach.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5e86ed-df39-470a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Non sequitur and don't change the subject, crank troll.
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <jua...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.04...@VEcanonicalscience.com...
| Of course, for GR the result obtained is that speed of gravity is c but,
| i remark again, this is only valid in a first approximation to the
| physics of interactions.
Jump into a swimming pool and you get wet.
What's the speed of wetness according to
1) GR,
2) Your crank theory?
Ken S. Tucker
Thanks, I reviewed some of their work,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0205/0205041v1.pdf
> >> Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.
>
> > I know the principles of radio transmission and RADAR, and the EM speed
> > "c" made me alot of money. I used to install TV rotators to eliminate
> > the phenomena known as ghosting. This is apart from relativity.
>
> Ken, i got "Sobresaliente" (9 in a scale from 0 to 10 points) when took
> the course on classical Electrodynamics and optics in University. It was
> the only "Sobresaliente" when i did the exam, therefore i also know
> 'something' about EM and speed c.
Then you know how RADAR works, it uses "c".
I've seen that in my experience.
> When i first meet that paper i said myself "That may be wrong". Then i
> tried hard to find the mistake and i did not. Then i tried still more
> hard to understand their work and actually i have derived the dualism
> principle from a generalized theory based in a Liouville space extension
> of mechanics.
>
> The work also extend dualism to gravitation.
>
> In both cases interactions are not retarded by c except as
> *approximation*.
>
> Or said otherwise the Lienard-Wiechert potentials used by Carlip in his
> paper arise after doing several approximations from a more fundamental
> theory.
I confirmed Dr. Carlips theory on *speed of gravity*
= "c" by independant means. It's a matter choice
which theory you choose.
> > I've posted on the explanation of speed of gravity being "c", if you're
> > interested I'll repost it. It's *fairly* straightforward in GR, if
> > anything can be :-).
>
> As explained before GR is *derived* after making approximations. The
> retarded potentials associated to GR are valid only in that approximation.
I recently derived 2nd set of Maxwell's equations
from GR, using "c", works ok for me.
> Of course, for GR the result obtained is that speed of gravity is c but,
> i remark again, this is only valid in a first approximation to the
> physics of interactions.
Well, I find 99.999% of theory consistent
with physical evidence provides the "c".
You're asking me (us) to look for a .001%
probability of error.
((I have God on speed dial, and he told me
that :-)).
I think I'm finished here, pending evidence.
Regards
Ken S.Tucker
Cosmik de Bris
> Koobee Wublee wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:21:30 -0700:
>
>> On Apr 2, 3:35 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> Koobee Wublee wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:51:36 -0700:
>>>
>>>> Professor Carlip addressed your claim that the speed of gravity being
>>>> several billion times the speed of light in the following article. I
>>>> have seen no public refutation to his work.
>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
>>> As pointed several times in this newsgroup Carlip is wrong about
>>> interactions.
>>>
>>> Carlip paper received a formal reply by van Flandern on:
>>>
>>> Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational,
>>> Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions. 2002: Found. Phys. 32,
>>> 1031. Van Flandern, T; Vigier, J.P.
>> Yes, I found it in his website now. So, after Professor turned Dr. Van
>> Flandern's claim of infinite speed of gravity on its head, Dr. Van
>> Flandern reversed the favor by turning Professor Carlip's claim in
>> aberration of gravity on its very own head. It looks like Professor
>> Carlip has somehow ignored the speed of one star in his aberration
>> consideration. Has Professor Carlip offered any graceful retreat from
>> that mistake?
>
> Carlip is at this newsgroup now, why do not ask him directly?
>
>
We've seen Steve Carlip's views on this before, this has been rehashed
many times. I suggest you use search to find the answers. You won't like
them though.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Randy Poe
Time when a pulse leaves a transmit location.
Time when a pulse arrives at a detector.
Total travel distance from transmitter to
detector.
>
> > How do you reconcile the actual measurement with these "proofs" that
> > Nature can't be doing what Nature is doing?
>
> Exactly on the well-explained form one can find in the papers cited.
> Moreover, as remarked before the new theory corrects the traditional
> problems with the relativist approach.
What is the "traditional problem" with the experiment
I describe above?
- Randy
Eric Gisse
Relativist this...relativist that...do you think you are actually
fooling anyone when you refer to scientists by what you think is a
pejorative?
Eric Gisse
[snip idiocy, unread]
How can someone who cannot do even the most simple computations be so
sure of himself?
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6faf8ddb-091b-473f...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
" If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not
possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event
at A with an event at B." - Albert Fuckwit Einstein.
Not possible, wanker.
Juan R.
> Then you know how RADAR works, it uses "c". I've seen that in my
> experience.
Sure, the *same* theory that explain why the relativist model of EM
interaction being retarded by c is not correct also explain why radar
signals travel at c.
>> Or said otherwise the Lienard-Wiechert potentials used by Carlip in his
>> paper arise after doing several approximations from a more fundamental
>> theory.
>
> I confirmed Dr. Carlips theory on *speed of gravity*
> = "c" by independant means. It's a matter choice
> which theory you choose.
It is not a matter of choice, Carlip uses LW potentials (which are known
to be experimentally invalid) and uses a series of mathematically invalid
mathematical derivations to achieve the conclusions that EM signals may
be retarded by c.
Then Carlip basically repeats the same misguided analysis on a
gravitational framework getting the same conclusion for gravitational
interactions.
When you correct the potentials and when you correct the mathematical
manipulations (e.g. Carlip is unable to differentiate time explicit local
and nonlocal time implicit potentials) the conclusion is, I repeat last
time, that EM and gravitational interactions are NOT retarded by c.
Does this mean that the EM and GR models of interactions are wrong? No,
they continue to be valid but only valid as approximation.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
>> First one would know that is being measured before repeating the
>> mistakes done by relativists.
>
> Time when a pulse leaves a transmit location. Time when a pulse arrives
> at a detector. Total travel distance from transmitter to detector.
Precisely one of common relativists mistakes is the confusion between
wave travel and the speed of interactions.
This confusion has been corrected in papers cited. It is also easy to
derive the velocity of the 'pulse' from the new theory.
>> Exactly on the well-explained form one can find in the papers cited.
>> Moreover, as remarked before the new theory corrects the traditional
>> problems with the relativist approach.
>
> What is the "traditional problem" with the experiment I describe above?
I wrote "new theory corrects the traditional problems with the relativist
approach." This is a list of the problems that the new approach solves:
- Pointing vector paradoxes
- correct non-relativistic limit
- continuity between Poisson and D'alembert solutions
- solves indefiniteness of field energy
- remove self-energy
- cluster decomposition principle for matter and free fields
- precise condition for non-radiation
- time-simmetry
- N-body solution
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Randy Poe
> --
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
"... without further assumption". Which was contained
in the passage shortly afterward which you quote in
nearly every post.
I know it's difficult for you to retain more than
a sentence or two at a time, and so this one has
chased that other one out of your brain. But the
issue of synchronizing to distant clocks (which
are stationary relative to the local clock) was
actually handled by Einstein in that paper, and
you frequently quote the relevant passages.
- Randy
Ken S. Tucker
On Apr 4, 2:00 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:10:14 -0700:
>
> >> First one would know that is being measured before repeating the
> >> mistakes done by relativists.
>
> > Time when a pulse leaves a transmit location. Time when a pulse arrives
> > at a detector. Total travel distance from transmitter to detector.
>
> Precisely one of common relativists mistakes is the confusion between
> wave travel and the speed of interactions.
>
> This confusion has been corrected in papers cited. It is also easy to
> derive the velocity of the 'pulse' from the new theory.
>
> >> Exactly on the well-explained form one can find in the papers cited.
> >> Moreover, as remarked before the new theory corrects the traditional
> >> problems with the relativist approach.
>
> > What is the "traditional problem" with the experiment I describe above?
>
> I wrote "new theory corrects the traditional problems with the relativist
> approach." This is a list of the problems that the new approach solves:
From the list below, Juan pick the one below
that is most readily understandable to us,
and we'll learn from an analysis.
> - Pointing vector paradoxes
>
> - correct non-relativistic limit
>
> - continuity between Poisson and D'alembert solutions
>
> - solves indefiniteness of field energy
>
> - remove self-energy
>
> - cluster decomposition principle for matter and free fields
>
> - precise condition for non-radiation
>
> - time-simmetry
>
> - N-body solution
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47a4d575-9657-4085...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
It is of course quite possible to compare, in respect of time, an event at A
with an event at B, the time when a pulse leaves a transmit location such as
Cassini at Saturn is well known, it carries a time stamp, Einstein's
drooling
assumptions are ridiculous.
Not only does such a common-place "experiment" disprove Einstein's third
postulate, it destroys all the crap he wrote following it.
Scientists do not make assumptions, fuckwit, or anything is possible.
I do not need to assume you are a fool, it is evident for all to see,
wanker.
Randy Poe
It carries a clock which is designed to keep Earth
time regardless of what the local time is. Just
as GPS does.
Assuming those are the same is an additional assumption
you introduce.
- Randy
Ken S. Tucker
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:19:30 -0700:
>
> > Then you know how RADAR works, it uses "c". I've seen that in my
> > experience.
>
> Sure, the *same* theory that explain why the relativist model of EM
> interaction being retarded by c is not correct also explain why radar
> signals travel at c.
>
> >> Or said otherwise the Lienard-Wiechert potentials used by Carlip in his
> >> paper arise after doing several approximations from a more fundamental
> >> theory.
>
> > I confirmed Dr. Carlips theory on *speed of gravity*
> > = "c" by independant means. It's a matter choice
> > which theory you choose.
>
> It is not a matter of choice, Carlip uses LW potentials (which are known
> to be experimentally invalid) and uses a series of mathematically invalid
> mathematical derivations to achieve the conclusions that EM signals may
> be retarded by c.
>
> Then Carlip basically repeats the same misguided analysis on a
> gravitational framework getting the same conclusion for gravitational
> interactions.
>
> When you correct the potentials and when you correct the mathematical
> manipulations (e.g. Carlip is unable to differentiate time explicit local
> and nonlocal time implicit potentials) the conclusion is, I repeat last
> time, that EM and gravitational interactions are NOT retarded by c.
I used the basic same principle to explain
how GR accounts for the aberrated position
of the Sun, assuming the vector of g-force
is directed at the Sun's apparent position
relatively to Earths rotation, magnetic
fields in SR and most recently "spin", in
QM. That's a very broad cross-check of the
phenomena, that are accurately measured.
Simply because you or anyone needs to use
more effort to solved some problem relativ-
istically just means that. It's sometimes
hard work.
> Does this mean that the EM and GR models of interactions are wrong? No,
> they continue to be valid but only valid as approximation.
Ok, that's agreeable. In physics HUP applies.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c75f291-c061-4060...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Yes. So out goes Einstein's crank assumption 'the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from
B to A', because A (Earth) and B (Saturn) are in relative motion and
it takes over an hour to get from A to B but less to return when A is
approaching B, more when A is receding from B, both of which occur
each year.
Einstein's third postulate is just plain wrong and the idiot's mathematics
he built on it are ridiculously incompetent anyway, just like you,
Draper and Roberts; all of you too stupid to read it, the closest any of
you ever got to it is "Spacetime Physics". Einstein's idiot assumption
makes Cassini's clock wrong by 30 seconds. I'll believe the clock,
not the crank.
Randy Poe
No, it has nothing to do with the claim that the
speed of light is isotropic. However, the speed of
light is found experimentally to actually *be*
isotropic, so there's not much point in disagreeing
with that assumption.
> Einstein's third postulate is just plain wrong and the idiot's mathematics
> he built on it are ridiculously incompetent anyway, just like you,
> Draper and Roberts; all of you too stupid to read it, the closest any of
> you ever got to it is "Spacetime Physics". Einstein's idiot assumption
> makes Cassini's clock wrong by 30 seconds. I'll believe the clock,
> not the crank.
Cassini's clock is designed to read earth time. It
isn't "wrong". It isn't attempting to measure local
time. What do you mean you believe Cassini's clock?
Cassini's clock is just an earth-synchronized clock,
and by design has nothing to do with local time.
- Randy
Juan R.
> From the list below, Juan pick the one below that is most readily
> understandable to us, and we'll learn from an analysis.
>
>> - Pointing vector paradoxes
>>
>> - correct non-relativistic limit
The current theory of fields confound the non-relativistic limit of LW EM
potentials, with the Coulomb potential. This is explained an corrected in
[1].
This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound the GR
'weak-field' equation
a = - GRAD PHI
with the Newtonian equation
a = - GRAD PHI
Why? Because they are using the same notation "PHI" for two different
physical and mathematical terms!!
In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be rewritten
like
a = - GRAD PHI^*
and
a = - GRAD PHI_0
And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.
By confounding both equations, relativists think that they derived
Newtonian gravity when in fact, they did not. A similar confusion for
electromagnetism was also recently corrected on [1].
The physics and mathematics for both equations is *completely* different
but relativists have mixed both without sound basis.
I remember a funny discusion in this newsgroup with 'expertise' Steve
Carlip about those issues.
For instance, Carlip confounded the selection of physical boundaries for
the PHI^* potential with the selection of energy scale for the PHI_0
potential.
And then Carlip started to claim that the problem of unphysical
boundaries of the GR potential was also present on the Newtonian term.
But that was plain wrong.
From a mathematical point of view Carlip confounds solutions for the
Poisson equation (time implicit dependence) with solutions for the
stationary D'alembert equation (time explicit dependence).
Carlip makes this mistake for both electromagnetism and gravity. I tried
to correct him several times but...
Fortunately, the authors of the references cited do not make those
mistakes, neither did the referees of the main journals where the works
got published...
[1] Action at a distance as a full-value solutions of Maxwell equations:
The basis and application of the separated-potentials method. Phis. Rev.
E 1996: 53(5), 5373. Chubykalo, A.E; Smirnov-Rueda, R.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
JanPB
> On Apr 2, 10:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has been
> > discussed, here is the bottom line:
>
> > Scientists TEST THEORIES. Let engineers measure things. None of
> > the experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR -- THAT is what is
> > important, not the fact that he can use other models to interpret
> > them as measuring "speed of gravity".
>
> Physicists come up with conjectures --- mostly nonsense. Both SR and
> GR are such nonsensical conjectures. They do not make any
> mathematical sense applying to the actual world. The validity of
> these conjectures can only be determined through the mystic nature.
> <shrug>
>
> ** SR is rendered nonsense through the twin's paradox. Only through
> these several flavors of mystic resolutions where one contradicts
> another, that the paradox can be resolved.
>
> ** GR is built on top of more mystical mathematics. Physicists are
> able to play shaman by turning an ordinary matrix into a tensor just
> saying 'abracadabra'.
In other words, you have no argument. (Just stating "X is nonsense"
carries no weight.)
--
Jan Bielawski
Ken S. Tucker
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:24:17 -0700:
>
> > From the list below, Juan pick the one below that is most readily
> > understandable to us, and we'll learn from an analysis.
>
> >> - Pointing vector paradoxes
>
> >> - correct non-relativistic limit
>
> The current theory of fields confound the non-relativistic limit of LW EM
> potentials, with the Coulomb potential. This is explained an corrected in
> [1].
>
> This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
> Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound the GR
> 'weak-field' equation
>
> a = - GRAD PHI
>
> with the Newtonian equation
>
> a = - GRAD PHI
>
> Why? Because they are using the same notation "PHI" for two different
> physical and mathematical terms!!
>
> In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be rewritten
> like
>
> a = - GRAD PHI^*
>
> and
>
> a = - GRAD PHI_0
>
> And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.
What we do is take PHI = q/s = invariant,
then project two ways to form vectors,
PHI'^v = PHI (dx^v/ds)
(velocity potential)
PHI^u = PHI(x^u/s)
(positional potential).
You need relativity to do both, and you
want to keep the "prime" on the moving
"velocity" potential as it is transforming.
So you need the relativity of two charges.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
...
PS: I suggest you discuss what works than
every dang paper that confuses you Juan.
You Juan could cite a gaxillion papers that
*you don't understand* and then expect some
SOB like me to hold your hand threw all the
minutae detail.
My rate is $100/hr. (That's a discount).
Ken S. Tucker
Koobee Wublee
effect of gravity can be refute by the mathematics of vector additions
and the Galilean transform. After all, GR must degenerate into the
Newtonian law of gravity at low gravitation and low speed such as the
solar system and the binary stars. Consider two objects orbiting each
other. Let the following be the position vectors of interest.
** [s] = Position vector form the common center to the unprimed NOW
** [s'] = Position vector from the common center to the primed NOW
** [s'_-T] = Position vector of the primed THEN (retarded position)
** T = Retarded time
[s] and [s'] should then form a straight line through their common
center at the moment NOW. If the speed of gravity is finite (say V),
the retarded position of the primed becomes the gravitating distance
for the unprimed to feel the effect in gravitation of the primed. The
position vector of the primed as observed by the unprimed becomes the
following.
[s''] = [s'_-T] - [s]
If the speed of the primed has not changed much from THEN to NOW, then
we have the following simplification.
[s'_-T] = [s'] - T d[s'_-T]/dt
Where
** T = s'' / V
** V = Speed of gravity
The effective gravitating distance [s''] becomes the following.
[s''] = [s'] - [s] - T d[s'_-T]/dt
With the effective gravitating distance of [s''] and V = c, the solar
system would fly apart in a few short centuries. Yet, it does not.
That enabled Laplace to calculate V to be several million times c.
All of a sudden, Professor Carlip came along and suggested that
gravitational effect is subject to aberration. According to him, the
effect of aberration will nullify the effect of the retarded position
up to the first few orders. So, applying the effect of aberration to
the effective gravitating distance [s''], we have the following under
the Galilean transform.
[s'''] = [s''] + [v] T
Where
** [v] = Velocity of the primed THEN as observed by the unprimed
So, this velocity is
[v] = d[s'_-T]/dt - d[s]/dt
The effective gravitating distance with aberration correction [s''']
become the following.
[s'''] = [s'_-T] - [s] + T (d[s'_-T]/dt - d[s]/dt)
Or
[s'''] = [s'] - [s] - T d[s]/dt
Comparing the effective gravitating distances [s''] and [s'''], the
effect of [s'''] is more dramatic if the mass of the primed >> the
mass of the unprimed. This is obvious not according to observation.
Thus, Professor Carlip's suggestion of aberration in gravity is only a
myth. This is a fine example where mysticism plays a major role in
GR. <shrug>
> behaves. The notion is not much better than Christianity is the main
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e869e655-6cac-46ec...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| No,
I said "Yes." to agree with you. Now you dispute yourself.
Have a nice day, crank.
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30f7a595-65b5-44d1...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
In other words, Einstein has no argument. (Just stating 'we establish by
definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals
the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' carries no weight.)
But wait... you read it, checked it all out and found nothing wrong.
That makes you a wanker, doesn't it?
Juan R.
You completely misunderstand the whole point Ken.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Ken S. Tucker
Juan, that's probably true.
It's unscientific statements like this you wrote,
"For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking
... confound the GR 'weak-field' equation"
that confuse me! Who cares, ONWARD...
I've invited an analysis of your favorite
problem, something I could learn from too.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Juan R.
Ken you may gain little from 'misquoting'. I said was:
{BLOCKQUOTE
This confusion is also characteristic for gravitation. For example
Carroll, Wald, Carlip, Baez, Hillman, Roberts, Hawking... confound the GR
'weak-field' equation
[...]
with the Newtonian equation
[...]
}
Referees have found my work on gravitation ok and it is ready to publish.
My work also proves that the geometric formulation of GR holds only
limited applicabiltiy. I have been also formally invited by one of
organizers to explain my GR work in a recent cosmology conference.
A similar confusion on electromagnetism have been recently corrected in
top journals like Physical Review, see cited references.
In all published papers and my recent work the conclusion is that
interactions are not retarded by c. All papers I have cited also explain
why the Lienard Wiechert potentials are not adequate for modeling
interactions and explain some of the mistakes on papers as that of Carlip.
Actually i am working with one mathematician who published one of the
papers i have cited in previous messages.
It is obvious that i have miserable failed to explain those points in
some 'plain' language. I'm sorry by that.
To avoid further misunderstandings here in thereafter i will submit
topics directly from hot research with all the math in bulk and academic
references.
Maybe someone can take the recent advances in research and then explain
them to broad audiences in a plain language.
Regards.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Ken S. Tucker
On Apr 5, 10:15 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
I can do that,
1 = 5-4
1 = 6-5
are NOT the same equations.
A link to your work would be fine.
I have a brief web-site here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
Do you have anything to add?
Regards.
Ken S. Tucker
Juan R.
> Hi Juan, understood.
Doesn't seem.
>> >> >> In the notation of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda [1], they may be
>> >> >> rewritten like
>>
>> >> >> a = - GRAD PHI^*
>>
>> >> >> and
>>
>> >> >> a = - GRAD PHI_0
>>
>> >> >> And then one can easily see they are not the same equation.
> I can do that,
>
> 1 = 5-4
> 1 = 6-5
>
> are NOT the same equations.
But in you above trivial equations the right hand sides are equivalent
5-4 = 6-5
However the righ hand sides of the recently derived equations of motion
verify
PHI^* =/= PHI_0
The first is a local time explicit potential (with usual retardation t_0).
The second is a nonlocal time implicit potential (without retardation).
The physics and the math are different for both equations. That is the
reason they (and me) use a different notation for both potentials.
Relativist literature confound both. Mistakes have been recently
corrected in literature.
In one of papers cited (the Physical Review paper) the authors
mathematically proved that four-vectors A^*b and A_0^b are irreducible
forms.
They are components of a more general representation contains a complete
solution for the combined Poisson and D´alembert mathematical problems
with *continuous* transition between steady and nonsteady solutions.
You also failed to understand that the new *instantaneous* potentials
PHI_0 and A_0 cannot be derived from relativistic electrodynamics.
Relativistic electrodynamics only accounts for the retarded component of
the interactions. That is reason that everyone relativist will say you
that the speed of EM is c. But that is not longer true. Science advances.
I remark again the new theory contains relativistic electrodynamics and
special relativity as a particular case.
As said before their work have been generalized to gravitation by me.
The new instantaneous gravitational tensor h_0^ab (in Chubykalo and
Smirnov-Rueda notation) cannot be obtained from General Relativity.
General Relativity only can explain the h^*ab tensor. It is this term
which is retarded by c. That is reason that general relativists will say
you that the speed of gravity is c. But that is not longer true in the
light of recent advances.
Moreover, we know that the h^*ab = h^ab term has geometric interpretation
g^ab = n^ab + h^ab
And this gives the geometric formulation of General Relativity.
Interestingly the new term h_0^ab has no geometric interpretation as i
have proven in my last work.
Geometry (and the own concept of spacetime) may be derived as a special
case.
We start from the first-order extension of a Liouville space extension of
classical dynamics. When one applies a pure state approximation in the (+)
semigroup one derives spacetime, geometry, Maxwell electrodynamics...
after some pages of nontrivial computations.
Since the new theory reduces to the former theories on the local limit,
the new theory also explains all the experimental results were well-
explained by former theories.
One big advantage of the new theory is that eliminates traditional
difficulties and paradoxes of relativistic formulations. E.g. the
traditional inconsistencies of Maxwell electrodynamics were eliminated in
the Physical Review paper cited, take a look.
Another big advantage of the new theory is that can explain phenomena
cannot be explained by usual relativistic theories (SR, relativistic
electrodynamics, GR...).
For instance my work on gravitation eliminates several known difficulties
with General Relativity regarding the role of cosmological boundaries.
Probably that was the reason which people who read the draft invited me
to explain my recent research work on the international conference on
experimental cosmology i cited in another part.
The techniques i have developed are completely general and can be also
applied to other formulations as 8N Stuckëlberg mechanics.
See Ken again you failed to understand everything: potentials, equations
of motion, retardation, speed of interactions, radars, geometry...
I have learn the lesson; I have decided i am not good explaining stuff on
'plain' terms. Also i will not waste time replying trivial questions as
that of RADARS. Here in thereafter i will restrict to academic/research
postings.
The below guidelines will be updated, eliminating the point "use a plain
language".
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
> You also failed to understand that the new *instantaneous* potentials
> PHI_0 and A_0 cannot be derived from relativistic electrodynamics.
>
> Relativistic electrodynamics only accounts for the retarded component of
> the interactions. That is reason that everyone relativist will say you
> that the speed of EM is c. But that is not longer true. Science
> advances.
Before anyone may misunderstand the whole topic again and feel the
tentaption to write some message remarking that one may derived some form
of instantaneous interactions from relativistic electrodynamics, I will
correct that misunderstanting.
If you apply the c--> infinite limit on retarded local potentials PHI^*
A^* you get instantaneous versions of both. But those instantenous local
potentials are not reducible to the instanteous nonlocal terms PHI_0 and
A_0.
This is the reason that PHI_0 and A_0 are *beyond* relativistic physics.
I call this post-relativity.
Similar comments for h and GR.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Ken S. Tucker
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:28:50 -0700:
>
> > Hi Juan, understood.
>
> Doesn't seem.
Hi Juan.
There is a huge amount of technology that
I see based on GR, and the speed of light
"c".
Suppose I'm a technologist's with lots of
money, anxious to invest in new theory as
you have. What do you recommend?
Of course I don't understand, what's new?
> Relativistic electrodynamics only accounts for the retarded component of
> the interactions. That is reason that everyone relativist will say you
> that the speed of EM is c. But that is not longer true. Science advances.
>
> I remark again the new theory contains relativistic electrodynamics and
> special relativity as a particular case.
>
> As said before their work have been generalized to gravitation by me.
>
> The new instantaneous gravitational tensor h_0^ab (in Chubykalo and
> Smirnov-Rueda notation) cannot be obtained from General Relativity.
>
> General Relativity only can explain the h^*ab tensor. It is this term
> which is retarded by c. That is reason that general relativists will say
> you that the speed of gravity is c. But that is not longer true in the
> light of recent advances.
>
> Moreover, we know that the h^*ab = h^ab term has geometric interpretation
>
> g^ab = n^ab + h^ab
>
> And this gives the geometric formulation of General Relativity.
>
> Interestingly the new term h_0^ab has no geometric interpretation as i
> have proven in my last work.
>
> Geometry (and the own concept of spacetime) may be derived as a special
> case.
Ok, that's fair enough as a conjecture.
> We start from the first-order extension of a Liouville space extension of
> classical dynamics. When one applies a pure state approximation in the (+)
> semigroup one derives spacetime, geometry, Maxwell electrodynamics...
> after some pages of nontrivial computations.
>
> Since the new theory reduces to the former theories on the local limit,
> the new theory also explains all the experimental results were well-
> explained by former theories.
>
> One big advantage of the new theory is that eliminates traditional
> difficulties and paradoxes of relativistic formulations. E.g. the
> traditional inconsistencies of Maxwell electrodynamics were eliminated in
> the Physical Review paper cited, take a look.
>
> Another big advantage of the new theory is that can explain phenomena
> cannot be explained by usual relativistic theories (SR, relativistic
> electrodynamics, GR...).
>
> For instance my work on gravitation eliminates several known difficulties
> with General Relativity regarding the role of cosmological boundaries.
> Probably that was the reason which people who read the draft invited me
> to explain my recent research work on the international conference on
> experimental cosmology i cited in another part.
Good for you sir.
> The techniques i have developed are completely general and can be also
> applied to other formulations as 8N Stuckëlberg mechanics.
>
> See Ken again you failed to understand everything: potentials, equations
> of motion, retardation, speed of interactions, radars, geometry...
Hey I understand "retardation" :-).
> I have learn the lesson; I have decided i am not good explaining stuff on
> 'plain' terms. Also i will not waste time replying trivial questions as
> that of RADARS. Here in thereafter i will restrict to academic/research
> postings.
Ok, I posted a few clarifying articles here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
pretty simple really.
I suggest you set-up a little site, with an
essay that some of us can understand.
> The below guidelines will be updated, eliminating the point "use a plain
> language".
To what, "use unplain language", join the
crowd!
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Tom Van Flandern
> [Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has
> been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the experiments Van
> Flandern cites refute GR ...
I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've said
here is in any way a refutation of GR.
But equations can have many different physical interpretations. Even the
biggest names in the field (Einstein, Dirac, Feynman) agree GR has at least
two different physical interpretations. The experiments and physical
principles have now eliminated one of those - the geometric interpretation.
But that still leaves us with the field interpretation of GR, the one those
great physicists preferred anyway.
So unless you are unable to unlearn something you were once taught, you
just need to switch the physical interpretation you support, leaving the
math of GR as it is, and you will again be in accord with experiments and
physical principles. Do you have some problem with going back to the way
Einstein taught GR (field interpretation), instead of the unphysical
geometric interpretation that became popular from the 1970s forward?
>>> [Roberts]: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at all, but
>>> changes in gravity propagate with speed c.
>> [TomVF]: That is directly in contradiction to experiment and
>> observations.
> [Roberts]: No, it is not. But to understand this one must actually use GR,
> which you quite clearly do not understand (more on this below).
You are making a fool of yourself. I cited a detailed set of experiments
from the published, peer-reviewed literature; while you make unbacked claims
without an ounce of attempted justification. You seem to know only the
geometric interpretation of GR, which lacks causality for new motion and
momentum conservation between source mass and target body.
When you repeat geometric GR statements such as "gravity does not
propagate at all", that requires redefining the word "gravity" to mean just
the refraction effects the field has on electromagnetic signals and
eliminating the main *force* that governs the orbital motions of planets,
moons, satellites, and spacecraft. In normal physics, "force" means the time
rate of change of (3-space) momentum by definition. (Consult any dictionary
or encyclopedia that gives definitions by field of application). So orbital
motion represents a force by definition of the word. And linear momentum
involves a propagation velocity by definition. So there is no physics issue
in that claim, just an issue of the definition of words. With your
re-definitions, there is no longer an active connection between a source of
gravity and the effect it is currently having on target bodies, which makes
no sense in real physics.
In our many exchanges, you have shown extensive unfamiliarity with
celestial mechanics, the field that tests GR against astronomical
observations. But that doesn't seem to cause you to hesitate to make claims
about what the experiments and observations show. For example:
All the experiments I cited demonstrate that gravity propagates faster
than c. The Taylor-Hulse binary pulsar demonstrates that *changes* in
gravity also propagate much faster than c. This flatly contradicts your
claim. Therefore, the burden is now on you to point out the exact error in
my proof in the cited published paper, or to concede the point. Just
pontificating is not a valid, scientific response.
>> [TomVF]: Binary pulsars are an obvious example, as I demonstrated
>> (without any dissent) in Reference B
> [Roberts]: To claim you demonstrated it is wrong, and to claim "without
> dissent" is a bald-faced lie. You even published a comment on the major
> dissenting paper.
Now you are just being a twerp. (If you have any doubt about whether
that is a counter-insult, look up the definition. I use them so rarely that
I wouldn't want you to miss one.) Reference B contains a proof, using binary
pulsars, that changes in gravity propagate much faster than c. You obviously
did not even look at it or you wouldn't be saying there is something wrong
with it, then quickly attempting to change the subject by calling me a liar
so no one will notice that you neglected to give any clue about what is
wrong with this published and now-widely-accepted proof, or even that you
understand the proof. Your "hit and run" tactic did not work.
Regarding the "lie" part, I must presume you are referring to Kopeikin's
failed Jupiter-quasar appulse experiment. Several of the leading names in
relativity today commented that his experiment had no bearing on the speed
of gravity, but merely measured the speed of electromagnetic signals (c) as
that speed enters any light-bending experiment. You don't need to rely on my
refutation of Kopeikin because your senior colleagues have done that job for
me. But Kopeikin wasn't talking about gravitational force or "changes in
gravity". So even if he had been right, his result would not support your
claim.
In fact, you won't find a single knowledgeable relativist on USENET who
can support your claim that "changes in gravity propagate at speed c". When
binary pulsars accelerate, that is a change in the gravity they exert on one
another, and those changes act on the other body much faster than the
light-time between them. You might still find someone who will mistake this
claim to mean that changes in gravity are gravitational waves. But that too
is physical nonsense. When I walk around a room and trigger a response in a
sensitive gravimeter, I am indeed changing the gravitational force I exert
on the gravimeter, but I am not generating gravitational waves at any
detectable level. And no one who knows what he/she is talking about would
claim otherwise. Gravitational waves have never yet been detected within our
solar system.
>> [TomVF]: But even the simplest orbit computation program can show the
>> same thing. If you use light-time-retarded positions of bodies to compute
>> orbits, the computed orbits are open spirals, in contradiction to
>> observations.
> [Roberts]: How silly can you get???? The subject here is GR and its
> relation to experiments. To address that you must use GR, and not whatever
> it is you have cobbled together with "light-time-retarded positions".
How exactly do you propose to learn anything about the "relation of GR
to experiments" without computing orbits from GR equations of motion (i.e.,
celestial mechanics, my professional specialty)? I have to agree that this
is getting very silly indeed. But then, for some reason you feel compelled
to pretend you know something about fields in which you know nothing.
I have previously given you the references to the three main papers
converting the Schwarzschild solution into 3-space equations of motion:
Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman, Robertson-Noonan, and Damour-Deruelle. Have you
read these papers yet? Do you have any idea what their meaning is? Yet this
step is crucial to understanding the comparison of GR with observations, and
indeed to understanding the whole "speed of gravity" issue.
> [Roberts]: I repeat: In the model of GR, gravity does not propagate at
> all, but changes in gravity propagate with speed c. You have said NOTHING
> that addresses this, much less refutes it as you claim.
I gave you specific references to prove the points I made. You provide
nothing but exaggerated claims and insults. Are you unable to read published
papers with understanding, or is it beneath you? My Reference B proves what
I said it proves. The other references support my other statements. Read and
learn. Only then can you be qualified to criticize.
>> [TomVF]: There is no way known to any person on this planet to avoid the
>> conclusion that gravitational force propagates >> c without invoking some
>> kind of physical miracle, such as an effect without a cause or the
>> creation of new momentum out of nothingness.
> [Roberts]: That a GROSS overstatement. What you clearly mean is "Tom Van
> Flandern does not know how to do this". And it's also clear that your lack
> of knowledge is at fault, as the current primary theory of gravitation
> does PRECISELY this.
The pattern continues. I mention observations, experiments, reasoning,
and citations, such as the Foundations of Physics article Vigier and I
published. You say I'm wrong and ignorant and offer *nothing* of any
substance, just unsupported claims and accusations. So which of us is
displaying his ignorance?
>> [TomVF]: GR is a field theory and describes only the field.
> [Roberts]: Then how is it that GR is applied to all those experiments and
measurements? Clearly GR describes more than the "field" -- it describes
THOSE EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS.
The field equations describe only the field and the field effects:
light-bending, gravitational redshift, etc. The field itself is
unobservable. So to make comparisons with astronomical observations made in
a Euclidean coordinate system, solutions to the field equations must be
converted to 3-space equations of motion, then numerically integrated, then
used to make predictions, which may then be compared to observations.
The field equations and their solutions use the speed of light. But in
the step where they are converted to 3-space equations of motion (which are
expressions for *gravitational force*), instant force propagation must be
assumed because delayed forces, even delays just for changes in forces, lead
to total failure of the theory to agree with observations.
Why do you choose to resist learning, and to hurl insults, instead of
educating yourself? Are you afraid there might be something to what I have
published about several times now? Or are you just afraid of what your
colleagues might do if you found something I wrote that you agreed with?
> [Roberts]: Speed is measured by using two synchronized clocks to measure
> the travel time along a path measured with standard rulers at rest in the
> same frame the clocks are synchronized in. Which of the experiments you
> reference have done that? -- NONE.
Two of the experiments use actual speed as you just defined. Three
others use aberration, which is the ratio of transverse orbital speed to
force propagation speed. So, all these experiments allow us to determine the
actual propagation speed of gravitational forces in a model-independent way
using the classical meaning of "speed". You just needed to know the meaning
of "aberration" to realize that.
You spend countless hours dealing with some uneducated and
unknowledgeable people on USENET. I've seen you research topics and give
reasoned responses, as for example when dealing with the few remaining folks
still touting Miller's 1930s data allegedly showing anisotropies of light
speed of ~ 8 km/s when GPS has set upper limits to such anisotropies more
than 1000 times smaller.
Yet how many of the people you deal with are professionals who publish
regularly in the major, peer-reviewed journals and deal with every objection
to the satisfaction of neutral parties? What exactly do you want to see to
move you to take this material seriously? Or are you one of those physicists
about whom it is said that "physics advances one funeral at a time"?
Your utterances reflect badly on your reputation because of your
unwillingness to read published works and either learn new things, or at
least discuss the substantive issues they raise instead of using denial,
loud claims, and insults. -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org
Koobee Wublee
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> > [Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time this has
> > been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the experiments Van
> > Flandern cites refute GR ...
>
> I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
> umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've said
> here is in any way a refutation of GR.
Both you and Professor Roberts are wrong here. Claiming the speed of
gravity exceeding the speed of light in free space violates relative
simultaneity as demanded by the Lorentz transform and thus SR. Since
GR is built on top of SR, GR is falsified in the process. I don't
what your position on GR is, but it looks like you do embrace it as
well. Professor Roberts will vigorously challenge your claim because
it is his sanity at stake here in which you have not yet realized the
consequence of your own claim. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
SR is only locally true in GR, idiot.
Juan R.
> Claiming the speed of
> gravity exceeding the speed of light in free space violates relative
> simultaneity as demanded by the Lorentz transform and thus SR.
As showed in a recent paper the speed of electromagnetism exceed the
speed of light in free space:
Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in classical electrodynamics. 1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A
14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev, Stoyan J.
This paper correct some traditional mistakes by relativists.
for instance that paper shows why Carlip computation
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
of retarded EM fields from the LW [retarded] potentials is incorrect. The
paper shows how the whole EM interaction is not retarded by c and why the
claim that EM forces are retarded is incorrect.
I have generalized the work to gravitation in recent days with a similar
conclusion:
"Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in relativistic gravity."
There exists a important difference between the work on EM and the work
on gravity.
The EM equation of motion may be generalized with a nonlocal time
implicit component (a force F_0 on Chubykalo notation).
Relativistic electrodynamics is recovered in the limit when F_0 --> 0.
The GR equation of motion may be also generalized with a nonlocal time
implicit component. But then the geometric description breaks out [#] and
only a force/field description of gravity is available.
Thus the description of GR as geoemtry is only valid as approximation and
the claim that the speed of gravity is c is based in incorrect
computations.
[#] Geometric GR is recovered (Chubykalo notation) in the limit
h_ab^* + h_ab_0 --> h_ab^*
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> > [Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time
> > this has been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the
> > experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...
> I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
> umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing
> I've said here is in any way a refutation of GR.
There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:
Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
(1999) 543, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. If you really "agree[d] with
GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.
Steve Carlip
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:fte0pe$hb9$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
Hey crank Mr. Rigorous Proof!
Produce a foundation for the postulate 'the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
|
Eric Gisse
> Tom Van Flandern <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
>
> > > [Roberts]: For those unwilling to wade through the umpteenth time
> > > this has been discussed, here is the bottom line: ... None of the
> > > experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...
> > I am sorry you can't keep your correspondents straight. For the
> > umpteenth time, I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing
> > I've said here is in any way a refutation of GR.
>
> There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
> just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
> that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:
>
> Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
> GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.
>
> Steve Carlip
Neat!
Thanks, I'll keep this ref in mind for future uses.
Koobee Wublee
> There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
> just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
> that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:
>
> Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
> (1999) 543,http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. If you really "agree[d] with
> GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.
The whole paper is promoting mysticism which equates to wisdom in the
general knowledge of GR. It starts out spreading the myth
"It is well known that in the limit of small perturbations, such
disturbances travel along null geodesics, and so gravitational waves
travel at light speed."
And then, of course, the "warp drive" is the central theme.
I know there is an actor named Rob Lowe, and he should be much closely
related to the "warp engines" of Startrek.
It is sad that after failing miserably with the aberration in gravity
to nullify the speed of gravity, you are resorting to Hollywood to
resolve your issues. With the speed of gravity being infinite, there
is no hope for GR. Thus, are you getting desperate or something?
Unless this is your April fool day joke which you are only a week
behind. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 7, 1:39 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field equations (and not
> > just a low-order approximation that can hide the underlying structure),
> > that gravitational influence propagates at the speed of light:
>
> > Robert J Low, "Speed Limits in General Relativity," Class. Quant. Grav. 16
> > (1999) 543,http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067. If you really "agree[d] with
> > GR as a mathematical theory," the argument would be over.
>
> The whole paper is promoting mysticism which equates to wisdom in the
> general knowledge of GR. It starts out spreading the myth
>
> "It is well known that in the limit of small perturbations, such
> disturbances travel along null geodesics, and so gravitational waves
> travel at light speed."
Of course kooby thinks otherwise, but damned if he can prove it.
>
> And then, of course, the "warp drive" is the central theme.
Awwwww guess who failed to even read the abstract! Hint: you.
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 7, 9:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The whole paper is promoting mysticism which equates to wisdom in the
> > general knowledge of GR. It starts out spreading the myth
>
> > "It is well known that in the limit of small perturbations, such
> > disturbances travel along null geodesics, and so gravitational waves
> > travel at light speed."
>
> Of course kooby thinks otherwise, but damned if he can prove it.
Prove what? Prove mysticism?
Well, <shrug>
> > And then, of course, the "warp drive" is the central theme.
>
> Awwwww guess who failed to even read the abstract! Hint: you.
Guess who has not read the paper? Hint: you. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 7, 11:50 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 9:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > The whole paper is promoting mysticism which equates to wisdom in the
> > > general knowledge of GR. It starts out spreading the myth
>
> > > "It is well known that in the limit of small perturbations, such
> > > disturbances travel along null geodesics, and so gravitational waves
> > > travel at light speed."
>
> > Of course kooby thinks otherwise, but damned if he can prove it.
>
> Prove what? Prove mysticism?
To people who can't learn, I suppose something as complex as general
relativity would appear to be mysticism.
>
> Well, <shrug>
<shrug> indeed - your stupidity is not my problem.
>
> > > And then, of course, the "warp drive" is the central theme.
>
> > Awwwww guess who failed to even read the abstract! Hint: you.
>
> Guess who has not read the paper? Hint: you. <shrug>
The central theme isn't warp drive, idiot. Read the paper.
Juan R.
Claiming that to be a rigorous proof "that gravitational influence
propagates at the speed of light" may be some kind of joke.
At the one hand, that 'rigorous proof' is ignoring the difficulties
associated to the use of only retarded (or only advanced) sources.
At the other hand, the 'rigorous proof' uses only local time explicit
structure for g_ab missing so one important aspect that the whole proof
is invalid.
At least people working in electromagnetism corrected their views some
years ago. That is one advance.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
>> The below guidelines will be updated, eliminating the point "use a
>> plain language".
>
> To what, "use unplain language", join the crowd!
> Regards
Guidelines updated. Also i am not longer following open threads at this
newsgroup.
I mainly will post the recent research advances in spr and spf.
This will include recent papers proving that speed of gravity is not c
and why the usual GR theorems and proofs are incorrect with clarification
of *what* is being mesaured to travel at c.
Maybe I will submit some informative message to this group but discussion
would be followed in moderated spr and spf.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Ken S. Tucker
On Apr 8, 11:29 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
Ok, I thought I'd post this (below) as
a demonstration of how the Equivalence
Principle is calculated in rotating CS's,
but if you not interested, please do not
read it. It's very complicated.
Best to you.
Ken S. Tucker
Speed of Gravity Theory.
According to Newton the Speed of Gravity (Gs)
is infinite. Fig.1 shows the balance of the g-force
and centrifugal force and looks like,
Centrifugal Acceleration
/|\
|
|
|
<--------(E)----- Orbital Direction of Earth
| (Circular orbit)
|
|
\|/
Solar Gravitational Acceleration Fig.1
...................(S)
Where (E) is the Earth and (S) is the Sun.
According to Einstein's GR, Gs=c, hence the
acceleration vector is directed toward the apparent
(aberated) position of the sun (s) as in this Fig.2
((seeing is believing))...
Centrifugal Acceleration
/\
/
/
/
<----(E)----- Orbital Direction of Earth
/ (Circular orbit)
/
/
\/
Solar Gravitational Acceleration Fig.2
............ (s) (S)
.........image^
IMO, the centrifugal acceleration is directly opposite
the g-acceleration, as shown in Fig.2. This is based on
the Principle of Equivalence, whereby the gravitational
acceleration and the inertial acceleration (centrifugal in
this example) precisely balance to produce a "freefall",
so that no acceleration can be detected on Earth due
to the sun's gravity.
A common misconception is to align the acceleration
vectors on (E) as in Fig.3
Centrifugal Acceleration
/|\
|
|
At |
<-<----------(E)----- Orbital Direction of Earth
/ (Circular orbit)
/
/
\/
Solar Gravitational Acceleration Fig.3
(s) (S)
This unbalanced gravitational and centrifugal
acceleration would produce a residual acceleration
and velocity accumulation "At" in the direction of
orbital velocity if it were true, and would lead to a
gross failure of Energy conservation as well as a
sense of acceleration on Earth, this doesn't happen.
But we now have a situation that needs to be
explained in terms of GR, specifically the
introduction of oblique X-Y axes relating the
sun's image and Earth as in Fig.4a,
Y-axis
/\
/
/
/
<--------(E)----- X-axis
/
/
/
\/
(s) Fig.4a
Of course, it follows, if the direction of Earth's
velocity around the Sun were to reverse then
the X-Y axes obliqueness would also reverse
and produce Fig.4b,
Y-axis
/\
\
\
\
----(E)----> X-axis
\
\
\
\/
(s) Fig.4b
Mathematically, a unit vector e1 on X and e2 on Y
produces the following results,
(assuming V=dx/dt when y=r),
Fig 4a g12 = e1.e2 = -V/c (set c=1)
Fig 4b g'12 = e'1.e'2 = -V'
and g12 = -g'12 because V = -V' . (Eqs.1)
This understanding of the non-orthogonality
of the X-Y axes is adequate to solve the speed
of gravity problem, but it does not address
magnetism. For example let's be more clear
on the definition of rotational velocity V.
Set the rotational velocity defined wrt an
inertial system to,
V12 = (x1/r)*(dx2/dt) - (x2/r)*(dx1/dt)
where x1 == x and x2 == y,
then V12 = - V21.
One can see g12 == V12 but
g12 = -V21
At this point *I presume* V12 defines g12 and thus
g12 is anti-symmetrical and, of course, non-orthogonal.
In view of this developement, we might liken the anti-
symmetrical portion of g12 to the EM field tensored
by the magnetic force q*F12 as an asymmetrical stress
on the spacetime field.
I think anyone who has played with a pair of bar
magnetics has noticed weird attactions and repulsions
as these magnetics twist in relative orientation.
Aside from exotic theory, the medium connecting
these bar magnetics is only a spacetime field.
Suppose the earth is in a circular orbit around the sun, (xy plane),
with an orbital speed V, then we should expect an aberration of
V/c in the apparent postion (image) of the Sun.
The aberration of light (and gravity when gravity
is postulated to be directed at the apparent
position of the Sun as GR suggests) is given by,
g12 = (y/r)*(dx/cdt) - (x/r)*(dy/cdt).
With x=r and y=0, g12 = -dy/cdt, and describes clockwise
motion.
If x=-r then g12 = dy/cdt and is also clockwise motion,
(anti-clockwise motion is given by g21=-g12).
The term -dy/cdt is equal to (orbital velocity)/c, = -V/c,
and accounts for aberration of light and gravity, and
g12 (and g21) account for revolution in either direction.
The quantity g12 is defined by the relation (aberration)
of light signals from the sun to the earth, and so can be
regarded as a component defining a relating spacetime
metric.
The Earth and Sun remain the same distance apart therefore,
du^i/ds = 0, where u^i is the relative 3-velocity.
There is no specific need to consider covariancy or
contravariancy details for the accuracy required, the
coordinate acceleration from the usual geodesic equation
(previously linked to in my last post),in direction x
can be written (without using "^" and "_"),
du1/ds = 0 = -1/2*g11*(g10,0 + g01,0 - g00,1)*u0*u0
Let g11~1 and u0~1, which provides,
du1/ds = 0 = 1/2*g00,1 - g10,0
(g10 is considered symmetrical herein.)
where
1/2*g00,1 = gravitational acceleration
g10,0 = inertial (centrifugal) acceleration.
Now lets calculate the coordinate acceleration in
the direction y, (these are the aberration terms
when x=r and y=0),
du2/ds = - 1/2*g21*(2*g10,0 - g00,1)
and use
g12 = (y/r)*(dx/dt ) - (x/r)*(dy/dt), (c=1) .
(since x,y is the orbital plane, for this set-up,
g12= - dy/dt = -V and g21 = V).
Break out the following,
Aberrated gravitation acceleration = 1/2*V*g00,1
(an acceleration in direction y),
This is the term that *presumeably* causes the Earth to
respond to the aberrated position of the sun, except it is
exactly balanced by inertial acceleration.
Aberrated centrifugal acceleration = - V*g10,0
(an acceleration equal in magnitude to gravitational
acceleration in direction -y)
Recall x=r, and the sum of accelerations in the
direction 'y' are,
du2/ds = 1/2*V*g00,1 - V*g10,0 = 0
These are the equal and opposite terms that nullify
the aberrated gravitational acceleration.
The above is a transparent example of the Principle of
Equivalence demonstrated using the geodesic equation
and including the aberrating effects of the rotational
metric (g12).
Frankly, I think it's a tribute to Einstein's GR that such a
complex problem can be so simplified and easily applied.
Ie. applying generally covariant equations (the geodesic)
involving gravity, inertia and rotation be expressed more
clearly, and applied so directly to find speed of gravity=c.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt8
mitc...@hotmail.com
at the speed of light.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Roberts
Tom Van Flandern wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> ... None of the
>> experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...
>
> I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've
> said here is in any way a refutation of GR.
As Carlip said, if you really understood what you just said, this
argument would be over.
Experiments can test theories. They cannot possibly test interpretations
of those theories. This is so because the way an experiment and a theory
are compared is to take the equations of the theory, apply the
experimental setup to them (e.g. as boundary conditions), and use the
equations of the theory to predict (compute) the values that the
experimental detectors measure. Nowhere in that is any interpretation of
the equations used.
The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
"geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific measurements).
[#] This is not really an "interpretation" as the word is
normally used in science, because in GR the geometry is
DYNAMIC, and this is fundamental to the theory. TVF does
not realize this, because in the APPROXIMATION he uses
this aspect of the theory has been approximated away.
> [...]orbital motion represents a force by definition of
> the word.
That is just plain wrong. Here is how you can see that it is wrong: try
to describe how one could MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an
orbiting satellite. If you cannot do that, you cannot define "force"
this way. And you CLEARLY cannot do it (if anyone had ever done it, GR
would have been unnecessary, irrelevant, and almost certainly wrong).
Note you must measure the force itself, not any geometrical
aspects of the physical situation -- that would be geometry,
and you're claiming this is not geometry.
> The field equations and their solutions use the speed of light. But
> in the step where they are converted to 3-space equations of motion
> (which are expressions for *gravitational force*), instant force
> propagation must be assumed because delayed forces, even delays just
> for changes in forces, lead to total failure of the theory to agree
> with observations.
Ah! There's your problem: you do not understand how approximations work
in physics. There is no "must be assumed" in APPROXIMATING (not
"converting") the equations of GR to become equations in linearized GR
using a background Minkowski frame, because that is PART OF THE
APPROXIMATION.
Putting in "delayed forces" as you state above, is DOWNRIGHT WRONG. To
test GR, one must use the equations of GR, or a valid approximation to
them, not some cobbled-together equations into which you put "delayed
forces". The linearized GR approximation is well known to give equations
in which propagation delays don't appear.
You claim these are "expressions for *gravitational force*", but that is
really a misnomer -- the MEASUREMENTS do not include a single
measurement of "gravitational force". The actual experiments measure
GEOMETRICAL ASPECTS of the apparatus (etc.). It simply is not possible
to measure "gravitational force", all one can do is measure various
effects of such a "force". (If this last were not true, GR could not
possibly model gravitation as geometry, without any "gravitational force".)
Even standing on a bathroom scale does not measure
"gravitational force": it CLEARLY measures an UPWARD
force on your body and a downward force on the floor,
neither of which can possibly be the attractive force
of gravity.
But the real challenge is to measure "gravitational force"
on an orbiting satellite -- the issue is clearer there.
> [...]
No point in repeating....
Tom Roberts
Dirk Van de moortel
1_PLj.3308$GE1...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com
He doesn't even understand how they work in mathematics:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TVFSeries.html
We know this since just about 5 years now ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Juan R.
I imagined this had been all well explained before.
> The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
> "geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
> said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific
> measurements).
None current experiment verifies:
a1) gravity is due to spacetime curvature
b1) interactions are retarded
because same experiments can be explained using
a2) gravity like a force
b2) instantenous fundamental interactions
However, recent experiments and theoretical advances are neither
supporting the idea of retarded interactions nor the idea of gravity as
geometry.
Both (geometry and retardation) are approximated concepts.
Thus geoemtric GR is an approximation to a more general description of
classical graviational phenomena.
> try
> to describe how one could MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an
> orbiting satellite. If you cannot do that, you cannot define "force"
> this way.
This is done in standard astronomic and celestial mechanics literature.
The definition of force is also standard and agrees with standard
definitions used on other branches of physics.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Tom Roberts
> I imagined this had been all well explained before.
Only if one accepts at face value your claims that most of classical
physics is wrong. I have not yet read your references....
In any case, that's not relevant to Van Flandern's mistakes.
> Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:36:41 -0500:
>> The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
>> "geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
>> said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific
>> measurements).
>
> None current experiment verifies:
> a1) gravity is due to spacetime curvature
> b1) interactions are retarded
> because same experiments can be explained using
> a2) gravity like a force
> b2) instantenous fundamental interactions
Sure. As I said before, experiments cannot distinguish between
interpretations like this.
[That assumes your second theory is GR in disguise.
If not, it merely shows that the two theories cannot
be distinguished by these experiments.]
> However, recent experiments and theoretical advances are neither
> supporting the idea of retarded interactions nor the idea of gravity as
> geometry.
But they aren't refuting it, either, which is the relevant point.
> Both (geometry and retardation) are approximated concepts.
Almost certainly -- it's highly likely that GR itself is an
approximation. But to what?
> Thus geoemtric GR is an approximation to a more general description of
> classical graviational phenomena.
Except that to date nobody has presented such a "more general description".
>> try
>> to describe how one could MEASURE the "gravitational force" on an
>> orbiting satellite. If you cannot do that, you cannot define "force"
>> this way.
>
> This is done in standard astronomic and celestial mechanics literature.
> The definition of force is also standard and agrees with standard
> definitions used on other branches of physics.
In other words: you cannot do so, either.
My point is that one cannot possibly MEASURE the "gravitational force"
on an orbiting satellite. One can certainly measure geometrical aspects
of its path and INFER a "gravitational force". But that's insufficient
to the task you and Van Flandern have set out for yourselves, because
the geometry of GR can also explain such measurements.
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
> Only if one accepts at face value your claims that most of classical
> physics is wrong.
If you really think that then let me say you misunderstood i said.
>> Tom Roberts wrote on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:36:41 -0500:
>>> The experiments have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether or not the
>>> "geometrical interpretation" [#] of GR is valid. The experiments have
>>> said that the EQUATIONS of GR are valid (for their specific
>>> measurements).
>>
>> None current experiment verifies:
>> a1) gravity is due to spacetime curvature b1) interactions are
>> retarded
>> because same experiments can be explained using
>> a2) gravity like a force
>> b2) instantenous fundamental interactions
>
> Sure. As I said before, experiments cannot distinguish between
> interpretations like this.
We are doing some advance here.
> [That assumes your second theory is GR in disguise.
> If not, it merely shows that the two theories cannot be
> distinguished
> by these experiments.]
No, you were said that GR arises like an approximation to the more
fundamental theory.
>> However, recent experiments and theoretical advances are neither
>> supporting the idea of retarded interactions nor the idea of gravity as
>> geometry.
>
> But they aren't refuting it, either, which is the relevant point.
Wrong. They are doing it for both *gravitational* and electromagnetic
interactions. Even if you cannot read references (which was you complaint
time ago) you can read the titles:
"Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations"
"Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
interactions in classical electrodynamics."
"Experimental evidence on non-applicability of the standard retardation
condition to bound magnetic fields"
Etc.
E.g. in my recent work "Newtonian limit difficulties of GR", I analize
both mathematical advancements and experiments invalidating a geometrical
approach to gravity. Several mistakes of Carlip PLA paper are revised in
a specific section.
>> Both (geometry and retardation) are approximated concepts.
>
> Almost certainly -- it's highly likely that GR itself is an
> approximation. But to what?
To a more fundamental theory of gravity based in a Liouville space
extension of dynamics.
E.g. the retarded local tensor potentials h_ab(x,t) are derived up second
order (first order mixed brackets "[}") in the local approximation for
pure states sigma --> delta-6N.
The (geo)metric stucture and even the own concept of spacetime arises
like approximation in a well defined limit.
>
>
>> Thus geoemtric GR is an approximation to a more general description of
>> classical graviational phenomena.
>
> Except that to date nobody has presented such a "more general
> description".
Completely false. Several people has done and published in top journals
including gravitation specific journals. You simply are not aware (as
usual).
For instance, the description given in
Classical Relativistic Many-Body Dynamics. 1999: Springer. Trump, Matthew
A; Schieve, William C.
for gravitation is *not* reducible to GR. In fact, authors rejected both
field and metric theories because of their known flaws.
Today, i sent the outline for a generalization of the theory in that
monograph to a Texas colleague who will discuss it with prof Schieve.
The draft is
"Chubikalo and Smirnov-Rueda dualism: Foundation and generalizations"
and in page 30 explains how one would generalize the 8N potentials on the
cited monograph
V = (m / (SQRT X^2 - c^2T^2)) --> [Tr_E V sigma_E}_8N
General relativity is derived after doing several simplifications from
the more general theory.
> My point is that one cannot possibly MEASURE the "gravitational force"
> on an orbiting satellite. One can certainly measure geometrical aspects
> of its path and INFER a "gravitational force". But that's insufficient
> to the task you and Van Flandern have set out for yourselves, because
> the geometry of GR can also explain such measurements.
Completely wrong once again.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Tom Roberts
> [...]
Let me for the moment suspend disbelief and stipulate that everything
you said is true and accepted by the entire physics community, and that
you and your references have described a complete and self-consistent
theory worthy to be the successor to GR as the best theory of gravity.
In that context, please answer this one point:
>> My point is that one cannot possibly MEASURE the "gravitational force"
>> on an orbiting satellite.
>
> Completely wrong once again.
So prove it, by describing precisely how one MEASURES the "gravitational
force" on an orbiting satellite. Don't give blank references to
unspecified literature, just give a basic description of the method. A
one-sentence statement of the basic principle of the measurement will
do. And please don't use jargon or undefined notation, but follow the
"colloquium test" -- give a description that is understandable to a
graduate student or postdoc not expert in the field.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> [I'm picking just the main points.]
>
> Tom Van Flandern wrote:
> >> ... None of the
> >> experiments Van Flandern cites refute GR ...
>
> > I agree with GR as a mathematical theory. Nothing I've
> > said here is in any way a refutation of GR.
>
> As Carlip said, if you really understood what you just said, this
> argument would be over.
>
> Experiments can test theories.
Can experiments test single statements Roberts Roberts? This question
sounds silly and yet it is important because some Divine Juggler may
place two contradictory statements - e.g. that the speed of light is
both constant and variable - in his Divine Theory and then experiments
may always confirm Divine Juggler's Divine Theory. Just answer this
Roberts Roberts: Is the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2
experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka consistent with the
statement that the speed of light in a gravitational field is variable
and obeys Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), or is it consistent
with the statement that the speed of light is a gravitational field is
constant and obeys the equation c'=c?
But first learn what your Masters teach Roberts Roberts:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> TomVan Flandern <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
But, Carlip Carlip, in a gravitational field the speed of light is
VARIABLE, as Divine Albert said in 1920 and as you have been teaching
in Einstein zombie world for quite a long time:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/f43bd437bc899633?
Steve Carlip, Aug 1 1997: "In special relativity, the speed of light
is constant when measured in any *inertial* frame. In general
relativity, the appropriate generalization is that the speed of light
is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small
enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein
is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame
at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed of
light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity
(spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers." Steve Carlip
car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE...."
Now Carlip Carlip, even if that "gravitational influence propagates at
the speed of light" had been rigorously proved, Einstein zombie world
wants to know (or may ask some day): If the propagation of the
selfsame gravitational influence is accompanied by propagation of
light, the speed of this light will decrease perhaps, at least so you
and Divine Albert suggest (after all, you measure both speeds in "a
frame at rest relative to a source of gravity", that is, the initial
source of gravity, before the beginning of the propagation). Will the
speed of the gravitational influence decrease as well? Do you know how
to camouflage the problem?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Ken S. Tucker
The idea of instanteous transmission is logically
flawed to be ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.
It enables scenarios like, the Sun appears in
front of me, but it could *truly* be behind me,
so the Sun could be anywhere else instead of
where it appears to be.
I suppose next TV Flandern will introduce a
probabilistic location for the "true" location
of the Sun. That will simplify the art of
Celestrial Mechanics to flipping coins.
On Apr.8, in this thread, I posted clear simple
diagrams, based on Equivalence Principle on how
GR permits using the imaged location of the Sun
to calculate orbits.
That accounts for the fact that if the Earth
were to stop and reverse revolutional direction
the aberrated image of the Sun would shift in
direction too, to it's opposite (asymmetrical)
from the Newtonian position, going from +20" to
-20".
I went on to use the geodesic equation of motion
to show how that is accounted for.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Juan R.
> In that context, please answer this one point:
>>> My point is that one cannot possibly MEASURE the "gravitational force"
>>> on an orbiting satellite.
It is really ironic now i am revising a published work by a colleague
where he proposes an experiment to differentiate between GR and
alternative theory of gravity by measuring one specific effect on the
gravitational force on orbiting bodies!
> So prove it, by describing precisely how one MEASURES the "gravitational
> force" on an orbiting satellite.
Recently I waste time in spr trying to explain to a guy measurements of
velocities for Dirac electrons, when he did not even understood that was
being measured.
I do not usually repeat the same mistakes.
To avoid wasting time now, it would be good to define first the
expression for the gravitational force that astronomers working in
celestial mechanics measure for an orbiting body.
You claimed that one cannot possibly measure the gravitational force.
Before discussing your claim, it may be a good thing if you write first
the expression for the gravitational force for an orbiting body (e.g.
Mercury planet).
By simplicity use, for instance, Schwarzild coordinates.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Tom Roberts
> It is really ironic now i am revising a published work by a colleague
> where he proposes an experiment to differentiate between GR and
> alternative theory of gravity by measuring one specific effect on the
> gravitational force on orbiting bodies!
Especially "ironic" is the fact that you cannot meet my challenge to
describe how to measure it. Actually, the irony is that you do not
understand WHY this challenge cannot be met, and yet you think you are
an "expert".
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> So prove [your claim that I am "completely wrong"], by describing precisely how one MEASURES the "gravitational
>> force" on an orbiting satellite.
>
> [...complete failure to do so]
If you were actually familiar with this subject and able to meet my
challenge, it would be MUCH EASIER to simply describe how to measure
"gravitational force" on an orbiting satellite, than doing all the
evasion and obfuscation you write to avoid facing the fact that you
cannot meet my challenge.
> To avoid wasting time now, it would be good to define first the
> expression for the gravitational force that astronomers working in
> celestial mechanics measure for an orbiting body.
More evasion -- YOU are the one "wasting time". My challenge is clear
and concise. Why is it that you cannot meet the challenge? Even though
you claim to be an expert (and are "revising" a colleague's work). (of
course _I_ know why you cannot do it, I'm trying to get YOU to
understand why this challenge cannot be met)
> You claimed that one cannot possibly measure the gravitational force.
> Before discussing your claim, it may be a good thing if you write first
> the expression for the gravitational force for an orbiting body (e.g.
> Mercury planet).
Still more evasion -- Don't evade the challenge, use whatever expression
you wish. Use whatever definition of "gravitational force" you wish. But
be sure to meet the challenge: describe how to MEASURE the
"gravitational FORCE" on an orbiting satellite, not any indirect or
model-dependent implications of it (such as orbit parameters, which are
geometrical, not any sort of force).
From the nature of this challenge I would expect the answer
to be an English description of an experimental technique,
and not need any equations at all. But however you phrase
your response is up to you.
EXAMPLE: when one whirls a stone on a string around
one's head, it is easy to measure the centripetal force on
the stone -- it is tension and one can simply put a spring
scale between stone and string. But it simply is not possible
to measure the "centrifugal force" -- there is no place to
put the scale. HINT: there is a deep relationship between
this inability and the inability to measure "gravitational
force". HINT2: both "centrifugal force" and "gravitational
force" are coordinate dependent (this is true in both GR and
Newtonian mechanics).
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Necessity of simultaneous co-existence of instantaneous and retarded
> 14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev, Stoyan J.
I have now read this paper. Apparently you have not (at least not with a
critical eye that does not accept claims that are not established
mathematically). I suggest you do so before making additional false
claims about its implications.
> In all papers, the conclusions are that electromagnetic interactions are
> not retarded by c.
This is just plain wrong -- the above-referenced paper does not say this
at all.
> it is proven that speed of
> electromagnetism cannot be "c".
This, too, is not established in the above-referenced paper.
> Mistakes of relativist literature are noticed and corrected.
This, too, is not established in the above-referenced paper.
Yes, that paper has "instantaneous interactions" in its title, but it
does not establish them at all. This is quite easy to see: if there were
"instantaneous interactions", then to compute the field at (x,y,z,t)
they would need to evaluate the Lienard-Wiechert potentials [their eq.
2] at time t, rather than at the retarded time t0. Nowhere in the paper
is this done. Nowhere does the paper present any alternate formulation,
only L-W potentials are used, with ALL SOURCE QUANTITIES EVALUATED AT
THE RETARDED TIME t0. So there is no "instantaneous interaction"
anywhere in the paper, except the title.
AT MOST what they have established is that the conventional notation is
inadequate to express the subtleties of differentiating a retarded-time
function of the source trajectory with respect to the implicitly-defined
retarded time, and relating it to the coordinate time of the point at
which the fields are to be evaluated. But given the comment by J.D.
Jackson (yes, THAT Jackson, author of _Classical_Electrodynamics_), I'm
not convinced they even did that.
It is not terribly surprising that the notation is strained
-- in other fields of physics it is well established that
the usual partial and total derivatives are inadequate [#].
Hydrodynamics comes to mind, where there the operator
d/dt+v.Del is neither "partial" nor "total" (it is a co-
moving derivative). Thermodynamics, too, needs careful
notation for its "partial" derivatives.
[#] Not to mention various geometrical derivatives such as
covariant and Lie derivatives.
In any case, this is just a tempest in a teapot: only a theoretical
physicist or a mathematician would ever differentiate their [eq. 2] with
respect to the retarded time t0 and relate it to the coordinate time t,
and then do it again to verify Maxwell's equations -- nobody else would
have the fortitude to wade through the many pages of algebra involved
(of which this paper is merely a summary). This paper is probably a
useful and important lesson for such people.
In the real world, experimental physicists and engineers use computer
programs to solve problems in electrodynamics. Those programs take an
ALGORITHMIC approach to solving the L-W potentials of [eq. 2], and they
do PRECISELY what it says. That is, they first establish a mesh in
{x,y,z,t} (or equivalent coordinates); to evaluate the potential at each
point in the mesh they solve the retardation equation [eq. 8]
numerically, and then evaluate [eq. 2] at the retarded time.
Differentiating the potential on the mesh at any point involves only
nearest neighbors, so there is no doubt that there is no "instantaneous
action-at-a-distance" involved. Yes, some programs make other
approximations, and use algorithms that avoid the differentiation on the
mesh, but all are equivalent to what I described, except for purely
numerical issues. Once the fields on the mesh are available, it is again
a simple differentiation (involving only nearest neighbors) to verify
that Maxwell's equations are satisfied -- this is routinely done when
testing these programs, and again it is clear that no "instantaneous
action-at-a-distance" is involved. Zillions of successful products and
equipment have been designed using such programs -- so this approach is
validated IN THE REAL WORLD.
I wanted to title this note "Outrageous Claims are Flat-Out WRONG", but
scholarly restraint prevented it. Unfortunately, Chubykalo and Vlaev
felt no such restraint: they DID make an outrageous claim, and it IS
flat-out wrong.
> When i first meet that paper i said myself "That may be wrong". Then i
> tried hard to find the mistake and i did not.
Try again: Look for a place where they evaluate [eq. 2] at time t rather
than the retarded time t0. THAT is what an "instantaneous interaction"
would involve, not their subtleties about differentiating with respect
to implicitly-defined variables (which may well be valid). The fact that
non-retarded derivatives with respect to {x,y,z,t} appear is due to the
way fields are LOCALLY related to potentials, and due to the fact that
Maxwell's equations are purely LOCAL. This is not any sort of
"instantaneous interaction", because the source trajectory is ALWAYS
evaluated at the retarded time.
Tom Roberts