Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

From: Tom Van Flandern (tomvf_at_starpower.net)
Date: 08/07/04 

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 11:36:31 -0400

            This replies to Gerald Lasser, Vern, and Bilge.

"Gerald Lasser" <antispam@nospam-me.com> writes:

> [Lasser]: Since you have given self-contradictory answers, I have to
ask again: Do you agree that the electromagnetic field at each event can
be computed solely from the positions and velocities of the electric
charge on the past light cone of the event?

            As I'm sure you will agree, our discussion has become a bit
repetitive, with you not understanding me and/or vice versa. So let me
try to cut the Gordian knot with a different way of describing the same
animal.

> [Lasser]: according to Maxwell's equations, the electric potential at
any given event is simply the integral of rho/r over the past light cone
of the event, where rho is the charge density and r is the spatial
distance. Likewise the magnetic potentials are given by the integral of
(v/c)rho/r over the past light cone. These are called the retarded
potentials, which are the solutions of the time-dependent field
equations for electromagnetism. This is what the math says.

            The retardation of scalars that you mention here is
observationally undetectable and unimportant. What matters is the
retardation of forces emanating from distant sources having a relative
transverse motion. Those retardations are not represented in these
equations. In that sense, the equations are wrong because they are
incomplete, making no allowance for the necessarily finite propagation
speed of forces from source charge to target charge when there is
relative motion.

            However, if we set that propagation speed to infinite so
that forces have no retardation (apparently a good approximation of
reality), the propagation delay terms are driven to zero by that
infinite speed in the denominator, and they drop out, leaving us with
the Maxwell equations we know and love.

> [Lasser]: if you DO agree with the math of current theories, then you
agree that the electromagnetic field at any given point is determined by
the conditions on the past light cone of that point.

            I do agree with the equations, but only because the force
propagation delays that must exist have been approximated as zero by
assuming infinite propagation speed. Therefore, the electromagnetic
field at any given point is *not* determined only by the conditions on
the past light cone of that point, but is also determined in part by the
instantaneous direction of the distant source charge.

and "Vern" <vthodge@bealenet.com> writes:

> [Dennis McCarthy]: With Earth, there is very little tangential motion
of the ether vortex near the Earth's surface and the dominant force is
still an inverse square aimed toward the planet's center.

            One of us completely misunderstood the other. I thought we
were talking about a substitute for gravity, an alternate explanation
for orbital motion. McCarthy is acknowledging ordinary gravity, and
looking for an explanation for angular momentum being so non-random. I
agree that excess of prograde rotation and revolution needs explaining,
and IMO the fission model does the best job of explaining it. [See
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/origins/original-solar-system.asp].
But none of this impacts our understanding of ordinary gravitational
forces, the subject in *this* thread.

> [Vern]: Should you decide to take a closer look at the model, please
come join our group.

            Thanks, but my other obligations barely allow me time for
one or two messages per week here. Meta Research now does a lot of
"theory evaluation" for individuals or groups trying to get published or
to make a difference. If the group should ever need our "Professional
Manuscript Review Service"
[http://metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp], just let me know.

and "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes:

> [Bilge]: You wrote down a spacetime metric. If you meant space, then
you shouldn't have written down a metric which included the time
direction and gave the distance, ds^2 as the proper time (or proper
distance). Which is it, tom? Did you mean to say spacetime, or did you
mean to write down a metric that didn't include time?

            Mine was a simple point, perhaps too simple for an advanced
intellect such as yours. I said (paraphrasing) "curved spacetime has
nothing to do with curved space". If you had read my article, you would
see the argument that "spacetime" means proper time, and has no space
component. Then you too would see that your whole set of questions above
and in the remainder of your post make no sense in the context of my
article because you took the meaning of my words in a completely
different sense than was intended.

> [Bilge]: You wrote down a spacetime metric, therefore you were not
talking about space [being excluded].

            This is a typical case in point. I wrote down a spacetime
metric to show (a few steps later) that it had nothing to do with space,
only with proper time.

> [Bilge]: A distance is what the metric measures. That is why it's
called a metric.

            LOL. "Metric" refers to "measure", not to distance. The
spacetime metric measures spacetime intervals, not space distances. That
's the whole point. If the metric contained a plus sign where it now has
a minus, it would measure a space distance. But as it stands, it
measures only a proper time interval. It has no space component, and no
space "distance" is involved.

> {Bilge]: So, in other words, you are trying to tell me that your
entire argument against relativity boils down to the physics of a units
conversion constant?

            As I have come to suspect, you lack the ability to
distinguish me from your many other correspondents. I have no "argument
against relativity". My discussions have been about the physical
interpretation of the correct equations of relativity. My whole point in
the paper about metrics
(http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp) was a simple,
physical interpretation of spacetime intervals, fully consistent with
relativity as Einstein taught it.

            I suggest you continue with someone who wants to argue at
your level about the correctness of relativity. That definitely leaves
me out. -|Tom|-

Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... >>electromagnetism you'll know that they could not have been defined ... >charge, a quantity which had already been measured experimentally at ... > Ampère's Force Law ... > decided how to define distance and force, you can then choose a Km ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A Small Theory of the Field
    ... And here the meaning of boundary solution is ... in distance. ... A charge is assembled from the effect ... > the vacumn, a strength, is a cause. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: New Explanation of Hydrogens Fine Structure
    ... GR is geodesic-based and electromagnetism isn't. ... contribute to the geodesic motion of an infinitesimally small test ... charge of the test particle is neutral, if the central charge is not, the ... Tidal forces are true forces. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why do permitivity and permiability appear in EM expressions?
    ... My greatest frustration in learning about electromagnetism has been ... H fields are those PRODUCED by the charge and current sources; ... The "constants" epsilon and mu are only asymptotically so. ... the vacuum arising from the separation of electron and positron ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Sues Experiment
    ... Therefore if the rubber is indeed PERFECT cross-sectioned description ... Increase the distance between them and chant ... By increasing the Tension in the bungee is like stroking the ugly ... less charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast