Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Dec 2005 10:53:00 -0800
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
> >
> > Such a theory would predict quite severe violations of the
> > equivalence principle that should have been detected long
> > ago by Eotvos experiments comparing substances of
> > differing ratio of atomic number to atomic mass.
>
> That's an important objection, however in the article,
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
>
> you will find it produces Newton's gravity as a 1st approx.
> and nullifies that objection.
In your article, you write:
> One can see how gravitational force arises from Coulomb's
> force using the approximation,
> F = a*b/S^2 = a*b/(X + a*b) ~ a*b/X^2 - (a*b)^2 / X^4 (5)
> The last term in Eq.(5) is always negative, independent of the
> relative polarities of
> charges "a" and "b", hence it is a residual attractive force in
> the charge couple. Letting
> M = a*/X be a mass-energy, that term becomes,
> f = - M*M/X ,
> which is basically Newtonian gravitational force.
Your presentation only confirms the inability of your theory
to satisfy existing experiment.
In the absence of charges producing hypothetical unbalanced
charge couples, how would two masses attract? How can two
black holes attract each other? Do you claim black holes
can be modeled as an ensemble of positive and negative
charges?
> You might object that the covariant derivative of the metric
> tensor may violate EP if it does not vanish, but we find the
> Quantum Theory is compatible with that condition, so the
> EP looks safe and well.
>
> > Your theory doesn't even count as DOA.
>
> LOL, who says it's my theory,
It's your theory.
> it's clearly a GR application,
> solution, but it is unique enough to be termed "Unitivity",
> since it departs substantially from classical GR, but
> agreed it certainly is live and well.
Totally dead. Give it up, Ken.
Jerry
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- References:
- Latter Day MMX
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Sue...
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Jerry
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Jerry
- Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Latter Day MMX
- Prev by Date: Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
- Next by Date: Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- Previous by thread: Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- Next by thread: Re: Latter Day MMX - discussion of LIGO
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|