Re: On the GP-B & LIGO

On Mar 28, 2:58 pm, cma...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 28, 6:55 am, cma...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 25, 10:34 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 4:54 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mr. Tucker says,
In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com
supports a modified GR,
even if the results of GP-b
and LIGO null.

GR (IMHO) is an exceptionally powerful theory.
I believe the calculations rendering frame dragging
and gravitational radiation may have resulted from
poorly applied erroreous appications of tensor
analysis.
Some here have been honest and courageous enough to admit that a null
GP-B result would constitute a total falsification of GR. I take it
that you agree with them. Is that fair to say?
cmaj10

No I wouldn't agree.

The question is, if GP-b and LIGO null,
is GR dead?
To solve that problem let's apply philosophy,
by realizing a distinction between the General
Theory of Relativity (GToR) and the General
Principles of Relativity (GPoR).

The GToR results from an application of math
(tensor analysis) applied to the GPoR, we
may even write a little description of that as,

GPoR + math => GToR.

It is the GToR that is used to produce physical
predictions. Obviously if the "math" is incorrect,
we expect the GToR to be incorrect even if the
GPoR are correct.

From what I can tell, the "math" was imported

from AE's foundational GR1916 paper, that for
purposes of simplicity contained mathematical
assumptions inconsistent with the GPoR,
especially evident in his remarks on g= |g_uv|,
where a suspension of general covariance is
invoked and evolved to become a rule without
rigorous substantiation.

So I look at the math first to see if there is
systemic error, (personally I think there is a
few).

Regards
Ken

I understood that. But my question was not addressed to you. It was
addressed to Eric Gisse. You removed one line in your quote, it's the
line where he asked you "...and how are you qualified to make such a
statement?" That's what I was reacting to. Here's my motivation:

1) K S Tucker declares: I think that if GP-B is null, then there is an
error in the calculations.

No, it means someone really fucked up GP-B because the Lense-Thirring
effect has already been observed. The problem is that the analysis of
the LAGEOS data agrees to within 10% of GR - there is plenty of room
for error and a better test is desired.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/17/12/309
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NewA...11..527C


2) E Gisse replies: No you're wrong you are ill-equiped to arrive at
such a conclusion.

It remains true. Ken doesn't understand much, if anything, about
relativity.

3) cmaj10 thinks: okay, either there's a mistake or there is not. If
there is not---as E Gisse seems to assert---then GP-B null would imply
GR wrong at the postulate level.

No, GP-B nulling out means someone fucked up terribly. The head of the
person responsible will be divided out amongst the entire Stanford
campus.

4) cmaj10 asks E Gisse to confirm that this is his view also.

I expect things will perform to spec. Several gross and reasonably
fine measurements of the Lense-Thirring effect have already been made.
The existence of frame dragging is manifest in spinning black holes,
which drastically changes the dynamics of crud surrounding the hole.
That has been observed to a reasonable degree of accuracy as well.


cmaj10


.