Re: The speed of gravity revisited

Hi Juan, TVF, Eugene et al.

On May 28, 4:16 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 14:26:29 -0700:

Steve Carlip writes:
We have been discussing this issue for nearly 15 years now.
Sometimes,
you get frustrated and use the occasional ad hominem remark. But I've
never seen you so insulting and off-topic as this.

Dr. Carlip is a well-known academic flammer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

Consider a body on a circular orbit. Its gravitational potential is
constant. Yet the gradient of that potential (a vector) is
ever-changing. Your claim is wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with
the physics of gradients, having learned only the trivial math.

As Juan has already pointed out, "force" is the time rate of change
of
momentum.

Neither Carlip nor Roberts seem to know this standard definition.

A gravitational force creates a gradient in the density of the
"space-time medium" that we now call gravitational potential. But there
is no requirement in physics or logic for the gradient in the potential
to be created with the same speed as the propagation speed of the force.
Any medium may take a finite time to respond to the action of a force.
The gravitational potential medium is apparently synonymous with the
light-carrying medium", and changes at the speed of light. Meanwhile,
the force that creates that gradient propagates at speeds >> c,
according to all existing experimental evidence.

Tom, an important problem here is that Steve Carlip is really confused
even about the very basic stuff on interactions.

For instance, Carlip does not know what is the expression for the
Newtonian potential.

Carlip confounds the Newtonian potential phi(R(t)), with the
nonrelativistic limit of a gravitational 'Lienard-Wiechert' phi(r,t),
which is derived from g_00 in the geometrical formulation.

His confusion about functions explains why Carlip fails to understand how
to take the gradients correctly and also explain why he confounds the
speed of the interaction with the speed c. And also explains several
flagrantly wrong physical comments by Carlip regarding boundaries.

As is well-known Carlip repeats mistakes in his famous paper on
aberration in PLA.

Carlip mistakes about electromagnetic interactions and speed are
corrected in

1996: Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda,
Roman.

1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda, Roman.

and also in

1999: Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A 14(24), 3789. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Vlaev,
Stoyan J.

All recent works (and others i have not cited here) show that
electromagnetic interactions are *not* retarded by c, which is Carlip
wrong *belief*.

The cited papers point a number of well-known mistakes that Carlip and
other relativists are doing about interactions.

Regarding the issue of the speed of gravity, Carlip just repeats same
mistakes.

The electromagnetic dualism recently introduced in (1996: Phys. Rev. E
53, 5373; 1997: Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793; 1998: Phys. Rev. E 57, 3683) has
been generalized and applied to gravity in my paper "Newtonian limit
difficulties of General Relativity" which i am close to finish a new and
improved version 3.

Dualism implies gravitational generalization of geometric GR

h_ab(r,t) --> h_ab(r,t) + h_ab(R(t))

It is showed that h_ab(R(t)) reduces exactly to Newtonian potential
whereas the geometric solution h_ab(r,t) does *not*.

It is showed that the geometric approach to gravity is *broken* whereas
the field formulation (FTG) and the direct particle formulation (DPI)
like (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019) are not.

I would also point that it seems recent papers have provided experimental
electromagnetic measurements of v >> 10 c.

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 102, 013529 2007

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 101, 023532 2007

See figure 6 on the latter. But i am still studying those papers.

Of interest for students is also "Classical Relativistic Many-Body
Dynamics. 1999: Springer. Trump, Matthew A; Schieve, William C."

Where the authors also point to the correct two-body Newtonian potential
as function

phi(R(t)) (just i said :-))

and then generalize relativistically it as

phi(\rho(\tau))

where \rho is a generalized distance and \tau and multi-body time (it is
not proper-time in general).

That generalized relativistic potential is very popular but does not
satisfies some requirements i consider needed By that reason i am
developing an different relativistic many-body dynamics.

However at least the authors of the monograph know what *is* the
Newtonian potential :-)

Carlip decided to label me as "crank" last time i remarked his confusion
about Newtonian potentials.

I find interesting that one of the world experts in the field of
relativistic chaos

http://order.ph.utexas.edu/research/glimpse.html

has obtained the same conclusion about potentials i obtained and works
with the exactly the same functional expression i am working.

Is Prof. Schieve (and Stuckelberg, Feynman, Piron, Horwitz...) also a
crank dear Carlip? :-)

Dr. Carlip has arrived at the same conclusion
as I have, though by different means. My way
is presented to be simpler and more accessible,
and I have previously posted diagrams in this
thread and a geodesic solution example.

Back in 1908, Minkowski wrote an article
"Space and Time", (Dover's PoR has it).
In that is a Group denoted G(oo), that you
Juan, TVF and Eugene subscribe to and another
group G(c) that supersedes G(oo) that Minkowski
proves (to my satisfaction) is necessary
for the Lorentz Transformation.

I've personally checked and certified
"Modern SpaceTime" at this link,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
and find it fully compatible with related
branches of SpaceTime, with those briefs
here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
Therein, you can see an independantly derived
confirmation of Group G(c), over a wide range
of physics, carefully done, with minimalistic
assumptions, and of course, in accord with the
ISU's 1983 Length-Time decision, that has
International acceptance.

The year is 2008, I see no physical evidence
to go back to 1907 to embrace G(oo), thereby
discarding G(c) and a century of hard work.

Neither Juan, TVF or Eugene has provided a
shred of physical evidence to cancel a century
of hard work, and move us back to G(oo).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt8
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The speed of gravity revisited
    ... Neither Carlip nor Roberts seem to know this standard definition. ... the force that creates that gradient propagates at speeds>> c, ... other relativists are doing about interactions. ... about Newtonian potentials. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lafontaine wirft Bush und Blair Terrorismus vor
    ... appelliert keineswegs gegen besseres Wissen an die niedrigen Instinke des ... Proletariats, sondern er findet diese selbst großartig. ... Lafotaine ist ein gnadenloser Opportunist. ...
    (de.talk.tagesgeschehen)
  • Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
    ... of the most beautiful in all of physics - so beautiful Zwienbach in his ... It links to an old reply by Steve Carlip about Newtonian limits I had ... analyse Carlip behavior and diferent techniques used during debate: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does the Curvature of Spacetime cause gravity?
    ... > Your profound confusion ... Carlip has an impressive publication record, ... which is helpful for those interested in physics. ... any members who are interested in learning about science, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR -> Black Holes Cant Form... Take 2
    ... I think that's not true in physics. ... equation and says *absolute motion* vanishs. ... which means absolute displacement vanishes ... Dr. Carlip, I respect your record of publications ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)