Re: A new GToR?
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:08:53 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 10, 7:06 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Ken S. Tucker:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:df9473d7-8121-4c2e-aa19-419dd18f2416@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GToR =General Theory of Relativty.
A null result of LIGO sofar, together with
the ambiguous result of GP-b, (which is
unlikely to be trusted however the numbers
are skewered) , requires a new GToR.
Horse manure. These were based on *approximations* to GR, not GR
itself. The tools we know how to apply, in ways that the
researrchers wanted to apply it, predicted the results not
obtained.
Gravitational waves are moving angular momentum out of binary
pulsar systems. LAGEOS did obtain frame dragging.
David A. Smith
My standards of science are somewhat high.
Call me old fashioned, but I DO use the
scientific method, is that understood?
Ken S. Tucker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new GToR?
- From: dlzc
- Re: A new GToR?
- References:
- A new GToR?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: A new GToR?
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- A new GToR?
- Prev by Date: Re: Galilean transformation equations
- Next by Date: Re: A new GToR?
- Previous by thread: Re: A new GToR?
- Next by thread: Re: A new GToR?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
