Re: A new GToR?

Dear Ken S. Tucker:

On Feb 11, 5:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 10, 7:06 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"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.

My standards of science are somewhat high.
Call me old fashioned, but I DO use the
scientific method, is that understood?

I understand what you are saying, but do you?

GR descirbes what has been seen in the two observations I described.
*Approximations* to GR failed to work up in experiments. So let's
call GR "the baby", and the approximations "the bath water"...

Dumping GR because some approximations don't work, is throwing the
baby out with the bath water. (In case you did not see that coming.)

David A. Smith
.