Re: A new GToR?

Hi Steve.

On Feb 11, 3:02 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

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"...

Just for the record, since various antirelativists seem to have spread
some confusion:

--The preliminary results from Gravity Probe B are completely consistent
with GR. Geodetic precession is seen at the expected value, with an
accuracy of about 1%. Frame-dragging is also seen, but due to an
unanticipated source of noise (electrostatic interactions of patches of
charge on the gyros), the error bars are quite large. Fortunately (and
because of good experimental design), the effects of these charges can
be extracted from the signal; it may still be possible to achieve an
accuracy of 3-6%.

GP-b tests a Math of the logical sequence.
GPoR + Math(s) => GToR,
specifically the Kerr metric's g_0i AND the Mach
Principle giving rise to the "frame dragging".
See Weinberg's "Grav&Cosmo" pg. 240, and please
note Weinberg's use of *looks* in italics.

My studies, in agreement with Weinberg, consider
the Kerr metric to be a *conjectural math*, that
I find is inconsistent with the GPoR.

--LIGO has only recently completed its first run at design sensitivity,
and the data analysis is underway. Whether or not it sees gravitational
waves on this run is largely a matter of luck -- it depends on things like
the number of nearby binary neutron stars, which we do not know. Since
we don't know the number of gravitational wave sources within the
present range (about 15 megaparsecs for binary neutron star inspirals,
I believe), we don't know how likely a signal is.

LIGO is currently undergoing an upgrade to "Enhanced LIGO," which
should give a factor of eight increase in the volume of space that can
be "seen." After that, there will be a major upgrade to "Advanced LIGO,"
which will see a thousand times the volume.

In neither case has GR failed, either exactly or in any approximation.
That is, neither experiment has given a result that is in any way
inconsistent with GR. Gravity Probe B currently has large error bars,
which are likely to be pushed down with further analysis; LIGO has not
yet seen anything, but there is no prediction that it should have, since
we don't know of any source close enough for it to have seen.

There are still places that GR could fail. The further analysis of the
Gravity Probe B data could yet give a value for frame-dragging that's
inconsistent with GR. Advanced LIGO could fail to see gravitational
waves (we *know* there are sources within its range), or the analysis
of the data from the current LIGO run could find a gravitational wave
with properties inconsistent with GR.

I could indeed suggest you Mr. Carlip, are an
"anti-relativist" ;-), why? Because neither
results of GP-b or LIGO, one way or the other
threaten the GPoR, as you imply. I've studied
advanced Math(s) applied to derive GToR, that
produce null results of those two experiments.

At the moment, though, there's just baby, no bath water...
Steve Carlip

Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

Quantcast