Re: A new GToR?

Hi Steve.

On Feb 12, 3:51 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

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".

Goodness, no! The exterior field of the Earth is not described by the
Kerr metric -- if you want an exact solution, you want something like
a Neugebauer solution, with the multipole moments chosen to match
those of the Earth. But frame-dragging doesn't require anything
nearly so elaborate; for the Earth (as opposed to a rotating black
hole), you'll do fine with the post-Newtonian approximation, as
described, for instance, by Weinberg.

A problem with that (Thomas precession),
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession)
in Weinberg's "G&C" Eq.(5.1.9) is the presumption
of orthogonality in a rotating system.

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*,

Weinberg thinks no such thing. He does, however, know that the Earth
is not a black hole, and that the Kerr solution is not the unique metric
for an axisymmetric rotating source.

that I find is inconsistent with the GPoR.

OK, then. How do you explain the *observed* frame-dragging in the
motion of the LAGEOS satellites? How about the gravitomagnetic
effect on the Moon's orbit seen in Lunar laser ranging (see for example
Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647)?

The Scientific Method requires repeatability
and verification by alternative experiments,
to conclude a spurious observation is a fact
of nature.

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,

Let m know when you publish.

I (we) published a brief here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
and a few articles here,
http://physics.trak4.com/
but I'd like to do better prior to going to
hard copy to sell.

that produce null results of those two experiments.

OK, then. How do you explain the observed decay of binary pulsar orbits?
Start with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar -- you know, the one they won the 1993
Nobel Prize for. We now have 34 years of observations, which match, year
by year, the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy
due to gravitational radiation. Do you have an alternative explanation
(that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation
to a fraction of a percent)? Then explain PSR J0737-3039, a double pulsar
system with very different parameters from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, that
also (what a coincidence!) exhibits orbital decay that exactly matches
the GR prediction for gravitational radiation reaction.

Sure, but we've solved the EFE's electrically,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
for instance do a partial diff w.r.t of Eq.(2)
and the emitted radiation appears as EMR.
We don't have the radio telescopes that operate
at that frequency to get a confirmation.

Steve Carlip

Where "frame dragging" is concerned, a light
ray going from L to R will travel on a different
geodesic than going from R to L,

L <================>R
O

when massive Object O is rotating ?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.