Re: A new GToR?

Hi Steve, Happy Valentines to you and all.

On Feb 13, 5:39 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Steve.
On Feb 13, 10:57 am, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:51 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
1. LAGEOS (to be further tested by the LARES mission)
2. Lunar laser ranging (repeatable, and repeated many times; look up
APOLLO for the best current work)
Yes, is this ref to be trusted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect

Sheesh! This is about one particular effect tested by Lunar laser ranging,
but not about frame-dragging. As I said earlier, "See for example Nordtvedt,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2647."

Not sure where you're going with this 20 yo
1988 article. You should review "tidal geology"
(and Lunar tidal geology) in light of GPS.
Seems Earth's granite deforms a foot or two,
that is unpredictable. like as in earthquakes.

If you're going to overthrow GR, don't you think you ought to first learn a bit
about the experimental evidence currently explained by GR, for which you're
going to need an alternative explanation?

I'm suggesting a revision of GToR, that may
require an addendum to a few text books that
the new bright GRist generation can consider.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0264-9381/19/17/103/q217l3.pdf?
request-...
Yeah. There's an argument between Iorio and Ciufolini about how
accurate a test the LARES mission will give -- Iorio would have
preferred a more accurate, but more expensive, experiment (as
would everyone, if the money had been there).

You do of course understand "frame-dragging"
theory makes spacetime dependant upon the
velocity (direction) of light?

This is total nonsense.

That is "nonsense" is what I find too, given that
the spacetime field is defined by light rays.
By transforming the metric, via GC, we arrive at,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf

Add to that
3. Observed spin-orbit coupling for double pulsar PSR J0737???3039A/B
(see Breton et al., Science 321 (2008) 104, for instance)
How much more evidence would it take to convince you? Is there
*any* amount that would do?
NASA has ruled out "frame dragging" as to minute to measure

No, it hasn't.

and terminated funding, (after spending 1/2 $Billion on GP-b).

Yes, because the advisory committee felt that

During the long evolution of this experiment, constraints on
alternate theories of GR have developed and there have been a
number of measurements which have tested various aspects of
GR to very high precision. For this reason, the GP-B experiment
has been somewhat overtaken by events and now occupies a
diminished niche in the field of experimental tests of GR.

Well, that's a pretty way to pack-up a 1/2 $Billion
inconclusive experiment.

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.
So let me try to understand.
-- You believe pulsars are electrically charged?
No.
(or else that uncharged objects emit electromagnetic
radiation?).
Yes, in the right circumstances, such as we are using.

OK, so reject not only general relativity, but Maxwell's theory, quantum
electrodynamics, and electroweak theory. (You are not only smarter
than Nobel Prize winners like Hulse and Taylor, but also smarter than
Nobel Prize winners like Weinberg, Glashow, Salam, 't Hooft, and
Veltman, right?)

Tell me... Electromagnetism is very well tested in the lab. Can you
cite any experimental evidence whatsoever for an uncharged body
radiating?

No one has yet, not even g-waves.

-- You believe that the charge happens to be exactly the right amount
that the energy carried off by dipole electromagnetic radiation matches
the GR predictions of energy carried off by quadrupole gravitational
radiation, to within a fraction of a percent.
Yes, but it's the difference between attraction and repulsion, see below #.

And the numbers just happen to match, even though one is dipole radiation
and the other quadrupole, and even though the electromagnetic coupling
constant is 40 orders of magnitude different from the gravitational one?

Yes, that's to be expected from unified field thoery.

-- You believe the charge of these pulsars is changing in time, in just
the right way that the radiated electromagnetic energy (with a power
that goes as the square of the velocity) continues to exactly match the
GR predictions for radiated gravitational energy (with a power that
goes as the fourth power of the velocity), even as the velocities change.
You believe that for the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, this carefully
tuned readjustment of the charge has continued over the last 34 years.
-- You believe that all of these coincidences hold for three binary pulsar
systems with very different parameters, and that they hold as well for
a pulsar-white dwarf binary (PSR J1141???6545 -- see Bhat et al., Phys.
Rev. D77 (2008) 124017,http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0956). And that,
oddly enough, we've never seen a binary pulsar system in which these
coincidences didn't hold.
Is that about right?

The GToR is a bit more complicated.
We're obligated to solve the EFE's using an
structure of any mass-energy storage, including
electrical configurations, that Purcell terms
"potential energy U of a system of charges"
(E&M pg.51...), consisting soley of massless
charges, that is defined by the well known
SIGMA sum in his Eq.(40).
All we need to do to solve that EFE spec is do
it for a single "charge couple", then SIGMA sum,
provided here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
over a bazillion charge couples relating two
*neutral bodies*, like the Earth and Moon.

You didn't answer the question. Perhaps I used too many words.
Let me try again:

GR predicts the effect of gravitational radiation on neutron stars in
binaries. The predictions are extremely accurate, for a number of
systems with very different parameters.
If GR is wrong, and gravitational radiation doesn't exist, how come
it gets these predictions so right?

Because GR is coarsely correct, same radiation,
in EMR.

If your new theory, which has no gravitational radiation, is going to
agree with observation, how is it going to reproduce the quantitative
results of GR?

Mr. Carlip, in accord with the EFE's, with respect
to Purcell, I (we) merely inserted electrical energy
into the EFE's to *confirm* they're consistent, that's
an application of the existing well tested theory.

("Quantitative" here means "involving numbers": not "a" and "b", but
things like "-2.425x10^{-12}", the rate of change of the period of the
Hulse-Taylor pulsar.)

A question, then: a new binary pulsar system, PSR J1738+0333, was
recently announced (see Freire et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 983 (2008) 488,
arXiv:0711.1880 [astro-ph]). So far, its orbital decay rate agrees with
the predictions of GR, but with large uncertainties because of the short
amount of time it's been observed. But the accuracy is expected to
increase by a factor of ten over the next five years.
What is your theory's prediction? Will the results agree with the GR
predictions for orbital decay by gravitational wave emission? If
so, why, given the huge physical difference between gravitational
radiation and the mechanism you propose? If not, what *will* the
result be?
(Please show your work -- let's see the numbers.)
My pleasure Mr. Carlip.
(please correct me if I'm wrong, I may sound a bit
pedantic, but there are other readers).
In a circular orbit the partial diff &g_00/&t is
zero, it is only when we have elliptic orbits
that &g_00/&t is non zero and varying.
In Eq.(2) of the linked ref above, you'll find
g_00 = 1-AB
as an electrical solution of the EFE's.
Doing the radiation mechanism yields,
-&g_00/&t = (&A/&t)*B + A*(&B/&t).
For convenience, using the notation from the link,
we can re-write that in terms of charges and
Electric fields as,
-&g_00/&t = b*(&E(a)/&t) + a*(&E(b)/&t).
Isn't that an awesome application of GToR, a
perfect emmision of EMR (the partials &E/&t),
from the charges "a" and "b" equally.

Perhaps you misread my question. Let me try again.

A question, then: a new binary pulsar system, PSR J1738+0333, was
recently announced (see Freire et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 983 (2008) 488,
arXiv:0711.1880 [astro-ph]). So far, its orbital decay rate agrees with
the predictions of GR, but with large uncertainties because of the short
amount of time it's been observed. But the accuracy is expected to
increase by a factor of ten over the next five years.
What is your theory's prediction? Will the results agree with the GR
predictions for orbital decay by gravitational wave emission?

In case this is not clear: GR computes a rate of orbital decay for
PSR J1738+0333. It can be expressed as a change in the period -- a
*number* that tells you how much the orbital period of the system
is predicted to change per second. The GR computation comes from
calculating the rate at which gravitational radiation reduces the
energy of the system; it then uses the equations of motion of the
two orbiting masses to compute the resulting change in the orbital
period.

What *number* for the rate of change of the period of PSR J1738+0333
does your theory predict? The answer will be of the form:

"The period of PSR J1738+0333, measured in seconds, should change by
X seconds per second."

What value do you predict for X? How do you compute it? Does the number
X that you get from your theory agree with the number obtained in GR or
not?

That's a darn good idea Steve, thanks.
If LIGO remains silent we'll need to do that.

Have a look at the PS in this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_UFT.pdf

Given arbituary orbital parameters, I can get
the Watts (power emission).
Looks like enough theory to write a computer
program. The emission frequency is enigmatic.

Steve Carlip

Thanks Again
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new GToR?
    ... Observed spin-orbit coupling for double pulsar PSR J0737???3039A/B ... the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy ... due to gravitational radiation. ... (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A new GToR?
    ... the orbital decay predicted by GR as a result of loss of energy ... due to gravitational radiation. ... (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation ... electrodynamics, and electroweak theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A new GToR?
    ... gravitating body. ... Observed spin-orbit coupling for double pulsar PSR J0737???3039A/B ... due to gravitational radiation. ... (that just happens to match the predictions of gravitational radiation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... > You must understand induction mechanism first. ... at all about the generation and propagation of electromagnetic radiation. ... There is no medium in the Java applet shown above. ... Then you disagree with about 140 years of electrodynamics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Paradox of dipole radiation and PRA
    ... radiation beamed out along the axis of rotation. ... have circular polarisation in the plane of the rotation. ... I haven't looked at the electric dipole ... A conclusion is made that the electrodynamics sights orbital angular ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)