Re: A new GToR?

On Feb 14, 7:55 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

I know you read what I write, Ken. I know because even though you
rarely respond to me anymore, you occasionally respond in a typical
incoherent but extremely angry manner.

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.

Try reading, Ken.

The point is that Nordtvedt's lunar ranging observations are not
consistent with observation unless the effects which you dismiss - out
of hand - are used.


[snip]

This is total nonsense.

That is "nonsense" is what I find too, given that
the spacetime field is defined by light rays.

That is both wrong, and stupid. The metric is not defined through
light.

By transforming the metric, via GC, we arrive at,http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf

This is also wrong, and stupid. The Kerr solution is a solution to the
field equations.

[snip]


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.

Wrong and stupid again!

The coupling constants for electromagnetism and gravitation are
different by 40 orders of magnitude and the charge multipole moments
are different. Rather than explain this AMAZING COINCIDENCE you squirt
some ink about "unified field theory" in the utterly pointless hope
that people won't see you are full of ***.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/17d7dda69010c5f4

5 years of stupidity! Congratulations.

[snip]


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

Wrong and stupid!

Gravitational radiation couples to the 2nd time derivative of the mass
quadrupole moment. Electromagnetic radiation couples to the 2nd time
derivative of the charge DIPOLE moment.


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.

You (you) did no such thing. You did not solve the field equations,
you did not use Maxwell's equations, you didn't do ***.

I find it funny that after several years of me pointing this out, you
still have not responded to even one criticism of your inane
arguments. Crank alert.

[snip]

Given arbituary orbital parameters, I can get
the Watts (power emission).

THEN DO IT.

The derivation according to GR is a literal textbook exercise. Where's
your derivation?

[snip rest]
.