Re: A new GToR?

Ken S. Tucker <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:39 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]

Let's focus a little.

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.

Electromagnetic radiation is vectorial -- that is, the two independent
polarizations differ by a 90 degree rotation. It couples to charge
dipoles, and the strongest component of the radiation is dipolar. The
power radiated by a two-body system goes as the square of the velocity.

Gravitational radiation is tensorial -- the two independent polarizations
differ by a 45 degree rotation. It couples to mass quadrupoles -- there is
no coupling to dipoles -- and the strongest component of the radiation is
quadrupolar. The power radiated by a two-body system goes as the fourth
power of the velocity.

In addition, the gravitational coupling between a proton and an electron
is about 40 orders of magnitude smaller than the electromagnetic
coupling.

How can you possibly say that these are "coarsely" the same?


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.

No, it's not. The existing well-tested theory says that orbits of binary
pulsar systems decay because gravitational radiation reaction. Looking
at electromagnetic energy as a source of gravity in the Einstein field
equations has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

(It has also been done already, in an exact form, not eith the rough
approximation you use. Look up the Reissner-Nordstrom solution.)

("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.)

[...]
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.

Whatever happens with LIGO, you need to do this. This is a simple and
straightforward test of your claim. Don't chicken out -- work out the
numbers.

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).

OK, let's see it, for the binary pulsar system of your choice. Note that the
*observed* power loss depends on the masses, orbital periods, and velocities
in a particular way, which matches the predictions of GR. Let's see the
dependences you come up with.

Steve Carlip

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new GToR?
    ... it gets these predictions so right? ... Because GR is coarsely correct, same radiation, in EMR. ... power radiated by a two-body system goes as the square of the velocity. ... Gravitational radiation is tensorial -- the two independent polarizations ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... >> bring it here specifically dont send me to libraries ... > It covers spectra, multipole moments, transition amplitudes, bond length ... a building as well as an atom of an electron ... yet there is no radiation without *resonance*! ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... >> bring it here specifically dont send me to libraries ... > It covers spectra, multipole moments, transition amplitudes, bond length ... a building as well as an atom of an electron ... yet there is no radiation without *resonance*! ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A new GToR?
    ... 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 ... electrodynamics, and electroweak theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Repulsion binds atoms
    ... "Electron Beam Lithography" or "Electron ... Yes, the radiation is nil, justas the radiation ... really wrong in thinking a pair of similar classical charges, ... expanding shell never changes in advance of the shell. ...
    (sci.physics)