Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 10:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
On May 23, 8:35 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 23, 7:29 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 23, 5:00 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, since GP-B didn't null and binary systems decay exactly as if
gravitational radiation were real, and given the independent
confirmation of Frame Dragging in the LAGEOS I/II spacecraft
We've taken a $BILLION of taxpayer money and we
failed to confirm "FD" or "g-waves".
Uhhh, what?
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
NONCONCLUSIVE, as NASA concluded.
As for LIGO, we'll keep plugging at it till it works.
We had a visual Gamma Ray Burst go off, and LIGO
remained silent, get objective.
(Personally, I'm disappointed by the results
of GP-b and LIGO so far, but Mother Nature
doesn't give a rat's ass about my feelings,
I do the science as icy cold as possible, and
reported the results).
*Look again, there could be an alligator under
your bed*.
The null results of GP-b and LIGO are software
errors in understanding GToR, those effects are
imaginary artifacts, but those null experiments
confirm the upgrading of GToR.
Even with direct observation of frame dragging and indirect
observation of gravitational waves
In the BUSINESS of science, those are "intermittent"
observations, (something Eric knows nothing about),
like seeing a face on Mars.
REAL science requires reproducability, to eliminate
spurious, noisy inputs, and subjectivity.
ONWARD =====> NEW & IMPROVED.Classical GToR was superseded (obsoleted) 30
years ago, we now have proof.
Ken S. Tucker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- References:
- g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Juan R.
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Juan R.
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Juan R.
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- From: Eric Gisse
- g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- Prev by Date: Re: THE MISTAKEN COSMOLOGY
- Next by Date: Re: Immoderate Moderators
- Previous by thread: Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- Next by thread: Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|