 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2007On the GP-B & LIGO
Mr. Tucker says, In these articles, http://physics.trak4.com supports a modified GR, even if the results of GP-b and LIGO null. GR (IMHO) is an exceptionally powerful theory. I believe the calculations rendering frame dragging and gravitational radiation may have resulted from poorly applied erroreous appications of tensor analysis. I find theoretical physicists lack the necessary discipline to apply tensor analysis, overall. There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole planet who understand tensor analysis applied to GR, let's see who they are. Regards Ken S. Tucker > Mr. Tucker says, > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > poorly applied erroreous appications of tensor > analysis. ...and how are you qualified to make such a statement? > I find theoretical physicists lack the necessary > discipline to apply tensor analysis, overall. *laughs* This coming from the guy who thinks gravitational radiation is actually electromagnetic radiation. > There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole > planet who understand tensor analysis applied > to GR, let's see who they are. > Regards Not you? > Ken S. Tucker > > Mr. Tucker says, > > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ...and how are you qualified to make such a statement? What's that saying, *a fella doesn't need to be chicken to smell a bad egg*. The calculations are published, it's not a govmonk matter. > > I find theoretical physicists lack the necessary > > discipline to apply tensor analysis, overall. > > *laughs* Sound out that word, *La - you - ga - ha ' s*, is a laff. No wonder spelin' is a PITA. > This coming from the guy who thinks gravitational radiation is > actually electromagnetic radiation. Don't matter what I think, it's scientifically responsible to present a solution. We have the right to express energy in terms of charge configurations, and then from that solve the EFE's. E=mc2 and the PoE do not discriminate on the nature of matter, so in GR you have the right use the geometry of charge configurations to define mass and energy. Using that definition it appears - on superficial examination - that g-waves and EM waves are the same thing. Lacking a Quantum Gravitational Field Theory I can reference too, I'll presume relativity is correct and apply it's accepted principles. > > There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole > > planet who understand tensor analysis applied > > to GR, let's see who they are. > > Regards > > Not you? Not likely, though I aspire to be, but the fans of GR can spot a good player, just as baseball fans can spot a good baseball player without actually being pro ball players, age is working against me, wish I could live to be 200 with an equivalent IQ! What about you Eric, what are your aspirations? BTW Eric, I've been thinking about writing a fresh sim program on that binary BH-hole problem you introduced, (I'm never satisfied with the last one). That may be important if I use the EFE EM-solution sim'd to provide a spectral signature of EMR in place of g-waves. What do think a huge amount of very long wave emitted radiation would look like? What detection gear would be required to receive EMR in Light Year wavelengths? Can we rule out the possibility that the universe is flooded with 1 LY wavelength radiation? If not, is that source of power? Best Regards and Cheers Ken S. Tucker > > > Mr. Tucker says, > > > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > chicken to smell a bad egg*. The calculations > are published, it's not a govmonk matter. Those who do not understand the mathematics are unqualified to judge said mathematics. > > > I find theoretical physicists lack the necessary > > > discipline to apply tensor analysis, overall. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > definition it appears - on superficial examination - that > g-waves and EM waves are the same thing. Yes, SUPERFICIAL examination. Just because it obeys a wave equation does _not_ mean it is electromagnetic. In the Lorentz gauge for E&M both the vector potential and scalar potentials obey exactly the wave equation when J = rho = 0 - does that mean both are EMR? Go back to your GR textbooks and carefully notice that gravitational waves are obtained with NO MENTION IN ANY WAY of electromagnetism. Then remember that spacetime can be nice and dynamical, and draw the obvious conclusion. > Lacking a Quantum Gravitational Field Theory I can > reference too, I'll presume relativity is correct and > apply it's accepted principles. Might want to reconsider how you are applying relativity if you are getting something stupidly wrong. > > > There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole > > > planet who understand tensor analysis applied [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > program on that binary BH-hole problem you introduced, > (I'm never satisfied with the last one). Have fun with that. You are doubly at a disadvantage - your understanding of relativity is poor and implementing relativity via computer is a pain in the balls. By the way - Phys. Rev. D, 36 1017, 1987 suddenly becomes very, very relevant. The static case is more tractable. > That may be important if I use the EFE EM-solution > sim'd to provide a spectral signature of EMR in place > of g-waves. Gee.. EMR is generated by a moving charge dipole [among other things, but dipole is the lowest order pole] - gravitational radiation is generated by moving quadrupole and higher moments. Off to a bad start when you can't even get the lowest generating moments to agree. > What do think a huge amount of very long wave > emitted radiation would look like? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Can we rule out the possibility that the universe > is flooded with 1 LY wavelength radiation? Of course not. It just isn't relevant - calculate the energy density of such a wave. > If not, is that source of power? > > Best Regards and Cheers > Ken S. Tucker > > > > Mr. Tucker says, > > > > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Those who do not understand the mathematics are unqualified to judge > said mathematics. Returning to the question I asked, who do you think understands mathematics? Do you ? > > > > I find theoretical physicists lack the necessary > > > > discipline to apply tensor analysis, overall. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > both the vector potential and scalar potentials obey exactly the wave > equation when J = rho = 0 - does that mean both are EMR? Do you mean the derivatives? > Go back to your GR textbooks and carefully notice that gravitational > waves are obtained with NO MENTION IN ANY WAY of electromagnetism. > Then remember that spacetime can be nice and dynamical, and draw the > obvious conclusion. We have a problem, can you confirm g-waves are in accord with PoE? > > Lacking a Quantum Gravitational Field Theory I can > > reference too, I'll presume relativity is correct and > > apply it's accepted principles. > > Might want to reconsider how you are applying relativity if you are > getting something stupidly wrong. Agreed, I think we could right a book on testing that, however, do you object to trusting experimental physicists? > > > > There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole > > > > planet who understand tensor analysis applied [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > understanding of relativity is poor and implementing relativity via > computer is a pain in the balls. Eric, did you cop out? No one said the universe is simple, oh well, another one shot before he even left the trench, HERE REST's IN PIECE's, Eric the slow, likeable, but not too bright. His cause of death is written as "ball pain". > > That may be important if I use the EFE EM-solution > > sim'd to provide a spectral signature of EMR in place [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Off to a bad start when you can't even get the lowest generating > moments to agree. I'm working on that! > > What do think a huge amount of very long wave > > emitted radiation would look like? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It just isn't relevant - calculate the energy density of such a wave. :-) > > If not, is that source of power? > > > Best Regards and Cheers Ken S. Tucker > > Mr. Tucker says, > > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ...and how are you qualified to make such a statement? Some here have been honest and courageous enough to admit that a null GP-B result would constitute a total falsification of GR. I take it that you agree with them. Is that fair to say? cmaj10 On Mar 28, 6:55 am, cma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Mr. Tucker says, > > > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > poorly applied erroreous appications of tensor > > > analysis. > Some here have been honest and courageous enough to admit that a null > GP-B result would constitute a total falsification of GR. I take it > that you agree with them. Is that fair to say? > cmaj10 No I wouldn't agree. The question is, if GP-b and LIGO null, is GR dead? To solve that problem let's apply philosophy, by realizing a distinction between the General Theory of Relativity (GToR) and the General Principles of Relativity (GPoR). The GToR results from an application of math (tensor analysis) applied to the GPoR, we may even write a little description of that as, GPoR + math => GToR. It is the GToR that is used to produce physical predictions. Obviously if the "math" is incorrect, we expect the GToR to be incorrect even if the GPoR are correct. >From what I can tell, the "math" was imported from AE's foundational GR1916 paper, that for purposes of simplicity contained mathematical assumptions inconsistent with the GPoR, especially evident in his remarks on g= |g_uv|, where a suspension of general covariance is invoked and evolved to become a rule without rigorous substantiation. So I look at the math first to see if there is systemic error, (personally I think there is a few). Regards Ken > On Mar 28, 6:55 am, cma...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Regards > Ken I understood that. But my question was not addressed to you. It was addressed to Eric Gisse. You removed one line in your quote, it's the line where he asked you "...and how are you qualified to make such a statement?" That's what I was reacting to. Here's my motivation: 1) K S Tucker declares: I think that if GP-B is null, then there is an error in the calculations. 2) E Gisse replies: No you're wrong you are ill-equiped to arrive at such a conclusion. 3) cmaj10 thinks: okay, either there's a mistake or there is not. If there is not---as E Gisse seems to assert---then GP-B null would imply GR wrong at the postulate level. 4) cmaj10 asks E Gisse to confirm that this is his view also. cmaj10 On Mar 28, 2:58 pm, cma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Mar 28, 6:55 am, cma...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > 1) K S Tucker declares: I think that if GP-B is null, then there is an > error in the calculations. No, it means someone really f.cked up GP-B because the Lense-Thirring effect has already been observed. The problem is that the analysis of the LAGEOS data agrees to within 10% of GR - there is plenty of room for error and a better test is desired. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/17/12/309 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NewA...11..527C > 2) E Gisse replies: No you're wrong you are ill-equiped to arrive at > such a conclusion. It remains true. Ken doesn't understand much, if anything, about relativity. > 3) cmaj10 thinks: okay, either there's a mistake or there is not. If > there is not---as E Gisse seems to assert---then GP-B null would imply > GR wrong at the postulate level. No, GP-B nulling out means someone f.cked up terribly. The head of the person responsible will be divided out amongst the entire Stanford campus. > 4) cmaj10 asks E Gisse to confirm that this is his view also. I expect things will perform to spec. Several gross and reasonably fine measurements of the Lense-Thirring effect have already been made. The existence of frame dragging is manifest in spinning black holes, which drastically changes the dynamics of crud surrounding the hole. That has been observed to a reasonable degree of accuracy as well. > cmaj10 <snip> > No, GP-B nulling out means someone f.cked up terribly. The head of the > person responsible will be divided out amongst the entire Stanford > campus. Hopefully they would show him his error PRIOR to the beheading, so to maximize his torment. I suppose he would reply: "Why didn't you tell me BEFOREHAND? You watched go for 45 years, and you didn't say a word?! Dammit!" <snip> cmaj10 To Mr. cma, and Eric and all... > On Mar 28, 2:58 pm, cma...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > line where he asked you "...and how are you qualified to make such a > > statement?" That's what I was reacting to. Here's my motivation: Right, I opened the argument to the question of the "qualifications" of GPoR, math and the resulting GToR. > > 1) K S Tucker declares: I think that if GP-B is null, then there is an > > error in the calculations. > No, it means someone really f.cked up GP-B because the Lense-Thirring > effect has already been observed. The problem is that the analysis of > the LAGEOS data agrees to within 10% of GR - there is plenty of room > for error and a better test is desired. Eric writes, "there is plenty of room for error". http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/17/12/309http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/ 2006NewA...11..527C > > 2) E Gisse replies: No you're wrong you are ill-equiped to arrive at > > such a conclusion. > > It remains true. Ken doesn't understand much, if anything, about > relativity. Yes I'm opened minded, apply Boolean Logic, 1) If both GP-b AND LIGO work then, classical GToR survives. 2) If both GP-b AND LIGO null, then classical GToR is in deep poop, but it's likely a "math" fault. 3) If one is true and the other is false, classical GToR is in trouble, in addition that might send us back to the GPoR, because of the *contradiction*, that will be the most difficult outcome. > > 3) cmaj10 thinks: okay, either there's a mistake or there is not. If > > there is not---as E Gisse seems to assert---then GP-B null would imply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > person responsible will be divided out amongst the entire Stanford > campus. That's plain silly, no single person is responsible for a 80 year old operational paradigm. > > 4) cmaj10 asks E Gisse to confirm that this is his view also. > > I expect things will perform to spec. Several gross and reasonably > fine measurements of the Lense-Thirring effect have already been made. > The existence of frame dragging is manifest in spinning black holes, Oh boy, more pop-sci. > which drastically changes the dynamics of crud surrounding the hole. > That has been observed to a reasonable degree of accuracy as well. Yeah, I read that on the back of a Shreddies box this morning, that was beside mental levitation :-). Ken [...] [...] > Yes I'm opened minded, apply Boolean Logic, > > 1) If both GP-b AND LIGO work then, classical GToR > survives. > 2) If both GP-b AND LIGO null, then classical GToR > is in deep poop, but it's likely a "math" fault. Nice shifting of the goal posts. Now you are talking about LIGO. At any rate, GP-B can not null out as there have been separate gross and relatively fine measurements of the Lense-Thirring effect. Which was my entire point, which you appear to have missed. [...] > > I expect things will perform to spec. Several gross and reasonably > > fine measurements of the Lense-Thirring effect have already been made. > > The existence of frame dragging is manifest in spinning black holes, > > Oh boy, more pop-sci. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/brief/65488 .abstract.html Don't criticize what you don't understand. > > which drastically changes the dynamics of crud surrounding the hole. > > That has been observed to a reasonable degree of accuracy as well. > > Yeah, I read that on the back of a Shreddies box > this morning, that was beside mental levitation :-). > Ken > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nice shifting of the goal posts. Now you are talking about LIGO. Read the OP, LIGO & GP-B. > At any rate, GP-B can not null out as there have been separate gross > and relatively fine measurements of the Lense-Thirring effect. Which > was my entire point, which you appear to have missed. Where's your math? > > Oh boy, more pop-sci. > > http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/... > > Don't criticize what you don't understand. If you stop quoting articles you're thoughly incompetent to comment on objectively. Just because you're competent to wipe your a.s, doesn't make you able to construct toilet paper, far from it, all you've proven is you can sh.t like a pig. You old fella is new to GR, so I'll cut some slack, but are you sure, maybe bird watching is better for ya, GR takes REAL effort. Ken > Mr. Tucker says, > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I find theoretical physicists lack the necessary > discipline to apply tensor analysis, overall. Muahahahaha! > There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole > planet who understand tensor analysis applied > to GR, let's see who they are. Oh dear. Let me guess: you have finally managed to understand something of tensor analysis and you now assume that everyone else is in the same boat: just barely holding onto some understanding. -- Jan Bielawski ... > > There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole > > planet who understand tensor analysis applied [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > something of tensor analysis and you now assume that everyone else is > in the same boat: just barely holding onto some understanding. That's about the size of it. Let's do simple math. Let an electrostatic potential be q/r. In continuum theory d/dr (q/r) is an E-field, (single source particle). What is /\q//\r ? (incremental variations). What is d/dr (/\q//\r)? What is /\//\r (/\q//\r)? The "/\" is a quantum requirement. Next care to solve the above in a generally covariant format? Do you Jan or anyone else know how to solve that "simple" problem? Moving the above incrementals into a General Covariant form is equivalent to creating a Quantized Tensor Analysis, (QTA). What logic power is derived from QTA? Maybe if the buck is your quantum, you'd make Bill Gates look like a peasant. Regards Ken > ... > > > There's only a few f.cking guys on the whole [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In continuum theory d/dr (q/r) is an > E-field, (single source particle). No, Ken. The field due to a potential is -grad(V). You are off by a sign and aren't including direction. > What is /\q//\r ? (incremental variations). > What is d/dr (/\q//\r)? > What is /\//\r (/\q//\r)? > The "/\" is a quantum requirement. This is gibberish without context, Ken. Were you trying to write /_\ - as in the regular calculus differential? Did you mean the wedge product? Are you obliquely referencing the uncertainty principle? Did you mean to say something else? Do you even know what you mean? > Next care to solve the above in a generally > covariant format? Neat! Your gibberish isn't even self-consistent. You mention 'quantum' then a short time later 'covariant'. There is no covariant formulation of quantum mechanics, Ken. > Do you Jan or anyone else know how to > solve that "simple" problem? Do you even know what you are asking? > Moving the above incrementals into a > General Covariant form is equivalent to creating > a Quantized Tensor Analysis, (QTA). A bold step! Transforming gibberish into word salad, that. > What logic power is derived from QTA? I can unify the amount of angels that can dance on the head of a pin with the unicorn density of antineutrinos contained within the crank case of a VW bug. > Maybe if the buck is your quantum, you'd > make Bill Gates look like a peasant. > Regards > Ken Studied your post carefully Eric, ... > > That's about the size of it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, Ken. The field due to a potential is -grad(V). You are off by a > sign and aren't including direction. Good catch, nice to see respect for classically applied vector calculus. > > What is /\q//\r ? (incremental variations). > > What is d/dr (/\q//\r)? > > What is /\//\r (/\q//\r)? > > The "/\" is a quantum requirement. > > This is gibberish without context, Ken. Ok, point taken. I am but a humble electronics technician with a good Amp-meter that measures, (I'll use # as the "delta increment" if that's the clear ascii you all prefer), current = #q / # t =/= dq/dt, Eq.(1) the RHS is inaccurate because charge and thus current is quantized, (the RHS implies an infinite accuracy). Time interval "# t" is quantized by the most accurate clocks available, so the LHS is what my very best Amp meter will ever measure. > Are you obliquely referencing the uncertainty principle? Yes that's excellent wording, the best current meter I can build is limited by the quantisation of charge #q and the finest time interval # t available. (Rock and a Hard place). The "#" symbol is good because you can change it into an integer (number) "n", cute. >Do you even know what you mean? As a humble technician, who needs to understand his instruments, it appears to me, that I shall need to use the LHS of Eq.(1). The Amp-meter seems to be the simplest gadget that demands quantum theory. > > Next care to solve the above in a generally > > covariant format? > > Neat! Your gibberish isn't even self-consistent. You mention 'quantum' > then a short time later 'covariant'. There is no covariant formulation > of quantum mechanics, Ken. I think I can express my Amp-meter reading given by current = #q / # t generally covariantly, why do you think that's a problem? Regards Ken rest snipped with humor.... > ... you [Mr. Tucker] have finally managed > to understand something of tensor analysis and you now assume > that everyone else is in the same boat: just barely holding onto > some understanding. Here is an analogy for you. The entire Christian faith is based on the belief of the resurrection of Christ. The very foundation of the hypothesis known as the general theory of relativity resides in the covariant derivative. This mathematical operator was designed by Ricci using how Christoffel arranged the connection coefficients in the geodesic equations. Is there more than one way to arrange these coefficients? The Christoffel symbols of the second kind are not unique. Believe or not. > > ... you [Mr. Tucker] have finally managed > > to understand something of tensor analysis and you now assume [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of Christ. The very foundation of the hypothesis known as the general > theory of relativity resides in the covariant derivative. This No, GR is based upon the principle of general covariance and the equivalence principle. The covariant derivative falls out from that. It is also nothing like the Christian faith. Can't you say one thing about GR without f.cking it up and making yourself look stupid in the process? > mathematical operator was designed by Ricci using how Christoffel > arranged the connection coefficients in the geodesic equations. Is > there more than one way to arrange these coefficients? The > Christoffel symbols of the second kind are not unique. Believe or > not. Oh boy. I can't wait to see the forthcoming proof of this ludicrous statement. That assumes, of course, you are actually going to prove it. You haven't proven any of your previous statements so I don't suppose you will start now. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing some actual work for once, though. > Mr. Tucker says, > In these articles,http://physics.trak4.com [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Regards > Ken S. Tucker A "2.7 Tucker" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.