Prev: Atoms in molecules have to expand at bond when heated
Next: Is Gravitational Force Dependent on a Falling Object's Speed?
From: Tom Roberts on 10 Dec 2009 15:21
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Unlike Gisse and Roberts, real THEORETICIANS take
> the metrics to experiment, that involves REAL
> measurements of the predicted geodesics based on
> the metric quantities, to VERIFY the symmetric and
> antisymmetic components [...]

You do prattle on and on. So why is it you don't post the answers to my
elementary exercises?

Please post the "predicted geodesic" for the moon, assuming that only the earth
matters. This accounts for the first 3 or 4 significant figures of its
trajectory, so also show how you compare the "REAL measurements" to the
predicted geodesic, to that accuracy.

Then, just for fun, and to test whether or not you actually understand GR,
enumerate the reasons why a geodesic can be used for the moon, and the
limitations inherent in doing that.

[Note that unlike Ken's claims, such computations are
elementary, and are not part of a "real theoretician's"
efforts today. This is all well known and solved nearly
a century ago (e.g. Einstein 1916).]


> only about 20 guys on the planet understand GR

This is DEMONSTRABLY wrong. The number is in the thousands, perhaps even in the
tens of thousands. But it apparently does not include Ken S. Tucker, or he would
KNOW this.

Just look at the author lists for any journal or conference
on GR. Or look at the class rosters for GR courses in all
the colleges and universities that teach them. Or look at
the author lists for experiments on GR.


Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 10 Dec 2009 15:34
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> On Dec 10, 10:51 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Dec 9, 7:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> [This thread has been separated from an identical one in
>> >> sci.physics.foundations. This is how I replied there.]
>>
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> > At 1st strike, I find two physical instances of a "static"
>> >> > g-field, where the g-potential relating two bodies with masses
>> >> > M and m, remains constant,
>> >> > 1) Circular orbit.
>> >> > 2) m on the surface of M, such as we (m) sit in a chair.
>>
>> >> Those are NOT instances of a static gravitational field (as being
>> >> discussed in this thread). Those are merely instances of locations at
>> >> which the metric is constant. The key notion you missed is that a
>> >> static g-field is static throughout a REGION of the manifold, not just
>> >> at a single point, or on a path or surface.
>>
>> > I'm suggesting obtaining a deeper understanding of
>> > the problem from a study of geodesics.
>
>> > OTOH, Einstein provides the metrics for a static
>> > field in GR1916, Eq.(70), (available online), but
>> > that should be well known to a GR student.
>> > ...
>> > Ken S. Tucker
>>
>> Do you ever get bored of prattling about 'GR1916'
>
> Yes, only about 20 guys on the planet understand GR
> and one or two post, I do so sporadically.

You are off by at least 3 orders of magnitude, even if the dead aren't
counted.

>
> Unlike Gisse and Roberts, real THEORETICIANS take

Me, Bachelors of Science. Tom, PhD.

You are, by no objective standard, a 'real' theoretician. Nor do you know
what is involved.

> the metrics to experiment, that involves REAL
> measurements of the predicted geodesics based on
> the metric quantities, to VERIFY the symmetric and
> antisymmetic

Thank GOD you CAPITALIZED irrelevant WORDS to disguise the FACT that you
don't know what the hell you are talking about. You still do not understand
that the metric can not have any asymmetric components.

> components that may be available to the
> unwashed masses (such as Gisse), in 20-50 years, but
> I have no hope of that happening in my life time.
> Ken S. Tucker

So Ken, have you figured out how to respond to how I pointed out that you
never actually solved the Einstein-Maxwell equations when you post your
dumbass 'brief'? You've had a few years, any progress?

From: Ken S. Tucker on 10 Dec 2009 16:37
On Dec 10, 12:34 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 10:51 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> > On Dec 9, 7:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> [This thread has been separated from an identical one in
> >> >> sci.physics.foundations. This is how I replied there.]
>
> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >> > At 1st strike, I find two physical instances of a "static"
> >> >> > g-field, where the g-potential relating two bodies with masses
> >> >> > M and m, remains constant,
> >> >> > 1) Circular orbit.
> >> >> > 2) m on the surface of M, such as we (m) sit in a chair.
>
> >> >> Those are NOT instances of a static gravitational field (as being
> >> >> discussed in this thread). Those are merely instances of locations at
> >> >> which the metric is constant. The key notion you missed is that a
> >> >> static g-field is static throughout a REGION of the manifold, not just
> >> >> at a single point, or on a path or surface.
>
> >> > I'm suggesting obtaining a deeper understanding of
> >> > the problem from a study of geodesics.
>
> >> > OTOH, Einstein provides the metrics for a static
> >> > field in GR1916, Eq.(70), (available online), but
> >> > that should be well known to a GR student.
> >> > ...
> >> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> >> Do you ever get bored of prattling about 'GR1916'
>
> > Yes, only about 20 guys on the planet understand GR
> > and one or two post, I do so sporadically.
>
> You are off by at least 3 orders of magnitude, even if the dead aren't
> counted.
>
>
>
> > Unlike Gisse and Roberts, real THEORETICIANS take
>
> Me, Bachelors of Science. Tom, PhD.
>
> You are, by no objective standard, a 'real' theoretician. Nor do you know
> what is involved.

LOL, I'm paid by major corps for theoretics.
I'm regarded as a "trouble shooter"/

> > the metrics to experiment, that involves REAL
> > measurements of the predicted geodesics based on
> > the metric quantities, to VERIFY the symmetric and
> > antisymmetic
>
> Thank GOD you CAPITALIZED irrelevant WORDS to disguise the FACT that you
> don't know what the hell you are talking about. You still do not understand
> that the metric can not have any asymmetric components.

Who told you that?

> > components that may be available to the
> > unwashed masses (such as Gisse), in 20-50 years, but
> > I have no hope of that happening in my life time.
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> So Ken, have you figured out ... few years, any progress?

I published a well received paper in 1996, that
generalized and detailed this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf

The negative results of GP-b and LIGO have verified
the results, so I'll get around to conclusions when
we get time, until then work it out for yourself,
oughta make you useful for sumfink.
Boot strap a Ph.d off my work, it's legal with the
Tucker as a footnote.
Ken S. Tucker
From: eric gisse on 12 Dec 2009 17:39
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

[...]

>> >> > The problem you (Grisse) and Roberts dismally
>> >> > fail to realize is that the metric is an invented fantasy.
>> > ...
>> >> Let's try a simple exercise. What's a metric? Give the physical
>> >> meaning of the construct.
>>
>> > Where does the 1/r in a Newtonian potential come from?
>>
>> Newtonian field equations.
>> Now what's a metric?
>
> Evidently Eric is down a pint of gobblygook,
> Tom Roberts will top up his brain, Eric ask Tom.

So you neither know what the metric is, or what the Newtonian field
equations are. Nice.

[...]

From: Ken S. Tucker on 12 Dec 2009 19:58
On Dec 12, 2:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> > The problem you (Grisse) and Roberts dismally
> >> >> > fail to realize is that the metric is an invented fantasy.
> >> > ...
> >> >> Let's try a simple exercise. What's a metric? Give the physical
> >> >> meaning of the construct.
>
> >> > Where does the 1/r in a Newtonian potential come from?
>
> >> Newtonian field equations.
> >> Now what's a metric?
>
> > Evidently Eric is down a pint of gobblygook,
> > Tom Roberts will top up his brain, Eric ask Tom.
>
> So you neither know what the metric is, or what the Newtonian field
> equations are. Nice.

I KNOW POLACKS ARE DUMB.
Let's do a post for you.
Ken
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Atoms in molecules have to expand at bond when heated
Next: Is Gravitational Force Dependent on a Falling Object's Speed?