Re: Amplitude of Gravity, Instantaneous or Retarded] Text

tessel@tum.bot

Jul15-04, 04:57 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nOn Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Hans de Vries wrote\n\n[citations to two papers]\n\nI replied to your previous post only because I noticed that someone had\nmentioned a very narrow topic (Aichelburg-Sexl) which I happen to know\nmore about than just about anyone else here. I referred you to the paper\nby Steve Carlip because IMO it happens to answer the question you asked.\nBut now it seems you really want to talk about one of two distinct\n"controversies" [sic] regarding "speed of gravity" [sic]. Be aware that\nold timers like me are likely to feel that "speed of gravity" is a very\ndead parrot which has long since been pounded, in this forum, into a\nbloody flyblown pulp. So I\'m not anxious to discuss it again now.\nFortunately, Steve Carlip, the author of one of the papers you now wish to\ncritique, often posts here, so I am happy to let you continue this\ndiscussion with him.\n\nIf you want to ask more questions about AS, or something else I said in my\nprevious reply, feel free, but in this case it would be helpful to me if\nyou offered some information about your background in math/physics and\nyour goals in participating in this forum.\n\n"T. Essel"\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Hans de Vries wrote

[citations to two papers]

I replied to your previous post only because I noticed that someone had
mentioned a very narrow topic (Aichelburg-Sexl) which I happen to know
more about than just about anyone else here. I referred you to the paper
by Steve Carlip because IMO it happens to answer the question you asked.
But now it seems you really want to talk about one of two distinct
"controversies" [sic] regarding "speed of gravity" [sic]. Be aware that
old timers like me are likely to feel that "speed of gravity" is a very
dead parrot which has long since been pounded, in this forum, into a
bloody flyblown pulp. So I'm not anxious to discuss it again now.
Fortunately, Steve Carlip, the author of one of the papers you now wish to
critique, often posts here, so I am happy to let you continue this
discussion with him.

If you want to ask more questions about AS, or something else I said in my
previous reply, feel free, but in this case it would be helpful to me if
you offered some information about your background in math/physics and
your goals in participating in this forum.

"T. Essel"

Hans de Vries

Jul16-04, 09:20 AM

Dear T.Essel

There's was absolutely no intention to begin a "Speed of Gravity" discussion
from the start. I hoped that the links I provided early on to Steve Carlip's
paper (yes, I did too) and John Baez's compilation about the subject would
avoid the wrong impression about my intention. Again I hope I've made that
clear know.

(I actually found the links I mentioned after my first post and indeed,
Steve Carlip paper anwsered many of my questions. I do appriciate the
other links you provided)

The one "critical remark" that I had in my summary (which I think is as
a whole in perfect agreement with the general opinion) is that the "Lienard
Wiechert" neglects Maxwell's Displacement current which would introduce
extra non-radiative terms. That's an EM subject (It's well known that
"Lienard Wiechert" still has a number of unresolved issues) and has nothing
to do with Gravity or with it's speed.

I'm doing very different things in my day job and have other hobbies very
well respected but in entirely different academic and industrial circles.

just google "Hans de Vries" "Chip-Architect"

I only recently rediscovered Physics many years after an earlier engagement
quite some years ago and many things are only just coming back to my mind.
(I think I bought Landau & Lifschitz in 1979 when I was 21) My renewed
interest is triggered by the possibilities to use the Internet to investigate in
all kind of physics subjects. I've been looking for a better understanding of a
range of subjects. (GR is certainly one of these areas in which I want to
know a lot more)

Best Regards, Hans