🚀 go-pugleaf

b5249-23@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Kurt Stocklmeir) writes:

> Tom is an expert in gravity and knows more about gravity than almost
> anybody in the world.

     I was the "Tom" referenced earlier in this thread, but not even my
wife would suggest the above.  Perhaps you meant Albert's brother "Tom"?

> Say something Tom, even if your statements disagree with me.

     In fact I do disagree with you.  But let me explain why.

     First, your scientific statements are not so much wrong, as
carelessly worded.  It is an empirical and computational fact that
gravitational interactions between masses, even large masses with high
accelerations such as contact binary stars or binary pulsars, occur
without detectable delay.

     The empirical part of this fact means that no gravitational
aberration has ever been detected, even though certain observations have
ten orders of magnitude more sensitivity than needed to detect any such
aberration which would exist if gravity propagated between masses in the
manner and at the speed of light.

     The computational part of this fact means that, in computer
computations of orbits, any delay in gravitational interaction between
mutually-accelerating masses which is at all comparable to the lighttime
delay will introduce angular momentum into the orbital motions and disrupt
the orbital stability on a time scale far shorter than observations will
permit.

     If there is enough interest, I am willing to repost here the article
on this subject ("the speed of gravity") which was discussed in sci.astro
this past spring.  But I am currently doing page proofs for my new book,
and do not have extensive time just now to devote to the discussion.

     Where I do not agree with you is mainly in your approach to the
sci.physics community.  Everyone who has been called a name or been
treated unjustly has an instinctive wish to strike back in kind.  While
that may fill some basic human need, I would like to think that
discussions in newsgroups which start with "sci." would distinguish
themselves by adhering to scientific principles in the discussion of
scientific matters.  By striking back as your detractors as you have, you
can scarcely expect those who don't agree with you, but are nonetheless
open-minded and curious, to stick to the scientific issue on the table.
The well, as it were, has now been poisoned.

     If you wanted my advice, for which you have not asked, I would
suggest that a retraction, possibly even an apology, might be in order for
a few of your recent remarks of a more personal nature.  This is not to
say that you weren't wronged first.  But you must decide if your goal is
personal vindication, or furthering the discussion of an interesting
scientific point.  In my opinion, everyone who reads these discussions is
potentially influenced by them.  And sometimes, a person who seems to be your
most immovable opponent is just doing the scientifically proper job of
playing devil's advocate, looking for the weaknesses in your arguments or
assumptions.  To me, that's good science, and merits respect and sometimes
even thanks, rather than resentment.

     That's just my opinion.  But I feel sure that the discussion of
interesting points will be more rewarding to all if the air were cleared
a bit before going forward.  What do you think?  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.