novaBBS - sci.physics.relativity - Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

<c8fad43a-401f-42fc-90bf-341fbbd90a90n@googlegroups.com>

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=116710&group=sci.physics.relativity#116710

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1896:b0:3ef:6035:465 with SMTP id v22-20020a05622a189600b003ef60350465mr2060364qtc.8.1685317754969;
Sun, 28 May 2023 16:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1884:b0:3f6:abf3:d716 with SMTP id
v4-20020a05622a188400b003f6abf3d716mr1999603qtc.2.1685317754750; Sun, 28 May
2023 16:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 16:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <slrncqd0g1.95.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:646:100:e6a0:d5de:da19:21c0:407d;
posting-account=AZtzIAoAAABqtlvuXL6ZASWM0fV9f6PZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:646:100:e6a0:d5de:da19:21c0:407d
References: <dPXjc.3029$TT.349@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <2fa327ba.0409271131.5927e147@posting.google.com>
<41590fd0.110466312@news.gte.net> <2fa327ba.0410020548.69dcf128@posting.google.com>
<415ed352.145780109@news.gte.net> <2fa327ba.0410101115.2b566009@posting.google.com>
<416a104e.882280546@news.gte.net> <2fa327ba.0410190857.33025a03@posting.google.com>
<2aednaTsRvpQEOTcRVn-2w@rcn.net> <417ac3cb.458902671@news.gte.net>
<8MKdnWXwvJbjUBzcRVn-oQ@rcn.net> <4182f41b.995550593@news.gte.net>
<2fa327ba.0410310833.5ee53faa@posting.google.com> <4Uhhd.5964$K7.3436@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
<2Pvhd.921$7t6.269@news.flashnewsgroups.com> <5dHhd.7502$K7.3105@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
<sDShd.29$l66.9@news.flashnewsgroups.com> <4yVhd.8134$K7.6719@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
<CO9id.362$G3.147@news.flashnewsgroups.com> <MNednU_mmZN3ChTcRVn-sA@rcn.net> <slrncqd0g1.95.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c8fad43a-401f-42fc-90bf-341fbbd90a90n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
From: l.c.cros...@hotmail.com (Laurence Clark Crossen)
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 23:49:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3893

by: Laurence Clark Cross - Sun, 28 May 2023 23:49 UTC

On Thursday, November 25, 2004 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-8, Bilge wrote:
> Tom Van Flandern:
> > Just as SR was updated several times in history, most
> What ``updates'' are those, tom?
> >recently to clarify that rest mass does not increase with speed,
> Do you mean that at some time, the relation E^2 - p^2 = m^2
> was not clear? Or do you mean that in certain contexts, there was
> some utility in defining a frame dependent, relativistic mass?
> Perhaps it's just you who wasn't clear about those concepts.
> >likewise LET was updated to LR in the early 1960s, although it was not
> >until the late 1980s that this change took hold. The difference between
> >LR and LET is simply that the "ether" in LET is identified with the
> >local gravitational potential field (now called "elysium") in LR.
> Well, so far, you seem to be unwilling to share that information
> with anyone, so apparently you are the only one who knows what those
> so-called updates are. That is rather convenient, since it relieves
> you of the discomort involved with having to watch someone use your
> own theory to prove your theory is either inconsistent with experiment
> or inconsistent with what you say about your theory.
> > That clarified, the only testable experimental difference
> >between LR and SR is the existence or non-existence of FTL propagation
> >speeds in forward time.
> You keep saying that sort of meaningless garbage, but you can't
> seem to say it in a way that anyone else can use to derive a result.
> How about a mathematical statement that quantifies precisely what
> you just said, without the meaningless non-sequiters? I won't hold
> my breath.
Here's a long post on the speed of gravity with Tom Van Flandern participating.

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.

tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

Subject	Author
Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity	Laurence Clark Crossen