Explanation of Paradox

TVF's appraisal is a bit skewed. I think it's fair to say that, within the scientific community, Carlip's explanation is considered to be correct, and Tom's is considered to be... well... let's just say, incorrect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i>
<br />TVF's appraisal is a bit skewed. I think it's fair to say that, within the scientific community, Carlip's explanation is considered to be correct, and Tom's is considered to be... well... let's just say, incorrect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you had said "within the relativity community", I wouldn't dispute that. The physics community at large has reacted very positively, and the rest of the scientific community even more so. The doors this opens for breakthrough progress in ohysics cannot be ignored.

And I would add that, even within the relativity community, most people just ignore the arguments and stick with the status quo. You probably cannot find a single person who has read both arguments and understands them, yet still favors Carlip's. And that apparently includes yourself. If you understand anything Vigier and I wrote, you would see that Carlip made an elementary error of logic, and that his proposed solution, a "velocity-dependent" cancellation force, is physically impossible because nature cannot distinguish an aberrational displacement of a source mass from a tidal displacement of the same source mass, and therefore cannot possibly cancel one but react to the other. -|Tom|-

Your argument against Carlip is invalid, because “tidal forces” are due to the spatial variation in a gravitational field, not to temporal variations. Even a perfectly static gravitational field exerts “tidal forces”. The dynamic velocity-dependent aspect of relativistic fields (first clearly pointed out by Poincare in 1905, when he explained why Laplace’s aberration-speed argument doesn’t apply to any force consistent with Lorentzian Relativity) do not in any way contradict the existence of tidal effects.

I know of no reputable scientist, whether relativist or not, who believes that the ideas about theoretical physics you espouse are valid. I know of many who believe your ideas are invalid and irrational.