<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2408">Wolf</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2409">Thanks for you note.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2410">I scanned SM Kopeikin's papers when you first mentioned the one. They are on arxiv.org:</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2411">gr-qc/0008074</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2412">gr-qc/0105060</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2413">gr-qc/0206022</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2414">gr-qc/0210076</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2415">astro-ph/0302294</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2416">gr-qc/0310059</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2417">You noted he has several negative critics. His experiment sensed EM radiation past a moving mass (Jupiter) rather than measuring gravity directly - this is my conceptual problem.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2418">I think his derivation assumes the speeds of gravity and light are equal. The GR field equation, in my view, is measurement (clock, rods, etc) results are on the Right Hand Side (RHS) numbers. The Left Hand Side (LHS) is mathematically transformed/mapping numbers (abstract, not real measurements). The field equation uses a mapping to geometry to simplify the solving process. The last step should be to inverse map back to measurements. I understand common practice is to move the numbers around without regard to whether the parameter is measurement or mapped. I like to be a bit more pickey in this regard.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2419">The SMK derivation considered the speed of gravity to be the LHS warp speed. Therefore, the speed of light was transformed into the speed of warp/gravity and not measured. Others that "find" gravity has a speed on light do this. I think van Flandern is correct in his approach.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2420">I want to place gravity on the RHS. Space is a medium (gravitational aether, plenum) on the RHS not a warp of the LHS. Matter is a sink in the medium. (note the terminology difficulty.) This was the photon simulation usage. This makes the math different. For example, the density of the plenum must be >0 for all time and distance. Unfortunately for the status quo, the simulation worked and suggested an experiment that the status quo failed. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2421">Also, Doesn't the post Newtonian use the equivalence principle assumption. I prefer to not make this leap. It looses the physics. The simulation used a varying maximum plenum density to change the photon slightly - ie equivalence not hold between galaxies or in the center of galaxies (see Universe according to the STOE http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648 )</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2422">So, GR not apply to STOE gravity because of the real medium proposition or the RHS must be developed. This alone prohibits peer journal publication.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2423">But, I do take your point. I should develop the math. But, there exists NO preliminary date. SMK had 40+ years of preliminary data. It took me (alone) 4 years to go from postulates to simulation of photons - 1 month from simulation to experiment.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2424">Like you I want to do something else.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2425"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2426"></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2427">Hodge</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2428"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1496254225208_2429"></div></div></body></html>