Classical electrodynamics, antigravity and MOND as predictions of GR.
LEJ Brouwer
principles and, amongst other things, predicts the presence of modified
Newtonian dynamics assuming only that the physical vacuum is a
relativistic continuum in motion:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607102
- Sabbir.
FrediFizzx
news:1152752631.5...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You are still on that neutrino kick? DOA. It is virtual and "less
than virtual" fermionic pairs not neutrinos.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
LEJ Brouwer
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "LEJ Brouwer" <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1152752631.5...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The following paper derives classical electrodynamics from first
> > principles and, amongst other things, predicts the presence of
> modified
> > Newtonian dynamics assuming only that the physical vacuum is a
> > relativistic continuum in motion:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607102
>
> You are still on that neutrino kick?
What do you mean by 'neutrino kick'?
> DOA. It is virtual and "less
> than virtual" fermionic pairs not neutrinos.
Sorry, I don't follow you.
Koobee Wublee
news:1152752631.5...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Your equation 53 is not correct. When (r0 = 0) and (n =2), the
spacetime yields
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - Q / sqrt(r^2 + Q^2)) dt^2 - ...
Not as what you have derived of
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + Q / r) - ...
Where
** Q = 2 G M / c^2
Hilbert's solution still remains to be the simplest. On top of that, I
don't understand why you and Dr. Crothers never go beyond what you have
discovered by generalizing the solution to the field equations.
Following the same logical logic as provided by Dr. Crothers, Hilbert
derived the current accepted solution known as the Schwarzschild
metric. In this case, we have
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 ...
Where
** U = 2 G M / c^2 / r
As Dr. Crothers has pointed out, it becomes very trivial to extend the
general solution to the following.
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 W) dt^2 - dR^2 / (1 - 2 W) - R^2 ...
Where
** W = 2 G M / c^2 / R
** R = f(r), not necessarily the following as Dr. Crothers had pointed
out
** ((r - r0)^n + (2 G M / c^2^n)^(1 / n)
So, we have
dR = (df/dr) dr
The above equation describing a segment of spacetime as a function of R
becomes
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 W) dt^2 - (df/dr)^2 dr^2 / (1 - 2 W) - f^2 ...
The equation describing the same segment of spacetime becomes ever more
complicated. In fact, it is too complicated and too general and very
capable of predicting just about anything. When a theory is able to
predict anything, it becomes totally useless, stupid, and utterly
nonsense. As you and Dr. Roberts and Dr. Carlip have been arguing the
mathematical result of this solution to the field equations, something
as significant as black holes can exist or not by a vote of which
solution to accept. The analogy is similar to Brothers Grimm's fairy
tales of dwarves, goblins, and other fantasy creatures created by the
minds of very insignificant but overly creative Man.
LEJ Brouwer
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "LEJ Brouwer" <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1152752631.5...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The following paper derives classical electrodynamics from first
> > principles and, amongst other things, predicts the presence of modified
> > Newtonian dynamics assuming only that the physical vacuum is a
> > relativistic continuum in motion:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607102
>
> Your equation 53 is not correct. When (r0 = 0) and (n =2), the
> spacetime yields
>
> ds^2 = c^2 (1 - Q / sqrt(r^2 + Q^2)) dt^2 - ...
>
> Not as what you have derived of
>
> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + Q / r) - ...
You are quite right. Thanks for pointing out the error.
Thanks,
- Sabbir.