Black holes radiate - the end of GR is there
Josef Matz
black hole show,
that theses black holes send out very very hot radiation for very very long
times.
This cant be modeled with GR because nothing comes out of black holes.
GR is again proven to be wrong.
Jose
Tom Roberts
> Other articles in discussion groups upon the newest observations of quasar
> black hole show,
> that theses black holes send out very very hot radiation for very very long
> times.
Actually, it is not the black holes themselves that radiate, but the
infall of matter surrounding the black hole, called the accretion disk[#].
[#] it's a disk because it invariably is rotating, and gets
compressed into a disk by well-understood processes.
> This cant be modeled with GR because nothing comes out of black holes.
Sure it can be modeled with GR, you just have to do it correctly.
> GR is again proven to be wrong.
Nonsense.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Randy Poe
Um no. You're talking about the prediction made by GR which
told us in the first place what to look for to find
black holes in our telescopes. Without these GR predictions
we wouldn't have any objects in our catalogs called "black
holes".
The short explanation is that the energy doesn't "come out
of" the black hole. It is emitted outside the event horizon
as matter is consumed.
- Randy
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: Maybe you can help explain something cosmological.
We know that the event horizon is 2*M (meters of mass). We know that
the acceleration due to gravity is M*c^2/R^2. Is M*c^2/R^2 > c
allowed?
If not, then that would impose a lower limit on the mass needed to
allow a black hole. In the particular, the mass of the candidate would
have to be > 74948114.5 meters of mass (or > 5075.42 solar mass).
Math says this is exactly .25*|c| in meters of mass.
Anything?
I have heard (?) that it takes only tens of solar mass to
surreptitiously allow for black hole formation. If that is the
empirical case, then something else is working here that allows it.
I am stating the case that matter requires energy to exist as that
state (E for M and anti-entropic). As such, it must acquire energy
(through gravity). Iow, the mass is a sink for/of energy. Certainly,
light energy is not enough except for a general external ambiance and
photosynthesis. If light energy were to provide the required energy,
the universe would have to be blindingly full of it. Olber?
Instead, I propose the idea of quantum foam, zpf, fluctuation, and even
the 'required' notion of a 'solid' ether along with a general
equilibrium process at work without boundaries. It is everything asked
for in the comparison of (theoretical) physical theories. It is also
outrageously simple.
How fast can an ether move propelled by itself (gravity and/or
expansion). I come to c*sqrt(2). This allows the black hole function
for M < 50745 suns and the limited horizon of em past.
Why don't we let the objectiveness of the relations of M, R and c
indicate something of physics and cosmology? The ether solves this as
a single assumption, whereas, numerous other assumptions are invented
and required otherwise.
Before I forget, the ether as a solid? Yes. It appears chaotic to us
and we think worldlines and Schrodinger's cat. But there is only one
reality in the objective sense. Action and reaction amongst the things
that compose an ether. That includes how energy transforms to mass and
vv. It is indeed solid in the objective consideration. It has only
one local or global outcome.
Too bad nobody picks up on the simplicity of all this. Instead,
presumptions (assumptions in physics) are subjectively made to fit
malformed theory.
Koobee Wublee
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dges07$6...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> Josef Matz wrote:
>> Other articles in discussion groups upon the newest observations of
>> quasar
>> black hole show,
>> that theses black holes send out very very hot radiation for very very
>> long
>> times.
>
> Actually, it is not the black holes themselves that radiate, but the
> infall of matter surrounding the black hole, called the accretion disk[#].
>
> [#] it's a disk because it invariably is rotating, and gets
> compressed into a disk by well-understood processes.
Yes, I agree with Mr. Roberts that theoretically this scenario described
above is very likely. However...
>> This cant be modeled with GR because nothing comes out of black holes.
>
> Sure it can be modeled with GR, you just have to do it correctly.
Black holes as GR predicted can never be direrctly observed, and they can
only exist at an observer's own end-of-time whenever it is. So, claiming to
have detected a black hole is saying we are existing at the end of time.
And I find this scenario very suspicious. So, doing it correctly with GR as
a constraint, we should never have detected the existence of a black hole.
Claiming to have detected a black hole is to ignore the teaching of GR.
>> GR is again proven to be wrong.
>
> Nonsense.
Again, I agree with Mr. Roberts on this account. The proof to the bogus
nature of GR does not lie in the study of black holes. It can be found in
the fundemental analysis of mundane observations.
Eric Gisse
xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
[stuff]
>
> xxein: Maybe you can help explain something cosmological.
>
> We know that the event horizon is 2*M (meters of mass). We know that
> the acceleration due to gravity is M*c^2/R^2. Is M*c^2/R^2 > c
> allowed?
c is speed, not a measure of acceleration.
What are the units of M*c^2*R^-2?
[snip results derived from a false premise and general ignorance]
>
> Too bad nobody picks up on the simplicity of all this. Instead,
> presumptions (assumptions in physics) are subjectively made to fit
> malformed theory.
Personally, I find the concept of irony applicable here.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ZVOWe.15000$mH.2585@fed1read07...
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:dges07$6...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> > Josef Matz wrote:
> >> Other articles in discussion groups upon the newest observations of
> >> quasar
> >> black hole show,
> >> that theses black holes send out very very hot radiation for very very
> >> long
> >> times.
> >
> > Actually, it is not the black holes themselves that radiate, but the
> > infall of matter surrounding the black hole, called the accretion disk[#].
> >
> > [#] it's a disk because it invariably is rotating, and gets
> > compressed into a disk by well-understood processes.
>
> Yes, I agree with Mr. Roberts that theoretically this scenario described
> above is very likely. However...
>
> >> This cant be modeled with GR because nothing comes out of black holes.
> >
> > Sure it can be modeled with GR, you just have to do it correctly.
>
> Black holes as GR predicted can never be direrctly observed, and they can
> only exist at an observer's own end-of-time whenever it is. So, claiming to
> have detected a black hole is saying we are existing at the end of time.
> And I find this scenario very suspicious. So, doing it correctly with GR as
> a constraint, we should never have detected the existence of a black hole.
> Claiming to have detected a black hole is to ignore the teaching of GR.
If a theory predicts the existence of an object that has a
certain influence on its surroundings that no other object
could have according to the theory, then the detection
of the consequences of such influences is evidence for
the existence of such an object.
I think you are more interesting when you spout your
antisemitic nazi racist nonsense:
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=bdq09.28353$Fq6.2...@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=V1r09.661180$352.138570@sccrnsc02
| "Scholarly Fungi" <scholar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:bdq09.28353$Fq6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
| > It is also unfortunate that most of the folks blindly embracing this
| > holohaux come from the white supremacists. I don't see what this would gain
| > for them other than trying to antagonize the Jews. However, this is
| > history. When I was in my early high school years, I independently came up
| > with what Butz was saying without knowing his existence. Hey, I am very
| > proud of my humble analytical skills.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=NnI09.31007$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=a1777f85.0207...@posting.google.com
| "Scholarly Fungi" <scholar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:<NnI09.31007$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net>...
| > All history is written upon congruency among the historians but except one.
| > The Holocaust was born in the court rooms of Nueremberg. It is a complete
| > hoax.
| >
| > I did not know of Arthur Butz, but I independently came up with that
| > hypothesis noticing the tremendous amount of inconsistencies while studying
| > holohoax in high school.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=fytJa.78487%24%2542.6441%40fed1read06
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=XvKJa.100908$hd6.25327@fed1read05
| "Australopithecus Afarensis" <lu...@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
| news:fytJa.78487$%42.6441@fed1read06...
| > Thanks for posting all that and your own comments at the end. There are so
| > many lies after lies conjured up against the Nazis. I guess I'd better read
| > "Mein Kampf" to get it from the horse's mouth. It will be on my
| > things-to-do list for the near future.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=uMeDa.59118%24%2542.39687%40fed1read06
Reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=v3jsdv43ch9d4nnd1...@4ax.com
| On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:42:04 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
| <lu...@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
|
| >Thanks for answering these questions fair and square.
| >
| >Although I don't speak for all other Australopithecine, I certainly want to
| >be as less nationalistic as possible. I am an individual just trying to
| >learn as much as I can before my short life expires on this earth.
| >
| >OK, now the media and "media"-controlled educational history have painted
| >the Nazis as the most fiendish group of people ever lived through out the
| >entire history of mankind. When I was growing up, I was constantly reminded
| >that the Nazis were so genocidal, they will kill any non-Germans in a heart
| >beat. After getting constantly bombarded with Nazi atrocities, I was very
| >much like the rest. Well, until one clip of film showing mountains of hair
| >inside a giant oven, the purpose was to show how many people murdered and
| >cremated. As a young scientist-to-be, it just hit me that the whole sh*t
| >was a lie. As far as I knew, the human hair would burn first. After
| >meticulous research and reasoning, I have concluded the WWII Nazis were no
| >more atrocious than any other governments in the 20th century or beyond.
| >Many of these information mostly came out after the explosion of the
| >internet where all skeletons in the closets finally have a chance to tell
| >their side of the story. Now, what is your plan to the public to shed these
| >negative sentiments accused against your political group?
| >
Dirk Van de moortel
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1126924493.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > Josef Matz wrote:
> > > Other articles in discussion groups upon the newest observations of quasar
> > > black hole show,
> > > that theses black holes send out very very hot radiation for very very long
> > > times.
> >
> > Actually, it is not the black holes themselves that radiate, but the
> > infall of matter surrounding the black hole, called the accretion disk[#].
> >
> > [#] it's a disk because it invariably is rotating, and gets
> > compressed into a disk by well-understood processes.
> >
> >
> > > This cant be modeled with GR because nothing comes out of black holes.
> >
> > Sure it can be modeled with GR, you just have to do it correctly.
> >
> >
> > > GR is again proven to be wrong.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> >
> > Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
>
> xxein: Maybe you can help explain something cosmological.
>
> We know that the event horizon is 2*M (meters of mass). We know that
> the acceleration due to gravity is M*c^2/R^2. Is M*c^2/R^2 > c
> allowed?
Acceleration can have any value.
If an object has a constant proper acceleration a, then the
velocity as seen in some inertial frame at time t is given by
v(t) = a t / sqrt( 1 + (a t/c)^2 )
and as a function of the object's proper time T by
v(T) = c tanh( a T/c ).
See http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Now take the limits and verify that
limit{ a -> infinity, v(t) } = c
limit{ a -> infinity, v(T) } = c
for every value of t and T, and
limit{ t -> infinity, v(t) } = c
limit{ T -> infinity, v(T) } = c
for every value of a.
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> We know that the event horizon is 2*M (meters of mass). We know that
> the acceleration due to gravity is M*c^2/R^2. Is M*c^2/R^2 > c
> allowed?
The question does not make sense. Your units are wrong and you are
attempting to compare incommensurate quantities.
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Black holes as GR predicted can never be direrctly observed, and they can
> only exist at an observer's own end-of-time whenever it is. So, claiming to
> have detected a black hole is saying we are existing at the end of time.
> And I find this scenario very suspicious. So, doing it correctly with GR as
> a constraint, we should never have detected the existence of a black hole.
> Claiming to have detected a black hole is to ignore the teaching of GR.
Not true. The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby
structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
astronomical object. So if we observe such influences (and we do!), then
concluding there is probably a black hole present is quite legitimate.
You are reading too many idiots around here (quoting "end of time" from
a prolific contributor here who is particularly clueless), rather than
actually studying physics. That's hopeless....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
MP
>
> Not true. The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby
> structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
> astronomical object.
This is quite a radical claim. I am not aware of a proof.
What do you mean by reasonable astronomical object?
Can this be defined in a precise way so that the above
statement can be checked?
Maybe you are not aware of the fact, but
there are alternative solutions for the black hole
interior, one based on a spherically symmetric
isotropic vacuum (deSitter solution), the other based
on interior string type matter (Mathur's fuzzball in
5D and the holostar in 4D).
The exterior space-times of these solutions are
exactly equal to the Schwarzschild solution
(or RN-solution) in the whole exterior region
except for a Planck sized displacement from the
gravitational radius (e.g. the position where the
event horizon would be, if it were a black hole).
For an exterior observer it is virtually impossible
to distinguish these solutions from a black hole. For
instance, you know that every light ray that crosses
the photon sphere situated at r = 3/2 r+ will be trapped
within the object, e.g. hits the event horizon or hits
the surface a Planck length outside the EH. This makes
it quite clear, that it is impossible to probe the region
within the photon sphere with light rays: the photons
would never come back. Therefore all you can "see"
from the exterior space-time is the region *outside
the photon sphere*. It is quite a long way to the event
horizon yet.
[As far as I know in an extremely rotating Kerr black
hole the situation is not so unfavorable for the exterior
observer. If I remember correctly, light rays can probe
the exterior region up to the event horizon of an extreme
Kerr BH and get out again, but one has to aim very
precisely and it takes the rays a much much longer time
to get out again than in the Schwarzschild case]
One would have to send a probe into such an object
and tell it to report its findings back. But this wont work
either, because even if the object were not a black hole,
a Planck length before the horizon the special relativistic
and general relativistic effects will make it virtually
impossible to get any message back. [You can calculate
yourself, what the gamma-factor of the motion and the
gravitational redshift will be. If you figure in the special
and general relativistic time delay, the special relativistic
Doppler shift, the special relativistic aberration, the
general relativistic escape cone, you will see, that
you would have to transmit with awesome power into
a solid angle, that is unbelievably small]
Of course one could argue that those solutions are
not reasonable, but then one would have to define
what one means with "reasonable".
> So if we observe such influences (and we do!), then
> concluding there is probably a black hole present is quite legitimate.
This is a wiser statement than the above. I would replace
"probably" with "possibly", but I am well aware that the
majority of researchers would rather use a term with the
meaning between "probable" and "almost certain".
> You are reading too many idiots around here (quoting "end of time" from
> a prolific contributor here who is particularly clueless), rather than
> actually studying physics. That's hopeless....
"end of time" is nonsense, but seems to sound great to all
those who lack the time or the intellect to study GR.
MP
Androcles
"MP" <pet.an...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:432c739d$0$29562$9b62...@news.freenet.de...
Roberts is one of the idiots around here, he claims to have observed an
accretion disk around a black hole.
Androcles.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby
>>structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
>>astronomical object.
>
> This is quite a radical claim.
No, it's not. perhaps you need to read the literature and become
familiar with the subject.
> I am not aware of a proof.
Who said anyuthing about "proof"? -- I certainly did not.
> What do you mean by reasonable astronomical object?
One that standard astrophysical models can describe.
> Can this be defined in a precise way so that the above
> statement can be checked?
Astrophysicists _HAVE_ checked it.
Standard astrophysical models do not contain objects small enough to be
confused with a black hole. That is, while one might think there could
be very dense objects that look like black holes from afar, in actuality
astrophysicists don't have a model that could explain such objects.
Tom Roberts tjroberts2lucent.com
Eric Gisse
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
> Roberts is one of the idiots around here, he claims to have observed an
> accretion disk around a black hole.
> Androcles.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/blkbin.html#c2
Koobee Wublee
>> Black holes as GR predicted can never be direrctly observed, and they can
>> only exist at an observer's own end-of-time whenever it is. So, claiming
>> to have detected a black hole is saying we are existing at the end of
>> time. And I find this scenario very suspicious. So, doing it correctly
>> with GR as a constraint, we should never have detected the existence of a
>> black hole. Claiming to have detected a black hole is to ignore the
>> teaching of GR.
>
> Not true. The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby
> structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
> astronomical object. So if we observe such influences (and we do!), then
> concluding there is probably a black hole present is quite legitimate.
Relative to an observer outside, GR only allows the existence of a black
hole at the end of the observer's time whenever it is. And yet, as you have
pointed out, astronomical/astrophysical observations do indeed indicate
existence of the black holes safely to say not at the observer's end of time
whenever it is. These are contradictory findings. A logical explanation to
the conflict between observation and prediction does strongly indicate a
fault in the model. How can you not see that? And we have not even talked
about the speed of gravitational effect yet.
> You are reading too many idiots around here (quoting "end of time" from a
> prolific contributor here who is particularly clueless), rather than
> actually studying physics. That's hopeless....
I always thought the term "end of time" as used in this application is very
original on my part. However, if you can name these less fortunate
indivisuals that have already apply that phrase to this subject of
discussion, I will honorably give that credit to them. As far as the
accusation of them not learning physics, I have to make that judgement for
myself. From the posts of moortel and Bilge, I have to say these true
idiots fit in your description of ones. moortel got into SR 20 years ago
and got stuck there. Bilge just got stuck in Einstein's droppings.
MP
"Tom Roberts" wrote
> MP wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >>The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby
> >>structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
> >>astronomical object.
> >
> > This is quite a radical claim.
>
> No, it's not. perhaps you need to read the literature and become
> familiar with the subject.
>
This is quite a disappointing answer, in many ways.
See for instance Abramovicz
A&A 396, L31-L34 (2002)
>
> > What do you mean by reasonable astronomical object?
>
> One that standard astrophysical models can describe.
>
So only what is accepted as standard *today* is reasonable
in your opinion? I wonder, how physics is going to progress
with such an attitude...
> > Can this be defined in a precise way so that the above
> > statement can be checked?
>
> Astrophysicists _HAVE_ checked it.
>
Have checked what ? That *only* their standard models are
reasonable? That no other model or solution of the field equations
ever to be found in the future will be able to describe the
observed phenomena better?
> Standard astrophysical models do not contain objects small enough to be
> confused with a black hole. That is, while one might think there could
> be very dense objects that look like black holes from afar, in actuality
> astrophysicists don't have a model that could explain such objects.
>
Then Mazur, Mottola, Visser, Abramovicz, Bilic, Dymnikova, Mathur,
just to name a few, are not (astro)physicists ? Tom, you really can do
much much better than this!
Given, that you are one of the (few) people in this group
who has a rather decent grasp on GR, I would appreciate
if future answers focus on the physics and not on personal
issues, such as "perhaps you need to read the literature and become
familiar with the subject". I am not interested in discussions on this
level, although I realize that this appears to be the common practice
in this group.
MP
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote in message news:Hp6Xe.15100$mH.7960@fed1read07...
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:oXVWe.1768$gK....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> Black holes as GR predicted can never be direrctly observed, and they can
> >> only exist at an observer's own end-of-time whenever it is. So, claiming
> >> to have detected a black hole is saying we are existing at the end of
> >> time. And I find this scenario very suspicious. So, doing it correctly
> >> with GR as a constraint, we should never have detected the existence of a
> >> black hole. Claiming to have detected a black hole is to ignore the
> >> teaching of GR.
> >
> > Not true. The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby
> > structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
> > astronomical object. So if we observe such influences (and we do!), then
> > concluding there is probably a black hole present is quite legitimate.
>
> Relative to an observer outside, GR only allows the existence of a black
> hole at the end of the observer's time whenever it is. And yet, as you have
> pointed out, astronomical/astrophysical observations do indeed indicate
> existence of the black holes safely to say not at the observer's end of time
> whenever it is. These are contradictory findings.
If a theory predicts the existence of an object that has a
certain influence on its surroundings that no other object
could have according to the theory, then the detection
of the consequences of such influences is evidence for
the existence of such an object.
There is nothing contradictory aout this.
> A logical explanation to
> the conflict between observation and prediction does strongly indicate a
> fault in the model. How can you not see that? And we have not even talked
> about the speed of gravitational effect yet.
>
> > You are reading too many idiots around here (quoting "end of time" from a
> > prolific contributor here who is particularly clueless), rather than
> > actually studying physics. That's hopeless....
>
> I always thought the term "end of time" as used in this application is very
> original on my part. However, if you can name these less fortunate
> indivisuals that have already apply that phrase to this subject of
> discussion, I will honorably give that credit to them. As far as the
> accusation of them not learning physics, I have to make that judgement for
> myself. From the posts of moortel and Bilge, I have to say these true
> idiots fit in your description of ones. moortel got into SR 20 years ago
> and got stuck there. Bilge just got stuck in Einstein's droppings.
I think you are more interesting when you spout your
Dirk Van de moortel
"MP" <pet.an...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message news:432d1316$0$19890$9b62...@news.freenet.de...
>
> "Tom Roberts" wrote
> > MP wrote:
> > > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > >>The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby
> > >>structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
> > >>astronomical object.
> > >
> > > This is quite a radical claim.
> >
> > No, it's not. perhaps you need to read the literature and become
> > familiar with the subject.
> >
>
> This is quite a disappointing answer, in many ways.
>
> See for instance Abramovicz
>
> A&A 396, L31-L34 (2002)
>
> >
> > > What do you mean by reasonable astronomical object?
> >
> > One that standard astrophysical models can describe.
> >
>
> So only what is accepted as standard *today* is reasonable
> in your opinion? I wonder, how physics is going to progress
> with such an attitude...
Indeed, who would be silly enough to only think in terms
of today's standards? You are absolutely right.
People who only work with
- standards that were reasonable a century ago, or
- standards that don't exist yet,
almost make up the majority of those who post on this forum.
We call them crackpots, idiots, kooks and trolls. But who
cares, after all *we* are just a small minority, aren't we?
Dirk Vdm
Josef Matz
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:sfaXe.196943$nO4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
But it mightbe that you are the crackpots, idiots, kooks and trolls. You
think science is reserved
for you. The facts will show.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:oXVWe.1768$gK....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>structure of spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable
>>astronomical object. So if we observe such influences (and we do!), then
>>concluding there is probably a black hole present is quite legitimate.
>
> Relative to an observer outside, GR only allows the existence of a black
> hole at the end of the observer's time whenever it is.
Not true. A distant observer cannot observe light emitted from at or
inside the horizon. That is VERY DIFFERENT from what you said.
> And yet, as you have
> pointed out, astronomical/astrophysical observations do indeed indicate
> existence of the black holes safely to say not at the observer's end of time
> whenever it is. These are contradictory findings.
No, they are in accord with the predictions of GR, and astrophysical
models of compace objects. The contradiction is in your personal
misunderstandings. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" wrote
>>>What do you mean by reasonable astronomical object?
>>One that standard astrophysical models can describe.
>
> So only what is accepted as standard *today* is reasonable
> in your opinion?
Right now, today, Yes. We only know what we know. <shrug>
Beware of attempting to keep an open mind that is too open, as
everything will fall out.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> news:oXVWe.1768$gK....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>The presence of a black hole has implications on the nearby structure of
>>>spacetime that cannot be imitated by any other reasonable astronomical
>>>object. So if we observe such influences (and we do!), then concluding
>>>there is probably a black hole present is quite legitimate.
>>
>> Relative to an observer outside, GR only allows the existence of a black
>> hole at the end of the observer's time whenever it is.
>
> Not true. A distant observer cannot observe light emitted from at or
> inside the horizon. That is VERY DIFFERENT from what you said.
Let's see where I go astray. An object with just enough mass compacts
itself trying to become a black hole. At the event horizon, time stops.
Thus, every particle that can be observed seems to freeze. This is
reflected in every species of spacetime equations associated with GR. How
can you argue against the math describing it?
Black holes can only exist in proper [local] spacetime according to GR's
math.
Koobee Wublee
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:HRSWe.196303$fi3.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> If a theory predicts the existence of an object that has a
> certain influence on its surroundings that no other object
> could have according to the theory, then the detection
> of the consequences of such influences is evidence for
> the existence of such an object.
Oh, if the theory also predicts the existence of such an object that can be
detected by an observer can only happen while infinite amount of the
observer's time has passed, anyone claims to have observed such an object
becomes questionable.
> I think you are more interesting when you spout your
> antisemitic nazi racist nonsense:
You are also a dull poster. Your accusation reflects who you actually are
being the son of an volunteer SS who arrested hundreds of Dutch Jews.
Tom Roberts
> Let's see where I go astray. An object with just enough mass compacts
> itself trying to become a black hole. At the event horizon, time stops.
No, it doesn't. It's just that the structure of the manifold changes
such that there no longer are any timelike or null geodesics from the
horizon (or its interior) to spatial infinity. That's _VERY_ different
from what you said.
> Thus, every particle that can be observed seems to freeze.
I assume you mean "to a distant observer". Then not only does it seem to
freeze, but any signal it emits (or light it reflects) gets increasingly
redshifted. So it also disappears.
> This is
> reflected in every species of spacetime equations associated with GR. How
> can you argue against the math describing it?
I'm not arguing against the math, I'm arguing against incorrect
interpretations of the math. Like yours above. <shrug>
> Black holes can only exist in proper [local] spacetime according to GR's
> math.
I have no idea what you mean by that. In GR, a black hole is a
geometrical feature of the manifold (and usually also a topological
feature). The fact that all parts of the manifold are not visible to a
distant observer is not particularly surprising. After all, as an
observer you cannot observe parts of your own house if they are behind
opaque walls.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
>
> No, it doesn't. It's just that the structure of the manifold changes such
> that there no longer are any timelike or null geodesics from the horizon
> (or its interior) to spatial infinity. That's _VERY_ different from what
> you said.
There is never a dull moment bouncing off ideas with you. Now, you are
saying
Relative to a distant observer, although the observed event seems to stop in
time, the observed event is actually taking place in the observer's real
time. So, as an object falls into a black hole, this event in actuality
happens in a normal flow of time of a distant observer. However, to this
observer, he can only observe the event upto before this object falls beyond
the event horizon.
What you are saying is very different from what I have understood GR. The
implication is that the observed curvature in spacetime in actually is just
a distorted illusion. The spacetime is actually very flat as the parameters
in proper spacetime indicate. The curvatue in spacetime is only an
observational defect in accordance to the mathematics of GR
In this model which is very new to me, there should never be a deflection in
photons,and there should never be an anomaly to Mercury's orbit. That is
because these events are cumulative in nature which indicate they are not
merely observational defect in accordance with the curvature of spacetime
under the concept of GR. How do you explain these events then?
Androcles
there should never be an anomaly to Mercury's orbit.
Q. Where can I see Mercury at midnight?
A. You can't.
Q. Why not?
A. Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun.
Q. When can I see Mercury then?
A. Just after sunset or just before dawn.
Q. Can I see Mercury during the day?
A. In IR, yes. In the visible spectrum, no.
Q. Could Einstein see Mercury during WW I in the day?
A. No.
Q. What is perihelion?
A. The closest approach to the sun
Q: How can we find that for Mercury?
A. Use trigonometry.
Q. Should we do this in the morning or the evening?
A. Whenever you find perhelion.
Q. How will I know I've found it?
A. When Mercury is closest to the Sun.
Q. Yes, I know, but what do I use as a reference?
A. Other stars form a fixed background, use those.
Q. But I thought the Sun was moving?
A. Yes....
Q. So Einstein measured the perihelion of Mercury after sunset and
before dawn during world war one against a moving background of stars
and got 0.43 arc secs
precession per century?
A. No, he didn't measure it, he worked it out.
Q HE DIDN'T MEASURE IT??
A Err...
Q. Which one is the phuckwit, you or me?
A.Err... could you repeat the question?
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote in message news:zEoYe.15735$mH.12175@fed1read07...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:HRSWe.196303$fi3.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > If a theory predicts the existence of an object that has a
> > certain influence on its surroundings that no other object
> > could have according to the theory, then the detection
> > of the consequences of such influences is evidence for
> > the existence of such an object.
>
> Oh, if the theory also predicts the existence of such an object that can be
> detected by an observer can only happen while infinite amount of the
> observer's time has passed,
Surroundings of the event horizon are not on the event horizon.
Are all retired aerospace engineers with Nazi sympathies as
dense and blockheaded as you are?
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:SiqYe.1001$uA6...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>>that there no longer are any timelike or null geodesics from the horizon
>>(or its interior) to spatial infinity. That's _VERY_ different from what
>>you said.
>
> time, the observed event is actually taking place in the observer's real
> time.
What you are trying to say does not make sense. First, an event is a
single point in spacetime, and thus no event can "stop in time". What
you might be thinking of is successive emission events from infalling
matter -- the SUCCESSION of emission events asymptotically approaches
the horizon as observed by a distant observer; but the signals from
those emission events also increasingly redshift, and they disappear.
Of course to a comoving observer there is nothing unusual
happening, and those emission events occur in regular
succession right through the horizon and deep enough into
the black hole until the observer's body is torn apart.
It also does not make sense to try to use the distant observer's time
coordinate near the horizon.
Analogy: On earth it is impossible to use a Mercator
projection map near the poles; the situation near an
event horizon is similar but far worse....
> What you are saying is very different from what I have understood GR.
Then you need to study GR. You seem to be relying on a "sound bite"
approach, and that is woefully inadequate. <shrug>
> The
> implication is that the observed curvature in spacetime in actually is just
> a distorted illusion.
No, the inability of a distant observer to observe signals from at or
inside the horizon is quite real, and is no "illusion". It has numerous
other implications (Shapiro time delay, gravitational lensing,
precession of perihelia, etc.).
> The spacetime is actually very flat as the parameters
> in proper spacetime indicate.
Not near the horizon! Only asymptotically at spatial infinity.
[The adjective "proper" applies to a specific object, and
does not apply to the spacetime manifold in any way. So
I have ignored it here.]
> The curvatue in spacetime is only an
> observational defect in accordance to the mathematics of GR
No, it is quite "real", in the sense that curvature is an objective
property of the spacetime manifold used to model the (hypothetical)
physical situation.
> In this model which is very new to me, there should never be a deflection in
> photons,and there should never be an anomaly to Mercury's orbit. [...]
Nonsense. You do indeed need to study GR. As modeled in GR, those
phenomena are consequences of the curvature of spacetime.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
>
>> What you are saying is very different from what I have understood GR.
>
> Then you need to study GR. You seem to be relying on a "sound bite"
> approach, and that is woefully inadequate. <shrug>
>
>> In this model which is very new to me, there should never be a deflection
>> in photons,and there should never be an anomaly to Mercury's orbit. [...]
>
> Nonsense. You do indeed need to study GR. As modeled in GR, those
> phenomena are consequences of the curvature of spacetime.
And studying GR is just what I have done. I even gone deeper where all of
you just take for granted on the predicted observations of GR. What I found
points towards the inconsistensy between the claimed prediction and the
observation. Especialy on Mercury's orbital anomaly where this anaomaly
depends on the second order effect of the Schwarzschild metric. The first
order effect, of course, is Newtonian. A black hole's existence relies on
the exact from of Schwarzschild metric down to the infinity order. Have you
honestly gone through the math and conviced yourself that the predicted
Mercury's anomaly is indeed what Einstein had calculated? If you have, I
would like to discuss it further. If not, please do so. It would be a sin
to go into your grave believing in a faulty scientific theory that some one
has already brought to your attention.
Koobee Wublee
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:0DsYe.5728$lB4....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> there should never be an [observed] anomaly to Mercury's orbit.
The observed Mercury's anomaly is mostly due to the wobbling of the earth's
axis of rotation. In fact, a wopping 5,600" per century is observed. On
top of that, there are several hundred arcseconds that can be directly
contributed to other planets. The relativistic anomaly is only 43" which
cannot be explained by anything else except new theories or clever
mathematical manipulations. These observed Mercury's orbital anomalies were
firmly established at least 50 years before Einstein was born. The
observation is very genuine and honorable.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Have you
> honestly gone through the math and conviced yourself that the
> predicted Mercury's anomaly is indeed what Einstein had calculated?
I have -- by looking at good systematic approximations, by finding
the *exact* solution of the geodesic equations (in terms of elliptic
integrals), and by looking at the post-Newtonian and post-Minkowskian
expansions of field equations for the the many-body problem. There's
really no issue here.
Steve Carlip
brian a m stuckless
We'll even tolerate a jpg or two, attached.
VERY Sincerely c,
```Brian
insert ..see top.
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dh1bo9$s1b$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
I would love to see your solutions involved with these elliptic integrals
whatever they are. In the meanwhile, let's address the most fundamental
issue of trying to solve this problem. I claim that the traditional
accepted parameter to be minimized is not technically the spacetime itself
but only time which can either be the proper time or the observered time.
However, since spacetime is space (irrelevant in the principle of minimal
action) plus time, the treatment works for non-photons. Do you agree?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:dh1bo9$s1b$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Have you
>>> honestly gone through the math and conviced yourself that the
>>> predicted Mercury's anomaly is indeed what Einstein had calculated?
>> I have -- by looking at good systematic approximations, by finding
>> the *exact* solution of the geodesic equations (in terms of elliptic
>> integrals), and by looking at the post-Newtonian and post-Minkowskian
>> expansions of field equations for the the many-body problem. There's
>> really no issue here.
> I would love to see your solutions involved with these elliptic integrals
> whatever they are.
There's nothing particularly mysterious about it. See, for example,
Kraniotis and Whitehouse, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) 4817.
> In the meanwhile, let's address the most fundamental
> issue of trying to solve this problem. I claim that the traditional
> accepted parameter to be minimized is not technically the spacetime itself
> but only time which can either be the proper time or the observered time.
I don't understand what you mean. Who has ever said that one should
minimize "the spacetime itself" (whatever that means -- how do you minimize
a spacetime)? To determine a geodesic, you extremize proper time.
What is "the observered time"? I've never heard this term before.
> However, since spacetime is space (irrelevant in the principle of minimal
> action) plus time, the treatment works for non-photons. Do you agree?
I have no idea whether I agree or not, since I don't know what you mean.
I suspect that your statement that "space" is "irrelevant in the principle
of minimal action" is wrong -- you need to extremize proper time along a
trajectory in space and time, and unless you have made a *very* special
choice of coordinates, this proper time will involve spatial coordinates
as well as a time coordinate. But it's conceivable that you mean something
different. I can't tell.
Try with math. It makes things a lot less ambiguous.
Steve Carlip
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dha3kq$ej4$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>
> There's nothing particularly mysterious about it. See, for example,
> Kraniotis and Whitehouse, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) 4817.
Could you recommend an internet accessible reference? Would
Ciufolini/Wheeler's chapter 3 do?
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter3.pdf
>> In the meanwhile, let's address the most fundamental
>> issue of trying to solve this problem. I claim that the traditional
>> accepted parameter to be minimized is not technically the spacetime
>> itself
>> but only time which can either be the proper time or the observered time.
>
> I don't understand what you mean. Who has ever said that one should
> minimize "the spacetime itself" (whatever that means -- how do you
> minimize
> a spacetime)? To determine a geodesic, you extremize proper time.
In almost all reference I have found, this is the case. However, one sole
exception is Taylor's derivation of photon deflection where ds is 0 already.
Taylor chose to minimize the observed time.
> What is "the observered time"? I've never heard this term before.
Pardon me. I thought it is extremely self-explanatory. Later on in this
post, you can find what I mean.
>> However, since spacetime is space (irrelevant in the principle of minimal
>> action) plus time, the treatment works for non-photons. Do you agree?
>
> I have no idea whether I agree or not, since I don't know what you mean.
> I suspect that your statement that "space" is "irrelevant in the principle
> of minimal action" is wrong
Snell Law contradicts with your statement. As Fermat derived it many
centuries ago, it was the passage time that is minimized to allow such a
physical law. In fact, space (spatial components) just don't play into the
principle of least action. Intuitively, an event resides in space but takes
place in time. Can you explain why space even plays a role in the principle
of minimal action?
> -- you need to extremize proper time along a
> trajectory in space and time,
I understand to maximize or to minimize but fail to understand what you mean
by extremize. Please explain.
> and unless you have made a *very* special
> choice of coordinates, this proper time will involve spatial coordinates
> as well as a time coordinate. But it's conceivable that you mean
> something
> different. I can't tell.
What I refer to is that proper spacetime is the same as observed spacetime.
From the commonality of the mathematical language, we have
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = g^ij dq_i dq_j
Where
** ds = proper or observed spacetime or just spacetime
** dt = proper time
** dx, dy, dz makes up proper space.
** dq_0 = observed time
** dq_1, dq_2, dq_3 makes up observed space.
** g^ij = distortion correction factors
Koobee Wublee
Correction on
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = g^ij dq_i dq_j
Where
** ds = proper space time
And so is
sqrt(g^ij dq_i dq_j)
However,
** sqrt(dq_i dq_j) = observed spacetime
In my definition.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:dha3kq$ej4$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>> There's nothing particularly mysterious about it. See, for example,
>> Kraniotis and Whitehouse, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) 4817.
> Could you recommend an internet accessible reference? Would
> Ciufolini/Wheeler's chapter 3 do?
You asked for a reference for the exact solution of the geodesic
equation in terms of elliptic integrals. Ciufolini and Wheeler
don't give that -- it's an unnecessary complication for their
purposes. You can find the Kraniotis and Whitehouse paper at
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305181
>>> In the meanwhile, let's address the most fundamental
>>> issue of trying to solve this problem. I claim that the traditional
>>> accepted parameter to be minimized is not technically the spacetime
>>> itself but only time which can either be the proper time or the
>>> observered time.
>> I don't understand what you mean. Who has ever said that one should
>> minimize "the spacetime itself" (whatever that means -- how do you
>> minimize a spacetime)? To determine a geodesic, you extremize proper
>> time.
> In almost all reference I have found, this is the case.
Right, because it's the correct thing to do. It is, in fact, the only
approach that's consistent with the Einstein field equations. As
Einstein, Infeld, and Hoffmann first showed in 1938 (in an approximation
that has since been greatly improved), you don't have to postulate the
geodesic equation separately. Instead, you just look for a two-body
solution to the field equations. You will then find -- if you're willing
to do the work -- that if one of the objects is much lighter than the
other, a consistent solution exists only if the lighter body is moving
along a geodesic in the metric due to the heavier one.
(If the lighter body has a finite mass, of course, this is still an
approximation, since it affects the metric itself. The corrections to
geodesic motion are basically those do to gravitational radiation
reaction. For the Sun and Mercury, these corrections can be computed,
and are *much* too small to be observed.)
[...]
>>> However, since spacetime is space (irrelevant in the principle of minimal
>>> action) plus time, the treatment works for non-photons. Do you agree?
>> I have no idea whether I agree or not, since I don't know what you mean.
>> I suspect that your statement that "space" is "irrelevant in the principle
>> of minimal action" is wrong
> Snell Law contradicts with your statement. As Fermat derived it many
> centuries ago, it was the passage time that is minimized to allow such a
> physical law.
This is a nonrelativistic result in a flat spacetime. Why do you think
it generalizes?
> In fact, space (spatial components) just don't play into the
> principle of least action.
In fact, in general relativity they do. The simplest way to see this
is quite elementary. In a nonrelativistic, Newtonian theory, there
is an absolute time, and it at least makes sense to talk about minimizing
time. In general relativity, there is no absolute time -- there is no
"preferred" method of synchronization. In general relativity, time is
just a coordinate, a human-made bookkeeping device to help keep track
of physical events. There is no reason for your choice of a time
coordinate to agree with mine, so there is no reason that minimizing
the time as measured with your coordinate will give the same trajectory
as minimizing the time as measured with mine. Unless you want to take
the position that Mercury's actual, physical orbit depends on whose
bookkeeping system we use, you can't possibly argue that one should
minimize "time."
There is, of course, an observer-independent definition of time for
Mercury. That's proper time, time as measured by a clock at rest on
Mercury. If you want to generalize the Newtonian principle of least
time, that's the obvious guess. (It is also, as I explained above, the
only choice that is consistent with the Einstein field equations.)
>> -- you need to extremize proper time along a trajectory in space
>> and time,
> I understand to maximize or to minimize but fail to understand what
> you mean by extremize. Please explain.
The extremum of a function is a place where its first partial derivatives
vanish. This can be a maximum, a minimum, or a saddle point. For motion
of a massive object in general relativity, with the standard sign conventions,
a geodesic is actually a local *maximum* of proper time.
[...]
> What I refer to is that proper spacetime is the same as observed spacetime.
> From the commonality of the mathematical language, we have
> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = g^ij dq_i dq_j
This is a special relativistic expression. In special relativity, there
is a preferred class of inertial frames, and therefore a preferred set
of choices of time coordinate.
In general relativity, there is not. If I want to extremize "time" to
obtain Mercury's orbit, what coordinates should I use? Schwarzschild
coordinates? Isotropic coordinates? Harmonic coordinates? Eddington-
Finkelstein coordinates? (Ingoing or outgoing?) Painleve-Gullstrand
coordinates, or one of Doran's generalizations? Kruskal coordinates?
Do you have any reason to believe that extremizing "time" in one of these
coordinate systems will give the same result as extremizing "time" in
any other?
Steve Carlip
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dhelon$p5t$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>
> You asked for a reference for the exact solution of the geodesic
> equation in terms of elliptic integrals. Ciufolini and Wheeler
> don't give that -- it's an unnecessary complication for their
> purposes. You can find the Kraniotis and Whitehouse paper at
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305181
Ciufolini/Wheeler's equations 3.5.1 are exactly the same as
Kraniotis/Whitehouse's equations 11 and 12 to the first order of
approximation.
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter3.pdf
In fact, Kraniotis/Whitehouse's derivation is not unique. It is the the
common form found. It is the same as Ciufolini/Wheeler as well. However,
Krantiotis/Whitehouse seems to be a little bit more organized.
>> In almost all reference I have found, this is the case.
>
> Right, because it's the correct thing to do. It is, in fact, the only
> approach that's consistent with the Einstein field equations. As
> Einstein, Infeld, and Hoffmann first showed in 1938 (in an approximation
> that has since been greatly improved), you don't have to postulate the
> geodesic equation separately. Instead, you just look for a two-body
> solution to the field equations. You will then find -- if you're willing
> to do the work -- that if one of the objects is much lighter than the
> other, a consistent solution exists only if the lighter body is moving
> along a geodesic in the metric due to the heavier one.
I am willing to do the work. I find that Krantiotis/Whitehouse did not
derive the solution of Mercury's orbit directly as a two-body system from
Grossmann/Einstein/Hilbert's field equations. Krantiotis/Whitehouse started
with Schwarzschild metric with the Cosmological constant applied where this
constant is proudly brought up by them and yet is conveniently equated to
zero for simplicity. However to my delight, I am exposed with this
Cosmological constant as a possible influence to Mercury's orbital anomaly.
> (If the lighter body has a finite mass, of course, this is still an
> approximation, since it affects the metric itself. The corrections to
> geodesic motion are basically those do to gravitational radiation
> reaction. For the Sun and Mercury, these corrections can be computed,
> and are *much* too small to be observed.)
Yes, I understand this after Mr. Roberts drilled me time after time to
remind me of this grossly complexity of GR where no exact solution exists in
a realistic situation.
>> Snell Law contradicts with your statement. As Fermat derived it many
>> centuries ago, it was the passage time that is minimized to allow such a
>> physical law.
>
> This is a nonrelativistic result in a flat spacetime. Why do you think
> it generalizes?
Yes, I agree Snell's law is conformed to the realm of relativistic
mechanics. However, the principle of deriving Snell's law is vastly similar
to GR. As the principle of least action indicates (or the minimizaion of
the passage of time where only one possible route exists), I see the
similarity of photon bending as in GR. Do you not see that?
Krantiotis/Whitehouse's equations 5, 7, 8 are nothing more than
Euler-Lagrange equations derived from the Lagrangian method to minimize, in
this case, the proper spacetime, ds.
>> In fact, space (spatial components) just don't play into the
>> principle of least action.
>
> In fact, in general relativity they do. The simplest way to see this
> is quite elementary.
There is even a simpler way to agree with my point. If you minimize the
elapsed time of an event described by the spacetime equation with
Schwarzschild metric, you get the same result with minimization of the
proper spacetime itself except for a photon where the incremental proper
spacetime is already zero. However, if minimize the elapsed time for a
photon, you will see the deflection of the photon as Taylor and a few others
derived it. Now, if you don't agree with minimization of elapsed time as a
principle and very foundamental concept under GR, how can you explain by
minimizing the proper spacetime (traditional method) and by minimizing
either the elapsed proper time or the observed time (my understanding) both
give you the same answer (for a non-photon, of course). I attribute to this
as the non-essential role of space itself since spacetiime is space plus
time.
> In a nonrelativistic, Newtonian theory, there
> is an absolute time, and it at least makes sense to talk about minimizing
> time. In general relativity, there is no absolute time -- there is no
> "preferred" method of synchronization. In general relativity, time is
> just a coordinate, a human-made bookkeeping device to help keep track
> of physical events. There is no reason for your choice of a time
> coordinate to agree with mine, so there is no reason that minimizing
> the time as measured with your coordinate will give the same trajectory
> as minimizing the time as measured with mine. Unless you want to take
> the position that Mercury's actual, physical orbit depends on whose
> bookkeeping system we use, you can't possibly argue that one should
> minimize "time."
Comparing the passage of elapsed time between two frames does not require
any synchronization. After all, we are talking about dt which is an
microscopic and incremental quantity. Thus, your comment above just does
not make any sense and, I expect, nor will be backed up by any mathematical
analysis.
> The extremum of a function is a place where its first partial derivatives
> vanish. This can be a maximum, a minimum, or a saddle point. For motion
> of a massive object in general relativity, with the standard sign
> conventions,
> a geodesic is actually a local *maximum* of proper time.
I went through this with Mr. Roberts already. My conclusion is that the
maximum proper time comes out as a collections of all possible spacetime
equations whatever they are. However, also from my conclusion, when one
only deal with one spacetime equation such as studying the orbit of Mercury,
the principle of least action on the elapsed time holds. The elapsed time
also represents the minimum action of an event.
> [...]
>> What I refer to is that proper spacetime is the same as observed
>> spacetime.
>> From the commonality of the mathematical language, we have
>
>> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = g^ij dq_i dq_j
>
> This is a special relativistic expression. In special relativity, there
> is a preferred class of inertial frames, and therefore a preferred set
> of choices of time coordinate.
No, ds is the proper spacetime where the observed spacetime is corrected
with Schwarzschild metric, g^ij, to be mapped into the proper spacetime.
> In general relativity, there is not. If I want to extremize "time" to
> obtain Mercury's orbit, what coordinates should I use?
From my own study, either the proper time or the observed time should give
the same and correct solution.
> Schwarzschild
> coordinates? Isotropic coordinates? Harmonic coordinates? Eddington-
> Finkelstein coordinates? (Ingoing or outgoing?) Painleve-Gullstrand
> coordinates, or one of Doran's generalizations? Kruskal coordinates?
How about the good old polar coordinate where theta = 0 indicates the
equator instead of theta = pi / 2. This coordinate system aggrees more with
our convention of longitude and lattitude. What do you call this polar
coordinate system?
> Do you have any reason to believe that extremizing "time" in one of these
> coordinate systems will give the same result as extremizing "time" in
> any other
Yes, I absolutely believe it would because I am willing and have done my
work to show that by minimizing the following for a non-photon
** Proper spacetime, ds
** Proper time
** Observed time, dt
Does indeed arrive at the same answer. However, for a photon, the only
method that works is by minimizing either the following
** Proper time
** Observed time, dt
You will tear you hair out by minimizing the proper spacetime of the
trajectory of a photon, ds, because ds is already zero. Therefore, the only
logical conclusion is that minimizing either the proper time or the observed
time is the true indicator of minimal action in accordance with the
principle of least action.
Enough said with the principle of least action, Krantiotis/Whitehouse's
equations 11 and 12 indicate two integration constants where they are never
properly characterized. The constant of the constant angular momentum is
waved to be of classical limit and thus only accurate to the first order.
However, Mercury's orbital anomaly is dictated by the 2nd order effect.
Krantiotis/Whitehouse, Ciufolini/.Wheeler, and the others' claim cannot
possibly be of anything valuable. So, instead of keeping the integration
constants where it is a Catch-22 situation to arrive at the 2nd order effect
while these constants are conveniently ignored with the 2nd order effect, I
take the derivatives of these equations to cast away any doubt on the
dependencies of these integration constants. What I found is not what is
commonly believed. And this cast doubt in my mind on the validity of GR as
a serious theory to address what gravity does.
Oh, just in case if you don't understand what I mean by n'th order effect,
here is an example with simple mathematics as illustration.
sqrt( - g_00) = sqrt(1 - 2 U) ~= 1 - U - U^2 / 2 + ...
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** 1 = zero order effect
** - U = 1st order effect, Newtonian limit
** - U^2 / 2 = 2nd order effect
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:dhelon$p5t$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
[...]
> Yes, I agree Snell's law is conformed to the realm of relativistic
> mechanics. However, the principle of deriving Snell's law is vastly
> similar to GR.
Yes, almost all modern physics can be written in terms of a principle
of least action. The question is, what is the action?
[...]
> Krantiotis/Whitehouse's equations 5, 7, 8 are nothing more than
> Euler-Lagrange equations derived from the Lagrangian method to minimize,
> in this case, the proper spacetime, ds.
Right. That's the correct thing to do -- to extremize the proper time.
There's really nothing to argue about here, so I won't argue any more,
except to repeat, once again, that this is *required* for a consistent
many-body solution of the Einstein field equations. If you don't like
the result, you're free to throw out the field equations. But then
we're not talking about general relativity any more.
>> In general relativity, there is not. If I want to extremize "time" to
>> obtain Mercury's orbit, what coordinates should I use?
> From my own study, either the proper time or the observed time should give
> the same and correct solution.
>> Schwarzschild
>> coordinates? Isotropic coordinates? Harmonic coordinates? Eddington-
>> Finkelstein coordinates? (Ingoing or outgoing?) Painleve-Gullstrand
>> coordinates, or one of Doran's generalizations? Kruskal coordinates?
> How about the good old polar coordinate where theta = 0 indicates the
> equator instead of theta = pi / 2. This coordinate system aggrees more
> with our convention of longitude and lattitude. What do you call this
> polar coordinate system?
The fact that you ask this question demonstrates that you understand very
little about general relativity, and suggests that you might be a bit more
modest about making sweeping claims. The answer is that such a choice can
be made in *any* of the coordinate systems I listed above. It does not
specify a coordinate system; it doesn't even come close.
[...]
> Enough said with the principle of least action, Krantiotis/Whitehouse's
> equations 11 and 12 indicate two integration constants where they are never
> properly characterized. The constant of the constant angular momentum is
> waved to be of classical limit and thus only accurate to the first order.
E (K&W's calligraphic E) is the conserved quantity associated with time
translation invariance. That is, by definition, the energy (per unit
mass). L is the conserved quantity associated with rotational invariance.
That is, by definition, the angular momentum (per unit mass).
> However, Mercury's orbital anomaly is dictated by the 2nd order effect.
This is a coordinate-dependent statement. You will find a discussion at
the beginning of section 3.5 of Ciufolini and Wheeler. There is no
"clean" separation between "first order" and "second order" effects --
they can move back and forth depending on your coordinate choice. (The
physical predictions, of course, do not depend on coordinate choices.)
> Krantiotis/Whitehouse, Ciufolini/.Wheeler, and the others' claim cannot
> possibly be of anything valuable. So, instead of keeping the integration
> constants where it is a Catch-22 situation to arrive at the 2nd order
> effect while these constants are conveniently ignored with the 2nd order
> effect,
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean.
> I take the derivatives of these equations to cast away any doubt on the
> dependencies of these integration constants.
Note that Krantiotis and Whitehouse give the *exact* solution, to *all*
orders. Furthermore, E and L are determined *exactly* by the aphelion
and perihelion -- see eqns. (25) and (26). (The quantities e_2 and e_3
are the roots of a cubic polynomial that depends on L and E.)
> What I found is not what is commonly believed.
Do you claim you found something different from the results of Krantiotis
and Whitehouse? If so, you've made a mistake in the math.
Steve Carlip
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dhpqha$g2i$4...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>
>> Yes, I agree Snell's law is conformed to the realm of relativistic
>> mechanics. However, the principle of deriving Snell's law is vastly
>> similar to GR.
>
> Yes, almost all modern physics can be written in terms of a principle
> of least action. The question is, what is the action?
And yes once again, I agree with you that most subjects of modern physics
deal with the principle of least action. However, unlike your indecision on
what this action is to be minimized, I do have answer for that. If you bet
on this action being the elapsed time of the event, you are very safe to be
correct.
>> Krantiotis/Whitehouse's equations 5, 7, 8 are nothing more than
>> Euler-Lagrange equations derived from the Lagrangian method to minimize,
>> in this case, the proper spacetime, ds.
>
> Right. That's the correct thing to do -- to extremize the proper time.
> There's really nothing to argue about here, so I won't argue any more,
> except to repeat, once again, that this is *required* for a consistent
> many-body solution of the Einstein field equations. If you don't like
> the result, you're free to throw out the field equations. But then
> we're not talking about general relativity any more.
And I have to disagree that proper spacetime hold the key to describe the
minimal action of an event. If I choose to minimize either the proper time
or the observed time, I get the same answer as to minimize the proper
spacetime. Why is that? The logical explanation is that space has nothing
to do if an event taking place represents its possible minimun action. And
since these answers are in agreement despite representation of different
state variable that results in a minimal action, we should still talking
about GR.
>> How about the good old polar coordinate where theta = 0 indicates the
>> equator instead of theta = pi / 2. This coordinate system aggrees more
>> with our convention of longitude and lattitude. What do you call this
>> polar coordinate system?
>
> The fact that you ask this question demonstrates that you understand very
> little about general relativity, and suggests that you might be a bit more
> modest about making sweeping claims. The answer is that such a choice can
> be made in *any* of the coordinate systems I listed above. It does not
> specify a coordinate system; it doesn't even come close.
You were asking what coordinate system I prefer to disprove what the common
belief in what GR predicts in Mercury's orbital anomaly. You suggested all
these coordinate systems which I have not encountered most of them. To be
honest with you, I was shocked that you would bring the choice of coordinate
system up. With your reputation and established career in this subject, you
have realized coordinate system does not matter in GR. However, one might
exists to make math simpler. So, that is why I pointed out the coordinate
system that will give the simplest mathematical representations.
>> Enough said with the principle of least action, Krantiotis/Whitehouse's
>> equations 11 and 12 indicate two integration constants where they are
>> never
>> properly characterized. The constant of the constant angular momentum is
>> waved to be of classical limit and thus only accurate to the first order.
>
> E (K&W's calligraphic E) is the conserved quantity associated with time
> translation invariance. That is, by definition, the energy (per unit
> mass). L is the conserved quantity associated with rotational invariance.
> That is, by definition, the angular momentum (per unit mass).
They should be as you described, but I have failed to see the way they
explained as you do.
>> However, Mercury's orbital anomaly is dictated by the 2nd order effect.
>
> This is a coordinate-dependent statement. You will find a discussion at
> the beginning of section 3.5 of Ciufolini and Wheeler. There is no
> "clean" separation between "first order" and "second order" effects --
> they can move back and forth depending on your coordinate choice. (The
> physical predictions, of course, do not depend on coordinate choices.)
How can this be a coordinate-dependent concept? My choice of coordinate
system is the polar coordinate system which is exactly the same as
Ciufonili/Wheeler and Krantiotis/Whitehouse except the parameter describing
the lattitudinal component. The lattitudinal component should not affect
any result because we have contrained the orbital motion to the equitorial
plane. I have a feeling that you have not even bothered to take a couple
seconds and understand what my point is.
>> Krantiotis/Whitehouse, Ciufolini/.Wheeler, and the others' claim cannot
>> possibly be of anything valuable. So, instead of keeping the integration
>> constants where it is a Catch-22 situation to arrive at the 2nd order
>> effect while these constants are conveniently ignored with the 2nd order
>> effect,
>
> I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean.
It is all right. This point is not very important in our discussion anyway.
It is more like a comment. If you don't understand it, please ignore this
part.
>> I take the derivatives of these equations to cast away any doubt on the
>> dependencies of these integration constants.
>
> Note that Krantiotis and Whitehouse give the *exact* solution, to *all*
> orders. Furthermore, E and L are determined *exactly* by the aphelion
> and perihelion -- see eqns. (25) and (26). (The quantities e_2 and e_3
> are the roots of a cubic polynomial that depends on L and E.)
It is funny how you would think that they have the exact solution. On the
bottom of page 7, they wrote "We will show... there is a small parameter
space for L and E that reproduces [the observed orbital anomaly of
Mercury]...".
This means they can come up with values of L and E that will explain the 43"
per century of orbital anomaly. And therefore GR's prediction of Mercury's
orbital anomaly is achieved by allowing L and E to be certain values that
are possibly under the constraint of all these equations. This, to me, is
not a solid proof. A solid proof is to derive thorughly and exactly what L
and E are in terms of value. I realize this is a rather difficult task.
Therefore, instead of writing Mercury's orbital anomaly as a function of L
and E, I choose to take derivatives at proper places to eliminate these
constants.
>> What I found is not what is commonly believed.
>
> Do you claim you found something different from the results of Krantiotis
> and Whitehouse? If so, you've made a mistake in the math.
The first two tries I show two different values. However, from the third
try and on to about a dozen, I consistantly get zero anomaly with a solution
independent of L and E. Yes, I have discovered that by write down a
solution to Mercury's orbital anomaly independent of E and L I get no
anomaly at all. At this stage, I do not think I have made a mistake in
math. At your age, can you still do these grunge work in math? If not,
please have your student to do them. And you will know what I mean.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:dhpqha$g2i$4...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
[...]
>>> Krantiotis/Whitehouse's equations 5, 7, 8 are nothing more than
>>> Euler-Lagrange equations derived from the Lagrangian method to minimize,
>>> in this case, the proper spacetime, ds.
>> Right. That's the correct thing to do -- to extremize the proper time.
>> There's really nothing to argue about here, so I won't argue any more,
>> except to repeat, once again, that this is *required* for a consistent
>> many-body solution of the Einstein field equations. If you don't like
>> the result, you're free to throw out the field equations. But then
>> we're not talking about general relativity any more.
> And I have to disagree that proper spacetime hold the key to describe the
> minimal action of an event. If I choose to minimize either the proper time
> or the observed time, I get the same answer as to minimize the proper
> spacetime.
You will find a discussion of this in Perlick's Living Reviews article,
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-9/index.html
and in Class. Quant. Grav. 7 (1990) 1319. For a certain class of
metrics -- those that are conformal to static metrics -- your method
will work, that is, it will give null geodesics. For a generic metric,
it won't.
Let me repeat one more time, since you seem to have missed this very
basic point: the geodesic equation does *not* have to be assumed
separately in general relativity. It follows as a consequence of the
field equations. If you want to reject the geodesic equation (for those
metrics for which extremizing time and extremizing proper time give
different results), then you necessarily must reject the Einstein field
equations as well.
[...]
>>> Enough said with the principle of least action, Krantiotis/Whitehouse's
>>> equations 11 and 12 indicate two integration constants where they are
>>> never
>>> properly characterized. The constant of the constant angular momentum is
>>> waved to be of classical limit and thus only accurate to the first order.
>> E (K&W's calligraphic E) is the conserved quantity associated with time
>> translation invariance. That is, by definition, the energy (per unit
>> mass). L is the conserved quantity associated with rotational invariance.
>> That is, by definition, the angular momentum (per unit mass).
> They should be as you described, but I have failed to see the way they
> explained as you do.
Work it out. The Schwarzschild metric has a timelike Killing vector and
a simple angular Killing vector. Just sit down and compute the corresponding
conserved quantities. If you don't know how to do this, look at section 5.4
of Carroll's textbook, or sections 25.2-3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler,
or section 6.3 of Wald. Note that this is an *exact* result.
>>> However, Mercury's orbital anomaly is dictated by the 2nd order effect.
>> This is a coordinate-dependent statement. You will find a discussion at
>> the beginning of section 3.5 of Ciufolini and Wheeler. There is no
>> "clean" separation between "first order" and "second order" effects --
>> they can move back and forth depending on your coordinate choice. (The
>> physical predictions, of course, do not depend on coordinate choices.)
> How can this be a coordinate-dependent concept? My choice of coordinate
> system is the polar coordinate system which is exactly the same as
> Ciufonili/Wheeler and Krantiotis/Whitehouse except the parameter describing
> the lattitudinal component.
Yes, and in that coordinate system, it's a second order effect. In other
coordinate systems, it's a first order effect. I repeat: you will find a
discussion at the beginning of section 3.5 of Ciufolini and Wheeler.
[...]
>> Note that Krantiotis and Whitehouse give the *exact* solution, to *all*
>> orders. Furthermore, E and L are determined *exactly* by the aphelion
>> and perihelion -- see eqns. (25) and (26). (The quantities e_2 and e_3
>> are the roots of a cubic polynomial that depends on L and E.)
> It is funny how you would think that they have the exact solution. On the
> bottom of page 7, they wrote "We will show... there is a small parameter
> space for L and E that reproduces [the observed orbital anomaly of
> Mercury]...".
How does that contradict anything I said? They obtain the exact solution,
which depends on two integration constants, E and L. For a certain small
range of values of these constants, the exact solution agrees with the
observed perihelion advance.
> This means they can come up with values of L and E that will explain the
> 43" per century of orbital anomaly. And therefore GR's prediction of
> Mercury's orbital anomaly is achieved by allowing L and E to be certain
> values that are possibly under the constraint of all these equations.
> This, to me, is not a solid proof. A solid proof is to derive thorughly
> and exactly what L and E are in terms of value.
As I said, E and L are determined *exactly* by the aphelion and perihelion --
see eqns. (25) and (26). The equations aren't going to tell you these values,
because they're different for each planet. So you observe the value of the
aphelion and perihelion (*not* the advance of the perihelion) to determine
E and L, plug them into the equation, and get the right expression for the
advance.
> I realize this is a rather difficult task.
> Therefore, instead of writing Mercury's orbital anomaly as a function of L
> and E, I choose to take derivatives at proper places to eliminate these
> constants.
Fine, So you converted first-order differential equations to second-order
ones. That means that when you solve the equations, you will have new
constants of integration. How do you fix their values?
>>> What I found is not what is commonly believed.
>> Do you claim you found something different from the results of Krantiotis
>> and Whitehouse? If so, you've made a mistake in the math.
> The first two tries I show two different values. However, from the third
> try and on to about a dozen, I consistantly get zero anomaly with a
> solution independent of L and E. Yes, I have discovered that by write
> down a solution to Mercury's orbital anomaly independent of E and L I
> get no anomaly at all.
What values did you choose for your integration constants? The solution of
the geodesic equation *must* have such constants -- otherwise, you could
solve the equation and determine, for example, Mercury's eccentricity,
which depends on these constants. (In case it's not obvious, you *can't*
do that in the real world. Mercury's eccentricity is determined by initial
conditions, and equations of motion can't determine these.)
Or a simpler question: in your solution, what is the eccentricity of
Mercury's orbit?
Steve Carlip
Androcles
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:di6e66$dnm$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
| Or a simpler question: in your solution, what is the eccentricity of
| Mercury's orbit?
|
| Steve Carlip
Ok, what IS the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit, and what did you do
to determine it?
Androcles
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:di6e66$dnm$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> And I have to disagree that proper spacetime hold the key to describe the
>> minimal action of an event. If I choose to minimize either the proper
>> time
>> or the observed time, I get the same answer as to minimize the proper
>> spacetime.
>
> You will find a discussion of this in Perlick's Living Reviews article,
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-9/index.html
> and in Class. Quant. Grav. 7 (1990) 1319. For a certain class of
> metrics -- those that are conformal to static metrics -- your method
> will work, that is, it will give null geodesics. For a generic metric,
> it won't.
Your generic metric of minimizing proper spacetime would not work for the
study of photon deflection unless you abide to Ciufolini/Wheeler's method of
creative minimization.
> Let me repeat one more time, since you seem to have missed this very
> basic point: the geodesic equation does *not* have to be assumed
> separately in general relativity. It follows as a consequence of the
> field equations. If you want to reject the geodesic equation (for those
> metrics for which extremizing time and extremizing proper time give
> different results), then you necessarily must reject the Einstein field
> equations as well.
OK, let me try one more time to understand what you are saying. I construde
you mean the following.
"Since the field equations were derived with the proper spacetime as the
representation of minimal action, one must minimize the proper spacetime to
arrive at the solutions to the field equations."
If so, in my own study, the real field equations are still out there to be
written down based on the minimal action of elapsed time and not proper
spacetime.
For some certain range of E and L? On page 9 of the same paper, notice E
and L are carried out to 8+ digits after decimal. Thus, I have to correct
what you said.
"For a certain [precise] values of these constants, the exact solution
agrees with the observed perihelion advance."
So, Krantiotis/Whitehouse worked it backwards, they knew the answer is 43"
per century. In doing so, they calculated what E and L are to 9+
significant digit of precision. So, if E and L are what they wrote down,
then Mercury's orbital anomaly is observed. Granted that they are able to
show other parameters such as the perihelion and aphelion, the proof of
Mercury's orbital anomaly has to address what E and L are head on.
Krantiotis/Whitehouse, Ciufolini/Wheeler, and others' solutions do not
calculate precisely what E and L are directly. These solutions are very
faulty.
One good approach is to eliminate the dependence on E and L totally by
taking derivatives. After arriving at (dt/ds) or (ds/dt) through the
Fermat-Lagrangian method or the variational method, one plugs the result
back into the spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric. Collect the
constant E to one side of the equation, and take the derivative.
Incidentally, the result all contains the derivative of the equation
yielding L.
> Fine, So you converted first-order differential equations to second-order
> ones. That means that when you solve the equations, you will have new
> constants of integration. How do you fix their values?
I went through this with Bilge already. You can see where I am coming from
from the following two posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/4d729310873fb1e7?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/dfee758f6a8a1639?dmode=source
>>>> What I found is not what is commonly believed.
>
>>> Do you claim you found something different from the results of
>>> Krantiotis
>>> and Whitehouse? If so, you've made a mistake in the math.
>
>> The first two tries I show two different values. However, from the third
>> try and on to about a dozen, I consistantly get zero anomaly with a
>> solution independent of L and E. Yes, I have discovered that by write
>> down a solution to Mercury's orbital anomaly independent of E and L I
>> get no anomaly at all.
>
> What values did you choose for your integration constants? The solution
> of
> the geodesic equation *must* have such constants -- otherwise, you could
> solve the equation and determine, for example, Mercury's eccentricity,
> which depends on these constants. (In case it's not obvious, you *can't*
> do that in the real world. Mercury's eccentricity is determined by
> initial
> conditions, and equations of motion can't determine these.)
The answer should not depend on the integration constants. The eccentricity
should not play a major role in orbital anomaly. Just take a look at the
table containing all major planets in the folling link.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
> Or a simpler question: in your solution, what is the eccentricity of
> Mercury's orbit?
I don't care. It plays no major role in this problem.
Krantiotis/Whitehouse, Ciufolini/Wheeler, and others' solutions all agree
with me.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:di6e66$dnm$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> And I have to disagree that proper spacetime hold the key to describe the
>>> minimal action of an event. If I choose to minimize either the proper
>>> time or the observed time, I get the same answer as to minimize the
>>> proper spacetime.
>> You will find a discussion of this in Perlick's Living Reviews article,
>> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-9/index.html
>> and in Class. Quant. Grav. 7 (1990) 1319. For a certain class of
>> metrics -- those that are conformal to static metrics -- your method
>> will work, that is, it will give null geodesics. For a generic metric,
>> it won't.
> Your generic metric of minimizing proper spacetime would not work for the
> study of photon deflection unless you abide to Ciufolini/Wheeler's method
> of creative minimization.
You can either define a null geodesic as a limit of non-null ones, or
as a null auto-parallel curve, or by using Fermat's principle *correctly*
(that is, in a way that doesn't depend on a coordinate choice), as described
in the articles I cited by Perlick.
>> Let me repeat one more time, since you seem to have missed this very
>> basic point: the geodesic equation does *not* have to be assumed
>> separately in general relativity. It follows as a consequence of the
>> field equations. If you want to reject the geodesic equation (for those
>> metrics for which extremizing time and extremizing proper time give
>> different results), then you necessarily must reject the Einstein field
>> equations as well.
> OK, let me try one more time to understand what you are saying. I
> construde you mean the following.
> "Since the field equations were derived with the proper spacetime as the
> representation of minimal action, one must minimize the proper spacetime to
> arrive at the solutions to the field equations."
I don't know what this means -- I don't understand the phrases "the proper
spacetime as the representation of minimal action" and "minimiz[ing] the
proper spacetime." (How in the world do you "minimize a spacetime"?) I
suspect, though, that you've mixed up the field equations and the geodesic
equations.
What I mean is this:
General relativity contains two basic ingredients: the Einstein field
equations, which determine the gravitational field (or spacetime geometry)
due to a given configuration of mass and energy, and the geodesic equations,
which determine how objects move in that gravitational field (or spacetime
geometry). The field equations can be written as G_{ab}=8pi T_{ab}, while
the geodesic equations are the equations of motion we have been discussing.
If this is confusing, think of the electromagnetic analog: Maxwell's
equations determine the electric and magnetic fields produced by a given
charge and current distribution (field equations), while the Lorentz force
law, together with Newton's second law, determine the motion of a charged
particle in those fields (equations of motion).
The statement is that in general relativity, these two ingredients are not
independent -- the field equations have a solution only if the objects that
act as sources of the gravitational field also move along geodesics. In
particular, if you want to change the geodesic equation (say, by minimizing
some time coordinate instead of proper time), you must also change the
Einstein field equations.
But if you change the Einstein field equations, there's no reason to talk
about the Schwarzschild metric to begin with -- it's only important because
it's the solution of the field equations for a spherically symmetric mass.
> If so, in my own study, the real field equations are still out there to be
> written down based on the minimal action of elapsed time and not proper
> spacetime.
If you are saying that the correct field equations are not the Einstein field
equations, why are you talking about the Schwarzschild metric at all?
>> [...]
No. See tables 1-3.
> "For a certain [precise] values of these constants, the exact solution
> agrees with the observed perihelion advance."
> So, Krantiotis/Whitehouse worked it backwards, they knew the answer is 43"
> per century. In doing so, they calculated what E and L are to 9+
> significant digit of precision.
This is completely wrong. That's not where their values of E and L came
from. There are two numbers here, and *three* observable quantities, the
perihelion r_P, the apehelion r_A, and the perihelion advance Delta. By
using the observed values of r_P and r_A -- that is, the observed mimimum
and maximum distance of Mercury from the Sun -- you can *compute* L and E,
and therefore Delta.
Look at the explanation in section 3.2. Kraniotis and Whitehouse say very
clearly that E is determined by the observed semimajor axis of Mercury's
orbit, as reported in _Allen's Astrophysical Quantities_, and that L in
table 2 is determined from the observed eccentricity of Mercury's orbit.
> So, if E and L are what they wrote down,
> then Mercury's orbital anomaly is observed. Granted that they are able to
> show other parameters such as the perihelion and aphelion, the proof of
> Mercury's orbital anomaly has to address what E and L are head on.
> Krantiotis/Whitehouse, Ciufolini/Wheeler, and others' solutions do not
> calculate precisely what E and L are directly.
You *can't* "calculate precisely what E and L are." They're *different*
for different planets. What you can do is observe a planet, measure its
apehelion and perihelion, and use that to predict the advance of its
perihelion.
> One good approach is to eliminate the dependence on E and L totally by
> taking derivatives. After arriving at (dt/ds) or (ds/dt) through the
> Fermat-Lagrangian method or the variational method, one plugs the result
> back into the spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric. Collect the
> constant E to one side of the equation, and take the derivative.
> Incidentally, the result all contains the derivative of the equation
> yielding L.
>> Fine, So you converted first-order differential equations to second-order
>> ones. That means that when you solve the equations, you will have new
>> constants of integration. How do you fix their values?
> I went through this with Bilge already. You can see where I am coming from
> from the following two posts.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/4d729310873fb1e7?dmode=source
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/dfee758f6a8a1639?dmode=source
I'm sorry, but I could not follow this at all.
Let me try one more time. (After this, I give up...)
1. The Schwarzschild metric is a solution of the Einstein field equations. There's
no particular point in thinking about it if you reject the field equations.
2. The field equations require that objects move along geodesics.
3. Kraniotis and Whitehouse, among others, have found the *exact* solution to the
geodesic equations for the Schwarzschild metric.
4. This solution depends on two integration constants. (It must, since different
planets move in different orbits -- there can't possibly be a unique solution.)
5. The two integration constants can be determined exactly by specifying a planet's
apehelion and perihelion (or semimajor axis and eccentricity).
6. Given such a determination, the *exact* solution of the field equations predicts
a calculable perihelion advance.
7. The predicted amount agrees with observation for Mercury, Mars, the asteroid
Icarus, and several binary pulsar systems.
>>>>> What I found is not what is commonly believed.
>>>> Do you claim you found something different from the results of
>>>> Krantiotis and Whitehouse? If so, you've made a mistake in the math.
>>> The first two tries I show two different values. However, from the third
>>> try and on to about a dozen, I consistantly get zero anomaly with a
>>> solution independent of L and E. Yes, I have discovered that by write
>>> down a solution to Mercury's orbital anomaly independent of E and L I
>>> get no anomaly at all.
>> What values did you choose for your integration constants? The solution
>> of the geodesic equation *must* have such constants -- otherwise, you could
>> solve the equation and determine, for example, Mercury's eccentricity,
>> which depends on these constants. (In case it's not obvious, you *can't*
>> do that in the real world. Mercury's eccentricity is determined by
>> initial conditions, and equations of motion can't determine these.)
> The answer should not depend on the integration constants.
The integration constants determine, among other things, the size of the
orbit (the semimajor axis) and the eccentricity. Are you seriously claiming
that the perihelion advance should be the same regardless of the orbit?
> The eccentricity
> should not play a major role in orbital anomaly. Just take a look at the
> table containing all major planets in the folling link.
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
You mean, where it says, "The effect is most noticeable for objects near the
Sun with highly elliptical orbits, but it can be seen even in the nearly
circular orbits of Venus and Earth, although the discrepancy isn't nearly so
large as for Mercury"?
Steve Carlip
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dif0d0$2u7$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>> news:di6e66$dnm$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>>> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>> And I have to disagree that proper spacetime hold the key to describe
>>>> the
>>>> minimal action of an event. If I choose to minimize either the proper
>>>> time or the observed time, I get the same answer as to minimize the
>>>> proper spacetime.
>
>>> You will find a discussion of this in Perlick's Living Reviews article,
>>> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-9/index.html
>>> and in Class. Quant. Grav. 7 (1990) 1319. For a certain class of
>>> metrics -- those that are conformal to static metrics -- your method
>>> will work, that is, it will give null geodesics. For a generic metric,
>>> it won't.
>
>> Your generic metric of minimizing proper spacetime would not work for the
>> study of photon deflection unless you abide to Ciufolini/Wheeler's method
>> of creative minimization.
>
> You can either define a null geodesic as a limit of non-null ones, or
No, you can't. The null geodesics (speaking in your language) is defined to
be zero for photons. You cannot define the definition as a limit of
non-null ones.
> as a null auto-parallel curve, or by using Fermat's principle *correctly*
> (that is, in a way that doesn't depend on a coordinate choice), as
> described
> in the articles I cited by Perlick.
That is why I discover by applying correctly what Fermat's principle of
least action does not depend on coordinate. One can choose to minimize the
proper time (speaking in your language of describing local time where Mr.
Roberts endorses), the observed time (speaking in my own language for
clarification as observed by an observer), and proper spacetime. However,
for a photon, only the proper time and the observed time conform to Fermat's
principle.
>>> Let me repeat one more time, since you seem to have missed this very
>>> basic point: the geodesic equation does *not* have to be assumed
>>> separately in general relativity. It follows as a consequence of the
>>> field equations. If you want to reject the geodesic equation (for those
>>> metrics for which extremizing time and extremizing proper time give
>>> different results), then you necessarily must reject the Einstein field
>>> equations as well.
>
>> OK, let me try one more time to understand what you are saying. I
>> construde you mean the following.
>
>> "Since the field equations were derived with the proper spacetime as the
>> representation of minimal action, one must minimize the proper spacetime
>> to
>> arrive at the solutions to the field equations."
>
> I don't know what this means -- I don't understand the phrases "the proper
> spacetime as the representation of minimal action" and "minimiz[ing] the
> proper spacetime." (How in the world do you "minimize a spacetime"?)
I don't subscribe to the concept of minimizing proper spacetime, but I
thought you do. Now, you are really confusing me of what you are talking
about. Even the article of Krantiotis/Whitehouse, you presented and
developed a tremendous confindence in, endorses the solution to Mercury's
orbital anomaly by minimzing the proper spacetime. Please focus on d()/ds
where (ds = proper spacetime).
> I suspect, though, that you've mixed up the field equations and the
> geodesic
> equations.
>
> What I mean is this:
>
> General relativity contains two basic ingredients: the Einstein field
> equations, which determine the gravitational field (or spacetime geometry)
> due to a given configuration of mass and energy, and the geodesic
> equations,
> which determine how objects move in that gravitational field (or spacetime
> geometry). The field equations can be written as G_{ab}=8pi T_{ab}, while
> the geodesic equations are the equations of motion we have been
> discussing.
I am not confused. Please answer yes or no to my question asking if (G_{ab}
= 8 pi T_{ab}) is derived by minimizing (or extremizing, speaking in your
language) the proper spacetime (not time only nor space).
> If this is confusing, think of the electromagnetic analog: Maxwell's
> equations determine the electric and magnetic fields produced by a given
> charge and current distribution (field equations), while the Lorentz force
> law, together with Newton's second law, determine the motion of a charged
> particle in those fields (equations of motion).
One does not have to minimize any quantity to arrive at the equations of
motion governed by Maxwell's equations.
> The statement is that in general relativity, these two ingredients are not
> independent -- the field equations have a solution only if the objects
> that
> act as sources of the gravitational field also move along geodesics. In
> particular, if you want to change the geodesic equation (say, by
> minimizing
> some time coordinate instead of proper time), you must also change the
> Einstein field equations.
Again, please explain to me why by minimizing the proper spacetime (for
non-photons), by minimizing the proper time, and by minimizing the observed
time all arrive at the some solution for the Schwarzschild metric? In this
case, I don't have to throw away the field equatons!
> But if you change the Einstein field equations, there's no reason to talk
> about the Schwarzschild metric to begin with -- it's only important
> because
> it's the solution of the field equations for a spherically symmetric mass.
Tell you the truth. I don't find Grossmann/Einstein/Hilbert's field
equations capable of explaining the observations, but that is another
subject of discussion.
>> If so, in my own study, the real field equations are still out there to
>> be
>> written down based on the minimal action of elapsed time and not proper
>> spacetime.
>
> If you are saying that the correct field equations are not the Einstein
> field
> equations, why are you talking about the Schwarzschild metric at all?
That depends on if you answer yes or no to the last question above.
I find table 1 but not table 1-3. So, I have to establish a proper guess of
you meaning table 1. Anyhow, have you not noticed how sensitive the answer
is by comparing equations 28, table 1, and table 2?
>> "For a certain [precise] values of these constants, the exact solution
>> agrees with the observed perihelion advance."
>
>> So, Krantiotis/Whitehouse worked it backwards, they knew the answer is
>> 43"
>> per century. In doing so, they calculated what E and L are to 9+
>> significant digit of precision.
>
> This is completely wrong. That's not where their values of E and L came
> from. There are two numbers here, and *three* observable quantities, the
> perihelion r_P, the apehelion r_A, and the perihelion advance Delta. By
> using the observed values of r_P and r_A -- that is, the observed mimimum
> and maximum distance of Mercury from the Sun -- you can *compute* L and E,
> and therefore Delta.
>
> Look at the explanation in section 3.2. Kraniotis and Whitehouse say very
> clearly that E is determined by the observed semimajor axis of Mercury's
> orbit, as reported in _Allen's Astrophysical Quantities_, and that L in
> table 2 is determined from the observed eccentricity of Mercury's orbit.
Since E is the result of a conserved quantity according to Noether's
Theorem, what quantity is this?
>> So, if E and L are what they wrote down,
>> then Mercury's orbital anomaly is observed. Granted that they are able
>> to
>> show other parameters such as the perihelion and aphelion, the proof of
>> Mercury's orbital anomaly has to address what E and L are head on.
>> Krantiotis/Whitehouse, Ciufolini/Wheeler, and others' solutions do not
>> calculate precisely what E and L are directly.
>
> You *can't* "calculate precisely what E and L are." They're *different*
> for different planets. What you can do is observe a planet, measure its
> apehelion and perihelion, and use that to predict the advance of its
> perihelion.
Howevere, the observed anomaly all indicate (3 U) of advance in every
revolution very much independent of eccentricity.
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** r = average distance to the sun with mass M
>> One good approach is to eliminate the dependence on E and L totally by
>> taking derivatives. After arriving at (dt/ds) or (ds/dt) through the
>> Fermat-Lagrangian method or the variational method, one plugs the result
>> back into the spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric. Collect the
>> constant E to one side of the equation, and take the derivative.
>> Incidentally, the result all contains the derivative of the equation
>> yielding L.
>
>>> Fine, So you converted first-order differential equations to
>>> second-order
>>> ones. That means that when you solve the equations, you will have new
>>> constants of integration. How do you fix their values?
>
>> I went through this with Bilge already. You can see where I am coming
>> from
>> from the following two posts.
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/4d729310873fb1e7?dmode=source
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/dfee758f6a8a1639?dmode=source
>
> I'm sorry, but I could not follow this at all.
>
> Let me try one more time. (After this, I give up...)
If you cannot even foollow the very simple Newtonian equations of motion,
the sentiment is mine to give up after this.
> 1. The Schwarzschild metric is a solution of the Einstein field equations.
> There's
> no particular point in thinking about it if you reject the field
> equations.
Again, although I don't subscribe to the validity of GR, I do not reject the
field equations.
> 2. The field equations require that objects move along geodesics.
As I understand it, this is nothing more than an event tries to minimize its
action governed by the field equations.
> 3. Kraniotis and Whitehouse, among others, have found the *exact* solution
> to the
> geodesic equations for the Schwarzschild metric.
They certainly did by providing two special constants which the answer is
dependent on the constants carried out to many decimal places.
> 4. This solution depends on two integration constants. (It must, since
> different
> planets move in different orbits -- there can't possibly be a unique
> solution.)
I agree. However, observations do indicate an advance of (3 U) in radians
per revolution for all planets and asteroids.
> 5. The two integration constants can be determined exactly by specifying a
> planet's
> apehelion and perihelion (or semimajor axis and eccentricity).
You may be right, but again notice the sensitivity of the answer to the
precision these constants represent.
> 6. Given such a determination, the *exact* solution of the field equations
> predicts
> a calculable perihelion advance.
Only after defining how precise the constants are after many decimal places.
> 7. The predicted amount agrees with observation for Mercury, Mars, the
> asteroid
> Icarus, and several binary pulsar systems.
I bet you if you do not know the answer off hand, you will not arrive at the
answer.
>>>>>> What I found is not what is commonly believed.
>
>>>>> Do you claim you found something different from the results of
>>>>> Krantiotis and Whitehouse? If so, you've made a mistake in the math.
>
>>>> The first two tries I show two different values. However, from the
>>>> third
>>>> try and on to about a dozen, I consistantly get zero anomaly with a
>>>> solution independent of L and E. Yes, I have discovered that by write
>>>> down a solution to Mercury's orbital anomaly independent of E and L I
>>>> get no anomaly at all.
>
>>> What values did you choose for your integration constants? The solution
>>> of the geodesic equation *must* have such constants -- otherwise, you
>>> could
>>> solve the equation and determine, for example, Mercury's eccentricity,
>>> which depends on these constants. (In case it's not obvious, you
>>> *can't*
>>> do that in the real world. Mercury's eccentricity is determined by
>>> initial conditions, and equations of motion can't determine these.)
>
>> The answer should not depend on the integration constants.
>
> The integration constants determine, among other things, the size of the
> orbit (the semimajor axis) and the eccentricity. Are you seriously
> claiming
> that the perihelion advance should be the same regardless of the orbit?
Yes, I am serious. The eccentricity plays a very minor role as my own
calculation does indicate.
>> The eccentricity
>> should not play a major role in orbital anomaly. Just take a look at the
>> table containing all major planets in the folling link.
>
>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
>
> You mean, where it says, "The effect is most noticeable for objects near
> the
> Sun with highly elliptical orbits, but it can be seen even in the nearly
> circular orbits of Venus and Earth, although the discrepancy isn't nearly
> so
> large as for Mercury"?
Yes, because (1 / r) is larger for inner planets closer to the sun.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:dif0d0$2u7$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:di6e66$dnm$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>>>> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>> You can either define a null geodesic as a limit of non-null ones, or
> No, you can't. The null geodesics (speaking in your language) is
> defined to be zero for photons. You cannot define the definition as
> a limit of non-null ones.
A null geodesic is a path, specifically the path of an object moving
at the speed of light. It certainly isn't "zero" (what on Earth would
it mean for a path to be "zero"?), and it certainly can be approximated
by a path of an object moving just under the speed of light.
[...]
>>> OK, let me try one more time to understand what you are saying. I
>>> construde you mean the following.
>>> "Since the field equations were derived with the proper spacetime as the
>>> representation of minimal action, one must minimize the proper spacetime
>>> to arrive at the solutions to the field equations."
>> I don't know what this means -- I don't understand the phrases "the proper
>> spacetime as the representation of minimal action" and "minimiz[ing] the
>> proper spacetime." (How in the world do you "minimize a spacetime"?)
> I don't subscribe to the concept of minimizing proper spacetime, but I
> thought you do.
Huh? "Minimize" means "find the minimum value." You can only minimize
(or maximize, or extremize) something that has a numerical value.
Spacetime is a manifold; it doesn't have a value to minimize.
> Now, you are really confusing me of what you are talking
> about. Even the article of Krantiotis/Whitehouse, you presented and
> developed a tremendous confindence in, endorses the solution to Mercury's
> orbital anomaly by minimzing the proper spacetime. Please focus on d()/ds
> where (ds = proper spacetime).
OK. You have apparently invented a new meaning for the word "spacetime."
I will assume from this that by "spacetime" you mean "proper time" or
"arc length." In that case...
> I am not confused. Please answer yes or no to my question asking if
>(G_{ab} = 8 pi T_{ab}) is derived by minimizing (or extremizing,
> speaking in your language) the proper spacetime (not time only nor space).
It is most definitely *not* derived by minimizing proper time, or time,
or space. Nothing even vaguely related to that. As I said, you seem
to be mixing up the field equations and the geodesic equation.
[...]
>>>> As I said, E and L are determined *exactly* by the aphelion and
>>>> perihelion -- see eqns. (25) and (26). The equations aren't going to
>>>> tell you these values, because they're different for each planet. So
>>>> you observe the value of the aphelion and perihelion (*not* the advance
>>>> of the perihelion) to determine E and L, plug them into the equation,
>>>> and get the right expression for the advance.
>>> For some certain range of E and L? On page 9 of the same paper, notice E
>>> and L are carried out to 8+ digits after decimal. Thus, I have to
>>> correct
>>> what you said.
>> No. See tables 1-3.
> I find table 1 but not table 1-3.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305181. Table 1: top of page 10. Table 2:
just below table 1. Table 3: top of page 11.
> So, I have to establish a proper guess of
> you meaning table 1.
You guessed wrong. E and L are determined by the apehelion and perihelion,
or equivalently by the semimajor axis and the eccentricity, independent
of any use of the advance of the perihelion.
You really ought to learn some basic general relativity before you make such
confident statements about having disproved it.
Steve Carlip
Androcles
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dihjrj$93k$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
You really ought to learn some basic general relativity before you make
such
| confident statements about having disproved it.
|
| Steve Carlip
You really ought to learn some basic physics before spreading fairy
tales.
Androcles.
Ken S. Tucker
Hey, Steve's saying interesting stuff, got me thinkin',
but it should really be called the aphelion advance.
Consider two circular orbiting particles about the sun.
Particle 1 is at Radius R1, particle 2 at R2,
and R2>R1.
Their Periods are P2=2*P1, as predicted by Newton
on the basis of measuring the R's.
In GR cyclic events are *retarded* in deeper
g-potentials so GR predicts P2<2*P1, because
P1 is a cyclic event closer to the sun and in
a deeper gravitational potential and is observed
to take greater amount of time than Newton would
predict.
In the case of an elliptical orbit, one may
regard the perihelion as being at R1 and
the aphelion as being at R2.
In that case, the Period, P2 "speeds up" at R2
relative to R1, and that aphelion point revolves
more quickly than P2=2*P1.
Ken
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Androcles wrote:
> > <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> > news:dihjrj$93k$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> > You really ought to learn some basic general relativity before you make
> > such
> > | confident statements about having disproved it.
> > |
> > | Steve Carlip
> >
> > You really ought to learn some basic physics before spreading fairy
> > tales.
> > Androcles.
>
> Hey, Steve's saying interesting stuff, got me thinkin',
> but it should really be called the aphelion advance.
>
> Consider two circular orbiting particles about the sun.
>
> Particle 1 is at Radius R1, particle 2 at R2,
> and R2>R1.
>
> Their Periods are P2=2*P1, as predicted by Newton
> on the basis of measuring the R's.
>
> In GR cyclic events are *retarded* in deeper
> g-potentials so GR predicts P2<2*P1, because
> P1 is a cyclic event closer to the sun and in
> a deeper gravitational potential and is observed
> to take greater amount of time than Newton would
> predict.
Magnetic couples (1/r^3) are difficult to relate
to the speed of light and they result from
the most fundamental induced dipole.
I would urge some caution in assuming that
gravitational response is any different.
(Kopeikin)
Gravity may have a scalar component, like the Coulomb
force, that neighbouring matter can support.
It would not change my religion to learn that
components of gravity could in some way be
measured both above and below c.
An induced dipole can align with incident
radiation even tho' the radiation is very old.
That can give the 'illusion' of instantaneous
coupling.
Sue...
Sue...
BTW Here is another table of exponents (orders? )
Mendalev/Gell-mann style
Coulomb A and R isotropic 1/r^2
Magnetic A and R dipolar 1/r^3
EM Repulsive dipolar 1/r^2
VDW Attractive ? 1/r^4?
London Attractive ? 1/r^6?
Gravity Attractive isotropic 1/r^2
So you put all these on playing cards
and predict quarks and gravity and
unknown elements when you beat yourself
at solitaire. :o)
Sue...
Androcles
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1129110437.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Hey, Steve's saying interesting stuff, got me thinkin',
| but it should really be called the aphelion advance.
Mr Onion"e" head Tucklities, where do you live,
many astronomers can't even get a rag to clean a telescope,
and you want to issue them aphelions, dong-boggle!!!!
How about a course on finding clean orbits?
Androcles
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129114551....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"That fellow seems to me to possess but one idea, and that is a wrong
one."--Dr. Samuel Johnson
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dihjrj$93k$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> You can either define a null geodesic as a limit of non-null ones, or
>
>> No, you can't. The null geodesics (speaking in your language) is
>> defined to be zero for photons. You cannot define the definition as
>> a limit of non-null ones.
>
> A null geodesic is a path, specifically the path of an object moving
> at the speed of light. It certainly isn't "zero" (what on Earth would
> it mean for a path to be "zero"?), and it certainly can be approximated
> by a path of an object moving just under the speed of light.
My point is that why are you mkaing a special case for the path of a photon?
I construde it as a failure to reduce the Schwarzschild spacetime equation
for a photon if the proper spacetime is minimized. You are interpretating a
theory that fails at a certain condition and then apply a bandaide to this.
If that fails, you then redefine the geodesics for a photon. That is why GR
is getting more and more complicated every day full of exceptions and
special circumstances just like the grammers of the Indo-European languages.
>> I don't subscribe to the concept of minimizing proper spacetime, but I
>> thought you do.
>
> Huh? "Minimize" means "find the minimum value." You can only minimize
> (or maximize, or extremize) something that has a numerical value.
> Spacetime is a manifold; it doesn't have a value to minimize.
All of a sudden, you are again trying to define the meaning of spacetime by
distancing yourself from Krantiotis/Whitehouse's work. The bottom line is
that they approached the problem by minimizing the proper spacetime.
>> Now, you are really confusing me of what you are talking
>> about. Even the article of Krantiotis/Whitehouse, you presented and
>> developed a tremendous confindence in, endorses the solution to Mercury's
>> orbital anomaly by minimzing the proper spacetime. Please focus on
>> d()/ds
>> where (ds = proper spacetime).
>
> OK. You have apparently invented a new meaning for the word "spacetime."
> I will assume from this that by "spacetime" you mean "proper time" or
> "arc length." In that case...
My meaning of spacetime has never change. You are the one claiming proper
spacetime has to be redefined. See above.
>> I am not confused. Please answer yes or no to my question asking if
>>(G_{ab} = 8 pi T_{ab}) is derived by minimizing (or extremizing,
>> speaking in your language) the proper spacetime (not time only nor
>> space).
>
> It is most definitely *not* derived by minimizing proper time, or time,
> or space. Nothing even vaguely related to that. As I said, you seem
> to be mixing up the field equations and the geodesic equation.
You still have not answered by question with a point blank answer. Why be
so vague?
I have leant GR with an interpretation that is in accordance to Fermat and
Riemann's original concepts and perhaps Grossmann/Einstein/Hilbert's as
well. I just find your bandaide approach (where the rules of the game
changes all the time) to the interpretations of GR a little bit on the
whackier side to swallow.
Thanks for corresponding anyway.
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > but it should really be called the aphelion advance.
> >
> > Consider two circular orbiting particles about the sun.
> >
> > Particle 1 is at Radius R1, particle 2 at R2,
> > and R2>R1.
> >
> > Their Periods are P2=2*P1, as predicted by Newton
> > on the basis of measuring the R's.
> >
> > In GR cyclic events are *retarded* in deeper
> > g-potentials so GR predicts P2<2*P1, because
> > P1 is a cyclic event closer to the sun and in
> > a deeper gravitational potential and is observed
> > to take greater amount of time than Newton would
> > predict.
Sue wrote...
> Magnetic couples (1/r^3) are difficult to relate
> to the speed of light and they result from
> the most fundamental induced dipole.
> I would urge some caution in assuming that
> gravitational response is any different.
> (Kopeikin)
That's an interesting idea. The actual relativistic
force supplement that rotates the orbital semi-major
elliptic axis is proportional to 1/r^3. If your going
to describe cause and effect in GR, a gravitomagnetic
approach is seriously considered using GP-b.
> Gravity may have a scalar component, like the Coulomb
> force, that neighbouring matter can support.
Yes! f = q1*q2/r^2 and F = m1*m2/r^2.
> It would not change my religion to learn that
> components of gravity could in some way be
> measured both above and below c.
Me tooo :-)
Ken
Tom Roberts
> My point is that why are you mkaing a special case for the path of a photon?
As Steve said, perhaps you should learn basic GR before attempting to
criticise it.
This is no "special case", this is merely applying either the Einstein
field equation, or the geodesic equation derived from it, to the case of
an object with zero rest mass.
I explicitly ignore the unintended consequences of the quantum
complexities implied in photons -- read "light pulse" instead.
> I construde it as a failure to reduce the Schwarzschild spacetime equation
> for a photon if the proper spacetime is minimized.
The "Schwarzschild spacetime equation", as best I can interpret your
nonstandard wording, is describing a _manifold_with_metric_, and does
not "reduce" to "photons" at all. To discuss photons in Schwarzschild
spacetime you generally must solve the geodesic equation for that
metric; that is in no way, shape, or form a "reduction".
You keep mentioning "proper spacetime" without ever defining what you
mean by that phrase.
Using the standard vocabulary of GR it is nonsense: spacetime is a
manifold, and "proper" is an adjective meaning "in the rest frame of the
object in question". A manifold _has_ no rest frame (and neither does a
"photon") -- this phrase simply does not make sense.
You have used the term such that it appears that you mean an affine
parameter of the path (proper time for a timelike object).
> You are interpretating a
> theory that fails at a certain condition and then apply a bandaide to this.
What "failure"? what "bandaid"? While you have clearly shown that you do
not understand much of basic GR, you have not displayed any failure of _GR_.
> If that fails, you then redefine the geodesics for a photon.
What "redefinition"? The null geodesics are simply the solutions of the
geodesic equation for which the tangent vector is null. <shrug>
> That is why GR
> is getting more and more complicated every day full of exceptions and
> special circumstances just like the grammers of the Indo-European languages.
GR is clean and elegant. There are no "exceptions and special
circumstances". At least not in the places you seem to think.
One "spcecial circumstance" is the dominant energy condition.
But I don't know of anything else that could reasonably be
called that. Certainly there is no "special circumstance"
related to the difference between timelike, spacelike, and
null paths (one applies the geodesic equation uniformly to
them all).
> My meaning of spacetime has never change.
And never been defined AFAICT. There is a well known definition for
"spacetime", that conflicts with the usage "proper spacetime". What
actually do you mean by those words?
>>>Please answer yes or no to my question asking if
>>>(G_{ab} = 8 pi T_{ab}) is derived by minimizing (or extremizing,
>>>speaking in your language) the proper spacetime (not time only nor
>>>space).
> You still have not answered by question with a point blank answer. Why be
> so vague?
Steve cannot answer your question because of the undefined term in it
("proper spacetime").
That equation is the Einstein field equation, and it is obtained by
extremizing the _LAGRANGIAN_. But the way you use the term "proper
spacetime" is incompatible with equating it to the standard term
"Lagrangian".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
brian a m stuckless
> There is a well known definition for "spacetime", --
What is the "well known definition for "spacetime".?!!
Define the STANDARD term "LaGrangian", Tom.!!
What are these, exactly, dimwit.?!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> This is no "special case", this is merely applying either the Einstein
> field equation, or the geodesic equation derived from it, to the case of
> an object with zero rest mass.
Sounds like a "SPECiAL case".!!
Exhibit "GENERAL cases" of OBjECTs "with zero rest mass".!!
> You keep mentioning "proper spacetime" without ever defining what you
> mean by that phrase.
Explain your claim: "This is no "special case", ..".
Define "an OBjECT with zero rest mass", in its GENERAL context.!!
> You have used the term such that it appears that you mean an
> affine parameter of the path (proper time for a timelike object).
"Such that it appears that you" babble incoherently, here, Tom.!!
Yes. You BABBLE ON, about your "affine parameter of the path".!!
Yes. You BABBLE ON about "proper time for a timelike object".!!
BABBLE-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on.!!
BABBLE-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on.!!
BABBLE-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on.!!
BABBLE-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on.!!
> > That is why GR is getting more and more complicated every
> > day full of exceptions and special circumstances just like
> > the grammers of the Indo-European languages.
>
> GR is clean and elegant. There are no "exceptions and special
> circumstances". At least not in the places you seem to think.
> There is a well known definition for "spacetime", --
What is the "well known definition for "spacetime".?!!
What is "spacetime", exactly, dimwit.?!!
> >>>(G_{ab} = 8 pi T_{ab}) --
Relate (G_{ab} = 8 pi T_{ab}) to Newton's G, incompetent.!!
You are a GR gtr Tivity QUACK (and, BAD for STOCKs), Tom.!!
> -- incompatible with equating it to the standard term
> "Lagrangian".
Define the STANDARD term "LaGrangian", Tom.!!
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dik0ft$r...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> My point is that why are you mkaing a special case for the path of a
>> photon?
>
> As Steve said, perhaps you should learn basic GR before attempting to
> criticise it.
Now, I understand. Each so called GR-expert has his own way of interpreting
GR. Dr. Carlip apparently rejects other interpretations of GR except
Krantiotis/Whitehouse. However, with Krantiotis/Whitehouse, he reaches a
quantum state where I am not sure if you even agrees with it or not. As far
as I can tell, you, Dr. Roberts, are not in sync with any GR interpretatons.
You have your own. Unlike mostly others, yours do not have much mathematics
backing you up. Conveniently, you just shrug it away with
** You need to learn
** You are confused with
** GR is a lot more complicated than you think
** Adding more vocabularies
<shrug> <shrug>
> This is no "special case", this is merely applying either the Einstein
> field equation, or the geodesic equation derived from it, to the case of
> an object with zero rest mass.
There should be no special, but the defelction of a photon is derived
differently from others. Ciufolini/Wheeler chose to bring up a state
variable total irrelated to the coordinate of interest. Others just resort
to minimize the Lagrangian with Schwarzschild metric (corect approach).
> I explicitly ignore the unintended consequences of the quantum
> complexities implied in photons -- read "light pulse" instead.
It is a good idea after experiencing the flip-flop nature of Dr. Carlip. I
have enough with quantum complexity.
>> I construde it as a failure to reduce the Schwarzschild spacetime
>> equation for a photon if the proper spacetime is minimized.
>
> The "Schwarzschild spacetime equation", as best I can interpret your
> nonstandard wording, is describing a _manifold_with_metric_,
Non-standard! Why don't you do a google-count of the frequency of the
following equation that shows up?
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) ...
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
So, the equation above is not a standard Schwarzschild spacetime equation.
Perhaps, you want to show me how a standard Schwarzschild spacetime equation
look like.
> and does not "reduce" to "photons" at all.
That is because you reject the elapsed time of an event represents the
minimal action of an event described by that spacetime equation. If you do
not reject it, you would not have made the comment above.
> To discuss photons in Schwarzschild spacetime you generally must solve the
> geodesic equation for that metric; that is in no way, shape, or form a
> "reduction".
When you discuss any objects including photons, you must solve the geodesic
equations for that metric. The geodesic equations are another names for the
Euler-Langrange equations. Is the name 'geodesic' purposely introduced to
confuse the later generations of students studying GR?
> You keep mentioning "proper spacetime" without ever defining what you mean
> by that phrase.
From the equation above, 'ds' is what I mean proper spacetime.
> Using the standard vocabulary of GR it is nonsense: spacetime is a
> manifold, and "proper" is an adjective meaning "in the rest frame of the
> object in question". A manifold _has_ no rest frame (and neither does a
> "photon") -- this phrase simply does not make sense.
>
> You have used the term such that it appears that you mean an affine
> parameter of the path (proper time for a timelike object).
Ciufolini/Wheeler and Krantiotis/Whitehouse seem to be very happy working
with 'ds'. It is very safe to say that your own interpretation to GR is not
that standard.
>> You are interpretating a theory that fails at a certain condition and
>> then apply a bandaide to this.
>
> What "failure"? what "bandaid"? While you have clearly shown that you do
> not understand much of basic GR, you have not displayed any failure of
> _GR_.
Just because your pwn interpretation from mainstream GR (Ciufolini/Wheeler,
Krantiotis/Whitehouse) is not standard as indicated by above confessions,
that does not mean I don't understand GR.
>> If that fails, you then redefine the geodesics for a photon.
>
> What "redefinition"? The null geodesics are simply the solutions of the
> geodesic equation for which the tangent vector is null. <shrug>
Another way to interpret the 'null geodesics' for a photon is that photons
can always travel at the speed of light, thus
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 0 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = 0
>> That is why GR is getting more and more complicated every day full of
>> exceptions and special circumstances just like the grammers of the
>> Indo-European languages.
>
> GR is clean and elegant. There are no "exceptions and special
> circumstances". At least not in the places you seem to think.
I agree GR should be clean and elegant, but you and Dr. Carlip's
interpretations to GR are not.
> One "spcecial circumstance" is the dominant energy condition.
Truly, I don't understand what you mean by 'dominant energy condition'. I
have a feeling that you are taking something very mundane and give a name to
make it more complicated than what it actually is.
> But I don't know of anything else that could reasonably be
> called that. Certainly there is no "special circumstance"
> related to the difference between timelike, spacelike, and
> null paths (one applies the geodesic equation uniformly to
> them all).
Again, I agree there should not be any special circumstance. My own
interpretations to GR does not. However, yours and Dr. Carlip's do.
>> My meaning of spacetime has never change.
>
> And never been defined AFAICT. There is a well known definition for
> "spacetime", that conflicts with the usage "proper spacetime". What
> actually do you mean by those words?
Again, proper spacetime is 'ds'. Spacetime is a more generic term
describing the combined coordinate system of time and space.
>>>>Please answer yes or no to my question asking if
>>>>(G_{ab} = 8 pi T_{ab}) is derived by minimizing (or extremizing,
>>>>speaking in your language) the proper spacetime (not time only nor
>>>>space).
>> You still have not answered by question with a point blank answer. Why
>> be so vague?
>
> Steve cannot answer your question because of the undefined term in it
> ("proper spacetime").
Or it is more likely that Dr. Carlip has too much quantum mechanics in his
mind. He cannot decide to answer one way or another because of special
circumstances involved.
> That equation is the Einstein field equation, and it is obtained by
> extremizing the _LAGRANGIAN_. But the way you use the term "proper
> spacetime" is incompatible with equating it to the standard term
> "Lagrangian".
Have you not noticed the way Ciufolini/Wheeler and Krantiotis/Whitehouse
utilize 'ds'? Now, I am wondering if your capability to understand math has
diminished with age.
Bilge
>"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:dik0ft$r...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> My point is that why are you mkaing a special case for the path of a
>>> photon?
>>
>> As Steve said, perhaps you should learn basic GR before attempting to
>> criticise it.
>
>Now, I understand. Each so called GR-expert has his own way of interpreting
>GR.
what each person tells you, but none of your interpretations seem to
resemble what you've been told.
>Dr. Carlip apparently rejects other interpretations of GR except
>Krantiotis/Whitehouse.
I think it's fairly obvious that you're logically challenged way
beyond the difficulties you're having with general relativity. The
odds on you being right are roughly the same as the odds on herve
villachez beating michael jordan in a game of one-on-one, except
that herve villachez would consider the outcome obvious rather than
hope to wear michael jordan down by insisting the game be played full
court.
If you havent got it figured out by now, you're not going to figure
it out. First you havr to want to fgure it out.
Koobee Wublee
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndksebm....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
> >Now, I understand. Each so called GR-expert has his own way of
> >interpreting
> >GR.
>
> Don't be an idiot. _You_ have your own particular way of interpreting
> what each person tells you, but none of your interpretations seem to
> resemble what you've been told.
At least, my own way of interpreting GR does not flip-flop from one state to
another. My interpretation does not require a bandaid for each special
circumstance. My interpretation of GR on Mercury's orbital anomaly does not
require constants which are tremendously sensitive to the actual result. It
also predicts why all planet or asteroid fall into the profile where the
orbital advance is not very sensitive to eccentricity. Dr. Carlip's and Dr.
Robert's interpretations of GR resemble the folks in the background of the
following picture. These people in the background resemble sheeples.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Androcles.jpg
Notice Bilger is the 3rd from the left at the very bottom just beneath the
crotch of the person telling you exactly what interpretation you should
interpret. Also, if you look hard enough, you will find moortel and Hobba
in the background.
> I think it's fairly obvious that you're logically challenged way
> beyond the difficulties you're having with general relativity. The
> odds on you being right are roughly the same as the odds on [...]
How can you argue against the math?
> If you havent got it figured out by now, you're not going to figure
> it out. First you havr to want to fgure it out.
Although what you have learnt in school are mostly correct, however, giving
enough educational background, you should be able to tell BS (always
accompanied a sinister agenda) from others. If not, you should start to
question the BS fed to you after exposing to the truth (such as presented by
me). If still not, your status as one of the zombies in the background (to
the picture above) is firmly established beyond any reasons of doubt.
Back to your concern with the Lagrangian in GR, we have the following
generic spacetime equation mapping the proper spacetime to the distorted (or
observed) spacetime.
ds^2 = g^ij dq_i dq_j
Where
** ds = proper spacetime
** dq_0 = observed time or dt
** dq_1, dq_2, dq_3 = x, y, z components of observed space
** g^ij = the metric that corrects the distortion
Grossmann was able to show the following equation,
g^ij (dq_i/ds) (dq_j/ds) = 1
Since the above equation satisfies
integral[S0, S1](ds) = elapsed spacetime of an event,
And other conditions (see derivation of Euler-Lagrange equations),
So, [g^ij (dq_i/ds) (dq_j/ds)] has been the choice of Lagrangian.
But wait, does the 'elapsed spacetime of an event' make any sense? It
should be the 'elapsed time of an event'. This make sense because space
remains just where it is. Meanwhile, time is flowing past. It does not
make any sense trying to minimize a parameter that is just static. So, the
correct Lagrangian corresponding with the dynamic parameter (time) should be
(ds/dq_0)^2 / g^00 - g^uv (dq_u/dq_0) (dq_v/dq_0) / g^00
Where
** The equation above is also equals to 1.
** u = 1, 2, 3 (x, y, z)
** v = 1, 2 ,3 (x, y, z)
Since the above Lagrangian also satisfies the condition for a photon, it
should be the correct Lagrangian under the concept of GR. For a non-photon,
it really does not make any difference which Lagrangian to use. However,
the underlying concept that manifests the observed conservation of energy is
ever more pronounced when dealing with the proper Lagrangian where it should
not be a function of ds (although ds/dt). The Euler-Lagrange equation with
ds as a state variable should always indicate an agreement with Noether's
Theorem that energy conservation is a must established fundamental property
of the real world. The binary star system should also indicate a conserved
system. There should be no gravitons that carry away energy. The observed
anomaly of these binary systems should be explained through other means such
as the failure to the observed conservation of angular momentum where the
Euler-Lagrange equation does not necessarily conclude unlike the
Schwarzschild system where the conservation of angular momentum applies.
Ken S. Tucker
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> At least, my own way of interpreting GR does not flip-flop from one state to
> another.
Koobee, you'll need to face the fact that GR is a
comprehensive theory, that is, it is true from many
different PoV and that's it's intent, sometimes
called General Covariance.
Let me suggest a fun analogy. Take a standard
dice and note that each side is different, but
you're looking at the same dice. Check out that
every side adds to it's opposite to get 7 (and
the 3D sum is 21).
So you can look at any side and predict the
opposite side, and if you know two sides you
can predict the complete orientation of that
dice, IOW's you can predict the other 4 sides.
So you might look at GR and see 3 dots, but
someone else sees 4 dots, that's ok and consistent.
That's why IMHO GR is the most supreme piece of
genius ever conceived, (along with the Saturn V,
and the US Constitution, by comparison).
Flip-flop is good,
Ken S. Tucker
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:dihjrj$93k$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>> Koobee Wublee <kub...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> Now, you are really confusing me of what you are talking
>>> about. Even the article of Krantiotis/Whitehouse, you presented and
>>> developed a tremendous confindence in, endorses the solution to Mercury's
>>> orbital anomaly by minimzing the proper spacetime. Please focus on
>>> d()/ds
>>> where (ds = proper spacetime).
>> OK. You have apparently invented a new meaning for the word "spacetime."
>> I will assume from this that by "spacetime" you mean "proper time" or
>> "arc length." In that case...
> My meaning of spacetime has never change. You are the one claiming proper
> spacetime has to be redefined. See above.
You seem to be under the impression that "proper spacetime" is a standard
term. It is not. You will not find it in any textbook, or, I suspect,
any published paper on general relativity.
>>> I am not confused. Please answer yes or no to my question asking if
>>>(G_{ab} = 8 pi T_{ab}) is derived by minimizing (or extremizing,
>>> speaking in your language) the proper spacetime (not time only nor
>>> space).
>> It is most definitely *not* derived by minimizing proper time, or time,
>> or space. Nothing even vaguely related to that. As I said, you seem
>> to be mixing up the field equations and the geodesic equation.
> You still have not answered by question with a point blank answer. Why be
> so vague?
I am not giving a "point blank answer" because I don't know what your term
"proper spacetime" means. If it means the quantity that everyone else
calls "proper time" -- as implied by your statement above that "ds =
proper spacetime" -- then the "point blank answer" is exactly what I stated.
The Einstein field equations are *not* derived by minimizing proper time,
or by any procedure even vaguely close to minimizing proper time. Nor
are they derived by minimizing "time" or minimizing "space," in any possible
sense of those words.
If by "proper spacetime" you mean something other than what everyone else
calls proper time, then you will have to define the term for me before I
can answer your question.
Steve Carlip
Koobee Wublee
pieces of the puzzles together, but it took a while because of the vast
vocabularies and the complexity of mathematics involved. GR is nothing more
than the combined works of the following:
** Newton/Kepler's classical orbital mechanics
** Leibnitz/Mach's relational concept
** Gauss/Riemann's curvature in space
** Minkowski's spacetime
** Grossmann's curvature in spacetime
** Einstein's link in gravity and curved spacetime
** Christoffel/Ricci/Civita's tensor calculus
** Hilbert's field equations
** Fermat/Euler/Lagrange's principle of least action
** Noether's theorem
It is late. I am sure I have missed a few minor points. Anyhow, does GR
explain the most crucial observation of all --- Mercury's orbital anomaly?
No. As I have pointed out, the answer depends on how accurate the
integration constants from Noether's theorem are carried out to. The
accuracy as Krantiotis/Whitehouse have indicated have to be better than (1 +
U^2) where (U = G M / c^2 / r). It leaves a lot of room for manipulation
and creative mathematical constructs just as Einstein had done when he
derived Mercury's orbital anomaly without a complete set of field equations
and without the Schwarzschild metric. There is no way in hell this feat can
be achieved honorably without knowing the Schwarzschild metric. What I
pointed out is a way to calculate the orbital anomaly without knowing what
these integration constants are. My conclusion is more in tune with
observation where the anomaly is very insensitive to eccentrity, and all
objects circling the sun share the same (3 U) of advance in every orbital
revolution.
GR can not be the most supreme piece of genius ever conceived because it is
wrong and is subject to many interpretations (some for political gains). US
constitution is the same way. It is also subject to many interpretations
and manipulations. That is because we do not live in an ideal world.
However, one supreme piece of genius ever coneived come into mind is the
theory of evolution. There is no flip-flopping in that theory.
Flip-flopping is a sign of taking a wrong turn.
Ken S. Tucker
and I studied your post before replying.
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Don't get me wrong. I did have a lot of fun learning GR after I put all the
> pieces of the puzzles together, but it took a while because of the vast
> vocabularies and the complexity of mathematics involved. GR is nothing more
> than the combined works of the following:
>
> ** Newton/Kepler's classical orbital mechanics
> ** Leibnitz/Mach's relational concept
> ** Gauss/Riemann's curvature in space
> ** Minkowski's spacetime
> ** Grossmann's curvature in spacetime
> ** Einstein's link in gravity and curved spacetime
> ** Christoffel/Ricci/Civita's tensor calculus
> ** Hilbert's field equations
> ** Fermat/Euler/Lagrange's principle of least action
> ** Noether's theorem
>
> It is late. I am sure I have missed a few minor points.
LOL, hell that's absolutely excellent. You really care to
know your stuff!
> Anyhow, does GR
> explain the most crucial observation of all --- Mercury's orbital anomaly?
Yes it does, I posted that on Oct 12 in this thread,
on the basis of the variation of cyclical events as
one (Mercury) goes deeper into the gravitational field.
The top of Mercurys orbit (aphelion) moves quicker,
relative to the perihelion, and rotates the semi-major
axis of the ellipse, compared to the static Newtonian
prediction. I feel quite confident I understand the
semi-major axis rotation, ((which can be confused
with frame-dragging)) so I'm happy to discuss that.
> No. As I have pointed out, the answer depends on how accurate the
> integration constants from Noether's theorem are carried out to. The
> accuracy as Krantiotis/Whitehouse have indicated have to be better than (1 +
> U^2) where (U = G M / c^2 / r). It leaves a lot of room for manipulation
> and creative mathematical constructs just as Einstein had done when he
> derived Mercury's orbital anomaly without a complete set of field equations
> and without the Schwarzschild metric. There is no way in hell this feat can
> be achieved honorably without knowing the Schwarzschild metric.
Oh heck, I can get your orbital anomally from the
simple Quantum theory, again based on relations of
cyclical events like E=hv is true. For example, a
photon going up surrenders energy and thus frequency.
So a cyclical sequence in a deeper g-field will
appear retarded in time to an observer at a distance.
> What I
> pointed out is a way to calculate the orbital anomaly without knowing what
> these integration constants are. My conclusion is more in tune with
> observation where the anomaly is very insensitive to eccentrity, and all
> objects circling the sun share the same (3 U) of advance in every orbital
> revolution.
Yes of course, that's the derivative of
p = p_0*sqrt(g^00) = p_0/sqrt(g_00)
you (koobee) and I discussed that before.
> GR can not be the most supreme piece of genius ever conceived because it is
> wrong and is subject to many interpretations (some for political gains). US
> constitution is the same way. It is also subject to many interpretations
> and manipulations. That is because we do not live in an ideal world.
> However, one supreme piece of genius ever coneived come into mind is the
> theory of evolution.
If the "theory of evolution" is so great then we should
call it the "principle of evolution". In juxtaposition
to Evolution, GR is the General Principle of Relavity,
and is so simple even I can understand it, and I'm not
very bright. Some hippy named Einstein, decided
acceleration is relative, and said only 12 people
will understand that, where is the other 11?
> There is no flip-flopping in that theory.
> Flip-flopping is a sign of taking a wrong turn.
Well, I'm unable to underwrite g-waves and frame
dragging.
Ken
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrndksebm....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>>
>> >Now, I understand. Each so called GR-expert has his own way of
>> >interpreting
>> >GR.
>>
>> Don't be an idiot. _You_ have your own particular way of interpreting
>> what each person tells you, but none of your interpretations seem to
>> resemble what you've been told.
>
>At least, my own way of interpreting GR does not flip-flop from one state to
>another. My interpretation does not require a bandaid for each special
>circumstance.
else's is that yours is wrong. What's your point?
>My interpretation of GR on Mercury's orbital anomaly does not require
>constants which are tremendously sensitive to the actual result.
What constants are those? You mean the input data that distinguishes
mercury's orbit from pluto's orbit? That's not ``tremendous sensitivity,''
unless by that you mean that general relativity needs you to tell it
planet for which you want the solution before it can tell the solution
for that planet. If you can't figure this out, give up.
>It also predicts why all planet or asteroid fall into the profile where the
>orbital advance is not very sensitive to eccentricity. Dr. Carlip's and Dr.
>Robert's interpretations of GR resemble the folks in the background of the
>following picture. These people in the background resemble sheeples.
>
>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Androcles.jpg
>
>Notice Bilger is the 3rd from the left at the very bottom just beneath the
>crotch of the person telling you exactly what interpretation you should
>interpret. Also, if you look hard enough, you will find moortel and Hobba
>in the background.
>
>> I think it's fairly obvious that you're logically challenged way
>> beyond the difficulties you're having with general relativity. The
>> odds on you being right are roughly the same as the odds on [...]
>
>How can you argue against the math?
I'm not. I'm arguing against your ability to understand the math.
>
>> If you havent got it figured out by now, you're not going to figure
>> it out. First you havr to want to fgure it out.
>
>Although what you have learnt in school are mostly correct, however, giving
>enough educational background, you should be able to tell BS (always
>accompanied a sinister agenda) from others.
I can tell the difference. It's simple. You never fail to post
bs like the following, when you are told you are wrong:
>If not, you should start to
>question the BS fed to you after exposing to the truth (such as presented by
>me). If still not, your status as one of the zombies in the background (to
>the picture above) is firmly established beyond any reasons of doubt.
and despite the fact that you have been told that your terminology
doesn't match any known standard definitions, you still persist:
>Back to your concern with the Lagrangian in GR, we have the following
>generic spacetime equation mapping the proper spacetime to the distorted
>(or observed) spacetime.
>
>ds^2 = g^ij dq_i dq_j
>
>Where
>
>** ds = proper spacetime
There's no such thing. Is that a proper distance of a proper time?
Since you didn't specify g_ij as a timelike or spacelike metric,
and you just called ds something that doesn't mean anything,
there's no way to know what you mean.
>** dq_0 = observed time or dt
>** dq_1, dq_2, dq_3 = x, y, z components of observed space
>** g^ij = the metric that corrects the distortion
Metrics dont ``correct distortion.'' Metrics tell you how to
measure distances, hence the term ``metric.''
>Grossmann was able to show the following equation,
>
>g^ij (dq_i/ds) (dq_j/ds) = 1
Better read that section again.
ds^2 = g_ab dx^a dx^b = +1,-1,0
Depending upon whether the vector x^a is spacelike, timelike or null
(assuming g_ab is a spacelike metric).
>Since the above equation satisfies
>
>integral[S0, S1](ds) = elapsed spacetime of an event,
There's no such thing as ``elapsed spacetime'' much less the
elapsed anything of an event. Events are spacetime points. They
They don't change in time or space. There is such a thing as an
elapsed proper time or a proper distance between two events,
however.
>And other conditions (see derivation of Euler-Lagrange equations),
Why should I see a derivation of the euler-lagrange equations?
I can derive them myself, and on that note, I stop reading.
Post again when you get your terminology straightened out and you
stop assuming no one else has ever seen this stuff before, just
because you haven't.
Bilge
>It is late. I am sure I have missed a few minor points. Anyhow, does GR
>explain the most crucial observation of all --- Mercury's orbital anomaly?
>No. As I have pointed out, the answer depends on how accurate the
>integration constants from Noether's theorem are carried out to. The
I would suggest starting with something simpler, like finding using
nother's theorem to find the conserved noether currents and charges
in special relativity, since I don't think you have any idea what
noether's theorem is.
Koobee Wublee
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dis2es$mr5$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>
>>> It is most definitely *not* derived by minimizing proper time, or time,
>>> or space. Nothing even vaguely related to that. As I said, you seem
>>> to be mixing up the field equations and the geodesic equation.
>
>> You still have not answered by question with a point blank answer. Why
>> be
>> so vague?
>
> I am not giving a "point blank answer" because I don't know what your term
> "proper spacetime" means. If it means the quantity that everyone else
> calls "proper time" -- as implied by your statement above that "ds =
> proper spacetime" -- then the "point blank answer" is exactly what I
> stated.
> The Einstein field equations are *not* derived by minimizing proper time,
> or by any procedure even vaguely close to minimizing proper time. Nor
> are they derived by minimizing "time" or minimizing "space," in any
> possible
> sense of those words.
Any reason to avoid mentioning minimizing "proper spacetime", ds, (excuse my
language).
> If by "proper spacetime" you mean something other than what everyone else
> calls proper time, then you will have to define the term for me before I
> can answer your question.
In my definition,
Proper spacetime = proper time + proper space
The mathematical presentation is
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
Where
** ds = proper spacetime
** dt = proper time
** sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) = proper space
** c = speed of you know what
I hope I am very clear on how the parameters I have defined. Could you now
answer my question, please?
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee, what you've written below (IMO) is true.
> and I studied your post before replying.
>
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong. I did have a lot of fun learning GR after I put all
>> the
>> pieces of the puzzles together, but it took a while because of the vast
>> vocabularies and the complexity of mathematics involved. GR is nothing
>> more
>> than the combined works of the following:
>>
>> ** Newton/Kepler's classical orbital mechanics
>> ** Leibnitz/Mach's relational concept
>> ** Gauss/Riemann's curvature in space
>> ** Minkowski's spacetime
>> ** Grossmann's curvature in spacetime
>> ** Einstein's link in gravity and curved spacetime
>> ** Christoffel/Ricci/Civita's tensor calculus
>> ** Hilbert's field equations
>> ** Fermat/Euler/Lagrange's principle of least action
>> ** Noether's theorem
>>
>> It is late. I am sure I have missed a few minor points.
>
> LOL, hell that's absolutely excellent. You really care to
> know your stuff!
Riemann was the first to point out the curvature of space would be observed
to behave as if there is a force acting on the situation of interest. Also,
Grossmann did come up with a set of field equations very close to Hilbert's
which Einstein did allegedly come across independently. The principle of
least action as conceived by Fermat/Euler/Lagrange mostly applied to the
elapsed time. That is where we have the Snell's Law. In GR, somehow the
proper spacetime is construde as the representation of minimal action.
>> Anyhow, does GR
>> explain the most crucial observation of all --- Mercury's orbital
>> anomaly?
>
> Yes it does, I posted that on Oct 12 in this thread,
> on the basis of the variation of cyclical events as
> one (Mercury) goes deeper into the gravitational field.
> The top of Mercurys orbit (aphelion) moves quicker,
> relative to the perihelion, and rotates the semi-major
> axis of the ellipse, compared to the static Newtonian
> prediction. I feel quite confident I understand the
> semi-major axis rotation, ((which can be confused
> with frame-dragging)) so I'm happy to discuss that.
Please post math to back up your claim. As you know, even if the orbit of a
planet is perfectly circular, there is still an orbital advance under the
concept of GR. So, the semi-major axis of the orbit play a very minor role.
>> No. As I have pointed out, the answer depends on how accurate the
>> integration constants from Noether's theorem are carried out to. The
>> accuracy as Krantiotis/Whitehouse have indicated have to be better than
>> (1 +
>> U^2) where (U = G M / c^2 / r). It leaves a lot of room for manipulation
>> and creative mathematical constructs just as Einstein had done when he
>> derived Mercury's orbital anomaly without a complete set of field
>> equations
>> and without the Schwarzschild metric. There is no way in hell this feat
>> can
>> be achieved honorably without knowing the Schwarzschild metric.
>
> Oh heck, I can get your orbital anomally from the
> simple Quantum theory, again based on relations of
> cyclical events like E=hv is true. For example, a
> photon going up surrenders energy and thus frequency.
> So a cyclical sequence in a deeper g-field will
> appear retarded in time to an observer at a distance.
Please show some math to back up your claim. How would gravitational
redshift result in Mercury's orbital anomaly?
>> What I
>> pointed out is a way to calculate the orbital anomaly without knowing
>> what
>> these integration constants are. My conclusion is more in tune with
>> observation where the anomaly is very insensitive to eccentrity, and all
>> objects circling the sun share the same (3 U) of advance in every orbital
>> revolution.
What I mean here is that the observed quantity is (3 U). However, taking
these two integration constants out (from Neother's theorem), I find no
anomaly at all according to the concept of GR.
> Yes of course, that's the derivative of
>
> p = p_0*sqrt(g^00) = p_0/sqrt(g_00)
>
> you (koobee) and I discussed that before.
I usually post my messages late at night where I am half way asleep. I did
so because that is the only time I am able to find the time to do so.
Honestly, I don't remember what you mean by p? However, I do remember you
have the tendancy to express a mathematical relationship but fail to follow
up and explain what that means.
>> GR can not be the most supreme piece of genius ever conceived because it
>> is
>> wrong and is subject to many interpretations (some for political gains).
>> US
>> constitution is the same way. It is also subject to many interpretations
>> and manipulations. That is because we do not live in an ideal world.
>> However, one supreme piece of genius ever coneived come into mind is the
>> theory of evolution.
>
> If the "theory of evolution" is so great then we should
> call it the "principle of evolution". In juxtaposition
> to Evolution, GR is the General Principle of Relavity,
> and is so simple even I can understand it, and I'm not
> very bright. Some hippy named Einstein, decided
> acceleration is relative, and said only 12 people
> will understand that, where is the other 11?
There is no other theories to explain what we have observed in a snap shot
of the vast natural history. It explains all unlike GR. GR only explains
all under creative fudging.
>> There is no flip-flopping in that theory.
>> Flip-flopping is a sign of taking a wrong turn.
>
> Well, I'm unable to underwrite g-waves and frame
> dragging.
'Underwrite' is a vocabulary used in the insurance industry. In this case,
I really do not understand what you mean.
Koobee Wublee
>
> >At least, my own way of interpreting GR does not flip-flop from one state
> >to
> >another. My interpretation does not require a bandaid for each special
> >circumstance.
>
> Then the only difference between you're interpretation and everyone
> else's is that yours is wrong. What's your point?
I have shown the current calculations of Mercury's orbital anomaly is
questionable. This is a tradition since Einstein was able to do so without
applying the concept of GR. He did it without a complete set of field
equations nor the Schwarzschild metric. After GR, this magician was able to
manipulate the many places after decimal of the two constants derived as the
result of Noether's Theorem. This manipulation always result in the desired
result as usual.
> >My interpretation of GR on Mercury's orbital anomaly does not require
> >constants which are tremendously sensitive to the actual result.
>
> What constants are those? You mean the input data that distinguishes
> mercury's orbit from pluto's orbit? That's not ``tremendous sensitivity,''
> unless by that you mean that general relativity needs you to tell it
> planet for which you want the solution before it can tell the solution
> for that planet. If you can't figure this out, give up.
Please allow me to borrow Dr. Roberts' saying. You need to learn the
principle of least action especially the Euler-Lagrange equation(s).
Noether's Theorem is a special case of that equation(s). If you refuse to
learn it, <shrug>.
> >It also predicts why all planet or asteroid fall into the profile where
> >the
> >orbital advance is not very sensitive to eccentricity. Dr. Carlip's and
> >Dr.
> >Robert's interpretations of GR resemble the folks in the background of
> >the
> >following picture. These people in the background resemble sheeples.
> >
> >http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Androcles.jpg
> >
> >Notice Bilger is the 3rd from the left at the very bottom just beneath
> >the
> >crotch of the person telling you exactly what interpretation you should
> >interpret. Also, if you look hard enough, you will find moortel and
> >Hobba
> >in the background.
> >
> >> I think it's fairly obvious that you're logically challenged way
> >> beyond the difficulties you're having with general relativity. The
> >> odds on you being right are roughly the same as the odds on [...]
> >
> >How can you argue against the math?
>
> I'm not. I'm arguing against your ability to understand the math.
After all, you are the idiot who tried to calculate the orbital action of a
Newtonian system limited to only one dimension (and crying foul). Again,
borrowing from Dr. Roberts, you need to learn the basic math (especially
geometry in this case). You need to convince yourself that the study of
orbital motion requires at least two degrees of freedom. And, again, if you
fail to see that, <shrug>. Why do I care?
> >Back to your concern with the Lagrangian in GR, we have the following
> >generic spacetime equation mapping the proper spacetime to the distorted
> >(or observed) spacetime.
> >
> >ds^2 = g^ij dq_i dq_j
> >
> >Where
> >
> >** ds = proper spacetime
>
> There's no such thing. Is that a proper distance of a proper time?
> Since you didn't specify g_ij as a timelike or spacelike metric,
> and you just called ds something that doesn't mean anything,
> there's no way to know what you mean.
Dr. Robert's saying is great. Once again, I am using his advice. You need
to understand how Minkowski spacetime equation is derived. It is very
simple. If you don't understand it, <shrug>.
> >** dq_0 = observed time or dt
> >** dq_1, dq_2, dq_3 = x, y, z components of observed space
> >** g^ij = the metric that corrects the distortion
>
> Metrics dont ``correct distortion.'' Metrics tell you how to
> measure distances, hence the term ``metric.''
You need to understand what curvature of spacetime means.
> >Grossmann was able to show the following equation,
> >
> >g^ij (dq_i/ds) (dq_j/ds) = 1
>
>
> Better read that section again.
>
> ds^2 = g_ab dx^a dx^b = +1,-1,0
>
> Depending upon whether the vector x^a is spacelike, timelike or null
> (assuming g_ab is a spacelike metric).
Man, you are really a joker.
g_ab (dx^a/ds) (dx^b/ds) = +/- 1, 0
> >Since the above equation satisfies
> >
> >integral[S0, S1](ds) = elapsed spacetime of an event,
>
> There's no such thing as ``elapsed spacetime'' much less the
> elapsed anything of an event. Events are spacetime points. They
> They don't change in time or space. There is such a thing as an
> elapsed proper time or a proper distance between two events,
> however.
Your age is an event represented by an ellapsed time.
> >And other conditions (see derivation of Euler-Lagrange equations),
>
> Why should I see a derivation of the euler-lagrange equations?
> I can derive them myself, and on that note, I stop reading.
> Post again when you get your terminology straightened out and you
> stop assuming no one else has ever seen this stuff before, just
> because you haven't.
As I have correctly concluded, you do not understand the principle of least
action. This principle is perhaps more important in the understand of GR
than the curvature of spacetime itself.
Tom Roberts
> Now, I understand. Each so called GR-expert has his own way of interpreting
> GR. Dr. Carlip apparently rejects other interpretations of GR except
> Krantiotis/Whitehouse. However, with Krantiotis/Whitehouse, he reaches a
> quantum state where I am not sure if you even agrees with it or not. As far
> as I can tell, you, Dr. Roberts, are not in sync with any GR interpretatons.
As both Steve and I said, you need to learn basic GR before attempting
to criticise it. The various experts on GR that happen to post around
here can all communicate easily and precisely with each other, including
me. It is you who are out of sync, as indicated by your repeated use of
nonstandard terminology ("proper spacetime", "reducing a spacetime
equation to photons", etc.).
>>The "Schwarzschild spacetime equation", as best I can interpret your
>>nonstandard wording, is describing a _manifold_with_metric_,
>
> Non-standard! Why don't you do a google-count of the frequency of the
> following equation that shows up?
> ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) ...
> Where
> ** U = G M / c^2 / r
That is one way of writing the Schwarzschild line element (also loosely
known as the Schwarzshcild metric). What is nonstandard is (as I said)
your teminology: calling this a "spacetime equation", and calling ds
"proper spacetime".
> So, the equation above is not a standard Schwarzschild spacetime equation.
> Perhaps, you want to show me how a standard Schwarzschild spacetime equation
> look like.
Better would be for you to read with more care and accuracy.
> That is because you reject the elapsed time of an event [...]
Again you use nonstandard terminology, that here indicates a fundamental
misconception on your part: an event is a point in spacetime, and has ho
"elapsed" time.
>>To discuss photons in Schwarzschild spacetime you generally must solve the
>>geodesic equation for that metric; that is in no way, shape, or form a
>>"reduction".
>
> When you discuss any objects including photons, you must solve the geodesic
> equations for that metric. The geodesic equations are another names for the
> Euler-Langrange equations. Is the name 'geodesic' purposely introduced to
> confuse the later generations of students studying GR?
Actually, the Euler-Lagrange equation(s) for GR are the Einstein field
equation. The geodesic equation is a specific instance of the EFE for
the special case of a test particle moving in a manifold with metric
determined by other mass-energy. The name "geodesic" was not introduced
in GR, it is a standard geometrical term that is directly applicable here.
I repeat: before attempting to criticise GR you need to learn the
basics. With everything you write you display your ignorance....
>>You keep mentioning "proper spacetime" without ever defining what you mean
>>by that phrase.
>
> From the equation above, 'ds' is what I mean proper spacetime.
But ds already has a name: proper time (for timelike paths) or proper
length (for spacelike paths). As I pointed out before, "proper
spacetime" makes no sense, and there's no point in attempting to apply
an oxymoronic new name to something that already has a name.
> Ciufolini/Wheeler and Krantiotis/Whitehouse seem to be very happy working
> with 'ds'. It is very safe to say that your own interpretation to GR is not
> that standard.
Please provide a reference to whaere they call it "proper spacetime".
I am not promulgating "my own interpretation" here, I am merely pointing
out that your terminology is nonstandard. But your nonstandard
vocabulary does seem to reflect a profound lack of understanding on your
part of the basics of GR and differential geometry.
>>One "spcecial circumstance" is the dominant energy condition.
>
> Truly, I don't understand what you mean by 'dominant energy condition'.
I repeat: before attempting to criticise GR you need to learn the
basics. Look it up.
> Again, proper spacetime is 'ds'. Spacetime is a more generic term
> describing the combined coordinate system of time and space.
Except, of course, ds is utterly independent of coordinates.
I repeat: before attempting to criticise GR you need to learn the basics.
> Have you not noticed the way Ciufolini/Wheeler and Krantiotis/Whitehouse
> utilize 'ds'?
What I have noticed is your inability to read with care and accuracy.
Improving that would assist you in understanding the basics of GR, as it
is quite subtle and rather complex.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> The mathematical presentation is
> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
> Where
> ** ds = proper spacetime
> ** dt = proper time
> ** sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) = proper space
> ** c = speed of you know what
> I hope I am very clear on how the parameters I have defined.
You are clear enough. But you are using completely nonstandard
terminology that appears specifically designed to confuse and obfuscate
the underlying concepts. Specifically: using STANDARD terminology:
ds = proper time interval (for a timelike interval)
ds = proper length interval (for a spacelike interval)
dt = COORDINATE time interval, for the specific case of
locally-Minkowski coordinates
sqrt(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2) = COORDINATE spatial interval, for the
specific case of locally-Minkowski coordinates
In particular, there is nothing proper about dt, dx, dy, or dz -- those
are COORDINATE intervals, not proper ones.
In any course on GR, your word usages would be simply marked wrong on
any test. Your use of nonstandard terminology is strongly indicative of
underlying misconceptions and misunderstandings on your part.
While it is perfectly possible to define one's own vocabulary, there is
little point -- using "bltzfsk" to mean what everybody else calls
"energy" is pointless.... There is a real reason for the standard
terminology: permitting people to communicate easily and accurately with
the GR community as a whole. Clearly you have a problem there. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
brian a m stuckless
on a WORLDline (in SPACEtime), with NO
iNside; And NO OUTside (i.e. ambient).
You say co-ordinates. Wrt WHAT, dooOP?
You say co-ordinates. Of, WHAT, dooOP?
GR's G_uv has NEVER been related to M.
ALL exhibited equations ..Newtonian.!!
> > Where > > ** U = G M / c^2 / r
There is ONLY POiNT-mass in the Gtr.!!
Tom Roberts ..being VERY COY there.!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >>The "Schwarzschild spacetime equation", as best I can interpret your
> >>nonstandard wording, is describing a _manifold_with_metric_,
> >
> > Non-standard! Why don't you do a google-count of the frequency of the
> > following equation that shows up?
> > ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) ...
> > Where
> > ** U = G M / c^2 / r
>
> That is one way of writing the Schwarzschild line element (also loosely
> known as the Schwarzshcild metric).
> Actually, the Euler-Lagrange equation(s) for GR are the Einstein field
> equation. The geodesic equation is a specific instance of the EFE for
> the special case of a test particle moving in a manifold with metric
> determined by other mass-energy. The name "geodesic" was not introduced
> in GR, it is a standard geometrical term that is directly applicable here.
> > From the equation above, 'ds' is what I mean proper spacetime.
>
> But ds already has a name: proper time (for timelike paths) or proper
> length (for spacelike paths).
> > Again, proper spacetime is 'ds'. Spacetime is a more generic term
> > describing the combined coordinate system of time and space.
>
> Except, of course, ds is utterly independent of coordinates.
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Ken S. Tucker
Take the derivative wrt "r" of
1/g_00 = 1/sqrt(1-2m/r)
and tell us the result.
Ken
Philip Deitiker
news:4353C6...@nf.sympatico.ca:
> There is NOTHiNG COMPLEX about a POiNT
> on a WORLDline (in SPACEtime), with NO
> iNside; And NO OUTside (i.e. ambient).
> You say co-ordinates. Wrt WHAT, dooOP?
> You say co-ordinates. Of, WHAT, dooOP?
> GR's G_uv has NEVER been related to M.
> ALL exhibited equations ..Newtonian.!!
>> > Where > > ** U = G M / c^2 / r
> Note G, M & r, CANNOT BE G_uv related.
> There is ONLY POiNT-mass in the Gtr.!!
> Tom Roberts ..being VERY COY there.!!
> brian a m stuckless
Yeah right, U is meaningless. It is not an equation that has value.
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> >>The "Schwarzschild spacetime equation", as best I can
>> >>interpret your nonstandard wording, is describing a
>> >>_manifold_with_metric_,
>> >
>> > Non-standard! Why don't you do a google-count of the
>> > frequency of the following equation that shows up?
>> > ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) ...
Bovine fritters. Googling is not science I can find lies and
conspiracy theories that google-count in the millions.
>> > Where
>> > ** U = G M / c^2 / r
This has no meaning U = G M / (C^2/r) which = G M r/C ^ 2
or U = (G M/ C ^ 2)/r = G M/ r C ^ 2 or it mean G (M/C)^(2/r)
which have exactly the opposite meanings, google or not.
>> That is one way of writing the Schwarzschild line element (also
>> loosely known as the Schwarzshcild metric).
No it aint, its bullshit.
r = 2 G M / c^2
r = r subs (where s = sphere)
1 = 2 G M / r c^2
>> Actually, the Euler-Lagrange equation(s) for GR are the
>> Einstein field equation. The geodesic equation is a specific
>> instance of the EFE for the special case of a test particle
>> moving in a manifold with metric determined by other
>> mass-energy.
Bullshit. Why should energy matter, velocity is relative, the
manifold metrics are determined by mass within a continuoum of
concentric gravimetric spheres. Gravitational waves emminate from the
body continuing unless the mass is being converted to energy and not
adsorbing mass or energy. At neutral entropy only the mass matters
>> The name "geodesic" was not introduced in GR, it
>> is a standard geometrical term that is directly applicable
>> here.
Obviously you could not catch his blunder so it really does not say
much about what you think either.
>> > From the equation above, 'ds' is what I mean proper
>> > spacetime.
>>
>> But ds already has a name: proper time (for timelike paths) or
>> proper length (for spacelike paths).
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - (dx^2 + dz^2 +dy^2)
or
if gravity becomes and issue as in the above butchery of relativity.
ds^2 = g_ab x^a x^b = sum_i sum_j g_ij x_i x_j
http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/index.php/What%20is%20the%20basis%20of%
20GR%20%3F
In special theory of relativity, it is the space-time composite
interval. In general relativity its much more complicated, there is
no one line which two observers at difference speeds can agree even
with the second equation only they can agree on a portion of the
curvature of space, g_ab, and space time ds^2. IOW they can agree
that space is curved. Consider it like this suppose I am standing
behind a black hole and I have a billion laser which I am radiating
at an angle, Theta, which forms a cone centered on the center of
gravity of the black hole, as the light comes around the black hole
it focuses back on one point, your point of view. From your point of
view the light is coming from millions of miles apart. If I move my
position by and inch relative to you the light then refocuses on
another point, if I move forward to intercept the light I see a
portion of the original halo of light I saw previously, if I move
backward I see another portion, a small change in my position gives a
wildly different interpretation of what is happening. In special
relativety this is not explained, in general relativity it is
explained but may not be interpretable in being at reference point S
or S', only by moving S and S' one might be able to discern what s is
like between S and S'. My observation of s at the focal point is
unintelligable, also 2 inches in front and 2 inches in back. It is
only by moving my focal point S' around and taking numerous
observations in my x,y,z space in which I can resolve what s actually
is.
>> Except, of course, ds is utterly independent of coordinates.
du is independent of coordinates it is the conversion of an absolute
coordinate systems parameters in normal space (comparing S and S') to
a absolute system to be used at high velocities.
u'subx = (X'Sub2 - X'Sub1)/(t'sub2-t'sub1) = dx'/dt' where the basic
assumption is that X = x' + vt, y = y', z = z' and t= t'
therefore
u'subx = ((X'sub2 + vt'sub2)-(X'sub1 + vt'sub1))/t'sub2-t'sub1)
as the relative speed of two references points goes to c
then x = y'(x'+vt) and the neccesity of the references subscript 1
and 2 are lost.
ct = y(ct'+vt') = y(c+v)t'
ct' = y(ct + vt) = y(c+v)t
y = gamma in these two equations.
u subx = (u'subx + v)/(1+ (v u'subx/c^2))
u suby = (u'suby *(1-v^2/C^2)^0.5)/(1+ (v u'subx/c^2))
u subz = (u'subz *(1-v^2/C^2)^0.5)/(1+ (v u'subx/c^2))
usub x,y,z is effectively a relative coordinate system for space
time.
In the example above, if I an to discern what s is like between S and
S' using my billion laser experiment, I will need this coordinate
system (or put it properly a sophisticate varient thereof) to define
what happening between S and S'. As an observer at point X as I move
backwards from a point where no light is visible I will see light
appear from angle theta if Y is forward to the gravitational object,
then theta is measurable in XZ and as I move toward the focal point
the width of points XZ will expand disappear and reappear on the
other side. Such coordinates and angles will allow the plotting of s
within the curvature.
>> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
>[brian a m stuckless <bas...@nf.sympatico.ca>]
Hmm, so let me guess this has to do with paleo.anthropology becuase
you are saying that its the rogue genes of our ancestors that is
responsible for your insanity?
Or are you trying to imply that somehow by manipulating ds/dt that
humans arrived here from a galaxy filled with fruitloops?
OR at least try this one little itsy bitsy thing, if you are going to
crosspost your bullshit halfway across spacetime UseNet try getting
your equations halfassed right, so that you are not propogating
meaningless bullshit right. Or we could come into
sci.physics.relativity and begin discussings say the velocity of
coprolites when hurled by irate monkeys, or how much mass monkey dung
gains when hurled down at morons versus sideways. Any highschool
physics kiddie can figure out the toilet paper you call a post and we
really don't need the crosspost to alt.moron (as we have enough of
our own) or alt.local.village.idiot since s.a.p. had about 10.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee lend me your comb, trying to be cool.
>
> Take the derivative wrt "r" of
>
> 1/g_00 = 1/sqrt(1-2m/r)
>
> and tell us the result.
First, you have to remind me what the significance of this equation is.
What does it pertain in physics? I guess it has something to do with
gravity, but I fail to see a term that describes speed.
Ken S. Tucker
Koobee, do you know how to do differential calculus?
Cause in this case it's important. We can work on
that together, but there's a lot sharp posters who
can help ya there if that's a problem.
So tell me if you can do the specified derivative,
and if so kindly report the answer.
Regards
Ken
Koobee Wublee
- (m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m / r^2)^(3/2)
Now, would you kindly tell me what this is all about?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:dis2es$mr5$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>>>> It is most definitely *not* derived by minimizing proper time, or time,
>>>> or space. Nothing even vaguely related to that. As I said, you seem
>>>> to be mixing up the field equations and the geodesic equation.
>>> You still have not answered by question with a point blank answer. Why
>>> be so vague?
>> I am not giving a "point blank answer" because I don't know what your term
>> "proper spacetime" means. If it means the quantity that everyone else
>> calls "proper time" -- as implied by your statement above that "ds =
>> proper spacetime" -- then the "point blank answer" is exactly what I
>> stated. The Einstein field equations are *not* derived by minimizing
>> proper time, or by any procedure even vaguely close to minimizing proper
>> time. Nor are they derived by minimizing "time" or minimizing "space,"
>> in any possible sense of those words.
> Any reason to avoid mentioning minimizing "proper spacetime", ds, (excuse
> my language).
You're welcome to make up your own private language. But it is unreasonable
for you to get upset when other people then don't understand you.
>> If by "proper spacetime" you mean something other than what everyone else
>> calls proper time, then you will have to define the term for me before I
>> can answer your question.
> In my definition,
> Proper spacetime = proper time + proper space
> The mathematical presentation is
> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
> Where
> ** ds = proper spacetime
> ** dt = proper time
> ** sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) = proper space
> ** c = speed of you know what
> I hope I am very clear on how the parameters I have defined. Could you now
> answer my question, please?
Given this definition, my answer is exacty what I wrote above:
The Einstein field equations are *not* derived by minimizing what you call
"proper spacetime." Not even remotely, by any stretch of the imagination.
Is that clear enough?
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1129621655....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:1129584839.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Koobee lend me your comb, trying to be cool.
> >> >
> >> > Take the derivative wrt "r" of
> >> >
> >> > 1/g_00 = 1/sqrt(1-2m/r)
> >> >
> >> > and tell us the result.
> >>
> >> First, you have to remind me what the significance of this equation is.
> >> What does it pertain in physics? I guess it has something to do with
> >> gravity, but I fail to see a term that describes speed.
> >
> > Koobee, do you know how to do differential calculus?
> > Cause in this case it's important. We can work on
> > that together, but there's a lot sharp posters who
> > can help ya there if that's a problem.
> > So tell me if you can do the specified derivative,
> > and if so kindly report the answer.
> > Regards
> > Ken
>
> - (m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m / r^2)^(3/2)
Well I checked your result and I obtain,
-(m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m /r)^(3/2)
so please recheck your calculation. (I used the
chain rule), then we can move on together.
> Now, would you kindly tell me what this is all about?
Sure, you have Newton's gravity in -(m/r^2) but,
the other terms modify Newton's force, and I'd
like to show how that produces a perihelion
advance once we agree on that derivative.
Ken
Koobee Wublee
>
>> - (m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m / r^2)^(3/2)
>
> Well I checked your result and I obtain,
>
> -(m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m /r)^(3/2)
>
> so please recheck your calculation. (I used the
> chain rule), then we can move on together.
My appologies. It is nice to see that you possess some form of
error-correction capabilities and are able to correct my mistake.
>> Now, would you kindly tell me what this is all about?
>
> Sure, you have Newton's gravity in -(m/r^2) but,
> the other terms modify Newton's force, and I'd
> like to show how that produces a perihelion
> advance once we agree on that derivative.
Let me guess. You are going to show
- (m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m / r)^(3/2) ~= - (m / r^2) (1 + 3 m / r)
Where
** 3 m / r = Mercury's angular advance on every revolution
That seems to work fine. However, if you do not show how the orbital speed
comes into the relationship, you don't have anything. In another words, in
Newtonian system we have
E = m B^2 c^2 / 2 - m U c^2
Where
** m B^2 c^2 / 2 = kinetic energy
** m U c^2 = G M m / r = potential energy
The only way you are going to make your system work with your (1 / g_00) is
to write just like Mr. Hatch did as follows.
E / (m c^2) = 1 / sqrt(1 - B^2) - 1 / sqrt(1 - 2 U)
From this, I have to ask you how you derive the equation above or something
similar to it to justify your usage of (1 / g_00).
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrndl64rc....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>>
>> >At least, my own way of interpreting GR does not flip-flop from one state
>> >to
>> >another. My interpretation does not require a bandaid for each special
>> >circumstance.
>>
>> Then the only difference between you're interpretation and everyone
>> else's is that yours is wrong. What's your point?
>
>I have shown the current calculations of Mercury's orbital anomaly is
>questionable.
lots of other people have done, which all agree with each other and
more notably, agree with the planet mercury. You also have made a
lot of rather strange comments using terminology that seems to exclusively
yours in lieu of the terminology one might encounter while studying
general relativity. You'll have to excuse me if I would consider your
claim under these circumstances to be what is questionable even if I
didn't know what it was. My guess is that you would, too, if you had
those odds and wanted to place a bet involving a lot of cash.
>This is a tradition since Einstein was able to do so without
>applying the concept of GR. He did it without a complete set of field
>equations nor the Schwarzschild metric. After GR, this magician was able to
>manipulate the many places after decimal of the two constants derived as the
>result of Noether's Theorem. This manipulation always result in the desired
>result as usual.
I claim that you have no idea how to use noether's theorem to obtain
results that are much simpler, so your argument doesn't mean much. You are
free to demonstrate otherwise and I'll even give you examples you can use
to do that and which I will find convincing.
>> >My interpretation of GR on Mercury's orbital anomaly does not require
>> >constants which are tremendously sensitive to the actual result.
>>
>> What constants are those? You mean the input data that distinguishes
>> mercury's orbit from pluto's orbit? That's not ``tremendous sensitivity,''
>> unless by that you mean that general relativity needs you to tell it
>> planet for which you want the solution before it can tell the solution
>> for that planet. If you can't figure this out, give up.
>
>Please allow me to borrow Dr. Roberts' saying. You need to learn the
>principle of least action especially the Euler-Lagrange equation(s).
>Noether's Theorem is a special case of that equation(s). If you refuse to
>learn it, <shrug>.
There's a fundamental difference between you and tom. Tom can get
away with saying that because he understands enough physics to
recognize when someone is just babbling. In addition, I'm sure he can
justify those remarks in the unlikely chance someone wanted to
make an issue of it. On the other hand, you don't have that luxury,
especialy where the euler-lagrange equations are concerned. Not long
ago, you tried to argue against the definition of the hamiltonian
I gave you, which is well known and not controversial. If you
don't know that, then it's pretty much a cinch you are talking through
your hat where noether's theorem is concerned. I suspect if you
were to ask tom what he is <shrugging> about he could tell, but I
suspect you can't. However, I'll be happy to let you compare your
understanding of the euler-lagrange equations and noether's theorem
with mine and eliminate any question about who is bullshitting whom.
[...]
>> Why should I see a derivation of the euler-lagrange equations?
>> I can derive them myself, and on that note, I stop reading.
>> Post again when you get your terminology straightened out and you
>> stop assuming no one else has ever seen this stuff before, just
>> because you haven't.
>
>As I have correctly concluded, you do not understand the principle of least
>action. This principle is perhaps more important in the understand of GR
>than the curvature of spacetime itself.
Then why don't you show me with this example: Consider a two-component
spinor, T = 1/2, T_z = +/-1/2 described by the dirac lagrangian.
Use noether's theorem to find the fields by considering the invariance
of the action under SU(2) rotations. I'll give you a hint. You can take
the two component spinor to be the neutron (T_Z = -1/2) and proton,
(T_z = +1/2). How many particles do you get as a consequence of the
SU(2) symmetry and why? Explain your result. I rest my case.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> The mathematical presentation is
>> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>> Where
>> ** ds = proper spacetime
>> ** dt = proper time
>> ** sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) = proper space
>> ** c = speed of you know what
>> I hope I am very clear on how the parameters I have defined.
>
> terminology that appears specifically designed to confuse and obfuscate
> the underlying concepts. Specifically: using STANDARD terminology:
> ds = proper time interval (for a timelike interval)
> ds = proper length interval (for a spacelike interval)
> dt = COORDINATE time interval, for the specific case of
> locally-Minkowski coordinates
> sqrt(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2) = COORDINATE spatial interval, for the
> specific case of locally-Minkowski coordinates
> In particular, there is nothing proper about dt, dx, dy, or dz -- those
> are COORDINATE intervals, not proper ones.
>
> In any course on GR, your word usages would be simply marked wrong on
> any test. Your use of nonstandard terminology is strongly indicative of
> underlying misconceptions and misunderstandings on your part.
Luckily, this is no mass-educational course. This is independent study of
quintessence. I am not doing this just to get a good grade.
> While it is perfectly possible to define one's own vocabulary, there is
> little point -- using "bltzfsk" to mean what everybody else calls
> "energy" is pointless.... There is a real reason for the standard
> terminology: permitting people to communicate easily and accurately with
> the GR community as a whole. Clearly you have a problem there. <shrug>
>
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:dj3e5a$hp6$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>
>> Any reason to avoid mentioning minimizing "proper spacetime", ds, (excuse
>> my language).
>
> You're welcome to make up your own private language. But it is
> unreasonable
> for you to get upset when other people then don't understand you.
My own vocabularies have thorough references to the math and especially the
math Dr. Carlip provided pertaining to Krantiotis/Whitehouse's work. There
should never be such confusion if one knows the math well. Therefore, I
have to ask both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Carlip to go back to review the math.
>>> If by "proper spacetime" you mean something other than what everyone
>>> else
>>> calls proper time, then you will have to define the term for me before I
>>> can answer your question.
>
>> In my definition,
>
>> Proper spacetime = proper time + proper space
>
>> The mathematical presentation is
>
>> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
>> Where
>
>> ** ds = proper spacetime
>> ** dt = proper time
>> ** sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) = proper space
>> ** c = speed of you know what
>
>> I hope I am very clear on how the parameters I have defined. Could you
>> now
>> answer my question, please?
>
> Given this definition, my answer is exacty what I wrote above:
> The Einstein field equations are *not* derived by minimizing what you call
> "proper spacetime." Not even remotely, by any stretch of the imagination.
> Is that clear enough?
Yes, it is clear enough. The answer is a definite no. Therefore,
interpreting minimal action as being the elapsed time associated with the
spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric is still very valid. Thank you
for verifying.
Koobee Wublee
>
>> When you discuss any objects including photons, you must solve the
>> geodesic equations for that metric. The geodesic equations are another
>> names for the Euler-Langrange equations. Is the name 'geodesic'
>> purposely introduced to confuse the later generations of students
>> studying GR?
>
> Actually, the Euler-Lagrange equation(s) for GR are the Einstein field
> equation. The geodesic equation is a specific instance of the EFE for the
> special case of a test particle moving in a manifold with metric
> determined by other mass-energy. The name "geodesic" was not introduced in
> GR, it is a standard geometrical term that is directly applicable here.
Boy, you threw me a knuckle ball with that one. It is going to take me days
or perhaps weeks to find out if the field equations are indeed
Euler-Lagrange equations at all. What I have noticed is that the geodesic
equations are exactly the Euler-Lagrange equations of the spacetime equation
where a particular metric applies just as you have said.
> But ds already has a name: proper time (for timelike paths) or proper
> length (for spacelike paths). As I pointed out before, "proper spacetime"
> makes no sense, and there's no point in attempting to apply an oxymoronic
> new name to something that already has a name.
So, I take it that you don't appreciate what I give to the meaning of ds.
Deriving the Minkowski spacetime equation from Lorentz Transforms, we get
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2
Thus, I just say (ds = spacetime) in general regardless of timelike,
spacelike, or whatever-like. It makes more sense the way I define it. (ds)
is just the 'sum' of space and time period
Tom Roberts
>Please allow me to borrow Dr. Roberts' saying. You need to learn the
>principle of least action especially the Euler-Lagrange equation(s).
>Noether's Theorem is a special case of that equation(s). If you refuse to
>learn it, <shrug>.
Please do not call statements that you make up "borrowed" from me. This
is just plain wrong. Noether's theorem is quite definitely NOT a
"special case of [the Euler-Lagrange] equation(s)".
You said that to bilge, who clearly does understand this. Perhaps you
should take your own advice and LEARN it.
What I actually said is:
>> Actually, the Euler-Lagrange equation(s) for GR are the Einstein field
>> equation. The geodesic equation is a specific instance of the EFE for the
>> special case of a test particle moving in a manifold with metric
>> determined by other mass-energy.
>
> Boy, you threw me a knuckle ball with that one. It is going to take me days
> or perhaps weeks to find out if the field equations are indeed
> Euler-Lagrange equations at all.
Look in any GR textbook for the Hilbert Action. It takes only a page or
two to derive the Einstein field equation from it, using Lagrange's
variational technique.
> Thus, I just say (ds = spacetime)
Everyone else uses "spacetime" to mean the manifold, and calls ds "the
invariant interval", "proper time", or "proper length", as appropriate.
If you want to communicate with others you should resist making up your
own personal vocabulary. For obvious reasons.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Ken S. Tucker
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1129663093.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> - (m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m / r^2)^(3/2)
> >
> > Well I checked your result and I obtain,
> >
> > -(m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m /r)^(3/2)
> >
> > so please recheck your calculation. (I used the
> > chain rule), then we can move on together.
>
> My appologies. It is nice to see that you possess some form of
> error-correction capabilities and are able to correct my mistake.
No need to apologize, it took me a 1/2 page just to
check it! Good exercize, that chain rule is great,
but I write it all out to make sure.
> >> Now, would you kindly tell me what this is all about?
> >
> > Sure, you have Newton's gravity in -(m/r^2) but,
> > the other terms modify Newton's force, and I'd
> > like to show how that produces a perihelion
> > advance once we agree on that derivative.
>
> Let me guess. You are going to show
>
> - (m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m / r)^(3/2) ~= - (m / r^2) (1 + 3 m / r)
>
> Where
>
> ** 3 m / r = Mercury's angular advance on every revolution
>
> That seems to work fine. However, if you do not show how the orbital speed
> comes into the relationship, you don't have anything. In another words, in
> Newtonian system we have
>
> E = m B^2 c^2 / 2 - m U c^2
>
> Where
> ** m B^2 c^2 / 2 = kinetic energy
> ** m U c^2 = G M m / r = potential energy
>
> The only way you are going to make your system work with your (1 / g_00) is
> to write just like Mr. Hatch did as follows.
>
> E / (m c^2) = 1 / sqrt(1 - B^2) - 1 / sqrt(1 - 2 U)
>
> From this, I have to ask you how you derive the equation above or something
> similar to it to justify your usage of (1 / g_00).
Yes, in those units the orbital velocity is
Vo = sqrt(m/r)
and the escape velocity is
Ve = sqrt(2m/r).
Is that agreeable?
Ken
Koobee Wublee
>
>> Let me guess. You are going to show
>>
>> - (m / r^2) / (1 - 2 m / r)^(3/2) ~= - (m / r^2) (1 + 3 m / r)
>>
>> Where
>>
>> ** 3 m / r = Mercury's angular advance on every revolution
>>
>> That seems to work fine. However, if you do not show how the orbital
>> speed
>> comes into the relationship, you don't have anything. In another words,
>> in
>> Newtonian system we have
>>
>> E = m B^2 c^2 / 2 - m U c^2
>>
>> Where
>> ** m B^2 c^2 / 2 = kinetic energy
>> ** m U c^2 = G M m / r = potential energy
>>
>> The only way you are going to make your system work with your (1 / g_00)
>> is
>> to write just like Mr. Hatch did as follows.
>>
>> E / (m c^2) = 1 / sqrt(1 - B^2) - 1 / sqrt(1 - 2 U)
>>
>> From this, I have to ask you how you derive the equation above or
>> something
>> similar to it to justify your usage of (1 / g_00).
>
> Yes, in those units the orbital velocity is
>
> Vo = sqrt(m/r)
I have to ask you to prove it using the concept of (1 / g_00).
> and the escape velocity is
>
> Ve = sqrt(2m/r)
No. This is not agreeable. The escape velocity is a Newtonian concept.
Under your explanation, again, I have to ask you to derive that one. I
think this is very fair. You deviate away from Newtonian potential. I
should then not expect you to use Newtonian orbital velocity and escape
velocity, unless you prove your point.
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, set "E" to be an invariant defined by,
E = E_0 sqrt(g^00) , E_i = 0
E_0 is rest mass = mc^2 and g^00 = 1/g_00.
This is similiar to SR's
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
except in GR we need to use,
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - 2m/r).
You and I used,
Force = dE/dr
the (1+3m/r) is a "perturbation to Newtons force" that
accounts for the perihelion rotation.
> > and the escape velocity is
> >
> > Ve = sqrt(2m/r)
>
> No. This is not agreeable. The escape velocity is a Newtonian concept.
> Under your explanation, again, I have to ask you to derive that one. I
> think this is very fair. You deviate away from Newtonian potential. I
> should then not expect you to use Newtonian orbital velocity and escape
> velocity, unless you prove your point.
Vo is an observation, parameter if you like, that astronomers
measure. The fact the Earth takes ~365 days to orbit the sun
certainly pre-dated Newton!
Ken
Koobee Wublee
>
>>
>> I have to ask you to prove it using the concept of (1 / g_00).
>
> Ok, set "E" to be an invariant defined by,
>
> E = E_0 sqrt(g^00) , E_i = 0
>
> E_0 is rest mass = mc^2 and g^00 = 1/g_00.
What are the meaning of E_i (or E_x, E_y, E-Z)? Why are E_x, E_y, E_z = 0?
> This is similiar to SR's
>
> E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
> except in GR we need to use,
>
> E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - 2m/r).
>
> You and I used,
>
> Force = dE/dr
You cannot be serious that under GR, E is independent of (v / c). So, what
does E look like including the observed quantity of (v / c)?
> the (1+3m/r) is a "perturbation to Newtons force" that
> accounts for the perihelion rotation.
(1 + 3 m / r) is as what you claim if and only if the orbital speed (v / c)
has no 2nd order effect in (m / r)^2. You still have not proved to me that
the orbital speed is indeed just (v / c) and not [(v / c) sqrt(1 + 3 m /
r)]. To be more point-blank, when you are talking about the n'th digit
after the decimal place of precision, I would at least see you keep up with
that precision carried through out these topics of related discussion.
>> > and the escape velocity is
>> >
>> > Ve = sqrt(2m/r)
>>
>> No. This is not agreeable. The escape velocity is a Newtonian concept.
>> Under your explanation, again, I have to ask you to derive that one. I
>> think this is very fair. You deviate away from Newtonian potential. I
>> should then not expect you to use Newtonian orbital velocity and escape
>> velocity, unless you prove your point.
>
> Vo is an observation, parameter if you like, that astronomers
> measure. The fact the Earth takes ~365 days to orbit the sun
> certainly pre-dated Newton!
Newton did not observe Vo, the escape velocity, to be what it is. The
escape velocity can obly be derived with the mathematical model of our solar
system under the concept of Geenral Relativity. I am not so sure you are
able to observe (Vo / c) with a precision of 1 part in several hundred
millions where Mercury's orbital anonaly demands.
Ken S. Tucker
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1129787117.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> >> I have to ask you to prove it using the concept of (1 / g_00).
> >
> > Ok, set "E" to be an invariant defined by,
> >
> > E = E_0 sqrt(g^00) , E_i = 0
> >
> > E_0 is rest mass = mc^2 and g^00 = 1/g_00.
>
> What are the meaning of E_i (or E_x, E_y, E-Z)?
Yes,
> Why are E_x, E_y, E_z = 0?
In relativity there is no absolute velocity,
so to insure that I accept the absolute 3D
displacement to be,
dx_i dx^i = 0 , (i=1,2,3)
so setting dx_i=0 is a condition to do relativity,
and the dx^i are relative and non-zero, therefore,
all covariant displacements can be nulled like
E_i = E*dx_i/ds = 0.
> > This is similiar to SR's
> >
> > E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> >
> > except in GR we need to use,
> >
> > E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - 2m/r).
> >
> > You and I used,
> >
> > Force = dE/dr
>
> You cannot be serious that under GR, E is independent of (v / c). So, what
> does E look like including the observed quantity of (v / c)?
You're getting into GPS stuff here. The effect we're
discussing depends upon a modification of the
gravitational force (visa Newton) and velocity makes
no substantial relativistic difference at Mercury's
speed. But your point is important at higher energies.
> > the (1+3m/r) is a "perturbation to Newtons force" that
> > accounts for the perihelion rotation.
>
> (1 + 3 m / r) is as what you claim if and only if the orbital speed (v / c)
> has no 2nd order effect in (m / r)^2. You still have not proved to me that
> the orbital speed is indeed just (v / c) and not [(v / c) sqrt(1 + 3 m /
> r)]. To be more point-blank, when you are talking about the n'th digit
> after the decimal place of precision, I would at least see you keep up with
> that precision carried through out these topics of related discussion.
Your quite right about the factors of precision.
1st the're not entirely understood in GR, 2nd this
is not the forum to discuss where Mercury is +/-
a few centimeters. The effect accumulates at an
approximate rate of 43"/century, what is that 33
metres per orbit? (I forget now).
> >> > and the escape velocity is
> >> >
> >> > Ve = sqrt(2m/r)
> >>
> >> No. This is not agreeable. The escape velocity is a Newtonian concept.
> >> Under your explanation, again, I have to ask you to derive that one. I
> >> think this is very fair. You deviate away from Newtonian potential. I
> >> should then not expect you to use Newtonian orbital velocity and escape
> >> velocity, unless you prove your point.
> >
> > Vo is an observation, parameter if you like, that astronomers
> > measure. The fact the Earth takes ~365 days to orbit the sun
> > certainly pre-dated Newton!
>
> Newton did not observe Vo, the escape velocity, to be what it is. The
> escape velocity can obly be derived with the mathematical model of our solar
> system under the concept of Geenral Relativity. I am not so sure you are
> able to observe (Vo / c) with a precision of 1 part in several hundred
> millions where Mercury's orbital anonaly demands.
Fortunately the error accumulates, but many find alternative
explanations for some of the physics observations of GR, and
that's good. What convinces me, (I wrote an article that
appears In Weinbergs Grav&Cosmo pg 84) is the relation of
the gravitational red shift and the Quantum theory, that
was confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, that places
GR into being common sense.
Regards
Ken
Koobee Wublee
>
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1129787117.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I have to ask you to prove it using the concept of (1 / g_00).
>> >
>> > Ok, set "E" to be an invariant defined by,
>> >
>> > E = E_0 sqrt(g^00) , E_i = 0
>> >
>> > E_0 is rest mass = mc^2 and g^00 = 1/g_00.
>>
>> What are the meaning of E_i (or E_x, E_y, E-Z)?
>
> Yes,
What you say E_0 is what we observe as energy. What does E_x mean?
>> Why are E_x, E_y, E_z = 0?
>
> In relativity there is no absolute velocity,
> so to insure that I accept the absolute 3D
> displacement to be,
>
> dx_i dx^i = 0 , (i=1,2,3)
(dx_i dx^i) does not represent absolute displacement. It represents delta
displacement which is allowed in relativity. Therefore, (dx_i dx^i) does
not have to be zero.
> so setting dx_i=0 is a condition to do relativity,
> and the dx^i are relative and non-zero, therefore,
> all covariant displacements can be nulled like
>
> E_i = E*dx_i/ds = 0.
If what you define E is not zero, dx_i/ds must be zero in your equation.
What does ds mean? Does it mean
(ds)^2 = g_ij dx_i dx_j
Then, why do you think (dx_i/ds = 0).
>> > This is similiar to SR's
>> >
>> > E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> >
>> > except in GR we need to use,
>> >
>> > E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - 2m/r).
>> >
>> > You and I used,
>> >
>> > Force = dE/dr
>>
>> You cannot be serious that under GR, E is independent of (v / c). So,
>> what
>> does E look like including the observed quantity of (v / c)?
>
> You're getting into GPS stuff here.
No, I am not referring to GPS. In fact, I have orbital motion of a planet
in mind. Its energy cannot be all potential energy for example.
> The effect we're
> discussing depends upon a modification of the
> gravitational force (visa Newton) and velocity makes
> no substantial relativistic difference at Mercury's
> speed.
Yes, it does. In Newtonian, you have to show the orbital speed is related
to its gravitational potential. You have defined a new way of looking at
this gravitational potential. You have to show me how the orbital speed is
derived from your new potential.
> But your point is important at higher energies.
No, it is important in all energy levels.
>> > the (1+3m/r) is a "perturbation to Newtons force" that
>> > accounts for the perihelion rotation.
>>
>> (1 + 3 m / r) is as what you claim if and only if the orbital speed (v /
>> c)
>> has no 2nd order effect in (m / r)^2. You still have not proved to me
>> that
>> the orbital speed is indeed just (v / c) and not [(v / c) sqrt(1 + 3 m /
>> r)]. To be more point-blank, when you are talking about the n'th digit
>> after the decimal place of precision, I would at least see you keep up
>> with
>> that precision carried through out these topics of related discussion.
>
> Your quite right about the factors of precision.
>
> 1st the're not entirely understood in GR, 2nd this
> is not the forum to discuss where Mercury is +/-
> a few centimeters. The effect accumulates at an
> approximate rate of 43"/century, what is that 33
> metres per orbit? (I forget now).
On the contrary, GR explains very well how this anomaly would occur. I was
able to derive an equation describing how the observed energy of an object
trapped in the curvature of spacetime (with Schwarzschild metric) as a
function of the metric and orbital speed. And yes, the effect is a 2nd
order effect with a factor of 1 part in several hundred million.
>> >> > and the escape velocity is
>> >> >
>> >> > Ve = sqrt(2m/r)
>> >>
>> >> No. This is not agreeable. The escape velocity is a Newtonian
>> >> concept.
>> >> Under your explanation, again, I have to ask you to derive that one.
>> >> I
>> >> think this is very fair. You deviate away from Newtonian potential.
>> >> I
>> >> should then not expect you to use Newtonian orbital velocity and
>> >> escape
>> >> velocity, unless you prove your point.
>> >
>> > Vo is an observation, parameter if you like, that astronomers
>> > measure. The fact the Earth takes ~365 days to orbit the sun
>> > certainly pre-dated Newton!
>>
>> Newton did not observe Vo, the escape velocity, to be what it is. The
>> escape velocity can obly be derived with the mathematical model of our
>> solar
>> system under the concept of Geenral Relativity. I am not so sure you are
>> able to observe (Vo / c) with a precision of 1 part in several hundred
>> millions where Mercury's orbital anonaly demands.
>
> Fortunately the error accumulates, but many find alternative
> explanations for some of the physics observations of GR, and
> that's good.
I don't understand what error is accumulating. Are you referring to this
43" per century of orbital advance? If so, the number cannot be
accumulating because it is a quantity of speed.
> What convinces me, (I wrote an article that
> appears In Weinbergs Grav&Cosmo pg 84) is the relation of
> the gravitational red shift and the Quantum theory, that
> was confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, that places
> GR into being common sense.
Can you provide a link to your article?
Regards,
Koobee Wublee
Autymn D. C.
bandaide -> bandaid
grammers -> grammars
Autymn D. C.
it's -> its
Your -> You're
illiterate retard
Lynx Xiong
ugly bitch
http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/groups/g_1133926/Yahoo!+Photo+Album/lor2.jpg?grgeggDBeYnjMoMg
http://www.theesotericworldnews.com/images/lorraine.jpg
Lonnie Kobres
c/o 1715 E. Fowler Ave., #117
Tampa, Florida 33612
http://home1.gte.net/lkobres
http://www.theesotericworldnews.com
mailto:lorr...@theesotericworldnews.com
http://home1.gte.net/lkobres
Autymn D. C.
> ugly bitch
Don't spam your personals.