Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.org.mensa
From: carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:27:45 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Fri, Nov 11 2005 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Relativistic Quantum Mechanics?
In sci.physics Juan R. <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...] > The best attemp to reply my 'unortodox' view has been from specialist Briefly (since I don't have a lot of time to waste on cranks): > Carlip. He has used a completely wrong metric with dimensions that > forces to us to change all of standard stuff -e.g. there is not EM four > currents in his nonstandard approach-. Finally he derives wrong > temporal dependence, wrong functional dependence of potentials, > incorrect equation of motion -moreover he just obtain the > nonrelativistic limit of the trajectory in a relativistic spacetime, > newer GR trajectory in a NONrelativistic spacetime-, he obtains zero > curvature -due to c^2 term into g_00 one has R = R_00 / g_00 --> 0- of > spacetime which reinforces my view that in the nonrelativistc regime > the causality structure of GR break -if gravity was spacetime curvature > then zero curvature would imply zero gravity which is wrong according > to Newtonian limit-. > Moreover, Carlip obtains all a couple of wrong results. for example he > obtains a nonzero 00-connection which implies that full physical > derivatives in the Newtonian limit are covariant ones WHICH is wrong. > In the Newtonian limit one, physical derivatives are partial and total > ones NEWER covariant ones. > According to Carlip derivatives as partial v / partial t that one find > in Newtonian textbooks are NON physical because he uses a non zero > 00-connection. > Moreover, Carlip does not know what is the difference between a > potential and a field and he still unknow why Penrose (like other > specialists) has claimed that Ehlers boundary is unphysical. and > therefore Ehlers attempt to derive Newtonian limit of spacetime is > nonrigorous and experimentally unphysical, etc. Juan R. has been shown mathematically rigorous derivations of the Juan R. uses a coordinate x^0=ct, where t is the Newtonian time, Juan R. has apparently casually read a paragraph or two about Juan R. does not understand the role of boundary conditions. In Juan R. does not think that the solution of the Poisson equation is And, of course, Juan R. believes that his brilliant insights about Steve Carlip You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||