Regarding Barry Mingst (aka greywolf42)
Stephen Speicher
post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
(aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
web site
<http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm>
Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
in which Mingst made claims such as
"This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."
"Even the author (Speicher) ..."
"The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
derivation ..."
For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
trusted.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
greywolf42
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030727...@localhost.localdomain...
> Except for the "Who said this ..." series I no longer read or
> post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
> that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
> (aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
> web site
>
> <http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm>
>
> Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
> in which Mingst made claims such as
>
> "This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."
>
> "Even the author (Speicher) ..."
>
> "The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
> derivation ..."
>
> For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
> of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
> fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
> mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
> way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
> as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
> physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
> trusted.
After refusing for months to identify whether he was the author of that
slime site (since February -- LONG before Stephen's "avoidance" of
sci.physics.relativity) -- and despite my repeated explicit requests --
Stephen claims that I "fabricated this story out of whole cloth."
Now, Stephen claims that he found a "dozen or so" postings with this claim.
But the large majority of the "dozen or so posts" were made before Stephen
"left" the group. So he has no reason to complain. Indeed, most were made
directly to Stephen, PLEADING for him to admit or deny authorship. In
threads that Stephen thereafter abandoned.
So now my question to Stephen (and the other DHR's who proffer the site as
valid -- without ever defending it) is -- why do you support this slime
site, when you know it's false allegation, deliberate distortion and
outright lies?
And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime, and how do we get
it corrected or removed?
The nitty-gritty follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Stephen's first link to the slime site (2/21/03, Einstein and Bjerknes'
References) implied that HE was the author of the site:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2852658374d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=v5fjk2bj3v1c20%40corp.supernews.com
================================
"I have given summaries of von Laue's analysis, as well as the more detailed
analysis by Roseveare, as well as giving references to each. If "greywolf42"
is unable to read technical analyses in papers and books, perhaps he can
read an online summary instead.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm" (The slime site)
================================
Note how the sentence begins that Speicher claims to have given
1)"summaries" of one analysis,
2) a more detailed analysis by Roseveare,
3) references to each (of Speicher's analyses),
4) an online summary is: the slime site.
NOW Speicher is apparently claiming that the "summary" is not a summary of
HIS work.
Fine.
Now in my response to Speicher's posting of the slime site, I made it clear
that I thought that Speicher was the author -- based on Speicher's sentence
above. Instead of correcting what Stephen now claims was a "fabrication",
he inferred that he didn't write the site -- but didn't actually deny it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl956705154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com
====================
Steve the S:
"I gave you three references, all of which I have read and analyzed in
detail, but ... I also pointed you to an online source."
Now this specific statement taken out of context (because Steve snipped the
context, of course) may indeed be correct. But Steve removed the context by
snipping my explicit request that Steve provide why HE thought Gerber's work
was disproved. Now let's look at what Steve actually wrote in the text:
Steve the S:
"I have given summaries of von Laue's analysis, as well as the more detailed
analysis by Roseveare, as well as giving references to each. If "greywolf42"
is unable to read technical analyses in papers and books, perhaps he can
read an online summary instead.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm"
Now upon reading those words, one may easily construe that Steve is claiming
that the weblink is an online summary of his own summaries of von Laue's and
Roseveare's analysis. Since Steve states that HE personally has given these
summaries, one can only conclude that Steve is claiming authorship of this
webpage. Now in this recent post, Steve faults me for taking "the pointer
as something which I wrote, and then proceeded to embarrass yourself by
referring to 'Speicher's work is a classic example of a straw-man hatchet
job.'"
Oddly enough, the web page has no authorship or attribution. Nor does the
homepage. Nor does any of the multiple "authoritative" subjects contained
on in the "Mathpages" domain. There is no contact or identity given
anywhere. So I was unable to verify that Steve had written this particular
piece. (I looked.) Steve now blames "Kevin Brown, of 'Mathpages' fame
(sic)" for the slimy, cowardly, lying piece. But all I had to go on was
Steve's poor wording.
Yep, that's a "really bizarre reason" to conclude that Steve wrote the
piece. (Oddly enough, Steve still hasn't actually disavowed authorship of
the filth. He merely stated that it was "bizarre" that I concluded that it
was him. I highly doubt that Kevin Brown has had the time to create all of
the multiple analyses by himself, from scratch -- without input from
others.)
Besides, even if Steve didn't write the piece himself, he is no less guilty
for championing and disseminating the filth, and asserting it's
authoritative validity. He's tarred with his own brush -- even if
"Speicher's work" is only disseminating the filth and he didn't write it.
That's like Goebbels claiming innocence because he only hired the propaganda
writers.
====================
On 2/25/03 I attempted to get Stephen to clarify his (non?)authorship of the
site:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl956705154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=v5o1fkmvdonq57%40corp.supernews.com
===============
The "author" of your filthy hatchet piece screwed up the analysis. But you
can't admit it. The AUTHOR of the hatchet piece admitted that he didn't
understand Gerber's paper. Could barely understand Roseveare's summary.
Identified many typos in Roseveare's summary. Confabulated entire new
levels of physics and fancy onto the base. And then blamed Gerber for his
("the Author's") failure.
Did you write it? (Yes or no. You keep evading.)
===============
and in the same post....
===============
For a man with so many references, you have very
poor short-term memory. You may recall that YOUR slimy hatchet piece
(whether it was your writing or not) admitted that the author didn't
understand Gerber -- and couldn't follow Roseveare. You either didn't read
your own reference -- or explicitly condone lies and distortion for your own
ends. Which is it? Do you stand behind this piece of swamp muck? Or do
you disavow it, now that it's been "caught?"
===============
And on 2/26/03:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2698704898d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=v5q761ed6c7e5e%40corp.supernews.com
===============
Note: Speicher again refuses to admit or to deny that he wrote the filthy
hatchet piece on Gerber. Which pretty well confirms that he wrote it -- as
he had originally indicated.
===============
and, in the same post
===============
After smearing Gerber, Speicher cannot even have the decency to either stand
behind his smear (borrowed or written) or disavow it. He wants to have his
cake and eat it too.
===============
At which point Speicher evaded my posts in the thread, still supporting the
slime, and unwilling to admit or deny authorship.....
The slime site was abandoned for awhile by the relativists -- now that it
was exposed. But after awhile, the DHR's apparently felt enough time had
gone by to try to push the slime as an authoritative response to Gerber's
work:
For example, 2 1/2 months later, on 5/15/03, Speicher again tried to make
use of his reference to the slime-site:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl272493371d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=vc8ktqj7260f70%40corp.supernews.com
==================
Speicher:
> You waste your time trying to convey facts to greywolf42 about
> matters such as these. Many people have made him aware of the
> facts in regard to Gerber, in more detail than what Pauli has to
> say, but facts are not the coin of the realm in the candy store
> of physics run by greywolf42.
greywolf42:
Right, Stephen. Just like that pathetic lying trashing of a dead man that
you posted. You still won't admit or deny authorship.
==================
and on 5/16/03, in a reply to Ed Zampino, I again attempted to get Stephen
to admit or deny authorship:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2530885109d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vca8csbd2f678a%40corp.supernews.com
==================
One of these claims is posted on the web. The "author" of the piece
(Stephen Speicher*) screwed up the analysis. The AUTHOR of the hatchet
piece admitted that he didn't understand Gerber's paper. Could barely
understand Roseveare's summary of Gerber's paper. Identified many typos in
Roseveare's summary. Confabulated entire new levels of physics and fancy
onto the base. And then blamed Gerber for his
("the Author's") failure. (*Stephen initally pointed to this site as "his".
But there is no author listed on the page, analysis or site. And later,
Stephen "implied" that he may not have written the piece. But he will not
state whether or not he is actually the author -- despite numerous
requests.)
==================
Speicher "officially" left sci.physics.relativity on 5/18/03 -- still
without admitting or denying whether he was the author of the slime site.
Despite a dozen explicit requests over a 3 month period.
After Stephen "left", Dirk van der Mortel again trotted out the slime (on
6/2):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1138311638d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vdneeha9tchl8a%40corp.supernews.com
=================
Dink:
> Instead, have a look at
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
greywolf42:
You'll note that that piece of slime is unattributed. This pathetic, lying
hatchet piece on the work of a dead man -- submitted by Stephen Speicher --
was already exposed and eviscerated in this newsgroup:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl956705154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com
After this expose, the silence (from Dirk and others) was deafening.
As usual, Dirk lay low and let Speicher do the dirty work.
=================
Note that here I was explicit about Stephen only "submitting" the link. Not
authoring it.
And on 6/3, Patrick (not Reany) again pushed the slime link provided by
Dirk:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3613709783d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vdphv2d52jfo7a%40corp.supernews.com
=================
> I dunnno. The link given by Dirk Van Moortel is very clear in its
> explanation of gerbers derivation.
The problem is that the link is Steven Speicher's derivation -- not Gerbers.
It's not even BASED on Gerber's paper! Had you bothered to read anything
I'd written, you'd understand that. Of course, it WAS clear that the link
was totally at sea:
The link is written based on a typo-ridden summation (Roseveare) of Gerber's
paper. Roseveare claimed Gerber's work was "not at all clear" to him
(Roseveare) -- perhaps because Gerber's paper was in German. The link notes
that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had in mind."
Nonetheless, the link is quite willing to forge ahead and slam a paper that
he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly flawed critique
written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what Gerber was doing!
Of course, instead of working from Roseveare (who admittedly couldn't follow
Gerber's work), perhaps Stephen could have worked from a different
contemporaneous source. That's why I pointed you to Petr Beckmann's
"Einstein Plus Two." Beckmann had no problems reading and understanding
Gerber's work. And provided a shortened version, using more modern
mathematical tools (section 3.2).
=================
Here I have left room for Speicher's unwillingness to commit himself. "The
author". "The link." Stephen's "derivation" that he provided (way back in
his original post) was simply this link.
The slime site again reappears, submitted by Ed Stamm 6/11/03:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl145691488d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=vef6d62uutsu4b%40corp.supernews.com
=================
> The fallacies and
> errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
> www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm.
And -- as has been pointed out repeatedly -- that particular web page is a
morass of false allegation, deliberate distortion and outright lies. Why do
you point to that pathetic, lying crap? Gerber's "reasoning" exists nowhere
in that trash heap. Even the author (Speicher) has refused to back up that
site.
=================
Here I explicitly identify Speicher as the author. After 4 months without a
denial, I figured that Stephen was the primary author (as his original post
implied).
And the slime reappears from Thomas Clarke: 7/14/03:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3996103082d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vh73eno4uikq08%40corp.supernews.com
=================
This site is the work of Stephen Speicher. The author admitted he didn't
read Gerber's work. Admitted he couldn't understand Roseveare's summary of
Gerber's work and found many "typos" in Roseveare's summary. That didn't
stop the author from blaming everything on Gerber.
=================
Note the "the author" to allow for Stephen's continued reluctance to commit
himself.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Minor Crank
news:vibm425...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip venom>
I was very curious a while back about the authorship of the mathpages, and
accidentally came across evidence pointing to the identity of another member
of the author's family.
The evidence that I have shows definitively that the mathpages weren't
authored by Stephen. No, I'm afraid I can't let you know the nature of this
evidence. The author is a very private person, and I wish to respect his
privacy.
Minor Crank
FrediFizzx
A simple Whois search will most likely give you a lead.
FrediFizzx
Thomas Clarke
| > of that site,
| And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime,
| and how do we get
| it corrected or removed?
Kevin Brown is the author.
But no need to get it corrected or removed since it seems
correct so far as I can tell.
Tom Clarke
P.S.
I found a copy of the whois entry on sci.math
Registrant:
MathPages (MATHPAGES-DOM)
1605 W JAMES LN # I-7
KENT, WA 98032-4351
US
Domain Name: MATHPAGES.COM
Administrative Contact:
Brown, Kevin (KB11700) ksb...@SEANET.COM
MathPages
6014 S 238TH PL APT D101
KENT, WA 98032-3771
US
(253) 854-2063 fax: 999 999 9999
Technical Contact:
Hostmaster, Support (SH12005)
hostm...@GTE-HOSTING.NET
P.O.Box 152212
Irving, TX 75015-2212
US
1-800-483-4678 fax: 123 123 1234
Record expires on 08-Aug-2012.
Record created on 14-Oct-2002.
Database last updated on 22-Jul-2003 10:53:39 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS05A.WEBHOSTING-VERIZON.NET 209.238.3.50
NS05B.WEBHOSTING-VERIZON.NET 209.238.3.51
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Harry
http://mathforum.com/library/view/5157.html
Kevin Brown.
However, interestingly in my search program it is called a "compilation of
postings".
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vibm425...@corp.supernews.com...
You did, and no smokescreen will make it go away.
#9 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vibm425...@corp.supernews.com
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhtma4h...@corp.supernews.com
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
[snipped 15kb smokescreen #9]
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Minor Crank <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UdmVa.3764$o%2.3254@sccrnsc02...
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vibm425...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <snip venom>
>
> I was very curious a while back about the authorship of the mathpages, and
> accidentally came across evidence pointing to the identity of another
member
> of the author's family.
Who cares about the author's family?
> The evidence that I have shows definitively that the mathpages weren't
> authored by Stephen.
I accept Stephen's word that he didn't author the slime. Now that he's seen
fit to state it clearly.
> No, I'm afraid I can't let you know the nature of this
> evidence. The author is a very private person, and I wish to respect his
> privacy.
A "secret" author! How Relativist!
greywolf42
FrediFizzx <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg55m9$k8m6v$1...@ID-185976.news.uni-berlin.de...
But only who POSTED the site. Not to who wrote it.
greywolf42
Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:c8d38296e70f5febde3...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> | Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> | > For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
> | > of that site,
>
> | And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime,
> | and how do we get
> | it corrected or removed?
>
> Kevin Brown is the author.
>
> But no need to get it corrected or removed since it seems
> correct so far as I can tell.
The author expressly states that he worked from a typo-ridden summation of a
paper the typoist claimed was "not at all clear" to him. The author also
explicitly notes that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had in
mind." Nonetheless, the author is quite willing to forge ahead and slam a
paper that he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly flawed
critique written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what Gerber
was doing!
You really consider this a valid scientific critique?
Thanks
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:shxVa.39885$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Hello and goodbye, coward. Still not willing to address any physics?
Your pathetic attempts at diversion never did fool anyone.
greywolf42
Hey! This wouldn't have been David Semon (aka Bilge, zombiewoof, etc), now
would it? He's the only DHR that I know who likes to blackjack people while
whining about keeping his anonymity.
And anonymity is not a reasonable goal when you attempt to defame people.
Even if the "targets" are dead.
Thomas Clarke
> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> news:c8d38296e70f5febde3...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > | Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > | > For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
> > | > of that site,
> > | And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime,
> > | and how do we get
> > | it corrected or removed?
> > Kevin Brown is the author.
> > But no need to get it corrected or removed since it seems
> > correct so far as I can tell.
> The author expressly states that he worked from a typo-ridden summation of a
> paper the typoist claimed was "not at all clear" to him. The author also
> explicitly notes that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had in
> mind." Nonetheless, the author is quite willing to forge ahead and slam a
> paper that he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly flawed
> critique written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what Gerber
> was doing!
> You really consider this a valid scientific critique?
I was generally referring to the site as a whole actually
which seems to be quite nicely put together.
The specific article that raises your ire is very upfront about
the limitations of its sources. So there is no need to demand
it be removed as the limitations are there for the reader to
judge.
The information in the article rings true to me,
but not to you.
So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
your standard.
Of the top three hits on a google search for
"gerber mercury orbit"
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/33/2002/12/4/14712
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm
The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
demand its removal.
Tom Clarke
FrediFizzx
If Kevin Brown did not write it, then send him an email and ask him who did.
FrediFizzx
Matthew Nobes
> If Kevin Brown did not write it, then send him an email and ask him who did.
Voice of Reason, meet Mr. Mingst, Mr. Mingst, meet the voice of Reason.
--
Matthew Nobes
c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada
http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vide8eo...@corp.supernews.com...
Mingst, ever tried using a search engine?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=who+wrote+mathpages
So now you finally know what we all have known since years.
A secret author?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=sci.physics.*&as_uauthors=kevin%20brown%20
Do try using a search engine sometime.
I'm sure even *you* can do it.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
How many ways can a simple, yes/no answer be evaded?
> I was generally referring to the site as a whole actually
> which seems to be quite nicely put together.
#1. We aren't discussing the "mathpages site as a whole," but a specific
webpage.
> The specific article that raises your ire is very upfront about
> the limitations of its sources. So there is no need to demand
> it be removed as the limitations are there for the reader to
> judge.
#2. It's not "upfront" about it's sources if it blames Gerber for the
errors committed by others.
> The information in the article rings true to me,
> but not to you.
#3. Does "rings true" mean that you "believe" that Einstein was first to
"solve" the NNPA? Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
critique?
> So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
> your standard.
#4.
> Of the top three hits on a google search for
> "gerber mercury orbit"
> http://www.sciforums.com/archive/33/2002/12/4/14712
This appears to be a quote from Roseveare (though the source of the quote in
unattributed) taken out of context. And Roseveare admitted that he didn't
understand what Gerber was doing.
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
The slime site. Which evidently has been substantially rewritten since
February. Still no author listed. And oddly enough, it's gotten even
slimier.
"We find that the criticisms of previous reviewers (who have characterized
Gerber's paper as "unintelligible", "not sound", "incorrect", "wrong
through and through") were substantially accurate, but we conclude with a
speculative re-construction of a classical line of reasoning that Gerber
might have used to justify his potential, if he had thought of it and/or
been able to express it intelligibly."
But still blames Gerber for the errors in that "reconstruction."
I especially "liked" the new layers of outright falsehood in "No one has
ever proposed a realistic physical mechanism that would behave like a
flowing potential." (Remember LeSage?)
> http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm
>
> The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
> demand its removal.
The author of the third would be happy to discuss what you think is
questionable about a post that was made on this newsgroup. And it's easy
for you to do, because the author of the post is up-front about his
identity. You can e-mail the author anytime. Unlike the second site.
And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's doing
the attacking.
Thomas Clarke
> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
regarding
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
..............
> > The information in the article rings true to me,
> > but not to you.
> #3. Does "rings true" mean that you "believe" that Einstein was first to
> "solve" the NNPA?
No.
> Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
> critique?
It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.
What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?
> > So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
> > your standard.
> > Of the top three hits on a google search for
> > "gerber mercury orbit"
The third hit is:
> > http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm
> > The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
> > demand its removal.
> The author of the third would be happy to discuss what you think is
> questionable about a post that was made on this newsgroup.
[For the information of readers, the author was Barry Mingst
requoted on Mountain Man's "Modern Scientific Theories
of the Ancient Aether" site.]
I am annoyed by statements such as:
"Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"
"GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"
which while not exactly false, do not correctly characterize
the relation between the old Newtonian theory and the
new relativistic theories.
> And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
> unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
> distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's doing
> the attacking.
The mathpages site seems to be a compendium of works from various
usenet sites over the years. It would be better if it had sources
indicated more clearly.
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>
> regarding
> http://mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
> ..............
> > > The information in the article rings true to me,
> > > but not to you.
>
> > #3. Does "rings true" mean that you "believe" that Einstein was first
to
> > "solve" the NNPA?
>
> No.
>
> > Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
> > critique?
>
> It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.
If you define "science" by what brown-nosing grant-chasers in academia do, I
concur. But it in no way resembles the scientific method.
> What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?
One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
pseudo-science.)
> > > So reject the article if you think the sources not up to
> > > your standard.
>
> > > Of the top three hits on a google search for
> > > "gerber mercury orbit"
>
> The third hit is:
> > > http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm
>
> > > The third seems to me questionable, but I don't
> > > demand its removal.
>
> > The author of the third would be happy to discuss what you think is
> > questionable about a post that was made on this newsgroup.
>
> [For the information of readers, the author was Barry Mingst
> requoted on Mountain Man's "Modern Scientific Theories
> of the Ancient Aether" site.]
>
> I am annoyed by statements such as:
> "Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"
> "GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"
> which while not exactly false, do not correctly characterize
> the relation between the old Newtonian theory and the
> new relativistic theories.
OK, let's discuss:
"Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"
"Relativity" was described by both Galileo and -- more formally -- by
Newton. According to Newton, the velocities of importance in physical
interactions are the relative velocities of the objects undergoing
interaction. This is an "object-centered" viewpoint. Einstein's variation
was to disconnect the basis of measuring velocity from the object and attach
it to the "observer." The observer is not necessarily involved in the
actual interaction of two physical objects. Einstein himself based his
initial work on Newton and Maxwell. Since relativity has been known for
hundreds of years, I call special relativity a variation on Newtonian
relativity.
See "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," Einstein, Annalen der Physik,
17, 1905*
"GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"
One of the reasons that I admire Einstein is that he was willing to propose
unusual paths to get to a desired point. But also willing to abandon roads
that didn't seem to be going anywhere ("That fellow Einstein. Every year he
throws out what he did the year before." -- A. Einstein). GR took him many
years of effort and false starts. However, he was always willing to modify
what didn't work. In the reference below, for example, Einstein states: "It
will also be obvious that the principle of the constancy of the speed of
light IN VACUO must be modified..." Hence, SR is not contained withing GR.
In GR there IS a preferred frame.
Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties that
he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one set of
boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the weak-field
solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's the 8
pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit.
See "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity," Einstein, Annalen
der Physik, 49, 1916*
* Both available in Dover's, "The Principle of Relativity", 1952
> > And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
> > unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
> > distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's
doing
> > the attacking.
>
> The mathpages site seems to be a compendium of works from various
> usenet sites over the years. It would be better if it had sources
> indicated more clearly.
Understated, but we agree on your last point.
Thomas Clarke
> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> > > Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
> > > critique?
> > It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.
> If you define "science" by what brown-nosing grant-chasers in academia do, I
> concur. But it in no way resembles the scientific method.
Below you called something I wrote understated.
I would call that statement overstated, vastly overstated.
> > What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?
> One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
> character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
> pseudo-science.)
What do you think constitutes the scientific method?
...........
> OK, let's discuss:
> "Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"
> "Relativity" was described by both Galileo and -- more formally -- by
> Newton.
I usually associate the term "relativity" with Galileo but
Newton is more or less the same era.
> According to Newton, the velocities of importance in physical
> interactions are the relative velocities of the objects undergoing
> interaction. This is an "object-centered" viewpoint. Einstein's variation
> was to disconnect the basis of measuring velocity from the object and attach
> it to the "observer."
You can call it a variation if you like. But that is an
overstatement.
> The observer is not necessarily involved in the
> actual interaction of two physical objects. Einstein himself based his
> initial work on Newton and Maxwell.
Well since Newton and Maxwell are incompatible, it was a bit
more than "based...on"
> Since relativity has been known for
> hundreds of years, I call special relativity a variation on Newtonian
> relativity.
An overstatement.
> "GR was backfit onto Newton's force equation"
> One of the reasons that I admire Einstein is that he was willing to propose
> unusual paths to get to a desired point. But also willing to abandon roads
> that didn't seem to be going anywhere ("That fellow Einstein. Every year he
> throws out what he did the year before." -- A. Einstein). GR took him many
> years of effort and false starts. However, he was always willing to modify
> what didn't work. In the reference below, for example, Einstein states: "It
> will also be obvious that the principle of the constancy of the speed of
> light IN VACUO must be modified..." Hence, SR is not contained withing GR.
> In GR there IS a preferred frame.
> Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties that
> he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
> mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one set of
> boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the weak-field
> solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's the 8
> pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit.
There is a constant G in all formulations of gravity.
Newton got their first so that G was defined in terms of
Newton's F=GmM/r^2 on the basis of observation.
If somehow GR had been invented before
inverse square gravity, then G might have been determined
from observation with the 8-pi absorbed into it.
But to call this "backfit" is to me an overstatement.
> > > And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
> > > unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
> > > distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify who's
> doing
> > > the attacking.
> > The mathpages site seems to be a compendium of works from various
> > usenet sites over the years. It would be better if it had sources
> > indicated more clearly.
> Understated, but we agree on your last point.
You should try understatement, greywolf42.
Matthew Nobes
>> Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties that
>> he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
>> mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one set of
>> boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the weak-field
>> solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's the 8
>> pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit.
> There is a constant G in all formulations of gravity.
> Newton got their first so that G was defined in terms of
> Newton's F=GmM/r^2 on the basis of observation.
> If somehow GR had been invented before
> inverse square gravity, then G might have been determined
> from observation with the 8-pi absorbed into it.
> But to call this "backfit" is to me an overstatement.
It's more than that, it's essentially wrong. The *important* thing about
GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law in the weak field limit.
The constant G (or G/8pi) is merely a unit convention, relativists use
G=1 all the time.
GR was not in any way "backfit" onto Newtonian gravity.
Robert J. Kolker
greywolf42 wrote:
> One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
> character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
> pseudo-science.)
Which scientific method? The scientific method of quantum field theory
is not the scientific method of geology or biology. Applied science does
not work quite like purely theoretical science. Experimental physics is
not the same activity as researches into gravitational theory.
All of the scientific methodologies have one thing in come. They all
most be consistent with experimentally discovered fact. Experiments make
or break theories. In the realm of science facts rule, theories serve.
Bob Kolker
>>
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:viim8hr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> news:6d744b161b1785aa74e...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
[snip]
> >
> > It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.
>
> If you define "science" by what brown-nosing grant-chasers in academia do, I
> concur. But it in no way resembles the scientific method.
>
> > What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?
>
> One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
> character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
> pseudo-science.)
Title: "Avoid ad hominem attacks, character assassination..."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Avoid.html
One for the road.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:bgbqel$3qh$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> >> Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties
that
> >> he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
> >> mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one
set of
> >> boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the
weak-field
> >> solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's
the 8
> >> pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit.
>
> > There is a constant G in all formulations of gravity.
> > Newton got their first so that G was defined in terms of
> > Newton's F=GmM/r^2 on the basis of observation.
> > If somehow GR had been invented before
> > inverse square gravity, then G might have been determined
> > from observation with the 8-pi absorbed into it.
>
> > But to call this "backfit" is to me an overstatement.
>
> It's more than that, it's essentially wrong. The *important* thing about
> GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law in the weak field limit.
Plus a constant speed of gravity equal to 'c'. (In GR, the speed of gravity
varies between 'c' at the weak-field limit and increases to infinity at the
strong-field limit.)
> The constant G (or G/8pi) is merely a unit convention, relativists use
> G=1 all the time.
It is not just a unitary convention. The units used for the symbols MUST
match some real-world system of measure when the mathematical scrawls are
compared to reality.
> GR was not in any way "backfit" onto Newtonian gravity.
Well, at least you seem to accept that Einstein's 'relativity' was a
'variation' on Newtonian 'relativity.'
greywolf42
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YbfWa.31752$uu5.3322@sccrnsc04...
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
> > character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
> > pseudo-science.)
>
> Which scientific method?
THE scientific method. There is only one.
> The scientific method of quantum field theory
> is not the scientific method of geology or biology.
You are mistaking the actions of humans apes who fancy themselves
"scientists" with the objective scientific method.
> Applied science does
> not work quite like purely theoretical science.
That's because engineering is not the scientific method. ('Applied science'
is to engineering as 'sanitation engineer' is to garbageman. Both are
fancified names used solely for status purposes.)
> Experimental physics is
> not the same activity as researches into gravitational theory.
??? Only if gravitational theory avoids experiments. Which is sadly often
the case.
> All of the scientific methodologies have one thing in come. They all
> most be consistent with experimentally discovered fact. Experiments make
> or break theories. In the realm of science facts rule, theories serve.
Then why do you support SR? It is disproven by the Sagnac experiment. At
least is was, until the SRists came up with an after-the-fact explanation
after a few years. Or, if you belive Tom Roberts, theories (and lemmas) are
used to disprove experimental observations -- (which clearly must be
erroneous according to theory). Or one invokes the "observer effect," when
the outcome doesn't match the paradigm.
Have you read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?"
greywolf42
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> .....
> > > > Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
> > > > critique?
>
> > > It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.
>
> > If you define "science" by what brown-nosing grant-chasers in academia
do, I
> > concur. But it in no way resembles the scientific method.
>
> Below you called something I wrote understated.
> I would call that statement overstated, vastly overstated.
You may have met different academicians than I did. I've met darned few
scientists, and a lot of Machiavellian schemers. But I did a lot of work
with the National Laboratories (sic).
> > > What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?
>
> > One that conforms to the scientific method. (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
> > character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
> > pseudo-science.)
>
> What do you think constitutes the scientific method?
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl991430310d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=pmr67.28286%24ot3.1637161%40nntp1.onemain.com
> ...........
> > OK, let's discuss:
>
> > "Einstein's variation on Newtonian relativity (special relativity)"
>
> > "Relativity" was described by both Galileo and -- more formally -- by
> > Newton.
>
> I usually associate the term "relativity" with Galileo but
> Newton is more or less the same era.
OK.
> > According to Newton, the velocities of importance in physical
> > interactions are the relative velocities of the objects undergoing
> > interaction. This is an "object-centered" viewpoint. Einstein's
variation
> > was to disconnect the basis of measuring velocity from the object and
attach
> > it to the "observer."
>
> You can call it a variation if you like. But that is an
> overstatement.
We disagree. Einstein (in his first paragraph of his 1905 work wrote)
"... The observable phenomenon here depnds only on the relative motion of
the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
these bodies is in motion. ... " This reasoning precedes Einstein's only
passing inference to the Michelson-Morely experiment.
> > The observer is not necessarily involved in the
> > actual interaction of two physical objects. Einstein himself based his
> > initial work on Newton and Maxwell.
>
> Well since Newton and Maxwell are incompatible, it was a bit
> more than "based...on"
I would consider this statement of yours completely untrue. Maxwell derived
"Maxwell's equations" using Newton's equations of motion with a fluid aether
model. Maxwell's equations are typical examples of fluid medium
equations -- which is to say, motion within the fluid is important.
> > Since relativity has been known for
> > hundreds of years, I call special relativity a variation on Newtonian
> > relativity.
>
> An overstatement.
You apparently think this because you seem to be unaware that Maxwell used a
Newtonian analysis to get "his" equations.
The G or "8 pi" is not just a unitary convention. The units used for the
symbols MUST match some real-world system of measure when the mathematical
scrawls are compared to reality.
> > > > And it's not the "questionable" aspect that makes the slime site
> > > > unacceptable. It is the fact that the slime site makes egregious
> > > > distortions about the work of a third party. And won't identify
who's
> > doing
> > > > the attacking.
>
> > > The mathpages site seems to be a compendium of works from various
> > > usenet sites over the years. It would be better if it had sources
> > > indicated more clearly.
>
> > Understated, but we agree on your last point.
>
> You should try understatement, greywolf42.
I prefer clarity to understatement.
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:bgbqel$3qh$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> [snip]
[snip mangled stuff]
>> > There is a constant G in all formulations of gravity.
>> > Newton got their first so that G was defined in terms of
>> > Newton's F=GmM/r^2 on the basis of observation.
>> > If somehow GR had been invented before
>> > inverse square gravity, then G might have been determined
>> > from observation with the 8-pi absorbed into it.
>>
>> > But to call this "backfit" is to me an overstatement.
>>
>> It's more than that, it's essentially wrong. The *important* thing about
>> GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law in the weak field limit.
> Plus a constant speed of gravity equal to 'c'.
No. In the weak field limit, c doesn't enter into it. Plus c=1.
> (In GR, the speed of gravity
> varies between 'c' at the weak-field limit and increases to infinity at the
> strong-field limit.)
That's not true, gravitational waves propagate at c, no matter how strong
they are. Please don't tell me that you're still trying to tell Steve
Carlip what he "really meant" in his Speed of Gravity paper.
>> The constant G (or G/8pi) is merely a unit convention, relativists use
>> G=1 all the time.
> It is not just a unitary convention.
Well, yes it is.
G = 6.672 x 10^(-11) Nm^2/kg^2 = 66.72 pNm^2/kg^2
Look at that, I just changed G by 11 orders of magnitude.
> The units used for the symbols MUST
> match some real-world system of measure when the mathematical scrawls are
> compared to reality.
Sure, but the choice of units in the "mathematical scrawls" cannot affect
the predictions. Hence the units are arbitary. Hence G=1 (and c=1) is fine
for understanding the important *physics* of GR.
Like I said, the important *physical* result of the weak-field expansion
of GR is that it shows that
V(r) ~ 1/r
the constant out front expresses the choice of units, it can be 10^{-11} or 10
or 1 or anything really. It's the 1/r part that's important.
>> GR was not in any way "backfit" onto Newtonian gravity.
> Well, at least you seem to accept that Einstein's 'relativity' was a
> 'variation' on Newtonian 'relativity.'
While I would call that a strong statement, it is a defensible position.
The idea that time could be relative too was definately a big leap though.
(Of course others had this idea too, not just Einstein).
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:bgbqel$3qh$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >> Thomas Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> >> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> >> [snip]
>
> [snip mangled stuff]
'Mangled stuff?' ;)
> >> > There is a constant G in all formulations of gravity.
> >> > Newton got their first so that G was defined in terms of
> >> > Newton's F=GmM/r^2 on the basis of observation.
> >> > If somehow GR had been invented before
> >> > inverse square gravity, then G might have been determined
> >> > from observation with the 8-pi absorbed into it.
> >>
> >> > But to call this "backfit" is to me an overstatement.
> >>
> >> It's more than that, it's essentially wrong. The *important* thing
about
> >> GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law in the weak field limit.
>
> > Plus a constant speed of gravity equal to 'c'.
>
> No. In the weak field limit, c doesn't enter into it.
LOL! So sorry, but you are incorrect. In the weak field limit, the speed
of gravity is 'c.' The speed of gravity tends to infinity as the field
approaches the strong limit. See Steve Carlip's paper,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087.
> Plus c=1.
LOL! Whether you call it 3.0E8 mps or 3.0E10 cps or 1 light-unit it's the
same thing. A finite speed of gravity, intially determined by Paul Gerber,
17 years prior to Einstein.
> > (In GR, the speed of gravity
> > varies between 'c' at the weak-field limit and increases to infinity at
the
> > strong-field limit.)
>
> That's not true, gravitational waves propagate at c, no matter how strong
> they are. Please don't tell me that you're still trying to tell Steve
> Carlip what he "really meant" in his Speed of Gravity paper.
I don't think even Steve will disagree that the point of his paper was that
the speed of gravity can be 'c', without any ill effects. Steve disagreed
with my taking his paper and demonstrating that Steve's logic applies to
other finite-speed theories -- not just GR. But here's Steve's conclusion:
"In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with
instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to
explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with
the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity."
> >> The constant G (or G/8pi) is merely a unit convention, relativists use
> >> G=1 all the time.
>
> > It is not just a unitary convention.
>
> Well, yes it is.
>
> G = 6.672 x 10^(-11) Nm^2/kg^2 = 66.72 pNm^2/kg^2
>
> Look at that, I just changed G by 11 orders of magnitude.
What a pathetic attempt. You didn't change G. By any chance were you in
charge of that Mars lander a couple of years ago? The 'values' were the
same. But one was in newtons and the other in pounds......
> > The units used for the symbols MUST
> > match some real-world system of measure when the mathematical scrawls
are
> > compared to reality.
>
> Sure, but the choice of units in the "mathematical scrawls" cannot affect
> the predictions. Hence the units are arbitary.
LOL! Tell that to the Mars lander!!!
> Hence G=1 (and c=1) is fine
> for understanding the important *physics* of GR.
But not for comparing to the real world.
> Like I said, the important *physical* result of the weak-field expansion
> of GR is that it shows that
>
> V(r) ~ 1/r
>
> the constant out front expresses the choice of units, it can be 10^{-11}
or 10
> or 1 or anything really. It's the 1/r part that's important.
The 'weak field' expansion also includes a finite 'c'. That's also
important, because it leads to the NNPA of Mercury.
> >> GR was not in any way "backfit" onto Newtonian gravity.
>
> > Well, at least you seem to accept that Einstein's 'relativity' was a
> > 'variation' on Newtonian 'relativity.'
>
> While I would call that a strong statement, it is a defensible position.
OK.
> The idea that time could be relative too was definately a big leap though.
> (Of course others had this idea too, not just Einstein).
Einstein's redefinition of time (to 'common time') and space is unavoidable
after his tying the motion to observers, then creating his synchronization
procedure. The function of Einstein's 'synchronization' procedure is to
shield the assumption that c = constant from disproof. Thus, it is not a
big leap. It is a crutch. And -- if Einstein was right about c=constant to
the observer -- it wouldn't really be necessary. 'Normal' synchronization
would work. And time and space would not be modified.
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:bgeqen$4af$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:bgbqel$3qh$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>>
>> [snip mangled stuff]
> 'Mangled stuff?' ;)
Yes, stuff pushed over an 80 character width, which my newsreader
renders in a most unpleasant way.
Restoring it is more trouble than it's worth, so I've snipped
it.
>> >> It's more than that, it's essentially wrong. The *important* thing
>> >> about
>> >> GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law in the weak field limit.
>>
>> > Plus a constant speed of gravity equal to 'c'.
>>
>> No. In the weak field limit, c doesn't enter into it.
> LOL! So sorry, but you are incorrect. In the weak field limit, the speed
> of gravity is 'c.'
You're thinking of the *next* term in the series. The lowest order effect
(i.e. a *really* weak field) gives the Newtonian theory, and nothing
else.
> The speed of gravity tends to infinity as the field
> approaches the strong limit. See Steve Carlip's paper,
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087.
This is untrue in GR. Nothing in Dr. Carlip's paper says that
the speed of gravity is infinite in the strong field limit.
From the final paragraph
"The Einstein Field Equations contain a single parameter c_g, which
describes both the speed of gravitational waves and the ``speed of
gravity'' occuring in the expression for abberation [...]."
and
"The success of the theory in explaining the orbital decay of binary
plusars implies that c_g=c at the 1% level or better."
>> Plus c=1.
> LOL! Whether you call it 3.0E8 mps or 3.0E10 cps or 1 light-unit it's the
> same thing.
My point exactly. The *physics* of GR/SR doesn't depend on what units you
use.
> A finite speed of gravity, intially determined by Paul Gerber,
> 17 years prior to Einstein.
Whatever. I'm not discussing history.
[snip]
>> That's not true, gravitational waves propagate at c, no matter how strong
>> they are. Please don't tell me that you're still trying to tell Steve
>> Carlip what he "really meant" in his Speed of Gravity paper.
> I don't think even Steve will disagree that the point of his paper was that
> the speed of gravity can be 'c', without any ill effects.
No. That's not the point. The point is in GR the speed of gravity is c and
that's it. How hard is that to understand? Read the final paragraph.
> Steve disagreed
> with my taking his paper and demonstrating that Steve's logic applies to
> other finite-speed theories -- not just GR. But here's Steve's conclusion:
> "In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with
> instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to
> explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with
> the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity."
I'm not disputing that. I'm addressing your claim that GR was "backfit"
onto Newton's theory. I have no problem believing that a different, *non-GR*
theory could explain some things.
>> >> The constant G (or G/8pi) is merely a unit convention, relativists use
>> >> G=1 all the time.
>>
>> > It is not just a unitary convention.
>>
>> Well, yes it is.
>>
>> G = 6.672 x 10^(-11) Nm^2/kg^2 = 66.72 pNm^2/kg^2
>>
>> Look at that, I just changed G by 11 orders of magnitude.
> What a pathetic attempt. You didn't change G.
Sure I did. What you really mean is that I didn't change the physics
which is my point. Einstein showed that his theory reduced to a
1/r potential, i.e. that it had the *SAME*PHYSICS* as Newton's. The
constant out front is just a choice of units, hence GR was not "backfit".
> By any chance were you in
> charge of that Mars lander a couple of years ago? The 'values' were the
> same. But one was in newtons and the other in pounds......
Okay, everybody has to use the same units. But you're missing the point.
Surely you're not claiming that the laws of physics were different
in the two different systems of units?
>> > The units used for the symbols MUST
>> > match some real-world system of measure when the mathematical scrawls
>> > are
>> > compared to reality.
>>
>> Sure, but the choice of units in the "mathematical scrawls" cannot affect
>> the predictions. Hence the units are arbitary.
> LOL! Tell that to the Mars lander!!!
*sigh* Tell me something, do you think that the choice of units affects
the fact that weak field GR reduces to a 1/r potential? Would you dispute
the fact that it's the 1/r part that's important, not the SPECIFIC numerical
value for G?
>> Hence G=1 (and c=1) is fine
>> for understanding the important *physics* of GR.
> But not for comparing to the real world.
Sure, if two groups use the same units.
>> Like I said, the important *physical* result of the weak-field expansion
>> of GR is that it shows that
>>
>> V(r) ~ 1/r
>>
>> the constant out front expresses the choice of units, it can be 10^{-11}
>> or 10
>> or 1 or anything really. It's the 1/r part that's important.
> The 'weak field' expansion also includes a finite 'c'. That's also
> important, because it leads to the NNPA of Mercury.
That's the first correction from GR. The leading term is Newton, and has
no c. Why do you think they call it the POST-newtonian approximation?
[snip stuff that has nothing to do with wether GR was "backfit" or not]
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:bgeqen$4af$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:bgbqel$3qh$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >>
> >> [snip mangled stuff]
>
> > 'Mangled stuff?' ;)
>
> Yes, stuff pushed over an 80 character width, which my newsreader
> renders in a most unpleasant way.
>
> Restoring it is more trouble than it's worth, so I've snipped
> it.
Not sure whose reader did that, but OK.
> >> >> It's more than that, it's essentially wrong. The *important* thing
> >> >> about
> >> >> GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law in the weak field
limit.
> >>
> >> > Plus a constant speed of gravity equal to 'c'.
> >>
> >> No. In the weak field limit, c doesn't enter into it.
>
> > LOL! So sorry, but you are incorrect. In the weak field limit, the
speed
> > of gravity is 'c.'
>
> You're thinking of the *next* term in the series. The lowest order effect
> (i.e. a *really* weak field) gives the Newtonian theory, and nothing
> else.
The 'weak limit' is as the field goes to zero (mass tends to zero). Not
'really, really zero.' It would be interesting to see the math that has a
speed of propagation 'c' as mass goes to zero .... but just before it gets
there it zooms to infinity (just like at 'infinite' mass).
> > The speed of gravity tends to infinity as the field
> > approaches the strong limit. See Steve Carlip's paper,
> > http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087.
>
> This is untrue in GR. Nothing in Dr. Carlip's paper says that
> the speed of gravity is infinite in the strong field limit.
You are correct that Dr. Carlip's paper does not refer to the strong limit
of GR. The reference to Dr. Carlip's paper was for the weak field limit
(which was much clearer before my paragraph was split.) You are incorrect
in claiming that the speed of gravity does not tend to infinity at
'infinite' mass.
> From the final paragraph
>
> "The Einstein Field Equations contain a single parameter c_g, which
> describes both the speed of gravitational waves and the ``speed of
> gravity'' occuring in the expression for abberation [...]."
>
> and
>
> "The success of the theory in explaining the orbital decay of binary
> plusars implies that c_g=c at the 1% level or better."
What's the point of this quote? It seems to support my point (c_g = 'c' in
the weak limit).
> >> Plus c=1.
>
> > LOL! Whether you call it 3.0E8 mps or 3.0E10 cps or 1 light-unit it's
the
> > same thing.
>
> My point exactly. The *physics* of GR/SR doesn't depend on what units you
> use.
??? That was my point. A unit change doesn't affect the physics. So your
'c=1' was amusing.
3.0E8 mps = 1 light-unit. Same speed.
> > A finite speed of gravity, intially determined by Paul Gerber,
> > 17 years prior to Einstein.
>
> Whatever. I'm not discussing history.
>
> [snip]
> >> That's not true, gravitational waves propagate at c, no matter how
strong
> >> they are. Please don't tell me that you're still trying to tell Steve
> >> Carlip what he "really meant" in his Speed of Gravity paper.
>
> > I don't think even Steve will disagree that the point of his paper was
that
> > the speed of gravity can be 'c', without any ill effects.
>
> No. That's not the point. The point is in GR the speed of gravity is c
and
> that's it. How hard is that to understand? Read the final paragraph.
Sigh. If the speed of gravity = c in GR (and 'that's it'), then the speed
of gravity is 'c' in the weak limit. NOT infinity.
> > Steve disagreed
> > with my taking his paper and demonstrating that Steve's logic applies to
> > other finite-speed theories -- not just GR. But here's Steve's
conclusion:
>
> > "In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent
with
> > instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to
> > explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent
with
> > the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity."
>
> I'm not disputing that. I'm addressing your claim that GR was "backfit"
> onto Newton's theory. I have no problem believing that a different,
> *non-GR* theory could explain some things.
Whoa! I think we've come 'round Robin Hood's barn, here.
The immediate point I was discussing was that general relativity contains a
finite speed of gravity -- even in the weak limit. Specifically, your claim
was:
"In the weak field limit, c doesn't enter into it."
Which you clarified as:
"You're thinking of the *next* term in the series. The lowest order effect
(i.e. a *really* weak field) gives the Newtonian theory, and nothing else."
I.O.W. an essentially infinite speed of gravity. Are we confusing each
other?
> >> >> The constant G (or G/8pi) is merely a unit convention, relativists
use
> >> >> G=1 all the time.
> >>
> >> > It is not just a unitary convention.
> >>
> >> Well, yes it is.
> >>
> >> G = 6.672 x 10^(-11) Nm^2/kg^2 = 66.72 pNm^2/kg^2
> >>
> >> Look at that, I just changed G by 11 orders of magnitude.
>
> > What a pathetic attempt. You didn't change G.
>
> Sure I did. What you really mean is that I didn't change the physics
> which is my point. Einstein showed that his theory reduced to a
> 1/r potential, i.e. that it had the *SAME*PHYSICS* as Newton's. The
> constant out front is just a choice of units, hence GR was not "backfit".
I think I see a glimmer of the misunderstanding. When I said "8 pi" was
selected, I meant that Einstein selected a constant that returned Newton's
equation (except for finite speed-of-gravity). I did not mean that he
selected a specific set of units.
> > By any chance were you in
> > charge of that Mars lander a couple of years ago? The 'values' were the
> > same. But one was in newtons and the other in pounds......
>
> Okay, everybody has to use the same units. But you're missing the point.
> Surely you're not claiming that the laws of physics were different
> in the two different systems of units?
No. I believe you misunderstood my use of the term '8 pi' (see above).
> >> > The units used for the symbols MUST
> >> > match some real-world system of measure when the mathematical scrawls
> >> > are
> >> > compared to reality.
> >>
> >> Sure, but the choice of units in the "mathematical scrawls" cannot
affect
> >> the predictions. Hence the units are arbitary.
>
> > LOL! Tell that to the Mars lander!!!
>
> *sigh* Tell me something, do you think that the choice of units affects
> the fact that weak field GR reduces to a 1/r potential? Would you dispute
> the fact that it's the 1/r part that's important, not the SPECIFIC
numerical
> value for G?
I consider the specific, experimental value (regardless of units used)
important. But the 1/r is only PART of the equation that I consider
important in the GR weak-field limit. The other part is the finite speed of
propagation.
> >> Hence G=1 (and c=1) is fine
> >> for understanding the important *physics* of GR.
>
> > But not for comparing to the real world.
>
> Sure, if two groups use the same units.
They can use different units -- so long as after a day the effect has
travelled 24 light-hours, 1 light-day, etc.
> >> Like I said, the important *physical* result of the weak-field
expansion
> >> of GR is that it shows that
> >>
> >> V(r) ~ 1/r
> >>
> >> the constant out front expresses the choice of units, it can be
10^{-11}
> >> or 10
> >> or 1 or anything really. It's the 1/r part that's important.
>
> > The 'weak field' expansion also includes a finite 'c'. That's also
> > important, because it leads to the NNPA of Mercury.
>
> That's the first correction from GR. The leading term is Newton, and has
> no c. Why do you think they call it the POST-newtonian approximation?
I'm not discussing the PPN or an 'approximation' to GR. I'm discussing the
theoretical weak-field limit of GR.
"Gerber was lucky enough to come up with the combination that, in
retrospect, we can recognize as the weak field approximation of general
relativity." *
*Quote from Dr. Steve Carlip
From: car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Date: 1998/05/26
Message-ID: <6kf4ll$hho$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
And Gerber -- of course -- had a finite speed of gravity. Which he
determined to be 'c'.
> [snip stuff that has nothing to do with wether GR was "backfit" or not]
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Tom Roberts
> If the speed of gravity = c in GR (and 'that's it'), then the speed
> of gravity is 'c' in the weak limit. NOT infinity.
This is not true. In order to obtain the Newtonian limit of GR, one must
have:
a) weak fields
b) velocities small compared to c
c) Newtonian-like coordinates
(b) is equivalent to taking the limit c->infinity.... That is, of
course, also the relationship between the Lorentz transform and the
Galilean transform....
Of course in our everyday lives, c is indistinguishable from
infinity. Newtonian mechanics was invented at a time when
everyday experience was all they had. GR's Newtonian limit
could not possibly reproduce this very accurately unless
it, too, had an infinite speed of light and of gravity.
[See my post in the thread "Einstein GR approximation" for
what I mean by "speed of gravity".]
An approximation to GR is not GR. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:bgjde9$n...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > If the speed of gravity = c in GR (and 'that's it'), then the speed
> > of gravity is 'c' in the weak limit. NOT infinity.
>
> This is not true. In order to obtain the Newtonian limit of GR, one must
> have:
> a) weak fields
> b) velocities small compared to c
> c) Newtonian-like coordinates
Nobody is talking about the 'Newtonian' approximation, Tom. We're
discussing the weak-field limit of GR.
> (b) is equivalent to taking the limit c->infinity.... That is, of
> course, also the relationship between the Lorentz transform and the
> Galilean transform....
>
> Of course in our everyday lives, c is indistinguishable from
> infinity.
In your life, maybe. It's very evident to those who work with telephony,
radar, GPS, piloting, computer hardware, travel, .....
> Newtonian mechanics was invented at a time when
> everyday experience was all they had.
Horsefeathers. The Greeks measured the circumference of the Earth (accurate
to within 10%) with a single straight stick.
> GR's Newtonian limit
> could not possibly reproduce this very accurately unless
> it, too, had an infinite speed of light and of gravity.
Horsefeathers again. All that was needed was that the speed of the planets
was significantly smaller than the speed of gravity.
> [See my post in the thread "Einstein GR approximation" for
> what I mean by "speed of gravity".]
And it was a pathetic game of counting angels on pinheads, there.
>
> An approximation to GR is not GR. <shrug>
Precisely my point. No one was talking about an approximation to GR. We
were discussing the weak-field limit (which is not an approximation).
Matthew Nobes
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:bgjde9$n...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>> greywolf42 wrote:
>> > If the speed of gravity = c in GR (and 'that's it'), then the speed
>> > of gravity is 'c' in the weak limit. NOT infinity.
>>
>> This is not true. In order to obtain the Newtonian limit of GR, one must
>> have:
>> a) weak fields
>> b) velocities small compared to c
>> c) Newtonian-like coordinates
> Nobody is talking about the 'Newtonian' approximation, Tom. We're
> discussing the weak-field limit of GR.
Umm, when you neglect *all* terms that go like 1/c they're one and the same.
That's the case *I* was talking about when disputing your claim that GR
was "backfit". I'll try to be really clear here,
*If* you *neglect* *all* terms that go like 1/c then GR reduces to a
*1/r* potential. Hence there is no "backfit" onto Newtonian gravity.
[snip]
> Precisely my point. No one was talking about an approximation to GR. We
> were discussing the weak-field limit (which is not an approximation).
Yes it is. You keep terms up to some power of 1/c and throw the rest
away. If you neglect *all* terms of order 1/c and higher you get
Newtonian gravity, hence there was no "backfit".
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgjde9$n...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >> greywolf42 wrote:
> >> > If the speed of gravity = c in GR (and 'that's it'), then the speed
> >> > of gravity is 'c' in the weak limit. NOT infinity.
> >>
> >> This is not true. In order to obtain the Newtonian limit of GR, one
must
> >> have:
> >> a) weak fields
> >> b) velocities small compared to c
> >> c) Newtonian-like coordinates
>
> > Nobody is talking about the 'Newtonian' approximation, Tom. We're
> > discussing the weak-field limit of GR.
>
> Umm, when you neglect *all* terms that go like 1/c they're one and the
same.
Well, yeah. When you neglect all the differences, they're the same. This
is supposed to be information?
> That's the case *I* was talking about when disputing your claim that GR
> was "backfit". I'll try to be really clear here,
I'm not sure what your point was, then. Why would you use an approximation
to GR to demonstrate a point about how GR was derived?
> *If* you *neglect* *all* terms that go like 1/c then GR reduces to a
> *1/r* potential. Hence there is no "backfit" onto Newtonian gravity.
But GR includes terms that 'go like' 1/c in the weak-field limit.
And the two sentences appear to be a non-sequiteur. How does the first
sentence have anything to do with the second sentence?
>
> [snip]
> > Precisely my point. No one was talking about an approximation to GR.
We
> > were discussing the weak-field limit (which is not an approximation).
>
> Yes it is.
The weak-field limit is NOT an 'approximation.' There is a fundamental
distinction between a limit and an approximation. A limit is 'really'
reached with all terms. An approximation simply ignores portions of the
theory.
> You keep terms up to some power of 1/c and throw the rest
> away. If you neglect *all* terms of order 1/c and higher you get
> Newtonian gravity, hence there was no "backfit".
And, again, the last two phrases appear to be a non-sequiteur. How does the
first phrase have anything to do with the second phrase?
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:bgma92$4ub$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bgjde9$n...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>> >> greywolf42 wrote:
>> >> > If the speed of gravity = c in GR (and 'that's it'), then the speed
>> >> > of gravity is 'c' in the weak limit. NOT infinity.
>> >>
>> >> This is not true. In order to obtain the Newtonian limit of GR, one
>> >> must
>> >> have:
>> >> a) weak fields
>> >> b) velocities small compared to c
>> >> c) Newtonian-like coordinates
>>
>> > Nobody is talking about the 'Newtonian' approximation, Tom. We're
>> > discussing the weak-field limit of GR.
>>
>> Umm, when you neglect *all* terms that go like 1/c they're one and the
> same.
> Well, yeah. When you neglect all the differences, they're the same. This
> is supposed to be information?
Okay, let me put it another way. I am talking about *THE*LIMIT*THAT*TOM*DESCRIBED.
In *THAT* limit, GR gives you a 1/r potential *uniquely* hence there was no
"backfit" onto Newton. A "backfit" onto Newton would have invovled tweaking some
arbitrary function of "r" to give you the 1/r. You do not need to do that in GR.
Is that 100% clear? Do you dispute that at all?
[snip the rest, which is a pointless diversion from the main issue]
Steve Carlip
[...]
> The weak-field limit is NOT an 'approximation.' There is a fundamental
> distinction between a limit and an approximation. A limit is 'really'
> reached with all terms. An approximation simply ignores portions of the
> theory.
With that terminology, the weak field limit *is* an approximation -- it's
obtained by explicitly throwing away terms that are quadratic and
higher in the deviation of the metric from the Minkowski metric. The
Newtonian approximation, on the other hand, is a limit -- see Frittelli
and Ruela, Commun. Math. Phys. 166 (1994) 221.
Steve Carlip
Old Physics
Esteemed Dr. Carlip,
If a massive shell of matter has the same gravity as a solid
sphere with the same number of atoms, would the collapse of the shell
result in an increase in mass, ie. the original mass plus the IR
radiation that results from the conversion of kenetic energy to heat?
Respectfully,
stephen kearney
greywolf42
> Is that 100% clear?
No, it is not. I'm still trying to understand why you want to use an
approximation to GR to demonstrate a point about how GR was derived.
> Do you dispute that at all?
Let me try one step at a time. The original point under discussion was your
dislike of my claim that Einstein 'backfit' the equations of GR onto
Newton's equation.
Your current line of reasoning started when you proffered the statement that
"The point is in GR the speed of gravity is c and that's it." I happen to
agree that the base speed of gravity in GR is 'c.' (We've found that we
disagree on what happens in the strong limit of GR -- but I believe that is
irrelevant to the subject under discussion.)
So, the base theory of GR -- as Einstein described it in "The Foundation of
the General Theory of Relativity", 1916 -- includes a speed of 'c' for the
speed of gravity.
Are we together on this first step?
> [snip the rest, which is a pointless diversion from the main issue]
If those statements were 'pointless diversions,' I'm curious why you
(Matthew and Tom) started them. But it really doesn't matter.
greywolf42
So, according to Steve, the "approximation" term used by Relativists is
really a "limit." And the "limit" term used by Relativists is really an
"approximation." If true, this would merely be another sloppy set of terms
by relativists. (Like "defining" the speed of gravity to be '1' unit ...
and then dropping the physical term from the equations.)
But 'approximation' and 'limit' are still not the same thing. I suspect
there is actually a misunderstanding on what constitutes 'GR,' versus what
constitutes a 'deviation' from GR. Or what constitutes a mathematical
procedure for approximating GR.
But next time I'm at the library, I'll see what the mathematical priests
have come up with this time.
Old Physics
My question maybe off thread, but it is not off topic. sk
Tom Roberts
> Nobody is talking about the 'Newtonian' approximation, Tom. We're
> discussing the weak-field limit of GR.
The disconnect here is that you seem to think that there is some sort of
"weak-field limit of GR" that is still GR. In the standard vocabulary of
physics, the phrase "weak-field limit of theory X" is shorthand for "an
APPROXIMATION to theory X in which one considers weak fields, and
neglects higher-order terms in a suitable expansion of theory X".
So the rest of us interpret the phrase "weak-field limit of GR" as an
approximation. What you are trying to say would more properly be
expressed as: GR applied to a weak-field situation.
GR applied to a weak-field situation has a "speed of gravity" equal to
c. Indeed, one need not limit oneself to weak fields....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Thomas Clarke
> GR applied to a weak-field situation has a "speed of gravity" equal to
> c. Indeed, one need not limit oneself to weak fields....
What about strong field solutions like the Alcubierre
"warp drive".
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
This seems like a situation governed by GR in
which there is a "wave" traveling faster than light.
Of course it requires "exotic matter" which may not exist,
or have a substitute,
so such faster than light "waves" may not exist.
greywolf42
Tom, thanks for your clarification, in that your use of the "weak field
limit" is actually a numerical approximation to GR, rather than GR itself.
We agree then, that in the 'weak field' situation/limit, the speed of
gravity in GR is 'c.'
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:bgosgp$hc5$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:bgma92$4ub$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> >> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:bgjde9$n...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is not true. In order to obtain the Newtonian limit of GR, one
>> >> >> must
>> >> >> have:
>> >> >> a) weak fields
>> >> >> b) velocities small compared to c
>> >> >> c) Newtonian-like coordinates
>> >>
>> >> > Nobody is talking about the 'Newtonian' approximation, Tom. We're
>> >> > discussing the weak-field limit of GR.
>> >>
>> >> Umm, when you neglect *all* terms that go like 1/c they're one and the
>> >> same.
>>
>> > Well, yeah. When you neglect all the differences, they're the same.
>> > This
>> > is supposed to be information?
>>
>> Okay, let me put it another way. I am talking about
>> *THE*LIMIT*THAT*TOM*DESCRIBED.
>> In *THAT* limit, GR gives you a 1/r potential *uniquely* hence there was
>> no "backfit" onto Newton. A "backfit" onto Newton would have invovled
>> tweaking some arbitrary function of "r" to give you the 1/r. You do not
>> need to do that in GR.
>> Is that 100% clear?
> No, it is not.
I didn't think it would be.
> I'm still trying to understand why you want to use an
> approximation to GR to demonstrate a point about how GR was derived.
I'm not. You seem to think that's what happened, but it isn't. Einstein
formulated GR. This theory contained two arbitrary constants c and G.
Now all these constants do is fix the units you're using. And they
are constant, so first he fixed c by demanding agreement with SR, and
then he fixed G by TAKING THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT, or to use his words
deriving "Newton's theory as a first approximation" (Principl of Relativity,
page 157). This is where he fixes the value of G (page 160).
As Tom Robert's pointed out calling this a limit versus an approximation
is a semantic quibble.
The MAIN point is that GR is ALREADY derived by page 157. Indeed the field
equations appear on page 144 and page 149 (for the matter free and matter cases
respectivly). Hence, there was no *BACKFIT* onto Newton (however you think it
was done). The theory is presented PIOR to the discussion of the Newtonian
limit.
>> Do you dispute that at all?
> Let me try one step at a time. The original point under discussion was your
> dislike of my claim that Einstein 'backfit' the equations of GR onto
> Newton's equation.
See above. If that's not clear, I don't know what will be.
[snip speed of gravity diversion]
>> [snip the rest, which is a pointless diversion from the main issue]
> If those statements were 'pointless diversions,' I'm curious why you
> (Matthew and Tom) started them. But it really doesn't matter.
*You* keep wanting to talk about the speed of gravity. And quibble
over the difference between a limit and an approximation (which
for working theorists is non-existent).
Steve Carlip
> Steve Carlip <car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:bgpkpn$8el$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > The weak-field limit is NOT an 'approximation.' There is a fundamental
>> > distinction between a limit and an approximation. A limit is 'really'
>> > reached with all terms. An approximation simply ignores portions of the
>> > theory.
>> With that terminology, the weak field limit *is* an approximation -- it's
>> obtained by explicitly throwing away terms that are quadratic and
>> higher in the deviation of the metric from the Minkowski metric. The
>> Newtonian approximation, on the other hand, is a limit -- see Frittelli
>> and Ruela, Commun. Math. Phys. 166 (1994) 221.
> So, according to Steve, the "approximation" term used by Relativists is
> really a "limit." And the "limit" term used by Relativists is really an
> "approximation." If true, this would merely be another sloppy set of terms
> by relativists.
I've checked a few of the standard texts to see how
they describe (1) weak fields and (2) Newtonian
gravity in general relativity.
Wald's textbook refers to the ``linear approximation''
and the ``Newtonian limit.'' Misner, Thorne, and
Wheeler use ``linearized theory of gravity'' and
``Newtonian limit.'' Weinberg says ``weak-field
approximation'' and ``Newtonian limit.'' Schutz
uses ``linearized theory'' and ``Newtonian limit.''
d'Inverno uses ``linearized approximation'' or
``linearized theory''; he also refers to the ``weak
field limit,'' but by that he means the Newtonian
limit. In his new textbook, Hartle uses ``linearized
theory'' and ``Newtonian limit.'' Carroll's book
isn't out yet, as far as I know, but his lecture notes
refer to ``the linearized field equations'' and ``the
Newtonian limit.'' Ohanian and Ruffini say ``linear
approximation'' and ``Newtonian limit.'' Hughston
and Tod use ``linearized approximation'' and ``slow
motion limit.'' My own book on (2+1)-dimensional
gravity doesn't use a phrase for the weak field
approximation, but writes the equations in a way
that explicitly shows what order is dropped; I say
``Newtonian limit.''
So who, exactly, are you complaining about?
Steve Carlip
Old Physics
Esteemed Dr. Carlip,
While my question is not relavent to this thread I would still
appreciate your answer. David Smith writes that the mass will
increase and Tom Roberts writes that the mass will be the same before
and after by Berkoff's theorem.
Steve Carlip
> If a massive shell of matter has the same gravity as a solid
> sphere with the same number of atoms, would the collapse of the shell
> result in an increase in mass,
Not according to general relativity. The gravitational field at a fixed
distance will remain he same, as long as you're looking at a point that
was always outside the shell and the collapse is spherically symmetric.
> ie. the original mass plus the IR
> radiation that results from the conversion of kenetic energy to heat?
If you want to think of it in these terms, the relevant energy you need
to look at is ``quasilocal energy,'' which includes a contribution
analogous to Newtonian gravitational potential energy. The change
in this potential energy piece balances the other energy changes;
the total quasilocal energy remains constant.
(Of course, some of the IR radiation you speak of will eventually
radiate out past the point at which you're measuring the
gravitational field. As that happens, the field at that point will
decrease.)
Steve Carlip
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>
>>GR applied to a weak-field situation has a "speed of gravity" equal to
>>c. Indeed, one need not limit oneself to weak fields....
>
> What about strong field solutions like the Alcubierre
> "warp drive".
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
The theory known as GR includes a requirement that energy density be
non-negative everywhere. Aclubierre is discussing an EXTENSION to GR.
That requirement is necessary to avoid closed timelike loops,
which would violate our common notions of causality. IOW:
generalizations of GR to permit closed timelike loops are
refuted by ordinary observations, unless such loops are
restricted to unobservable regions. For instance, I
believe that some approaches to quantum gravity permit
closed timelike loops at the Planck scale (which are
therefore unobservable, and useless for warp drives)....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
I was complaining about 'your' statement that relativists say 'limit' when
they really mean 'approximation'; and say 'approximation' when they really
mean 'limit.' I consider such use sloppy. I never mentioned 'linearized'
at all.
I'm not sure what your intent was by providing a shotgun listing of terms
and authors. But I do note that your own term usage is sloppy. You perform
an approximation, then drop terms and call it a 'limit.'
Which is merely more data that relativists tend to be sloppy. It's not
earth-shaking stuff. But it causes needless confusion when someone talks
about the weak-field 'limit' (meaning without approximations) and half the
readers assume that an approximation is being used.
greywolf42
Then you should have written more clearly.
> > I'm still trying to understand why you want to use an
> > approximation to GR to demonstrate a point about how GR was derived.
>
> I'm not.
But the issue you seem to want to discuss is whether or not Einstein
'backfit' GR onto Newton's equation in any manner. If this has no relation
to the speed of gravity, why are you insisting on discussing it?
> You seem to think that's what happened, but it isn't. Einstein
> formulated GR. This theory contained two arbitrary constants c and G.
The 'G' appeared after Einstein backfit his equations to Newton's equation,
yes. The 'c' was an arbitrary (though logical) selection of Einstein for
the finite speed of gravity.
> Now all these constants do is fix the units you're using.
You are incorrect. The equations stand regardless of the unitary system
that we're using.
> And they
> are constant, so first he fixed c by demanding agreement with SR,
And this is 'backfitting' to SR.
{#A}
> and
> then he fixed G by TAKING THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT, or to use his words
> deriving "Newton's theory as a first approximation" (Principl of
Relativity,
> page 157).
{Note to other readers: The 1952 Dover compendium of seminal works in
Relativity. The paper is Matthew is referring to is 'The Foundation of the
General Theory of Relativity,' Einstein, 1916}
> This is where he fixes the value of G (page 160).
> As Tom Robert's pointed out calling this a limit versus an approximation
> is a semantic quibble.
Thank you for proving my point. (That was a lot of effort for nothing.)
Einstein 'fixed G by taking the Newtonian limit' is a statement equivalent
to Einstein 'backfit his equation to Newton's equation.'
> The MAIN point is that GR is ALREADY derived by page 157.
'GR' was not complete on page 157. Some arbitrary mathematics with some
symbols had been created at this point. And the equations had specific
properties that Einstein postulated that the equations 'had to have.' It
was a superb effort in Platonic thought. However, none of the mathematics
could be matched to anything in the physical universe.
> Indeed the field
> equations appear on page 144 and page 149 (for the matter free and matter
cases
> respectivly). Hence, there was no *BACKFIT* onto Newton (however you
think it
> was done). The theory is presented PIOR to the discussion of the
Newtonian
> limit.
In order to compare his thought construction to reality, Einstein needed to
determine the values of various constants that existed in his equations. He
selected 'c' for the speed of gravity. He selected the Newtonian 'G' for
the gravitational constant. And he selected '0' for the cosmological
constant (at first).
One of the reasons that it took Einstein 'as long as' 1916 to finish GR is
that he insisted that his 'pretty' mathematics and principles match the
observed universe. He made several false starts (with mathematics similar
to, but slightly different from page 157) that he tossed out when he
couldn't make them match observation.
> >> Do you dispute that at all?
>
> > Let me try one step at a time. The original point under discussion was
your
> > dislike of my claim that Einstein 'backfit' the equations of GR onto
> > Newton's equation.
>
> See above. If that's not clear, I don't know what will be.
>
> [snip speed of gravity diversion]
???? I made no diversion.
> >> [snip the rest, which is a pointless diversion from the main issue]
>
> > If those statements were 'pointless diversions,' I'm curious why you
> > (Matthew and Tom) started them. But it really doesn't matter.
>
> *You* keep wanting to talk about the speed of gravity. And quibble
> over the difference between a limit and an approximation (which
> for working theorists is non-existent).
But *I* didn't start the quibble. Nor did *I* start the diversion into the
speed of gravity.
We were discussing your dislike of my use of the word 'backfit' for
Einstein's derivation of GR:
greywolf42 (7/31):
"Einstein found a mathematical set of equations that had the properties that
he desired. However, Einstein had to determine the constants of that
mathematics. All the math is is symbols. In order to determine one set of
boundary conditions, Einstein decided (wisely so) to make the weak-field
solution (almost) equal to Newton's gravitational equation. (That's the 8
pi part.) It was a very explicit backfit."
{see note #A, above, where -- except for using the words 'fixes the value of
G' instead of the word 'backfit' -- Matthew substantively agrees with my
original postion.}
Thomas Clarke joined in with some comments, and you replied to him that:
"The *important* thing about GR is that it reduces to an inverse square law
in the weak field limit."
To which I responded on 8/1:
"Plus a constant speed of gravity equal to 'c'.
Note, here, that *you* diverted into a general discussion about the
'importance' of GR and the weak field limit (approximation/solution) to GR.
*I* had left the issue of speed unmentioned {"(almost) equal"} since it was
not directly applicable to the source of "G". *You* then expanded the
discussion about GR in general reducing to an inverse square law. At which
point I felt that I had to correct you. GR differs from the Newtonian in
that GR has an explicit speed-of-gravity -- even for arbitrarily weak
fields.
Jeff Krimmel
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:bgu285$gjo$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
[...]
>> You seem to think that's what happened, but it isn't. Einstein
>> formulated GR. This theory contained two arbitrary constants c and G.
>
> The 'G' appeared after Einstein backfit his equations to Newton's equation,
> yes...
[...]
Wrong. Plainly and simply wrong. I don't know another way of saying this.
Either it is an intentional lie on your behalf, or you simply do not know
how the field equations were derived. Either way, it doesn't change the
fact that the above statement is simply one of the most blatant falsehoods
I have ever seen you utter.
Jeff
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:bgu285$gjo$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:bgosgp$hc5$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> >> Is that 100% clear?
>>
>> > No, it is not.
>>
>> I didn't think it would be.
> Then you should have written more clearly.
It's difficult, because you pretend to speak the langauge of physics,
yet see to desire engaging in semantic quibbles about what is a limit
versus an approximation.
>> > I'm still trying to understand why you want to use an
>> > approximation to GR to demonstrate a point about how GR was derived.
>>
>> I'm not.
> But the issue you seem to want to discuss is whether or not Einstein
> 'backfit' GR onto Newton's equation in any manner. If this has no relation
> to the speed of gravity, why are you insisting on discussing it?
I'm not. You keep saying it, not me.
>> You seem to think that's what happened, but it isn't. Einstein
>> formulated GR. This theory contained two arbitrary constants c and G.
> The 'G' appeared after Einstein backfit his equations to Newton's equation,
> yes. The 'c' was an arbitrary (though logical) selection of Einstein for
> the finite speed of gravity.
Both untrue. The G is there (kappa, in equation 53, page 149). The only thing
the Newtonian limit is used for is fixing a numerical value of G. Equation 53, BY ITSELF,
leads to equation 68, which is Newton's law of gravitation, dervied from GR. C is not
arbitrary, for if it were different than the speed of light the metric (4) (page 120) would
not be reproduced, hence SR would not be recovered.
It is worth stressing that *ANY* experiment could be used to fix the value of G. For example,
one could take equation 53 and derive the orbital decay formula for binary plusars, then
fit G to that. There is *no* logical need to use a Newtonian limit experiment. (This is
analogous to every other theory in physics, for example, in quantum electrodynamics there
are many different methods used to determine the charge of the electron).
>> Now all these constants do is fix the units you're using.
> You are incorrect.
Well, no, I'm not. All the constants do is fix the units.
> The equations stand regardless of the unitary system
> that we're using.
Yes, and the 1/r NEWTONIAN potential comes out of equation 53 the FULL FIELD EQUATON, sans backfit.
>> And they
>> are constant, so first he fixed c by demanding agreement with SR,
> And this is 'backfitting' to SR.
> {#A}
>> and
>> then he fixed G by TAKING THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT, or to use his words
>> deriving "Newton's theory as a first approximation" (Principl of
> Relativity,
>> page 157).
> {Note to other readers: The 1952 Dover compendium of seminal works in
> Relativity. The paper is Matthew is referring to is 'The Foundation of the
> General Theory of Relativity,' Einstein, 1916}
>> This is where he fixes the value of G (page 160).
>> As Tom Robert's pointed out calling this a limit versus an approximation
>> is a semantic quibble.
> Thank you for proving my point. (That was a lot of effort for nothing.)
> Einstein 'fixed G by taking the Newtonian limit' is a statement equivalent
> to Einstein 'backfit his equation to Newton's equation.'
This is what I dispute. It's not a backfit, it's simply fixing an unknown
constant. This has nothing to do with the derivation of GR.
>> The MAIN point is that GR is ALREADY derived by page 157.
> 'GR' was not complete on page 157.
This is untrue, the full field equations are there, no more needs doing.
> Some arbitrary mathematics with some
> symbols had been created at this point.
Untrue, all physical preditions of GR can be made starting with the equations
presented on page 157.
> And the equations had specific
> properties that Einstein postulated that the equations 'had to have.' It
> was a superb effort in Platonic thought. However, none of the mathematics
> could be matched to anything in the physical universe.
Untrue, yet again. I can take those equations, and derive all the physics of
GR from them. See the latter half of Misner Thorne and Wheeler for repeated
applications of this.
>> Indeed the field
>> equations appear on page 144 and page 149 (for the matter free and matter
>> cases
>> respectivly). Hence, there was no *BACKFIT* onto Newton (however you
>> think it
>> was done). The theory is presented PIOR to the discussion of the
>> Newtonian
>> limit.
> In order to compare his thought construction to reality, Einstein needed to
> determine the values of various constants that existed in his equations. He
> selected 'c' for the speed of gravity. He selected the Newtonian 'G' for
> the gravitational constant.
He didn't SELECT THEM. He matched them onto experiment. Just like you do
in electrodynamics, you devise an experiment to measure "e". Or in quantum
mechanics, with h. The THEORY is done as of the presentation of the field
equations.
The point is your "correction" is not germane to the issue at hand. It's a
totally irrelvent point. My only point is that GR is fully formulated by
the time one gets to the field equations. You DO NOT need to take the
Newtonian limit, it's just ONE way of fixing the constants, not the only
way. Hence to say GR was "backfit" onto Newton seems like, at best, a
bizzare way of putting it, or (more to the way I suspect you mean it) a
dishonest way of putting it, since it seems to imply that you somehow
need Newtonian mechanics to get to GR.
Old Physics
So when I lift my coffee cup from the table it has more mass, more
quasilocal energy, but is less time dilated?
BTW, a foil sphere a trillion LYrs in radius and about one gram
per square foot would have a mass of some 10^58 gms or about 10^25
times greater than the sun. It would constitute a black hole with an
event horizen of the same radius. Of course thats some sixty times
the present size of the universe thus far.
As a thought experiment, suppose you could gradually enlarge a
sphere made of Gailien chains (the massless variety). What geometric
changes would it undergo as it neared the size of the universe, would
its topology change?
I think this is a question that many in this group would like to
see answered by an expert in the field, like yourself.
Extreme thanks for your post, and for bringing it to my attention.
Stephen Kearney
greywolf42
Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.08.08....@hotmail.com...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:59:37 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:bgu285$gjo$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>
> [...]
>
> >> You seem to think that's what happened, but it isn't. Einstein
> >> formulated GR. This theory contained two arbitrary constants c and G.
> >
> > The 'G' appeared after Einstein backfit his equations to Newton's
equation,
> > yes...
>
> [...]
>
> Wrong. Plainly and simply wrong. I don't know another way of saying this.
That's because your claim is baseless. The mathematics existed as a 'free
creation', prior to page 157 (as noted by Matthew). On page 160 (as noted
by Mattew), Einstein backfit his equations to get the same answer as Newton.
> Either it is an intentional lie on your behalf, or you simply do not know
> how the field equations were derived.
If it's that blatant, it should be easy for you to specifically state why it
is 'plainly and simply wrong', instead of an ad hominem attack or a special
plead.
> Either way, it doesn't change the
> fact that the above statement is simply one of the most blatant falsehoods
> I have ever seen you utter.
If the statement that Einstein backfit his equations to match Newton's
equation in the weak limit is the 'most blatant falsehoods' I've ever
produced, then I can rest well at night. Because the statement is -- at
worst -- a poor choice of words.
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:bgu285$gjo$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:bgosgp$hc5$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >> >> Is that 100% clear?
> >>
> >> > No, it is not.
> >>
> >> I didn't think it would be.
>
> > Then you should have written more clearly.
>
> It's difficult, because you pretend to speak the langauge of physics,
> yet see to desire engaging in semantic quibbles about what is a limit
> versus an approximation.
That's why you snipped your own turbid statement. ;)
> >> > I'm still trying to understand why you want to use an
> >> > approximation to GR to demonstrate a point about how GR was derived.
> >>
> >> I'm not.
>
> > But the issue you seem to want to discuss is whether or not Einstein
> > 'backfit' GR onto Newton's equation in any manner. If this has no
relation
> > to the speed of gravity, why are you insisting on discussing it?
>
> I'm not. You keep saying it, not me.
> >> You seem to think that's what happened, but it isn't. Einstein
> >> formulated GR. This theory contained two arbitrary constants c and G.
>
> > The 'G' appeared after Einstein backfit his equations to Newton's
equation,
> > yes. The 'c' was an arbitrary (though logical) selection of Einstein
for
> > the finite speed of gravity.
>
> Both untrue. The G is there (kappa, in equation 53, page 149). The only
thing
> the Newtonian limit is used for is fixing a numerical value of G.
LOL! "G" is simply an unknown constant prior to the numerical value being
determined by backfitting to Newton's equation.
Equation 53, BY ITSELF,
> leads to equation 68, which is Newton's law of gravitation, dervied from
GR. C is not
> arbitrary, for if it were different than the speed of light the metric (4)
(page 120) would
> not be reproduced, hence SR would not be recovered.
Precisely my point. The speed of light is assumed to be the speed of
gravity. This is a backfit to SR. (Einstein assumes that GR will approach
SR.)
> It is worth stressing that *ANY* experiment could be used to fix the value
of G. For example,
> one could take equation 53 and derive the orbital decay formula for binary
plusars, then
> fit G to that.
Well, one *could* do that. But we are discussing what Einstein actually
*did.* Which was to make sure that GR reduced to the Newtonian static case
in a static situation.
> There is *no* logical need to use a Newtonian limit experiment.
This is a self-contradictory statement. The Newtonian limit is not an
experiment.
> (This is
> analogous to every other theory in physics, for example, in quantum
electrodynamics there
> are many different methods used to determine the charge of the electron).
Irrelevant. Though QED assumes the charge of the electron from outside the
theory. (Per renormalization)
> >> Now all these constants do is fix the units you're using.
>
> > You are incorrect.
>
> Well, no, I'm not. All the constants do is fix the units.
We can use any units we like. The physical speed is unchanged. But one
needs to tie that pretty math into the real world. And the physical *value*
of G is not dependent on the units we select to measure same. Unless you're
back to the Mars lander team.
> > The equations stand regardless of the unitary system
> > that we're using.
>
> Yes, and the 1/r NEWTONIAN potential comes out of equation 53 the FULL
FIELD EQUATON, sans backfit.
I'm not discussing just the mathematical form of the potential. I'm
discussing both the mathematical form (which Einstein required to match the
Newtonian form) and the determination of physical constants. Had Einstein
not recovered the Newtonian form in the weak field condition, he would have
tossed out his pretty equations (as he did many times prior to 1916) and
started over.
> >> And they
> >> are constant, so first he fixed c by demanding agreement with SR,
>
> > And this is 'backfitting' to SR.
>
> > {#A}
>
> >> and
> >> then he fixed G by TAKING THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT, or to use his words
> >> deriving "Newton's theory as a first approximation" (Principl of
> > Relativity,
> >> page 157).
>
> > {Note to other readers: The 1952 Dover compendium of seminal works in
> > Relativity. The paper is Matthew is referring to is 'The Foundation of
the
> > General Theory of Relativity,' Einstein, 1916}
>
> >> This is where he fixes the value of G (page 160).
> >> As Tom Robert's pointed out calling this a limit versus an
approximation
> >> is a semantic quibble.
>
> > Thank you for proving my point. (That was a lot of effort for nothing.)
> > Einstein 'fixed G by taking the Newtonian limit' is a statement
equivalent
> > to Einstein 'backfit his equation to Newton's equation.'
>
> This is what I dispute. It's not a backfit, it's simply fixing an unknown
> constant. This has nothing to do with the derivation of GR.
I say 'backfit', you say 'fixing an unknown constant'. We disagree on
terms. However, the determination of 'unknown constants' is very definitely
part of the derivation of 'GR'.
> >> The MAIN point is that GR is ALREADY derived by page 157.
>
> > 'GR' was not complete on page 157.
>
> This is untrue, the full field equations are there, no more needs doing.
Except for 'fixing the unknown constants.' :)
> > Some arbitrary mathematics with some
> > symbols had been created at this point.
>
> Untrue, all physical preditions of GR can be made starting with the
equations
> presented on page 157.
Except for actual values. :)
> > And the equations had specific
> > properties that Einstein postulated that the equations 'had to have.'
It
> > was a superb effort in Platonic thought. However, none of the
mathematics
> > could be matched to anything in the physical universe.
>
> Untrue, yet again. I can take those equations, and derive all the physics
of
> GR from them. See the latter half of Misner Thorne and Wheeler for
repeated
> applications of this.
MTW uses those constants that Einstein had to 'fix.'
> >> Indeed the field
> >> equations appear on page 144 and page 149 (for the matter free and
matter
> >> cases
> >> respectivly). Hence, there was no *BACKFIT* onto Newton (however you
> >> think it
> >> was done). The theory is presented PIOR to the discussion of the
> >> Newtonian
> >> limit.
>
> > In order to compare his thought construction to reality, Einstein needed
to
> > determine the values of various constants that existed in his equations.
He
> > selected 'c' for the speed of gravity. He selected the Newtonian 'G'
for
> > the gravitational constant.
>
> He didn't SELECT THEM. He matched them onto experiment.
You contradict your own quote and sources, above, at #A. Einstein backfit
to the Newtonian equation. He did not backfit to experiment. NEWTON
derived his equation based on Kepler's 'laws' and his own equations of
motion. KEPLER determined *his* 'laws' based on experiment. Einstein
didn't.
This is not a 'hit' against Einstein!
> Just like you do
> in electrodynamics, you devise an experiment to measure "e". Or in
quantum
> mechanics, with h. The THEORY is done as of the presentation of the field
> equations.
"e" was measured long before there were field equations. But Einstein
didn't compare to experiment, here. There's nothing wrong with that.
And your 'only point' is silly. GR is not fully formed until the constants
are determined.
> You DO NOT need to take the
> Newtonian limit, it's just ONE way of fixing the constants, not the only
> way.
But it is *the* way that Einstein used.
> Hence to say GR was "backfit" onto Newton seems like, at best, a
> bizzare way of putting it, or (more to the way I suspect you mean it) a
> dishonest way of putting it, since it seems to imply that you somehow
> need Newtonian mechanics to get to GR.
Well, yes, Newtonian mechanics are needed to get to GR (conservation of
energy and momentum). It in no way demeans Einstein's work to note that he
built on the foundations that others had laid. Without Tycho, no Kepler.
Without Kepler, no Newton. Without Newton, no Einstein. Welcome to science
and the advancement of knowledge.
Old Physics
Does anyone else want to "weigh in"? sk
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:bh11la$h0d$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>>
>> > Thank you for proving my point. (That was a lot of effort for nothing.)
>> > Einstein 'fixed G by taking the Newtonian limit' is a statement
>> > equivalent
>> > to Einstein 'backfit his equation to Newton's equation.'
>>
>> This is what I dispute. It's not a backfit, it's simply fixing an unknown
>> constant. This has nothing to do with the derivation of GR.
> I say 'backfit', you say 'fixing an unknown constant'. We disagree on
> terms.
And on the importance of fixing constants. You seem to regard fixing
a constant as "backfitting onto" an "equation". It's not. The *equation*
is V=1/r, that's the important part.
> However, the determination of 'unknown constants' is very definitely
> part of the derivation of 'GR'.
No it's not.
[snip most of the rest as it's just more of the same]
>> Hence to say GR was "backfit" onto Newton seems like, at best, a
>> bizzare way of putting it, or (more to the way I suspect you mean it) a
>> dishonest way of putting it, since it seems to imply that you somehow
>> need Newtonian mechanics to get to GR.
> Well, yes, Newtonian mechanics are needed to get to GR (conservation of
> energy and momentum).
Huh? Conservation of energy and momentum are concepts which are independant
of Newtonian mechanics. You don't need Newtonian mechanics to assume
them, all you need to assume is time and space translation invariance.
[snip]
Old Physics
greywolf42
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:bh11la$h0d$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >>
> >> > Thank you for proving my point. (That was a lot of effort for
nothing.)
> >> > Einstein 'fixed G by taking the Newtonian limit' is a statement
> >> > equivalent
> >> > to Einstein 'backfit his equation to Newton's equation.'
> >>
> >> This is what I dispute. It's not a backfit, it's simply fixing an
unknown
> >> constant. This has nothing to do with the derivation of GR.
>
> > I say 'backfit', you say 'fixing an unknown constant'. We disagree on
> > terms.
>
> And on the importance of fixing constants. You seem to regard fixing
> a constant as "backfitting onto" an "equation". It's not. The *equation*
> is V=1/r, that's the important part.
That is your opinion. But Einstein also threw out prior 'pretty' equations
becuase they didn't reduce to the form. When he found a method to return
the Newtonian equation, he also borrowed the Newtonian constant. Nothing
wrong with that.
> > However, the determination of 'unknown constants' is very definitely
> > part of the derivation of 'GR'.
>
> No it's not.
LOL! We differ in philosopy, it seems. You feel that as soon as one has
chicken tracks on paper, that one is 'done.' I feel that one needs to have
the constants determined -- so that one can compare to the real universe
before one is 'done.'
> [snip most of the rest as it's just more of the same]
>
> >> Hence to say GR was "backfit" onto Newton seems like, at best, a
> >> bizzare way of putting it, or (more to the way I suspect you mean it) a
> >> dishonest way of putting it, since it seems to imply that you somehow
> >> need Newtonian mechanics to get to GR.
>
> > Well, yes, Newtonian mechanics are needed to get to GR (conservation of
> > energy and momentum).
>
> Huh? Conservation of energy and momentum are concepts which are
> independant of Newtonian mechanics.
LOL!
> You don't need Newtonian mechanics to assume
> them, all you need to assume is time and space translation invariance.
If you assume time and space invariance, you have assumed energy and
momentum conservation. Energy and momentum conservation are ideas developed
by, for, and as a result of Newton mechanics. You may claim that you don't
*need* to derive them -- by elevating energy and momentum conservation to
additional 'principles.' But you should let people know when you do this.
> [snip]
Esuaceb14
against the force of gravity. This is easily seen if one converts the results
of measurement so that they are made with the same units of measurment (choose
one or the other elevations as a reference).
Don't get hung up with the conclusions of GR, their derivation contains a basic
mathematical error and is faulty. For more information see
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm . For response, E-mail
einste...@aol.com
Old Physics
Mr. Retic,
It seems that you and Dr. Carlip are in agreement on this point,
although he has not specifically answered this case. In the case of
the massive shell, he claims that the "quasilocal energy", newtonian
like potential energy, will be the same as the kenetic energy
released.
But this creates a paradox because he claims that the total mass
will not increase. So that if the shell colapses and the sphere loses
radient energy it will have less mass than it did before it was
raised, for the same number of atoms.
My own view is that gravitational potential energy does not have
mass but kenetic energy does, a raised cup has less mass. A shell
with the same number of atoms will have the same mass as a sphere but
when it colapses it will have that mass plus the mass of the radient
energy.
BTW, do you think space has a euclidean geometry? You have
published quite a tome and you accept an aether, what is its density?
Regards,
Stephen Kearney
Jim Jastrzebski
Message-id: <13fd3446.03081...@posting.google.com>
>
>In the case of the massive shell, he [Dr. Carlip] claims that the >"quasilocal
energy", newtonian
>like potential energy, will be the same as the kenetic energy
>released.
> But this creates a paradox because he claims that the total mass
>will not increase. So that if the shell colapses and the sphere loses
>radient energy it will have less mass than it did before it was
>raised, for the same number of atoms.
How it is a paradox? So far the total energy (together with
the radiated out) is the same. If nothing radiates out then
both masses (of the shell and of the sphere) are equal.
> My own view is that gravitational potential energy does not have
>mass but kenetic energy does, a raised cup has less mass. A shell
>with the same number of atoms will have the same mass as a sphere but
>when it colapses it will have that mass plus the mass of the radient
>energy.
It seems to me as exact equivalent of what Dr. Carlip says.
How is it different in your opinion?
When you say "gravitational potential energy does not have
mass but kenetic energy does" it is obviously true but only
because there is no such thing as "gravitational potential
energy" (if it existed it had mass of course since "mass"
and "energy" is the same thing, E=mc^2) in Einsteinian
world (a.k.a. real world).
When you lift your cup you move it into place where time
runs faster, and so speed of light is a little bit greater (from
your point of view, not form the point of view of the cup
of course), and so its internal energy (E=mc^2, from your
point of view) is a little bit greater. So you have to do work
that you can recover lowering the cup. No change in mass
needed (or happening).
Of course when you just let the cup go (not lowering it
slowly, recovering the energy) then its mass goes up
until the cup stops, and this will be the mass of the
kinetic energy. When you calculate everything carefully
you'll see that during the whole trip down of the cup its
mass increases as much as its kinetic energy (from
your point of view) increases but also c drops keeping
the total energy constant -- a very informative exercise,
with a few tricks however, so you might not get the right
result the first time, but just think harder and everything
will fall into place).
That's the whole mechanism corresponding to Newtonian
"potential energy". So as you can see there is no special
"gravitational energy" involved, only the properties of
spacetime, too subtle to notice, that simulate the
existence of "gravitational potential energy".
Similarly as other properties of spacetime simulate the
accelerating expansion of the universe. It turns out that
Einstein discovered more things that he is credited so
far by the contemporary scientists for.
-- Jim
Old Physics
Jim
Thank you for your informed and well written answer. I have a lot
of thinking to do.
There is something else I have a tough time with. Imagine a shell
about a LY in radius with a thickness of about 4000 miles and the
earth's density. Its total mass would be about three trillion times
the mass of the sun and it would constitute a black hole with the same
radius. The surface gravity if it were of uniform density within,
about a billionth the density of earth, would give it a surface
acceleration of 1G.
Because the mass is concentrated in a thin shell, would the
surface gravity be greater? What would the time dilation be at its
center, relative to a distant observer?
If the BH aspect complicates things, imagine it 2000 miles in
thickness.
With highest regards
Stephen Kearney
Old Physics
Esteemed Dr. Carlip,
In the simplest terms, did you not write that with "quasilocal
energy" added to the mass of the shell, it equals the mass of the
solid sphere plus the "energy mass" of the IR that is radiated. To
rephrase: "the mass of a shell with the same number of atoms at the
same temperature will be greater (when judged from a distance) than a
solid sphere".
If I have in anyway misinterpreted your statement, please correct
me.
Hopeing for an answer,
Stephen Kearney
Old Physics
Relativity posts no limit to the relative contraction- time
dilation an object can undergo. What would happen if two 10^57 GeV
protons were to collide? Would they form a BH? sk
Old Physics
The game should be "shoot this duck" not "duck this shot". sk
Old Physics
The game in this group is "duck the shot" not "shoot the duck"
tmunq
> So when I lift my coffee cup from the table it has more mass, more
> quasilocal energy, but is less time dilated?
> ...
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
First of all, it _takes_ energy to lift the cup of coffee. Then its
you doing the lifting, not the cup. Some of the chemical energy in
your muscles is used to raise the cup to higher potential, so to
speak.
Theoretically you lose some of your mass.
Ytitnedi
the lower or upper elevations, the mass increases in proportion to the enegy
used to raise the cup. See http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax.gravity.htm
for a complete and rigorous treatment of the subject.
E-mail einste...@aol.com
Old Physics
Ask a simple question, get no answer. sk
Old Physics
Does the mass you lose become added to the mass-gravity of the
cup?
In the shell versus solid scenario, I've been given two different
answers by Tom Roberts (Berkoff's theorem states the mass will be the
same), and Steve Carlip, If I interpet his answer correctly, who
claims that after the energy of collapse has escaped the solid will
have less mass than the shell.
My own guess is that from a distance they will have the same
mass-gravity but that near the shell it will have a greater gravity,
Maybe that is what Dr. Carlip means by quasilocal energy. But I have
simplified the question perhaps too much, since there will be
compression on the shell's atoms.
It turns out to be a complicated problem.
Stephen Kearney
Old Physics
Is gravity synonomous with mass? sk
tmunq
> > > ...
>
> > > So when I lift my coffee cup from the table it has more mass, more
> > > quasilocal energy, but is less time dilated?
>
> > > ...
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > First of all, it _takes_ energy to lift the cup of coffee. Then its
> > you doing the lifting, not the cup. Some of the chemical energy in
> > your muscles is used to raise the cup to higher potential, so to
> > speak.
> >
> > Theoretically you lose some of your mass.
>
> Does the mass you lose become added to the mass-gravity of the
> cup?
No. But if you let go of the cup and let it fall to where you lifted
it from, the mass of the cup will increase by what you lost, as it's
gains kinetic energy. This quasilocal energy isn't anything real. It
can in a way be seen as how much energy an object can gain.
Of course, the change of mass in these circumstances is like a million
times less than we can measure (just a guess) and then there is air
resistance and stuff. Using such an example is only good for teaching
the principles of relativity.
> In the shell versus solid scenario, I've been given two different
> answers by Tom Roberts (Berkoff's theorem states the mass will be the
> same), and Steve Carlip, If I interpet his answer correctly, who
> claims that after the energy of collapse has escaped the solid will
> have less mass than the shell.
> My own guess is that from a distance they will have the same
> mass-gravity but that near the shell it will have a greater gravity,
> Maybe that is what Dr. Carlip means by quasilocal energy. But I have
> simplified the question perhaps too much, since there will be
> compression on the shell's atoms.
> It turns out to be a complicated problem.
I don't know the full extent of your problem but this cup thing is
pretty simple.
>
> Stephen Kearney
Starblade Darksquall
Which is obvious, if anybody's ever done any sort of lifting exercizes.
After all, they lose mass too!
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Old Physics
> Because the mass is concentrated in a thin shell, would the
> surface gravity be greater? What would the time dilation be at its
> center, relative to a distant observer?
> If the BH aspect complicates things, imagine it 2000 miles in
> thickness.
>
> With highest regards
> Stephen Kearney
I would still like an answer. sk
Jim Jastrzebski
> There is something else I have a tough time with.
> Imagine a shell about a LY in radius with a thickness
> of about 4000 miles and the earth's density. Its
> total mass would be about three trillion times the
> mass of the sun and it would constitute a black hole
> with the same radius. The surface gravity if it were
> of uniform density within, about a billionth the
> density of earth, would give it a surface acceleration
> of 1g.
> Because the mass is concentrated in a thin shell,
> would the surface gravity be greater?
No. If the masses of a solid ball and a shell are
equal then the gravitational field outside them is the
same and so the "surface gravity" (acceleration) is
the same.
> What would the time dilation be at its
> center, relative to a distant observer?
The time dilation is changing with the distance to the
center as the "Newtonian potential" since the difference
in Newtonian potential between two points is just the
time dilation between those points multiplied by c^2
(with opposite sign, to be exact: when potential drops,
time dilation increases). So when the observer approaches
the surface from outside the time rate with respect to
the observer at infinity drops (time dilation increases)
as integral of "gravitational acceleration" (which is the
same as "gravitational potential"). You will have
the greatest acceleration at the surface of the shell,
and then it drops throughout the shell until it reaches
zero on the other side of the shell, inside it. So inside
the shell the "gravitational potential" is the same
everywhere and so the time runs inside the shell
everywhere at the same rate (the same dilation with
respect to the distant observer). I assume you know how
to calculate Newtonian gravitational potential.
> If the BH aspect complicates things, imagine it
> 2000 miles in thickness.
BH aspect complicates thing in the way that with
stronger fields you have to consider that not only
time dilation as relevant (as it is always where any
"gravitational acceleration" is felt) but also changes
in geometry of space become important since amount of
space increases at the same rate as time gets dilated
(the reason for it is that the nature can't make energy
from nothing and it would have to if it were otherwise
for certain rather complex reasons).
While we immediately detect time dilation feeling
"gravitational acceleration", the changes in amount of
space might be easily overlooked. E.g. at acceleration
1g the change of "gravitational potential" along distance
of 1 meter corresponds to about 9 m^2/s^2. Therefore it
corresponds to time dilation (divide by c^2) of about
10^(-16). And so it corresponds to the same change in
the amount of space (which simulates an effect of
rulers getting relatively "shorter" by this amount).
Such small change as 10^(-16) is hardly possible to
notice, while the same time dilation, by causing 1g
"gravitational acceleration" may be felt very easily
by an average human (as "acceleration" and not as
change in rate of time of course). For an average
photon, because of its speed, and so covering large
distances during its travel, both time dilation and
"length contraction" (in fact the increase in amount
of space which just looks like "contraction of the
rulers") is the same relevant and so a ray of light
bends twice as much while passing near the sun as our
imperfect Newtonian gravity could predicted. It is
because Newtonian gravity predicts only phenomena
caused by time dilation (and so corresponding to the
"gravitational acceleration"). And that's why your
questions might be answered easily just considering
the behavior of Newtonian potential.
It won't be that easy when geometry of space deviates
so much from flat space that it gets important which
might happen when you start messing with "strong
gravitational fields" (a.k.a. "BH"). But at 1g and human
distances it makes not much difference. When you
get to distances like 1 ly it might mess your
calculations because the relative error caused by the
space curvature is greater. So 2000 miles thick shell
is safer if you are interested just in the time dilation
for the time being.
-- Jim
Joe Fischer
: skea...@earthlink.net (Old Physics) wrote in message
:> Because the mass is concentrated in a thin shell,
:
: No. If the masses of a solid ball and a shell are
: equal then the gravitational field outside them is the
: same and so the "surface gravity" (acceleration) is
: the same.
You don't know that. It is possible the
method of using a Cavendish Balance will make it
appear that is true, but a Cavendish Balance
does not measure surface gravity.
And you won't find a hollow shell the size
of the Earth.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Jim Jastrzebski
>Message-id: <3f4d9...@news.iglou.com>
> And you won't find a hollow shell the size
>of the Earth.
The shell the OP asked about was of 1 ly radius
and it was about a gedanken experiment, not
about the earth.
-- Jim
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer grav...@shell1.iglou.com wrote:
:> And you won't find a hollow shell the size
:>of the Earth.
:
: The shell the OP asked about was of 1 ly radius
: and it was about a gedanken experiment, not
: about the earth.
But he was asking a question, you are representing
your statement as factual.
There is no way to do thought experiments that will
prove anything, and no way to predict what the facts will
be in grossly hypothetical and impossible situations.
Your answer is what Newtonian gravitation
predicts, which may or may not be correct in this
instance.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Jim Jastrzebski
>
> But he was asking a question, you are representing
>your statement as factual.
> There is no way to do thought experiments that will
>prove anything, and no way to predict what the facts will
>be in grossly hypothetical and impossible situations.
I hope he understood that I never experimented with an
empty shell of 1 ly radius so my answer is based on
some kind of theory (Einsteinian in this case or its
Newtonian approximation).
> Your answer is what Newtonian gravitation
>predicts, which may or may not be correct in this
>instance.
That's true but I told him also how curvature of space
may modify the results according to Einstein's theory.
It is not too easy to squeeze the whole knowledge
of Einsteinian gravity into a short answer to one
question so I didn't. I just tried to present the problem
for him to think about it on his own. I had an impression
that it is what he asked for and what he enjoys doing.
If I mislead him somehow about what Einsteinian
theory says about the subject then all the corrections
are welcome. I don't mind learning something new
myself. But I'm aware that empty shells of 1 ly radius
are rather rare in our universe and that they may
behave differently than we expect them to. Bringing
up this fact is not very informative IMHO. It would be
informative if you presented a different solution based
on the same theory (Einsteinian or Newtonian) and
told us why it should be any different. Just saying that
it might be different in the real world says nothing about
the theory except that it might be a wrong theory. This
we know but as long as it works we may use it.
Especially when there is no other working equally well.
-- Jim
Old Physics
Thank you for your defense of the question, Mr. Jastrzebski.
If Bilge were to answer the question he would probably point out
that the stresses on the shell that would cause it to collapse would
be part of SR-GR. My object in posing it is two fold. First it is
difficult for me to reconcile that the mass of say 10^22 suns would be
equal to a shell a billion LYs in diameter with a mass of about two
pounds per sq ft and a BH with an EH of the same diameter. It just
dosn't seem that time would stop there to an outside observer; it
would just proceed half as fast.
Second, it makes me wonder about the dynamics of quasars which are
believed to generate their light in an acreation disk around a BH with
a mass in the range of a hundred million suns. Could it be that part
of the redshift of quasars is from time dilation-gravity within this
region?
With greatest respect,
Stephen Kearney
Jim Jastrzebski
Message-id: <13fd3446.03082...@posting.google.com>
>
> Thank you for your defense of the question, Mr. Jastrzebski.
> If Bilge were to answer the question he would probably point out
>that the stresses on the shell that would cause it to collapse would
>be part of SR-GR. My object in posing it is two fold. First it is
>difficult for me to reconcile that the mass of say 10^22 suns would be
>equal to a shell a billion LYs in diameter with a mass of about two
>pounds per sq ft and a BH with an EH of the same diameter. It just
>dosn't seem that time would stop there to an outside observer; it
>would just proceed half as fast.
It is more complex than that.
Mass 10^22 suns is about everything that there is in the
universe. This matter if spread relatively uniformly throughout
the space makes the space bulging out everywhere about the same
and this bulging makes the space closed within itself similarly
like bulging of the earth surface makes the earth surface closed
within itself. So there can be no outside observer that could
look at it from outside. We can look at it only from inside.
While we don't have problems with imagining 2D curved surface
of the earth closed within itself it is rather tough to imagine
3D curved space closed within itself. That's why I wrote a whole
article about how we can imagine such thing without getting too
big a headache or even go crazy. It is in my "Einsteinian Gravity
for Poets and Science Teachers" in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/gravity.htm
in section about curved space. If you read it you may share with
me your impressions about style, clarity, possible errors, etc.
Result of all this is that the mass of those 10^22 suns (or any
mass spread uniformly throughout the space) would curve the space
of the universe so that it would be closed in itself (smaller
mass would result in greater radius of curvature according to
formula R=c/sqrt(4 pi G rho) where c is speed of light, G is
Newtonian gravitational constant, rho is density of space). So
formally it would be a BH since light (or anything else) could
never leave it. "Leaving it" wouldn't have any meaning neither
since there is no outside to this space. This is all what there
is: 10^22 suns floating in space that is closed within itself.
You don't need a shell just a space closed within itself. No
outside.
How much the time is dilated in this space while looked at by
the inside observers?
We may recall that there is a fixed relation between the
curvature of space and time dilation. Namely the relative
amount of one is equal to the relative amount of the other.
As I mentioned before this equal amounts are forced on the
universe by its inability to create energy from nothing
(a.k.a. "the principle of conservation of energy").
Mathematicians who call themselves "gravity physicists",
and consequently the astronomers who listen to them since
they can't handle relativity on their own, don't believe that
energy is conserved "in gravity" (actually they say as Bilge
does too, that they don't know what word "energy" means "in
gravity" and so they are not able to say whether it is
conserved or not). So they may have different ideas about the
relation between time dilation and curvature of space than
those expressed here. Actually, assuming that energy can be
created from nothing and destroyed to nothing, they enjoy a
lot of freedom in assuming how much energy may be created
legally form nothing and so for them there are no barriers in
their ideas about the universe.
Those who think that energy can't be created or destroyed
(as I do) don't have this freedom of thought and have to
follow physics that assumes strict conservation of energy
and everything what follows from it. One important result
is the mentioned equality of relative time dilation and
relative curvature of space ((@^2)T/@t@r + 1/R = 0, where
@ is partial, T is proper time, t is coordinate time, r is
coordinate distance, R is radius of curvature of space).
The above is of course not what standard (big bang) cosmology
assumes (since conservation of energy has been dropped from
standard cosmology) and so if you want to know the standard
cosmology's opinion about those things I'm not the proper
authority on this subject. I can only tell you what would
happen in a world in which energy is conserved. If you are
still interested then it would be the following:
When you look through this curved by the presence of matter
space, the farther you look along r the more time dilation
(dT/dt) you see (mathematically you just integrate the above
formula along r). Since you'll see time running slower the
farther you look you'll see also the spectra of galaxies at
those far away places shifted towards red. The astronomers
call the effect "Hubble's redshift" and think that it is
because those galaxies move away, and so they call "Hubble's
constant" the ratio of their alleged "speed of recession" to
the distance (presently about 70 km/s/Mpc).
I call this effect "general time dilation" since it is
always some amount of it in the space. The amount of this
shift per unit of distance from the above relation equals
1/R (so the value of Hubble's constant equals c/R). For the
observed Hubble's constant the radius of curvature of space
of the universe turns out to be R = ~4 Mpc and so it means
that the density of this space is about 6x10^(-27) kg/m^3.
Since this is well within estimates that astronomers do for
the density of the universe we don't need to believe the
astronomers that galaxies move away and instead we may stick
to the idea that energy is conserved. So we have time
dilation forced on the universe by the curvature of space
(and the mention inability of the universe to create energy
from nothing).
One more advantage of sticking to conservation of energy
rather than to the idea that the universe is expanding is
that since the above predicts exponential time dilation
with distance, it simulates not a simple uniform expansion
but accelerating one. Which is observed and for which the
official cosmology needs not only to suspend conservation
of energy but also invent some special forces accelerating
the alleged expansion ("Dark Energy"). But this is common
fate of silly theories: the more facts show up the more
silly the theory becomes until it collapses under the
weight of its own silliness. So we just need to wait for
more facts. BTW "anomalous" acceleration of space probes
Pioneer 10 and 11 is also on the side of conservation of
energy and numerical values fit within several percent.
So that's approximately the answer to your question about
the time dilation in a space containing 10^22 suns :-).
> Second, it makes me wonder about the dynamics of quasars
>which are believed to generate their light in an acreation disk
>around a BH with a mass in the range of a hundred million suns.
>Could it be that part of the redshift of quasars is from time
>dilation-gravity within this region?
What else do you think it could be? The only thing that
produces redshift (excluding recession of quasars for which
there is no evidence and even as Halton Arp maintains it is
contradicted by observations because of obvious bridges between
them and galaxies with much smaller redshifts) is time dilation.
However except the common (almost Newtonian) gravitational time
dilation (the one that equals Newtonian potential divided by
c^2) there is also, overlooked by astronomers, general time
dilation caused just by the conservation of energy in curved
space at conditions in which Newtonian potential may be zero.
It must have mislead astronomers into thinking that this
redshift (they call it "dynamical friction") is negligible and
they never bothered to calculate it. So the quasars' redshift
might be combination of those two, or even mostly this
neglected so far "general time dilation".
But it has to be analyzed rather by astronomers after they
give up Newtonian prejudices and understand how energy
is conserved in gravity and therefore why there has to be
this "general time dilation". Which won't be an easy project
while most of them think that energy can't be conserved
and moderators don't let to discuss the issue of
conservation considering it "too speculative".
Conservation of energy is "too speculative" for astronomers.
They would rather discuss "dark energy" and "repulsive
gravitational force" (the one that "accelerates" the
"expansion"). So we may need another century to get rid
of all those myths about the universe and to notice that
Einsteinian gravity explained all those things several
generations ago.
-- Jim
Old Physics
Quite a magnificent theory, Mr. Jastrzebski.
Your observation of quasars being associated with galaxies of
lower redshift is something that should have been a red flag long ago.
Has there ever been a statistical survey of the link? I know that
NGC 1073 is associated with no less than three quasars. It certainly
makes for frequent gravitational lensing, which observation of the
most redshifted quasars depends on (APM08279+5255 in Lynx for
example). Can quasars have the same optical displacement if they are
closer than believed?
By the term "@" did you mean partial "time"?
If energy is conserved, are you in agreement with cosmologists
that the universe will consume its supply of hydrogen and be doomed to
entrophy death? One of the freedoms they also have is that the
creation of mass in the BB dosn't have to be explained. How do you
explain it?
Thankyou for such an inspired post, my response dosn't do it
justice. I hope to try again as time allows.
With admiration,
Stephen Kearney
Jim Jastrzebski
>
<desccriprion of Einsteinian gravity by Jim removed for brevity>
>
> Quite a magnificent theory [...]
... and simple too. That's why some people call Einstein
a genius. But some others think that his theory is "too
simplistic" to be true and added to it the necessity of a
final collapse of the universe under the "force of gravity"
(that Einstein already eliminated from physics) and they
wonder why it does not show up in nature despite the
mathematical sophistication of their improved theory.
> Your observation of quasars being associated with galaxies of
>lower redshift is something that should have been a red flag long ago.
> Has there ever been a statistical survey of the link? I know that
>NGC 1073 is associated with no less than three quasars. It certainly
>makes for frequent gravitational lensing, which observation of the
>most redshifted quasars depends on (APM08279+5255 in Lynx for
>example). Can quasars have the same optical displacement if they are
>closer than believed?
I think this is what is observed. We just have to explain
the mechanism of their redshifts. And this doesn't seem
possible as long as astronomers believe that the only
redshift they may have is Doppler.
> By the term "@" did you mean partial "time"?
Yes, I used @ as "partial" (as some people do), sorry
I didn't tell it.
> If energy is conserved, are you in agreement with cosmologists
>that the universe will consume its supply of hydrogen and be
>doomed to entrophy death?
No. I think that there are processes that recycle the
matter. E.g. when two so called "black holes" (which
I rather call "nearly black holes") meet and are subject
to so called "tidal forces" it might cause an explosion
and supply the universe with new batch of hydrogen.
But this is just a thought that might be totally wrong
and the mechanism of matter recycling might be
different. We might need to think harder :-)
>One of the freedoms they also have is that the
>creation of mass in the BB dosn't have to be explained. How do you
>explain it?
Maybe, as e.g. also Carl Sagan proposed, this mass
has been here always?
-- Jim
> Stephen Kearney