Are relativists some kind of sect? Mathematical funambulism, systems of units, and Newtonian limit
Juan R.
I find really interesting how relativisits attack people who proves
that his relativity theory is not correct.
1) The first step is easy: to claim that you are claiming all the
contrary that you are really claiming.
2) The second step is negation: No, no, no, no.
3) The third is direct attack: cranck is the popular word... but there
is a large list available for the defense of the indefendible. A
popular way is stating that you are done a "beginner's mistake" (even
if the error is only in the head of the relativist).
4) If all of above fail and relativity theory is still in danger
(defcon 3 :-) then use the 'credentials step'. This consist on
popularize that guy who is discusing have no idea of the topic (even if
it is proven just the contrary with published references at hand).
5) Etc.
**********************************************
Next, i will cite a small resume of the real status of "the Newtonian
limit from GR". I use exclusively *relativistic* literature, since
often people misunderstand my writtings.
This 'resume' is especially devoted for smart relativistic guys with no
idea of the stuff. This is also devoted to any guy who arrogant
relativists called "cranck", his favourite word for people who do not
believe on mainstream derivations but verify if derivations are correct
or not.
>From John Baez webpage
(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html)
> The theorem stating that gtr does indeed go over to Newtonian gravitostatics
> in the very weak field, very slow motion limit is proven in detail in almost
> every gtr textbook.
SURE?
In his "A No-Nonsense Introduction to General Relativity" Sean M.
Carroll states
> We should ask for something more, however: namely, that Newtonian gravity is
> recovered in the appropriate limit, where the particles are moving
> slowly (with respect to the speed of light), the gravitational field is weak
> (can be considered a perturbation of flat space), and the field is also static
> (unchanging with time).
I find really interesting as Caroll agrees with me that in the very
weak field, very slow motion limit one does NOT find the correct
Newtonian limit. In fact, Carroll carefully adds "and the field is also
static (unchanging with time)." Great! from two restrictions on Baez
Page to three!
Then Carroll says
> We consider a metric which is almost Minkowski, but with a specific kind of small
> perturbation:
and writes a LINEAR metric (equation 62)
ds^2 = -(1 + 2 phi) dt^2 + (1 - 2 phi) dx^2
and next claim that has obtained Newton equation of motion a = -grad
(phi) (equation 63)
SURE?
>From Wald textbook (p78)
> but, strictly speaking, we went beyond the linear approximation to show this
> if one stays consistenly within the linear approximation, one predicts that test bodies
> are unaffected by gravity.
How can Carroll obtain a =/= 0 in the linear regime whereas Wald
explicitely obtain a = 0?
Then Wald explicitely states in page 78 that for obtaining a = -grad
(phi) one may "beyond the linear regime".
Then, one read an advanced (compared with textbooks) article by Schutz,
Bernard F. The Newtonian Limit (1984) Lecture Notes in Physics, 205,
367-391. In his page 368
> There is at least two reasons why the simple textbook extractions of the Newtonian
> limit are not rigorous".
But was not all cristal clear in textbooks?
Then one discover that The Newtonian limit may be obtained NOT in the
very weak field, very slow motion limit but on the c--> infinite limit.
SURE?
It is really interesting just compare relativistic literature.
In Astrophys.J. 442 (1995) 30-38 authors state
> Newtonian theory formally can be derived from the 1/c decomposition
> of the Einstein equations in the limit c --> infinite
Just in a recent published work (2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21
3251-3286)
One can read
> Sometimes, the Newtonian limit of general relativity is erroneously stated
> as if the speed of light c --> infinite but this is incorrect.
And the author claims the substitution (1/c) --> (epsilon/c) in GR
equations. and states that epsilon = 1 is Einstein GR and epsilon = 0
is Newton theory.
Whereas some great 'specialist' (really ignorant in those matters) has
done some 'jokes' on my attempt to obtain Newtonian gravity in a flat
spacetime. That 'specialist' wrote about me
> He also thinks that the Minkowski
> metric should apply even to Newtonian gravity (!).
I find curious as the author of above article (published in the leader
journal on classical gravity) writes
> The fiber epsilon = 0 is Minkowski space with a (non-degenerated) Newtonian limit.
I find really interesting this!
That is, each article, textbook, preprint, or online manual claim
completely different things and some 'specialists' still argue that
Newtonian limit is known for almost 90 years
:-)
********************************************************************
For those guys with a totally incorrect understanding of even the most
elementary material, specially that guy that still believes that
Minkoskian metric is (-1 +1 +1 +1) ONLY if one uses system of units
with c=1, i recomend reading of section
1.5. Notations and Conventions on (2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21
3251-3286)
> Four-dimensional coordinates on the space-time manifold are denoted as x^\alpha =
> (x^0, x^i) = (ct, x^i), where c is the speed of light. Roman indices run from 1 to 3 while
> Greek indices run from 0 to 3. Repeated indices assume the Einstein summation rule.
> Indices are rised and lowered with full metric g_{\alpha \beta}.
> The Minkowski metric of flat space-time is g_{\alpha \beta} = diag(-1,+1,+1,+1)
Note that in the article there is not use of a system of units with c=1
:-)
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
tensor
>
> I find really interesting how relativisits attack people who proves
> that his relativity theory is not correct.
no, you must admit that they attack people that does
pretend that they proves
give a link to your published accepted paper in pdf format,
then you may talk, otherwise shut the fuck up
Dirk Van de moortel
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:1131820698.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip rant]
In my old GR course notes (in Dutch - but I will translate the
quotes to English), I find a little section with the title:
"The Newtonian limit and the interpretation of the g_mu_nu".
After a short introduction about Newton's equation it says:
"... This interpretation [of the derivatives of the g_mu_nu]
can only be valid if for non-relativistic speeds and weak
gravitational fields the geodetic equations of motion reduce
to Newton's..."
It then starts using these restrictions up to the point where it
says:
"Since Newton's classical gravitational field is stationary,
i.o.w. independent of time, we suppose that ..."
So there you have it: two restrictions in the introduction,
and a third restriction in the body of the derivation.
Is that the kind of triviality that deprives you of your sleep?
Must be hell in there.
[snip remainder]
Dirk Vdm
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Juan R. wrote:
> I find really interesting how relativisits attack people who proves
> that his relativity theory is not correct.
>
> 1) The first step is easy: to claim that you are claiming all the
> contrary that you are really claiming.
>
> 2) The second step is negation: No, no, no, no.
>
> 3) The third is direct attack: cranck is the popular word...
The cranks here have three or more of the following faults:
1) They never admit to being wrong about anything they ever said --
ever!
2) They don't go over the detailed arguments their opponents give.
3) The don't utilize the reference material offered by the relativists.
4) They don't use relativity or physics terminology in a standard way.
5) They don't change their habits when 4) has been pointed out to them.
6) They don't know much physics, much less relativity
7) They often brag that they refuse to learn relativity.
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
> I find really interesting how relativisits attack people who proves
> that his relativity theory is not correct.
Go Go Gadget crank persecution complex!
>
> 1) The first step is easy: to claim that you are claiming all the
> contrary that you are really claiming.
Like where you claim the Christoffel connections for the linearized
limit are zero when some are obviously nonzero. It doesn't make any
sense, much like your first step.
>
> 2) The second step is negation: No, no, no, no.
That is what you did. You keep repeating "NO! It proves a=0!".
>
> 3) The third is direct attack: cranck is the popular word... but there
> is a large list available for the defense of the indefendible. A
> popular way is stating that you are done a "beginner's mistake" (even
> if the error is only in the head of the relativist).
...that is what you do, claiming the interpretations are the mistakes
of "undergraduates" or are otherwise some "beginner's" mistake.
>
> 4) If all of above fail and relativity theory is still in danger
> (defcon 3 :-) then use the 'credentials step'. This consist on
> popularize that guy who is discusing have no idea of the topic (even if
> it is proven just the contrary with published references at hand).
Which is also what you do: insult the education of those you are
arguing with.
>
> 5) Etc.
>
> **********************************************
>
> Next, i will cite a small resume of the real status of "the Newtonian
> limit from GR". I use exclusively *relativistic* literature, since
> often people misunderstand my writtings.
>
> This 'resume' is especially devoted for smart relativistic guys with no
> idea of the stuff. This is also devoted to any guy who arrogant
> relativists called "cranck", his favourite word for people who do not
> believe on mainstream derivations but verify if derivations are correct
> or not.
WHINEEEEEE
>
> >From John Baez webpage
> (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html)
>
> > The theorem stating that gtr does indeed go over to Newtonian gravitostatics
> > in the very weak field, very slow motion limit is proven in detail in almost
> > every gtr textbook.
>
> SURE?
>
> In his "A No-Nonsense Introduction to General Relativity" Sean M.
> Carroll states
>
> > We should ask for something more, however: namely, that Newtonian gravity is
> > recovered in the appropriate limit, where the particles are moving
> > slowly (with respect to the speed of light), the gravitational field is weak
> > (can be considered a perturbation of flat space), and the field is also static
> > (unchanging with time).
>
> I find really interesting as Caroll agrees with me that in the very
> weak field, very slow motion limit one does NOT find the correct
> Newtonian limit. In fact, Carroll carefully adds "and the field is also
> static (unchanging with time)." Great! from two restrictions on Baez
> Page to three!
Quoting out of context isn't gonna help you here. Especially if you
don't understand why the conditions are such as they are.
>
> Then Carroll says
>
> > We consider a metric which is almost Minkowski, but with a specific kind of small
> > perturbation:
>
> and writes a LINEAR metric (equation 62)
>
> ds^2 = -(1 + 2 phi) dt^2 + (1 - 2 phi) dx^2
It is actually ds^2 = -(1 + 2 phi) dt^2 + (1 - 2 phi) (d(x^i))^2,
i=1,2,3.
Where did your nigh-obsessive need for perfection go?
>
> and next claim that has obtained Newton equation of motion a = -grad
> (phi) (equation 63)
>
> SURE?
>
> >From Wald textbook (p78)
>
> > but, strictly speaking, we went beyond the linear approximation to show this
>
> > if one stays consistenly within the linear approximation, one predicts that test bodies
> > are unaffected by gravity.
>
> How can Carroll obtain a =/= 0 in the linear regime whereas Wald
> explicitely obtain a = 0?
Easy!
Wald DOESN'T obtain a=0. In fact, he obtains the same result as
Carroll. How could he do that?! IT IS A MYSTERY OF THE AGES!
>
> Then Wald explicitely states in page 78 that for obtaining a = -grad
> (phi) one may "beyond the linear regime".
He explained what he was doing. I am not going to retype it when you
could simply look at your copy.
>
> Then, one read an advanced (compared with textbooks) article by Schutz,
> Bernard F. The Newtonian Limit (1984) Lecture Notes in Physics, 205,
> 367-391. In his page 368
More of your "i'm a big boy! i can read advanced stuff!" nonsense.
>
> > There is at least two reasons why the simple textbook extractions of the Newtonian
> > limit are not rigorous".
>
> But was not all cristal clear in textbooks?
>
> Then one discover that The Newtonian limit may be obtained NOT in the
> very weak field, very slow motion limit but on the c--> infinite limit.
Shut the hell up, this has been explained to you multiple times by
myself and others.
You use a different definition of Newtonian than everyone else so it
should be no surprise that what GR texts derive is the standard
definition and not Juan R's particular flavor.
>
> SURE?
>
> It is really interesting just compare relativistic literature.
>
> In Astrophys.J. 442 (1995) 30-38 authors state
>
> > Newtonian theory formally can be derived from the 1/c decomposition
> > of the Einstein equations in the limit c --> infinite
>
> Just in a recent published work (2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21
> 3251-3286)
>
> One can read
>
> > Sometimes, the Newtonian limit of general relativity is erroneously stated
> > as if the speed of light c --> infinite but this is incorrect.
>
> And the author claims the substitution (1/c) --> (epsilon/c) in GR
> equations. and states that epsilon = 1 is Einstein GR and epsilon = 0
> is Newton theory.
Oops, there is professional disagreement. Well I bet *that* never
happenes in the center for CANONICAL SCIENCE! Nobody is ever wrong
there, right?
I don't see what you hope to accomplish by showing that some people
have different opinions. The people you are quoting aren't writing any
of the books you are complaining about.
>
> Whereas some great 'specialist' (really ignorant in those matters) has
> done some 'jokes' on my attempt to obtain Newtonian gravity in a flat
> spacetime. That 'specialist' wrote about me
>
> > He also thinks that the Minkowski
> > metric should apply even to Newtonian gravity (!).
That was Steve Carlip. I notice you didn't give a reply to what he
said.
>
> I find curious as the author of above article (published in the leader
> journal on classical gravity) writes
>
> > The fiber epsilon = 0 is Minkowski space with a (non-degenerated) Newtonian limit.
>
> I find really interesting this!
>
> That is, each article, textbook, preprint, or online manual claim
> completely different things and some 'specialists' still argue that
> Newtonian limit is known for almost 90 years
>
> :-)
You did no such thing. You take quotes out of context and pretend they
are showing a profession-wide lack of consensus about this.
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> For those guys with a totally incorrect understanding of even the most
> elementary material, specially that guy that still believes that
> Minkoskian metric is (-1 +1 +1 +1) ONLY if one uses system of units
> with c=1, i recomend reading of section
Oh fucking hell, this again?
This has been explained to you time and again...you just do not
understand units.
>
> 1.5. Notations and Conventions on (2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21
> 3251-3286)
>
> > Four-dimensional coordinates on the space-time manifold are denoted as x^\alpha =
> > (x^0, x^i) = (ct, x^i), where c is the speed of light. Roman indices run from 1 to 3 while
> > Greek indices run from 0 to 3. Repeated indices assume the Einstein summation rule.
> > Indices are rised and lowered with full metric g_{\alpha \beta}.
> > The Minkowski metric of flat space-time is g_{\alpha \beta} = diag(-1,+1,+1,+1)
>
> Note that in the article there is not use of a system of units with c=1
YES THEY DO, it is just so fucking obvious they don't feel they have to
explicitly state it.
Working in units of c=1 has been explained in the first chapters of
every GR text I have ever opened the cover of. If *YOU* can't
understand what is explicitly stated everywhere, I suggest you do
something else.
>
> :-)
hurr.
>
>
> Juan R.
>
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
I am going to agree with tensor when I say "shut the fuck up".
Repeating the same retarded ideas over and over while ignoring what
everyone is saying means you are a crank, no matter how often you
mis-spell crank or whine about how the "relativists" are persecuting
your idiotic point of view.
Eric Gisse
Eric Gisse wrote:
[snippy]
Correction, you did reply to steve carlip.
However, it was rife with your usual misunderstandings and pointlessly
pedantic bullshit about the 'island universe'.
Juan R.
Tensor,
I explained that in the non-relativistic limit one obtains a flat
spacetime and the curvature interpetation of GR break down.
Now an author has published a paper in Class and quantum gravity (2004)
claiming the same. I already cited :-)
Dirk Van de moortel,
Perhaps you would read the rest of the above post not just stop in the
part you was interested on :-)
4. surrealistic-dr...@hotmail.com,
thanks by your list
1) They never admit to being wrong about anything they ever said --
ever!
2) They don't go over the detailed arguments their opponents give.
3) The don't utilize the reference material offered by the relativists.
4) They don't use relativity or physics terminology in a standard way.
5) They don't change their habits when 4) has been pointed out to them.
6) They don't know much physics, much less relativity
7) They often brag that they refuse to learn relativity.
Now i can see that just some relativisits are cranks specially seing
that they refuse
1) They never admit to being wrong about anything they ever said --
ever!
2) They don't go over the detailed arguments their opponents give.
They newer offers a detailed arguments simply you may be wrong or
similar. Math and physics is lacking
3) The don't utilize the reference material offered by the relativists.
Even citing references (in his own literature: relativisitc journals)
where it is proven the same that i said people relativisits continue
ignoring.
Eric Gisse
Even Carlip proven that with my x^0 = ct the connection is zero. You
simply ignore the post. Morever above article proves one obtains flat
spacetime.
That is what you did. You keep repeating "NO! It proves a=0!".
Wald clearly states that in the linear regime a=0 simply read the page.
> 3) The third is direct attack: cranck is the popular word... but there
> is a large list available for the defense of the indefendible. A
> popular way is stating that you are done a "beginner's mistake" (even
> if the error is only in the head of the relativist).
...that is what you do, claiming the interpretations are the mistakes
of "undergraduates" or are otherwise some "beginner's" mistake.
Do you kow that even a 7-years opd guy was able to understand because
chossing (ct, x) spacetime the metric is (-1 +1 +1 +1).
Read Carroll again and read also above article.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:1131899690.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Dirk Van de moortel,
If you reply directly to my message, I will reply again
and I'll give you an exercise.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
Juan R. wrote:
[snip idiocy]
It is clear you have a learning disability or three.
I am not going to repeat the same points over and over, when I take
them from the very books and pages you are arguing about.
I'll reply to your individual points when you do two simple things:
1) Show some evidence of learning
and 2) Reply individually instead of as a group.
Juan R.
Dirk Van de moortel,
Above was a direct reply to you!!! I think that i would not waste a new
'enter' exclusively for you. The bits of HD are very expensive and one
may store only useful information (remember that we want save the
planet).
A half for your and other half for Eric is by now sufficient. However
if you write some ***interesting*** then i will devote an entire
personal reply for you. In fact, you even could print it and post in
your room for remember that by first time someone reply to you directly
P.S: when that happen note the day in the print copy :-)
*************
Eric Gisse,
Read above reply also, you may compart space with Dirk, sorry.
Unfortunately, you are unable to find posts, unable to read textbooks,
and unable to do simple computations. It is a pity because the rest of
your replies are always very interesting.
Do you know that a 7-year old guy was able to solve correctly the next
difficult problem?
ds^2 = g_{00} (dx^0)^2
ds^2 = -c^2 (dt)^2
If x^0 = ct
what is the value of g_{00} ?
He needed a bit of help from his mother because he was beggining to
learn that the operation "^2" means, but yes, the 7-years old guy was
able to understand that had not c^2 term in g_{00} in a few minutes.
The test was also passed by two guys working in TelePizza :-/
I think that some people would be interested that a 7-years old guy is
able to understand you are unable. That is not good for you.
However, you continue unable to read Carroll online manual. Do you
know? it is not a problem of units, it is a problem with your math.
Look! it is very 'easy'
If g_{00} = -c^2 as ***you*** claim.
and x^0 = ct (equation 2 on Carroll online manual)
then
ds^2 = -c^4 (dt)^2
:-)
About the rest of your ingenious post i can say
I-0
The course for 7-years old guys already began, but if you want i could
search a place for you :-)
Now they are learning the 'SQRT'
Dirk Van de moortel
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:1131961354....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel,
>
> Above was a direct reply to you!!!
You reply directly to the message or you don't reply.
Dirk Vdm
Juan R.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:1132055624.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Above was a direct reply to you!!!
To me and to the message.
Dirk Vdm
Juan R.
Dirk Van de moortel ha escrito:
But...