Change in meaning of "inertial motion" in Newton to Einstein

Jack Sarfatti wrote in message .com...
Inertial compensation in REST LIF? NO!
Inertial compensation in REST LNIF? YES!
[yup]

The NON GCT TENSOR "gauge transform" analogous to

Au - Au' = Au + Chi,u

in Maxwell's EM is precisely

{LC} = N - {LC}' = N' = XXXN + XY

where X is the GCT Jacobian matrix and Y is a partial derivative of X.

I can provide the indices but they are unwieldy.

Never saw tensor weight expressed in "X",
that's as good as any, looks a bit like DNA

Just as Au is not a U(1) tensor so also is {LC} not a GCT tensor.

Z's attempt to use Newtonian "inertial compensation" here is wrong. The
shift from Newton to Einstein is a profound change in the meaning of
"inertial motion" in which the idea of an objective Newtonian force of
gravity in an inertial frame is completely eliminated. Hence there is
nothing to compensate!


The inertial g-force, which is {LC}^i00, i = 1,2,3 in the REST LNIF of a
test particle not on a timelike geodesic acted on by a non-gravity force
is always caused by the latter. The inertial g-force indeed compensates
the non-gravity force in the REST LNIF. But that is not what Z proposes.
Z wants to compensate a gravity force in a REST LIF - a profoundly wrong
idea!


That is, Z proposes that in the REST LIF where {LC} = 0 that

{LC} = T + N = 0

T =/= 0

where T is a GCT tensor of rank 3.

Do not confuse this with torsion. Z is only talking 1916 GR.

This is profoundly wrong.

What is correct is that in the REST LNIF

{LC)^i00 + (External Non-Gravity Force)^i = 0

That is, the inertial g-force in the non-inertial frame exactly
compensates the non-gravity external force pushing the particle off a
timelike geodesic.

Agree much, however I stubbornly retain the geodesic

DU^u = 0 in the presence of an EM/Quantum variation

imposed on the classical *freefall* geodesic.

The Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is
firm, there in no negotiation. Let me state that very
clear. You can be in an FoR (aka CS) and read either
0.01 g's or a gazillion g's on an accelometer attached
to that FoR, and it wouldn't matter, because the laws
of physics apply to you no matter your acceleration,
one doesn't escape the universe.
Likewise, you are entitled to interprete the application
of those laws on your motion, including the accounting
on your accelometer, to be transformable, to any AND
all FoR's, (valid in the community of the defined
proper transform, restricting myself to tensors).

For example, here on surface of the Earth we are in a local non-inertial
frame (LNIF) from the electrical reaction forces and quantum Fermi-Dirac
pressure of the rock on which we stand. That's why we feel weight.


Z's deep error is to apply "inertial compensation" not to the REST LNIF
of the test object where it does apply, to the REST LIF where it does
not apply.

Back to the connections and Stoke's theorem & Bohm-Aharonov Effect

The local vector potential U(1) EM connection Au is not a local
classical observable, but it is a nonlocal quantum observable because
from Stoke's theorem the closed loop line integral of Au is the magnetic
flux integral through the enclosed surface. From micro quantum mechanics
this causes a fringe shift in a double slit experiment with electrons
passing through a region free from magnetic field but with nonzero Au
connection field.

Similarly in general relativity, where the macro-quantum vacuum
coherence, which makes Einstein's cosmological constant near zero, is a
giant quantum wave, there will be an analogous "fringe shift"!

This might be a simpletons approach, but I characterise
the EM properties of the spacetime field to be translated
by the wave equation, (4th derivative)...

d^4/x^4(sin x) = sin(x)

OTOH, I characterise the g-field in spacetime by,

d(e^x)/dx = e^x

In each of the above, the curvature is *intrinsic*,
meaning it's true when infinitely integrated or
differentiated.
While we might see that an integal of length x,

$ x dx = x^2

generates a extra dimension, area, and so forth by
successive integration, we find the functions of
wave equation above, and the expontential to be
immune from this definition of dimensionality.

I'll even go so far as to say that a partial
dimensional generation along the lines of,

$...$ 0 dx = kx^n/gamma(n)
n

where n is continous does NOT affect the wave sinx,
nor the e^x, therefore in any dimension, (dimensional
covariance), we retain the invariance of sinx and e^x.
Those are independant of dimension.

From Stoke's theorem now in curved spacetime, the Riemann-Christoffel
tidal stretch-squeeze geodesic deviation curvature 4th rank GCT tensor
Ruvwl is the analog to the Fuv Maxwell field tensor. Ruvwl is the GCT
covariant curl of the Levi-Civita {LC}uvw connection just like Fuv is
the curl of Au.

Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has
physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface integral
in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology (independent of
metric)

I suppose you mean R^u_vwl has dim 1/Area, otherwise fine.

i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary of
a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of the
p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)

Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time.
This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the
"fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector parallel
transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary 2-surface
in curved spacetime?

If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry
phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric
engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3
comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.

A "Rip-Snorting" adventure...
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker says...

Agree much, however I stubbornly retain the geodesic

DU^u = 0 in the presence of an EM/Quantum variation

imposed on the classical *freefall* geodesic.

But that is incorrect.

The Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is
firm, there in no negotiation. Let me state that very
clear. You can be in an FoR (aka CS) and read either
0.01 g's or a gazillion g's on an accelometer attached
to that FoR, and it wouldn't matter, because the laws
of physics apply to you no matter your acceleration,
one doesn't escape the universe.

The laws are the same for a person accelerating at
a gazillion g's as for a person who is not accelerating,
but their physical situations are different. The difference
is reflected in the differing values for their acceleration
4-vectors.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Hi Daryl, this reply may look flaky, I'm learning
Google beta....

Ken S. Tucker says...
Agree much, however I stubbornly retain the geodesic
DU^u = 0 in the presence of an EM/Quantum variation
imposed on the classical *freefall* geodesic.

D:But that is incorrect.

Untrue, define non -vanishing force.

The Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is
firm, there in no negotiation. Let me state that very
clear. You can be in an FoR (aka CS) and read either
0.01 g's or a gazillion g's on an accelometer attached
to that FoR, and it wouldn't matter, because the laws
of physics apply to you no matter your acceleration,
one doesn't escape the universe.

D:The laws are the same for a person accelerating at
a gazillion g's as for a person who is not accelerating,
but their physical situations are different. The difference
is reflected in the differing values for their acceleration
4-vectors.

That's CS specific, DU^u =0 isn't.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
m...
Jack Sarfatti wrote in message
.com...
Inertial compensation in REST LIF? NO!
Inertial compensation in REST LNIF? YES!


The Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is
firm, there in no negotiation. Let me state that very
clear. You can be in an FoR (aka CS) and read either
0.01 g's or a gazillion g's on an accelometer attached
to that FoR, and it wouldn't matter, because the laws
of physics apply to you no matter your acceleration,
one doesn't escape the universe.


Really?

I read a nice poem the other day. Please give
me the physics or equation for it.

A simple sentence or emotion is beyond the
comprehension of physics and math. And it
always will be. And these things, such as ideas
or instincts, are far more defining properties
of our reality. Something as pedestrian as
a simple cloud, or a three body problem, is
beyond the grasp of your physics.

You'll 'complain' that this is irrelevant, but
in truth your answer to the things that /most/
define us is ...'you don't know'.

Your 'religion' is limited and empty.
btw, your universal laws and constants
evolve....adapt...CHANGE over time.
Nature...evolution.../Darwin/ defines the
physical universe, not the other way around.

Your science is still mired in the Dark Ages.


A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
Dept of Physics, Princeton University
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/...steinhardt.pdf
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/


Jonathan


"THEIR height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."


By E Dickinson


s




A "Rip-Snorting" adventure...
Ken S. Tucker

jonathan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
m...

The Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is
firm, there in no negotiation. Let me state that very
clear. You can be in an FoR (aka CS) and read either
0.01 g's or a gazillion g's on an accelometer attached
to that FoR, and it wouldn't matter, because the laws
of physics apply to you no matter your acceleration,
one doesn't escape the universe.


Really?

I read a nice poem the other day. Please give
me the physics or equation for it.

A simple sentence or emotion is beyond the
comprehension of physics and math. And it
always will be. And these things, such as ideas
or instincts, are far more defining properties
of our reality. Something as pedestrian as
a simple cloud, or a three body problem, is
beyond the grasp of your physics.

"I am the universe"

You'll 'complain' that this is irrelevant, but
in truth your answer to the things that /most/
define us is ...'you don't know'.
Your 'religion' is limited and empty.
btw, your universal laws and constants
evolve....adapt...CHANGE over time.
Nature...evolution.../Darwin/ defines the
physical universe, not the other way around.

Your science is still mired in the Dark Ages.

I'd like to believe that, let's not close the
patent office just yet, I'm currently designing
a multisized toilet seat, a little one for my
grand-daughter and a bigy for her grandmother.

A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
Dept of Physics, Princeton University
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/...steinhardt.pdf
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

Jonathan

Ok,
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ps.com...

jonathan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
m...

The Principle of the General Theory of Relativity is
firm, there in no negotiation. Let me state that very
clear. You can be in an FoR (aka CS) and read either
0.01 g's or a gazillion g's on an accelometer attached
to that FoR, and it wouldn't matter, because the laws
of physics apply to you no matter your acceleration,
one doesn't escape the universe.


Really?

I read a nice poem the other day. Please give
me the physics or equation for it.

A simple sentence or emotion is beyond the
comprehension of physics and math. And it
always will be. And these things, such as ideas
or instincts, are far more defining properties
of our reality. Something as pedestrian as
a simple cloud, or a three body problem, is
beyond the grasp of your physics.

"I am the universe"

You'll 'complain' that this is irrelevant, but
in truth your answer to the things that /most/
define us is ...'you don't know'.
Your 'religion' is limited and empty.
btw, your universal laws and constants
evolve....adapt...CHANGE over time.
Nature...evolution.../Darwin/ defines the
physical universe, not the other way around.

Your science is still mired in the Dark Ages.

I'd like to believe that, let's not close the
patent office just yet, I'm currently designing
a multisized toilet seat, a little one for my
grand-daughter and a bigy for her grandmother.



I see that you'll have to wait for your granddaughter
to explain to you how the universe really works
....pity.

And the fact that a simple frame of reference
problem is the source of classical ignorance
makes this all the more tragic.


Jonathan

s




A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
Dept of Physics, Princeton University
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/...steinhardt.pdf
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

Jonathan

Ok,
Ken

jonathan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ps.com...

"I am the universe"

I see that you'll have to wait for your granddaughter
to explain to you how the universe really works
...pity.

And the fact that a simple frame of reference
problem is the source of classical ignorance
makes this all the more tragic.
Jonathan

"I am the universe"

Is GR in your poetry, it's true for all, I was
hoping you might have thought that through for
yourself.

BTW Jonathan, how fast are you moving and how
fast are you accelerating?
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
oups.com...

jonathan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ps.com...

"I am the universe"

I see that you'll have to wait for your granddaughter
to explain to you how the universe really works
...pity.

And the fact that a simple frame of reference
problem is the source of classical ignorance
makes this all the more tragic.
Jonathan

"I am the universe"

Is GR in your poetry, it's true for all, I was
hoping you might have thought that through for
yourself.

BTW Jonathan, how fast are you moving and how
fast are you accelerating?
Ken

He sure isn't smoking the same **** you are.
Androcles.

Well he did a poetic thing, so how does one respond?
"I am the universe"
What universe will prevail upon your senses beyond
that one?
That's GR! Everybody has a different universe, and
even a termite has a universe.
I enjoy a philosophical to the precepts of GR, that's
ok. I think everyone will have one universe in their
existance, as a summation of experience in space
time and maybe a few more dimensions.

Furthermore, since all humans share one thing in
common, and that is, they each and only have one
universe relatively, then we are all relatively equal.

That statement is very important in the Consitution
of the United States, and I think it wise.

Take a retarded kid, he has one universe, take
a genious he has one universe. The number of
universes is invariant as intelligence varies, and
will always equal one, furthermore, the fathers's
of our consistution set forth a policy of equality,
by stating all men's (and later womens) universes
are equal.
In my mind the General Principle of Relativity,
is a practical way of underwriting democracy, and
I understood better the meaning of equality as I
came to appreciate GR.

So if Jonathan needs to fuse GR and poetry, with
something as precious as human rights, I'll help.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

[snip]

Take a retarded kid, he has one universe, take
a genious he has one universe. The number of
universes is invariant as intelligence varies, and
will always equal one, furthermore, the fathers's
of our consistution set forth a policy of equality,
by stating all men's (and later womens) universes
are equal.

Each of you obviously has a different concept of universe. FOr Tucker
it seems the world is a mind creation. For Androcles there is an
absolute, objective reality out there, independent of senses.

This the the oldest debate. Anything new?


In my mind the General Principle of Relativity,
is a practical way of underwriting democracy, and
I understood better the meaning of equality as I
came to appreciate GR.


You will understand the meaning of equality soon when by virtue of the
mandate for more opportunities for women in all fields, GR will have to
be abolished and physics returned to basic level hydraulic science and
particle collisions (corpusclarianism [?])so that women can get more
Ph.Ds in physics and get employed by universities to replace male
chauvinist bigs with beards smoking pipes who talk undemocratic tensors
few female understand.

So if Jonathan needs to fuse GR and poetry, with
something as precious as human rights, I'll help.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Sit down and try to be a yogi. According to your science it should be
possible to lift yourself along with your holly cow.

Mike