Static g-fields
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Atoms in molecules have to expand at bond when heated
Next: Is Gravitational Force Dependent on a Falling Object's Speed?
From: eric gisse on 13 Dec 2009 03:45 Ken S. Tucker wrote: > On Dec 12, 2:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> > The problem you (Grisse) and Roberts dismally >> >> >> > fail to realize is that the metric is an invented fantasy. >> >> > ... >> >> >> Let's try a simple exercise. What's a metric? Give the physical >> >> >> meaning of the construct. >> >> >> > Where does the 1/r in a Newtonian potential come from? >> >> >> Newtonian field equations. >> >> Now what's a metric? >> >> > Evidently Eric is down a pint of gobblygook, >> > Tom Roberts will top up his brain, Eric ask Tom. >> >> So you neither know what the metric is, or what the Newtonian field >> equations are. Nice. > > I KNOW POLACKS ARE DUMB. > Let's do a post for you. > Ken LET's NOT BUT SAY WE DID HURRRRRRR idiot
From: Ken S. Tucker on 14 Dec 2009 01:14 On Dec 7, 10:14 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 10:18 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > So far I have no way of generalizing a "static g-field". > At 1st strike, I find two physical instances of a "static" > g-field, where the g-potential relating two bodies with masses > M and m, remains constant, > 1) Circular orbit. > 2) m on the surface of M, such as we (m) sit in a chair. > > We can employ the geodesic as ref'd here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_the_geodesic_equations#The_geode... > > I'll write (in easy ascii) as, > > dU^a/ds = - {a,bc} U^a U^b , using the U^a = dx^a/ds. > > then I'll *specialize* the CS to a polar with x^1 being > our radius "r", and then set the condition, > (I'm using r as an index to indicate a CS specialized), > > dU^r /ds = 0 > > for a static field to be true in (1) and (2) above. > If that's ok, I'll display the RHS work, using, > > {a,bc} U^a U^b = 0 > > Regards > Ken S. Tucker A correction on indices above, dU^r/ds = - {r,ab} U^a U^b = 0 (AFAIK) in the two circumstances of the static g-field I suggested above. From my study, I think ambiguity does exist when dealing with 'nonorthogonal dynamic spacetime metrics' such as g_i0, wherein the g_i0 depend upon relativity as defined herein, http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf that intents to extending the ISU c=rt decision to modernize spacetime, that appears superficially consistent according to, http://physics.trak4.com/ The evolution of tensor calculus was straightforward and was applied multidimensionally to static geometry, specifically as a result of map survey's on a spherical Earth. Einstein and crew later - mainly successfully - based on Minkowski's spacetime, fused time into the metric, changing a static math to one that is dynamic, due to time inclusion. The move to a dynamic spacetime by AE et al, is (IMO) not well documented, so I posted some online articles on MST, based on the 1987 ISU definition of the meter. It goes deeper though, when rotations are considered, that rotations (as a current in a loop) reverses the antisymmetric of the g12 = -g21 in the field. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: Ken S. Tucker on 14 Dec 2009 15:01 I thought I should follow-up, with a primitive post, pardon my ramblings... On Dec 13, 11:22 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Dec 9, 1:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: .... > > So far I have no way of generalizing a "static g-field". > > At 1st strike, I find two physical instances of a "static" > > g-field, where the g-potential relating two bodies with masses > > M and m, remains constant, > > 1) Circular orbit. > > 2) m on the surface of M, such as we (m) sit in a chair. > > > We can employ the geodesic as ref'd here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_the_geodesic_equations#The_geode... > > > I'll write (in easy ascii) as, > > > dU^a/ds = - {a,bc} U^a U^b , using the U^a = dx^a/ds. > > > then I'll *specialize* the CS to a polar with x^1 being > > our radius "r", and then set the condition, > > (I'm using r as an index to indicate a CS specialized), > > > dU^r /ds = 0 > > > for a static field to be true in (1) and (2) above. > > If that's ok, I'll display the RHS work, using, > > > {a,bc} U^a U^b = 0 > > > Regards > > Ken S. Tucker > > A correction on indices above, > > dU^r/ds = - {r,ab} U^a U^b = 0 > > (AFAIK) in the two circumstances of the static g-field > I suggested above. > > From my study, I think ambiguity does exist when dealing with > 'nonorthogonal dynamic spacetime metrics' such as g_i0, wherein > the g_i0 depend upon relativity as defined herein, > > http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf > > that intents to extending the ISU c=r/t decision to modernize > spacetime, that appears superficially consistent according to, > > http://physics.trak4.com/ > > The evolution of tensor calculus was straightforward and was > applied multidimensionally to static geometry, specifically as > a result of map survey's on a spherical Earth. > Einstein and crew later - mainly successfully - based on > Minkowski's spacetime, fused time into the metric, changing > a static math to one that is dynamic, due to time inclusion. > > The move to a dynamic spacetime by AE et al, is (IMO) not > well documented, so I posted some online articles on MST, > based on the 1987 ISU definition of the meter. > > It goes deeper though, when rotations are considered, that > rotations (as a current in a loop) reverses the antisymmetric > of the g12 = -g21 in the field. I think most guys who have studied tensors calculus do certainly understand it as it was developed for static geometries, even in multidimensions, the math seems straightforward to me, and the usual common text book basically provides us with 3D static spatial. I'd like to suggest I find a deparature from a static tensor calculus when time is infused to form spacetime, and then the symbolic logic of tensors is applied directly therein. We may demark the math into static and dynamic tensor analysis, with the latter being the infusion of time as defined by relativity, via the inter-relation of the the speed of light, the second, and the meter. GR (and I'll add QT) has forced a mathematical condition onto the usual static tensor math such as we are unable to instantly know any finite part of the surface, but instead only know it by finite "c" translation of information and in physics, the relation of effects. For those reasons, I think we should set forth a definite "dynamic" tensor analysis. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: eric gisse on 14 Dec 2009 15:42 Ken S. Tucker wrote: [...] > I think most guys who have studied tensors calculus do > certainly understand it as it was developed for static > geometries, even in multidimensions, the math seems > straightforward to me, and the usual common text book > basically provides us with 3D static spatial. No it wasn't you blathering tool. It is staggering to see you endlessly mewl about metrics even though you can't even write down a working definition of a metric. [snip rest of idiocy]
From: Ken S. Tucker on 14 Dec 2009 23:05
On Dec 14, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > I thought I should follow-up, with a primitive post, > pardon my ramblings... > > On Dec 13, 11:22 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 9, 1:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > ... > > > So far I have no way of generalizing a "static g-field". > > > At 1st strike, I find two physical instances of a "static" > > > g-field, where the g-potential relating two bodies with masses > > > M and m, remains constant, > > > 1) Circular orbit. > > > 2) m on the surface of M, such as we (m) sit in a chair. > > > > We can employ the geodesic as ref'd here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_the_geodesic_equations#The_geode... > > > > I'll write (in easy ascii) as, > > > > dU^a/ds = - {a,bc} U^a U^b , using the U^a = dx^a/ds. > > > > then I'll *specialize* the CS to a polar with x^1 being > > > our radius "r", and then set the condition, > > > (I'm using r as an index to indicate a CS specialized), > > > > dU^r /ds = 0 > > > > for a static field to be true in (1) and (2) above. > > > If that's ok, I'll display the RHS work, using, > > > > {a,bc} U^a U^b = 0 > > > > Regards > > > Ken S. Tucker > > > A correction on indices above, > > > dU^r/ds = - {r,ab} U^a U^b = 0 > > > (AFAIK) in the two circumstances of the static g-field > > I suggested above. > > > From my study, I think ambiguity does exist when dealing with > > 'nonorthogonal dynamic spacetime metrics' such as g_i0, wherein > > the g_i0 depend upon relativity as defined herein, > > >http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf > > > that intents to extending the ISU c=r/t decision to modernize > > spacetime, that appears superficially consistent according to, > > >http://physics.trak4.com/ > > > The evolution of tensor calculus was straightforward and was > > applied multidimensionally to static geometry, specifically as > > a result of map survey's on a spherical Earth. > > Einstein and crew later - mainly successfully - based on > > Minkowski's spacetime, fused time into the metric, changing > > a static math to one that is dynamic, due to time inclusion. > > > The move to a dynamic spacetime by AE et al, is (IMO) not > > well documented, so I posted some online articles on MST, > > based on the 1987 ISU definition of the meter. > > > It goes deeper though, when rotations are considered, that > > rotations (as a current in a loop) reverses the antisymmetric > > of the g12 = -g21 in the field. > > I think most guys who have studied tensors calculus do > certainly understand it as it was developed for static > geometries, even in multidimensions, the math seems > straightforward to me, and the usual common text book > basically provides us with 3D static spatial. > > I'd like to suggest I find a deparature from a static tensor > calculus when time is infused to form spacetime, and then > the symbolic logic of tensors is applied directly therein. > > We may demark the math into static and dynamic tensor > analysis, with the latter being the infusion of time as > defined by relativity, via the inter-relation of the the speed > of light, the second, and the meter. > > GR (and I'll add QT) has forced a mathematical condition > onto the usual static tensor math such as we are unable > to instantly know any finite part of the surface, but instead > only know it by finite "c" translation of information and in > physics, the relation of effects. > > For those reasons, I think we should set forth a definite > "dynamic" tensor analysis. > > Regards > Ken S. Tucker |