## Re: What does it mean to accelerate?

Expand Messages
• Sent from my iPhone ... No one believes you. With that stupid remark everyone stops reading you. ... Sent from my iPhone On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Paul
Message 1 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack, I've studied Einstein, and believe me, Einstein was no "Einstein".

No one believes you. With that stupid remark everyone stops reading you.

Your position is hopeless. You are now forced to claim that the true values of the metric
gradients are always zero in GR regardless of the gravitational field and its sources. That

According to this view, changes in gravitational sources would have no effect on non-tidal
field strength. It's a completely nutty useless idea. It makes complete nonsense of the 1916
theory. In your model the actual field strength would always have to be exactly zero, regardless
of such changes in the matter distribution, unless there is at the same time a change in some
observer's frame of reference.

Nuts!

This is a good example of what I mean by "Alice-in-Wonderland physics". Make believe
physics. Suspension of disbelief.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- A. Einstein

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS Of course, in Newton's theory of gravity there is a "true" first order non-tidal field because the meanings of "inertial frame" and "true" differ essentially between Newton and Einstein.
"True" means tensor/spinor form-invariant (covariant) local laws (differential equations) with respect to a given group of physical frame transformations.

For Newton, perforce, Earth's surface is a Global Inertial Frame to a good approximation (small rotation) and

g = - GM(Earth)/r^2 = -dV/dr  for a freely falling test particle in conic section orbit

<mime-attachment.jpg>

V = -GM(Earth)/r

is in the Earth frame as a GIF

In Einstein's 1916 GR, Earth is a set of LNIFs, observers on antipodes of Earth accelerate away from each other at fixed separation in curved spacetime, and the freely falling test particle has zero "true" covariant acceleration even though its relative apparent kinetic acceleration is g. It is the Earth's rigid surface that accelerates differently in different locations yet remains rigid.

Zielinski and other amateur "philosophes" from Laputa ;-) fail to make this cognitive leap from Newton to Einstein.

On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.

I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.

Define "true".

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle. Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.

There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.

In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.

• Your remarks are increasingly crackpot and rational discussion with you on this monomania of yours is impossible. You completely distort my position defending
Message 2 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Your remarks are increasingly crackpot and rational discussion with you on this monomania of yours is impossible. You completely distort my position defending Einstein orthodoxy with increasingly bizarre attacks on him which remind me of Nazi Einstein-bashing in the 1930's.
You do not understand general relativity.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).
Because of *Einstein's* version of the equivalence principle.

Yes. Einstein is a genius. You are a crank from Laputa.
No, you are hopelessly naive.

You're where I was 35 years ago. Which was nowhere.

"He's a real nowhere man,
sitting in his nowhere land,
making all his nowhere plans
for nobody"

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.
OK, I'll have a look.

However, Hawking confesses to being an unreconstructed positivist.

Nothing wrong with that except to a metatheoretician with cognitive dysfunction.
As far as *you* can see.

This is another example of the *real* trouble with modern physics.

You claim to be a Bohmian realist, and yet you see nothing wrong with being an unreconstructed
positivist.

Yas, we have no bananas...

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.
Mathematically it is a perfectly meaningful question. That you would think otherwise is interesting.

Gibberish
The blinkering syndrome you are exhibiting so clearly *is* interesting Jack. It's worthy of study.

A Lakatosian study in *negative heuristic*.
You seem to be confusing mathematics with physics.

Look who's talking.
*I'm* talking, and I'm saying that when it comes to GR you evidently cannot separate purely mathematical issues
from questions of physical interpretation.

More "trouble with physics".
I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.
No more than Bohm's thesis in quantum physics is "not even wrong".

No comparison.
You are out to lunch Jack. Of course there is. Should be obvious.

You are just trying to disguise the fact that you are applying a double standard. But the
reality here is that you are simply inconsistent.

Why should anyone listen?

Define "true".
If you don't understand what I mean by the true value of the the derivatives of a tensor, then you don't
understand the mathematical concept of a covariant derivative. This is very serious Jack. This is a
serious blind spot in your understanding of the math.

Red herring.
When it comes to this topic you are a basket case. You seem proud of your mathematical ignorance. You
trumpet your naivete and confusion as some kind of deep insight.

How very Einstein 1905. When will you finally catch up with Einstein 1918 Jack?
The whole point of defining covariant derivatives of tensor field quantities is to separate the true first-
order differential variation from coordinate artifacts, which while they contribute to the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives do not reflect their "true" values.

That you even ask this question shows that you do not understand covariant derivatives, let alone the
concept of the "metric compatibility" of a covariant derivative.

Complete misrepresention of my idea.
Idea? You don't even have an idea! All you have is confusion.

You are asking me what it means mathematically to refer to the "true" value of a derivative of a tensor quantity.
The "covariant" in "covariant derivative" means that coordinate artifacts have been eliminated from the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives.
The covariant acceleration of the lnif is not zero.
Relative to the geodesics.

So now you want to use the geodesics as absolute standards of acceleration? And you call that "general relativity"?

You are tying yourself up in knots. Your position is completely incoherent. The head of a cat sewn onto the body
of a dog. An impossible chimera.
The covariant acceleration of the geodesic test particle is zero.
Taken relative to the test particle geodesic? Well DUH.

As usual your argumentation is completely circular and devoid of actual content.
Einstein's equivalence principle does not and cannot suspend theorems in abstract differential geometry.
Red herring from a crank.
No, someone who imagines that Einstein's equivalence principle can make the LC covariant derivative Ñg = 0
represent the actual value of the first-order differential variation of the metric g in Einstein's curved Riemannian
spacetime is a crank. A person who points out the obvious fallacy in such thinking is not a crank.
At this point i stop reading.
As you should until you've learned something about covariant derivatives of tensors vis a vis "metric compatibility".

Z.

Sent from my laptop.

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.
With regard to a Riemann metric -- any Riemann metric -- it means: free of coordinate artifacts.

So are you now saying that the "true" value of every partial derivative of every component g_uv of the
metric in the spacetime manifold of GR is always exactly zero?

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative
So the true values of the metric derivatives in the spacetime of GR are always exactly zero? And this mathematical
conclusion is based on the equivalence principle? Is that what you are saying?

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle.
The test particle accelerates relative to the earth due to gravitational attraction. Frame acceleration has nothing to do with that,
even in Einstein's theory of gravitation.
Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.
But I'm afraid the Riemannian model of 1916 GR doesn't support this interpretation of GR, precisely because the LC covariant derivative
of the metric Ñg = 0 is *not* (mathematically speaking) the "true" value of the metric gradient, contrary to what you claim above.
There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.
This is the orthodox view, but it is not actually supported by the math. The LC covariant derivative doesn't give you the true
mathematical value of the first-order differential variation of the metric along the manifold.

As I said, you seem to be confusing matters of physical interpretation with purely mathematical issues. In fact that seems to be
what "general relativity" is largely about.
In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words
These words were carefully chosen and each one has a precise and definite meaning.

You are trying to suppress certain features of the mathematical model in order to buttress Einstein's
concepts of "equivalence" and "general relativity". Unfortunately in order to do that you have to
commit a "category mistake".
without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.
The heuristic is obvious: the gravitational-inertial field of 1916 GR is a Lorentzian physical vacuum, and
the gravitational field of 1916 GR is a perturbation of the quiescent state of that physical vacuum
resulting from the presence of gravitating matter.

In this model inertia originates in the local interaction of moving matter with the physical vacuum -- and
not according to a hypothetical infinite-range instantaneous interaction with distant cosmic matter as
once supposed by Einstein, following Ernst Mach, but which Einstein later repudiated in the 1920 Leyden

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

• Although the laws of physics are of the same local form independent of the state of motion of the detector, nevertheless, the covariant 4- acceleration of an
Message 3 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Although the laws of physics are of the same local form independent of the state of motion of the detector, nevertheless, the covariant 4-acceleration of an observer at rest with the detector is unambiguous, i.e. either an accelerometer with register inertial g-force or not.

Einstein does mean Newton's "gravity field" as inertial g-force in most of his historical informal language.

Einstein's 1905 SR and his 1916 GR both require "covariance".

"Covariance" = form of local classical laws of nature independent of a group of motions G of detector.

Covariance alone is in a certain sense "empty" in that any theory can be made covariant with respect to some group of motions. There is the additional esthetic requirement of parsimony. However, there are also further physics constraints.

1) 1905 SR  and string theory's missing "organizing principle."

G(1905SR) = 10-parameter globally rigid universal Poincare group P10 of 4 space-time displacements and 6 space-time rotations. The latter gives the 6D Calabi-Yau space of "extra dimensions" (Kaluza-Klein) of superstring theory when locally gauged. Calabi-Yau space is simply the Kibble-Shipov torsion field with topological constraints imposed.

Noether's theorem gives 10 local and global conservation laws.

The extra physical condition is

c = speed of light in vacuum is an absolute invariant for all global inertial observers.

2) 1916 GR localize only the 4-parameter translation subgroup T4 of P10 to T4(x) to get curvature-only limit which cannot explain dark energy and dark matter.

i.e. G(1916GR) = T4(x)*SO1,3

SO1,3 is group of 3 rigid space rotations and 3 Lorentz boosts between zero g-force LIFs

Still have 4 local conservation laws of stress-energy current densities but no global conservation in general case.

The extra physical condition i.e. Equivalence Principle EP which means

there is no objectively real non-tidal gravitational field

i.e. g-force eliminated in a LIF

There is no local physically relevant difference between Newton's g-force and an inertial force.

Note, the detection of g-force always requires some non-gravity (primarily electromagnetic) force acting on the detector.

That is g-force is the signature of off-geodesic motion in which the LC covariant form of Newton's 2nd law is

c^2D^2(mx^u)/ds^2 = F^u

F^u = non-gravity applied force to test particle of rest mass m and position x^u

D^2/ds^2 = LC connection second order covariant derivative relative to invariant proper time ds/c on a timelike worldline

Note that in terms of Hamilton-Jacobi mechanics, 1916 GR is in the geometric optics limit of "rays," i.e. the quantum wave properties of the test particles and detectors are negligible in their diffraction effects that fuzz out the sharp light cone causal barriers to give "quantum" or "diffraction" gravity.

When the wavelengths of the real on-mass-shell test particles and detectors are comparable to the local radii of curvature then we need to add a macro-quantum vacuum OLDRO Bohm quantum potential to the local test particle Hamilton-Jacobi equation. This does not include nonlocal EPR quantum entanglements in the ambient virtual zero point vacuum fluctuation dark energy/matter stochastic noise fields and the entanglements between real test particles.

Therefore very long wave signals > 1AU near Earth will show large-scale "quantum gravity" diffractive distortions. That is periods > 8 minutes.

• typo ... should be Although the laws of physics are of the same local form independent of the state of motion of the detector, nevertheless, the covariant 4-
Message 4 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
typo
On Mar 1, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Although the laws of physics are of the same local form independent of the state of motion of the detector, nevertheless, the covariant 4-acceleration of an observer at rest with the detector is unambiguous, i.e. either an accelerometer with register inertial g-force or not.

should be

Although the laws of physics are of the same local form independent of the state of motion of the detector, nevertheless, the covariant 4-acceleration of an observer at rest with the detector is unambiguous, i.e. either an accelerometer will register inertial g-force or not.

• Draft 2 with pictures and new links On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: Commentary 1 ￼ ... http://www.westegg.com/einstein/ ... ￼
Message 5 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Draft 2 with pictures and new links

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Commentary 1

I am reading in Hawking's new edition of Einstein's writings "A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion" (2007).
http://www.westegg.com/einstein/

I will make some rambling comments on it now and then as I am also, because of the dark project of reverse engineering the Nazi WWII "flying saucer" R&D http://www.history.com/media.do?id=History_UFO_Files_Nazi_UFOS_SF&action=clip and also recent Russian work by Gennady Shipov http://www.tvzvezda.ru/?id=235335 Gennady as well as possible ET machines, re-reading "The Variational Principles of Mechanics" Cornelius Lanczos (1949),

http://www.atomicprecision.com/Other/Electrical%20Circuit%20Models%20of%20the%20Schodinger%20Equation.pdf
"The Application of Tensors to the Analysis of Rotating Electrical Machinery" (GE, 1942) and Arnold Sommerfeld's lectures particularly on electrodynamics. My Cornell Senior Tutor Hans Bethe
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/05/3.10.05/Bethe_memories.html

was a student of Sommerfeld's

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Sommerfeld.html
who was the "John Archibald Wheeler"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00EED81739F931A25750C0A9649C8B63

of his day in terms of the the number of important students.
Quotes are from Einstein in English translation.

Q1. Does gravity change the speed of light in vacuum?
A1. Depends how you measure it.  Because of the equivalence principle "our fundamental assumption" (more on it later) and when the effects of special relativity are small, i.e. v/c << 1 to the first-order approximation in the small dimensionless V(Newton)/c^2 : "if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places. This holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well."

Meaning of K: "In a homogeneous gravitational field (acceleration of gravity g) let there be a stationary system of coordinates K".

K is a GNIF and Einstein is using Newton's definition of "gravity field" in this 1911 paper. Now comes the kicker, i.e. the GPS condition showing that Tom Van Flandern's claim is wrong: "But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring time at a place which, relatively to the origin of coordinates, has the gravitational potential V, we must employ a clock which - when removed to the origin of coordinates -  goes (1 + V/c^2) times more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of coordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with gravitational potential V will be given by the relation

c = co(1 + V/c^2)

The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to the this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."

On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light - Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911

On Feb 29, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS Of course, in Newton's theory of gravity there is a "true" first order non-tidal field because the meanings of "inertial frame" and "true" differ essentially between Newton and Einstein.
"True" means tensor/spinor form-invariant (covariant) local laws (differential equations) with respect to a given group of physical frame transformations.

For Newton, perforce, Earth's surface is a Global Inertial Frame to a good approximation (small rotation) and

g = - GM(Earth)/r^2 = -dV/dr  for a freely falling test particle in conic section orbit

Baron Munchausen

V = -GM(Earth)/r

is in the Earth frame as a GIF

In Einstein's 1916 GR, Earth is a set of LNIFs, observers on antipodes of Earth accelerate away from each other at fixed separation in curved spacetime, and the freely falling test particle has zero "true" covariant acceleration even though its relative apparent kinetic acceleration is g. It is the Earth's rigid surface that accelerates differently in different locations yet remains rigid.

On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.

I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.

Define "true".

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle. Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.

There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.

In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.

• Commentary 2 excerpts from: The Foundation of The General Theory of Relativity A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916 1905 SR shares some common features
Message 6 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Commentary 2
excerpts from:
"The Foundation of The General Theory of Relativity" A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916
1905 SR shares some common features with the old mechanics of Galileo and Newton:
"If a system of co-ordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws also hold good in relation to any other system of co-ordinates K' moving in uniform translation relative to K. This postulate we call the 'special principle of relativity.'  The word 'special' is meant to intimate that the principle is restricted to the case when K' has a motion of uniform translation relative to K, but that the equivalence of K' and K does not extend to the case of non-uniform motion of K' relatively to K.

Thus the special theory of relativity does not depart from the classical mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but through the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, from which, in combination with the special principle of relativity, there follow, in the well known way, the relativity of simultaneity, the Lorentzian transformation, and the related laws for the behavior of moving bodies and clocks.

The modification to which the special theory of relativity has subjected the theory of space and time is indeed far reaching, but one important point has remained unaffected.

For the laws of geometry, even according to the special theory of relativity, are to be interpreted directly as laws relating to the possible relative positions of solid bodies at rest; and, in a more general way, the laws of kinematics are to be interpreted as laws, which describe the the relations of measuring bodies and clocks. To two selected material points of a stationary rigid body there always corresponds a distance of quite definite length, which is independent of the locality and orientation of the body, and is also independent of the time."

By Noether's theorem of 1918 after the above 1916 remark one immediately infers: local conservation of linear momentum current densities of the isolated rigid body from the above invariance under space displacements, i.e. "relative positions of solid bodies at rest;"  conservation of rotational angular momentum current densities from the orientation symmetry; and conservation of energy from the time displacement symmetry. What about the space-time rotations, AKA the "boosts" what is the conserved current density there?

The rigid body is here modeled as a localized classical field with a local stress-energy tensor Tuv at each point of it, what the above says mathematically is the vanishing of the ordinary 4-divergence

Tuv^,v(rigid body) = 0

,v is ordinary partial derivative

T00 = energy density current

For example

T00^,0 + T01^1 + T02^2 + T03^3 = 0

is the local conservation of field energy flow through a small 3D volume of the rigid body.

(we will come back to this in more detail in later commentaries, e.g. Feynman's Lectures on Physics Vol II)

Think about the physical meanings of

T10^,0 + T11^1 + T12^2 + T13^3 = 0

T20^,0 + T21^1 + T22^2 + T23^3 = 0

T30^,0 + T31^1 + T32^2 + T33^3 = 0

Note that the total energy of the here isolated rigid body is

E = space-integral of T00

with

dE/dt = 0

from the space integral of

T00^,0 + T01^1 + T02^2 + T03^3 = 0

i.e. space integral of T01^1 + T02^2 + T03^3  must vanish separately

this exists in 1905 SR, but need not exist in 1916 GR. Thus, Einstein writes:

"To two selected positions of the hands of a clock at rest relatively to the privileged system of reference there always corresponds an interval of time of a definite length, which is independent of place and time. We shall soon see that the general theory of relativity cannot adhere to this simple physical interpretation of space and time."

That is the gravitational red shift of signals in a gravitational field of varying potential (in the Newtonian limit for simplicity) is only one facet of the difficult issue of global conservation of total energy, total momentum etc even though there is local covariant conservation of the matter field sources of the non-localized vacuum gravitational field outside of its localized material sources.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
Date: March 1, 2008 5:36:28 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: The different meanings of Einstein's 1905 Special and 1916  General Relativity 1

Draft 2 with pictures and new links

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Commentary 1

I am reading in Hawking's new edition of Einstein's writings "A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion" (2007).
http://www.westegg.com/einstein/

I will make some rambling comments on it now and then as I am also, because of the dark project of reverse engineering the Nazi WWII "flying saucer" R&D http://www.history.com/media.do?id=History_UFO_Files_Nazi_UFOS_SF&action=clip and also recent Russian work by Gennady Shipov http://www.tvzvezda.ru/?id=235335 Gennady as well as possible ET machines, re-reading "The Variational Principles of Mechanics" Cornelius Lanczos (1949),

http://www.atomicprecision.com/Other/Electrical%20Circuit%20Models%20of%20the%20Schodinger%20Equation.pdf
"The Application of Tensors to the Analysis of Rotating Electrical Machinery" (GE, 1942) and Arnold Sommerfeld's lectures particularly on electrodynamics. My Cornell Senior Tutor Hans Bethe

was a student of Sommerfeld's

who was the "John Archibald Wheeler"

of his day in terms of the the number of important students.
Quotes are from Einstein in English translation.

Q1. Does gravity change the speed of light in vacuum?
A1. Depends how you measure it.  Because of the equivalence principle "our fundamental assumption" (more on it later) and when the effects of special relativity are small, i.e. v/c << 1 to the first-order approximation in the small dimensionless V(Newton)/c^2 : "if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places. This holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well."

Meaning of K: "In a homogeneous gravitational field (acceleration of gravity g) let there be a stationary system of coordinates K".

K is a GNIF and Einstein is using Newton's definition of "gravity field" in this 1911 paper. Now comes the kicker, i.e. the GPS condition showing that Tom Van Flandern's claim is wrong: "But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring time at a place which, relatively to the origin of coordinates, has the gravitational potential V, we must employ a clock which - when removed to the origin of coordinates -  goes (1 + V/c^2) times more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of coordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with gravitational potential V will be given by the relation

c = co(1 + V/c^2)

The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to the this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."

On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light - Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911

On Feb 29, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS Of course, in Newton's theory of gravity there is a "true" first order non-tidal field because the meanings of "inertial frame" and "true" differ essentially between Newton and Einstein.
"True" means tensor/spinor form-invariant (covariant) local laws (differential equations) with respect to a given group of physical frame transformations.

For Newton, perforce, Earth's surface is a Global Inertial Frame to a good approximation (small rotation) and

g = - GM(Earth)/r^2 = -dV/dr  for a freely falling test particle in conic section orbit

Baron Munchausen

V = -GM(Earth)/r

is in the Earth frame as a GIF

In Einstein's 1916 GR, Earth is a set of LNIFs, observers on antipodes of Earth accelerate away from each other at fixed separation in curved spacetime, and the freely falling test particle has zero "true" covariant acceleration even though its relative apparent kinetic acceleration is g. It is the Earth's rigid surface that accelerates differently in different locations yet remains rigid.

On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.

I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.

Define "true".

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle. Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.

There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.

In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.

• typo correction - missing commas in last message change to For example T00^,0 + T01^,1 + T02^,2 + T03^,3 = 0 is the local conservation of field energy flow
Message 7 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment
typo correction - missing commas in last message

change to

For example

T00^,0 + T01^,1 + T02^,2 + T03^,3 = 0

is the local conservation of field energy flow through a small 3D volume of the rigid body.

(we will come back to this in more detail in later commentaries, e.g. Feynman's Lectures on Physics Vol II)

Think about the physical meanings of

T10^,0 + T11^,1 + T12^,2 + T13^,3 = 0

T20^,0 + T21^,1 + T22^,2 + T23^,3 = 0

T30^,0 + T31^,1 + T32^,2 + T33^,3 = 0

also Tuv = Tvu

and as Lanczos shows special care must be taken to ensure the symmetry of the stress-energy tensor of the given matter field.
• ￼ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor ... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/stress.energy.html also
Message 8 of 18 , Mar 1, 2008
• 0 Attachment

General Relativity Tutorial - The Stress-Energy Tensor

John Baez

In local coordinates, the stress-energy tensor may be regarded as a 4x4 matrix Tab at each point of spacetime. This gadget is the thing that appears on the right side of Einstein's equation for general relativity:
Gab = Tab
(in nice units). The thing on the left is the Einstein tensor, which summarizes some information about spacetime curvature.
Ed Green asks: "What stress tensor?"
The stress-energy tensor, aka energy-momentum tensor, Tab, where a,b go from 0 to 3. This tells you everything about what energy and momentum are doing at your given point of spacetime, as follows:
Tab is the flow in the a direction of momentum in the b direction!
To understand this, remember that a,b=0,1,2,3 correspond to t,x,y, and z respectively. Also, remember that "energy" is the same as "momentum in the time direction", and that "density" is the same as "flow in the time direction". Thus the top row of the stress-energy tensor keeps track of the density of energy --- that's T00 --- and the density of momentum in the x,y, and z directions --- those are T01, T02, and T03 respectively. On the other hand, T10, T20, and T30 represent the flow of energy in the x, y and z directions, respectively. The other entries keep track of the flow of spatial momentum in various spatial directions. For example, T12 keeps track of the flow in the x direction of momentum in the y direction.
...
the stress-energy tensor is a basic gadget throughout physics, since we all want to know where energy and momentum are going and how much there is sitting around, right? But it's only in general relativity where the stress-energy tensor is sitting proudly on the right side of an equation, telling spacetime how to curve.
Michael Weiss elaborates:
"I remember one thing about Tij that puzzled me when I first encountered it, and the "aha" mental lightbulb that cleared things up.
Here's the puzzle: if Tij measures the amount of i-momentum being transferred in the j-direction, then how come Tij isn't identically zero in the rest frame of the fluid, when the momentum vanishes?
Let's polish off a couple of points quickly. As Bruce Scott points out [below], in general a fluid doesn't have a global rest frame. We can say we're just talking about an infinitesimal neighborhood of a point, or the special case of a motionless fluid.
Next, T00 is a special case. In the rest frame of the fluid, the velocity 4-vector of a fluid element is (E,0,0,0) -- you can make the vi components vanish for i=1,2,3 by picking the right frame of reference, but not the v0 component, aka the energy. (I'm being sloppy about the difference between tensors and tensor-densities, but let's ignore that. What's a determinant among friends?) So it's not surprising that T00 doesn't vanish, but why doesn't Tii vanish for i=1,2,3? (Once we've plopped ourselves down in the rest frame of the fluid, that is.)
Answer: think microscopically, and remember that T depends *quadratically* on v. Consider the yz-plane, for yucks. Particles of fluid constantly zip through this plane in all directions. If a particle with 4-vector (E, vx, vy, vz) passes across the plane, headed in the +x direction (i.e., vx>0), then it transfers a bit of vx momentum in that direction, and likewise vy momentum and vz momentum.
OK, now here's the kicker. If we look at the *average* transfer of vy and vz across the yz-plane, we get zero. That's because vx is uncorrelated with vy and vz, so the average of (vx.vy) is zero, ditto (vx.vz). (If we weren't sitting in the rest-frame of the fluid--- if we felt a breeze--- then this wouldn't necessarily be true.) But the average of (vx.vx) is positive, of course; it doesn't take much imagination to see why this represents the pressure."
Edward Green replies:
"Thank you for your answers! I still feel there must be something special about the top-row, though where it falls between the mathematics and the physics I couldn't say."
"The way you make the top row unique is to look at it in the rest frame of the thing whose stress tensor you're studying. For example, a dissipationless fluid has a stress tensor of
Tab = n e ua ub + p (gab + ua ub)
(n is the particle density in the fluid's rest frame, e is the thermal energy per particle, and p is the pressure), which looks a bit complicated. In fact, there is _nothing_ special about the top row of this if gab has time-space components (example: Kruskal coordinates for the black hole problem) and u is relativistic (especially if it has significant variation in any of the four coordinates). Note that the only physical requirement on u is that it must be a timelike _unit_ vector: ua ua = -1 (in units with c = 1).
But if you contract this with the fluid's velocity you get a peek at the fluid's rest frame:
- Tab ub = n e ua.
Now, that looks a lot more like an energy flux, doesn't it? It is in fact a four-vector. But what about the pressure? You can find the fluid's rest frame by transforming such that ua = (1,0,0,0). Note you have to do a local Lorentz transformation: one that is defined for the small neighborhood about a single point. This is because u for a fluid is itself a field variable. But in the local rest frame you find
Tab = diag ( ne, p, p, p ),
where "diag" denotes a diagonal matrix. The 00-component is the thermal energy density and the ii-components are the pressure (one assumes an isotropic pressure for a ideal fluid).
Note that "thermal energy" here includes rest energy.
Your question was actually aimed at distinguishing among the ii-components. This is, as you surmise, not possible without arbitrariness, unless there is a physical phenomenon (such as a local magnetic field; gee, isn't plasma physics nice :-] ) to show you the way.
..."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/stress.energy.html

also

http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/Sec12.html

On Mar 1, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Commentary 2
excerpts from:
"The Foundation of The General Theory of Relativity" A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916
1905 SR shares some common features with the old mechanics of Galileo and Newton:
"If a system of co-ordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws also hold good in relation to any other system of co-ordinates K' moving in uniform translation relative to K. This postulate we call the 'special principle of relativity.'  The word 'special' is meant to intimate that the principle is restricted to the case when K' has a motion of uniform translation relative to K, but that the equivalence of K' and K does not extend to the case of non-uniform motion of K' relatively to K.

Thus the special theory of relativity does not depart from the classical mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but through the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, from which, in combination with the special principle of relativity, there follow, in the well known way, the relativity of simultaneity, the Lorentzian transformation, and the related laws for the behavior of moving bodies and clocks.

The modification to which the special theory of relativity has subjected the theory of space and time is indeed far reaching, but one important point has remained unaffected.

For the laws of geometry, even according to the special theory of relativity, are to be interpreted directly as laws relating to the possible relative positions of solid bodies at rest; and, in a more general way, the laws of kinematics are to be interpreted as laws, which describe the the relations of measuring bodies and clocks. To two selected material points of a stationary rigid body there always corresponds a distance of quite definite length, which is independent of the locality and orientation of the body, and is also independent of the time."

By Noether's theorem of 1918 after the above 1916 remark one immediately infers: local conservation of linear momentum current densities of the isolated rigid body from the above invariance under space displacements, i.e. "relative positions of solid bodies at rest;"  conservation of rotational angular momentum current densities from the orientation symmetry; and conservation of energy from the time displacement symmetry. What about the space-time rotations, AKA the "boosts" what is the conserved current density there?

The rigid body is here modeled as a localized classical field with a local stress-energy tensor Tuv at each point of it, what the above says mathematically is the vanishing of the ordinary 4-divergence

Tuv^,v(rigid body) = 0

,v is ordinary partial derivative

T00 = energy density current

For example

T00^,0 + T01^1 + T02^2 + T03^3 = 0

is the local conservation of field energy flow through a small 3D volume of the rigid body.

(we will come back to this in more detail in later commentaries, e.g. Feynman's Lectures on Physics Vol II)

Think about the physical meanings of

T10^,0 + T11^1 + T12^2 + T13^3 = 0

T20^,0 + T21^1 + T22^2 + T23^3 = 0

T30^,0 + T31^1 + T32^2 + T33^3 = 0

Note that the total energy of the here isolated rigid body is

E = space-integral of T00

with

dE/dt = 0

from the space integral of

T00^,0 + T01^1 + T02^2 + T03^3 = 0

i.e. space integral of T01^1 + T02^2 + T03^3  must vanish separately

this exists in 1905 SR, but need not exist in 1916 GR. Thus, Einstein writes:

"To two selected positions of the hands of a clock at rest relatively to the privileged system of reference there always corresponds an interval of time of a definite length, which is independent of place and time. We shall soon see that the general theory of relativity cannot adhere to this simple physical interpretation of space and time."

That is the gravitational red shift of signals in a gravitational field of varying potential (in the Newtonian limit for simplicity) is only one facet of the difficult issue of global conservation of total energy, total momentum etc even though there is local covariant conservation of the matter field sources of the non-localized vacuum gravitational field outside of its localized material sources.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
Date: March 1, 2008 5:36:28 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: The different meanings of Einstein's 1905 Special and 1916  General Relativity 1

Draft 2 with pictures and new links

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Commentary 1

<einstein.010.png>

I am reading in Hawking's new edition of Einstein's writings "A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion" (2007).
http://www.westegg.com/einstein/

I will make some rambling comments on it now and then as I am also, because of the dark project of reverse engineering the Nazi WWII "flying saucer" R&D http://www.history.com/media.do?id=History_UFO_Files_Nazi_UFOS_SF&action=clip and also recent Russian work by Gennady Shipov http://www.tvzvezda.ru/?id=235335 Gennady as well as possible ET machines, re-reading "The Variational Principles of Mechanics" Cornelius Lanczos (1949),

http://www.atomicprecision.com/Other/Electrical%20Circuit%20Models%20of%20the%20Schodinger%20Equation.pdf
"The Application of Tensors to the Analysis of Rotating Electrical Machinery" (GE, 1942) and Arnold Sommerfeld's lectures particularly on electrodynamics. My Cornell Senior Tutor Hans Bethe
<Bethe-bike.jpg>

was a student of Sommerfeld's

<Sommerfeld.jpg>
who was the "John Archibald Wheeler"

<JAWheeler.jpg>

of his day in terms of the the number of important students.
Quotes are from Einstein in English translation.

Q1. Does gravity change the speed of light in vacuum?
A1. Depends how you measure it.  Because of the equivalence principle "our fundamental assumption" (more on it later) and when the effects of special relativity are small, i.e. v/c << 1 to the first-order approximation in the small dimensionless V(Newton)/c^2 : "if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places. This holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well."

Meaning of K: "In a homogeneous gravitational field (acceleration of gravity g) let there be a stationary system of coordinates K".

K is a GNIF and Einstein is using Newton's definition of "gravity field" in this 1911 paper. Now comes the kicker, i.e. the GPS condition showing that Tom Van Flandern's claim is wrong: "But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring time at a place which, relatively to the origin of coordinates, has the gravitational potential V, we must employ a clock which - when removed to the origin of coordinates -  goes (1 + V/c^2) times more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of coordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with gravitational potential V will be given by the relation

c = co(1 + V/c^2)

The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to the this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."

On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light - Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911

On Feb 29, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS Of course, in Newton's theory of gravity there is a "true" first order non-tidal field because the meanings of "inertial frame" and "true" differ essentially between Newton and Einstein.
"True" means tensor/spinor form-invariant (covariant) local laws (differential equations) with respect to a given group of physical frame transformations.

For Newton, perforce, Earth's surface is a Global Inertial Frame to a good approximation (small rotation) and

g = - GM(Earth)/r^2 = -dV/dr  for a freely falling test particle in conic section orbit

<unknown.jpg>
Baron Munchausen

V = -GM(Earth)/r

is in the Earth frame as a GIF

In Einstein's 1916 GR, Earth is a set of LNIFs, observers on antipodes of Earth accelerate away from each other at fixed separation in curved spacetime, and the freely falling test particle has zero "true" covariant acceleration even though its relative apparent kinetic acceleration is g. It is the Earth's rigid surface that accelerates differently in different locations yet remains rigid.

On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.

I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.

Define "true".

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle. Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.

There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.

In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.

• Everything you write below is a lie, propaganda A misrepresentation of the cited texts twisted to fit your monomania Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2008, at
Message 9 of 18 , Mar 2, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Everything you write below is a lie, propaganda
A misrepresentation of the  cited  texts twisted to fit your monomania

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Many of these "attacks on Einstein" were made by Einstein himself.

And there was Pauli.

And let's not forget Oppenheimer.

Were Pauli and Oppenheimer also "Nazi Einstein bashers"?

Jack, this shows desperation on your side. It betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your position

This is not about Einstein bashing, it's about naive positivist empiricism vs. critical realism.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Your remarks are increasingly crackpot and rational discussion with you on this monomania of yours is impossible. You completely distort my position defending Einstein orthodoxy with increasingly bizarre attacks on him which remind me of Nazi Einstein-bashing in the 1930's.
You do not understand general relativity.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).
Because of *Einstein's* version of the equivalence principle.

Yes. Einstein is a genius. You are a crank from Laputa.
No, you are hopelessly naive.

You're where I was 35 years ago. Which was nowhere.

"He's a real nowhere man,
sitting in his nowhere land,
making all his nowhere plans
for nobody"

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.
OK, I'll have a look.

However, Hawking confesses to being an unreconstructed positivist.

Nothing wrong with that except to a metatheoretician with cognitive dysfunction.
As far as *you* can see.

This is another example of the *real* trouble with modern physics.

You claim to be a Bohmian realist, and yet you see nothing wrong with being an unreconstructed
positivist.

Yas, we have no bananas...

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.
Mathematically it is a perfectly meaningful question. That you would think otherwise is interesting.

Gibberish
The blinkering syndrome you are exhibiting so clearly *is* interesting Jack. It's worthy of study.

A Lakatosian study in *negative heuristic*.
You seem to be confusing mathematics with physics.

Look who's talking.
*I'm* talking, and I'm saying that when it comes to GR you evidently cannot separate purely mathematical issues
from questions of physical interpretation.

More "trouble with physics".
I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.
No more than Bohm's thesis in quantum physics is "not even wrong".

No comparison.
You are out to lunch Jack. Of course there is. Should be obvious.

You are just trying to disguise the fact that you are applying a double standard. But the
reality here is that you are simply inconsistent.

Why should anyone listen?

Define "true".
If you don't understand what I mean by the true value of the the derivatives of a tensor, then you don't
understand the mathematical concept of a covariant derivative. This is very serious Jack. This is a
serious blind spot in your understanding of the math.

Red herring.
When it comes to this topic you are a basket case. You seem proud of your mathematical ignorance. You
trumpet your naivete and confusion as some kind of deep insight.

How very Einstein 1905. When will you finally catch up with Einstein 1918 Jack?
The whole point of defining covariant derivatives of tensor field quantities is to separate the true first-
order differential variation from coordinate artifacts, which while they contribute to the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives do not reflect their "true" values.

That you even ask this question shows that you do not understand covariant derivatives, let alone the
concept of the "metric compatibility" of a covariant derivative.

Complete misrepresention of my idea.
Idea? You don't even have an idea! All you have is confusion.

You are asking me what it means mathematically to refer to the "true" value of a derivative of a tensor quantity.
The "covariant" in "covariant derivative" means that coordinate artifacts have been eliminated from the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives.
The covariant acceleration of the lnif is not zero.
Relative to the geodesics.

So now you want to use the geodesics as absolute standards of acceleration? And you call that "general relativity"?

You are tying yourself up in knots. Your position is completely incoherent. The head of a cat sewn onto the body
of a dog. An impossible chimera.
The covariant acceleration of the geodesic test particle is zero.
Taken relative to the test particle geodesic? Well DUH.

As usual your argumentation is completely circular and devoid of actual content.
Einstein's equivalence principle does not and cannot suspend theorems in abstract differential geometry.
Red herring from a crank.
No, someone who imagines that Einstein's equivalence principle can make the LC covariant derivative Ñg = 0
represent the actual value of the first-order differential variation of the metric g in Einstein's curved Riemannian
spacetime is a crank. A person who points out the obvious fallacy in such thinking is not a crank.
At this point i stop reading.
As you should until you've learned something about covariant derivatives of tensors vis a vis "metric compatibility".

Z.

Sent from my laptop.

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.
With regard to a Riemann metric -- any Riemann metric -- it means: free of coordinate artifacts.

So are you now saying that the "true" value of every partial derivative of every component g_uv of the
metric in the spacetime manifold of GR is always exactly zero?

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative
So the true values of the metric derivatives in the spacetime of GR are always exactly zero? And this mathematical
conclusion is based on the equivalence principle? Is that what you are saying?

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle.
The test particle accelerates relative to the earth due to gravitational attraction. Frame acceleration has nothing to do with that,
even in Einstein's theory of gravitation.
Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.
But I'm afraid the Riemannian model of 1916 GR doesn't support this interpretation of GR, precisely because the LC covariant derivative
of the metric Ñg = 0 is *not* (mathematically speaking) the "true" value of the metric gradient, contrary to what you claim above.
There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.
This is the orthodox view, but it is not actually supported by the math. The LC covariant derivative doesn't give you the true
mathematical value of the first-order differential variation of the metric along the manifold.

As I said, you seem to be confusing matters of physical interpretation with purely mathematical issues. In fact that seems to be
what "general relativity" is largely about.
In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words
These words were carefully chosen and each one has a precise and definite meaning.

You are trying to suppress certain features of the mathematical model in order to buttress Einstein's
concepts of "equivalence" and "general relativity". Unfortunately in order to do that you have to
commit a "category mistake".
without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.
The heuristic is obvious: the gravitational-inertial field of 1916 GR is a Lorentzian physical vacuum, and
the gravitational field of 1916 GR is a perturbation of the quiescent state of that physical vacuum
resulting from the presence of gravitating matter.

In this model inertia originates in the local interaction of moving matter with the physical vacuum -- and
not according to a hypothetical infinite-range instantaneous interaction with distant cosmic matter as
once supposed by Einstein, following Ernst Mach, but which Einstein later repudiated in the 1920 Leyden

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

• Red herrings Completely irrelevant to your bogus goofy idea I am not defending Mach s principle Sent from my iPhone On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Paul Zielinski
Message 10 of 18 , Mar 3, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Red herrings
Completely irrelevant to your bogus goofy idea
I am not defending Mach's principle

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack, you live in your own fantasy world.

Einstein became one of his own severest critics. After 1918 he repudiated Ernst Mach as a "deplorable
philosopher", and eventually abandoned the attempt to implement what he called "Mach's principle" in
the 1916 theory, in the same period in which he began to describe GR as a ether theory.

It was de Sitter's arguments that finally convinced Einstein to abandon Mach's principle, despite his attempts
to evade the problems raised by de Sitter with his "finite yet unbounded" cosmological models.

The well-known problems with gravitational radiation and the vacuum stress-energy density were the
final nails in the coffin of the original Machian relativity program of the 1905 paper.

Oppenheimer's attacks in the 1930s, coming from the opposite direction (hardline logical empiricism) in
response to Einstein's neo-realist critique of Copenhagen QM, were personal and vicious.

Einstein took a severe drubbing at the Bad Nauheim conference, from non-political participants such as
Lorentz, and not just from card carrying Nazis like Lenard. After Bad Nauheim he eventually caved and
effectively joined the opposition. It was the whole purpose of the Bad Nauheim conference to separate
science from politics, and I think even Lenard agreed to that.

I guess historical ignorance is bliss.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Everything you write below is a lie, propaganda
A misrepresentation of the  cited  texts twisted to fit your monomania

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Many of these "attacks on Einstein" were made by Einstein himself.

And there was Pauli.

And let's not forget Oppenheimer.

Were Pauli and Oppenheimer also "Nazi Einstein bashers"?

Jack, this shows desperation on your side. It betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your position

This is not about Einstein bashing, it's about naive positivist empiricism vs. critical realism.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Your remarks are increasingly crackpot and rational discussion with you on this monomania of yours is impossible. You completely distort my position defending Einstein orthodoxy with increasingly bizarre attacks on him which remind me of Nazi Einstein-bashing in the 1930's.
You do not understand general relativity.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).
Because of *Einstein's* version of the equivalence principle.

Yes. Einstein is a genius. You are a crank from Laputa.
No, you are hopelessly naive.

You're where I was 35 years ago. Which was nowhere.

"He's a real nowhere man,
sitting in his nowhere land,
making all his nowhere plans
for nobody"

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.
OK, I'll have a look.

However, Hawking confesses to being an unreconstructed positivist.

Nothing wrong with that except to a metatheoretician with cognitive dysfunction.
As far as *you* can see.

This is another example of the *real* trouble with modern physics.

You claim to be a Bohmian realist, and yet you see nothing wrong with being an unreconstructed
positivist.

Yas, we have no bananas...

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.
Mathematically it is a perfectly meaningful question. That you would think otherwise is interesting.

Gibberish
The blinkering syndrome you are exhibiting so clearly *is* interesting Jack. It's worthy of study.

A Lakatosian study in *negative heuristic*.
You seem to be confusing mathematics with physics.

Look who's talking.
*I'm* talking, and I'm saying that when it comes to GR you evidently cannot separate purely mathematical issues
from questions of physical interpretation.

More "trouble with physics".
I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.
No more than Bohm's thesis in quantum physics is "not even wrong".

No comparison.
You are out to lunch Jack. Of course there is. Should be obvious.

You are just trying to disguise the fact that you are applying a double standard. But the
reality here is that you are simply inconsistent.

Why should anyone listen?

Define "true".
If you don't understand what I mean by the true value of the the derivatives of a tensor, then you don't
understand the mathematical concept of a covariant derivative. This is very serious Jack. This is a
serious blind spot in your understanding of the math.

Red herring.
When it comes to this topic you are a basket case. You seem proud of your mathematical ignorance. You
trumpet your naivete and confusion as some kind of deep insight.

How very Einstein 1905. When will you finally catch up with Einstein 1918 Jack?
The whole point of defining covariant derivatives of tensor field quantities is to separate the true first-
order differential variation from coordinate artifacts, which while they contribute to the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives do not reflect their "true" values.

That you even ask this question shows that you do not understand covariant derivatives, let alone the
concept of the "metric compatibility" of a covariant derivative.

Complete misrepresention of my idea.
Idea? You don't even have an idea! All you have is confusion.

You are asking me what it means mathematically to refer to the "true" value of a derivative of a tensor quantity.
The "covariant" in "covariant derivative" means that coordinate artifacts have been eliminated from the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives.
The covariant acceleration of the lnif is not zero.
Relative to the geodesics.

So now you want to use the geodesics as absolute standards of acceleration? And you call that "general relativity"?

You are tying yourself up in knots. Your position is completely incoherent. The head of a cat sewn onto the body
of a dog. An impossible chimera.
The covariant acceleration of the geodesic test particle is zero.
Taken relative to the test particle geodesic? Well DUH.

As usual your argumentation is completely circular and devoid of actual content.
Einstein's equivalence principle does not and cannot suspend theorems in abstract differential geometry.
Red herring from a crank.
No, someone who imagines that Einstein's equivalence principle can make the LC covariant derivative Ñg = 0
represent the actual value of the first-order differential variation of the metric g in Einstein's curved Riemannian
spacetime is a crank. A person who points out the obvious fallacy in such thinking is not a crank.
At this point i stop reading.
As you should until you've learned something about covariant derivatives of tensors vis a vis "metric compatibility".

Z.

Sent from my laptop.

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.
With regard to a Riemann metric -- any Riemann metric -- it means: free of coordinate artifacts.

So are you now saying that the "true" value of every partial derivative of every component g_uv of the
metric in the spacetime manifold of GR is always exactly zero?

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative
So the true values of the metric derivatives in the spacetime of GR are always exactly zero? And this mathematical
conclusion is based on the equivalence principle? Is that what you are saying?

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle.
The test particle accelerates relative to the earth due to gravitational attraction. Frame acceleration has nothing to do with that,
even in Einstein's theory of gravitation.
Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.
But I'm afraid the Riemannian model of 1916 GR doesn't support this interpretation of GR, precisely because the LC covariant derivative
of the metric Ñg = 0 is *not* (mathematically speaking) the "true" value of the metric gradient, contrary to what you claim above.
There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.
This is the orthodox view, but it is not actually supported by the math. The LC covariant derivative doesn't give you the true
mathematical value of the first-order differential variation of the metric along the manifold.

As I said, you seem to be confusing matters of physical interpretation with purely mathematical issues. In fact that seems to be
what "general relativity" is largely about.
In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words
These words were carefully chosen and each one has a precise and definite meaning.

You are trying to suppress certain features of the mathematical model in order to buttress Einstein's
concepts of "equivalence" and "general relativity". Unfortunately in order to do that you have to
commit a "category mistake".
without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.
The heuristic is obvious: the gravitational-inertial field of 1916 GR is a Lorentzian physical vacuum, and
the gravitational field of 1916 GR is a perturbation of the quiescent state of that physical vacuum
resulting from the presence of gravitating matter.

In this model inertia originates in the local interaction of moving matter with the physical vacuum -- and
not according to a hypothetical infinite-range instantaneous interaction with distant cosmic matter as
once supposed by Einstein, following Ernst Mach, but which Einstein later repudiated in the 1920 Leyden

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

oboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

• You are demonstrating your stupidity below. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 4, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote: Shows how much you
Message 11 of 18 , Mar 4, 2008
• 0 Attachment
You are demonstrating your stupidity below.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

No Mach's principle, no "general relativity".

As soon as you revert to inertia as originating in a local interaction between moving matter
and an objective physical vacuum, Einstein's "general relativity" goes up in smoke.

You can't have it both ways Jack. That is, unless you are a *Copenhagenist*.

Are you a Copenhagenist? It certainly looks like like it.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Red herrings
Completely irrelevant to your bogus goofy idea
I am not defending Mach's principle

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack, you live in your own fantasy world.

Einstein became one of his own severest critics. After 1918 he repudiated Ernst Mach as a "deplorable
philosopher", and eventually abandoned the attempt to implement what he called "Mach's principle" in
the 1916 theory, in the same period in which he began to describe GR as a ether theory.

It was de Sitter's arguments that finally convinced Einstein to abandon Mach's principle, despite his attempts
to evade the problems raised by de Sitter with his "finite yet unbounded" cosmological models.

The well-known problems with gravitational radiation and the vacuum stress-energy density were the
final nails in the coffin of the original Machian relativity program of the 1905 paper.

Oppenheimer's attacks in the 1930s, coming from the opposite direction (hardline logical empiricism) in
response to Einstein's neo-realist critique of Copenhagen QM, were personal and vicious.

Einstein took a severe drubbing at the Bad Nauheim conference, from non-political participants such as
Lorentz, and not just from card carrying Nazis like Lenard. After Bad Nauheim he eventually caved and
effectively joined the opposition. It was the whole purpose of the Bad Nauheim conference to separate
science from politics, and I think even Lenard agreed to that.

I guess historical ignorance is bliss.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Everything you write below is a lie, propaganda
A misrepresentation of the  cited  texts twisted to fit your monomania

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Many of these "attacks on Einstein" were made by Einstein himself.

And there was Pauli.

And let's not forget Oppenheimer.

Were Pauli and Oppenheimer also "Nazi Einstein bashers"?

Jack, this shows desperation on your side. It betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your position

This is not about Einstein bashing, it's about naive positivist empiricism vs. critical realism.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Your remarks are increasingly crackpot and rational discussion with you on this monomania of yours is impossible. You completely distort my position defending Einstein orthodoxy with increasingly bizarre attacks on him which remind me of Nazi Einstein-bashing in the 1930's.
You do not understand general relativity.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).
Because of *Einstein's* version of the equivalence principle.

Yes. Einstein is a genius. You are a crank from Laputa.
No, you are hopelessly naive.

You're where I was 35 years ago. Which was nowhere.

"He's a real nowhere man,
sitting in his nowhere land,
making all his nowhere plans
for nobody"

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.
OK, I'll have a look.

However, Hawking confesses to being an unreconstructed positivist.

Nothing wrong with that except to a metatheoretician with cognitive dysfunction.
As far as *you* can see.

This is another example of the *real* trouble with modern physics.

You claim to be a Bohmian realist, and yet you see nothing wrong with being an unreconstructed
positivist.

Yas, we have no bananas...

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.
Mathematically it is a perfectly meaningful question. That you would think otherwise is interesting.

Gibberish
The blinkering syndrome you are exhibiting so clearly *is* interesting Jack. It's worthy of study.

A Lakatosian study in *negative heuristic*.
You seem to be confusing mathematics with physics.

Look who's talking.
*I'm* talking, and I'm saying that when it comes to GR you evidently cannot separate purely mathematical issues
from questions of physical interpretation.

More "trouble with physics".
I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.
No more than Bohm's thesis in quantum physics is "not even wrong".

No comparison.
You are out to lunch Jack. Of course there is. Should be obvious.

You are just trying to disguise the fact that you are applying a double standard. But the
reality here is that you are simply inconsistent.

Why should anyone listen?

Define "true".
If you don't understand what I mean by the true value of the the derivatives of a tensor, then you don't
understand the mathematical concept of a covariant derivative. This is very serious Jack. This is a
serious blind spot in your understanding of the math.

Red herring.
When it comes to this topic you are a basket case. You seem proud of your mathematical ignorance. You
trumpet your naivete and confusion as some kind of deep insight.

How very Einstein 1905. When will you finally catch up with Einstein 1918 Jack?
The whole point of defining covariant derivatives of tensor field quantities is to separate the true first-
order differential variation from coordinate artifacts, which while they contribute to the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives do not reflect their "true" values.

That you even ask this question shows that you do not understand covariant derivatives, let alone the
concept of the "metric compatibility" of a covariant derivative.

Complete misrepresention of my idea.
Idea? You don't even have an idea! All you have is confusion.

You are asking me what it means mathematically to refer to the "true" value of a derivative of a tensor quantity.
The "covariant" in "covariant derivative" means that coordinate artifacts have been eliminated from the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives.
The covariant acceleration of the lnif is not zero.
Relative to the geodesics.

So now you want to use the geodesics as absolute standards of acceleration? And you call that "general relativity"?

You are tying yourself up in knots. Your position is completely incoherent. The head of a cat sewn onto the body
of a dog. An impossible chimera.
The covariant acceleration of the geodesic test particle is zero.
Taken relative to the test particle geodesic? Well DUH.

As usual your argumentation is completely circular and devoid of actual content.
Einstein's equivalence principle does not and cannot suspend theorems in abstract differential geometry.
Red herring from a crank.
No, someone who imagines that Einstein's equivalence principle can make the LC covariant derivative Ñg = 0
represent the actual value of the first-order differential variation of the metric g in Einstein's curved Riemannian
spacetime is a crank. A person who points out the obvious fallacy in such thinking is not a crank.
At this point i stop reading.
As you should until you've learned something about covariant derivatives of tensors vis a vis "metric compatibility".

Z.

Sent from my laptop.

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.
With regard to a Riemann metric -- any Riemann metric -- it means: free of coordinate artifacts.

So are you now saying that the "true" value of every partial derivative of every component g_uv of the
metric in the spacetime manifold of GR is always exactly zero?

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative
So the true values of the metric derivatives in the spacetime of GR are always exactly zero? And this mathematical
conclusion is based on the equivalence principle? Is that what you are saying?

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle.
The test particle accelerates relative to the earth due to gravitational attraction. Frame acceleration has nothing to do with that,
even in Einstein's theory of gravitation.
Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.
But I'm afraid the Riemannian model of 1916 GR doesn't support this interpretation of GR, precisely because the LC covariant derivative
of the metric Ñg = 0 is *not* (mathematically speaking) the "true" value of the metric gradient, contrary to what you claim above.
There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.
This is the orthodox view, but it is not actually supported by the math. The LC covariant derivative doesn't give you the true
mathematical value of the first-order differential variation of the metric along the manifold.

As I said, you seem to be confusing matters of physical interpretation with purely mathematical issues. In fact that seems to be
what "general relativity" is largely about.
In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words
These words were carefully chosen and each one has a precise and definite meaning.

You are trying to suppress certain features of the mathematical model in order to buttress Einstein's
concepts of "equivalence" and "general relativity". Unfortunately in order to do that you have to
commit a "category mistake".
without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.
The heuristic is obvious: the gravitational-inertial field of 1916 GR is a Lorentzian physical vacuum, and
the gravitational field of 1916 GR is a perturbation of the quiescent state of that physical vacuum
resulting from the presence of gravitating matter.

In this model inertia originates in the local interaction of moving matter with the physical vacuum -- and
not according to a hypothetical infinite-range instantaneous interaction with distant cosmic matter as
once supposed by Einstein, following Ernst Mach, but which Einstein later repudiated in the 1920 Leyden

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

oboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

Z.

oboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

• Of course Einstein used Mach as a crutch at first. Irrelevant to your fundamental inability to understand the equivalence principle. Newton s idea of the true
Message 12 of 18 , Mar 6, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Of course Einstein used Mach as a crutch at first. Irrelevant to your fundamental inability to understand the equivalence principle.
Newton's idea of the true gravity field as g- force is eliminated as 100% inertial force - artifact of non-geodesic local frame.
Hawking's picture of round earth fig 1.11 is what you do not understand.
Surface of earth "stationary frame" is not inertial, it is a tangent bundle of local non-inertial frames (lnifs).

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

principle" in the 1916 theory was an essential component of the generalized
version of Einstein's Machian 1905 relativity program.

You evidently do not understand Einstein's concept of "general relativity". You
may not even understand his more restricted 1905 concept of relativity.

You should break this nasty habit of insulting anyone who happens to know

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You are demonstrating your stupidity below.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

No Mach's principle, no "general relativity".

As soon as you revert to inertia as originating in a local interaction between moving matter
and an objective physical vacuum, Einstein's "general relativity" goes up in smoke.

You can't have it both ways Jack. That is, unless you are a *Copenhagenist*.

Are you a Copenhagenist? It certainly looks like like it.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Red herrings
Completely irrelevant to your bogus goofy idea
I am not defending Mach's principle

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack, you live in your own fantasy world.

Einstein became one of his own severest critics. After 1918 he repudiated Ernst Mach as a "deplorable
philosopher", and eventually abandoned the attempt to implement what he called "Mach's principle" in
the 1916 theory, in the same period in which he began to describe GR as a ether theory.

It was de Sitter's arguments that finally convinced Einstein to abandon Mach's principle, despite his attempts
to evade the problems raised by de Sitter with his "finite yet unbounded" cosmological models.

The well-known problems with gravitational radiation and the vacuum stress-energy density were the
final nails in the coffin of the original Machian relativity program of the 1905 paper.

Oppenheimer's attacks in the 1930s, coming from the opposite direction (hardline logical empiricism) in
response to Einstein's neo-realist critique of Copenhagen QM, were personal and vicious.

Einstein took a severe drubbing at the Bad Nauheim conference, from non-political participants such as
Lorentz, and not just from card carrying Nazis like Lenard. After Bad Nauheim he eventually caved and
effectively joined the opposition. It was the whole purpose of the Bad Nauheim conference to separate
science from politics, and I think even Lenard agreed to that.

I guess historical ignorance is bliss.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Everything you write below is a lie, propaganda
A misrepresentation of the  cited  texts twisted to fit your monomania

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Many of these "attacks on Einstein" were made by Einstein himself.

And there was Pauli.

And let's not forget Oppenheimer.

Were Pauli and Oppenheimer also "Nazi Einstein bashers"?

Jack, this shows desperation on your side. It betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your position

This is not about Einstein bashing, it's about naive positivist empiricism vs. critical realism.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Your remarks are increasingly crackpot and rational discussion with you on this monomania of yours is impossible. You completely distort my position defending Einstein orthodoxy with increasingly bizarre attacks on him which remind me of Nazi Einstein-bashing in the 1930's.
You do not understand general relativity.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).
Because of *Einstein's* version of the equivalence principle.

Yes. Einstein is a genius. You are a crank from Laputa.
No, you are hopelessly naive.

You're where I was 35 years ago. Which was nowhere.

"He's a real nowhere man,
sitting in his nowhere land,
making all his nowhere plans
for nobody"

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.
OK, I'll have a look.

However, Hawking confesses to being an unreconstructed positivist.

Nothing wrong with that except to a metatheoretician with cognitive dysfunction.
As far as *you* can see.

This is another example of the *real* trouble with modern physics.

You claim to be a Bohmian realist, and yet you see nothing wrong with being an unreconstructed
positivist.

Yas, we have no bananas...

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.
Mathematically it is a perfectly meaningful question. That you would think otherwise is interesting.

Gibberish
The blinkering syndrome you are exhibiting so clearly *is* interesting Jack. It's worthy of study.

A Lakatosian study in *negative heuristic*.
You seem to be confusing mathematics with physics.

Look who's talking.
*I'm* talking, and I'm saying that when it comes to GR you evidently cannot separate purely mathematical issues
from questions of physical interpretation.

More "trouble with physics".
I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.
No more than Bohm's thesis in quantum physics is "not even wrong".

No comparison.
You are out to lunch Jack. Of course there is. Should be obvious.

You are just trying to disguise the fact that you are applying a double standard. But the
reality here is that you are simply inconsistent.

Why should anyone listen?

Define "true".
If you don't understand what I mean by the true value of the the derivatives of a tensor, then you don't
understand the mathematical concept of a covariant derivative. This is very serious Jack. This is a
serious blind spot in your understanding of the math.

Red herring.
When it comes to this topic you are a basket case. You seem proud of your mathematical ignorance. You
trumpet your naivete and confusion as some kind of deep insight.

How very Einstein 1905. When will you finally catch up with Einstein 1918 Jack?
The whole point of defining covariant derivatives of tensor field quantities is to separate the true first-
order differential variation from coordinate artifacts, which while they contribute to the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives do not reflect their "true" values.

That you even ask this question shows that you do not understand covariant derivatives, let alone the
concept of the "metric compatibility" of a covariant derivative.

Complete misrepresention of my idea.
Idea? You don't even have an idea! All you have is confusion.

You are asking me what it means mathematically to refer to the "true" value of a derivative of a tensor quantity.
The "covariant" in "covariant derivative" means that coordinate artifacts have been eliminated from the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives.
The covariant acceleration of the lnif is not zero.
Relative to the geodesics.

So now you want to use the geodesics as absolute standards of acceleration? And you call that "general relativity"?

You are tying yourself up in knots. Your position is completely incoherent. The head of a cat sewn onto the body
of a dog. An impossible chimera.
The covariant acceleration of the geodesic test particle is zero.
Taken relative to the test particle geodesic? Well DUH.

As usual your argumentation is completely circular and devoid of actual content.
Einstein's equivalence principle does not and cannot suspend theorems in abstract differential geometry.
Red herring from a crank.
No, someone who imagines that Einstein's equivalence principle can make the LC covariant derivative Ñg = 0
represent the actual value of the first-order differential variation of the metric g in Einstein's curved Riemannian
spacetime is a crank. A person who points out the obvious fallacy in such thinking is not a crank.
At this point i stop reading.
As you should until you've learned something about covariant derivatives of tensors vis a vis "metric compatibility".

Z.

Sent from my laptop.

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.
With regard to a Riemann metric -- any Riemann metric -- it means: free of coordinate artifacts.

So are you now saying that the "true" value of every partial derivative of every component g_uv of the
metric in the spacetime manifold of GR is always exactly zero?

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative
So the true values of the metric derivatives in the spacetime of GR are always exactly zero? And this mathematical
conclusion is based on the equivalence principle? Is that what you are saying?

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^-iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle.
The test particle accelerates relative to the earth due to gravitational attraction. Frame acceleration has nothing to do with that,
even in Einstein's theory of gravitation.
Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.
But I'm afraid the Riemannian model of 1916 GR doesn't support this interpretation of GR, precisely because the LC covariant derivative
of the metric Ñg = 0 is *not* (mathematically speaking) the "true" value of the metric gradient, contrary to what you claim above.
There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.
This is the orthodox view, but it is not actually supported by the math. The LC covariant derivative doesn't give you the true
mathematical value of the first-order differential variation of the metric along the manifold.

As I said, you seem to be confusing matters of physical interpretation with purely mathematical issues. In fact that seems to be
what "general relativity" is largely about.
In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words
These words were carefully chosen and each one has a precise and definite meaning.

You are trying to suppress certain features of the mathematical model in order to buttress Einstein's
concepts of "equivalence" and "general relativity". Unfortunately in order to do that you have to
commit a "category mistake".
without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.
The heuristic is obvious: the gravitational-inertial field of 1916 GR is a Lorentzian physical vacuum, and
the gravitational field of 1916 GR is a perturbation of the quiescent state of that physical vacuum
resulting from the presence of gravitating matter.

In this model inertia originates in the local interaction of moving matter with the physical vacuum -- and
not according to a hypothetical infinite-range instantaneous interaction with distant cosmic matter as
once supposed by Einstein, following Ernst Mach, but which Einstein later repudiated in the 1920 Leyden

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

oboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

Z.

oboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Z.

• Ps you deserve every jibe I send your way for your arrogant clueless red herrings and kakamany laputisms. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Jack
Message 13 of 18 , Mar 6, 2008
• 0 Attachment
Ps you deserve every jibe I send your way for your arrogant clueless red herrings and kakamany laputisms.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti <Sarfatti@...> wrote:

Of course Einstein used Mach as a crutch at first. Irrelevant to your fundamental inability to understand the equivalence principle.
Newton's idea of the true gravity field as g- force is eliminated as 100% inertial force - artifact of non-geodesic local frame.
Hawking's picture of round earth fig 1.11 is what you do not understand.
Surface of earth "stationary frame" is not inertial, it is a tangent bundle of local non-inertial frames (lnifs).

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com > wrote:

principle" in the 1916 theory was an essential component of the generalized
version of Einstein's Machian 1905 relativity program.

You evidently do not understand Einstein's concept of "general relativity". You
may not even understand his more restricted 1905 concept of relativity.

You should break this nasty habit of insulting anyone who happens to know

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You are demonstrating your stupidity below.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com > wrote:

No Mach's principle, no "general relativity".

As soon as you revert to inertia as originating in a local interaction between moving matter
and an objective physical vacuum, Einstein's "general relativity" goes up in smoke.

You can't have it both ways Jack. That is, unless you are a *Copenhagenist* .

Are you a Copenhagenist? It certainly looks like like it.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Red herrings
Completely irrelevant to your bogus goofy idea
I am not defending Mach's principle

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com > wrote:

Jack, you live in your own fantasy world.

Einstein became one of his own severest critics. After 1918 he repudiated Ernst Mach as a "deplorable
philosopher" , and eventually abandoned the attempt to implement what he called "Mach's principle" in
the 1916 theory, in the same period in which he began to describe GR as a ether theory.

It was de Sitter's arguments that finally convinced Einstein to abandon Mach's principle, despite his attempts
to evade the problems raised by de Sitter with his "finite yet unbounded" cosmological models.

The well-known problems with gravitational radiation and the vacuum stress-energy density were the
final nails in the coffin of the original Machian relativity program of the 1905 paper.

Oppenheimer' s attacks in the 1930s, coming from the opposite direction (hardline logical empiricism) in
response to Einstein's neo-realist critique of Copenhagen QM, were personal and vicious.

Einstein took a severe drubbing at the Bad Nauheim conference, from non-political participants such as
Lorentz, and not just from card carrying Nazis like Lenard. After Bad Nauheim he eventually caved and
effectively joined the opposition. It was the whole purpose of the Bad Nauheim conference to separate
science from politics, and I think even Lenard agreed to that.

I guess historical ignorance is bliss.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Everything you write below is a lie, propaganda
A misrepresentation of the  cited  texts twisted to fit your monomania

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com > wrote:

Many of these "attacks on Einstein" were made by Einstein himself.

And there was Pauli.

And let's not forget Oppenheimer.

Were Pauli and Oppenheimer also "Nazi Einstein bashers"?

Jack, this shows desperation on your side. It betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your position

This is not about Einstein bashing, it's about naive positivist empiricism vs. critical realism.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Your remarks are increasingly crackpot and rational discussion with you on this monomania of yours is impossible. You completely distort my position defending Einstein orthodoxy with increasingly bizarre attacks on him which remind me of Nazi Einstein-bashing in the 1930's.
You do not understand general relativity.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com > wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com > wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"There is no true first order non-tidal field." -- Jack Sarfatti

Yes, this is true in Einstein's interpretation of GR. The question is, why?

Because of the equivalence principle (which has many facets both formal and intuitive - The Jewel in The Crown).
Because of *Einstein's* version of the equivalence principle.

Yes. Einstein is a genius. You are a crank from Laputa.
No, you are hopelessly naive.

You're where I was 35 years ago. Which was nowhere.

"He's a real nowhere man,
sitting in his nowhere land,
making all his nowhere plans
for nobody"

New book of Einstein's relativity writings with a commentary by Hawking. I suggest you read it. Back to basics.
OK, I'll have a look.

However, Hawking confesses to being an unreconstructed positivist.

Nothing wrong with that except to a metatheoretician with cognitive dysfunction.
As far as *you* can see.

This is another example of the *real* trouble with modern physics.

You claim to be a Bohmian realist, and yet you see nothing wrong with being an unreconstructed
positivist.

Yas, we have no bananas...

The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian
spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñg = 0?

Meaningless question. Not well posed.
Mathematically it is a perfectly meaningful question. That you would think otherwise is interesting.

Gibberish
The blinkering syndrome you are exhibiting so clearly *is* interesting Jack. It's worthy of study.

A Lakatosian study in *negative heuristic*.
You seem to be confusing mathematics with physics.

Look who's talking.
*I'm* talking, and I'm saying that when it comes to GR you evidently cannot separate purely mathematical issues
from questions of physical interpretation.

More "trouble with physics".
I say there is, and that the *natural physical interpretation* of the true (i.e. covariant) first
derivatives of the metric in Einstein's Riemannian model is in terms of the actual non-tidal
gravitational field strength.

Not even wrong.
No more than Bohm's thesis in quantum physics is "not even wrong".

No comparison.
You are out to lunch Jack. Of course there is. Should be obvious.

You are just trying to disguise the fact that you are applying a double standard. But the
reality here is that you are simply inconsistent.

Why should anyone listen?

Define "true".
If you don't understand what I mean by the true value of the the derivatives of a tensor, then you don't
understand the mathematical concept of a covariant derivative. This is very serious Jack. This is a
serious blind spot in your understanding of the math.

Red herring.
When it comes to this topic you are a basket case. You seem proud of your mathematical ignorance. You
trumpet your naivete and confusion as some kind of deep insight.

How very Einstein 1905. When will you finally catch up with Einstein 1918 Jack?
The whole point of defining covariant derivatives of tensor field quantities is to separate the true first-
order differential variation from coordinate artifacts, which while they contribute to the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives do not reflect their "true" values.

That you even ask this question shows that you do not understand covariant derivatives, let alone the
concept of the "metric compatibility" of a covariant derivative.

Complete misrepresention of my idea.
Idea? You don't even have an idea! All you have is confusion.

You are asking me what it means mathematically to refer to the "true" value of a derivative of a tensor quantity.
The "covariant" in "covariant derivative" means that coordinate artifacts have been eliminated from the coordinate
values of the partial derivatives.
The covariant acceleration of the lnif is not zero.
Relative to the geodesics.

So now you want to use the geodesics as absolute standards of acceleration? And you call that "general relativity"?

You are tying yourself up in knots. Your position is completely incoherent. The head of a cat sewn onto the body
of a dog. An impossible chimera.
The covariant acceleration of the geodesic test particle is zero.
Taken relative to the test particle geodesic? Well DUH.

As usual your argumentation is completely circular and devoid of actual content.
Einstein's equivalence principle does not and cannot suspend theorems in abstract differential geometry.
Red herring from a crank.
No, someone who imagines that Einstein's equivalence principle can make the LC covariant derivative Ñg = 0
represent the actual value of the first-order differential variation of the metric g in Einstein's curved Riemannian
spacetime is a crank. A person who points out the obvious fallacy in such thinking is not a crank.
At this point i stop reading.
As you should until you've learned something about covariant derivatives of tensors vis a vis "metric compatibility" .

Z.

Sent from my laptop.

"true" in 1916 GR means the LC connection, i.e. a quantity is LC connection covariant, i.e. if a derivative then it is a LC connection covariant derivative.
With regard to a Riemann metric -- any Riemann metric -- it means: free of coordinate artifacts.

So are you now saying that the "true" value of every partial derivative of every component g_uv of the
metric in the spacetime manifold of GR is always exactly zero?

In 1916 GR

Dwguv = 0

where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative
So the true values of the metric derivatives in the spacetime of GR are always exactly zero? And this mathematical
conclusion is based on the equivalence principle? Is that what you are saying?

or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form language

D = d + S/\

In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie group

Covariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" term

e.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)

P = p + (e/c)A

P = canonical (covariant) momentum

p = kinetic momentum of charge

(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the charge

P - (e/c)A = p  is U1(x) covariant as a quantum operator on the charged source field Psi, i.e.

A -> A' = A + Grad(phase)

Psi -> Psi' = e^iQ(phase)Psie^ -iQ(phase) = e^i(phase)Psi

Q = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)

How do we know real acceleration?

g-force

If the g-force detector reading is non-null then the rest frame of the detector is really accelerating.

g-force detector on freely falling particle reads zero.

People on antipodes of Earth's surface truly accelerate away from each other yet remain at fixed separation because space-time is really curved. This is not possible in flat spacetime.

g = - GM/r^2

Newton mistakenly attributes to the freely-falling test particle on a conic section 3D path in a non-tidal gravity force field is really the acceleration of the surface of Earth not of the test particle.
The test particle accelerates relative to the earth due to gravitational attraction. Frame acceleration has nothing to do with that,
even in Einstein's theory of gravitation.
Newton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GR

covariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0

i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.
But I'm afraid the Riemannian model of 1916 GR doesn't support this interpretation of GR, precisely because the LC covariant derivative
of the metric Ñg = 0 is *not* (mathematically speaking) the "true" value of the metric gradient, contrary to what you claim above.
There is nothing "true" or "objective" (frame invariant) or "intrinsic" about the compensating OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term, it is contingent, based on a convenient "choice" of how to make the measurement. In the case of gravity, until recently we were stuck on Earth. Newton had no choice and made a virtue of necessity based on the contingent "frozen accident" of evolution on Earth.
This is the orthodox view, but it is not actually supported by the math. The LC covariant derivative doesn't give you the true
mathematical value of the first-order differential variation of the metric along the manifold.

As I said, you seem to be confusing matters of physical interpretation with purely mathematical issues. In fact that seems to be
what "general relativity" is largely about.
In fact

LC Connection (LIF) = 0

LC Connection(LNIF) =/= 0, i.e. inertial forces

Z: "If so then the reason for the insistence that there is "no true first order non-tidal field" in
Einstein's version of GR cannot be mathematical. It is a feature of Einstein's physical
model for GR with respect to which the mathematical apparatus of 1916 GR is at most
neutral, since it admits an alternative interpretation in which there is a true non-tidal field
strength which can be defined independently of the choice of spacetime coordinates or any
observer's world line."

Empty words
These words were carefully chosen and each one has a precise and definite meaning.

You are trying to suppress certain features of the mathematical model in order to buttress Einstein's
concepts of "equivalence" and "general relativity". Unfortunately in order to do that you have to
commit a "category mistake".
without proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.
The heuristic is obvious: the gravitational- inertial field of 1916 GR is a Lorentzian physical vacuum, and
the gravitational field of 1916 GR is a perturbation of the quiescent state of that physical vacuum
resulting from the presence of gravitating matter.

In this model inertia originates in the local interaction of moving matter with the physical vacuum -- and
not according to a hypothetical infinite-range instantaneous interaction with distant cosmic matter as
once supposed by Einstein, following Ernst Mach, but which Einstein later repudiated in the 1920 Leyden

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ouroboros

Z.

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ouroboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ouroboros

Z.

oboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ouroboros

Z.

Z.

oboros

Z.

v>

Einstein's 1916 theory of gravitation is thus in fact an *ether theory*, in which acceleration of matter
through the vacuum is absolute, not relative.

That's how Einsteinian relativity, like the worm Ouroboros, ate its own tail.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ouroboros

Z.