Sent from my iPhoneOn 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

is truly a *reductio ad absurdum* on your own position.

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) andg = - GM(Earth)/r^2 = -dV/dr for a freely falling test particle in conic section orbit<mime-attachment.jpg>V = -GM(Earth)/ris in the Earth frame as a GIFIn 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 Ñ*g*= 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 GRDwguv = 0where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivativeor use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form languageD = d + S/\In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie groupCovariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" terme.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)P = p + (e/c)AP = canonical (covariant) momentump = kinetic momentum of charge(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the chargeP - (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)PsiQ = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)How do we know real acceleration?g-forceIf 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.g-force detector on surface of Earth reads your weight.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.The kinetic radial accelerationg = - GM/r^2Newton 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 GRcovariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0i.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 factLC Connection (LIF) = 0LC 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.- Ps you deserve every jibe I send your way for your arrogant clueless red herrings and kakamany laputisms.

Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 6, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti <Sarfatti@...> wrote:

width: 2em; text-align:right; padding-right: .5em; } #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ font-weight: bold; } #ygrp-vital a{ text-decoration: none; }#ygrp-vital a:hover{ text-decoration: underline; }#ygrp-sponsor #hd{ color: #999; font-size: 77%; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ padding: 6px 13px; background-color: #e0ecee; margin-bottom: 20px; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ padding: 0 0 0 8px; margin: 0; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ list-style-type: square; padding: 6px 0; font-size: 77%; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ text-decoration: none; font-size: 130%; } #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ background-color: #eee; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0 8px; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ padding: 8px 0; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: #628c2a; font-size: 100%; line-height: 122%; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ text-decoration: none; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ text-decoration: underline; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ margin: 0; } o{font-size: 0; } .MsoNormal{ margin: 0 0 0 0; } #ygrp-text tt{ font-size: 120%; } blockquote{margin: 0 0 0 4px;} .replbq{margin:4} -->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 iPhoneClearly you know almost nothing about this. The implementation of "Mach's

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

more about this subject, in more depth, than you do.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:You are demonstrating your stupidity below.

Sent from my iPhoneShows how much you actually know about this subject.

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 herringsCompletely irrelevant to your bogus goofy ideaI am not defending Mach's principle

Sent from my iPhoneJack, 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, propagandaA misrepresentation of the cited texts twisted to fit your monomania

Sent from my iPhoneMany 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 iPhoneJack Sarfatti wrote:

No, you are hopelessly naive.

Sent from my iPhoneJack Sarfatti wrote:

Because of *Einstein's* version of the equivalence principle.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).Yes. Einstein is a genius. You are a crank from Laputa.

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"

As far as *you* can see.

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

However, Hawking confesses to being an unreconstructed positivist.Nothing wrong with that except to a metatheoretician with cognitive dysfunction.

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...

You will need to do something about this schizoid personality of yours.

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

Mathematically it is a perfectly meaningful question. That you would think otherwise is interesting.The mathematical question is, is there any true first derivative of the metric on the Riemannian

spacetime manifold of 1916 GR, other than Ñ*g*= 0?Meaningless question. Not well posed.

Einsteinian blinkers.Gibberish

A Lakatosian study in *negative heuristic*.

*I'm* talking, and I'm saying that when it comes to GR you evidently cannot separate purely mathematical issuesYou seem to be confusing mathematics with physics.Look who's talking.

from questions of physical interpretation.

More "trouble with physics".

You are out to lunch Jack. Of course there is. Should be obvious.

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

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?

When it comes to this topic you are a basket case. You seem proud of your mathematical ignorance. You

If you don't understand what I mean by the true value of the the derivatives of a tensor, then you don'tDefine "true".

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.

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?

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

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.

Relative to the geodesics.The covariant acceleration of the lnif is not zero.

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.

Taken relative to the test particle geodesic? Well DUH.The covariant acceleration of the geodesic test particle is zero.

As usual your argumentation is completely circular and devoid of actual content.

No, someone who imagines that Einstein's equivalence principle can make the LC covariant derivative Ñg = 0

Red herring from a crank.Einstein's equivalence principle does not and cannot suspend theorems in abstract differential geometry.

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.

As you should until you've learned something about covariant derivatives of tensors vis a vis "metric compatibility" .At this point i stop reading.

Z.

Sent from my laptop.

With regard to a Riemann metric -- any Riemann metric -- it means: free of coordinate artifacts."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.

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?

So the true values of the metric derivatives in the spacetime of GR are always exactly zero? And this mathematicalIn 1916 GRDwguv = 0where Dw is the LC connection-based gauge covariant partial derivative

conclusion is based on the equivalence principle? Is that what you are saying?

I think you are still very confused about this. Which raises serious questions in my mind about what you have written below.

The test particle accelerates relative to the earth due to gravitational attraction. Frame acceleration has nothing to do with that,or use the spin connection S determined by the tetrads as in Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Cartan form languageD = d + S/\In general for any choice of connection relative to any Lie groupCovariant derivative = Kinematical derivative + Connection OBSERVER FRAME-DEPENDENT inertial "force" terme.g. in Maxwell EM internal U1(x)P = p + (e/c)AP = canonical (covariant) momentump = kinetic momentum of charge(e/c)A = EM compensating field momentum attached to the chargeP - (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)PsiQ = charge generator (Lie algebra of U1)How do we know real acceleration?g-forceIf 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.g-force detector on surface of Earth reads your weight.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.The kinetic radial accelerationg = - GM/r^2Newton 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.

even in Einstein's theory of gravitation.

But I'm afraid the Riemannian model of 1916 GR doesn't support this interpretation of GR, precisely because the LC covariant derivativeNewton's Global Inertial Frame (GIF) disappears and is replaced by Einstein's Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) in 1916 GRcovariant acceleration of freely falling test particle = kinetic acceleration + OBSERVER-DEPENDENT Connection term = 0i.e. "true" covariant acceleration of freely falling LC-connection defined geodesic test particle is zero for ALL coincident observers LIF and LNIF.

of the metric Ñg = 0 is *not* (mathematically speaking) the "true" value of the metric gradient, contrary to what you claim above.

This is the orthodox view, but it is not actually supported by the math. The LC covariant derivative doesn't give you the trueThere 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.

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.

These words were carefully chosen and each one has a precise and definite meaning.In factLC Connection (LIF) = 0LC 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

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".

The heuristic is obvious: the gravitational- inertial field of 1916 GR is a Lorentzian physical vacuum, andwithout proof of any kind either formal or heuristic. Key terms not properly defined.

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

address.

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.

address.

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>

address.

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>

address.

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>

address.

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.