Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Nonlocality of classical vacuum gravity energy & fiber bundles

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    There has been a lot of nonsense about 1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor Pauli s 1921 classic article solves that problem
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      There has been a lot of nonsense about

      1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor
      Pauli's 1921 classic article solves that problem adequately.

      2. Newtonian interpretation of Einstein's connection field as

      Einstein Connection = Non-inertial Frame Connection Non-Tensor -
      Intrinsic Curvature Connection

      where

      Intrinsic Curvature Connection Tensor =/= 0

      In fact

      Intrinsic Curvature Connection = 0

      and that is one aspect of the equivalence principle i.e.

      The local gravity force per unit mass or "g's" felt by a non-geodesic
      observer is

      g^i = c^2{Einstein Connection}^i00(dx^0/ds)(dx^0/ds)

      For example outside a SSS source, i = 1 is the radial direction

      g^1 = GM/r^2

      g^2 = g^3 = 0

      for static hovering shell non-geodesic LNIF observers at fixed r

      Note that g^1 is also the local frame invariant proper acceleration
      because {Einstein Connection}^000 = 0.

      3. Confusions about potential in GR.

      If you look at the SSS metrics

      g00 ~ 1 + V(Newton)/c^2

      V(Newton) is the classical gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

      On the other hand from the local gauge field theory fiber bundle POV

      Principle bundle gives the local gauge force field.

      Associated bundle gives the source field.

      In the standard model, the dynamical symmetry group G is an internal
      group like 1-parameter U(1), 3-parameter SU(2) & 8-parameter SU(3) so
      that the fiber is an internal space, or possibly extra space
      dimensions if you use string theory. The source fields are spinor
      lepton-quarks. The spacetime symmetry group S is a non-dynamical
      background.
      S =/= G.

      On the other hand, in 1916 GR the symmetry group G is the 10-
      parameter Poincare space-time group, or possibly the 16-parameter GL
      (4,R) group that includes the 15-parameter conformal group of Penrose
      massless twistors as a sub-group.

      However, in 1916 GR the torsion is zero, this means only the 4-
      parameter T4 subgroup of the Poincare group gives dynamically
      independent degrees of freedom of the geometrodynamic field that is
      the fabric of 4D space-time. The Lorentz group O(1,3) generators are
      redundant in that limit.

      The Diff(4) GCT group is the locally-gauged T4 translation group
      generated by total 4-momentum. Since total energy is only conserved
      if there is time-translation invariance (Noether's theorem) and since
      our accelerating expanding pocket universe in the megaverse of many
      worlds is manifestly not time translation invariant in any sense, it
      is obvious that the total energy of the universe is not conserved.
      Our universe is not a closed system in the classical sense. Indeed,
      the micro-quantum zero point vacuum dark energy density at large
      scale has w = -1 therefore its energy density is constant, therefore
      the total dark energy is not conserved.

      Now in 1916 GR the geometrodynamic source field is the Cartan mobile
      tetrad frame

      e^a, a = 0,1,2,3 in local Minkowski tangent space.

      The "potential" is the Einstein connection field that is made from
      gradients of Newton's potential V(Newton). That is V(Newton) is the
      meta-potential of the Einstein Connection potential. This is a unique
      feature of the equivalence principle not found in the internal gauge
      theories where there is a qualitative separation between the
      dynamical group and the space-time group, i.e. S = G is another way
      to look at the equivalence principle.
    • Paul Zielinski
      Jack, I thought you wanted to drop this subject? ... Then why did the world-class theoretical physicist and close collaborator with Einstein at Princeton,
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack, I thought you wanted to drop this subject?

        Jack Sarfatti wrote:

        > There has been a lot of nonsense about
        >
        > 1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor
        > Pauli's 1921 classic article solves that problem adequately.

        Then why did the world-class theoretical physicist and close
        collaborator with Einstein at Princeton,
        Nathan Rosen, propose a bimetric solution to this "non-problem" in
        papers published in Physical
        Review in 1940?

        > 2. Newtonian interpretation of Einstein's connection field as
        >
        > Einstein Connection = Non-inertial Frame Connection Non-Tensor -
        > Intrinsic Curvature Connection

        What is the "Einstein connection"? Do you mean the Levi-Civita connection?

        What is the "intrinsic curvature connection"? You can have a
        non-vanishing connection field even in a flat
        Minkowski spacetime so this makes no sense!

        What is the "non-inertial frame connection"?

        I have to presume that you actually mean

        LC = GRAVITATIONAL FIELD TENSOR + INERTIAL FIELD NON-TENSOR

        > where
        >
        > Intrinsic Curvature Connection Tensor =/= 0
        >
        > In fact
        >
        > Intrinsic Curvature Connection = 0
        >
        > and that is one aspect of the equivalence principle i.e.
        >
        > The local gravity force per unit mass or "g's" felt by a non-geodesic
        > observer is
        >
        > g^i = c^2{Einstein Connection}^i00(dx^0/ds)(dx^0/ds)

        There is no "gravity force" in GR. Only resistance to forced deviations
        from motion
        along geodesic trajectories.

        You are confusing the external force required to *compensate* the effect
        of the Einstein
        g-field with the effect itself. The resistance to such forced deviations
        is inertial, but the
        effect (change in the objective *conditions* of unforced inertial motion
        due to the presence
        of matter) is *gravitational*.

        > For example outside a SSS source, i = 1 is the radial direction
        >
        > g^1 = GM/r^2
        >
        > g^2 = g^3 = 0
        >
        > for static hovering shell non-geodesic LNIF observers at fixed r
        >
        > Note that g^1 is also the local frame invariant proper acceleration
        > because {Einstein Connection}^000 = 0.
        >
        > 3. Confusions about potential in GR.
        >
        > If you look at the SSS metrics
        >
        > g00 ~ 1 + V(Newton)/c^2
        >
        > V(Newton) is the classical gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

        This is a correspondence formula.

        > On the other hand from the local gauge field theory fiber bundle POV
        >
        > Principle bundle gives the local gauge force field.
        >
        > Associated bundle gives the source field.
        >
        > In the standard model, the dynamical symmetry group G is an internal
        > group like 1-parameter U(1), 3-parameter SU(2) & 8-parameter SU(3) so
        > that the fiber is an internal space, or possibly extra space
        > dimensions if you use string theory. The source fields are spinor
        > lepton-quarks. The spacetime symmetry group S is a non-dynamical
        > background.
        > S =/= G.
        >
        > On the other hand, in 1916 GR the symmetry group G is the 10-
        > parameter Poincare space-time group, or possibly the 16-parameter GL
        > (4,R) group that includes the 15-parameter conformal group of Penrose
        > massless twistors as a sub-group.
        >
        > However, in 1916 GR the torsion is zero, this means only the 4-
        > parameter T4 subgroup of the Poincare group gives dynamically
        > independent degrees of freedom of the geometrodynamic field that is
        > the fabric of 4D space-time. The Lorentz group O(1,3) generators are
        > redundant in that limit.

        Coordinate invariance as a kind of gauge symmetry?

        I think like many others in the field you are still confused about the
        meaning of general covariance in GR.

        >
        > The Diff(4) GCT group is the locally-gauged T4 translation group
        > generated by total 4-momentum.

        Of course *mathematically* speaking coordinate transformations have
        nothing at all to do with 4-momentum.
        They are simply re-labeling schemes for spacetime points. They simply
        permute the 4-tuple labels attached to
        events.

        > Since total energy is only conserved if there is time-translation
        > invariance (Noether's theorem)

        Right.

        > and since our accelerating expanding pocket universe in the megaverse
        > of many worlds is manifestly not time translation invariant in any
        > sense, it is obvious that the total energy of the universe is not
        > conserved. Our universe is not a closed system in the classical
        > sense. Indeed, the micro-quantum zero point vacuum dark energy
        > density at large scale has w = -1 therefore its energy density is
        > constant, therefore the total dark energy is not conserved.
        >
        > Now in 1916 GR the geometrodynamic source field is the Cartan mobile
        > tetrad frame
        >
        > e^a, a = 0,1,2,3 in local Minkowski tangent space.
        >
        > The "potential" is the Einstein connection field that is made from
        > gradients of Newton's potential V(Newton).

        Only in the correspondence model. This is only good in the Newtonian
        domain, obviously.

        > That is V(Newton) is the meta-potential of the Einstein Connection
        > potential. This is a unique feature of the equivalence principle not
        > found in the internal gauge theories where there is a qualitative
        > separation between the dynamical group and the space-time group, i.e.
        > S = G is another way to look at the equivalence principle.

        Tolman's idea was that the metric components g_uv played the role of
        "metric potential" of
        Einstein's gravitational field. While the concept is analogous to a
        Newtonian potential, it is not
        limited to the Newtonian domain and has nothing specifically to do with
        Newtonian correspondence.
        So I think you are also confused about this.

        Z.
      • Jack Sarfatti
        Why? Because people are stupid, that s why. You are a prime example. There is a very simple explanation why you need a pseudo-energy tensor for the gravity
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Why? Because people are stupid, that's why. You are a prime example.
          There is a very simple explanation why you need a pseudo-energy tensor for the gravity field.
          It's because the additional energy comes from the work-done by the non-gravity forces making the non-geodesic local frames.

          On Sep 1, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

          Jack, I thought you wanted to drop this subject?

          Jack Sarfatti wrote:

          > There has been a lot of nonsense about
          >
          > 1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor
          > Pauli's 1921 classic article solves that problem adequately.

          Then why did the world-class theoretical physicist and close
          collaborator with Einstein at Princeton,
          Nathan Rosen, propose a bimetric solution to this "non-problem" in
          papers published in Physical
          Review in 1940?

          > 2. Newtonian interpretation of Einstein's connection field as
          >
          > Einstein Connection = Non-inertial Frame Connection Non-Tensor -
          > Intrinsic Curvature Connection

          What is the "Einstein connection"? Do you mean the Levi-Civita connection?




          What is the "intrinsic curvature connection"? You can have a
          non-vanishing connection field even in a flat
          Minkowski spacetime so this makes no sense!

          What is the "non-inertial frame connection"?

          I have to presume that you actually mean

          LC = GRAVITATIONAL FIELD TENSOR + INERTIAL FIELD NON-TENSOR

          > where
          >
          > Intrinsic Curvature Connection Tensor =/= 0
          >
          > In fact
          >
          > Intrinsic Curvature Connection = 0
          >
          > and that is one aspect of the equivalence principle i.e.
          >
          > The local gravity force per unit mass or "g's" felt by a non-geodesic
          > observer is
          >
          > g^i = c^2{Einstein Connection}^i00(dx^0/ds)(dx^0/ds)

          There is no "gravity force" in GR. Only resistance to forced deviations
          from motion
          along geodesic trajectories.

          You are confusing the external force required to *compensate* the effect
          of the Einstein
          g-field with the effect itself. The resistance to such forced deviations
          is inertial, but the
          effect (change in the objective *conditions* of unforced inertial motion
          due to the presence
          of matter) is *gravitational*.

          > For example outside a SSS source, i = 1 is the radial direction
          >
          > g^1 = GM/r^2
          >
          > g^2 = g^3 = 0
          >
          > for static hovering shell non-geodesic LNIF observers at fixed r
          >
          > Note that g^1 is also the local frame invariant proper acceleration
          > because {Einstein Connection}^000 = 0.
          >
          > 3. Confusions about potential in GR.
          >
          > If you look at the SSS metrics
          >
          > g00 ~ 1 + V(Newton)/c^2
          >
          > V(Newton) is the classical gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

          This is a correspondence formula.

          > On the other hand from the local gauge field theory fiber bundle POV
          >
          > Principle bundle gives the local gauge force field.
          >
          > Associated bundle gives the source field.
          >
          > In the standard model, the dynamical symmetry group G is an internal
          > group like 1-parameter U(1), 3-parameter SU(2) & 8-parameter SU(3) so
          > that the fiber is an internal space, or possibly extra space
          > dimensions if you use string theory. The source fields are spinor
          > lepton-quarks. The spacetime symmetry group S is a non-dynamical
          > background.
          > S =/= G.
          >
          > On the other hand, in 1916 GR the symmetry group G is the 10-
          > parameter Poincare space-time group, or possibly the 16-parameter GL
          > (4,R) group that includes the 15-parameter conformal group of Penrose
          > massless twistors as a sub-group.
          >
          > However, in 1916 GR the torsion is zero, this means only the 4-
          > parameter T4 subgroup of the Poincare group gives dynamically
          > independent degrees of freedom of the geometrodynamic field that is
          > the fabric of 4D space-time. The Lorentz group O(1,3) generators are
          > redundant in that limit.

          Coordinate invariance as a kind of gauge symmetry?

          I think like many others in the field you are still confused about the
          meaning of general covariance in GR.

          >
          > The Diff(4) GCT group is the locally-gauged T4 translation group
          > generated by total 4-momentum.

          Of course *mathematically* speaking coordinate transformations have
          nothing at all to do with 4-momentum.
          They are simply re-labeling schemes for spacetime points. They simply
          permute the 4-tuple labels attached to
          events.

          > Since total energy is only conserved if there is time-translation
          > invariance (Noether's theorem)

          Right.

          > and since our accelerating expanding pocket universe in the megaverse
          > of many worlds is manifestly not time translation invariant in any
          > sense, it is obvious that the total energy of the universe is not
          > conserved. Our universe is not a closed system in the classical
          > sense. Indeed, the micro-quantum zero point vacuum dark energy
          > density at large scale has w = -1 therefore its energy density is
          > constant, therefore the total dark energy is not conserved.
          >
          > Now in 1916 GR the geometrodynamic source field is the Cartan mobile
          > tetrad frame
          >
          > e^a, a = 0,1,2,3 in local Minkowski tangent space.
          >
          > The "potential" is the Einstein connection field that is made from
          > gradients of Newton's potential V(Newton).

          Only in the correspondence model. This is only good in the Newtonian
          domain, obviously.

          > That is V(Newton) is the meta-potential of the Einstein Connection
          > potential. This is a unique feature of the equivalence principle not
          > found in the internal gauge theories where there is a qualitative
          > separation between the dynamical group and the space-time group, i.e.
          > S = G is another way to look at the equivalence principle.

          Tolman's idea was that the metric components g_uv played the role of
          "metric potential" of
          Einstein's gravitational field. While the concept is analogous to a
          Newtonian potential, it is not
          limited to the Newtonian domain and has nothing specifically to do with
          Newtonian correspondence.
          So I think you are also confused about this.

          Z.


        • Paul Zielinski
          ... People like Nathan Rosen were stupid? I see. ... So now you re comparing me to Nathan Rosen? Are you trying to insult me here? I have to say you have an
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Jack Sarfatti wrote:
            Why? Because people are stupid, that's why.
            People like Nathan Rosen were stupid? I see.
            You are a prime example.
            So now you're comparing me to Nathan Rosen? Are you trying to insult me here?

            I have to say you have an interesting definition of "stupid". But then I suppose it's all
            relative to one's POV, isn't it?
            There is a very simple explanation why you need a pseudo-energy tensor for the gravity field.
            It's because the additional energy comes from the work-done by the non-gravity forces making the non-geodesic local frames.
            So if I hit the gas pedal in my rocket ship and observe the universe accelerating away from
            me, the gravitational energy contained in this "inertial field" in which all the other objects of the
            universe appear to be falling comes from the work done in accelerating the rocket, the pilot-
            observer, and the telescope?

            All other things being held equal, does the energy contained in this supposed "gravitational field"
            then depend on the size of the telescope that is used to make the observation? The size of the
            rocket? How FAT the observer happens to be?

            And what about the equivalence principle? Isn't this supposed gravitational field supposed to be
            equivalent to some homogeneous gravitational field? Could you show me a formula for the vacuum
            energy density of a real homogeneous gravitational field that depends on the size of the telescope
            used to observe the rest of the objects in the universe?

            Interesting theory Jack. However, I have to say it sounds kind of "stupid" to me.

            Z.

            On Sep 1, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

            Jack, I thought you wanted to drop this subject?

            Jack Sarfatti wrote:

            > There has been a lot of nonsense about
            >
            > 1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor
            > Pauli's 1921 classic article solves that problem adequately.

            Then why did the world-class theoretical physicist and close
            collaborator with Einstein at Princeton,
            Nathan Rosen, propose a bimetric solution to this "non-problem" in
            papers published in Physical
            Review in 1940?

            > 2. Newtonian interpretation of Einstein's connection field as
            >
            > Einstein Connection = Non-inertial Frame Connection Non-Tensor -
            > Intrinsic Curvature Connection

            What is the "Einstein connection"? Do you mean the Levi-Civita connection?




            What is the "intrinsic curvature connection"? You can have a
            non-vanishing connection field even in a flat
            Minkowski spacetime so this makes no sense!

            What is the "non-inertial frame connection"?

            I have to presume that you actually mean

            LC = GRAVITATIONAL FIELD TENSOR + INERTIAL FIELD NON-TENSOR

            > where
            >
            > Intrinsic Curvature Connection Tensor =/= 0
            >
            > In fact
            >
            > Intrinsic Curvature Connection = 0
            >
            > and that is one aspect of the equivalence principle i.e.
            >
            > The local gravity force per unit mass or "g's" felt by a non-geodesic
            > observer is
            >
            > g^i = c^2{Einstein Connection}^ i00(dx^0/ ds)(dx^0/ ds)

            There is no "gravity force" in GR. Only resistance to forced deviations
            from motion
            along geodesic trajectories.

            You are confusing the external force required to *compensate* the effect
            of the Einstein
            g-field with the effect itself. The resistance to such forced deviations
            is inertial, but the
            effect (change in the objective *conditions* of unforced inertial motion
            due to the presence
            of matter) is *gravitational* .

            > For example outside a SSS source, i = 1 is the radial direction
            >
            > g^1 = GM/r^2
            >
            > g^2 = g^3 = 0
            >
            > for static hovering shell non-geodesic LNIF observers at fixed r
            >
            > Note that g^1 is also the local frame invariant proper acceleration
            > because {Einstein Connection}^ 000 = 0.
            >
            > 3. Confusions about potential in GR.
            >
            > If you look at the SSS metrics
            >
            > g00 ~ 1 + V(Newton)/c^ 2
            >
            > V(Newton) is the classical gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

            This is a correspondence formula.

            > On the other hand from the local gauge field theory fiber bundle POV
            >
            > Principle bundle gives the local gauge force field.
            >
            > Associated bundle gives the source field.
            >
            > In the standard model, the dynamical symmetry group G is an internal
            > group like 1-parameter U(1), 3-parameter SU(2) & 8-parameter SU(3) so
            > that the fiber is an internal space, or possibly extra space
            > dimensions if you use string theory. The source fields are spinor
            > lepton-quarks. The spacetime symmetry group S is a non-dynamical
            > background.
            > S =/= G.
            >
            > On the other hand, in 1916 GR the symmetry group G is the 10-
            > parameter Poincare space-time group, or possibly the 16-parameter GL
            > (4,R) group that includes the 15-parameter conformal group of Penrose
            > massless twistors as a sub-group.
            >
            > However, in 1916 GR the torsion is zero, this means only the 4-
            > parameter T4 subgroup of the Poincare group gives dynamically
            > independent degrees of freedom of the geometrodynamic field that is
            > the fabric of 4D space-time. The Lorentz group O(1,3) generators are
            > redundant in that limit.

            Coordinate invariance as a kind of gauge symmetry?

            I think like many others in the field you are still confused about the
            meaning of general covariance in GR.

            >
            > The Diff(4) GCT group is the locally-gauged T4 translation group
            > generated by total 4-momentum.

            Of course *mathematically* speaking coordinate transformations have
            nothing at all to do with 4-momentum.
            They are simply re-labeling schemes for spacetime points. They simply
            permute the 4-tuple labels attached to
            events.

            > Since total energy is only conserved if there is time-translation
            > invariance (Noether's theorem)

            Right.

            > and since our accelerating expanding pocket universe in the megaverse
            > of many worlds is manifestly not time translation invariant in any
            > sense, it is obvious that the total energy of the universe is not
            > conserved. Our universe is not a closed system in the classical
            > sense. Indeed, the micro-quantum zero point vacuum dark energy
            > density at large scale has w = -1 therefore its energy density is
            > constant, therefore the total dark energy is not conserved.
            >
            > Now in 1916 GR the geometrodynamic source field is the Cartan mobile
            > tetrad frame
            >
            > e^a, a = 0,1,2,3 in local Minkowski tangent space.
            >
            > The "potential" is the Einstein connection field that is made from
            > gradients of Newton's potential V(Newton).

            Only in the correspondence model. This is only good in the Newtonian
            domain, obviously.

            > That is V(Newton) is the meta-potential of the Einstein Connection
            > potential. This is a unique feature of the equivalence principle not
            > found in the internal gauge theories where there is a qualitative
            > separation between the dynamical group and the space-time group, i.e.
            > S = G is another way to look at the equivalence principle.

            Tolman's idea was that the metric components g_uv played the role of
            "metric potential" of
            Einstein's gravitational field. While the concept is analogous to a
            Newtonian potential, it is not
            limited to the Newtonian domain and has nothing specifically to do with
            Newtonian correspondence.
            So I think you are also confused about this.

            Z.



          • Jack Sarfatti
            Obviously I am insulting Rosen by comparing him to you. Your remarks on potential are stupid because you cannot follow the math. You have not the slightest
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Obviously I am insulting Rosen by comparing him to you.
              Your remarks on "potential" are stupid because you cannot follow the math.
              You have not the slightest understanding of fiber bundles obviously.

              On Sep 1, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

              Jack Sarfatti wrote:

              Why? Because people are stupid, that's why.
              People like Nathan Rosen were stupid? I see.
              You are a prime example.
              So now you're comparing me to Nathan Rosen? Are you trying to insult me here?


              I have to say you have an interesting definition of "stupid". But then I suppose it's all
              relative to one's POV, isn't it?
              There is a very simple explanation why you need a pseudo-energy tensor for the gravity field.
              It's because the additional energy comes from the work-done by the non-gravity forces making the non-geodesic local frames.
              So if I hit the gas pedal in my rocket ship and observe the universe accelerating away from
              me, the gravitational energy contained in this "inertial field" in which all the other objects of the
              universe appear to be falling comes from the work done in accelerating the rocket, the pilot-
              observer, and the telescope?

              All other things being held equal, does the energy contained in this supposed "gravitational field"
              then depend on the size of the telescope that is used to make the observation? The size of the
              rocket? How FAT the observer happens to be?

              And what about the equivalence principle? Isn't this supposed gravitational field supposed to be
              equivalent to some homogeneous gravitational field? Could you show me a formula for the vacuum
              energy density of a real homogeneous gravitational field that depends on the size of the telescope
              used to observe the rest of the objects in the universe?

              Interesting theory Jack. However, I have to say it sounds kind of "stupid" to me.

              Z.

              On Sep 1, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

              Jack, I thought you wanted to drop this subject?

              Jack Sarfatti wrote:

              > There has been a lot of nonsense about
              >
              > 1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor
              > Pauli's 1921 classic article solves that problem adequately.

              Then why did the world-class theoretical physicist and close
              collaborator with Einstein at Princeton,
              Nathan Rosen, propose a bimetric solution to this "non-problem" in
              papers published in Physical
              Review in 1940?

              > 2. Newtonian interpretation of Einstein's connection field as
              >
              > Einstein Connection = Non-inertial Frame Connection Non-Tensor -
              > Intrinsic Curvature Connection

              What is the "Einstein connection"? Do you mean the Levi-Civita connection?




              What is the "intrinsic curvature connection"? You can have a
              non-vanishing connection field even in a flat
              Minkowski spacetime so this makes no sense!

              What is the "non-inertial frame connection"?

              I have to presume that you actually mean

              LC = GRAVITATIONAL FIELD TENSOR + INERTIAL FIELD NON-TENSOR

              > where
              >
              > Intrinsic Curvature Connection Tensor =/= 0
              >
              > In fact
              >
              > Intrinsic Curvature Connection = 0
              >
              > and that is one aspect of the equivalence principle i.e.
              >
              > The local gravity force per unit mass or "g's" felt by a non-geodesic
              > observer is
              >
              > g^i = c^2{Einstein Connection}^i00(dx^0/ds)(dx^0/ds)

              There is no "gravity force" in GR. Only resistance to forced deviations
              from motion
              along geodesic trajectories.

              You are confusing the external force required to *compensate* the effect
              of the Einstein
              g-field with the effect itself. The resistance to such forced deviations
              is inertial, but the
              effect (change in the objective *conditions* of unforced inertial motion
              due to the presence
              of matter) is *gravitational*.

              > For example outside a SSS source, i = 1 is the radial direction
              >
              > g^1 = GM/r^2
              >
              > g^2 = g^3 = 0
              >
              > for static hovering shell non-geodesic LNIF observers at fixed r
              >
              > Note that g^1 is also the local frame invariant proper acceleration
              > because {Einstein Connection}^000 = 0.
              >
              > 3. Confusions about potential in GR.
              >
              > If you look at the SSS metrics
              >
              > g00 ~ 1 + V(Newton)/c^2
              >
              > V(Newton) is the classical gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

              This is a correspondence formula.

              > On the other hand from the local gauge field theory fiber bundle POV
              >
              > Principle bundle gives the local gauge force field.
              >
              > Associated bundle gives the source field.
              >
              > In the standard model, the dynamical symmetry group G is an internal
              > group like 1-parameter U(1), 3-parameter SU(2) & 8-parameter SU(3) so
              > that the fiber is an internal space, or possibly extra space
              > dimensions if you use string theory. The source fields are spinor
              > lepton-quarks. The spacetime symmetry group S is a non-dynamical
              > background.
              > S =/= G.
              >
              > On the other hand, in 1916 GR the symmetry group G is the 10-
              > parameter Poincare space-time group, or possibly the 16-parameter GL
              > (4,R) group that includes the 15-parameter conformal group of Penrose
              > massless twistors as a sub-group.
              >
              > However, in 1916 GR the torsion is zero, this means only the 4-
              > parameter T4 subgroup of the Poincare group gives dynamically
              > independent degrees of freedom of the geometrodynamic field that is
              > the fabric of 4D space-time. The Lorentz group O(1,3) generators are
              > redundant in that limit.

              Coordinate invariance as a kind of gauge symmetry?

              I think like many others in the field you are still confused about the
              meaning of general covariance in GR.

              >
              > The Diff(4) GCT group is the locally-gauged T4 translation group
              > generated by total 4-momentum.

              Of course *mathematically* speaking coordinate transformations have
              nothing at all to do with 4-momentum.
              They are simply re-labeling schemes for spacetime points. They simply
              permute the 4-tuple labels attached to
              events.

              > Since total energy is only conserved if there is time-translation
              > invariance (Noether's theorem)

              Right.

              > and since our accelerating expanding pocket universe in the megaverse
              > of many worlds is manifestly not time translation invariant in any
              > sense, it is obvious that the total energy of the universe is not
              > conserved. Our universe is not a closed system in the classical
              > sense. Indeed, the micro-quantum zero point vacuum dark energy
              > density at large scale has w = -1 therefore its energy density is
              > constant, therefore the total dark energy is not conserved.
              >
              > Now in 1916 GR the geometrodynamic source field is the Cartan mobile
              > tetrad frame
              >
              > e^a, a = 0,1,2,3 in local Minkowski tangent space.
              >
              > The "potential" is the Einstein connection field that is made from
              > gradients of Newton's potential V(Newton).

              Only in the correspondence model. This is only good in the Newtonian
              domain, obviously.

              > That is V(Newton) is the meta-potential of the Einstein Connection
              > potential. This is a unique feature of the equivalence principle not
              > found in the internal gauge theories where there is a qualitative
              > separation between the dynamical group and the space-time group, i.e.
              > S = G is another way to look at the equivalence principle.

              Tolman's idea was that the metric components g_uv played the role of
              "metric potential" of
              Einstein's gravitational field. While the concept is analogous to a
              Newtonian potential, it is not
              limited to the Newtonian domain and has nothing specifically to do with
              Newtonian correspondence.
              So I think you are also confused about this.




              Z.





              .
               

            • Paul Zielinski
              ... But Rosen also held that a tensor vacuum energy density could be defined in GR and could be extracted from Einstein s pseudotensor. And Rosen s theory also
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Jack Sarfatti wrote:
                Obviously I am insulting Rosen by comparing him to you.
                But Rosen also held that a tensor vacuum energy density could be defined in
                GR and could be extracted from Einstein's pseudotensor. And Rosen's theory
                also involved a flat reference manifold. Didn't you read the abstracts I sent?

                You said you thought this was a "stupid idea". You said it was "crackpot".

                Like Feynman, Rosen didn't believe in "curved spacetime". He thought it was
                just a geometric model for a physical field living in a flat spacetime.

                Sound familiar?
                Your remarks on "potential" are stupid because you cannot follow the math.
                Looks like I understand the math a lot better than you ever will Jack. This mantra
                is getting really old. I don't think you even understand how coordinates and coordinate
                transformations are defined on curved manifolds.

                Do you think Tolman couldn't follow the math? After all, this was Tolman's idea.

                Your Newtonian formula is irrelevant to Tolman's idea that the metric components
                g_uv are the "metric potentials" of the Einstein g-field -- although it's OK as a
                *correspondence formula* good only in the Newtonian domain.
                You have not the slightest understanding of fiber bundles obviously.
                Jack, I know you're bluffing. Fiber bundles don't change anything here.

                Z.

                On Sep 1, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                Jack Sarfatti wrote:

                Why? Because people are stupid, that's why.
                People like Nathan Rosen were stupid? I see.
                You are a prime example.
                So now you're comparing me to Nathan Rosen? Are you trying to insult me here?


                I have to say you have an interesting definition of "stupid". But then I suppose it's all
                relative to one's POV, isn't it?
                There is a very simple explanation why you need a pseudo-energy tensor for the gravity field.
                It's because the additional energy comes from the work-done by the non-gravity forces making the non-geodesic local frames.
                So if I hit the gas pedal in my rocket ship and observe the universe accelerating away from
                me, the gravitational energy contained in this "inertial field" in which all the other objects of the
                universe appear to be falling comes from the work done in accelerating the rocket, the pilot-
                observer, and the telescope?

                All other things being held equal, does the energy contained in this supposed "gravitational field"
                then depend on the size of the telescope that is used to make the observation? The size of the
                rocket? How FAT the observer happens to be?

                And what about the equivalence principle? Isn't this supposed gravitational field supposed to be
                equivalent to some homogeneous gravitational field? Could you show me a formula for the vacuum
                energy density of a real homogeneous gravitational field that depends on the size of the telescope
                used to observe the rest of the objects in the universe?

                Interesting theory Jack. However, I have to say it sounds kind of "stupid" to me.

                Z.

                On Sep 1, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                Jack, I thought you wanted to drop this subject?

                Jack Sarfatti wrote:

                > There has been a lot of nonsense about
                >
                > 1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor
                > Pauli's 1921 classic article solves that problem adequately.

                Then why did the world-class theoretical physicist and close
                collaborator with Einstein at Princeton,
                Nathan Rosen, propose a bimetric solution to this "non-problem" in
                papers published in Physical
                Review in 1940?

                > 2. Newtonian interpretation of Einstein's connection field as
                >
                > Einstein Connection = Non-inertial Frame Connection Non-Tensor -
                > Intrinsic Curvature Connection

                What is the "Einstein connection"? Do you mean the Levi-Civita connection?




                What is the "intrinsic curvature connection"? You can have a
                non-vanishing connection field even in a flat
                Minkowski spacetime so this makes no sense!

                What is the "non-inertial frame connection"?

                I have to presume that you actually mean

                LC = GRAVITATIONAL FIELD TENSOR + INERTIAL FIELD NON-TENSOR

                > where
                >
                > Intrinsic Curvature Connection Tensor =/= 0
                >
                > In fact
                >
                > Intrinsic Curvature Connection = 0
                >
                > and that is one aspect of the equivalence principle i.e.
                >
                > The local gravity force per unit mass or "g's" felt by a non-geodesic
                > observer is
                >
                > g^i = c^2{Einstein Connection}^ i00(dx^0/ ds)(dx^0/ ds)

                There is no "gravity force" in GR. Only resistance to forced deviations
                from motion
                along geodesic trajectories.

                You are confusing the external force required to *compensate* the effect
                of the Einstein
                g-field with the effect itself. The resistance to such forced deviations
                is inertial, but the
                effect (change in the objective *conditions* of unforced inertial motion
                due to the presence
                of matter) is *gravitational* .

                > For example outside a SSS source, i = 1 is the radial direction
                >
                > g^1 = GM/r^2
                >
                > g^2 = g^3 = 0
                >
                > for static hovering shell non-geodesic LNIF observers at fixed r
                >
                > Note that g^1 is also the local frame invariant proper acceleration
                > because {Einstein Connection}^ 000 = 0.
                >
                > 3. Confusions about potential in GR.
                >
                > If you look at the SSS metrics
                >
                > g00 ~ 1 + V(Newton)/c^ 2
                >
                > V(Newton) is the classical gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

                This is a correspondence formula.

                > On the other hand from the local gauge field theory fiber bundle POV
                >
                > Principle bundle gives the local gauge force field.
                >
                > Associated bundle gives the source field.
                >
                > In the standard model, the dynamical symmetry group G is an internal
                > group like 1-parameter U(1), 3-parameter SU(2) & 8-parameter SU(3) so
                > that the fiber is an internal space, or possibly extra space
                > dimensions if you use string theory. The source fields are spinor
                > lepton-quarks. The spacetime symmetry group S is a non-dynamical
                > background.
                > S =/= G.
                >
                > On the other hand, in 1916 GR the symmetry group G is the 10-
                > parameter Poincare space-time group, or possibly the 16-parameter GL
                > (4,R) group that includes the 15-parameter conformal group of Penrose
                > massless twistors as a sub-group.
                >
                > However, in 1916 GR the torsion is zero, this means only the 4-
                > parameter T4 subgroup of the Poincare group gives dynamically
                > independent degrees of freedom of the geometrodynamic field that is
                > the fabric of 4D space-time. The Lorentz group O(1,3) generators are
                > redundant in that limit.

                Coordinate invariance as a kind of gauge symmetry?

                I think like many others in the field you are still confused about the
                meaning of general covariance in GR.

                >
                > The Diff(4) GCT group is the locally-gauged T4 translation group
                > generated by total 4-momentum.

                Of course *mathematically* speaking coordinate transformations have
                nothing at all to do with 4-momentum.
                They are simply re-labeling schemes for spacetime points. They simply
                permute the 4-tuple labels attached to
                events.

                > Since total energy is only conserved if there is time-translation
                > invariance (Noether's theorem)

                Right.

                > and since our accelerating expanding pocket universe in the megaverse
                > of many worlds is manifestly not time translation invariant in any
                > sense, it is obvious that the total energy of the universe is not
                > conserved. Our universe is not a closed system in the classical
                > sense. Indeed, the micro-quantum zero point vacuum dark energy
                > density at large scale has w = -1 therefore its energy density is
                > constant, therefore the total dark energy is not conserved.
                >
                > Now in 1916 GR the geometrodynamic source field is the Cartan mobile
                > tetrad frame
                >
                > e^a, a = 0,1,2,3 in local Minkowski tangent space.
                >
                > The "potential" is the Einstein connection field that is made from
                > gradients of Newton's potential V(Newton).

                Only in the correspondence model. This is only good in the Newtonian
                domain, obviously.

                > That is V(Newton) is the meta-potential of the Einstein Connection
                > potential. This is a unique feature of the equivalence principle not
                > found in the internal gauge theories where there is a qualitative
                > separation between the dynamical group and the space-time group, i.e.
                > S = G is another way to look at the equivalence principle.

                Tolman's idea was that the metric components g_uv played the role of
                "metric potential" of
                Einstein's gravitational field. While the concept is analogous to a
                Newtonian potential, it is not
                limited to the Newtonian domain and has nothing specifically to do with
                Newtonian correspondence.
                So I think you are also confused about this.




                Z.





                .
                 


              • Jack Sarfatti
                Rosen made a mistake. Everything you say below is stupid, delusional and not even wrong. You have not once given any evidence that you understand the math
                Message 7 of 7 , Sep 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Rosen made a mistake.  Everything you say below is stupid, delusional and not even wrong. You have not once given any evidence that you understand the math needed. In fact you have given evidence to the contrary. What you are attempting to do is stupid and shows you do not at all understand the physics of Einstein's equivalence principle. The tidal curvature issue is a complete bogus Red Herring. If other idiots made the same mistake it only shows that even physicists can be stupid on particular issues.
                  On Sep 2, 2006, at 3:33 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                  Jack Sarfatti wrote:

                  Obviously I am insulting Rosen by comparing him to you.
                  But Rosen also held that a tensor vacuum energy density could be defined in
                  GR and could be extracted from Einstein's pseudotensor. And Rosen's theory
                  also involved a flat reference manifold. Didn't you read the abstracts I sent?

                  You said you thought this was a "stupid idea". You said it was "crackpot".

                  Like Feynman, Rosen didn't believe in "curved spacetime". He thought it was
                  just a geometric model for a physical field living in a flat spacetime.

                  Sound familiar?
                  Your remarks on "potential" are stupid because you cannot follow the math.
                  Looks like I understand the math a lot better than you ever will Jack. This mantra
                  is getting really old. I don't think you even understand how coordinates and coordinate
                  transformations are defined on curved manifolds.

                  Do you think Tolman couldn't follow the math? After all, this was Tolman's idea.

                  Your Newtonian formula

                  is irrelevant to Tolman's idea that the metric components
                  g_uv are the "metric potentials" of the Einstein g-field -- although it's OK as a
                  *correspondence formula* good only in the Newtonian domain.
                  You have not the slightest understanding of fiber bundles obviously.
                  Jack, I know you're bluffing. Fiber bundles don't change anything here.

                  Z.

                  On Sep 1, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                  Jack Sarfatti wrote:

                  Why? Because people are stupid, that's why.
                  People like Nathan Rosen were stupid? I see.
                  You are a prime example.
                  So now you're comparing me to Nathan Rosen? Are you trying to insult me here?


                  I have to say you have an interesting definition of "stupid". But then I suppose it's all
                  relative to one's POV, isn't it?
                  There is a very simple explanation why you need a pseudo-energy tensor for the gravity field.
                  It's because the additional energy comes from the work-done by the non-gravity forces making the non-geodesic local frames.
                  So if I hit the gas pedal in my rocket ship and observe the universe accelerating away from
                  me, the gravitational energy contained in this "inertial field" in which all the other objects of the
                  universe appear to be falling comes from the work done in accelerating the rocket, the pilot-
                  observer, and the telescope?

                  All other things being held equal, does the energy contained in this supposed "gravitational field"
                  then depend on the size of the telescope that is used to make the observation? The size of the
                  rocket? How FAT the observer happens to be?

                  And what about the equivalence principle? Isn't this supposed gravitational field supposed to be
                  equivalent to some homogeneous gravitational field? Could you show me a formula for the vacuum
                  energy density of a real homogeneous gravitational field that depends on the size of the telescope
                  used to observe the rest of the objects in the universe?

                  Interesting theory Jack. However, I have to say it sounds kind of "stupid" to me.

                  Z.

                  On Sep 1, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                  Jack, I thought you wanted to drop this subject?

                  Jack Sarfatti wrote:

                  > There has been a lot of nonsense about
                  >
                  > 1. finding a local classical gravity stress-energy density tensor
                  > Pauli's 1921 classic article solves that problem adequately.

                  Then why did the world-class theoretical physicist and close
                  collaborator with Einstein at Princeton,
                  Nathan Rosen, propose a bimetric solution to this "non-problem" in
                  papers published in Physical
                  Review in 1940?

                  > 2. Newtonian interpretation of Einstein's connection field as
                  >
                  > Einstein Connection = Non-inertial Frame Connection Non-Tensor -
                  > Intrinsic Curvature Connection

                  What is the "Einstein connection"? Do you mean the Levi-Civita connection?




                  What is the "intrinsic curvature connection"? You can have a
                  non-vanishing connection field even in a flat
                  Minkowski spacetime so this makes no sense!

                  What is the "non-inertial frame connection"?

                  I have to presume that you actually mean

                  LC = GRAVITATIONAL FIELD TENSOR + INERTIAL FIELD NON-TENSOR

                  > where
                  >
                  > Intrinsic Curvature Connection Tensor =/= 0
                  >
                  > In fact
                  >
                  > Intrinsic Curvature Connection = 0
                  >
                  > and that is one aspect of the equivalence principle i.e.
                  >
                  > The local gravity force per unit mass or "g's" felt by a non-geodesic
                  > observer is
                  >
                  > g^i = c^2{Einstein Connection}^i00(dx^0/ds)(dx^0/ds)

                  There is no "gravity force" in GR. Only resistance to forced deviations
                  from motion
                  along geodesic trajectories.

                  You are confusing the external force required to *compensate* the effect
                  of the Einstein
                  g-field with the effect itself. The resistance to such forced deviations
                  is inertial, but the
                  effect (change in the objective *conditions* of unforced inertial motion
                  due to the presence
                  of matter) is *gravitational*.

                  > For example outside a SSS source, i = 1 is the radial direction
                  >
                  > g^1 = GM/r^2
                  >
                  > g^2 = g^3 = 0
                  >
                  > for static hovering shell non-geodesic LNIF observers at fixed r
                  >
                  > Note that g^1 is also the local frame invariant proper acceleration
                  > because {Einstein Connection}^000 = 0.
                  >
                  > 3. Confusions about potential in GR.
                  >
                  > If you look at the SSS metrics
                  >
                  > g00 ~ 1 + V(Newton)/c^2
                  >
                  > V(Newton) is the classical gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

                  This is a correspondence formula.

                  > On the other hand from the local gauge field theory fiber bundle POV
                  >
                  > Principle bundle gives the local gauge force field.
                  >
                  > Associated bundle gives the source field.
                  >
                  > In the standard model, the dynamical symmetry group G is an internal
                  > group like 1-parameter U(1), 3-parameter SU(2) & 8-parameter SU(3) so
                  > that the fiber is an internal space, or possibly extra space
                  > dimensions if you use string theory. The source fields are spinor
                  > lepton-quarks. The spacetime symmetry group S is a non-dynamical
                  > background.
                  > S =/= G.
                  >
                  > On the other hand, in 1916 GR the symmetry group G is the 10-
                  > parameter Poincare space-time group, or possibly the 16-parameter GL
                  > (4,R) group that includes the 15-parameter conformal group of Penrose
                  > massless twistors as a sub-group.
                  >
                  > However, in 1916 GR the torsion is zero, this means only the 4-
                  > parameter T4 subgroup of the Poincare group gives dynamically
                  > independent degrees of freedom of the geometrodynamic field that is
                  > the fabric of 4D space-time. The Lorentz group O(1,3) generators are
                  > redundant in that limit.

                  Coordinate invariance as a kind of gauge symmetry?

                  I think like many others in the field you are still confused about the
                  meaning of general covariance in GR.

                  >
                  > The Diff(4) GCT group is the locally-gauged T4 translation group
                  > generated by total 4-momentum.

                  Of course *mathematically* speaking coordinate transformations have
                  nothing at all to do with 4-momentu

                  (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.