- 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. - Rosen made a mistake.Â 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?

Looks like I understand the math a lot better than you ever will Jack. This mantraYour remarks on "potential" are stupid because you cannot follow the math.

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 formulais 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.

Jack, I know you're bluffing. Fiber bundles don't change anything here.You have not the slightest understanding of fiber bundles obviously.

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?

So if I hit the gas pedal in my rocket ship and observe the universe accelerating away fromThere 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.

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)