"The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler
Meaning of the Brazilian paper below is the Gestalt ****ft
http://www.neurosemantics.com/Stuttering/foreground-background.htm
Bohr Complementarity between teleparallel gauge force and
geometrodynamical curvature alternatives.
Thanks Saul-Paul :-)
On Jan 25, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Saul-Paul Sirag wrote:
Jack,
There is a good summary of tests of GR in Clifford M. Will's paper
"Relativity at the Century", pp. 27-32, Physics World, Jan. 2005 (a
special issue on Einstein). He does not mention the Mercury perihelion
advance. [BTW this is covered in great detail in *Gravitation & Inertia*
by Ciufolini & Wheeler (1995)]. But the many other tests leave GR
looking very good. In particular the Lunar-Laser Ranging measurements
(over the last two decades and more) have confirmed not only the weak
equivalence principle, but also the strong equivalence principle. To
quote from Will's paper:
"Lunar laser-ranging measurements actually test the strong equivalence
principle because they are sensitive to both the mass and the
gravitational self-energy of the Earth and the Moon. The bottom line of
these experiments is that bodies fall with the same acceleration to a
few parts in 10^13" (p. 29).
Will also points out that the Brans-Dicke "Scalar-Tensor" theory (and
many other alternative theories) are ruled out by these measurements (p.
30).
Cliff told me personally at GR 17 Dublin that he thought Hal Puthoff's
PV theory is a non-starter not of interest to serious physicists in the
field. So did several others including Matt Visser and Bill Unruh and
Professor X. Therefore, Eric Davis, Nick Cook et-al should stop trying
to sell Hal's theory to USAF and Aerospace Companies as a serious
contender for metric engineering unconventional propulsion systems. That
only hurts the field.
BTW( to show the irrelevancy of Paul Zielinski's thesis (LC) = GCT
non-tensor inertial force - GCT tensor real gravity force, i .e.
inertial forces in inertial frames is the contradiction in Z's
proposal!) for the record from Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and
Inertia" Princeton 1995:
Weak equivalence principle "uniqueness of free fall" AKA Galilei
equivalence principle "the motion of any freely falling test particle is
independent of its composition and structure. A test particle is defined
to be electrically neutral, to have negligible gravitational binding
energy compared to its rest mass, to have negligible angular momentum,
and to be small enough that inhomogeneities of the gravitational field
within its volume have negligible effect on its motion. ... the ratio of
the inertial mass to the gravitational - passive- mass is the same for
all bodies ... in every local, nonrotating, freely falling frame the
line followed by a freely falling test particle is a straight line in
agreement with special relativity. Einstein generalized the weak
equivalence principle to all the laws of special relativity .. that in
no local freely falling frame can we detect the existence of a
gravitational field, either from the motion of test particles, as in the
weak equivalence principle, or from ANY OTHER SPECIAL RELATIVISTIC
PHYSICAL PHENOMENON" p. 14
Note that a spinning gyro is not a test particle. Also note that
geodesic deviation for TWO test particles is NOT a special relativistic
physical phenomenon. *The LIF is taken so small that the geodesic
deviation is below the resolution of the stretch-squeeze tidal tensor
curvature detector! This restriction would seem to exclude the
detection of gravity waves of course.
All viable theories of gravity obey this weak equivalence principle,
AKA, "WEP".
Medium strong equivalence principle at the base of METRIC theories of
gravity, AKA "EEP" or Einstein Equivalence Principle: "for every
POINTLIKE event of spacetime, there exists a sufficiently small
neighborhood such that in every local freely falling frame in that
neighborhood, all the non-gravitational laws of physics obey the laws of
special relativity."
Note EEP restricts itself to "non-gravitational laws of physics".
"If we replace all the nongravitational laws of physics with all the
laws of physics we get the very strong equivalence principle" AKA, "SEP"
"which is at the base of Einstein's electrodynamics. The medium strong
and the very strong form of the equivalence principle differ: the former
applies to all phenomena except gravitation itself whereas the latter
applies to all phenomena of nature. This means that according to the
medium strong form, the existence of a gravitational field might be
detected in a freely falling frame by the influence of the gravitational
field on local gravitational phenomena. For example, the gravitational
binding energy of a body might be imagined to contribute differently to
the inertial mass and to the passive gravitational mass ... This is ...
the Nordtvedt effect ... However, Lunar Laser Ranging experiment has put
strong limits on the existence of any such violation of the very strong
equivalence principle."
The EEP (medium strong) with a "locally Minkowski space time" is the
physical meaning of the tangent fiber of differential geometry.
Therefore, you cannot do differential geometry and also claim to VIOLATE
EEP. See Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" for more details on that
idea. The LOCAL tetrad map
guv(LNIF) = eu^aeu^bnab(LIF)
is part of differential geometry formally AND of EEP informally i.e,
interpretively or physically.
"First, the equivalence between a gravitational field and an accelerated
frame in the absence of gravity, and the equivalence between a flat
region of spacetime an a freely falling frame in a gravity field, has to
be considered valid only locally and not globally."
Note that universal inertial forces (independent of mass) like the
Coriolis and the centrifugal forces only are detected in NON-INERTIAL
FRAMES.
It is meaningless in Einstein's GR to claim that in a Local Inertial
Frame (LIF) that a real gravity force (a GCT tensor) is cancelled by an
inertial force (GCT non-tensor). This is what Zielinski claims and it is
false.
You CAN make such a claim in Newton's force picture because Newton's
idea of "inertial frame" is not the same as Einstein's idea of "inertial
frame".
In Newton's paradigm you CAN think of a gravity force field in a global
inertial frame. This force is cancelled by an inertial force in the
free-falling frame that is a NON-INERTIAL frame in Newton's picture!
That is, the distinction "inertial/non-inertial" is SWITCHED in the
transition from Newton to Einstein. This is Zielinski's error. He tries
to force Newton's picture INTO Einstein's. The Brazilians have shown
that there is a kind of Bohr complementarity between the two pictures so
long as one does not try to force the square peg of one picture into the
small round hole of the dual alternative picture.
Wheeler address's the issue of tidal curvature that Zielinski
misinterprets as some kind of violation of Einstein's key idea for GR.
Zielinski then gets conspiratorial and psychoceramic that Wheeler & Co
are somehow trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Wheeler addresses the
long line of wrong critics of Einstein of which Zielinski is the latest:
(p. 15)
Note the EEP is immune from the spherical drop issue below. What is at
stake is the SEP.
The SEP "has been the subject of ... criticisms over the years ... the
content of the strong equivalence principle has been criticized even
'locally'/ It has been argued that if one puts a spherical drop of
liquid in a gravity field, after some time one would observe a tidal
deformation from sphericity of the drop. Of course, this deformation
does not arise in a flat region of spacetime ... No matter if we are
freely falling or not, the gradiometer will eventually detect the
gravity field and thus allow us to distinguish between the freely
falling cabin of a spacecraft in the gravity field of a central mass and
the cabin of a spacedraft away from any mass, in a region of spacetime
essentially flat. Then, may we still consider the STRONG EQUIVALENCE
PRINCIPLE (SEP) to be valid?"
Wheeler then gives the Taylor expansion of the metric in the
NEIGHBORHOOD {P'} of a spacetime event P that I have given many times
before. The simple solution to the problem that Zielinski has magnified
to excess is "The Riemann curvature tensor represents at each point, the
INTRINSIC CURVATURE of the manifold, and, since it is a tensor, one
cannon transform it to zero in one coordinate system if it is non-zero
in some other coordinate system. ... The metric tensor can indeed be
written using the Riemann tensor Rijkl, in a NEIGHBORHOOD of a spacetime
event, in a freely falling, nonrotating, local inertial frame to SECOND
ORDER in the separation" (P' - P)
goo ~ - 1 - R0i0j(P'-P)^i(P'-P)^j
Note that in the weak curvature slow speed Newtonian force limit of GR
goo ~ -[ 1 + V(Newton)/c^2]
V(Newton) = Universal Newtonian Gravity Potential Energy per unit mass
of test particle)
Therefore in the LIF:
V(Newton)/c^2 ~ R0i0j(P'-P)^i(P'-P)^j
Note Rijkl has dimension 1/Area
(P' - P) has dimension Length
Furthermore, the post-Newtonian GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD g0k of
Lense-Thirring FRAME-DRAG not found in Puthoff's PV theory but found in
NASA experiments and used by Ray Chiao of UCB in his "gravity radio"
idea for submarine warfare C^3 and efficent superconducting gravity wave
detectors, is in Fermi Normal Coordinates
g0k = -(2/3)Roikj(P'-P)^i(P'-P)^j
k = 1,2,3
with electro-gravitic coupling
~ g0kA^k
A^k is EM vector potential in
p = mv - (e/c)A (3-vector)
In NEAR FIELD this may allow a geodesic glider WEIGHTLESS WARP DRIVE for
metric engineering! Ray Chiao only uses FAR FIELD.
And finally, i,j,k,l = 1,2,3
gkl = (Kronecker Delta)kl - (1/3)Rkilj(P'-P)^i(P'-P)^j
Zielinski ignores the levels of approximation of perturbation theory
and, therefore, formulates a pseudo-problem.
On Jan 26, 2005, at 2:46 PM, iksnileiz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jan 25, 2005, at 3:08 PM, iksnileiz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They do point out that the gauge representation is able to handle
theories in which certain aspects of EP are violated i.e. mg =/= mi,
[Z] That is not the point. They allude to the dissident literature on
the equivalence principle in sup****t of their teleparallel alternative
to the standard theory. This amounts to a critical argument against the
orthodox view. So you still don't understand what is meant by a
mathematical decomposition of the LC connection into tensor and
non-tensor parts?
[S] I understand what it means. It is false in Einstein's 1916 GR
geometrodynamic representation where
{LC} = non-GCT tensor
It has no tensor part at all.
[Z] I have simply pointed out that the Einstein equivalence hypothesis,
as classically stated by Einstein himself, is not necessary for
Einstein geometrodynamics.
[S] Be specific. What words by Einstein?
[Z] I have given you direct quotes from Einstein any number of times.
[S] All you do is cite a possibly BAD English translation. You do not
read the original German and you do not know what Einstein really said
here at all! Have you checked with a German speaking physicist in the
field? NO!
Your theory is based on quicksand.
[Z] Except that the Brazilian paper shows how, mathematically, you can
do exactly what I have been proposing within the teleparallel framework.
[S] I deny that, nor do the Brazilians claim there is any conclusive
experimental evidence for such theories that violate SEP.
[Z] But at least the differences are testable in principle.
[S] Yes, but they have all so far been falsified as mentioned by Sirag
above. Puthoff's "PV" is such a theory and it does not agree with
experiment beyond the 3 trivial weak field limit "classic tests". PV
fails to predict gravimagnetism now observed, it has no event horizons
pretty much now observed, it fails to give correct 1913-16 pulsar curve
off by what 1/3? When 1916 GR is on target to 10^-14 for which a Nobel
Prize was given. At least Hal has a real theory. It happens to be wrong
and confused in its foundations, but at least it is definite enough to
be falsified and it has. Hal can at least calculate as you so far have
not been able to do.
[Z] So you wanted to talk about the Schwarzschild solution instead?
[S] Yes, until you can solve that you have nothing of interest.
Vilenken's vacuum wall has nothing to do with your claims. It is an
entirely different problem. It has to do with a NONLOCAL Bohm-Aharonov
closed non-exact 1-form in the connection from non-trivial topology of
the vacuum coherence order parameter that is the fabric of spacetime.
This also explains the NASA Pioneer 10&11 anomaly a_g = - cH as a
hedgehog defect centered on Sun (and maybe ALL STARS). What is
im****tant in the Brazilian model for me, so far, is that their gauge
potential theory representation is close to my macro-quantum theory for
emergence of gravity from the COHERING of the ZPF of the false
pre-inflation vacuum. They map their gauge force freedom into GCTs,
which is key to what I do.
[Z] This gauge freedom is intimately tied up with general covariance --
which is closely parallel to what I have been saying.
[S] Really? Where? Show your equations for that. They do not seem to
claim a LOCAL gravity energy tensor in the geometrodynamic representation.
[Z] In the geometric model. They say only that there "seems" to be no
such decomposition in the standard formalism, based on curvature. The
reason they say this is because they are aware that there is no proof.
[S] It's like p & x in Heisenberg. A sharp local energy density in the
gauge force Newtonian rep is NONLOCAL in the geometrodynamic rep - like
wave packet Fourier transforms <p|q> now we have, in analogy
[Z] That is not the Brazilians' theory -- it's your gloss.
[S] Yes.
[Z] You are trying to do complementarity -- but they are talking
*replacement* of curved-vacuum geometrodynamics
with a Newtonian-type force described by contortion.
[S] Paul you do not seem to know that the Brazilians write
GCT tidal stretch-squeeze geometrodynamic 1916 GR curvature tensor ~
teleparallel contortion type term
which translates to teleparallel curvature = 0
The Brazilians do not claim that Riemann curvature is zero.
<Newton gauge force|Einstein geometrodynamics>
The Brazilian gauge potential Bu^a is the non-trivial part of the
dimensionless TETRAD
eu^a = (Kronecker Delta)u^a + Bu^a
that I call
Bu ~ Lp^2(Goldstone Phase),u
Bu = Bu^adx^a
Bu has dimensions of length.
[Z] OK.
[S] But this is very im****tant and very new. Indeed it's completely
original. No one has done this before me I am pretty certain. Sakharov
in 1967 did not realize that it is the cohering of the random ZPF that
gives emergent gravity. PW Anderson was getting the needed idea of "More
is different" simultaneously also in 1967 and they did not know of each
other's work or how they might be connected.
Note that when Lp^2 = hG/c^3 -> 0 MACRO-QUANTUM GRAVITY VANISHES!
guv(LNIF) = eu^aeu^bnab
Note that guv(LNIF) is the Einstein geometrodynamic representation where
nab is the metric in the gauge force rep.
[Z] OK.
[S] Bu^a is the Newtonian non-geometrical gauge force representation.
guv(LNIF) has ELASTIC terms LINEAR in Bu^a and PLASTIC terms NONLINEAR
in Bu^a.
The VANI****NG "gauge force" curvature is NOT the same as the
geometrodynamic tidal stretch-squeeze GCT tensor curvature! You garbled
that Paul by simply looking at the spelling of the same word with two
different meanings in complementary contexts!
[Z] You are saying that they don't replace curvature with contortion?
That they still need Riemann curvature to describe the tidal aspects of
the gravitational field? I say this is FALSE. You are simply projecting
your own prejudices into their paper. They say they use contortion to
describe the gravitational field in its entirety, as an *alternative* to
the usual geometric model.
[S] No Paul, you obviously have not understood their equation (49) on p.7
R* = R + Q = 0
R* is the teleparallel gauge force "curvature
R is Einstein's 1916 GR tidal stretch-squeeze (LC) geodesic deviation
GCT tensor curvature
Q = teleparallel covariant curl of the teleparallel CONTORTION K.
R(Einstein Geometrodynamics) = - Q(Teleparallel Gauge Force) =/= 0
This is not Einstein-Cartan-****pov type theory agreed. However, it is
not contradictory to the latter which would be an extension. You can
have an Einstein-Cartan-****pov extension of this Brazilian-Weitzenbock
theory.
[Z] No math that you were able to understand. :-)
[S] No math you were ever able to write down. I cannot understand what
you cannot manifest in formal language.
[Z] What I gave you was formal:
(LC) = A_ - Q
Then you complained that it was too formal.
It's either too formal, or not formal enough.
What kind of a game is this?
[S] Paul you need to define A_ and Q. You have not done that. Also it's
not good enough to say Alex does it.
You need to do it in TWO ways mathematical and physical. Otherwise it is
too vague and useless.
[Z] In the Brazilian paper, the intrinsic geometry of the spacetime
manifold is implicitly defined by the teleparallel connection, and it is
therefore no longer the curved Riemannian manifold of standard GR. As I
read the paper, there is no need for Riemann curvature in this
teleparallel approach.
[S] That's not what eq. 49 p. 7 says.
[Z] If you don't see this then you haven't yet understood their thesis
IMO.
I am just trying to find a way to do the same thing within the framework
of standard GR.
[S] Exactly, which shows you do not understand at all what the
Brazilians have done!
[Z] More likely that you haven't, since they actually spell it out:
"The definition of an energy-momentum density for the gravitational
field is one of the oldest and most controversial problems of
gravitation."
[S] So? That spells out nothing.
"As a true field, it would be natural to expect that gravity should have
its own local energy-momentum density." (Brazilians)
[Z] Exactly.
[S] IN WHAT CONTEXT? In what representation! Relative to what
connection? Measured how?
Loud silence by Zielinski on this key point.
"However, it is usually asserted that such a density cannot be locally
defined because of the equivalence principle."
[Z] Note the phraseology: "...it is usually *asserted* that such a
density cannot be locally defined...".
[S] So? What of it? What unwarranted inference do you make of that?
"As a consequence, any attempt to identify an energy-momentum density
for the gravitational field leads to complexes that are not true tensors."
[Z] Uh huh.
[S] Hardly news Paul.
[Z] Right. But wait, there's more....
"The first of such attempt was made by Einstein who proposed an
expression for the energy-momentum density of the gravitational field
which was nothing but the canonical expression obtained from Noether’s
theorem. Indeed, this quantity is a pseudotensor, an object that depends
on the coordinate system. Several other attempts have been made, leading
to different expressions for the energy-momentum pseudotensor for the
gravitational field."
[Z] As I have been saying.
[S] As found in every text book. So far nothing has been solved.
[Z] This is all direct from Arcos and Pereira.
[S] So what? It's common knowledge defining The Question. It is not The
Answer you yearn for Paul.
"Despite the existence of some controversial points related to the
formulation of the equivalence principle, it seems true that, in the
context of general relativity, no tensorial expression for the
gravitational energy-momentum density can exist."
[Z] Note the phraseology: "...it *seems* true that...". Not "is true",
but "seems true".
[S] And it IS true!
[Z] As they write, it is "usually asserted". I agree that this is simply
an "assertion". There is no proof. And the Brazilians know that. That's
why they write, "it *seems* true that...". Get it?
[S] I claim it is true. For example see Penrose "The Road to Reality"
19.8 "Gravitational Field Energy" there is no LOCAL pure gravity
stress-energy density GCT tensor vacuum field apart from the trivial one
tuv(vacuum) = (c^4/8piG)(Guv + /\zpfguv)
Note, when the exotic dark energy vanishes, i.e. /\zpf = 0, then Guv ->
Ruv = R = 0 and so
tuv(non-exotic vacuum) = 0
However, in the presence of either dark energy (negative pressure) or
dark matter (positive pressure), both have w = -1 but positive pressure
clumps look like w = 0 to distant observers (us),
tuv(exotic vacua) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv =/= 0
Not in context of the geometrodynamic representation, but possibly in
context of a Bohr complementary Newtonian gauge force representation! A
VERY DIFFERENT STORY FROM YOURS PAUL!
[Z] That is merely your personal hallucination. That is not in their
paper. What is in their paper is the statement that the teleparallel
treatment is an "alternative" to the standard formal description of the
gravitational field in terms of spacetime curvature. You are trying to
impose your own eccentric interpretation on their paper -- but your
interpretation contradicts their actual remarks.
[S] I am imposing my interpretation on their eccentric paper that is
true. I do not see the contradiction because you do not understand what
"alternative" means.
[Z] I note that the Brazilians only say that there "seems" to be no such
solution within the standard 1916 curved-manifold framework -- which
they offer as a sales point for their flavor of teleparallelism (which
effectively returns gravitational physics to a flat spacetime manifold
and "forces").
[S] You completely misunderstand the paper! They never say that the 1916
GR tidal "curvature" is zero.
"As already discussed, in general relativity torsion is assumed to
vanish from the very beginning, whereas in teleparallel gravity
curvature is assumed to vanish." - p 2
[S] IT'S NOT SAME "CURVATURE"!
Gauge force curvature = Geometrodynamic Einstein Curvature - Torsion
type term = 0
[Z] But note that the intrinsic geometry of the manifold is now
*defined* by the torsion connection. There is no longer any underlying
curvature, and we are no longer dealing with the Riemannian manifold of
standard GR. This is the subtlety that has evidently escaped you.
[S] False. Again eq. 49 p. 7 you have over-extrapolated.
"In the present work, we will separate the notions of space and
connections. From a formal point of view, curvature and torsion are in
fact properties of a connection."
[S] Yes.
"Strictly speaking, there is no such a thing as curvature or torsion of
spacetime, but only curvature or torsion of connections. This becomes
evident if we remember that many different connections are allowed to
exist in the same spacetime. Of course, when restricted to the specific
case of general relativity, universality of gravitation allows the
Levi–Civita connection to be interpreted as part of the spacetime
definition as all particles and fields feel this connection the same."
[S] Yes
"However, when considering several connections with different curvature
and torsion, *it seems far wiser and convenient to take spacetime simply
as a manifold*, and connections (with their curvatures and torsions) as
additional structures."
- Arcos & Pereira, p 4
[S] Yes. Standard orthodox same as in Penrose's "The Road to Reality" so
what?
"We may then say that the gravitational interaction can be described in
terms of curvature, as is usually done in general relativity, or
*alternatively* in terms of torsion, in which case we have the so called
teleparallel gravity." - p 2
[S] YES EXACTLY! That simply means
GAUGE FORCE TORSION TYPE TERM equivalent to GEOMETRODYNAMIC TIDAL
STRETCH-SQUEEZE
in two qualitatively different pictures.
[Z] It means that the torsion formalism *completely replaces* the
geometric model as an alternative exhaustive description of the
gravitational field -- contrary to what you wrote.
[S] It means nothing of the sort. That's you over-interpreting again.
Just look at eq. (49) p. 7
"...whereas in general relativity gravitation is described in terms of
the curvature tensor, in teleparallel gravity it is described in terms
of torsion." - p 20
[S] Yes, if
A ~ B - C
and if
A ~ 0
Therefore,
B ~ C
I use ~ not = in sense of a EQUIVALENCE RELATION that is the MAPPING
between the TWO Bohr COMPLEMENTARITY pictures of teleparallelism with
torsion* and zero curvature* ~ Einstein geometrodynamics without torsion
but with curvature.
Note "curvature*" =/= "curvature"
AND
"torsion*" =/= "torsion"
Paul you are confused by SURFACE LABELS! You have found FOOL'S GOLD and
the END OF THE RAINBOW.
Again loud silence from Paul in this devastatingly accurate remark -
checkmate, "As I end the refrain, thrust home." Cyrano De Bergerac
(Rostand)
"...whereas in general relativity gravitation is described in terms of
the curvature tensor, in teleparallel gravity it is described in terms
of torsion." - p 20
[Z] Plain as day. Where is the "curvature" here?
[S] Eq. 49 p.7
Note, this is not same idea as ****pov's theory.
[Z] Duly noted.
"...the classical equivalence between teleparallel gravity and general
relativity implies that curvature and torsion might be simply
*alternative ways* of describing *the gravitational field*, and
consequently related to the *same degrees of freedom of gravity*." - p
32.
"A further consequence that emerges from the conceptual differences
between general relativity and teleparallel gravity is that, whereas in
the former curvature is used to geometrize the gravitational
interaction—spinless particles follow geodesics — in the latter torsion
describes the gravitational interaction by acting as a
force—trajectories are not given by geodesics, but by force equations.
[S] SO WHAT?
You can write <p|Psi> or <x|Psi> and you can even write <<x,p|Psi>> as a
Wigner phase space density.
<p|Psi> = Integral of <<x,p|Psi>>dx etc
But you CANNOT write <x,p|Psi> WHICH IS YOUR ERROR (by analogy).
According to the teleparallel approach, therefore, the role played by
torsion is quite well defined: it appears as an *alternative* to
curvature in the description of the gravitational field...". - p 32
But you DID NOT UNDERSTAND the paper's real meaning!
[Z] Either I'm hallucinating or you are.
[S] Agreed.
[Z] I think it's you.
[S] Which proves it's you! ;-)
"...the role played by torsion is quite well defined: it appears as an
*alternative* to curvature in the description of the gravitational
field..."
[Z] Jack, what part of "alternative" didn't you understand?
[S] I understand the math that they actually DO.
[Z] That wasn't the question. What do you think they mean here by
"alternative"? Wave-particle duality?
[S] Yes, you can look at it EITHER WAY! Gestalt ****ft!
http://www.neurosemantics.com/Stuttering/foreground-background.htm
http://online.sfsu.edu/~psych200/unit6/68.htm
You really understand NOTHING of what they do because you are stuck on
the surface of the words like "curvature" and "torsion" without
understanding their very different meanings in the two alternative
pictures!
[Z] Really?
[S] Really.
You read the words not not the equations.
[Z] I read the words and looked at the equations.
[S] WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING ANY OF IT.
[Z] Or perhaps I do understand the author's purposes and intentions,
while you are hallucinating?
[S] Am I Jack Sarfatti thinking he is Robin Williams, or am I Robin
Williams thinking he is Jack Sarfatti?
Let's leave Buddhism out of this.
The curvature that vanishes is a DIFFERENT curvature from Einstein's
1916 which is battle-tested based on geodesic deviation - all relative
to the LC connection - not a bigger one!
[Z] You are trying to have your cake *and* eat it.
The authors are quite clear in this point:
"...theoretical speculations have since the early days of general
relativity discussed the necessity of including torsion, in addition to
curvature, in the description of the gravitational interaction."
[S] Again the words "torsion" and "curvature" are being used too
sloppily EVEN BY THE BRAZILIANS.
[Z] Because their actual use of these terms in the paper doesn't sup****t
your eccentric "complementarity" gloss on their treatment?
{s} Look Paul given any connection C with a covariant derivative D
TORSION means
[Du,Dv]SCALAR = TORSIONuv^w(Scalar),w
,w is ordinary partial derivative
CURVATURE means
[Du,Dv]Aw = (CURVATURE)uvw^lAl
Where TORSION and CURVATURE are BOTH tensors relative to the given group
e.g. GCT if we are doing 1916 GR.
[Z] They say that in GR, the gravitational field is described by a
curvature tensor -- which obvious means the Riemann tensor R^u_vwl. They
say that *this* curvature is absent in their treatment.
[S] Hogwash Paul. Again you have not understood their eq. 49 p. 7.
[Z] The point is that the intrinsic geometry of the manifold is now
defined entirely by the teleparallel connection. Are you saying that
this teleparallel connection must have non-vani****ng Riemann curvature
in their treatment?
[S] Yes, that's eq. 49 p. 7
Now in the Brazilian paper the gauge force connection C* is NOT same as
the 1916 GR (LC) connection.
[Z] Right.
[S] Indeed Bu is the Gauge Force Connection
C* = Bu
Du* = ,u - Bu
Just like in EM!
[Z] Exactly.
[S] In contrast, in the geometrodynamic representation
C = (LC)
Du = ,u - (LC)
Therefore Paul you have been comparing apples with oranges. Your head is
in the clouds, but your feet are not on the ground. You are a LUFTMENSCH
right out of Thomas Mann's "Felix Krull" - or maybe I am? ;-)
|
