Science > Physics > Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Snoitpoq" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2004 08:29:33 AM |
| Object: |
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were incompatible
with the Principle of Equivalence and where therefore incompatible with each
other!. Until that point, the writer uncritically accepted that both theories
were completely valid, but this difference signaled that something was wrong.
To clarify, a brief digression would seem to be in order.
In the late 19th century, the study of Dimensional Analysis was developed.
It was found that all physical relationships (equations) could be defined in
terms of three dimensional entities. Any three entities were suitable and no
more than three were required. The commonly chosen entities were Mass(M),
Length(L), and Time(T). There were attempts to reduce the required number to
two by substituting accepted physical constants, such as the speed of light,
for one of the dimensional entities. Careful examination reveals however, that
such a change merely substitutes that constant for the eliminated entity and no
simplification has occurred. (The writer has received a few responses from
individuals who strongly assert that Dimensional Analysis is of no benefit in
the study of Relativity. It is obvious that they have not done their homework
and their understanding of the subject is marginal.)
For simplicity, the writer selected a system of dimensional entities based
upon Force(F), Length(L), and Time(T). (This choice is just as valid as the
conventional MLT system.) The dimensional entity content of all other physical
quantities, including mass, can be expressed in terms of force, length, and
time by using the appropriate expressions from the Science of Physics. (A
listing of the dimensional entity content of many common physical quantities in
the FLT system is provided in Table 8.2 of
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax/htm.) The dimensional entity
content of energy, for example, equal to the product of force and length (F*L)
and for velocity is equal to length divided by time (L/T).
When one examines the Lorentz Transformations of Special Relativity he
finds that the transformations (parallel to velocity) for various physical
quantities may be determined by inserting the Lorentz Transformations for
force, length, and time for the dimensional entity content of the quantity
involved. Since, in terms of force, length, and time, the Lorentz
Transformations are, defining for velocity effects, $=(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5:
Force(F)= 1
Length(L)= 1/(1-$)
Time(T)= (1-$)
For example, the Lorentz Transformation for energy and for velocity thus
become:
Energy(E)= 1/(1-$)^0.5
Velocity(v)= 1/(1-$)
(It should be noted that the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity tells us that,
if the velocity of light measured locally is to be invariant (as Special
Relativity requires), then it must differ between velocity reference frame in
ABSOLUTE terms. This conclusion was clearly understood by the intellectual
giants of the time (Fitzgerald, Larmor, et al) but apparently not by most of
the individuals who followed (including Dr. Einstein).
General Relativity provides a transformation for time which is analogous
to the Lorentz Transformation for Time (the time dilation) but, unlike Special
Relativity, does not provide an analogous transformation for length. It asserts
that the Gravitational Transformation for length is unity! If we examine the
equivalent functions provided by General Relativity for gravity effects,
defining # as the gravitational potential between elevations, we find that
General Relativity provides:
Force(F)= 1
Length(L)= 1
Time(T)= (1-#)
And for the examples used above:
Energy= 1
Velocity= 1/(1-#)
To make up for the lack of a length transformation, General Relativity assume
that space is distorted in proportion to the time dilation and also provides a
space dilation of (1-#). This incorporates the idea that space is "curved" into
a fourth spatial direction in the presence of a gravitational field.
Unfortunately, such a solution is only a partial fix for the conflict between
Special and General Relativity and cannot explain all of the characteristics of
the gravitational field nor rigorously define that field.
General Relativity is based upon the premise that the properties of the
gravitational field are identical to the properties of an accelerated reference
frame as defined by Special Relativity. Comparing the two lists of
transformations, one finds that this cannot be the case. As one changes
reference frames (elevation or Velocity), the results of observations would
differ depending whether one considered the observed force resulted from
spatial acceleration or from gravitational acceleration. For example, energy as
measured in the gravitational field would be unchanged while energy as measured
between moving reference frames would obey the Lorentz Transformation for
Energy! Obviously gravitational and inertial acceleration cannot be considered
to be the same under General Relativity and, since Special Relativity seems to
be beyond question, a mistake must have been made in the derivation of General
Relativity.
When one accepts the heretical possibility that a mathematical mistake was
made in the derivation of General Relativity it is not hard to find. Embedded
in the mathematics is an equation containing the second derivatives of length
and of time which must be integrated to achieve a solution. The second
derivative for time has a coefficient which allows the effects of time dilation
to be included. The second derivative for length has no such coefficient! This
omission arbitrarily forces a solution where any gravitational transformation
for length which results must be equal to unity re3gardless of its proper
value. Those familiar with undergraduate level integral calculus will recognize
immediately that the integration of the length derivative without the allowance
for a coefficient is a forbidden operation and will normally yield erroneous
results. The existence of this error forced Dr. Einstein to spend almost 18
months seeking a means of solving the equations of General Relativity.
Unfortunately, instead of fixing this basic mathematical error, he took the
easy way out by asserting that space was curved without any evidence of such
curvature. In other word, he FAKED IT! The justification given by a conference
that accepted General Relativity was 'why shouldn't we consider space to be
curved, no one can prove it isn't". Some science!
When one derives that nature of the gravitational field correctly one sees
that space is not curved and obtains, for the gravitational transformations:
Force(F)= 1
Length(L)= 1/(1-#)
Time(T)= (1-#)
It will be noted that these transformations are analogous to the ones for
Special Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence really does work since, for
both theories, the product of the length and time transformations is unity as
is the force transformation. These transformations provide some surprisingly
rich results, including the source of gravitational energy, the creation of our
universe and provides insight as to what is external to it! (Try it, you'll
like it.) Dr. Einstein's blunder in the derivation of General Relativity and
the failure of the academic community to correct that blunder has produced a
great deal of mischief. This mischief has led to the idea that Quantum Theory
and General Relativity are in conflict (they aren't) and string theory is not
required.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 09:11:01 AM |
|
|
In article <20040715092933.19468.00001717@mb-m17.aol.com>,
Snoitpoq <snoitpoq@aol.com> wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were incompatible
Why do so many of these people seem to be such old farts?
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 08:16:00 AM |
|
|
In article <cd639l$2ft$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <20040715092933.19468.00001717@mb-m17.aol.com>,
Snoitpoq <snoitpoq@aol.com> wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity
about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were
incompatible
Why do so many of these people seem to be such old farts?
They've retired and have become very bored, now that they
don't have anybody telling them what to do. Us old farts
had our first exposure to E=MC^2 when we watched Ben Casey.
hmmm...that's not correct..it was infinity. See?
Forgetfulness is another symptom of oldfartedness. ;-)
So we get it all mixed up.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 12:18:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <cd639l$2ft$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <20040715092933.19468.00001717@mb-m17.aol.com>,
Snoitpoq <snoitpoq@aol.com> wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity
about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were
incompatible
Why do so many of these people seem to be such old farts?
They've retired and have become very bored, now that they
don't have anybody telling them what to do. Us old farts
had our first exposure to E=MC^2 when we watched Ben Casey.
hmmm...that's not correct..it was infinity. See?
Forgetfulness is another symptom of oldfartedness. ;-)
So we get it all mixed up.
"Ben Casey" opening: Sam Jaffe, everybody's favorite Einstein
clone, writes on a blackboard a descending stack of symbols and
says
"Man
Woman
Birth
Death (for Christians)
Infinity..."
The camera then cleanly cuts away to a commercial as he continues
to write the last symbol and says,
"$ Sponsor."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
16 Jul 2004 04:22:07 AM |
|
|
In article <40F6BC69.4975AB75@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <cd639l$2ft$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <20040715092933.19468.00001717@mb-m17.aol.com>,
Snoitpoq <snoitpoq@aol.com> wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity
about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were
incompatible
Why do so many of these people seem to be such old farts?
They've retired and have become very bored, now that they
don't have anybody telling them what to do. Us old farts
had our first exposure to E=MC^2 when we watched Ben Casey.
hmmm...that's not correct..it was infinity. See?
Forgetfulness is another symptom of oldfartedness. ;-)
So we get it all mixed up.
"Ben Casey" opening: Sam Jaffe, everybody's favorite Einstein
clone, writes on a blackboard a descending stack of symbols and
says
"Man
Woman
Birth
Death (for Christians)
Infinity..."
Yea. That's it. It was my first introduction to a notion that
was called infinity. Dad told me to start counting numbers and,
when I reached the end, that would be infinity. I spent two
days counting until I "got it".
The camera then cleanly cuts away to a commercial as he continues
to write the last symbol and says,
"$ Sponsor."
I never saw that one :-).
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 10:09:26 AM |
|
|
In article <40f69467$0$1202$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <cd639l$2ft$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <20040715092933.19468.00001717@mb-m17.aol.com>,
Snoitpoq <snoitpoq@aol.com> wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity
about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were
incompatible
Why do so many of these people seem to be such old farts?
They've retired and have become very bored, now that they
don't have anybody telling them what to do. Us old farts
had our first exposure to E=MC^2 when we watched Ben Casey.
hmmm...that's not correct..it was infinity. See?
Forgetfulness is another symptom of oldfartedness. ;-)
So we get it all mixed up.
I wonder if Spaceman will replace his taunting with pseudo-scholarly
monologues when he retires.
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 10:22:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <40f69467$0$1202$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <cd639l$2ft$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <20040715092933.19468.00001717@mb-m17.aol.com>,
Snoitpoq <snoitpoq@aol.com> wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity
about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were
incompatible
Why do so many of these people seem to be such old farts?
They've retired and have become very bored, now that they
don't have anybody telling them what to do. Us old farts
had our first exposure to E=MC^2 when we watched Ben Casey.
hmmm...that's not correct..it was infinity. See?
Forgetfulness is another symptom of oldfartedness. ;-)
So we get it all mixed up.
I wonder if Spaceman will replace his taunting with pseudo-scholarly
monologues when he retires.
"Gregory Hansen" makes a good point!
Pseudo-scholarly monologues are indeed the best way to get across
self-righteous diatribes that rational, honest individuals will
understand.
The pseudo-scholarly monologue was made possible by the work of Edison,
along with everything else in existence including the wheel, deodorant,
and contraceptives.
As all rational students of Usenet know, the pseudo-scholarly monologue is
a powerful tool for thwarting the efforts of the instigators of flame-wars
for profit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 08:34:19 AM |
|
|
Snoitpoq wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity
Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when
there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as
generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course
there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when
massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many
applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives
a completely self-consistent description of the mechanics of
accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics
did.
The difference between general and special relativity is that in the
general theory all frames of reference including spinning and
accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special
relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In
general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change
general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity
space-time is always flat.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 09:29:24 AM |
|
|
Snoitpoq wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity with
Newton's G set to zero, you fucking imbecile.
[snip 160 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each
of the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks
or three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites
(currently being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and
two cesium atomic clocks.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial
Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change
the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a
special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and
therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare
group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** -
even when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity? |
15 Jul 2004 08:38:04 AM |
|
|
Snoitpoq wrote:
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?
When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity about four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were incompatible
with the Principle of Equivalence and where therefore incompatible with each
other!. Until that point, the writer uncritically accepted that both theories
were completely valid, but this difference signaled that something was wrong.
To clarify, a brief digression would seem to be in order.
What do you get when you define a constant metric tensor, schmuck?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
