Refutation of Z's conjecture on (LC)

By definition almost (LC) =/= 0 in ALL LNIF.
Therefore, since GCT of Diff(4) is ONLY for
LNIF - LNIF' at same physical event P = {equivalence class of manifold
points p}

(LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY = 0 is IMPOSSIBLE

The correct formula there is

eee(LC) = 0

Z has confused objective dynamical Cartan-Einstein tetrad field e = I + B

with subjective non-dynamical GCT X

We have the composition of maps diagram

e: LNIF - LIF
|X |O(1,3)
e' LNIF'- LIF'


On Apr 13, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The issue here what is objectively dynamical and what is simply inertial
force from the non-geodesic LNF.

The tetrad field is objective dynamical or "intrinsic" coordinate-free.

e = I + B is the Einstein-Cartan 1-form.

B is the non-rigid dynamical connection 1-form from locally gauging T4
to Diff(4)
It is also in my SBVS vacuum ODLRO theory, the closed non-exact 1-form

B = (Lp/2pi)"dargVacuumODLRO"

B is also a 1st rank GCT Diff4 tensor and a first rank O(1,3) tensor.

If B = 0 in one local frame it is zero in all local frames for same event P.

*Alex Poltorak's "non-metricity" with a "rigid affine connection" makes
no sense in the theory I am using. I have no idea what either of those
terms mean physically.

e connects coincident geodesic LIFs with non-geodesic LNIFs.

Diff(4) connects coincident non-geodesic LNIFs with non-geodesic LNIF's.

Z is confusing tetrads with GCTs.

Levi-Civita connection (LC) =/= 0 ONLY in a nongeodesic LNIF where it is
essentially an "inertial force".

eee(LC) = 0 for the (LC) connection from EEP

Under GCT X

(LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY

Y is first order partial derivatives of X

Z has confounded dynamical tetrad e's with "inertial force" GCT X's.

(LC) is a tensor relative to linear subgroup of GCT where Y = 0.

It is not a tensor, nor does it have a tensor part =/= 0, when Y =/= 0.


On Apr 12, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hardly debatable about archive I like apple pie and ice cream too. The
key phrase is "in the right way". You SHOULD PRACTISE what you preach in
more ways than one. My whole point about your bogus thesis

1. (LC) = T + N

T =/= 0


Every text book says (LC) is not a tensor under GCT where, of course, it
the context is Y =/= 0. Your idea here is completely off the wall.

Jack, everyone knows that the LC connection as a whole is not a GCT
tensor. Who do you imagine
denies this?

You. I mean you cannot at all split it into

(LC) = T + N

T = 3rd rank NONLINEAR GCT tensor =/= 0 that's confused when Y =/= 0 in

(LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY

Y ~ X,

Linear GCTs mean Y = 0, (LC) is a LINEAR GCT tensor, but not a NONLINEAR
GCT tensor. Y =/= 0 defined NONLINEAR GCT.

Or that you can satisfactorily discuss and explicate the emergence of a
curved spacetime from a flat-background quantum field without paying any
attention to it?

Can you at least give us a clue?

I have given the exact formulae over and over.

e = I + B

B = (Lp/2pi)"dargODLRO" closed but not exact

g(CURVED SPACE-TIME) = (I + B)(FLAT SPACE-TIME)(I + B)

under GCT

g - g' = X(I + B)(FLAT SPACE-TIME)X(I + B)

XI(FLAT SPACE-TIME)XI is FAKE GRAVITY i.e. pure inertial force that
locally is equivalent to real gravity MOD tidal geodesic deviation

The only real gravity is when B =/= 0.

B is a first rank GCT tensor as well as the potential for the substratum
"torsion"

F = dB

when Vacuum ODLRO's G/H = U(1)

well there you have it.

Bottom - Up emergent vacuum ODLRO gravity NO GRAVITONS, you do not
re-quantize g. It's nonrenormalizable for a good reason.

All QFT must be renormalizable.