Jarek Duda wrote:

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory, there
was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz invariant
- by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g. density of
mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely known to
be wrong. Gravitational dipole radiation does not exist.


This much less philosophically controversial theory (matter is not
prisoned in infinitely thin submanfold of something with which it
doesn't interact ... allowing for wormhole-like solutions...) agrees
well with most of observations (?),

Yeah, "(?)" because it isn't true.

even with Gravity Probe B. Some papers says that even in better way:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/14/tdm5.pdf

open pdf
"Did Einstein cheat ?"
close pdf



There can be also found strong arguments, that electromagnetic field
also causes time dilation - for example while measuring muon lifetime
in muonic atoms:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wtr11w113r22g346/

Electromagnetic fields do not cause time dilation. Idiot.


My interest on this subject started while I was working on some model
in which the main dynamics was local rotations in 4D and it occurred
that it leads to natural unification of electromagnetism and
gravitomagnetism - spatial rotations gives Maxwell's equations, while
small rotations of time axis (kind of central axis of light cone),
gives the second set of Maxwell's equation - for gravity (5th section
of http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ).

Do some basic research and stop reinventing a wheel that is known very well
to not work.


What do you think about it?
Why 'the only proper approach': intristic curvature is better than
gravitomagnetism?

dlzc wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:14:39 -0800:

Dear "Juan R." González-�lvarez:

On Feb 7, 9:15Â*am, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
bert wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:58:00 -0800:
...
Spin 2 is the graviton,and its QM theory.

Sorry if the standard but lazy naming confused you.

Within the framework of *classical* theory, the terms "spin-1" and
"spin-2" are a standard way to refer to tensorial orders: one versus
two. In terms of the *classical* potentials it is the difference
between the A^b used in
gravitomagnetism and the h_bc used in more general theories of
gravitation.

Of course, there is close relation between the number of indexes in the
potential (one, two...) and the spin of the underlying quantum
particle. This is why the terms the terms "spin-1" "spin-2"... are
often used in classical theory also.

For instance, in the textbook by Wald, he claims that general
relativity can be understood as the classical theory of a spin-2 field
[#]. Of course, he is not saying that general relativity is a quantum
theory, neither he is saying that general relativity deals with the
spin of quantum particles. He is merely emphasizing the number of
indexes in the metric g_ab.

[#] His remark is not at all correct, general
relativity only can be understood as the classical theory of a
spin-2 field in a
Â* Â* geometrodynamics approximation.

Do you think that "bert" will be less confused by this? "bert"
typically recognizes few more nouns than can be found in the works of
Dr. Seuss...

David A. Smith

I can be naive sometimes, but I also know that responses to OPs are readed
by more than one, and wait someone can find something useful in the above
or at least be curious enough to open Wald textbook, search where he says
that and study why...


--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...encetoday.html

eric gisse wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:04:35 -0800:

Jarek Duda wrote:

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory, there
was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz invariant
- by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g. density of
mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely known
to be wrong.

NONSENSE :-D

Gravitomagnetism is a well-defined *subset* of general relativity
and it is actually used by astrophysicists and astronomers.

J.A. Wheeler (1990). "Gravity's next prize: Gravitomagnetism". A journey into gravity and spacetime. Scientific American Library. pp. 232–233.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...magnetism.html


Indeed Wald has a section where he gives the geodesic equation of motion of
GR in the gravitomagnetic limit

a = -E - 4v x B

where E and B are the gravitomagnetic 'fields'.

(...)

P.S: Your new crackpot remark has been archived and will be added to the
public page devoted to you. You already know the URL, true?

P.S2: Newsgroups deleted by Eric re-added.


--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...encetoday.html

Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:

On Feb 8, 3:50*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
dlzc wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:14:39 -0800:
....
Do you think that "bert" will be less
confused by this? *"bert" typically
recognizes few more nouns than can be
found in the works of Dr. Seuss...

I can be naive sometimes, but I also know
that responses to OPs are readed by more
than one,

But no good can come from following gibberish with fact. It does not
provide a path for growth, either for "bert" or posterity. You aren't
generating "new thought", simply stating facts the OP cannot follow,
appears to be genetically incapable of following / retaining.

and wait someone can find something
useful in the above or at least be
curious enough to open Wald textbook,
search where he says that and study why...

But someone (other than "bert") would not have been attracted to this
topic to see your recommendation. "bert" is an automatic dead end.

By responding to him in his less lucid moments, you encourage him,
make him feel like his "contributions" are valid. He cannot feel that
he needs to study, he cannot hear that his random word generator and
his naieve experience is insufficient to be "helping"...

David A. Smith

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:

eric gisse wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:04:35 -0800:

Jarek Duda wrote:

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory, there
was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz invariant
- by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g. density of
mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely known
to be wrong.

NONSENSE :-D

Gravitomagnetism is a well-defined *subset* of general relativity
and it is actually used by astrophysicists and astronomers.

Well, there's a slight difference between gravitomagnetism as derived from
linearized GR (which you disagree with!) and WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID.

Gravitation theory as put down by replacing charge in Maxwell's equations
with mass is well known to be wrong, as it predicts dipole gravitational
radiation and does not get the _sign_ of energy loss for orbits correct.

I had explained a part of this but you snipped it before you went on your
little irrelevant rant.

[...]


P.S: Your new crackpot remark has been archived and will be added to the
public page devoted to you. You already know the URL, true?

P.S2: Newsgroups deleted by Eric re-added.



The character assassination hasn't worked yet. Maybe if you get increasingly
incoherent and shrill...

On Feb 7, 8:11*am, Jacko wrote:
What do you think about it?
Why 'the only proper approach': intristic curvature is better than
gravitomagnetism?

well, uncertain geometryhttp://sites.google.com/site/jackokringmakes
mass units as s/m^2 the recprical of space time power.

velocity is current, time is resistance, length is voltage, photon
arrives at same time it leaves as v=c.
p=v^2.t

the EM charge concept then gets units of root m/s. this implies a
velocity difference is responsible for the Q^2 in electric force
interaction. (c,0)???

The shape of the particle flux causing conservation of charge is as
yet unknown to me. The commutivity of the quantum field in this theory
is the best feature, allowing easy unification with special
relativity. It does however imply relative mass is what we mean by a
fixed mass, and the underlaying mass field oscillates. Small
differences in phase or frequency account for quantum uncertainty at
underlaying mass zero crossings. Cosmic inflation is explained as anti-
phase underlying mass going far and in phase coming close. Hubble
red?? and does the far off really weigh what is measured??

cheers jacko

Yes, Jacko, it is all phase relationships. Milo Wolff did what Wheeler
and Feynman couldn't. He gives the mathematical proof that the
electron is a scalar, standing wave entity. See: http://www.quantummatter.com/
Also important is the Hubble Limit because as Milo shows us there is
NO electron to electron action beyond this Hubble limit. This gives us
what we need : a finite yet unbounded universe. See: http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm

btw, Nobel laureat Josephson is sniffing around at Milo Wolff's
concept now too:

All of us are on the right road Jacko and neither Milo nor I nor you
have even scratched the surface of what's REALLY down this road!

Fitz

eric gisse wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:36:36 -0800:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:

eric gisse wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:04:35 -0800:

Jarek Duda wrote:

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory, there
was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz
invariant - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g.
density of mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely
known to be wrong.

NONSENSE :-D

Gravitomagnetism is a well-defined *subset* of general relativity and
it is actually used by astrophysicists and astronomers.

Well, there's a slight difference between gravitomagnetism as derived
from linearized GR (which you disagree with!) and WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID.

The title says gravitomagnetism and the above Wikipedia link introduced
by the OP is about gravitomagnetism. You wrote your invalid comment about
gravitomagnetism just after the Wikipedia link about gravitomagnetism.

As I have remarked before, gravitomagnetism is a well-defined subset of
general relativity. Indeed it is derived in the linearized limit of GR
(see the references and links given).

You, however, have claimed for several years now that linearized GR is,
in your own words, INCONSISTENT. Next some of your well-known crackpot
comments in this issue:

"the linearized theory is inconsistent in a mathematical sense"

"the linearized theory is inconsistent"

"The basic argument is that the weak field limit is inconsistent.
Which is well known"

Neither gravitomagnetism is wrong neither linearized GR nor the weak
'field' limit of GR are inconsistent.


(...)

P.S: Newsgroups deleted by Eric re-added again.



--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...encetoday.html

On Feb 8, 11:02*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:36:36 -0800:





Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:

eric gisse wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:04:35 -0800:

Jarek Duda wrote:

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory, there
was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz
invariant - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g.
density of mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely
known to be wrong.

NONSENSE :-D

Gravitomagnetism is a well-defined *subset* of general relativity and
it is actually used by astrophysicists and astronomers.

Well, there's a slight difference between gravitomagnetism as derived
from linearized GR (which you disagree with!) and WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID..

The title says gravitomagnetism and the above Wikipedia link introduced
by the OP is about gravitomagnetism. You wrote your invalid comment about
gravitomagnetism just after the Wikipedia link about gravitomagnetism.

As I have remarked before, gravitomagnetism is a well-defined subset of
general relativity. Indeed it is derived in the linearized limit of GR
(see the references and links given).

You, however, have claimed for several years now that linearized GR is,
in your own words, INCONSISTENT. Next some of your well-known crackpot
comments in this issue:

* "the linearized theory is inconsistent in a mathematical sense"

* "the linearized theory is inconsistent"

* "The basic argument is that the weak field limit is inconsistent.
* *Which is well known"

Neither gravitomagnetism is wrong neither linearized GR nor the weak
'field' limit of GR are inconsistent.

(...)

P.S: Newsgroups deleted by Eric re-added again.

--http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...lscienceto...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Earth turns in its round curvature.

Mitch Raemsch

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:02:01 +0000:

eric gisse wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:36:36 -0800:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:

eric gisse wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:04:35 -0800:

Jarek Duda wrote:

It's far from widely known fact that before Einstein's theory, there
was Heaviside's simpler approach to make gravitation Lorentz
invariant - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations - with e.g.
density of mass instead of density of charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Actually it is widely known by physicists, and is even more widely
known to be wrong.

NONSENSE :-D

Gravitomagnetism is a well-defined *subset* of general relativity and
it is actually used by astrophysicists and astronomers.

Well, there's a slight difference between gravitomagnetism as derived
from linearized GR (which you disagree with!) and WHAT HE ACTUALLY
SAID.

The title says gravitomagnetism and the above Wikipedia link introduced
by the OP is about gravitomagnetism. You wrote your invalid comment
about gravitomagnetism just after the Wikipedia link about
gravitomagnetism.

As I have remarked before, gravitomagnetism is a well-defined subset of
general relativity. Indeed it is derived in the linearized limit of GR
(see the references and links given).

You, however, have claimed for several years now that linearized GR is,
in your own words, INCONSISTENT. Next some of your well-known crackpot
comments in this issue:

"the linearized theory is inconsistent in a mathematical sense"

"the linearized theory is inconsistent"

"The basic argument is that the weak field limit is inconsistent.
Which is well known"

Neither gravitomagnetism is wrong neither linearized GR nor the weak
'field' limit of GR are inconsistent.


(...)

P.S: Newsgroups deleted by Eric re-added again.

Sorry, I forgot to comment that you recent lie trying to cover your
idiocies by attributing to others your silly comments about linearized
GR being inconsistent, will be added to your page. You already know the
URL, true?



--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...encetoday.html

On Feb 7, 11:15*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
bert wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:58:00 -0800:





On Feb 7, 9:07*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:05:50 +0000:

Jarek Duda wrote on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:54:17 -0800:

(...)

What do you think about it?
Why 'the only proper approach': intristic curvature is better than
gravitomagnetism?

Essentially local gravity is spin-2 and cannot be totally covered by
a spin-1 formalism.

* ^^^ Correction: spin-1-like formalism.

There is situations where you can apply a gravitomagnetic approx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Note: Spin-2 cannot be completely described by "intrinsic curvature",
but only holds in the geometrodynamics approximation over which GR is
defined.

--http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...nicalscienceto...

Spin 2 is the graviton,and its QM theory.

Sorry if the standard but lazy naming confused you.

Within the framework of *classical* theory, the terms "spin-1" and "spin-2"
are a standard way to refer to tensorial orders: one versus two. In terms of
the *classical* potentials it is the difference between the A^b used in
gravitomagnetism and the h_bc used in more general theories of gravitation.