On Feb 8, 1:34*pm, bert wrote:
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.

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
* * geometrodynamics approximation.

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

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

- Show quoted text -

Object with spin 2 spins twice as fast as spin 1 *Ican only relate
spin with "rotational motion? I know QM gives spin a *little different
"twist" Oi ya Matter particles spin-one half. Messanger particles have
spin 1 *Still all this needs a lot of good thinking *Gets very tricky
when you bring "superpartner particles" Seems spin "0' particles are
thought about.(All hypothetical) To make the electron supersymmetric
its partner they call a "selectron" * Quark superpartner is called
squarks and on and on it goes. *Well my thinking is the universe has
to be in the form of supersmmetric. So I go 100% with the symmetry
principle. I also have my "Spin is in theory",and this is a big part
of its structure. Spin in Micro realm is very fine tuned,or actions
would be in complete frenzy. TreBert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If curvature is spherical like the Earths circular speed-flow or
rotation whole then it turns perfectly in its own geaometry.

Mitch Raemsch

On Feb 8, 1:34*pm, bert wrote:
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.

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
* * geometrodynamics approximation.

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

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

- Show quoted text -

Object with spin 2 spins twice as fast as spin 1 *Ican only relate
spin with "rotational motion? I know QM gives spin a *little different
"twist" Oi ya Matter particles spin-one half. Messanger particles have
spin 1 *Still all this needs a lot of good thinking *Gets very tricky
when you bring "superpartner particles" Seems spin "0' particles are
thought about.(All hypothetical) To make the electron supersymmetric
its partner they call a "selectron" * Quark superpartner is called
squarks and on and on it goes. *Well my thinking is the universe has
to be in the form of supersmmetric. So I go 100% with the symmetry
principle. I also have my "Spin is in theory",and this is a big part
of its structure. Spin in Micro realm is very fine tuned,or actions
would be in complete frenzy. TreBert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have to be religious to find the beginning by God and what he is
doing in the universe.

Mitch Raemsch

On Feb 8, 3:24*pm, BURT wrote:
On Feb 8, 1:34*pm, bert wrote:





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.

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
* * geometrodynamics approximation.

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

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

- Show quoted text -

Object with spin 2 spins twice as fast as spin 1 *Ican only relate
spin with "rotational motion? I know QM gives spin a *little different
"twist" Oi ya Matter particles spin-one half. Messanger particles have
spin 1 *Still all this needs a lot of good thinking *Gets very tricky
when you bring "superpartner particles" Seems spin "0' particles are
thought about.(All hypothetical) To make the electron supersymmetric
its partner they call a "selectron" * Quark superpartner is called
squarks and on and on it goes. *Well my thinking is the universe has
to be in the form of supersmmetric. So I go 100% with the symmetry
principle. I also have my "Spin is in theory",and this is a big part
of its structure. Spin in Micro realm is very fine tuned,or actions
would be in complete frenzy. TreBert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have to be religious to find the beginning by God and what he is
doing in the universe.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Squarks don't exist. There are no parelel quarks. These other
supersymmetrical particles have no place at any energy level. We have
never saw virtual electromagnetism in the form of the visual spectrum.

These concepts spell out no extrapolating to supersymmetry or vitual
particles or EM forces.

Mitch Raemsch

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.

"...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"

This is wrong.


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).

Yes, yes it is. But it is not, as he puts it, equivalent to Maxwell's
equations with mass density in place of charge density.


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"

Is this some kind of role reversal?

If you paid a shred of attention to my attempts to explain this to you over
the years, linearized GR is mathematically inconsistent because - for
example, as described by Wald which you have repeatedly quoted in arguments
to me but apparently never understood, that the conservation of stress-
energy div.T = 0 in linearized GR has terms to second order. Which is
inconsistent with the rest of the theory which is to first order.

This is not a meaningful inconsistency, but it remains true.


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

Neat!

Even though it took you three years, I am still glad you finally came to
terms with the obvious.



(...)

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

I like that it bothers you.

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:

[...]

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?

I notice the only times you consistently follow through on the things you
say you are going to do is when you say you are going to add to your
personal whine page about me.

I also notice that the vast majority of your blog posts consist of whining
about me.

Finally, I also notice that you are - literally - the only one who ever
references that page.

On Feb 7, 1:54*pm, 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 chargehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

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

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
ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724).

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

---------------------
see also the 'Circlon' idea
about a very basic particle
that moves *naturally * in closed circles
(if not disturbed on its way )

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------

On Feb 8, 8:44*pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:54*pm, 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 chargehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

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

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
ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724).

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

---------------------
see also *the 'Circlon' idea
about a very basic particle
that moves *naturally ** in closed circles
(if not disturbed on its way )

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cirlon is th electron circling the spherical atomic shell along
with protons at the surface of their nucleus.

Mitch Raemsch

eric gisse wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:49:05 -0800:

I also notice that the vast majority of your blog posts consist of
whining about me.

Do you even can count beyond "one"? Try on the next link

http://kids-educational-activities.s...o_count_online


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


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

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

eric gisse wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:44:01 -0800:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:

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.

"...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"

This is wrong.

"Heaviside's work could be called a low-velocity, weak-field approximation
to general relativity."

Also the replacement of density of charge by density of mass is an standard
procedure in literature to obtain the gravitomagnetic analog of Maxwell.

I repeat linearized GR, gravitomagnetism, Newtonian gravity, and the like are
not wrong. They are perfectly valid models of reality under certain conditions.

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).

Yes, yes it is. But it is not, as he puts it, equivalent to Maxwell's
equations with mass density in place of charge density.

That is not wrong. That is a standard procedure used by astronomers to easily
derive *some* equations that they use. This is all beyond your comprension.

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"

Is this some kind of role reversal?

If you paid a shred of attention to my attempts to explain this to you
over the years, linearized GR is mathematically inconsistent because -

You did this claim before. Pay attention to the first quote of the three
cited above. It is another wrong claim from you.

for example, as described by Wald which you have repeatedly quoted in
arguments to me but apparently never understood, that the conservation
of stress- energy div.T = 0 in linearized GR has terms to second order.
Which is inconsistent with the rest of the theory which is to first
order.

This may be some new kind of funny misunderstanding. I repeat, No. Wald is
not saying that linearized GR is inconsistent, nor he says the nonsense that
"linearized GR has terms to second order". That is yours only :-D

I repeat, linearized GR is well-defined AND consistent.

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

Neat!

Even though it took you three years, I am still glad you finally came to
terms with the obvious.

Do you can read anything?

(...)

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

I like that it bothers you.

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



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

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

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:

eric gisse wrote on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:44:01 -0800:

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.

"...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"

This is wrong.

"Heaviside's work could be called a low-velocity, weak-field
approximation
to general relativity."

Also the replacement of density of charge by density of mass is an
standard procedure in literature to obtain the gravitomagnetic analog of
Maxwell.

Its' wrong. Observationally wrong. And not what you get if you linearize GR.

No point in arguing with you when you don't know what you are talking about.

[snip rest, unread]