The Source of Gravitational Energy

When one applies the correct relativistic transformations to the
gravitational field, the source of gravitational energy becomes apparent.
Unfortunately, due to a sophomoric error in the derivation of General
Relativity, it has become accepted that the relativistic transformations for
gravity a

Force = 1
Length = 1
Time = 1/(1+$)

Where "1/(1+$)" is the time transformation as provided by General Relativity
(GTR).

Unfortunately, the error in its generation made the mathematics impossible
of solution within the constraints of three dimensional Euclidian Geometry and
it took 18 months for a solution to be obtained. (The 18 months were not used
up in solving the matrix equation, as current writings would have you believe,
earlier writings revealed that they represented the length of time it took for
Dr. Einstein to adapt the geometry of Riemann. Unfortunately all geometries are
based upon the faulty description of a straight line which is implicit in all
current geometries but which does not disrupt Euclidean Geometry. In applying
Riemannian Geometry, Dr. Einstein added the fiction of curved space and added
the spurious degree of freedom needed to solve his equations. This approach was
accepted by a conference on the subject with the statement "why shouldn't we
consider space to be curved, no one can prove it isn't. (Actually the proof is
quite simple and is provided in http:/www.members.aol.com/reticher2/gravs.htm).
The acceptance of "curved space" provided a term for the curvature as a
function of the gravitational field. Surprise, surprise, that curvature term
turned out to be equal to the term for time.

When one applies the legitimate rules of measurement (as is required in
any of the more mundane fields of Science and Engineering) and accepted and
easily verified physical laws to the study of the gravitational field, one
finds it possible to rigorously derive a different set of gravitational
transformations which do not require space to be curved and which yield results
which are in agreement with all observations and accepted physical laws:

Force = 1
Length = 1/(1-$)
Time = (1-$)

(The term "$" is identical with the equivalent term in General
Relativity).Testing these transformations against observation reveals that they
yield the same conclusions within the Solar Field and in comparison with
observations of massive and/or dense stars as does GTR to an accuracy well
beyond experimental capabilities. There is one important difference, however.
They reveal that the end result of gravitational collapse is not a singularity
but is a stable object the size of its horizon radius. THEY ALSO REVEAL THE
SOURCE OF GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY.

In a F(orce)-L(ength)-T(ime) system of units, the dimensional content of
energy is F*L. Since the gravitational transformation for length is unity, this
means that the gravitational transformation for energy is equal to the
gravitational transformation for Length and is therefore equal to 1/(1-$). If
we accept that the Principle of Relativity applies, the locally measured mass
equivalent energy of an object must remain unchanged as it moves to a different
elevation reference frame.
In order to meet this requirement, the move to a different elevation in the
gravitational field must cause the object to gain or lose energy in terms of
the units of measurement for energy existing at its original location. To do
this, a force must exist in the vertical direction. The product of this force
and the distance of fall is the energy of fall.

If we apply this process to an object falling from a quasi-infinite
distance to the event horizon, we find that, in terms of the units of
measurement existing at the quasi-infinite radius, the gravitational
transformation for energy shows that the object converts all of its rest mass
equivalent energy to kinetic energy. When it reaches the event horizon and its
velocity equals the velocity of light, the original rest mass equivalent energy
has become zero because it has been converted to kinetic energy (all as
measured with the units of measurement existing at the quasi-infinite radius).
In terms of the units of measurement existing at the event horizon however, the
rest mass equivalent energy of the object is unchanged and the kinetic energy
is infinite.

Since Relativity is all about observations made in systems where the size
of the units of measurement are affected by elevation and/or velocity,
Dimensional Analysis is required to deal rationally with the process. Despite
this, I have received an E-mail from an individual who strongly asserted that
Dimensional Analysis is of no benefit in the study of velocity and
gravitational effect. The frightening thing in this E-mail is that the sender
is probably an academic busily damaging the minds of his students.

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.

Please include any response via E-mail since the 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.

For a response send E-Mail to

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.

Seitilitu25 wrote:

The Source of Gravitational Energy


Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html

General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

Developments in General Relativity: Black Hole Singularity and Beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052

Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:

1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.

Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!

Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.

There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:

Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.

Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.

Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity a

M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).

Seitilitu25 wrote:
The Source of Gravitational Energy

Incoming! Duck!

Bob Kolker

Unfortunately, the error in its generation made the mathematics
impossible
of solution within the constraints of three dimensional Euclidian Geometry
and
it took 18 months for a solution to be obtained. (The 18 months were not
used
up in solving the matrix equation, as current writings would have you
believe,
earlier writings revealed that they represented the length of time it took
for
Dr. Einstein to adapt the geometry of Riemann. Unfortunately all
geometries are
based upon the faulty description of a straight line which is implicit in
all
current geometries but which does not disrupt Euclidean Geometry. In
applying
Riemannian Geometry, Dr. Einstein added the fiction of curved space and
added
the spurious degree of freedom needed to solve his equations. This
approach was
accepted by a conference on the subject with the statement "why shouldn't
we
consider space to be curved, no one can prove it isn't. (Actually the
proof is
quite simple and is provided in
http:/www.members.aol.com/reticher2/gravs.htm).
The acceptance of "curved space" provided a term for the curvature as a
function of the gravitational field. Surprise, surprise, that curvature
term
turned out to be equal to the term for time.


There is nothing wrong with Riemannian geometry. Please get a book and learn
some geometry.

BTW, the link to your simple proof of flat space is not functional.

Ben

Seitilitu25 wrote:

The Source of Gravitational Energy
[snip]

Hey stooopid, there is no gravitational stress-energy tensor in metric
theories of gravitation if Minkowski space (free fall) can be
demonstrated to exist.

Psychotic ineducable boring retic (Ernest Wittke),
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=gr...uthor%3Awittke

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 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.

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
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
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

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
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass

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 ass - even
when you ****.



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!