On May 3, 3:57 pm, Mike wrote:
On May 2, 7:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On May 2, 2:34 pm, Mike wrote:

On May 1, 5:24 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Make claims about the actual rigorous derivation in chapter 6.-

Yes, I will make claims. He writes on page 166:

"We will treat the motion of the stars in the Newtonian approximation,
where we can discuss their orbit just as Kepler would have. Circular
orbits are most easily characterized by equating the force due to
gravity to the outward “centrifugal” force"

Then he uses Newtoniam Mechanics in a somewhat wrong way and makes
referece to centrifugal forces in equations 6.86 and 6.87.

The man cannot modelk a circular orbit using GR. He must revert to
simpel Newtonian Mechanics by making first the unproved claim that GR
converges to Newtonian limit.

You think this is physics. I think it is deception.

Making about 17 assumptions to get to Newtonian limit is not physics.
It is called circus.

Mike

Why are you complaining? That was an /application/ of the Newtonian
approximation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Furthermore, nowehere in GR the term centrifugal force comes about
unless one has read Newtonian Mechanics.

You idiot, give the GR equatiuons to a genious (not to you stupid) who
never studied Newtonian mechanics. He will never be able to write that
equation you fool. He will get nothing out of GR equations. Jusr non-
sense at the weak field limit.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Mike

Some people would say that you protest a bit too much, are you gay?

As said in original message, conventional derivations of the Newtonian
limit of General Relativity (GR) are not correct.

If one takes consistently the linear limit of GR, one rigorously obtains
the final equation

a = 0

instead the incorrect equation showed in textbooks and lecture notes.

I have discussed this part of my work with an expert on curved spacetime
equations of motion, Eric Poisson [1]. Eric confirms that a = 0 in the
linear regime of GR:

(\blockquote
Since the energy-momentum tensor is already of first-order, in the
linearized theory the conservation equations must be written down with
the Minkowski metric, and this implies that the matter cannot have
gravitational interactions. Or as you point out, particles would have
to move on straight lines.
)

I would point that the 'derivation' of Newtonian equation given by Steve
Carlip some time ago in this same newsgroup is also incorrect. But
'expertise' Carlip made so many mistakes i would be tired to write about
all of them now [2].

One would imagine that keeping up to second order terms, the acceleration
will be nonzero. Yes, but the correspondence with Newtonian limit is
again broken.

The argument using above perturbative series expansion of the geodesic
equation turns difficult due non linearity

\lambda^2 /= \lambda\lambda

However the conclusion is the same: no consistent Newtonian limit.

A more easy argument follows from computing the spatial element of line
up to second order in h

d\sigma^2 = \gamma_ij dx^i dx^j

where, as usual, \gamma_ij = g_ij + \gamma_i\gamma_j

For a Schwarzschild metric \gamma_i = \gamma_j = 0 and the spatial metric
is

\gamma_ij = g_ij = 1 - {2\phi \over c^2} + {2\phi \over c^2}^2

But for the Newtonian theory

\gamma_ij = 1

Indeed some derivations of Newtonian limit i revised assume that

g_00 /= -1

*and*

g_ij = 1

which is geometrically impossible because for the Schwarzschild metric

g_00 = (-1 / g_ij)

Thus again the derivations are invalid. Again General Relativity does not
reduce to Newtonian gravity.

The problem, as you may imagine, is in the geometric approach.

I have revised the Newtonian limit on two alternative theories of gravity,
Feynman field theory of gravity (FTG) and relativistic action at a
distance (AAAD). In both cases one obtains in the linear regime:

a = -\grad \phi

*and*

d\sigma^2 = dx^i dx^j

This clear advantage over General Relativity may be traced to the
nongeometrical formulation. In those alternative theories gravitation is
a real force (as electromagnetism).

My analysis of FTG has been checked by a current expertise on FTG.

He also confirms Newtonian limit to be ill-defined in GR.

Now a more interesting question would be asked. Could we modify General
Relativity to give the correct Newtonian limit? The response is negative.
No metric theory of gravity contains a Newtonian limit and thus can be
consistenly quantized.

But this is second part of my research and will be discussed in a
separated post.



[1] http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2004-6/

[2] About five mistakes by Steve Carlip regarding Newtonian limit are
revised in my paper.

On May 3, 10:56*am, Smooth John wrote:
On May 3, 3:57 pm, Mike wrote:





On May 2, 7:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 2, 2:34 pm, Mike wrote:

On May 1, 5:24 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Make claims about the actual rigorous derivation in chapter 6.-

Yes, I will make claims. He writes on page 166:

"We will treat the motion of the stars in the Newtonian approximation,
where we can discuss their orbit just as Kepler would have. Circular
orbits are most easily characterized by equating the force due to
gravity to the outward “centrifugal” force"

Then he uses Newtoniam Mechanics in a somewhat wrong way and makes
referece to centrifugal forces in equations 6.86 and 6.87.

The man cannot modelk a circular orbit using GR. He must revert to
simpel Newtonian Mechanics by making first the unproved claim that GR
converges to Newtonian limit.

You think this is physics. I think it is deception.

Making about 17 assumptions to get to Newtonian limit is not physics..
It is called circus.

Mike

Why are you complaining? That was an /application/ of the Newtonian
approximation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Furthermore, nowehere in GR the term centrifugal force comes about
unless one has read Newtonian Mechanics.

You idiot, give the GR equatiuons to a genious (not to you stupid) who
never studied Newtonian mechanics. He will never be able to write that
equation you fool. He will get nothing out of GR equations. Jusr non-
sense at the weak field limit.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Mike

Some people would say that you protest a bit too much, are you gay?


Why don't you ask your girlfriend. She's got opinion about that.

Mike


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 3, 5:57*am, Mike wrote:
On May 2, 7:00*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On May 2, 2:34*pm, Mike wrote:

On May 1, 5:24*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Make claims about the actual rigorous derivation in chapter 6.-

Yes, I will make claims. He writes on page 166:

"We will treat the motion of the stars in the Newtonian approximation,
where we can discuss their orbit just as Kepler would have. Circular
orbits are most easily characterized by equating the force due to
gravity to the outward “centrifugal” force"

Then he uses Newtoniam Mechanics in a somewhat wrong way and makes
referece to centrifugal forces in equations 6.86 and 6.87.

The man cannot modelk a circular orbit using GR. He must revert to
simpel Newtonian Mechanics by making first the unproved claim that GR
converges to Newtonian limit.

You think this is physics. I think it is deception.

Making about 17 assumptions to get to Newtonian limit is not physics.
It is called circus.

Mike

Why are you complaining? That was an /application/ of the Newtonian
approximation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Does the word "correspondence" mean anything to you? The
correspondence between the two theories was proven previously and its'
close enough to be OK.

Plus the analysis is confirmed by observation. So w/e.


Furthermore, nowehere in GR the term centrifugal force comes about
unless one has read Newtonian Mechanics.

You idiot, give the GR equatiuons to a genious (not to you stupid) who
never studied Newtonian mechanics. He will never be able to write that
equation you fool. He will get nothing out of GR equations. Jusr non-
sense at the weak field limit.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Mike

On May 3, 5:54*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 3, 5:57*am, Mike wrote:





On May 2, 7:00*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 2, 2:34*pm, Mike wrote:

On May 1, 5:24*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Make claims about the actual rigorous derivation in chapter 6.-

Yes, I will make claims. He writes on page 166:

"We will treat the motion of the stars in the Newtonian approximation,
where we can discuss their orbit just as Kepler would have. Circular
orbits are most easily characterized by equating the force due to
gravity to the outward “centrifugal” force"

Then he uses Newtoniam Mechanics in a somewhat wrong way and makes
referece to centrifugal forces in equations 6.86 and 6.87.

The man cannot modelk a circular orbit using GR. He must revert to
simpel Newtonian Mechanics by making first the unproved claim that GR
converges to Newtonian limit.

You think this is physics. I think it is deception.

Making about 17 assumptions to get to Newtonian limit is not physics..
It is called circus.

Mike

Why are you complaining? That was an /application/ of the Newtonian
approximation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Does the word "correspondence" mean anything to you? The
correspondence between the two theories was proven previously and its'
close enough to be OK.

Plus the analysis is confirmed by observation. So w/e.


Such "corerspondence" is not a scientific term. It was never proven.
You wouldn't know how to prove it anyway.

I say again. Suppose a person never learned Newtonian Mechanics. He
would never be able to state that the centripetal force is equal to
the centrifugal from GR equations. GR does not provide such
information. It a priori knowledge that they make it appear it is a
result of GR.

GR does not vonverge to Newtonian gravity at the weak field limit. It
cannot. There are infinite possibilities in preturbed Minkowski flat
space. You have to assume the potential takes the Newtonian form.

Drink a cold glass of water and forget about it. Don't get drunk and
drive.

Mike









Furthermore, nowehere in GR the term centrifugal force comes about
unless one has read Newtonian Mechanics.

You idiot, give the GR equatiuons to a genious (not to you stupid) who
never studied Newtonian mechanics. He will never be able to write that
equation you fool. He will get nothing out of GR equations. Jusr non-
sense at the weak field limit.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Mike- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 3, 2:32*pm, Mike wrote:

[snip]

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Does the word "correspondence" mean anything to you? The
correspondence between the two theories was proven previously and its'
close enough to be OK.

Plus the analysis is confirmed by observation. So w/e.

Such "corerspondence" is not a scientific term. It was never proven.
You wouldn't know how to prove it anyway.

Two books off the top of my head that discuss correspondence are MTW
regarding GR --- Newton and Goldstein regarding classical --
quantum via Poisson brackets. Just because you don't know what the
term means does not mean it is "unscientific" or irrelevant.


I say again. Suppose a person never learned Newtonian Mechanics. He

...wouldn't be able to understand GR anyway because an understanding
of classical mechanics is essential for understanding GR.

would never be able to state that the centripetal force is equal to
the centrifugal from GR equations. GR does not provide such
information. It a priori knowledge that they make it appear it is a
result of GR.

Why? You can examine the exact solution of Schwarzschild and take r
2GM and observe that the orbital equations of motion are exactly that
of the Newtonian version.


GR does not vonverge to Newtonian gravity at the weak field limit. It
cannot. There are infinite possibilities in preturbed Minkowski flat
space. You have to assume the potential takes the Newtonian form.

No, you don't have to "assume" it. Examine a textbook that describes
the theory in more detail, like Carroll's book, MTW, Wald...

The linearized field equations are quite explicit on the subject.
Would you like to go through it?

[snip remaining]

Mike wrote on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:32:10 -0700:

GR does not [c]onverge to Newtonian gravity at the weak field limit. It
cannot.

You are completely right Mike.

During the revision of my paper i contacted with a number of expertise on
different gravitational theories (AAAD, FTG, and GR).

The specialist Eric Poisson (Living reviews invited expert) has confirmed
my point that GR does *not converge* to Newtonian gravity at the weak
field limit.

In the weak field limit, the rigorous result is a = 0 and bodies move in
straight lines, just as i said.

Poisson also adds that the *linearized* theory implies that the matter
cannot have gravitational interactions. I agree with him and will add his
clever thought to my paper on Newtonian limits.

It may be hard for die-hard relativists but textbooks and lecture notes
(such as by Carroll) are just falsifying the so called 'derivations'.
Reality is that so hard.

General Relativity has not Newtonian limit. Relativists just invent it
when needed to explain experimental data.

Regarding weak field limits, you can trust a real expertise on equations
of motion (Poisson) or you can continue to discuss with certain
irrelevant undergraduate with well-known reading difficulties. You decide.


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

On May 3, 6:54*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 3, 2:32*pm, Mike wrote:

[snip]

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Does the word "correspondence" mean anything to you? The
correspondence between the two theories was proven previously and its'
close enough to be OK.

Plus the analysis is confirmed by observation. So w/e.

Such "corerspondence" is not a scientific term. It was never proven.
You wouldn't know how to prove it anyway.

Two books off the top of my head ...

[snip silly child's top of the head responce]

Listen troll, put it well in your mind. GR equation do not converge to
Newtonian limit without a priori knowledge of what that limit is.

Do you know you stupidhead what a petion principii is?

A petiitio principii is the main fomal fallacy GR was pasrts of SR
were built on.

Now, I have better things to do that talking to som eone who hasn't
had calculus.

Mike

On May 4, 6:57*am, Mike wrote:
On May 3, 6:54*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:







On May 3, 2:32*pm, Mike wrote:

[snip]

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Does the word "correspondence" mean anything to you? The
correspondence between the two theories was proven previously and its'
close enough to be OK.

Plus the analysis is confirmed by observation. So w/e.

Such "corerspondence" is not a scientific term. It was never proven.
You wouldn't know how to prove it anyway.

Two books off the top of my head ...

[snip silly child's top of the head responce]

Listen troll, put it well in your mind. GR equation do not converge to
Newtonian limit without a priori knowledge of what that limit is.

Do you know you stupidhead what a petion principii is?

A petiitio principii is the main fomal fallacy GR was pasrts of SR
were built on.

Now, I have better things to do that talking to som eone who hasn't
had calculus.

Mike

I guess this is your way of giving up in frustration because you don't
know how to respond.

On May 4, 5:38*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 4, 6:57*am, Mike wrote:





On May 3, 6:54*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 3, 2:32*pm, Mike wrote:

[snip]

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Does the word "correspondence" mean anything to you? The
correspondence between the two theories was proven previously and its'
close enough to be OK.

Plus the analysis is confirmed by observation. So w/e.

Such "corerspondence" is not a scientific term. It was never proven.
You wouldn't know how to prove it anyway.

Two books off the top of my head ...

[snip silly child's top of the head responce]

Listen troll, put it well in your mind. GR equation do not converge to
Newtonian limit without a priori knowledge of what that limit is.

Do you know you stupidhead what a petion principii is?

A petiitio principii is the main fomal fallacy GR was pasrts of SR
were built on.

Now, I have better things to do that talking to som eone who hasn't
had calculus.

Mike

I guess this is your way of giving up in frustration because you don't
know how to respond.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, I am frustrated talking to someone who does nto know that a = GM/
r^2 is not an ODE, as the dfolloing post proves beyond any doubt:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...24a9cdf16c4daf

Don't tell me nut in the one year and a half you learned calculus,
Physics, SR, GR, black hole radiation and you are nothing but a troll.

Mike