Ken S. Tucker wrote: Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote:
The invariant Jay is exploiting is surprisingly simple,
(risking making too many equations) it's just,

F_uv F*^uv = E.B sqrt(g)

(I wish I had thought of that!)

I have to question if that is adaquate consideration
of the eps and mu of the lumps in space that we
call matter.

That's interesting. Suppose, as we are studying, the g-field
and the E-field are related and further suppose we call
a g-field an EM-wave of zero frequency. Then, using an
EM-wave of zero frequency, we measure the refractive
index to find eps and mu.
What I think is the sqrt(g) becomes the refractive index
for an EM wave of zero frequency, and is indistinguishable
from a gravtitational field.

"An EM wave of ZERO frequency.. is indistinguishable from a
gravtitational field".!! Ken S. Tucker

Note, (PHASE)*(GROUP).. .. .. .. .. .. ..velocities
= (vx + vy)*vg = vp*vg = (REFERENCE velocity)^2
= (SECOND RADiATiON constant C_2 ..C2) / {e} = c^2
= h*fL / m1
= fL*wl*c / nL
= 2*pi*fL*rA*c / nA
= h*fL*rA / nA*{mph}*ls
= h*fL*v1^2 / nA*{mph}*ls*g
= h*fL*v1^2 / nA*{mph}*ls*g
= h*fL*(vescape)^2 / 2*(n - 1)*nA*{mph}*ls*g
= Na*(mol part) / Uo*Eo*Mol.

Go go Google GROUP SEARCH My BiGGER bang.!! :
NEW SI GUESS kinematic viscosity & diffusion, c^2 / fb
= 1 / Uo*Eo*fb
= tb / Uo*Eo
= tb*c^2 ;

..in SI GUESS units .. .. .. .. .. - (meter)^2 / sec
.. .. .. - (mol part)*K*meter / Ampere.


Yeah, but in view of your comment below about frig-mags,
the moon don't need batteries to keep orbiting the earth,
sounds like there both geodesic :-).

GLUE (back-to-back) two SPRiNG-balances BETWEEN powerful MAGNETs.
Then MONiTOR & RECORD the two SPRiNG-balance READiNGs, over TiME.
(Got any money left, Uncle AL ..the Chinese are HOT on this one)?
(Got any money left, Uncle AL ..wanna try DOOP the Indians NEXT)?

Meanwhile, EM cracked pots called the GR kettle, "BLACK-ass.!!"

I suppose that is a GR way of saying the system has a
high quality factor (Q).

If I miss you're posts sorry, dynamiXs at uniserve.com
X=c, will get your email there faster! I'm building a little
cabin and doing other work. Hey I'm in BC on the east
side of the big puddle, (pacific), I'll row over sometime
and catch a few fish on the way :-). --

$ CAUTiON: CAUTiON: CAUTiON.!!
AVOiD Uncle AL's "other LONGER way round" GR geodesic.!!

"OCEAN waves of ZERO frequency ..are iNDiSTiNGUiSHABLE from a
gravitational field".!!
brian a m stuckless
p.s.
The PROBLEM: ZERO frequency ..indistinguishable, PERiOD.

Sue...
YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo (gr-qc/0511050).

Ken S. Tucker wrote: Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote:
The invariant Jay is exploiting is surprisingly simple,
(risking making too many equations) it's just,

F_uv F*^uv = E.B sqrt(g)

(I wish I had thought of that!)

I have to question if that is adaquate consideration
of the eps and mu of the lumps in space that we
call matter.

That's interesting. Suppose, as we are studying, the g-field
and the E-field are related and further suppose we call
a g-field an EM-wave of zero frequency. Then, using an
EM-wave of zero frequency, we measure the refractive
index to find eps and mu.
What I think is the sqrt(g) becomes the refractive index
for an EM wave of zero frequency, and is indistinguishable
from a gravtitational field.

"An EM wave of ZERO frequency.. is indistinguishable from a
gravtitational field".!! Ken S. Tucker

Note, (PHASE)*(GROUP).. .. .. .. .. .. ..velocities
= (vx + vy)*vg = vp*vg = (REFERENCE velocity)^2
= (SECOND RADiATiON constant C_2 ..C2) / {e} = c^2
= h*fL / m1
= fL*wl*c / nL
= 2*pi*fL*rA*c / nA
= h*fL*rA / nA*{mph}*ls
= h*fL*v1^2 / nA*{mph}*ls*g
= h*fL*v1^2 / nA*{mph}*ls*g
= h*fL*(vescape)^2 / 2*(n - 1)*nA*{mph}*ls*g
= Na*(mol part) / Uo*Eo*Mol.

Go go Google GROUP SEARCH My BiGGER bang.!! :
NEW SI GUESS kinematic viscosity & diffusion, c^2 / fb
= 1 / Uo*Eo*fb
= tb / Uo*Eo
= tb*c^2 ;

..in SI GUESS units .. .. .. .. .. - (meter)^2 / sec
.. .. .. - (mol part)*K*meter / Ampere.


Yeah, but in view of your comment below about frig-mags,
the moon don't need batteries to keep orbiting the earth,
sounds like there both geodesic :-).

GLUE (back-to-back) two SPRiNG-balances BETWEEN powerful MAGNETs.
Then MONiTOR & RECORD the two SPRiNG-balance READiNGs, over TiME.
(Got any money left, Uncle AL ..the Chinese are HOT on this one)?
(Got any money left, Uncle AL ..wanna try DOOP the Indians NEXT)?

Meanwhile, EM cracked pots called the GR kettle, "BLACK-ass.!!"

I suppose that is a GR way of saying the system has a
high quality factor (Q).

If I miss you're posts sorry, dynamiXs at uniserve.com
X=c, will get your email there faster! I'm building a little
cabin and doing other work. Hey I'm in BC on the east
side of the big puddle, (pacific), I'll row over sometime
and catch a few fish on the way :-). --

$ CAUTiON: CAUTiON: CAUTiON.!!
AVOiD Uncle AL's "other LONGER way round" GR geodesic.!!

"OCEAN waves of ZERO frequency ..are iNDiSTiNGUiSHABLE from a
gravitational field".!!
brian a m stuckless
p.s.
The PROBLEM: ZERO frequency ..indistinguishable, PERiOD.

Sue...
New Paper: General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and the
Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter
(gr-qc/0511050).

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
...
The invariant Jay is exploiting is surprisingly simple,
(risking making too many equations) it's just,

F_uv F*^uv = E.B sqrt(g)

(I wish I had thought of that!)

I have to question if that is adaquate consideration
of the eps and mu of the lumps in space that we
call matter.

That's interesting. Suppose, as we are studying, the g-field
and the E-field are related and further suppose we call
a g-field an EM-wave of zero frequency. Then, using an
EM-wave of zero frequency, we measure the refractive
index to find eps and mu.

A wave that never starts might begin with a charge that
never moves... Hmmmm not a good recipe for any thing
with a magnetic or magnet-like component.

What I think is the sqrt(g) becomes the refractive index
for an EM wave of zero frequency, and is indistinguishable
from a gravtitational field.
In your math-mind's eye maybe. I can't make it work.


Yeah, but in view of your comment below about frig-mags,
the moon don't need batteries to keep orbiting the earth,
sounds like there both geodesic :-).

I suppose that is a GR way of saying the system has a
high quality factor (Q).

If I miss you're posts sorry, dynamiXs at uniserve.com
X=c, will get your email there faster! I'm building a little
cabin and doing other work. Hey I'm in BC on the east
side of the big puddle, (pacific), I'll row over sometime
and catch a few fish on the way :-).

Maybe ya should polish your theory a bit first. I wouldn't want
ya getting your fishing hooks tangled in the radio's high tension
thinking the tide might be higer there. )

Sue...


Sue...

wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Hi Hannu, see inline:


I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?
How you have defined for example total gavitational energy in your
paper ?

Well, total energy is defined mathematically as an energy for which
T^uv_;u=0, and the zero must be ensured identically. That is, T^uv_;u must
be set to a combination of fields which is identically equal to zero, in all
situations, for Abelian and non-Abelian interactions alike.


Steve Carlip wrote "Gravitational Potential in GR" article, 23.02.1998
in sci.physics.relativty:

"The principle of equivalence implies that there can be no covariant
gravitational stress-energy tensor --- one can always choose
coordinates
in which the geodesics are arbitrarily close to straight lines in a
small region,
which implies that the gravitational energy in that region is
arbitrarily
close to zero; but a tensor that vanishes in any coordinate system
vanishes
in every coordinate system."

Is your energy tensor t^u _v of the gravitational field really
covariant
gravitational stress-energy tensor or what it is if not ?


I found one explanation about t^u_v in the book:

Tolman, R. C., 1962
Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology
Oxford at the Clarendon Press.
502 pages, pp 222-225 .

This is in the chapter:
"87. Re-expression of the equations of mechanics in the form
of an ordinary divergence"

t^u_v is defined in equation (87.12) and it is called the
PSEUDO-TENSOR density of gravitational energy and momentum.

t^a_b = (1/16Pi)[ -g^uv_b dL/dg^uv_a + g^a_b L + 2g^a_b A (-g)^(1/2)]
(87.12)

Pi = 3.14159..., A = cosmological constant, L Lagrangian function,
d is ordinary partial derivation symbol.

L=(-g)^(1/2) g^uv [ {ua,b} {vb,a} - {uv,a} {ab,b} ] (87.1)

{ ...} are Christoffel three-index symbols.

Listed equations in this chapter are numbered
from (87.1) to (87.16).

In the end of the chapter is mentioned that since t^v_u IS NOT TRUE
TENSOR DENSITY, however, we shall NOT HAVE THESE SIMPLE
RESULTS IN ALL COORDINATE SYSTEMS.




I found one nice explanation also about the problem:
Tom Roberts wrote " Gravitational Potential Energy" article,
27.6.1998
in sci.physics.relativity:

"In GR, if one selects a gven "frame of reference" (in the usual SR
sense),
one can still change coordinates in arbitrary many ways, such that
the new coordinates are still "at rest" in that frame, but yet the
quantities
computed for potential energy and kinetic energy can have ANY possible
values.
In a given set of coordinates these quantities have definite values,
but as
there is no preferred coordinate system so is there no unique value for
PE
or KE. In other words, they are not well defned."


I put below one interesting comment about
"A PREFERRED COORDINATE SYSTEM"
(Form H-M's explanations I know this exists.
H-M explained many years ago that the
center of the space (M87) must be taken into
account in calculations).

This could be helpfull in order to define
the total energy concept beter in GR ???

There was a discussion in sci.physics in the year 1992
about the subject ´A "preferred reference frame" ´ where
Matt McIrvin(Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)
wrote 15 Aug 92 17:49:08 GMT :

(Jason W. Hinson) writes:
The following is a science fictional excursion discussing the possibility
of space-time having a preferred frame of reference without violating
relativity. My request is that someone tell me how we know that it cannot
be true.

Ädescription of a physics in which, to paraphrase a bit, instantaneous
communication ca occur, but only along a preferred set of spacelike
surfacesÅ

We do not know that ths cannot be true. Your statement that there would
be no problem with causality is correct, since spacelike communicaion
--
causality violation depends on the ability to change the spacelike
surface ( or in SR, the inertial frame) in which the communication is
instantaneous, and this proposal exlicitly removes the possibility.

It does "violate relativity" in the sence that it denies one of the
basic postulates, namely that *all* the laws of physics are the same
in all inertial frames. It doesn' t completely tear it apart, though;
it just turns it into a theory of some special subset of physics,
including all physics currently known. It doesn' t violate causality.

Rather than just say that the "ether" has the property that c is the
same in all frames, I' d say that the "ether" is only an ether for
these extra, instantaneous interactions, nd has no relevance to
anything else.

This is, as others and I have pointed out before, a nice
self-consistent
way to put faster-than-light travel into science fiction. It isn't
at odds with any data and doesn't introduce the possibility of time
travel into the past. All one needs to assume is some nonlocal
phenomenon which disobeys relativity in this way.

The other side of the coin is that there is absolutely no evidence for
any such thing, and no need to introduce it other than that it might
be nice to have. Relativistic covariance has turned out to be an
extraordinary successful framework in which to construct a model
of physics, and to most of us, at least, there seems to be no reason
to abandon it. But nothing currently known from experiment rules out
extra physics of the sort you describe.

--
Matt McIrvn, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA"




I notice end of your paper the group of equations which sems to have
solution same as Resissner-Nordstrom solution as a line element
( metric of charged black hole), if I looked right ?

Serious Problems with this Reisnerr-Nordstrom solution are that with
time like geodesic it is possible to avoid hitting the singularity
and also that if black hole would have charge then the whole space
would be also charged too which is impossible ?


Well, Hannu, you are right to notice the similarities because I am using the
Schwarzschild solution. But, this is not intended as a real-world solution,

I notice that you mention the Kerr solution in your paper, but this
have
a problem too: H-M explained many years ago that if the black hole
in center of space would rotate then the planet which is center of
coordinative colour
electricity signals (planet orbits the great neutrino crystall
collection (big ball) in
center of the space) would be shifted into the other side of this big
ball. I understood
that this would block colour electricity signals (its mass would change
colour electricity
signals to black colour (= no colour electricity)). This is why at
least this
black hole is not possible to rotate. I assume that this is case for
all
black holes. In other words black holes are not possible to rotate ???


Of course the Schwarzschild solution is special case for both mentioned
black hole types.


but just as an example to give people a concrete idea of what I am talking
about when I say that one can quantize gravity by feeding quantum mechanical
wavefunctions for fields and currents directly into the Einstein equations
at second and third differential order in the spacetime metric g_uv, and
then solving for G_uv to arrive at a metric wavefunction fully grounded in
empirical knowledge from QED and QCD and QWeakD.

Jay.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
conveinently - conveniently
conveinent - convenient
heritical - heretical

At least you are paying attention.
Lorentz - Lorenz ?

Sue...

Autumn - Autymn

damned illiterate

adaquate - adequate

brian a m stuckless wrote:
Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Hi Sue, mostly agree with you...
Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: "Jay R. Yablon"
wrote in message
...

Stop cascading or, if I ever find you, I'll beat your head in.

The Greek YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo, mu*eps, in SI GUESS is Uo*Eo = 1 / c^2.

$ 3*VOLUME / AREA, per DURATiON = RADiAL velocity.!!
Delta, VOLUME / surface AREA ..per second, is RADiAL velocity / 3.
Unit TRiAKiSicosa VOLUME / (surf AREA*sec) is TiP-to-TiP / 6*sec.
Unit SPHERiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*sec) is, DiAMETER / 6*sec.
Unit CUBiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*second) = EDGEside / 6*sec.
GRAViTATiONAL impulse per VOLUME; iNERTiAL impulse, per AREA.

No, they're not. You need more subscripts. You should also read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health).

The force between two charges and the force between
two masses represents no energy exchange.

Force x DiSTANCE = ENERGY exchange ..viewed with a CAUTiON.!!

no caution

-Aut

Autymn D. C. wrote:
brian a m stuckless wrote:
Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Hi Sue, mostly agree with you...
Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: "Jay R. Yablon"
wrote in message
...

Stop cascading or, if I ever find you, I'll beat your head in.

The Greek YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo, mu*eps, in SI GUESS is Uo*Eo = 1 / c^2.
In ***cgs***,
(1)
where M is the magnetization, H is auxiliary magnetic field, and is
the magnetic permeability. In ***MKS***,
(2)
where is the permeability of free space. © Eric W. Weisstein
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ptibility.html

Sue...


$ 3*VOLUME / AREA, per DURATiON = RADiAL velocity.!!
Delta, VOLUME / surface AREA ..per second, is RADiAL velocity / 3.
Unit TRiAKiSicosa VOLUME / (surf AREA*sec) is TiP-to-TiP / 6*sec.
Unit SPHERiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*sec) is, DiAMETER / 6*sec.
Unit CUBiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*second) = EDGEside / 6*sec.
GRAViTATiONAL impulse per VOLUME; iNERTiAL impulse, per AREA.

No, they're not. You need more subscripts. You should also read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health).

The force between two charges and the force between
two masses represents no energy exchange.

Force x DiSTANCE = ENERGY exchange ..viewed with a CAUTiON.!!

no caution

-Aut

sence - sense

fotons at warp ten: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw43.html