Dr. Screwball Roberts wrote:
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes"
He forgot to put OBSERVATIONS in capital letters SHRUG

Androcles.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:01:34 -0800, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Dr. Roberts wrote too confidently:

Please do not insert greater than symbols or quote marks in
front of what you write.

I appreciate you posting here, your skill and knowledge of GR is badly
needed here, but couldn't you take a little less agressive style, there are
too many attacks here, and a failure by many to realize that spontaneous
writing on line cannot possibly be of the same caliber as a presentation
paper checked over, re-edited, and possibly checked by a peer.

There is a huge problem with text messages, worse in email,
but also here, the responder is able to zero on one thing, and ignore
others. It is easy to forget or overlook something that should have
been said, and many people think of things at the instant the send
button activates.

I hope Roberts doesn't zero in on other as you seem to have
zeroed in on him.

Hmmm. That basically comes from writing down the Lagrangians for all known
forces and examining their coupling constants.

And do these Lagrangians follow the contraints put forth by the Lagrangian
Methods? Can you [plural] always identify an action to be minimzed and the
parameter to be minimized?

Frankly, I don't see why it is necessary for either of you to apply
the advanced concepts to simple statements or questions.

The reason I mentioned the publicized relative "strengths" of
the four forces is because I have mentioned that the effects called
gravity should not be considered a "force" as at least some of the
others definitely are.

I get confused when it is "force" one day, and "geometry" the next.

Dr. Roberts wrote:
The one for Gravity is smaller than the others by an enormous factor.
For instance, between two electrons at a given distance the ratio of
gravitational force to electrostatic force is about 10^-42 -- that is
INCREDIBLY TINY.

What are the Lagrangians you [plural] have identified for electrosatic and
magnetic forces?

I was more interested in what the strength of the other three forces
would be for a pound of electrons/neutrons/ptotons at one A.U. distance.
Gravity seems to be the only additive "force", and this should be
a huge clue as to what the mechanism might be.

Perhaps you missed my continuing agenda, that alternate models
need to be studied for possible experiment ideas, and I have a very weird
model as my preference.

Dr. Roberts wrote:
Need I point out that this is in the Newtonian gravitation
approximation to GR, so "gravitational force" does indeed
make sense?

So, Newton established a thoery on how two objects with mass attracts each
other. He humbly pointed that the exact mechanism on how this attractive
force comes about still eludes mankind. Grossmann/Einstein/Hilbert came up
with a theory explaining how two objects would behave with observed
attractive force through the curvature of spacetime suround massive objects.
Just because Einstein did not humbly like Newton did pointed out exactly why
mass and energy would manifest a curvature in spacetime, there is no closer
closure to the understanding on how two objects with mass are going to
attract each other. GR althoough is more accurate in describing the
mechanism of gravitation is actually in the same generation of Newtonian
physics. However, meticulously examining the 2nd order effect of the
curvature parameter [sqrt(1 - 2 U) where (U = G M / c^2 /r)], one does not
aggree with traditional claim of GR able to predict Mercury's orbital
anomaly. This can be explained through grundgy algebra with 2nd year
calculus learning.

So now we have your ego inserting extraneous material,
can you convince me you know the total anomaly and what part
is claimed by Einstein? Using the web or literature is cheating. :-)

Mr. Fischer wrote erroneously:
It even seems that use of the word "force" to describe all
aspects
of gravity fails to convey the correct meaning to the various processes.

I didn't write anything erroneously, I meant every word.

Even through the curvature of spacetime, one can also write an equation
describing the observed energy or the observed mass of an object trapped in
this curvature of spacetime. So, with this equation, one should have no
problem to write down the attractive force involved.

For a point test particle in freefall? Can anybody see how
neat the theory of universal attraction is, mass always equals mass,
and cancelled, there is no "a" in freefall in my model.

Therefore, the
curvature in spacetime if it actually exists (which I have great doubt)

It exists in the mathematical map.

does
indeed allow an observed force describig all the interactions. Describing
gravity as a force can be very correct as long as it is carried out to the
precision of desire.

That is about my only criticism of GR, the interpretations vary,
and every opinion is often expressed in several ways, but there is
no reason to describe freefall as a force.
There is a reason to describe what is felt or measured on the
surface as a force, but at nominal g, it is always equal to the mass
of the minute object, so why bother, it is terminology jargon.

Dr. Roberts meaninglessly pointed out:
Yes. But the ratio of coupling constants in the Lagrangian is a useful
comparison.

Please show us your Lagrangian(s) involved. What coupling constants are you
referring to?

He has already showed you his, and you have shown him yours,
isn't that enough exhibitionism? :-)

Efforts to discuss gravity and any possible new ideas gets lost
in the jostling. I apologize for promoting such a bizarre approach
to gravity theory, but it is simply a literal application of Einstein's
Principle of Equivalence in four dimensions.

Joe Fischer

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
I do believe that General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature,

Beleive what you like. It has never been exprimentally falsified so is a
vlaid theory.

As a further comment are you now rejecting your divergent matter theory?



and I also believe that anybody that thinks they can prove
anything about
SR or GR wrong with their math skills or superior knowledge of physics,
is a egotistical nut.


Since only kooks claim they can prove anything about SR or GR wrong - well
the inference is obvious.


It should not be a big surpise if everything written before 1915
was not
totally and completely correct,


Since much of that has been disproved by experiment you are obviously and
trivially wrong.

Having reread what I wrote my point may not be clear. At any point in time
not everything written is correct - the point is knowing what to accept or
reject ahead of time. Experiment and its relation to theory is what guides
us - not an appreciation after the dust has settled. Trivialities like what
Joe Fischer said are useless.

Thanks
Bill


Bill

but those who claim superior knowledge and
math skills good enough to "prove" SR or GR wrong, are only making fools
of themselves.

Joe Fischer

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...

I appreciate you posting here, your skill and knowledge of GR is
badly
needed here, but couldn't you take a little less agressive style, there
are
too many attacks here, and a failure by many to realize that spontaneous
writing on line cannot possibly be of the same caliber as a presentation
paper checked over, re-edited, and possibly checked by a peer.

My style mirrors how aggressive the posters have presented themselves to me
in the past. In many situations, I try not to be aggressive because it
serves no purpose. However, it depends on what you think aggressiveness is.
I have no control over your own conclusion.

Do you remember uttering the following aggressive statements?

"...and I also believe that anybody that thinks they can prove anything
about SR or GR wrong with their math skills or superior knowledge of
physics, is a egotistical nut. It should not be a big surpise if everything
written before 1915 was not totally and completely correct, but those who
claim superior knowledge and math skills good enough to "prove" SR or GR
wrong, are only making fools of themselves." --- Joe Fischer, 11/26/05

Basically, you have called me an egotistical nut who constantly makes a fool
out of myself behind my back.

I hope Roberts doesn't zero in on other as you seem to have
zeroed in on him.

This is because I do respect Dr. Roberts. He is one of the more
knowledgeable posters around. Why should I enage in discussions with ones
having shallow in knowledge about the fields of interest?

Frankly, I don't see why it is necessary for either of you to
apply
the advanced concepts to simple statements or questions.

What is so simple about our statements or questions?

The reason I mentioned the publicized relative "strengths" of
the four forces is because I have mentioned that the effects called
gravity should not be considered a "force" as at least some of the
others definitely are.

I get confused when it is "force" one day, and "geometry" the
next.

GR is a theory built on top of Grossmann-Einstein-Hilbert's field equations.
Every generations, all these wise-guy physicists added more
bells-and-whistles to it. It is meant to be confusing. With more
specialized vocabularies than the tax code, GR is indeed one of the most
confusing subject around. I got so confused when I first tried to learn GR.
However, there is one sub-subject to GR that is very special. If you
understand this, the concept of GR is wide open.

I was more interested in what the strength of the other three
forces
would be for a pound of electrons/neutrons/ptotons at one A.U. distance.

This task would be beyond GR. GR does not address these issues other than
the curvature of spacetime.

Gravity seems to be the only additive "force", and this should
be
a huge clue as to what the mechanism might be.

All forces should be additive.

Perhaps you missed my continuing agenda, that alternate models
need to be studied for possible experiment ideas, and I have a very weird
model as my preference.

Shoot. Please provide sound mathematics to support your claims.

So, Newton established a thoery on how two objects with mass attracts each
other. He humbly pointed that the exact mechanism on how this attractive
force comes about still eludes mankind. Grossmann/Einstein/Hilbert came
up
with a theory explaining how two objects would behave with observed
attractive force through the curvature of spacetime suround massive
objects.
Just because Einstein did not humbly like Newton did pointed out exactly
why
mass and energy would manifest a curvature in spacetime, there is no
closer
closure to the understanding on how two objects with mass are going to
attract each other. GR althoough is more accurate in describing the
mechanism of gravitation is actually in the same generation of Newtonian
physics. However, meticulously examining the 2nd order effect of the
curvature parameter [sqrt(1 - 2 U) where (U = G M / c^2 /r)], one does not
aggree with traditional claim of GR able to predict Mercury's orbital
anomaly. This can be explained through grundgy algebra with 2nd year
calculus learning.

So now we have your ego inserting extraneous material,
can you convince me you know the total anomaly and what part
is claimed by Einstein? Using the web or literature is cheating. :-)

Go through my previous posts. If you don't know how to do that, I am sure
moortel (one of the three stooges hiding under Dr. Roberts' skirt) can help
you out.

Mr. Fischer wrote erroneously:
It even seems that use of the word "force" to describe all
aspects
of gravity fails to convey the correct meaning to the various
processes.

I didn't write anything erroneously, I meant every word.

So do I.

Even through the curvature of spacetime, one can also write an equation
describing the observed energy or the observed mass of an object trapped
in
this curvature of spacetime. So, with this equation, one should have no
problem to write down the attractive force involved.

For a point test particle in freefall? Can anybody see how
neat the theory of universal attraction is, mass always equals mass,
and cancelled, there is no "a" in freefall in my model.

Sorry, no.

Therefore, the
curvature in spacetime if it actually exists (which I have great doubt)

It exists in the mathematical map.

You can find all sorts of weirdness in the "mathematical map".

does
indeed allow an observed force describig all the interactions. Describing
gravity as a force can be very correct as long as it is carried out to the
precision of desire.

That is about my only criticism of GR, the interpretations vary,
and every opinion is often expressed in several ways, but there is
no reason to describe freefall as a force.

A freefall is an event. It does not have to be acted by a force.

There is a reason to describe what is felt or measured on the
surface as a force, but at nominal g, it is always equal to the mass
of the minute object, so why bother, it is terminology jargon.

I don't understand what you are saying without any math backing it up.

Dr. Roberts meaninglessly pointed out:
Yes. But the ratio of coupling constants in the Lagrangian is a useful
comparison.

Please show us your Lagrangian(s) involved. What coupling constants are
you
referring to?

He has already showed you his, and you have shown him yours,
isn't that enough exhibitionism? :-)

He showed me the action which is the integral to a Lagrangian. He is [more
like they are] using Lagrangians carelessly without qualifing the validity
as imposed by the constraints of the Lagrangian Method.

Efforts to discuss gravity and any possible new ideas gets lost
in the jostling. I apologize for promoting such a bizarre approach
to gravity theory, but it is simply a literal application of Einstein's
Principle of Equivalence in four dimensions.

The Principle of Equivalence does not even play a major role in the
mathematics of GR.

On Sun, 27 Nov "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Do you remember uttering the following aggressive statements?

"...and I also believe that anybody that thinks they can prove anything
about SR or GR wrong with their math skills or superior knowledge of
physics, is a egotistical nut. It should not be a big surpise if everything
written before 1915 was not totally and completely correct, but those who
claim superior knowledge and math skills good enough to "prove" SR or GR
wrong, are only making fools of themselves." --- Joe Fischer, 11/26/05

Basically, you have called me an egotistical nut who constantly makes a fool
out of myself behind my back.

If you want to include yourself in the above statement, fine,
but I can't think of anything more boring than SR math.

Joe Fischer

Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
Gravity seems to be the only additive "force", and this should
be a huge clue as to what the mechanism might be.

Hmmm. In GR, gravitation is not "additive", if by that term you really
mean linear. For instance, the appearance of an event horizon during
stellar collapse is an example of nonlinearity....


In classical (pre-quantum) physics, electrodynamics is indeed linear. GR
is not.


All forces should be additive.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this?


In actual fact, NONE of the 4 forces of the standard model plus GR are
"additive" (in the sense of being linear). This is well known and
unremarkable.


Tom Roberts

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:27:16 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

Quotes of text written by others removed;

"Joe Fischer" wrote:
Gravity seems to be the only additive "force", and this should
be a huge clue as to what the mechanism might be.

Hmmm. In GR, gravitation is not "additive", if by that term you really
mean linear.

No, I don't mean linear, I mean additive, which is how gravity
gets it's long range attributes, and the "other forces" are either
shorter ranged, or diminish by cube functions or maybe worse.

For instance, the appearance of an event horizon during
stellar collapse is an example of nonlinearity....
Tom Roberts

When you see an event horizon appear, please let me know.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:27:16 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
"Joe Fischer" wrote:
Gravity seems to be the only additive "force", and this should
be a huge clue as to what the mechanism might be.
Hmmm. In GR, gravitation is not "additive", if by that term you really
mean linear.

No, I don't mean linear, I mean additive, [...]

Then you need to define what you mean by "additive".

If, by chance, you mean that a mass 2M should have twice the
gravitational attraction as a mass M (at the same distance away), then
that is linearity and GR doesn't have it.

If, by chance you mean that the field for multiple masses being present
can be computed by taking the solution for each mass and adding them
together, then that is linearity and GR doesn't have it.

In fact, I have not a clue what "additive" could possibly mean other
than linear.


Tom Roberts

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:27:50 GMT, Tom Roberts wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:27:16 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
"Joe Fischer" wrote:
Gravity seems to be the only additive "force", and this should
be a huge clue as to what the mechanism might be.
Hmmm. In GR, gravitation is not "additive", if by that term you really
mean linear.

No, I don't mean linear, I mean additive, [...]

Then you need to define what you mean by "additive".

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/f...section-5.html

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:27:50 GMT, Tom Roberts wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:27:16 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
Hmmm. In GR, gravitation is not "additive", if by that term you really
mean linear.
No, I don't mean linear, I mean additive, [...]
Then you need to define what you mean by "additive".

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/f...section-5.html

The only appearance of "additive" on that page is used in the sense of
"linear".


Tom Roberts