Re: Gravity

Hi ST.M ... neat poetry....

St.M wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > St.M wrote:
[big snip]

> > > Ken, have you got Kip Thorne's notes or work on GR ?
> >
> > Yes, I've read "Gravitation" by MTW, T as in Thorne,
> > great book, it has very high praise in this group.
> > Have you had a chance to crack it yet?
>
> If I am not too drunk someday I will crack it someday.

It's available at the library by order, 6 hours
sober a day will get you through it in about a
month. But a drink takes the edge off and reduces
the adrenalin, math/physics at this level is very
stressful.

> Have a look at the following

ok

> http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap24/0224.1.pdf
> http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap25/0225.1.pdf
> http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap26/0226.1.pdf
> http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap27/0227.1.pdf

> > >What's your idea
> > > about time travel and wormholes ?
> >
> > I've haven't seriously studied those concepts,
> > because the conventional problems with classical
> > GR are enough of a challenge for me.
>
> So what about "does gravity miss things so small?"
> Any thoughts on so called quantum gravity?

(Ok I'll asterisk things you can verify
for yourself), but read my entire reply
before interrupting, because it's a body.

Let's approach the problem from the PoV,
(Point of View) of conventional GR, that way
we do not need to invent many assumptions.
*Einstein's Law* is,

Guv = Tuv

or something similiar, depending on the author.

Most GRist's tend to make Tuv=0 so that Guv=0.

With Guv=0 one can use *Schwarzschild Solution*,
because it's comparatively simple.

Instead we'll find examples where Tuv =/=0.

One such example I recommend is the solution
(application) of Einstein's Law to a pair of
naked charges, "naked" meaning neither charge
has any intrinsic energy without the other, so
using classical EM-theory, the system energy is,

p = a*b/s

"a" and "b" are charges, "s" is signal distance,
aka radius.

Now here's the thing, one cannot use Guv=0 for
that naked charge couple because Tuv =/=0,
because the "a" and "b" affect each other.
When that occurs one needs Guv=Tuv =/=0.
In juxtaposition, when we orbit a GPS satellite,
the effect of the satellite on Earth is nil
so Guv=0 is fine. But if we were to orbit a
satellite with the mass of the Earth, we'd need
to account for that sats mass!

How's that so far?

By fairly trivial mathematical means we may
convert the entire mass of the Earth into a
sum of naked charge couples, it's potential
energy, and do the same for the Moon.

Suppose all the couples within the Earth are
at statistic rest so the Earth doesn't change
it's potential energy, and so retains a constant
mass, same for the Moon.

But we know the Moon has an elliptical orbit
around the Earth, so sometimes it's pulled
toward the Earth from Newton's PoV, and speeds
up. Why does that happen?

Well GR predicts the Coulomb force between
attractive charge couples is slightly stronger
than the repulsion couples. Note there are an
equal number of attractive and repulsive
couples relating in two neutral bodies.

How's that so far?

Now we've reduced the problem to how a charge "a"
in the Earth will relate to a charge "b" in the
Moon, taking note that the cancellation of attraction
and repulsion is not exact, but leaves a residual
attraction called gravity.

So now we're left with how to quantize the relation
of two relatively moving charges. That sort of
thing is covered by how electrons "transist" between
orbitals by means of photon emission and absorption,
the geniuses have got that figured out good enough.

The operating particle is "photons".

We've reduced the gravitational relation between
the Earth and Moon to very long wavelength photons,
relating charges between those two bodies.

Furthermore, that's entirely reasonable from the
epistemological PoV since we are obligated to use
photons, light-waves and lasers to survey the space-
time field, and as we know from the deflection of
light-waves by g-fields, g-fields do in fact interfere
with the propagation of light waves, and it they
relate, the're related.

How's that so far?

The Quantum Hypothesis first put forth by Planck,
has evolved into what we call today *Wave Mechanics*.
Wave Mechanics tends to compute interference based
on probability, (understandably due to the uncertainty
principle), and Guv=Tuv is entirely compatible with
that, where Tuv maybe regarded as probability density.

This post is an idea on relating GR's gravity to
quantum theory.

Spit-balls expected.
Ken S. Tucker
































































































































> Wish I Were a Fly on the Wall
> by Robert D. Cowan
>
> There once was a fly on the wall
> I wonder why didn't it fall
> Because its feet stuck
> Or was it just luck
> Or does gravity miss things so small?
>
>
> > It's good
> > that Thorne and Hawking spark interest in physics
> > even if I disagree with their views, perhaps I'm
> > too conservative.
> >
>
>
> > > > PS: If gravity reduces by stock in Velcro!!!
> > > One student couldn't be motivated to take an interest in science
at
> > > all. He said, "I plan to go into the business. Name me one thing
> > > science has done to help business."
> > > The teacher shot back, "And just where would the belt industry be
> > > without the law of gravity."
> >
> > LOL
> > Ken
>
> Gravity is a law. Lawbreakers will be brought down!
> Law of Selective Gravity:
> An object will fall so as to do the most damage.
> Jenning's Corollary:
> The chance of the bread falling with the buttered side down is
directly
> proportional to the cost of the carpet.

.

Quantcast