Re: The Gravity Energy Muddle

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> On May 12, 2005, at 3:51 PM, iksnileiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Z: Then the general covariance of physical quantities is tightly
linked
> with the *objectivity* of those quantities in Einstein's theory,
exactly
> as I said. An "objective" quantity is a quantity that is not
> intrinsically observer-dependent.
>
> J: This was never a point of dispute. Technically all objective local

> observables must be Diff(4) tensors. You can always make local
> frame-invariant Diff(4) local scalar densities relative to a detector

> with 4-velocity V(Detector) by contraction
>
> e.g. Tuv(Matter at P)V^u(Detector at P)V^v(Detector at P) = Local
Frame
> Invariant Scalar Density at P.
>
> P is a local physical event not a bare manifold point p. Rovelli
> discusses this in his new book.
>
>
> Z: That is the whole point of the 1918 papers on the GR "energy
problem".
>
> J: The tuv(Matter-Gravity) pseudo-tensor is not needed for anything

> important.
>
> tuv(Matter-Gravity)V^u(Detector at P)V^v(Detector at P) is not a
local
> frame invariant Diff(4) scalar density. It is, however, a T4 GLOBAL
> FRAME invariant! Therefore, requirement of asymptotic flatness
selecting
> a subclass of possible space-times in which Ju = constant on a 3 + 1
> foliation is APPROXIMATELY asymptotically possible like the IN-OUT
> states in the S-Matrix model.
>
> Z: Einstein thought a locally integrable density was needed to get
> sensible conservation laws, and he thought this to be quite
important.
> And so have many others.
>
> J: It's only there because of the arbitrary demand that
>
> Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
>
> be replaced by
>
> Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v = 0
>
> Where, by definition we have the partial differential equations
>
> (Corrected eqs )
>
> tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v =
>
> -{LC(Gravity)}u^l^vTlv(Matter) - {LC(Gravity)}l^l^vTuv(Matter)
>
> In principle this is difficult problem to solve for
> tuv(Matter-Gravity) explicitly.
>
> There is no reason to do so, since it is a fictitious non-physical
> quantity from asking the wrong question to begin with!
>
> Z: So you now agree with Yilmaz that Einstein's 1916 pseudotensor
> density is no good?
>
> J: I never thought it was any good, but Yilmaz's idea is even worse.
The
> cure is worse than the disease, which is not at all fatal.
>
> Z: OK.
>
> The analogous eq. in flat space-time would be something like
>
> A(x)u^,u = L(x)F(x)
>
> Where L(x) and F(x) are independent functions.
>
> Obviously though one needs to specify some kind of boundary
condition,
> e.g. asymptotic flatness for the GR problem.
>
> Z: OK.
>
>
> J: The tensor as a whole is LOCAL coordinate independent, but its
> representations are NOT!
>
> Z: ?
>
> J: Your "?" proves my point.
>
> What is the objective Diff(4) tensor Matter?
>
> T(Matter at P) = {Tuv(Matter at P|~} = Equivalence Class of all local

> coordinate-dependent tensor representations Tuv at P. The Equivalence

> relation ~ is
>
> Tu'v' at P ~ Tuv at SAME PHYSICAL EVENT P (could be different
manifold
> points p) IFF
>
> Tu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)Tuv(P)
>
> Xu'^u(P) is an element of the group Diff(4) at P.
>
> Z: But then it follows that any objective local vacuum stress-energy
> must be represented by a covariant tensor quantity. Which is exactly
> Yilmaz's position. It was also Levi-Civita's and Lorentz' position ~
> 1918. So you now seem to have left the Einstein camp on the vacuum
> energy issue. You seem to have "crossed the aisle".
>
> J: No Paul. I have always been there. Your logic here is wrong.
Yilmaz's
> "cure" is worse than the disease.
>
> tuv(Matter-Gravity) is NOT the energy of gravity in any sense! It is
a
> non Diff(4) tensor fragment FROM the MINIMAL COUPLING of gravity to
> matter and, therefore, it has no meaning when matter in the ordinary
> sense is absent.
>
> Avoid all mention of tuv(Matter-Gravity) by simply using
>
> Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
>
> In those limited situations where that equation is true.
>
> Einstein made a non-fatal blunder there, an error of informal
language,
> an error of interpretation.
>
> Yilmaz gives a stupid answer to a stupid question. Yilmaz's cure is
> worse than the disease.
>
> "The Question is: What is The Question?"
>
> Einstein feared that "The Universe is a Free Lunch" that "the total
> energy of a closed system would always be zero, AND THAT THE
MAINTENANCE
> OF THIS VALUE OF THE ENERGY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE
OF
> THE SYSTEM IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER." Pauli p.177
>
> That's the Free Lunch from
>
> tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv(Gravity)
>
> Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
>
> Bianchi identities, sans Shipov torsion, demand
>
> Guv^;v = 0
>
> where ;v = ,v + (LC)v
>
> is MINIMAL COUPLING.
>
> Einstein's LOCAL FRAME COVARIANT OBJECTIVE Diff(4) TENSOR field
> equations then becomes
>
> The Law of Free Lunch!
>
> i.e. using Einstein's poetic imagery
>
> Tuv(Marble) + Tuv(Wood) + Tuv(Zero Point Dark Energy/Matter) = 0
>
> "Marble" AKA Geometry AKA Gravity
>
> "Wood" AKA ordinary matter and EM far-field radiation + EM near
fields
>
> Metric Engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon AKA W^3 as Next Step
> Beyond C^3 begins where Bianchi identities end, i.e., neglect
> Tuv(Matter) as a small perturbation.
>
> Tuv(Fabric of Space-Time) + Tuv(Zero Point Energy) ~ 0
>
> is Einstein's field equation.
>
> The local conservation of current is
>
> Tuv(Fabric of Space-Time)^;v = - Tuv(Zero Point Energy)^;v
>
> where Tuv(Zero Point Energy) is easily controlled by Vacuum ODLRO
phase
> modulation (with a high-Tc probably nano-tech spintronic anyon 2D
> system) with a few AAA Energizer Bunny batteries that just keep on
> going, going ... ;-)
>
> Seriously, flying saucers do not need a lot of on-board power
> consumption. This is why Eric Davis's proposal to USAF for high-power

> lasers for metric engineering is completely the wrong way to proceed
to
> the next step in "Black Ops" reverse engineering "The Visitor"
> technology. Edgar Mitchell is correct that The Visitors from The
> Universes Next Door are not way ahead of us. I mean some of them.
It's a
> Big Multiverse Out There.
>
> The discovery of Dark Energy was The Cosmic Trigger.
>
>
> J: Einstein unfortunately misidentified tuv(Matter-Gravity) as the
> energy of the gravity field. In fact this tuv = 0 when Tuv(Matter) =
0
> everywhere-when.
>
>
> Z: But Pauli's J_u are not objective quantities unless they are (1)
scalars
>
> J: Ju are never Diff(4) scalars. They are never even Diff(4) GCT
LOCAL
> first-rank tensors. They are, however, GLOBAL first-rank T4 tensors.
>
> Z: or (2) transform together as a GCT 4-vector -- which they do when
> evaluated over the region enclosing the system, under the asymptotic
> conditions on the line element.
>
> J: You are totally confused on this last part. What you wrote is not
> even wrong.
> Ju is never a GCT 4-vector. It is a T4 4-vector - a big difference.
>
> Einstein's field equations MEAN Sum of all local OBJECTIVELY
MEASURABLE
> Diff(4) stress-energy density tensors from all causes exactly vanish.
>
> Z: But then, objectively speaking, there is nowhere for the energy
lost
> from the moving masses through gravitational radiation to go.
>
> J: Nonsense. Red Herring. In order to do gravity waves you split the
guv
> field into near fields and far fields.
>
> Tuv(Near Field Gravity) + Tuv(Far Field Gravity Waves) + Tuv(Matter)
+
> Tuv(Zero Point Dark Energy/Matter) = 0
>
> How to make the "split" in strong curvature is the issue. For weak
> curvature fields no problem.
>
> Einstein had a peculiar failure of nerve in his own theory on this
issue.
>
> Z: You mean his leaving out the so-called "cosmological" term?
>
> J: NO! Wake up Paul. Earth calling Paul! I mean, obviously, to anyone

> following my clear logic, Einstein misinterpreting
tuv(Matter-Gravity)
> as tuv(Gravity) BECAUSE:
>
> Einstein feared that "The Universe is a Free Lunch" that "the total
> energy of a closed system would always be zero, AND THAT THE
MAINTENANCE
> OF THIS VALUE OF THE ENERGY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE
OF
> THE SYSTEM IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER." Pauli p.177
>
> Einstein on cosmological constant /\ was not a blunder. Einstein
> mistakenly thought he blundered. He did by not predicting Hubble
> expansion prior to Hubble seeing it. But that just means he made his
/\
> too big and of the WRONG SIGN. No one expected /\ to be a cosmic
> anti-gravity field that is 73% of the accelerating universe today!
>
>
> Also I have shown WHY BIG BANG is necessary!
> The claims the "Big Bang never happened" are wrong.
> You need the white hole singularity to
> 1. Explain the arrow of time (low entropy of early universe)
> 2. Energy without energy as in Wheeler geon.
>
> Further clarification there are two meanings ("marble" & "wood") to
> "gravity energy". Einstein made a muddle when he called tuv(matter)
the
> "gravity energy".
>
>
> Z: Einstein needed a vacuum density to get sensible local
conservation
> laws for gravitating systems. His density did not yield such laws,
and
> he eventually gave up on it as a local physical quantity -- because
it
> was intrinsically observer-dependent.
>
> J: Paul what you do not get is that the tuv Einstein used is not at
all
> a vacuum density. What it really is, is a coupling of vacuum to
matter.
> It is non-physical only because Einstein mistakenly thought he had to

> stay with
>
> Tuv(Matter)^,v rather than Tuv(Matter)^;v
>
> ;v = ,v + (LC)v
>
> Only when you use T4 ",v" can you get GLOBAL conservation laws, i.e.,
>
> Ju = constant on 3D space-like slices of 4D space-time
>
> ONLY when T4 is the APPROXIMATE symmetry group, hence asymptotic
> flatness required.
>
>
> Z: This was in essence an admission of defeat. It was not a new
> "discovery", as Penrose and others seem to want to represent it. It
was
> a failure. You seem to agree that Einstein's 1916 definition was a
failure,
>
> J: Correct
>
> Z: but seem to be saying that the addition of your /\zpfguv term can
> remedy this failure. Right?
>
> J: Wrong. We do not need my /\zpfguv to solve the gravity energy
problem
> at all. What solves the gravity energy problem even when /\zpf = 0 is
simply
>
> tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv(Gravity)
>
> where the universe is stabilized as a Free Lunch from the quantized
> flux-withoutoflux changes of argVacuumODLRO Goldstone Phase = N2pi
> around topological defects where
>
> Higgs Field = |Vacuum ODLRO| -> 0 as in the INITIAL SINGULARITY at
> INFLATION 13.7 billion years ago when our universe was a BABY
UNIVERSE
> in the Multi-Verse.
>
> Einstein did not know that his Guv is emergent from Bu^a ~ Pa on
> argVacuumODLRO. That's why he NEEDLESSLY worried about the STABILITY
OF
> THE UNIVERSE AS A FREE LUNCH!
>
> The VALUE ADDED of my /\zpfguv term is LOW-POWER PRACTICAL METRIC
> ENGINEERING of WARP, WORMHOLE & WEAPON completely independent of the
> MUDDLE on gravity energy.
>
> And that's because of the USG fear that the flying saucers were a
> national security threat that was allegedly covered up by CIA's late
Top
> Gun James Jesus Angleton & "MJ 12". This is partly what Dan Smith is
all
> about.
>
> Z: Your /\zpf guv acts as a vacuum source field for G_uv?
>
> J: Yes, for metric engineering. No for gravity energy.
>
>
>
> Z: You were quite wrong in claiming that the J_i do not transform as
a
> GCT-covariant quantity. The whole point is that they do.
>
> J: No they do not. What Pauli says is that the J_i are defined as T4
> integrals OUTSIDE the DIff(4) GCT region. You are completely confused
here.
>
> Z: Also, the region of integration does not include the "flat"
> asymptotic zone.
>
> J: False. The 3D slices defining the T4 integrals J_i = constant are
all
> "outside B" as Pauli's text clearly says. You are inverting the
meaning
> of the text. Dyslexia? The line element for those integrals is "that
of
> special relativity" which MEANS asymptotically flat region "outside a

> certain region B" p. 177. You have serious reading comprehension
> dysfunction about this particular text Paul.
>
> ..
>
> "Einstein calls the tuv the energy components of the gravitational
> field." p. 176
>
> That's Einstein's Blunder 1.
>
> Z: OK.
>
> J: tuv is, in fact, a COMPOSITE of the "marble", i.e. (LC)uv^l of
the
> gravitational field MULTIPLIED by the "wood", i.e Tuv(Matter).
>
> When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES!
>
> Z: T_uv; w = 0.
>
> J: No Paul. What you just wrote is irrelevant. I meant exactly what I

> said. When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES! Your neurons
are
> misfiring making these goofy inferences.v There is no tuv in pure
> nonexotic vacuum theory where Ruv = 0 GLOBALLY as in the Wheeler geon
of
> "Mass without mass".
>
>
> Z: OK. So you seem to agree that what is needed is an additional
source
> field -- separate from T_uv -- that produces G_uv =/= 0 in the
> gravitational vacuum. Right?
>
> J: NO! Completely wrong! You garbled two independent ideas. I
explained
> above. The gravity energy problem is solved even when /\zpf = 0
> identically! /\zpf =/= 0 is the dark energy cherry on top of the
whipped
> cream!
>
> "The Question is: What is The Question?"
>
> That is
>
> Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0
>
> Z: Are you still saying that tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0 wherever
T_uv = 0?
>
> J: No! I am saying that the solution for tuv(Matter-Gravity) is an
> integral over 4D space-time with a Green's function multiplying the
> source, which is (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter). Therefore IF
Tuv(Matter)
> is IDENTICALLY zero EVERYWHERE-WHEN in the 4D region of interest,
obviously
>
> tuv(Matter-Gravity) = 0 EVERYWHERE-WHEN
>
> Z: Since Einstein's t_uv is a pseudotensor, this depends on the
> coordinates. So what you are saying can't be true.
>
> J: Look Genius what you just said is mathematically FALSE!
>
> Z: OK, I see you are talking here about T_uv, w.
>
> J: Still wrong. I am talking Tuv(Matter) = 0 globally, I don't give a

> damn about its first order partial derivatives identically zero as
well.
> You have confused tuv = 0 in an LIF at P with tuv = 0 GLOBALLY i.e.

> not existing.
>
> Z: Obviously, if your vacuum energy depends on G_uv=/= 0 in an LNIF,
> then in a coincident LIF for the same field it will not be zero --
which
> violates Einstein's equivalence hypothesis.
>
> J: Hogwash. Another totally goofy inference! There is no
contradiction
> with EEP!
>
> Guv + /\zpfguv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter) = 0
>
> is derived FROM EEP by John Pea*** on p. 26 of "Cosmological
Physics".
>
> You are completely wrong and befuddled here Paul.
>
> EEP determines the Diff(4) tensor form /\zpfguv
>
> There is nothing in EEP that demands a zero tensor vacuum energy!
>
> Z: So you see this attacks the fundamentals of Einstein's 1916
theory.
>
> J: False. You are profoundly confused here.
>
> You are confused on a very fundamental point.
>
> Take the (LC) field.
>
> In say the SSS solution.
>
> There is a real (LC) =/= 0 field even though choosing an event P
and a
> LIF at P
>
> (LC) = 0 in LIF(P).
>
> In the case of tuv(Matter-Gravity) - it depends on the product
> (LC)T(Matter).
>
> Its non-tensor property relative to Diff(4) of vanishing in a LIF at
P
> comes from its (LC) dependence in the source PRODUCT, but if
T(Matter) =
> 0 GLOBALLY then, since T(Matter) is a Diff(4) tensor, tuv will be
zero
> in all local frames GLOBALLY, therefore there is no possibility of
tuv
> =/= 0 in such a case! tuv is a HYBRID of (LC) and T(Matter). That's
what
> you do not understand!
>
> Z: No, this is fine. Actually I do understand this very well. The
real
> problem here is that if you make the vacuum energy depend on a tensor

> like G_uv, then if it is not zero at a point in an LNIF, it will not
be
> zero at that point in a coincident LIF,
>
> J: True
>
> Z: which would violate Einstein's principles,
>
> J: False
>
> Z: because then you could locally distinguish a true gravitational
field
> from mere frame acceleration, which latter can't produce vacuum G_uv
> where there is none.
>
> J: You can measure tidal curvature locally from geodesic deviation
also
> Paul. Your argument here is completely bogus. EEP physically only
means,
> if you restrict your local measurements ONLY to g-force and exclude
> everything else, then and only then, you cannot tell. The EEP then
goes
> on to say that the laws in the LIF are that of special relativity so
> that Guv =/= 0 in LNIF at P -> Gab =/= 0 in LIF at P and there is NO

> PROBLEM!
>
> Z: Do you see the problem? Do you see Einstein's dilemma?
>
> J: You are seeing things that are not there.
>
> ...
>
>
> Z: Then in fact you agree closely with Yilmaz.
>
> J: No
>
> Z: No, I think you do in fact. What you have been saying here agrees

> very closely with Yilmaz's stated position.
>
> J: No I do not have the math or the physical picture that Yilmaz has.

> The similarity is very superficial.
>
> Z: You even seem to have a vacuum source field for G_uv.
>
> J: Of course.
>
> Z: And you think that Einstein's pseudotensor t_uv was the result of
a
> "muddle".
>
> J: Of course, but Yilmaz's excess baggage "Who ordered that?" piles
more
> muddle on muddle.
>
> Yilmaz's tuv is NOT at all my tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv EEP
derived
> Diff(4) local tensor stress-energy density not for gravity, but for
ZPF.
>
> In vacuum of course
>
> tuv(gravity) = - tuv(zpf)
>
> in LNIF(P)
>
> Which from EEP is simply
>
> tab(gravity) = - tab(zpf)
>
> You raised a Red Herring here.
>
>
> Z: In addition to T_uv (matter), you have a locally defined parallel
> tensor phi field (phi_uv = c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv) *in the vacuum* that is

> itself a source of Einstein curvature G_uv.
>
> J: No I do not have a metric form
>
> guv = e^/\zpfguv
>
> Your remark here is complete sloppy off-the-wall non-mathematical
> nonsense.
>
> Z: OK, superbrain, if your /\zpfguv term is not a tensor field,
acting
> as a T_uv-independent source of vacuum G_uv, then what is it?
>
> J: It does that, but it does not obey any Yilmaz exponential metric
> equation!
>
> Yilmaz has guv ~ e^phiuv
>
> Completely inconsistent with your still another goofy inference that
>
> "phi_uv = c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv"

xxein: Ah! Equilibrium maintenance without inner or outer bounds.

.

Quantcast