Re: THE GENERAL RELATIVITY.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

True, but the standard interpretation to GR does not address this issue
either. Only through proper interpretations to Noether's theorem,
that the energy conservation is indeed a universal and fundamental
phenomenon in which un-mistakenly identifies gravity as a force,
Galileo's principle of Equivalence can be proven.

The equivalence principle is a postulate of GR.

The principle of Equivalence nor Einstein's Equivalence Principle has
anything to do with GR. The principle of equivalence was first
proposed by Galileo.

And how is this related to the fact that
there is nothing in Newtonian mechanics that say the constant
of proportionality m in the former law and ditto in the latter law
have to be the same constant?

Newtonian's law of gravity stipulates on the principle of
Equivalence. The gravitational constant is added to show this.

Einstein Equivalence Principle is a dead end in the development of GR.
"Hey, look, mom. No hands. Me and Marcel [Grossmann] just jumped
out of the windows, and we expect to understand gravity." Yeah,
right! Einstein and Grossmann's work based on this principle went
nowhere. On the contrary, Newton came up with the law of gravity by
observing a falling apple. Einstein in a free fall could not do any
better than Newton observing objects in a free fall. As Dr. Roberts
has ingeniously pointed out, it would eventually meet the ground in a
tragic end.

You may ask then where the Einstein field equations come from. Well,
the Einstein field equations can only be derived through the Lagrangian
Hilbert patched together like that monster by Doctor Frankenstein.
There is no other way, professor. Don't feel bad. Almost (near
100%) of the experts in this field do not understand GR either. Dr.
Hartle, with great endorsement from professor Draper on a crusade to
teach the calculus of Variations applied to the geodesics first before
Riemannian differential geometry, may just spell doom for GR.
Currently, with Riemannian differential geometry, I can safely say not
too many really understand this subject. However, the peer pressure is
forcing them to see the nonexistence of the Emperor's new clothes
'til this day. And this is the modern science. Very sad, indeed.

I see.
You are the only one understanding GR. :-)

Yes, I am glad that you are proud of me.

Are you also the only one understanding SR and the Lorentz transform?

It appears to be the case as well. It is nice of you to point that out
as well. :-)

In that case, maybe you could point out the error in the following:

[...]

This is a blue shift

If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
and the observed Doppler shift will be:
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)2)/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
f' = f*sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
This is a red shift.

In this case, phi' means nothing. phi = pi / 2. Thus, cos(phi) = 0.
Then,

f' = f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

It is still a blue shift. Both cases are indicating a blue shift
according to the Lorentz transform.

Summed up:
----------------------------------------------------------------
# If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
# in the source frame, the observed Doppler shift will be:
# f' = f/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
#
# If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
# in the observer frame, the observed Doppler shift will be:
# f' = f*sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Since this follows from the very mathematics of
the Lorentz transform which you claim to understand,
I will assume you know this is correct.

In the case you don't agree, I challenge you to show that
the above is NOT what the Lorentz transform predicts.
General talk about symmetry won't do.
You will have to do the math.

You still don't understand the Lorentz transform. That is because
you have failed to understand the symmetry therein. You don't
understand the principle of Relativity in which it is a property to the
Lornetz transform.

You still get an 'F' for failure.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading