Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory

On Aug 21, 7:27 pm, va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hello Juan G., maybe you remember me as the one opening the thread
Potential energy in Einstein's 1905 Relativity

Hi,

I put the links because maybe you have interest in them (you started
some analysis of the unique page available then).

Since you were injustly attacked by some blacklisted and since you
seem to interested on that stuff I cited that work for you.

If I am not wrong, I cited the equation (3) from Brillouin first
paper
like example of the usage of potential energy in a relativistic
context. Several blacklisted were saying you that potential energy
was
only applicable to Newtonian mechanics and there was not U in
relativity and some other nonsenses.

Take a look also to [1]. One of blacklisted (a self-claimed student)
still maintains that U is not a potential energy!! My advice: do not
wait rational responses from them.

My research follows a completely different way, but thanks by the
links. Above links do not work, the dpf files can be downloaded from
next:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=336961&blobtype=pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=219831&blobtype=pdf

For an unfortunate
mistake from my part, I didn't answer your post thinking that it was
an answer to someone of the persons you have now in your blacklist.
I read your actual post (including a first fast reading of the
Stefanovich's article),

Both Stefanovich's article and my blog article updated.

finding really a lot of things related with my
recent activity in this group addressing what I denote as Einstein's
1905 Relativity (1905R). My principal claim here is that 1905R is NOT
Special Relativity (SR), being the more relevant difference the rest
mass (m_0) concept. In today SR, m_0 is a constant and intrinsic
attribute (exactly the Newtonian view). In 1905R, m_0 (as any mass) is
a measurement of energy, in this case an ABSOLUTE potential energy
(with absolute zero point where m_0=0) that includes at the same time
ALL Nature forces (known or for known, including of course
gravitational and electromagnetic ones).

In his 1905 paper Einstein only considered electromagnetic
interactions explicitely, but in posterior works he also worked
gravitation. In his work about _Gravitation and Light_, Einstein
introduces the concept of gravitational mass and discusses its
changes
between systems K and K', one in a homogeneous gravitational field
and
the other being gravity-free.

If you are interested on that kind of stuff for your own way or
research project, take a look to early papers reproduced on [1]. It
is
cheap.

Thanks also by your other links to threads in this group.

Yes, you can -having care- reproduce some general relativity
phenomena
by a modification of the concept of mass. Roughly one follows [*]
next
schema

m_0 --> m --> m_G

with m_G being some concept of gravitational mass. You can do that in
several ways with more or less success [**]. In a rapid look to your
links I can see in your present work a _scalar_ gravitational
modification of mass:

{BLOCKQUOTE
the rest mass m_0 of any body [...] in the static gravitational
potential field of a material point with mass M, varies according
to the factor 1/(1+GM/rc^2).
}

Are not lacking a factor -2 in the formula?

m_0 --> m_0{1 / {1-2GM/rc^2}}

Let me add that you can go beyond and even to introduce a tensorial
concept of mass, m_ab, in a more advanced theory of that kind. The
scalar corrections you are considering now are valid for mimicing
Schwarzschild-like metrics but not beyond. For instance, if the
source
body (mass M) is moving with velocity v in a non-radial direction
then
your above scalar factor will not work.

Thanks by the links, but as said above, my research follows a
completely different way.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[*] With care because the rule does not mean you can substitute any
mass everywhere in a formula.

[**] I do not know what are your goals not what is the level of
rigor
you search. For instance, an approach of this kind seem useless for
unification tasks.

[1] http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/generalized-potential-energy.html

[2] http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9780486600819

==========================================================
Note for readers]
Because some past episodes of flamming in sci.physics.relativity, both
comments in my blog and my newsgroup e-mail are disabled.

Note for 'experts' and 'professionals']
Avoid to reply this message if you are in my blacklist below. The
capacity of any human for correcting your endless conceptual nonsenses
and foolish mathematical mistakes is, unfortunately, just finite. Also
my occupations do not include to teach you to read others, not to
teach you dimensional analysis or even pre-university physics.

Since you will be sanely ignored here in thereafter you are open to
misread, misquote, or misinterpret me in any way you want, specially
when that adds some light to your grey existence. You are open to
write any triviality; to invent any mistake I did not really did. You
can cite discredited, outdated, or wrong references. You can
manipulate or misread references. You are also open to address any
insult you consider supports your points and you can, of course,
extend your insults to any poster, institution, colleague, friend,
theories, or journal discrediting you.

You can also try to falsify ratings, voting against me dozens or
several hundred of times simulating different people. You can use the
same dishonest tactic for increasing the rating of your akins.

{BLACKLIST
{ Bilge; Bill Hobba; Dono (once Karandash2); Eric Gisse; Tim
Shuba; }}

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE GENERAL RELATIVITY.
    ... At the page 68 of his book Relativity Einstein writes about the General ... conditions required by the fundamental law of Galilei. ... THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS ... If now gravitation is the cause of the acceleration, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
    ... Potential energy in Einstein's 1905 Relativity ... mass concept. ... In his work about _Gravitation and Light_, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: 1905 Relativity is sufficient to support GPS function
    ... >> not a fundamental theoretical quantity in relativity. ... >I am not saying that relativistic mass is today a fundamental ... Physicists aren't slaves to formalism, ... >> Potential energy is another concept that isn't relativistic. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a few simple questions (from a layman)
    ... inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. ... > for most purposes by Newton's law of gravitation. ... and general relativity comes into play. ... Note that light emitted by an electron seemingly needs ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... about the effect of potential energy on mass...". ... Sun's mass infinite, of course). ... forgeting never that General Relativity does not exist yet. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading