Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity

On Apr 4, 6:46 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003

That's infinitely more complicated than
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

Then you may dislike my own approach, which corrects Feynman approach
adding new terms to the equation of motion.

I wouldn't say dislike. I would say distrust. How could I trust a
physicist that only knows very complicated things about Lorentz
invariant theories of gravity, but seems to have no understanding of
simple things in that area?

Poincaré's appears to have derived many invariants and used them to
express a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity. I don't care if his
theory made inaccurate predictions. I also don't care if Poincaré's
paper contained mathematical errors. I want to know what those
invariants of Poincaré are in modern notation and how to generate them
correctly by simplest mathematics possible.

Shubee

How is it that
you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant theories of gravity,
have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?

http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

I would not say so.

Poincaré originally tried to apply to gravity the special relativity he
was developing, so far like i know he computed Mercury perihelion anomaly
and got about a 13'' (I write from memory) of the total anomaly. It was
an advance, of course, but could not explain all of the anomaly.

Probably Einstein knew this result and tried a different approach years
after.

From modern knowledge we know that Mercury perihelion anomaly has a
'special' relativity part and a 'general' part [##]. One cannot explain
relativistic graviation just /a la/ electrodynamics, writting 'special'
relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity.

Also several points on the section 9 of the pdf are not correct:

i)
retardation of interactions is not correct.

ii)
his point 4º "Since astronomical observations do not seem to show a
sensible deviation from Newton's law" is not valid today. At galactic
scale force there exists deviation from Newton: MOND.

iii)
Lorentz transformation holds approximated character only. See also Eugene
paper.

[#] I gave credit to both Poincaré and Einstein for that.

[##] Before any relativist feels the need to correct this i may say that
the language used is wrong.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Sarfatti Star Gate Chronicles March 21, 2009
    ... Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity are all about ... you are weightless in an inertial frame in Einstein’s theory. ... inward attractive gravity force of magnitude acting on a freely- ... “Think of assembling meter sticks and clocks into a cubical lattice ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • General Relativity Examined
    ... General Relativity Examined ... Special Relativity was based) and added the Principle of Equivalence. ... can be expressed in terms of the Lorentz Transformations for Force, ... (The subject is amply covered in "Gravity" at the Website.) ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • General Relativity Examined
    ... General Relativity Examined ... Special Relativity was based) and added the Principle of Equivalence. ... can be expressed in terms of the Lorentz Transformations for Force, ... (The subject is amply covered in "Gravity" at the Website.) ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • General Relativity Examined
    ... General Relativity Examined ... Special Relativity was based) and added the Principle of Equivalence. ... can be expressed in terms of the Lorentz Transformations for Force, ... (The subject is amply covered in "Gravity" at the Website.) ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • General Relativity Examined
    ... General Relativity Examined ... Special Relativity was based) and added the Principle of Equivalence. ... can be expressed in terms of the Lorentz Transformations for Force, ... (The subject is amply covered in "Gravity" at the Website.) ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading