Re: Why Einstein geometrized away Newton's "force of gravity"

On Feb 21, 9:12 am, pmb <pm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 21, 6:29 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tom,
That certainly makes sense from what I can find about
modern interpretations of general relativity and the
Einstein-Mach principle.

Tom’s arguments rely on the common misconception that what he’s saying
is *the* modern interpretation of general relativity. That is but one
interpretation, and not a very good one at that. Tom has ignored the
argument I gave and simply repeated the Newtonian point of view ( and
then claims its no the Newtonian point of view). What Tom failed to
communicate (perhaps because he doesn’t understand it or perhaps he’s
intentionally being dishonest, etc) is (using Tom’s method of argument
from authority) the modern interpretation of general relativity which
states (quoting Pea***)

-  “the prime characteristic of relativistic thought: we must be able
to explain what we see from any point of view.”

- “The relativist’s attitude will be that if our physical laws are
correct, they should account for what observers see from any arbitrary
view – however perverse.”

This means that we must explain the existence of inertial forces in
terms of a mechanism. Dennis Sciama proposed such a mechanism for this
very reason. He called that mechanism “inertial induction” and he
argued that its source is gravitational radiation.

The following web page covers this topic
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

Sciama earned his Ph.D. in 1953 at Cambridge, where he wrote a
dissertation on the origins of inertia under the direction of Paul
Dirac.

Martin Reese explains -

http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1453/311.pdf

--------------------
His thesis on the origin of
inertia gained him a research fellowship at Trinity College in 1952.
Getting this fellowship was a defining moment in his career
--------------------

See also

http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/grahi/inertiaexp.pdf

--------------------
There is an on-going research that looks deeper into the origin of
inertia. Dennis Sciama in1953 (2) showed that
gravity could account for inertial reaction forces.
--------------------

Sciama discusses this here
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4871.html

Tom refuses to acknowledge all of this, i.e. that relativists seek a
mechanism for inertial forces in keeping with the principle “our
physical laws are correct, they should account for what observers see
from any arbitrary view – however perverse”

The problem is, when you are maintaining online
propaganda purporting to show how inertial forces affect
"real" clocks, people don't know which side of your
mouth you are talking from.

Tom relies on argument from authority so let’s consider such an
argument, i.e. the one Tom has been unable to counter, even to
acknowledge.

I’ve quoted Pea*** more extensively in my web page on this subject.
See

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/gr/inertial_force.htm

It seems a valid concept as far as it goes.

The *induction* part of the mechanism is more fully
developed:

The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity


INERTIAL FRAMES AND MACH’S PRINCIPLE  We have just deduced in a rather
cumbersome fashion the familiar fact F= ma only applies in inertial
frames of reference. What exactly are these? There is a well-known
circularity in Newtonian mechanics, in that inertial frames are
effectively defined as being those sets of observers for whom F= ma
applies. The circularity is only broken by supplying some independent
information about F – for example, the Lorentz force F = q(E + v´B) in
the case of a charged particle. This leaves us in a rather
unsatisfactory situation: F= ma is really only a statement about cause
and effect, so the existence of non-inertial frames comes down to
saying that there can be a motion with no apparent cause. Now, it is
well known that F= ma can be made to apply in all frames if certain
‘fictitious’ forces are allowed to operate. In respectively uniformly
accelerating and rotating frames, we could write

F = ma + mg

F = ma + mW´(W´r) – 2m(v´W) + (dW/dt)´r

    The fact that these ‘forces’ have simple expressions is
tantalizing: it suggests that they should have a direct explanation,
rather than taking the Newtonian view that they arise from an
incorrect choice of reference frame. The relativist’s attitude will be
that if our physical laws are correct, they should account for what
observers see from any arbitrary view – however perverse.

    The mystery of inertial frames is deepened by a fact of which
Newton was well aware, but did not explain: an inertial frame is one
in which the bulk matter in the universe is at rest. This observation
was taken up in 1872 by Ernst Mach. He argued that since the
acceleration of particles can only be measured relative to other
matter in the universe, the existence of inertia for a particle must
depend on the existence of other matter. This idea has become known as
“Mach’s principle”, and was a strong influence on Einstein in
formulating general relativity. In fact Mach’s idea ended up very much
in conflict with Einstein’s eventual theory – most crucially, the rest
mass of a particle is a relativistic invariant, independent  of the
gravitational environment in which a particle finds itself. However,
controversy still arises in debating whether general relativity is a
truly ‘Machian’ theory – i.e. one in which the rest frame of the large-
scale matter distribution is inevitably an inertial one (…)

I am not so sure there is really a conflict. Gas molecules or
some other matter tends to show up where Einstein's formalism
operates on a volume of space-time (energy density = mass )

I can't figure why the Einstein fanatics haven't given
him credit for a prediction. Probably they are too engrossed
defending the twins absurdity.


   A hint at an answer to this question comes by returning to the
expression for the inertial forces. The most satisfactory outcome
would be to dispose of the notion of inertial frames altogether, and
to find a direct physical mechanism for generating ‘fictitious’
forces. Following this route in fact leads us to conclude that
Newtonian gravitation cannot be correct, and that inertial forces can
be affectively attributed to gravitational radiation. Since we cannot
at this stage give a relativistic argument, consider the analogy with
electromagnetism … It is highly plausible that something similar goes
on in the generation of inertial forces via gravity, and we can guess
the magnitude by letting e/(4*pi(e_0) -> Gm. This argument was
proposed by Dennis Sciama, and is known as “inertial induction”. ….
Thus, it does seem qualitatively valid to think of inertial forces as
arising from gravitational radiation. Apart from being a startling
different view of what is going on in non-inertial frames , this
argument also sheds light on Mach’s principle: for a symmetric
universe, inertial forces clearly vanish in the average rest frame of
the matter distribution. Frames in constant relative motion are
allowed because (in this analogy) a uniformly moving charge does not
radiate.

I push my car. It pushes back instantly and the sun is in part
a contributor to that mechanism. The ability of induced dipoles
to ~clump~ locally averts any implication that my car has to
wait 8 minutes for permission from the sun, to push back at me.




   It is not worth trying to make this calculation more precise, as
the approach is not really even close to being a correct relativistic
treatment. Nevertheless, it does illustrate very well the prime
characteristic of relativistic thought: we must be able to explain
what we see from any point of view.
….
   It may seem that we have actually returned to something like the
Newtonian viewpoint: gravitation is merely an artifact of looking at
things from the 'wrong' point of view. This is really not so; rather,
the important aspects of gravitation are not so much first order
effects as second order tidal forces: They cannot be transformed away
and are the true signature of gravitating mass. However, it is
certainly true in one sense to say that gravity is not a 'real' force,
the gravitational acceleration is not derived from a 4-force and
transforms differently.

That is the subject of this thread. Einstein didn't have a
basis to model a *real* force so he was correct to model
only what we can measure. There is nothing wrong where
a document says "This page intentionally blank".

<< Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or
general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so a new
paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established. It was
not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as
Van der Waals’ dispersion force or the “London force”)
that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force is always
attractive and operates between electrically neutral
molecules.And that precise property has been the most
puzzling distinction between gravity and the powerful
electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as attract.

So it seems the clue about the true nature of gravity
has been available to chemists – who are not interested
in gravity – and unavailable to physicists – who are not
interested in physical chemistry (and view the world
through Einstein’s distorting spectacles). Look at any
average general physics textbook and you will find no
reference to Van der Waals’ or London forces. What a
different story might have been told if London’s insight
had come a few decades earlier? Physics could, by now,
have advanced by a century instead of being bogged in
a mire of metaphysics.

An excellent illustrated lesson on the London force, or
Van der Waals’ dispersion force is given at:

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html

The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles
caused by slight distortion of otherwise electrically neutral
atoms and molecules. The tiny electric dipoles arise
because the orbiting electrons, at any given instant, cannot
shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all
directions. The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or
molecules is that the electric dipoles tend to resonate and
line up so that they attract each other.

Obviously, gravity is distinct from the London force.
It is much, much weaker. That should be a clue. What
if we are looking at gravity being due to a similar
electrostatic distortion effect in the far smaller
constituents of each atom? >>
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp



---------------------------------------

Its quite humorous that the only method that Tom tries,
unsuccessfully, to rely on, i.e. argument from authority, is the one
that proves that he’s wrong. Unfortunately Tom confuses argument from
authority with the logical fallacy of common appeal.

I guess he has a lot arguments in his past supporting
misapplication of SR and can't bring himself to let
them go. He seems to know better, on his better days.

But that is off topic for this group. ;-)

Sue...


.

Loading