Re: Question about General Relativity


lugita15@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Assume there are only two objects in the entire universe.
Let the first object have mass m1 and have motion described by the
equations x=f1(t), y=f2(t) and z=f3(t). Let their rotational motion be
described by f4(t), f5(t), and f6(t).

Similarly, let the second object have mass m2 and have motion described
by the equations x=g1(t), y=g2(t) and z=g3(t). Let their rotational
motion be described by f4(t), f5(t), and f6(t).

According to general relativity, what is the force between these two
objects?

The answer is:

1. For m1/m2~ 0 (m1 is a test particle). m1 moves along a geodesic
generated by m2. Only numerical solutions available. The force can be
approximated by solving numerically the field equations. Also known as
the'"restricted problem.

2. For m1/m2 finite. m1 now affects its geodesic path by contributing
to spacetime curvature. Solution does not exist. Force cannot be
calculated.


I am aware of the fact that problems like this often become quite
complicated in GR, but I am fine with an answer that contains such
elements as differential geometry and tensor analysis.

Just use Newtonian mechanics for a reasonable answer. GR will gets you
nowhere. Only losers care about GR. I have been asking the losers to
write down the GR equations for a simple spring-mass system. They never
did. GR is metaphysics blended with crackpot mathematics. If you want
answers Newton rules everywhere. Of course there is the crap of wek
field limit approximations, GPS, perihelion etc. but that si another
pile of crap evident now since:

1. GR predicts an order of magnitude less energy for cosmic radiation

2. Fails by a factor of a million billion times in gravitamagnetic
effects

3. Frame dragging never detected

4. Gravity waves never detected

5. Black holes only dreamed off.

Mike


Thank you in advance.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More evidence of negative curvature
    ... >> That mass goes in but energy comes out? ... That of mass breaking down into ... > There is no universal reference frame, but a reference frame is an ... > measured in terms of their motion. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question about General Relativity
    ... Let the first object have mass m1 and have motion described by the ... Let their rotational motion be ... let the second object have mass m2 and have motion described ... Some conehead is sure to tell you that there is no gravitational force in general relativity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Revised Hypothesis
    ... > distance, assign a label ... > fundamental property which deserves the same priority in physics as do distance, mass, ... the ratio of distance to motion (two fundamental ... it is more accurate to state that we observe motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Revised Hypothesis
    ... > distance, assign a label ... > fundamental property which deserves the same priority in physics as do distance, mass, ... the ratio of distance to motion (two fundamental ... it is more accurate to state that we observe motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
    ... define motion relative to the inertia phenomena. ... Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass ... mass relative to acceleration in velocity). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)