|
|
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> "It's not my model. And as to "cash value", I think you are forgetting
> the value of a fully covariant vacuum energy density." Paul Zielinski
>
> There is no value to that in 1915 GR. It contradicts the equivalence
> principle. That the founding fathers, including Einstein, were confused
> on this issue is a fact. Whether you can do it in a larger theory is
> still not settled. Carmelli has a fairly good discussion of this issue.
> When there is no agreement on something like this for decades, it shows
> there is something wrong with the formulation of the question. I think
> ... asked the wrong question. He is not stupid of course.
>
> If one stays at the tetrad level and gets a spin 1 Fuv with Lagrangian
> ~ F^u^vFuv then that energy density will be local perhaps because the
> effective metric is Minkowski there! The geometrodynamics is derivative
> and it's gravity energy is still nonlocal!
>
> That is
>
> e^a = 1^a(flat) + A^a(warped)
>
> F^a = dA^a + W^ac/\A^a = Shipov's TORSION FIELD =/= 0 beyond Einstein's
> 1915 GR
>
> Note in Einstein's theory this is strictly zero,
>
> F^a = 0 in Einstein's 1915 GR, but not in Shipov's torsion theory.
>
> therefore, the local gravity field energy is strictly zero, but the
> total gravity energy is not zero. Therefore in Einstein 1915 the
> non-zero gravity energy is NONLOCAL.
>
> Now this is a rigorous proof as good as anything in Euclid's Elements!
>
> DF^a = 0
>
> D*F^a = *J^a
>
> D*J^a = 0
>
> i.e. essentially a Yang-Mills theory
>
> F^aFa torsion field Lagrangian density is local in this Minkowskiab space.
>
> Note that the geometrodynamics will still be nonlocal I think.
>
> ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = (Minkowski)abe^ae^b
>
> R^a^b(curvature) = dW^a^b + W^ac/\W^c^b
>
> Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian vacuum density for L(matter) = 0 & /\(dark
> energy) = 0, i.e. no Ricci local sources is
>
> *R^a^b/\e^c/\e^h
>
>
>
> Jack Sarfatti
> sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx
> "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
> would it?"
> - Albert Einstein
> http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
> lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti">http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
> qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt">http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
> video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
> www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784">http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784
>
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Paul Greenberg wrote:
>
> --- In Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jack Sarfatti
> <Sarfatti@...> wrote:
> >
> > Your inertial compensation model is bad physics of no value inside
> > the strict domain of Einstein 1915 limiting case.
>
> It's not my model. And as to "cash value", I think you are forgetting
> the value of a fully covariant vacuum energy density.
>
> If you think this to be of no value, then you are not in the
> mainstream. Just about everyone in gravitational physics acknowledges
> the value of a covariant vacuum energy density. The only disagreement
> is whether such a quantity can be defined within the formal-empirical
> framework of 1915 GR. I say that it can, if Einstein's "strict
> equivalence principle" is relaxed.
>
> > It may have some value in Shipov's torsion theory extension of GR,
> > but even there I have my doubts if Gennady's interpretation along
> > those lines is consistent. I am still thinking about it.
continue to think
|
|