On the Gravitational Fields in General Relativity






The following pronouncements of your famous genius (A. A. Einstein) in his 1916 Paper are baseless and misconceived and unjustified:

"The above-mentioned relation of freely movable masses to K' may be interpreted equally well in the following way. The system of reference K' is unaccelerated, but the space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field, which generates the accelerated motion of the bodies relatively to K'."


Let's, now, analyze this groundless 'conjecture' proposed by Einstein.

(1) Let it be explicit that the implicit assumption, in this gedanken experiment and every other gedanken experiment by Einstein, is that his hypothetical observers can only take notice of other systems of reference relative to their local frame of reference by the means of light. And hence, all their observations can only be made relative to and with respect to the coming light from these systems upon the moment of its arrival. This received light is the de-facto and the instantaneous frame of reference, and NOT the hypothetical or the real masses in the deep void.

(2) Einstein thinks observers are at a loss to figure out whether they are actually accelerating or just the "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field, which generates the accelerated motion of the bodies relatively" to K' in them. But this belief of his is clearly and demonstrably false. That is because several independent methods are available for determining and verifying the acceleration of the local system; but there is only the optical method at hand for determining and verifying the acceleration of faraway bodies under the sway of gravitation or otherwise.

(3) As mentioned earlier, the optical method is the main method for measuring the motion of distant objects. This method consists of four sub-methods: the Doppler method for measuring radial motion, the polarization method for measuring rotation and some types of transverse motion, the aberration method for measuring the transverse motion of the observer, and finally the rather very limited method of travel time for measuring the transverse motion of moving sources. And that is it; there nothing else for it.

(4) So let's, now, apply the optical method to the accelerating systems in Einstein's Gedanken experiment. First and for most, if the measured changes in the received light are due to the observer's own system, distant masses must appear to be accelerating at the same rate and in the same direction regardless of their positions in the "space-time territory in question". This behavior of distant masses is quite different from the behavior of distant masses accelerating uniformly under the sway of a uniform gravitational field. The light from falling masses in a gravitational field not only must show different magnitudes of motion depending on distance, but it must also show positive and negative rates of acceleration depending on the direction of the gravitational field. In short, the signature of gravitation is unique and could never be mistaken for the acceleration of the observer's own system of reference.

Einstein's assertion, therefore, is wrong.

This received light is the de-facto and the instantaneous frame of reference, and NOT the hypothetical or the real masses in the deep void.

AAF: You still don't believe in instantaneous light. That's alright. But how can you say this when you know that we are only a step above the cro-magnon? If they aren't the real masses in the deep void, then what are they? If you don't believe in relativity then what are they? If you believe they are representations of existence millions of years old, then what are they? Do you believe that we are the recipient of light millions of light years away times 365? Where is there a clear vision? Do we just spin around in chaos, only to pick up the pieces? Where is the reality here? The deep void doesn't answer many questions when we deal with everyday life on Earth does it? When are we going to be able to separate the difference between what we control and what nature has to offer? How far are you willing to go? You are still caught up in c. If you are willing to uninslave yourself, then a whole world opens up. You are never going to get there, unless you rid yourself of this sort of standard. But I am not saying that this standard must be discarded, but better understood. I think that, by now, we should be open to new ideas.

GogoJF: AAF; You still don't believe in instantaneous light. That's alright. But how can you say this when you know that we are only a step above the cro-magnon? If they aren't the real masses in the deep void, then what are they? If you don't believe in relativity then what are they? If you believe they are representations of existence millions of years old, then what are they? Do you believe that we are the recipient of light millions of light years away times 365? Where is there a clear vision? Do we just spin around in chaos, only to pick up the pieces? Where is the reality here? The deep void doesn't answer many questions when we deal with everyday life on Earth does it? When are we going to be able to separate the difference between what we control and what nature has to offer? How far are you willing to go? You are still caught up in c. If you are willing to uninslave yourself, then a whole world opens up. You are never going to get there, unless you rid yourself of this sort of standard. But I am not saying that this standard must be discarded, but better understood. I think that, by now, we should be open to new ideas.




AAF: GogoJF; I'm quite certain that speed of light can't be infinite; on this, Einstein & I are butter on honey!

However, I do believe that the speed of gravity is infinite. And this is the rationale. While the optical position of the sun shows minute aberration, which is always a few seconds of arc behind its true position, the gravitational position of the sun is always the same as its instantaneous position. And that means the speed of gravitation is infinite.

AAF: If I'm not mistaken, in the old days both gravity and light were considered infinite, or instant.

Re: GogoJF, Gravity and light March 25 2009, 9:29 PM

GogoJF,
AAF: "If I'm not mistaken, in the old days both gravity and light were considered infinite, or instant."

Gojo, I held the idea of instantaneous light some years back, mine was more of an idea that we "see" by projection rather than reception. I would like to review your idea if you could link me to some information. As for gravity, the connection of gravitational effects between bodies is already established so gravity does not have speed, it's already there.

GogoJF: AAF: If I'm not mistaken, in the old days both gravity and light were considered infinite, or instant.



AAF: That is correct. But in these days, Einsteinians consider them finite. And so, it's very likely that the truth is somewhere between these two extremes. In other words, there should be no wholesale of this sort and the treatment of 'instantaneous and non-instantaneous' should be carried out on case-by-case basis; right, GogoJF?



Bob S: Gojo, I held the idea of instantaneous light some years back, mine was more of an idea that we "see" by projection rather than reception. I would like to review your idea if you could link me to some information. As for gravity, the connection of gravitational effects between bodies is already established so gravity does not have speed, it's already there.



AAF: I think GogoJF published a paper on this idea in the GSJ few months ago. As for the gravitational effect between two bodies, it's already there, if and only if the two bodies remain stationary. But as soon as one of 'em starts moving, this pre-established effect would not work and some other mechanism would be needed. And surely, Cinci can't say no to this!

GogoJF: AAF: If I'm not mistaken, in the old days both gravity and light were considered infinite, or instant.



AAF: That is correct. But in these days, Einsteinians consider them finite. And so, it's very likely that the truth is somewhere between these two extremes. In other words, there should be no wholesale of this sort and the treatment of 'instantaneous and non-instantaneous' should be carried out on case-by-case basis; right, GogoJF?

This sounds like a fair statement. There must be an elapsed time somewhere, unless the act of light and gravity between source and sink become a single act, and inseparable, or indistinguishable.

There is reasoning behind the belief. Galileo believed light to be infinite because he could not derive a time between mountain tops, but now that we have better machines we reason finitely.

Concerning gravity, the most difficult thing about gravity is not understanding its mathematics, but the concept. For me, conceptualizing gravity is the most difficult thing. Most people believe that the best theory is the simplest. But, shouldn't the best theory be the most useful? For instance, if a theory was able to produce not only an experiment, but a machine which enables us to better understand the universe, then wouldn't this be a better theory?

The subjects of light and gravity are very slippery!

GogoJF,
AAF: "If I'm not mistaken, in the old days both gravity and light were considered infinite, or instant."

Gojo, I held the idea of instantaneous light some years back, mine was more of an idea that we "see" by projection rather than reception. I would like to review your idea if you could link me to some information. As for gravity, the connection of gravitational effects between bodies is already established so gravity does not have speed, it's already there.

I agree with you Bob S, I believe we "see" by means of projection rather than reception. Like AAF said, I've written only 3 papers so far here on GSJ. What has always astonished me was the fact that the Sun, holds the planets in such a timeless and precise manner, as the planets hold their moons,(as if this has anything to do with gravity). I guess gravity didn't exist until the apple hit Newton on the head.

GogoJF,

What do you mean by:

What has always astonished me was the fact that the Sun, holds the planets in such a timeless and precise manner, as the planets hold their moons,(as if this has anything to do with gravity). I guess gravity didn't exist until the apple hit Newton on the head.

Generally a natural phenomenon cannot be said as being "precise".
It is more usual to say that a theory or a model is "precise", or also a measurement.
However, I could imagine what you mean.

The motion of the planets is what it is, indeed.

It is indeed striking that the motion of an (isolated) planet around a sun is a closed orbit.
This can indeed be called a "precise" phenomenon, since the trajectory will close "precisely".
This is known as a unique property of the 1/r gravitational potential.
There is only one other potential with the same property: the (2D/3D) harmonic oscillator with the r˛ potential.
Therefore, this "precision" is clearly related to the assumption of a precisely 1/r potential.

However the 1/r potential does not apply anymore when there is more than one planet.
With perturbations from other planets, the motion is actually much more complicated than what we would imagine from the simple Kepler laws.
Furthermore, the question of the stability of the solar system is not yet fully understood, but it is known that the long-term motion could be much more complicated and unstable than it looks like during our short lives. In this sense, the motion of the planets in the solar system could actually be seen as "limited in time, unstable, and unprecise".

The greatest recent achievement in classical mechanics is probably the KAM theorem (1,2).
This theorem has been the main impetus for the study of chaotic behaviour which is also expected in gravitational systems, including the solar system.
Roughly, the theorem states that under small perturbations a "smoothly behaving system" will remain generaly so except in a limited domain around the "resonnances".
It goes without saying that, generally, strong pertubations lead to chaos.
Chaos means "unpredictable" on more or less long term, or "unprecise".

In plasma physics, the theory of chaos has been applied quite a lot.
In a tokamak, the magnetic field lines also have -at first sight- a "timeless and precise" shape: they wrap gently around smooth "magnetic surfaces".
However, it happens that small pertubations as well a instabilities can destroy completely this smooth behaviour, including the magnetic surfaces.
In this case, the magnetic field lines are wrapping chaotically around the tokamak and fill a volume instead of a surface.
This is actually the generic behaviour.
Since the electrons are roughly moving along the (strong) magnetic field lines, the destruction of the magnetic surfaces increases very much the (radial) diffusion of the electrons and therefore this increases the outward transport and decreases the confinement time.

By the way, I strongly recomend the wonderful book by Arnold on the Mathematical methods of classical mechanics (3). This is comparable in quality to the Landau series. Arnold has an enormous teaching talent. He is continously explaining abstract concept with excellent and simple concrete examples. In this way the reading goes very fast, and the reader is surprised by his own abilities. Arnold is a boost.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Arnold%E2%80%93Moser_theorem
(2)http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Kolmogorov-Arnold-MoserTheorem.html
(3)http://books.google.com/books?id=Pd8-s6rOt_cC&pg=PR8&dq=arnold+mechanics

Re: GojoJF, On the Gravitational Fields in General Relativity March 27 2009, 1:52 AM

GogoJF,
"I agree with you Bob S, I believe we "see" by means of projection rather than reception. Like AAF said, I've written only 3 papers so far here on GSJ."

Thank you for the reply Gojo, I gave your papers a prelim. read...very interesting. I read them out of sequence so I have to go back.

We haven't had had any discussions on vision itself on this board and since you have dealt with the subject there is a phenomenon I've noticed that you may help me to explain.

On a road with a constant flow of traffic at about 35-40mph, faster is Ok but 35-40 seems to give the best effect. Positioned at a safe distance off the side of the road, 10-15ft. Focus your vision to a point at the berm on the opposite side of the road. Allow the crossing traffic to flow through your line of vision. As a vehicle with the new style large wheels passes through you vision the spokes on the wheels will appear to have a strobeing effect. It happens day or night and it seems to me as if our vision has a refresh rate that causes the strobbing. If you know what it is I'd like to know, when you have the time of course. Thanks in advance.


Side note to Relativists; this message has nothing whatsoever to do with Relativity.

Look for Moiré effect.
Same visible on bridges with fencing.
Physics a non-relativist could understand.

Re: Lal, On the Gravitational Fields in General Relativity March 27 2009, 6:26 PM

Lal,
"Look for Moiré effect.
Same visible on bridges with fencing.
Physics a
non-relativist could understand."

I quite well know the difference between an opticlal illusion (Moiré effect) and high-speed illumination (strobe light) thank you.

Re:lal

Relativity is not physics but geometry.

anonymous made a big step forward wihthis claim: "Relativity is not physics but geometry."

This might eventually imply he could agree with another statement:

>> geometry as long as it applies to physics is an experimental topic

and therefore also with this one:

>> the existence of spacetime is a physical question and therefore also an experimental topic

and normally with this one:

>> transformations between different equivalent frames of references must make a group

Having accepted so much he should be close to admit the whole Special Theory of Relativity, as it becomes a simple question of algebra. (the constancy of the speed of light being a secondary topic, as it known today)

>>>>>>>>>.This might eventually imply he could agree........

no

AAF: (2) Einstein thinks observers are at a loss to figure out whether they are actually accelerating or just the "space-time territory in question is under the sway of a gravitational field, which generates the accelerated motion of the bodies relatively" to K' in them. But this belief of his is clearly and demonstrably false. That is because several independent methods are available for determining and verifying the acceleration of the local system; but there is only the optical method at hand for determining and verifying the acceleration of faraway bodies under the sway of gravitation or otherwise.

cinci: I assume here you're talking about the equivalence principle. What are these "independent methods?
********************************