🚀 go-pugleaf

h.poropudas@luukku.com wrote:
> I put Sergey's email here (I hope you don't mind) due my answer
> could interest also others:
>
> (email lines marked with * and email addresses removed)
>
> *16.8.2005 17:43
> *Re: Reality of black holes
> *Keneltä:  None  <....>
> *Kenelle:  "h.poropu..... <...>
>
> *h.poropu....... пÐ~Ñ�ал(а):
>
> *> None kirjoitti:
> *>
> *> > All postulates, or rather principles, which I accept, as you said,
> are
> *> > the principles of classical physics. Einstein himself denied the
> *> > postulates of GR. And the postulate of physical laws equivalency
> in
> *> > inertial and non-inertial frames on which GR is based is a
> groundless
> *> > stupidity. I do not suggest people to choose. This is the right of
> *>
> *> Only the weak form of the Equivalence Principle is true not
> *> the strong form. In other words the Equivalence Principle is
> *> local principle not global principle.
>
> *Could you kindly define the conditions of your locality and
> interrelate
> *them with Schwarzschild’s metric. Again, you are in the
> spacecraft
>
>
> "The principle of equivalence is strictly local and applicable only to
> a region of space and time sufficiently small that inhomogenities in
> the
> gravitational field can be ignored.

Correct. From these conditions I just suggested, you to analyse the
twin's travel by 20 light years. ;-)

>
> There is an intersic difference between gravitational and accelerative
> effects on a finite scale.

>From this view in twin paradox, note that the stages of acceleration
will take in so long travel an infinitesimal part of total time of
travel. Einsteinian time reduction is proportional to the WHOLE time of
travel. ;-)

>
> This is well illustrated by considering in a non uniform gravitational
> field two nearby test bodies, which, being in slightly different parts
> of the field, follow slightly different trajectories.
>
> The relative deviations of the trajectories characterize the
> inhomogenities of the field.
>
> They intrincically distinguish the effects of gravity and acceleration,
> which is impossible on a strictly local scale according to the
> principle of equivalence.

If you attentively read the last three paragraphs, you could see a
clear discrepancy, which just says, the equivalence principle was
violated, but it in no way corroborates the conservation of laws of
inertial reference frame in the local field. The matter is, in
non-inertial frames in general case both conservation laws and Newton
laws are invalid.

>
> The principle of equivalence is heuristic and somewhat imprecise;
> despite its logigal imprecision, it has played a very important
> historical role."

This is to the honour of the author of this paper. If the equivalence
principle did not work absolutely, i.e. is violated at least in some
nuance, the whole structure of GR goes to the trash. ;-)

>
> (REFERENCE: Parker S. P (editor), 1983.
> McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics.
> McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1343 pages,
> ISBN 0-07-045253-9,
> "Relativity" pages 962-973,
> "Principle of equivalence" page 966.)
>
> "Einstein's equations are
>
> R_uv - 1/2 g_uv R = 8 pi G / c^4 T_uv  (1)
>
> The equation of motion of a test point mass in an external
> gravitational field can be written as the equation of
> geodesics
>
> d^2 x^u / ds^2 + K^u_ab dx^a /ds dx^b /ds = 0   (2)

After GR - naturally, so.

>
> (Here is is due summation convention really summation
> taken over u=1,2,3, a=1,2,3, b=1,2,3 and K^u_ab are
> Christoffel symbols of second kind (check summation over
> indices, in 3-dim space, indexes run from 1 to 2))
>
> and DOES NOT CONTAIN THE MASS OF THE PARTICLE (i.e.
> under otherwise identical conditions, test point particles
> of varous masses move identically).
>
> This expresses the EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, corresponding here
> to the equality of the inertial and gravitational masses
> (a fact was experimentally confirmed with a precision of
> 1:10^12; this work was done by R.Eötvös, R.Dicke; the
> precision was obtained by V.B.Braginkii)."

Here you can see a clear substitution, if you analyse the said in our
paper as to the motion of trial particle freely falling in the gravity
field under an angle in a non-inertial frame. You will make sure, in
this frame the particle will first 'attract' and then 'repel',
which shows inertial and non-inertial frames non-equivalent.
Furthermore, in a freely falling frame, after Einstein, the gravity
field has to disappear, which we see in orbiting spacecrafts. None the
less, our study shows that the body's motion generally will not be
rectilinear in this frame. We can easily check it even at the orbital
station in special experiments, even at non-relativistic speeds.

Well, I remember these citations. Einstein wrote similar,but let us
look very simple. Take an uniformly accelerating frame and try to apply
in it Newton laws without correlation with the inertial frame. Then
correlate the result with the inertial frame and see what you yield.
;-)

>
> (REFERENCE: Copy of N.V. Mitskevich article in
> Encyclopedia of Mathematics (translated from Russian),'
> (Ivan Vinogradov (editor), Modified by Hannu Poropudas
> 19.11.2000 13:11, "About ideas behind in mathematics of General
> Relativity Theory and Riemann and Ricci tensors",
> in sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.research, sci.astro,
> sci.physics, sci.physics.particle)
>
> By the way I asked long time ago H-M about equality of inertial
> and gravitational mass and if I remember right H-M said that
> equality of inertial and gravitational masses is only
> true for point particles, not if they have finite extension !!!
> (My clarification: point particle has infinitedesimal dimensions).

You are confirming what I say. If the equivalence of inertial and
non-inertial frames requires some limitations, this is not the
principle on which one would may to build GR. The condition on which
Einstein built his GR requires, the equivalence principle to be true
ALWAYS. ;-)


>
> I guess that you possible have figured out situation what I
> tried to descibe first ?
>
> As an amateur I'am not yet able to figure out situation
> you described, but I put below Christoffel symbols of second
> kind for possible calculations with Scwarzshild metric case,
> if someone wants to do them:
>
> f = 1 - a / r
>
> K^t_tr = K^t_rt = a / (2r^2 f)
>
> K^r_tt = ac^2 / (2r^2),
>
> K^r_rr = -a / (2r^2 f),
>
> K^r_TT = -r f,   (T=Theta),
>
> K^r_PP = - r f sin^T,  (P=Phi),
>
> K^T_rT = K^T_Tr = 1 / r,
>
> K^T_PP = -sinT cosT,
>
> K^P_rP = K^P_Pr = 1 / r,
>
> K^P_TP = K^P_P_T = cotT
>
> (REFERENCE: Martin, General Relativity, page 71, I have not
> this book in my hands, but reference is said exactly in
> some my earlier writings)

Please read our supplement to the discussed paper,

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/blackhole/sup1/sup01/sup1.html

there we said much of it.

>
> I have not now time to try to calculate situation you described.
>
> I stop here due that I don't want that his reply is too long.
>
> I hope I could help,
>
>
> Hannu
>
>
>
> *that accelerates to relativistic speeds, this case has been described
> *in our paper. Please show the full equivalence of a ball’s
> reflection
> *from the wall of craft, if the wall was arbitrarily directed to the
> *acceleration, with the case of inertial reference frame. As soon as
> you
> *will have it done, you may speak of locality. I can only add,
> *equivalence has to be seen not in some specific case but has to be a
> *common property of physical laws in inertial and non-inertial frames.
> *In other case your statement will be wrong, just as Einstein’s
> *statement.
>
>  ???????

Why questions? You have not to calculate much, only to relate the
locality condition with 20 light years, and no problem. ;-)

Best to you, Hannu.

Sergey