Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

Welcome Forums Gravitation Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #431
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Ouch! I don’t actually dismiss those “buzz-words”,
    but instead consider them to be consequences instead
    of “first principles”. And possibly even approximations.

    That is, I imagine the space around us as a bundle of
    fibers described by polynomials and their conjugates;
    a first principle of sorts.

    In short, I will make every effort to make our perspectives
    converge; you with Boltzmann’s atoms and me with
    Boltzmann’s entropy. Two seemingly different concepts, but
    really just two perspectives of the same mechanism.

    #433
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    When I first approached the field of numerical
    simulation, everything in my models used
    “piecewise linear” approximations of functions.
    I knew that piecewise approximations using
    polynomials existed, but I much preferred
    piecewise linear because it was so straightforward
    in the calculation of differentials and integrals.
    I thought I was pretty smart doing it the “easy”
    way.

    Then somebody showed me that piecewise quadratic was
    “easy” too, and better. Then I started playing with
    cubics and so-on. Then conjugates entered the picture
    as well. After playing with these mathematical objects
    for years, one day in 1985 I discovered the Lorentz
    factor in an “approximation”. I put that factor on the
    left hand side of the equation and out popped a really
    neat identity, the one described above. And it was not
    merely an approximation, “piecewise conjugate” was
    exact. I know that even “high falooten” math-nuts on
    SciAmPF had never seen my identity before; I was
    user-name ClamShell at that time and they refused to
    absorb what was necessary to understand it, so they
    dismissed my work on the basis that they didn’t understand
    it. I’m really no Galois, but Galois suffered the same
    fate at the hands of his chairman. So I think maybe that
    I’m onto a “new” type of analysis, and for lack of better
    words, I call it “Conjugate Analysis”.

    And if I am wrong, I have little to lose, so I persevere
    in the notion that gravity is a “conjugate field”( and so
    are the other fields as well); a first principle.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    #434
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    And I’d really like for mass to be directly proportional to the number of protons and electrons in a particle….minus the weight and impulse of the bonds. Is that what you mean
    by your clear definition of gravitational mass? Might we
    call it the “real” or the “weight” mass?…what I am thinking is implied by the German “schwere masse”.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    #435
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    And I’m now inclined to prefer that schwere masse
    be called the “conserved mass”… the
    “konserviertmasse”.

    #436
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,
    my intention is mainly to state that gravity is caused by invariant elementary gravitational charges, similar to the cause of electromagnetism by invariant elementary gravitational charges. Both interaction fields propagate with c. The equations of motions of the fields and of the particles/bodies are to be derived with the use of invariants from a Lorentz-invariant action integral, integrated about a finite space-time domain. However, appropriate subsidiary conditions for the fields and for the particles must be considered. For the particles the subsidiary conditions are in accordance with particle number conservations.
    Sincerely,
    Gyula Szász

    #437
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    What concerns me now is not that the charges,
    masses, and fields are conserved, but that the
    Lorentz invariant expression itself, may only
    be an approximation. And I am still under the
    (stupid maybe) impression that a Lorentz
    invariant derivation of motion is identical to
    using the Lorentz factor to correct the Lorentz
    transformation matrix. That is, that the Lorentz
    factor and the Lorentz invariant are the same
    thing. Are you able to address these concerns I
    have?

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    #438
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Conservation of Coordinates

    Dear Gyula,

    Or the invariance of coordinate translations
    (or transformations).

    I thought I might run this past you to get my
    customary slap of your ruler on my wrist.
    Maybe even a thread on the Gravitation
    forum once it’s cleaned-up.

    So, here goes. By demanding the conservation
    of “KonserviertMasse”, it also looks like you have
    coincidentally or purposefully demanded the
    conservation of the Cartesian Coordinate System;
    or for that matter, the conservation of ANY
    coordinate system that may be chosen; so the
    conservation really implies an independence of
    the coordinate system chosen; as you suggest.

    Under these circumstances, so-called space-time
    looks more like a three-dimensional space with
    an additional, but imaginary, forth axis. A “stage”
    quite independent (it does not warp), of the actors;
    if it were not for that minus sign(s) in the invariant.

    That minus sign(s) made Einstein think the spacetime
    “stage” warps from the weight of the actors and therefore
    even partakes in the performance we observe.

    I’m considering that it was actually BECAUSE Einstein
    was unsure of what so-called “rest mass” is in his
    theory, that caused his theory to warp spacetime in
    response; and that your treatment conserves
    “KonserviertMasse”,and in response demands
    KonserviertKoordinaten.

    Is this just my mind focusing on trivialities? Or can
    we repair my reasoning and discuss this from the
    standpoint of physics instead “raw” mathematics?

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    Dear Bill,
    Minkowski create the correct space-time connection as a 3+1 dimension manifold for the interaction fields which propagate with c. Within this manifold you can define several coordinate systems. The invariants which are given in the Minkowski space, or which you define as invariant, are independent from each coordinate system and invariants under Lorentz transformations: they do not change (are invariant) their values. Such invariant is for instant the distance between two points; the invariant distances connect space and time. Yor can define also an invariant action integral to determine the covariant equations of motions.
    Invariant elementary gravitational charges are connected with elementary masses. The elementary masses are conserved. Coordinate are never conserved.
    The gravitational masses of bodies, as addition of elementary masses regarding the signs of their elementary gravitational charges, are conserved. Einstein threw away the conserved gravitational masses. Furthermore, Einstein did not understand the “rest masses”, the inertial masses at the impulse p = 0. He could not interpret; he could not calculate the “rest masses”. Einstein thought that the gravitational mass is the same as the inertial mass for each bodies, but this is not true. Einstein did not understand how gravity works.
    However, a difficulty arises: you can indeed assign invariants to elementary particles (such invariants are the elementary electric and gravitational charges, thus also elementary masses), but, you cannot assign a discrete point of the Minkowski space, with a precise velocity, to the elementary particles. That is the mean reason from the standpoint of physics.
    Please Bill, continue our discussion in the Gravitation forum. It is interesting for other people too.
    Sincerely,
    Gyula Szász

    #439
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    “And I am still under the (stupid maybe) impression that a Lorentz invariant derivation of motion is identical to using the Lorentz factor to correct the Lorentz transformation matrix.”
    How do you want transform an elementary particle from which you do not know the exact velocity?

    #440
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Bill, you must understand, even if you want use the Lorentz factor, you must know the exact velocity of a particle because of the “relativistic addition of velocities”.

    #441
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Gyula, I guess I’ll call on Heisenberg so
    when the position gets uncertain enough, I’ll
    know the velocity pretty accurately. And
    I’ll measure it in a laboratory to minimize
    doubt.

    I am still troubled by your requirement
    that “space” cannot warp, so I am “all ears”
    as to why it cannot warp.

    And please don’t expect me to understand that
    “space” cannot warp because your theory says
    so; I desire the physical reason that led you
    to find-out that “space” cannot warp.

    That is, is non-warping an assumption and/or
    a formalism and/or an interpretation and/or
    a prediction?

    #442
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Einstein did not really understand how particle physics work. Quite the contrary to Einstein’s opinion, photons do not exist in Nature.
    Szász Gyula

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Gyula Szász.
    #443
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Do you not understand that “space” cannot warp and as well the positions, as the velocities of bodies are uncertain?

    #445
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Gyula,

    I cannot continue; my think about a fixed coordinate
    system, an independent “stage”, is hopelessly crushed
    by your statement, “Coordinate are never conserved”;
    If I was not clear(I think I wasn’t), I was meaning that I
    am considering that the whole coordinate system and
    its shape, remain always the same, I think. And I am
    still troubled by the inability of space to warp.

    Einstein said this about “space”:

    “When a smaller box s is situated, relatively at rest, inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow space of S, and the same “space”, which contains both of them, belongs to each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, however, the concept is less simple. One is then inclined to think that s encloses always the same space, but a variable part of the space S. It then becomes necessary to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought of as bounded, and to assume that these two spaces are in motion with respect to each other.

    Before one has become aware of this complication, space appears as an unbounded medium or container in which material objects swim around. But it must now be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre- scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable role even in scientific thought.”

    Albert Einstein

    Is this quotation disagreeable to you?

    I will post after you help me collect my think.

    Sincerely,

    Bill Eshleman

    Einstein did not understand how electromagnetism work, he did not understand how gravity works, but, he thought that the gravitational mass is equal the inertial mass without prove! Einstein was not a good physicists and he was a wrong mathematician. He did also not understand what space and time are.
    Szász Gyula

    #446
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Yes, I do not understand why “space” cannot warp.
    And Heisenberg tells me that position and velocity
    are Fourier transforms of each other and therefore
    cannot be precisely measured at the same instant;
    so I tend to agree that positions and velocities
    must be uncertain. But that “space” cannot warp,
    I must have explained to me.

    Yes, I know that the fields warp when in motion and
    produce magnetism for an observer that thinks he/she
    is motionless. So I am willing to accept more field
    warping instead of “space” warping, but I don’t
    currently know why. Why? And please don’t say
    “because I told you so” But explain it to me in an
    analogous way that Einstein attempts to explain “space”.

    #447
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    And please let me state for the record again;

    I do not have a theory of anything. What I have
    is a Shannon Information Theory “treatment” that
    can be applied to any theory characterized by
    flows of information, including, but not limited
    to, boson-like(wave-like) information and fermion-
    like(particle-like) information. And the Shannon
    Information Theory “treatment” is flexible and can
    account for phenomena, for example, like the non-
    linear path that the rays from the Sun follow
    because we never see properties as they are, but
    only as they were, due to using communications
    channels limited by the speed of light and/or
    gravity.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.