JimJast

Welcome to my talk page. Jim

---

/Discussion of speed of light with Pdn /Archive 1 /Archive 2

Short seminar on Einstein's gravitation (high school level)

On an advice of Duae Quartunciae I opened this section for possible paricipants. If there are candidates, please add your four tildes below in Questions section.

The explanation of physics of gravitation can't be placed in Wikipedia's regular article since Wikipedia editors don't accept the fact that Einstein discovered the physics of gravitation and they keep removing my articles by consensus 9:1 every time I try to explain the reason for gravitational force and why this force is not an attraction but a repulsion.

The editors believe that the mainstream science supports a notion that gravitation is a phenomenon by which all objects attract each other, which turned out impossible to remove from their heads, and that's why this seminar for those who want to understand gravitation.

Introduction

The Einsteinian physics explains the world in a different way than Newtonian physics does. The basic difference is so called relativity that is basically a notion that neither time nor space are fixed entities but both can be converted in some sense one into another.

A direct observable result of this are clocks running slower than those in the observer's frame of reference (effect called relativistic time dilation) and distances being shorter than the same distance measured in the observer's frame (effect called relativistic length contraction). An interesting thing is that both effects correspond to each other in the sense that their relative change is the same. The time shrinks (clocks tick slower) in the same degree as space expands (rulers get shorter, so more rulers fit in the same space). If the clocks run at half of their rate at the observers frame the rulers get shorten to the half of ther length that they had in the observers frame (the space gets twice as big as it is supposed to be in Newtonian physics).

Those two effects are all that there is to gravitation (and that's why it is so simple).

There are consequences of those two effects though. One may imagine something (called spacetime) in which 4-dimenssional (4-D for short) things won't change their 4-volume (4-D product of 1-D length in time and 3-D volume in space). Since Einstein the physicists realized that there exist such 4-D objects that can be described by 4-D coordinates and then, despite that both time and space change when measured in relation to a moving frame of reference, their certain properties don't change from one frame of reference to another. Those properties are called invariant.

What word "mass" means in physics

An example of such invariant property that doesn't change from one frame of reference to another is a rest mass of a particle (a mathematical model of mass). Physicists call it "mass" and denote $(m)$ which confuses most non physicists because invariant mass of a photon $(\gamma )$ is zero $(m_{\gamma }=0)$, but its inertial mass, gravitational mass, or so called relativistic mass are always greater then zero (and all are the same). It initiates endless disussions between physicists and non physicists. To clarify difference in terminology between physics and the rest of the world: now in physics word "mass" means invariant mass (old rest mass). It is denoted by $m$. Any other mass needs an adjective in front of word "mass" to clarify what mass we mean. Luckilly all other masses are the same so they can be denoted by the same letter e.g. $M$. They are relativistic mass, inertial mass, or gravitational mass, which is a physical mass of the particle only not used like this in physics but in all other sciences. They were called "mass" also in physics before the physicists started calling "mass" the invariant mass which were then denoted $m_{0}$, not any more though. All other masses are still called "mass" in all sciences other than physics and of course in old physics texts from before 1970-ties and also denoted by $m$. So to be on the safe side we should now write the old Einstein's equation for energy of a particle as $E=Mc^{2}$ unless we mean the rest energy which remains $E_{0}=mc^{2}$.

Gravitational force

It turns out that the reason for gravitational force is not some gravitational attraction as it was genrally though before Einstein and now only by those who are not familiar with his general relativity (only slightly over 99.9% of population).

The real reason is that the space is modified by the vicinity of energy or gravitational mass $M_{g}$ (which is the same thing in different units). The space expands a little bit and since it is coupled with time (as explained in the introduction) the time slows down the same little bit and so does the coordinate speed of light (the one which we are actually observing). It's expressed by $C$ in Einstein's equation for total energy of a particle $E=MC^{2}$, where $M$ is inertial mass of the particle) and $C^{2}=c^{2}d\tau /dt$, where $c$ is local speed of light in vacuum, $\tau$ is local (proper) time of the particle (both as seen by the particle) and $t$ is its coordinate time (the time as seen by the observer).

Since the energy of a particle depends on $C$ it drops when $C$ drops (due to the drop of $\tau$ in curved spacetime). When the particle is immobilized, we see a force resulting from this drop of energy in some direction denoted by a vector $\mathbf {r} =r^{i}=(r^{1},r^{2},r^{3})=(x,y,z)$ (to move the particle towards lower energy state). And this is the physical reason for the gravitational force: the change of internal energy of particle with position of the particle. The particle gets pushed towards the place where its energy is lower. The force is called "gravitational force".

The force is $F_{i}=-\partial E/\partial r^{i}$, where $\partial E/\partial r^{i}$ is derivative of energy $E$ of the particle with respect to distance $\mathbf {r}$. The total 3-D gravitational force, in terms of its components, is $\mathbf {F} =(F_{x},F_{y},F_{z})$. It is in direction towards the mass $M_{g}$ that is responsible for the curvature of space in its vicinity. The force is pushing the particle against its constraints, towards the mass $M_{g}$. This is an inertial force. Before Einstein it had been taken for an gravitational attractive pull from mass $M_{g}$. In reality it is an inertial push against the obstacle, coming from the particle itself, proportional to its inertial mass $M$ and also proportional to the mass $M_{g}$ that causes the curvature of space and time dilation that change $C$ in vicinity of mass $M_{g}$.

When the particle is free then no force shows up since the particle starts accelerating under the influence of this gravitational push and the kinetic energy of the particle grows compensating for the drop of internal energy of the particle keeping the total energy unchanged. If a particle is in a cluster of particles forming a brick, still their total energy is constant however a brick's energy contains also electromagnetic energy that causes stresses in the brick because of tidal forces and that's why it is simpler to consider only a single particle which presents the same physics without an unnecessary distraction.

So the gravitational force, which we see when a prticle is immobilized with repect to mass $M_{g}$ by an obstacle, is obviously not an attractive force but only a force coming from inside of the paticle pushing it against the obstacle, in direction of mass $M_{g}$. It simulates an attraction as much as hormons that push a guy towards a woman who attracts him.

That's how Einstein's physics explains reason for gravitational force: drop of internal energy of a particle along distance, in vicinity of some mass, since the mass curves the space and so it also causes time dilation that slows down the speed of light and the energy of the particle is proportional to squared speed of light.

The math of it, except in Landau's Theory of fields, can be found in my page, in my one page paper in PDF format Gravitational energy in Einstein's theory or done manually by any high school student familiar with calculus, and now familiar also with the physics of phenomenon.

Gravitational energy of a particle

As it is seen from the equation for gravitational force given in previous section, $F_{i}=-\partial E/\partial x^{i}$, gravitational energy of the particle is the same as its rest energy $E_{0}=mc^{2}$.

Questions and answers releted to the seminar's topics

Old questions and comments were moved to /Archive 2.

Please place new questions at the end of this page. Jim 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Graviton Force

Hi Jim,

I disagree with your "Gravity is not a force” note on the Gravitation talk page. It’s more subtle than the standard Emperors New Clothes indoctrination that is given to new GR converts. I explain a bit more here:

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/space-time-sanity.html Kevin Aylward 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin aylward (talk • contribs)

Basis of Big Bang

Has this material been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Please respond on my talk page. CKCortez (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This material is a common knowledge among relativists around the world. I discussed this and the related issues with many relativists from many countries (John Baez, Lee Smolin, etc. and also with many from my university where I'm doing my PhD work in general realtivity). None of them had ever any other opinion so I assume it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I myself don't believe it and I believe in strict conservation of energy. It is since I learned in 1985, that was confirmed in 1999 by the discovery of accelerating universe that the principle of conservation of energy in Einstein's universe predicts all the relevant observations and their numerical values, confirmed by observations with accuracy better than one standard deviation. I just thought that idea of invalidity of conservation of energy should be popularized by Wikipedia if this is what the mainstream science considers to be the best approximation of the scientific truth to turn attention of physicists to weak points of the Big Bang hypohtesis. Jim (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the material has in fact been objected to, the WP:V policy trumps the WP:CK essay, which in any case forbids technical material. I am not a physicist, but whether the underlying assertions are correct or not, it is clear from the situation that reliable sources would be needed in order to make this inclusion. This is also true per WP:NOR. CKCortez (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The material was objected to by the Wikipedia editor who didn't know that the mainstream science supports the non conservation of energy. So he acted against Wikipedia policy. Jim (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream science still needs a source. Any technical information does, per WP:CK. If you are a Ph.D. candidate in physics, how hard can it be to find a source for the material? CKCortez (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, CKCortez. If you are sure that "any technical information does" I'll be only happy to provide you with some. I didn't think that it would work in Wikipedia since the last time I couldn't even correct the notion that gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. Which was thought before Einstein and today only by those who don't understand Einstein's theory. Unfortunately the majority.

That's why, not being able to add to Wikipedia even things that are for nearly a century a "mainstream science" I gave up arguing with editors and so I didn't even try to convince you about things that are a "mainstream" only for last several years. I thought that it is hopeless since Wikipedia is designed not to present the truth but the prejudices of majority and majority thinks that the principle of conservation of energy is still valid (BTW, I think the same, but unfortunately I'm not supported by "reliable sources"). So I'm happy that you agree to add the removed part if there is a "relible source" supporting the non conservation of energy in the expanding universe. Jim (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, CKCortez. I found you something from my 2002 discussion with John Baez (a mathematical physicist, a supporter of the Big Bang):

In article <3B1E70AA.1BB882D8@aol.com>, Jim Jastrzebski <JimJast@aol.com> wrote:

Now you are saying that "energy conservation" might be an obstacle for neutrino to oscillate into a very massive one. If energy is really not conserved as you said before how it can be an obstacle for creation of a very *massive* sort of neutrino?

John Baez: In our previous discussion, you seemed to assume that energy conservation holds in general relativity. It does not - at least, not in the sense you expected. I was telling you to drop this assumption. I was telling you that questions based on this false assumption would lead you astray. I was NOT telling you to throw energy conservation out the window in all contexts! In fact, I said quite explicitly that energy is *approximately* conserved to an extremely high degree of accuracy [...].

There is also an article Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? by Michael Weiss and John Baez, with a lot of refs to sources considered reliable by supporters of the Big Bang (so also by Wikipedia).

• Clifford Will, The renaissance of general relativity, in The New Physics (ed. Paul Davies) gives a semi-technical discussion of the controversy over gravitational radiation.
• Wheeler, A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime. Wheeler's try at a "pop-science" treatment of GR. Chapters 6 and 7 are a tour-de-force: Wheeler tries for a non-technical explanation of Cartan's formulation of Einstein's field equation. It might be easier just to read MTW!)
• Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime Physics.
• Goldstein, Classical Mechanics.
• Arnold, Mathematical Methods in Classical Mechanics.
• Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (MTW), Gravitation, chapters 7, 20, and 25
• Wald, General Relativity, Appendix E. This has the Hamiltonian formalism and a bit about deparametrizing, and chapter 11 discusses energy in asymptotically flat spacetimes.
• H. A. Buchdahl, Seventeen Simple Lectures on General Relativity Theory Lecture 15 derives the energy-loss formula for the binary star, and criticizes the derivation.
• Sachs and Wu, General Relativity for Mathematicians, chapter 3.
• John Stewart, Advanced General Relativity. Chapter 3 (Asymptopia) shows just how careful one has to be in asymptotically flat spacetimes to recover energy conservation. Stewart also discusses the *Bondi-Sachs mass, another contender for "energy".
• Damour, in 300 Years of Gravitation (ed. Hawking and Israel). Damour heads the "Paris group", which has been active in the theory of gravitational radiation.
• Penrose and Rindler, Spinors and Spacetime, vol II, chapter 9. The Bondi-Sachs mass generalized.
• J. David Brown and James York Jr., Quasilocal energy in general relativity, in Mathematical Aspects of Classical Field Theory.

Jim (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Jim, thank you for the kind offer, but I need to decline it for at least two reasons. First, I am busy with RL commitments, and can't afford to take time off for book writing. Second, I am not sure I know enough to be able to properly critique your material. But I do think, as I noted elsewhere, that you should try to convince one respectable physicist of your theories and/or interpretations, after which everything will be much easier for you. I know you believe your theories are correct (and I know you prefer to call them just re-interpretations of existing mainstream theories), but unless you can convince someone else of their correctness, they are not very useful. I pass no judgment on the merits of your ideas, but as I also noted elsewhere, if you want to convince people, you need to cut down drastically on ridiculing others, even if you are convinced they deserve it, or else you'll be labeled a "crank" by many people just for that attitude. Also as I noted, try to predict or explain some new phenomenon or observation with your theories, as opposed to just slinging mud at everyone. You seem to assume there is a pitched battle between "creationists" and "non-creationists". This may be true in theology or philosophy, but any real scientist worth his name only wants a good (preferably simple and elegant) theory to fully explain (and predict) all known observations. Note how Masreliez, who is also a "non-creationist" in your terminology, has a neat website, where he doesn't disparage anyone, and simply focuses on explaining his theory and making a case for it. Again, I am not passing judgment on the merits of either of your theories, only noting that his approach is more likely to eventually get attention and serious review. Crum375 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, again I appreciate your trust in me, but I think this won't work. There is actually a third reason for my reluctance, which I neglected to mention above. My available time is fairly limited, and therefore I wouldn't want to invest it in something which may be a dead end. This is why it is important for me also to see some respectable physicist give your ideas his blessing. Even Einstein, I seem to recall, sent his draft GR paper to some colleagues he respected, and though it took them a while, they eventually "got it" and gave him their blessing. I think you need to do the same: find someone you respect and try to convince him. I will again advise you to focus on the technical merits only, and keep the ridiculing of others, or broad labeling of all skeptics as "creationists", to a bare minimum, ideally zero if you can manage it. Try to just present your technical case without any jokes, drama, personal attacks or politics. Just go methodically from concept A to B to C, without trashing Prof. X, Y and Z and their ideas along the way. If you can do this, you'll be a long way ahead. If you can't find even one person on this entire planet who'll support it, at least partially, you might need to wait for someone with the right social skills to rediscover it, perhaps decades from now. Crum375 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pioneer anomaly (talk) follow up

Hi Jim, I could just add a few off-topic comments. First I find Crum's advice to the point. To some extent they could apply to all "gadflies", including Masreliez. I heard Masreliez present his SEC/DIST model some months ago in Stockholm and I learnt it took him five years to get his first cosmology paper published, but it did not help him with his next. So he turned to Apeiron, where he met more understanding for controversial material. Masreliez is on his own, but you are a university grad student, which should help you publish and in time force you to do so as I understand? As for your theory, it is called Static universe here, where you should have a say./ Kurtan (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)