On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Jack <email@example.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:17 PM, "Robert Addinall" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me that what Jack is saying is:If the Mach effect is there, the "force" from all the sources in the universe works on the base fibre bundle spacetime itself – ie. spacetime is the gravitational field, so it both “feels” the mass energy sources (is curved by them near a source), and also propagates the force from these sources to other parts of itself. However, this “force” doesn’t work directly on objects with mass – ie. test particles. Jack says that the test particles only “feel” the other three fundamental forces – electrical forces.RightI think I now understand why Jim agrees with Paul’s modeling of a local gravity field around a test particle which cancels the gravity field from the source for a particle in a LIF in curved spacetime:1. Jim thinks that the gravity “force” carried by spacetime which has an effect on the geodesic curvature of spacetime itself ALSO exerts a force directly on a test particle.If he thinks that he is nutsIt's not Popper falsifiable2. If this were so we would expect it to mean that a larger or denser object would fall faster than a smaller or less dense object, since there would be more mass for the gravitational force to work on; however this violates experimental observations (slight ambiguity around the Nordtvedt effect aside). At first glance a local field should not only curve the spacetime geodesics radially inward toward itself but also accelerate an object on those geodesics.Clever clever ;-)3. However, Jim’s gravity main force is from all the sources within the causally connected universe, pulling on the test particle with equal force in all directions simultaneously (since we model the causally connected universe as having even distribution of matter at a large scale and being a horizon sphere with the test particle in its center). As we know, Jim’s argument is that this is a very immense gravitational scalar potential field, arising from billions of sources – in other words far stronger than the field arising from one single source (ie. the Earth). Jim argues that this huge potential, pulling on an object from all directions, holds it on an inertial trajectory and makes it resist being pushed off such a trajectory.Excess baggageUgly ugly uglyRube GoldbergLaputanBunch of hot air&Yes that seems to be Jim's silly storyWhat i say needs none of that excess $4. Therefore, as I understand Jim’s reasoning, the comparatively small local mass currents generated by a single source are strong enough to curve spacetime locally, even while they contribute to pulling it flat over large distances. However, the local gravitational field is so small compared to the larger gravitational scalar potential that the scalar potential field all but cancels the effect of the local field on a test particle. As a result, the test particle remains stationary with respect to the geodesics in curved spacetime and only “falls” in the sense that it kinematically accelerates towards the COM of the source of the field. However, when it is pushed off geodesic by, say, landing on the surface of the Earth and is forced to hover, the large gravitational scalar potential from the whole universe which is trying to hold it stationary wrt the geodesic curvature now manifests as an inertial reaction force against the electrical contact force upwards from the ground.My eyes glaze overI get add ptsdOccam's razor cruel cut5. I suspect that Jim agrees with Paul that the action-reaction is mediated by electrical contact forces on both the part of the ground and the part of the test particle, but that the inertial reaction force which has its origin in the very large gravitational scalar potential is “pushing” the test particle “down,” thereby causing the electrical contact forces to do their thing. I think that Jim would also say that the symmetries ensure that the electrical contact forces mediate the action-reaction in an equal and opposite manner at this point.Jim, is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying?You're a better man then I amGunga Din (Rudyard Kipling )And by contrast, Jack would say that:1. Spacetime is curved by the mass energy sources. Only spacetime itself “feels” these mass energy sources – a test particle which maps onto the base fibre bundle spacetime does not.Yes that's Einstein's happiest thought.2. The test particle therefore remains on a “force-free” geodesic even in curved spacetime around a source until it encounters something that pushes it off-geodesic, like the surface of the Earth. It kinematically accelerates towards the COM of the Earth until it is stopped by the surface, but it is still undergoing no proper/dynamical acceleration as it does so.Exactly3. It is pushed off geodesic by the electrical contact forces from the ground and forced to hover in the gravity field – accelerated “up” wrt to the geodesics.Exactly4. It reacts back “down” on the ground with equal and opposite electrical contact forces because of gauge invariance – symmetry breaking.No, the gauge symmetry is not broken there. In fact the obeying of the local gauge symmetry between charge e of mass m and em field A ensures action-reaction locally in contact exchange of momentum hgradS between mv and (e/c)AFrom virtual longitudinal near field photons, where S is the quantum phase of the charge e/m.This is beautiful and it's original with me compared to Jim's Frankenstein and Z's still-born monstrosity stumbling brain dead howling in Spec's Alley.5. Newton’s gravity force is “fictitious” because it is an imagined force working on the test particle – it does not actually work on the test particle, the test particle just remains force free wrt the geodesics until electrical contact forces push it off. The curving of spacetime by mass energy sources, responsible for the kinematical acceleration of a test particle towards the COM of a field, is something that only spacetime itself feels.Exactly!I think that we can simplify the debate to the following statement without doing too much violence to Jack’s and Jim’s positions: “Jack argues that objects exhibit inertial resistance to off geodesic acceleration by electrical contact forces because of symmetry breakingNo, because of internal local gauge symmetry holding! Even in Higgs breaking collective emergent Goldstone modes restore the symmetry (Brout, Anderson )while Jim argues that objects exhibit inertial resistance to off geodesic acceleration by electrical contact forces because of the force on them originating in a gravitational scalar potential field generated primarily by distant sources in the causally connected universe.”
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: January-13-14 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Michael Berry where is the math?
What Berry does is clear enough and I see where he has made his conceptual mistake the same one you have made.
Let's accept F = (mGM/c^2r)d^2r/dt^2
It is not Newton's 2nd Law
It is Mach effect on the geodesic shape at position of test particle
It's a piece of the Christoffel symbol that appears in the real force free non inertial frame's geodesic equation Newton's first law
Sent from my iPad
>> Actually, Sciama (in a series of papers spanning the early '50s to the '70s) has the math, as does Berry (though you don't like it) and does Nordtvedt (see the excerpt in the book at the end of chapter 2) and Sultana and Kazanas. So there's plenty of math. You just don't like it because you reject the physics of distant matter being responsible for inertia (as it is in GR). That's not going to change Jack. So just go ahead and write your review. You already know what you are going to say. You've known for years.>>> ---------- Original Message ----------> From: JACK SARFATTI <firstname.lastname@example.org>>> Subject: Re: Michael Berry where is the math?> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:51:12 -0800>>>> On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:20 AM, email@example.com wrote:>>>> Look at the math. It's not a standard quadrupole radiative effect. Polarization of radiated states is not relevant.>> what math? show the math. Berry has no real math in his book about this. Just the intuitve model.> Is it in your book? Where?>>>>>> ---------- Original Message ---------->> From: Jack Sarfatti <firstname.lastname@example.org>>> To: Jack Sarfatti <email@example.com>>>>> Subject: Re: Michael Berry makes two serious errors in his book>> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:53:44 -0800>>>> Ps also polarizations are all wrong radiation is transverse polarized>> you will never get a central longitudinal gravitational force from a>> transverse gravitational wave that's complete stupidity>>>> Sent from my iPad>>>> On Jan 11, 2014, at 11:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:>>>>>> Okay I read the Mach principle section of berries book>>> It's actually sciama who has made the mistake First you cannot use>>> Newtonian picture over cosmological distances Jim calls that a trick>>> which can be fixed by more rigorous methods perhaps so Much more>>> serious is the naÃ¯ve assumption that the acceleration is a purely>>> relative kinematic quantity The proper Acceleration of the mass sources that are far away from the test object cannot be transferred to the test object.>>>>>> The equation>>>>>> F' = GMma/c^2r>>>>>> Is wrong for more than one reason>>>>>> To say the second law comes from gravity ways from Distant matter is>>> totally ridiculous>>>>>> I did meet Michael Berry for lunch in London two years ago and when>>> I'm in London again in April I will get in touch with him and>>> confront him on this issue he is very reasonable fellow and I'm>>> sure he will admit that Sciama's idea is wrong.