OK Ark, so far I can find no mathematical error in Shipov's claims. However, I could be mistaken. Therefore, if you or Konkretny can point out in full detail Shipov's alleged mathematical error(s) in his sections 3 & 4 I would be much obliged. Shipov's key distinction is found in his sentences:
"We shall name Ricci torsion as geometric ... since it is defined through derivatives of vectors of the Frenet triad and is geometrically interpreted as rotation of the triad during its motion along the curve ... Alongside with geometric torsion it is possible to introduce phenomenological Cartan torsion, which has the same symmetry properties as Ricci torsion, but unlike the latter is not connected to Frenet triad rotation, SINCE IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON ITS VECTORS (CAPS mine)." p. 6 of G. I. Shipov's "Geometrical and Phenomenological Torsions in Relativistic Physics." Now Shipv's equations 1 to 29 in sections 1 to 3 are exclusively on Ricci torsion and they look essentially OK to me. His equations 30 - 35 are about Cartan torsion. See also his 5.2. So where is the error? What specifically? I am still studying the details of Shipov's paper. But let's dispense with vague polemics and get down to the mathematical details - same as I ask of Hal Puthoff BTW who has yet to adequately, according to my standards, answer any of my detailed mathematical and physical interpretive objections to details in his PV model. See for example "Space-Time and Beyond II" http://amazon.com for more details on that other on-going story.
On Jun 6, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK at very beginning of Shipov's latest paper look at eqs 7, 8, 9
This is for Frenet's description of a 1D space curve in 3D space; The three angles conjugate to rotation operators specify the local orientation of the triad local frame whose center at a point on the space curve requires 3 more translation parameters. There we have a 6 parameter dependence explicitly shown by Shipov. It's obvious that when we go to the 4D special relativity description we pick up one more translation parameter and 3 more Lorentz boosts for a total of 10 parameters specifying the location of a tetrad frame in 4D space-time and the orientation of that tetrad local mobile frame in 4D space-time. In fact, the additional 6-parameter dependence of the local tetrad frame is a kind of lumped parameter description of extended space-time structure like a moment of inertia about the given point on the worldline, which is why one expects some kind of test particle spin-torsion coupliing when, in next step, we locally gauge every symmetry we can find. We obviously will get 10 compensating gauge fields, one for each parameter. The 4 gauge fields we get from the translation group give Einstein's 1916 GR with their gauge transformations corresponding to Einstein's general coordinate transformations. We get another 6 gauge fields not found in Einstein's 1916 theory and that is where Shipov's distinction comes in. Of course, one must work out this algebra in detail before we can be sure. Note there are also the conformal transformations that may give us still more gauge fields.
The idea is to use the local gauge principle for all symmetries both space-time and internal. There is then the problem whether or not we really even need the internal symmetries? Are they dynamically redundant in the sense of a generalization of Wheeler-Feynman "action at a distance" with teleological advanced direct actions from future to past giving the radiation resistance force as shown by Dirac?
To be continued
On Jun 6, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jun 6, 2004, at 3:19 AM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
On 6 Jun 2004 at 0:29, Alexander Konkretny wrote:
You will have noticed that the same idea is being used
now by V.V. Lensky, who says that Akimov's torsion field
generators, Okhatrin's microlepton generators, Deev's D-field
generators, etc etc are just useless duds; and only his,
Lensky's, "multipolar generators" are the real thing.
And I think you have noticed that Lensky thinks Akimov is a fraud.
While, in fact, all of them are frauds.
This I don't know. What I do know is that there is no "Ricci torsion" as opposite to "Cartan torsion". See:
This issue is key. Shipov must explicitly show the alleged 10-parameter dependence of the Ricci torsion compared to the 4-parameter dependence of the Cartan torsion. I will see if I can figure that out from Shipov's latest paper. From the POV of local gauging what Shipov alleges is not implausible. Locally gauging the 6 parameters of the Lorentz group brings in new dynamical compensating gauge fields that are not found in Einstein's 1916 theory, which is simply the local gauge field of the translation group with the local equivalence principle. See Kibble's paper from the 1960's on this.