"It's not my model. And as to "cash value", I think you are forgetting

the value of a fully covariant vacuum energy density." Paul Zielinski

There is no value to that in 1915 GR. It contradicts the equivalence principle. That the founding fathers, including Einstein, were confused on this issue is a fact. Whether you can do it in a larger theory is still not settled. Carmelli has a fairly good discussion of this issue. When there is no agreement on something like this for decades, it shows there is something wrong with the formulation of the question. I think ... asked the wrong question. He is not stupid of course.

If one stays at the tetrad level and gets a spin 1 Fuv with Lagrangian ~ F^u^vFuv then that energy density will be local perhaps because the effective metric is Minkowski there! The geometrodynamics is derivative and it's gravity energy is still nonlocal!

That is

e^a = 1^a(flat) + A^a(warped)

F^a = dA^a + W^ac/\A^a = Shipov's TORSION FIELD =/= 0 beyond Einstein's 1915 GR

Note in Einstein's theory this is strictly zero,

F^a = 0 in Einstein's 1915 GR, but not in Shipov's torsion theory.

therefore, the local gravity field energy is strictly zero, but the total gravity energy is not zero. Therefore in Einstein 1915 the non-zero gravity energy is NONLOCAL.

Now this is a rigorous proof as good as anything in Euclid's Elements!

DF^a = 0

D*F^a = *J^a

D*J^a = 0

i.e. essentially a Yang-Mills theory

F^aFa torsion field Lagrangian density is local in this Minkowskiab space.

Note that the geometrodynamics will still be nonlocal I think.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = (Minkowski)abe^ae^b

R^a^b(curvature) = dW^a^b + W^ac/\W^c^b

Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian vacuum density for L(matter) = 0 & /\(dark energy) = 0, i.e. no Ricci local sources is

*R^a^b/\e^c/\e^h

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

On Dec 30, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Paul Greenberg wrote:

--- In Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com, Jack Sarfatti

>

> Your inertial compensation model is bad physics of no value inside

> the strict domain of Einstein 1915 limiting case.

It's not my model. And as to "cash value", I think you are forgetting

the value of a fully covariant vacuum energy density.

If you think this to be of no value, then you are not in the

mainstream. Just about everyone in gravitational physics acknowledges

the value of a covariant vacuum energy density. The only disagreement

is whether such a quantity can be defined within the formal-empirical

framework of 1915 GR. I say that it can, if Einstein's "strict

equivalence principle" is relaxed.

> It may have some value in Shipov's torsion theory extension of GR,

> but even there I have my doubts if Gennady's interpretation along

> those lines is consistent. I am still thinking about it.

## No comments:

Post a Comment