Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!news.moat.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: h.poropudas@luukku.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Reality of black holes
Date: 18 Aug 2005 00:37:26 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 230
Message-ID: <1124350646.562177.196930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1121326829.557025.316000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
   <1122891348.965195.196010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1123164646.969248.305860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.231.240.27
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124350651 9421 127.0.0.1 (18 Aug 2005 07:37:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:37:31 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1123164646.969248.305860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.231.240.27;
   posting-account=KcV1Uw0AAADA_SUhHtf2s5c47zQYRxgl
Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.sci.matter:329

I put Sergey's email here (I hope you don't mind) due my answer
could interest also others:

(email lines marked with * and email addresses removed)

*16.8.2005 17:43
*Re: Reality of black holes
*Kenelt=E4:  None  <....>
*Kenelle:  "h.poropu..... <...>

*h.poropu....... =D0=BF=D0~=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):

*> None kirjoitti:
*>
*> > All postulates, or rather principles, which I accept, as you said,
are
*> > the principles of classical physics. Einstein himself denied the
*> > postulates of GR. And the postulate of physical laws equivalency
in
*> > inertial and non-inertial frames on which GR is based is a
groundless
*> > stupidity. I do not suggest people to choose. This is the right of
*>
*> Only the weak form of the Equivalence Principle is true not
*> the strong form. In other words the Equivalence Principle is
*> local principle not global principle.

*Could you kindly define the conditions of your locality and
interrelate
*them with Schwarzschild=E2=80=99s metric. Again, you are in the
spacecraft


"The principle of equivalence is strictly local and applicable only to
a region of space and time sufficiently small that inhomogenities in
the
gravitational field can be ignored.

There is an intersic difference between gravitational and accelerative
effects on a finite scale.

This is well illustrated by considering in a non uniform gravitational
field two nearby test bodies, which, being in slightly different parts
of the field, follow slightly different trajectories.

The relative deviations of the trajectories characterize the
inhomogenities of the field.

They intrincically distinguish the effects of gravity and acceleration,
which is impossible on a strictly local scale according to the
principle of equivalence.

The principle of equivalence is heuristic and somewhat imprecise;
despite its logigal imprecision, it has played a very important
historical role."

(REFERENCE: Parker S. P (editor), 1983.
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1343 pages,
ISBN 0-07-045253-9,
"Relativity" pages 962-973,
"Principle of equivalence" page 966.)

"Einstein's equations are

R_uv - 1/2 g_uv R =3D 8 pi G / c^4 T_uv  (1)

The equation of motion of a test point mass in an external
gravitational field can be written as the equation of
geodesics

d^2 x^u / ds^2 + K^u_ab dx^a /ds dx^b /ds =3D 0   (2)

(Here is is due summation convention really summation
taken over u=3D1,2,3, a=3D1,2,3, b=3D1,2,3 and K^u_ab are
Christoffel symbols of second kind (check summation over
indices, in 3-dim space, indexes run from 1 to 2))

and DOES NOT CONTAIN THE MASS OF THE PARTICLE (i.e.
under otherwise identical conditions, test point particles
of varous masses move identically).

This expresses the EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, corresponding here
to the equality of the inertial and gravitational masses
(a fact was experimentally confirmed with a precision of
1:10^12; this work was done by R.E=F6tv=F6s, R.Dicke; the
precision was obtained by V.B.Braginkii)."

(REFERENCE: Copy of N.V. Mitskevich article in
Encyclopedia of Mathematics (translated from Russian),'
(Ivan Vinogradov (editor), Modified by Hannu Poropudas
19.11.2000 13:11, "About ideas behind in mathematics of General
Relativity Theory and Riemann and Ricci tensors",
in sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.research, sci.astro,
sci.physics, sci.physics.particle)

By the way I asked long time ago H-M about equality of inertial
and gravitational mass and if I remember right H-M said that
equality of inertial and gravitational masses is only
true for point particles, not if they have finite extension !!!
(My clarification: point particle has infinitedesimal dimensions).

I guess that you possible have figured out situation what I
tried to descibe first ?

As an amateur I'am not yet able to figure out situation
you described, but I put below Christoffel symbols of second
kind for possible calculations with Scwarzshild metric case,
if someone wants to do them:

f =3D 1 - a / r

K^t_tr =3D K^t_rt =3D a / (2r^2 f)

K^r_tt =3D ac^2 / (2r^2),

K^r_rr =3D -a / (2r^2 f),

K^r_TT =3D -r f,   (T=3DTheta),

K^r_PP =3D - r f sin^T,  (P=3DPhi),

K^T_rT =3D K^T_Tr =3D 1 / r,

K^T_PP =3D -sinT cosT,

K^P_rP =3D K^P_Pr =3D 1 / r,

K^P_TP =3D K^P_P_T =3D cotT

(REFERENCE: Martin, General Relativity, page 71, I have not
this book in my hands, but reference is said exactly in
some my earlier writings)

I have not now time to try to calculate situation you described.

I stop here due that I don't want that his reply is too long.

I hope I could help,


Hannu



*that accelerates to relativistic speeds, this case has been described
*in our paper. Please show the full equivalence of a ball=E2=80=99s
reflection
*from the wall of craft, if the wall was arbitrarily directed to the
*acceleration, with the case of inertial reference frame. As soon as
you
*will have it done, you may speak of locality. I can only add,
*equivalence has to be seen not in some specific case but has to be a
*common property of physical laws in inertial and non-inertial frames.
*In other case your statement will be wrong, just as Einstein=E2=80=99s
*statement.

 ???????

*>

*> > each. Only they may not offend after that all constructions like
*> > relativistic will be crumbled to nothing in the first touch of
logic of
*> > classical phenomenology of physical processes. ;-)
*> >
*> > If speaking of my propositions, we have them five full volumes of
*> > original studies without repetitions. The fact that colleagues in
*> > newsgroups are able in respond only to bleat as rams or to swear
as
*> > cobblers, changes nothing, but makes senseless my attempt to
answer
*> > your question more completely. ;-) If I see a serious approach, I
will
*> > reply more seriously. ;-) In brief - read SELF Transactions:
*> >
*> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html
*> >
*> > Sergey
*>
*>
*> I took a quick look at your writings (vol 5.) and it seems to me
that
*> it is interesting reading.
*>
*> Hannu

*Thank you, Hannu, I am pleased. And will be pleased even more, if this
*reading gave you a new insight. ;-) This is what for we endeavour. ;-)

*Sergey




h=2Eporopudas@luukku.com kirjoitti:

> None kirjoitti:
>
> > All postulates, or rather principles, which I accept, as you said, are
> > the principles of classical physics. Einstein himself denied the
> > postulates of GR. And the postulate of physical laws equivalency in
> > inertial and non-inertial frames on which GR is based is a groundless
> > stupidity. I do not suggest people to choose. This is the right of
>
> Only the weak form of the Equivalence Principle is true not
> the strong form. In other words the Equivalence Principle is
> local principle not global principle.
>
> > each. Only they may not offend after that all constructions like
> > relativistic will be crumbled to nothing in the first touch of logic of
> > classical phenomenology of physical processes. ;-)
> >
> > If speaking of my propositions, we have them five full volumes of
> > original studies without repetitions. The fact that colleagues in
> > newsgroups are able in respond only to bleat as rams or to swear as
> > cobblers, changes nothing, but makes senseless my attempt to answer
> > your question more completely. ;-) If I see a serious approach, I will
> > reply more seriously. ;-) In brief - read SELF Transactions:
> >
> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html
> >
> > Sergey
>
>
> I took a quick look at your writings (vol 5.) and it seems to me that
> it is interesting reading.
>=20
> Hannu