hmmm, interesting!!

So you dont believe that we can travel closer towards receding galaxies?

I found two infected files: "versions.htm" and "6263.htm" (The hypothesis of generalized time dilation) and deleted the first (as not very important) and reloaded the second (without the virus of course). Please tell me if you see the virus again.

Will do. Hopefully this will be the last that we see of it.

When you say "internal energy", are you referring to the "0" component of the 4-momentum?

Que?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Ah ok, so you have no evidence for your claims about what physicists and mathematicians think, you just have a "guess". Glad that we got that clarification out of you. Now it'll be easier to know just how much weight to give to your claims should you go about claiming "physicists believe this" or "mathematicians believe that" again.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I did but I didn't know that there was already page 5 so I thought that the message diddn't show up and that's why I repeated the message, and then deleted the duplicate, however you were faster than my deletion

Yes. The "rest energy". The difference between "total energy" of the particle and its "kinetic energy".

It turns out that c^2 in E=mc^2 is actually C^2=c^2*sqrt(g_00) (see Landau's "Theory of fields", a small difference but important) and that's why dE/dx=-mg, where x is displacement, and g is acceleration, since dC/dx=g/(2C) which shows that -dE/dx is "gravitational force", and so E is the same as "gravitational energy". Unfortunately while E=mC^2 is mainstream science (see Landau) differentiating this equation is ATM for some reason and can't be published in polite society's scientific journals so please don't believe the above blindly.

An interesting point. JimJast, can you clarify why, exactly, that differentiating the equation is ATM? You described it like simple algebra.
so...
Why should it be ATM?

Apparently no mainstream scientist differentiated Einstein's equation to see whether the gravitational force is going to show up. So to think that gravitational energy is the same as mC^2 is still ATM.

The mainstream science has a special pseudo tensor for gravitational energy and it is used by cosmologists ever since Lanau introduced it. My article to Phys. Rev. Lett. didn't pass through referees since they prefer gravitational energy expressed by this pseudo tensor rather than Einstein's mC^2.

They also prefer expanding uiverse to Einstein's despite that Einstein's universe predicts more cosmic phenomena than the Big Bang hypothesis which still can't predict just one. The first successful prediction of the Big Bang's was supposed to be prediction of decelerating expansion, which as you may know ended with a spectacular failure: the universe turned out looking as expanding faster and faster (with acceleration predicted by Einsteinian physics as an illusion). So the cosmologists had to appologize for neglecting cosmological constant and calling it Einstein's greatest blunder, as once Einstein called it jokingly himself, when cosmologists started to bother him about its value. They were ready to accept any value except Einstein's since it would keep the universe stationary against the beliefs of cosmologists who liked the Big Bang more than Einstein's universe.

Tu dice que todo los "rulers" va crecer. Incluido un "ruler" que estas por un spaceship llendo al otra estrella?

Ug ... my spanish sucks ...

You said that all of the rulers would show this redshift. Would that include a ruler on a spaceship that was heading towards the star?

Just to check that I have understood what you are trying to get at, are you suggesting that this quantity is conserved?

This quantity (mC^2) is not conserved. The total energy [MC^2, where M=m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), where m is invariant mass] is conserved.

When something is faling down or up or wherever (in free fall) the total energy is conserved so this quantity (rest energy) behaves as Newtonian gravitational energy since C in mC^2 changes and M in MC^2 changes opposte way (MC^2 being total energy which is conserved). d(MC^2)/dx=0.

It is explained in greater detail in Basics of gravitation in my web site.

Does your hypothesis modify the field equations or just the equations of motion?

No I didn't. I said "rulers" in response to your question as to what the universe is expanding relative to. However fast the spaceship is moving, it could still measure the expansion of the universe*, even if it is getting closer to a large number of galaxies due to its peculiar motion.

* two things can be moving in the same direction relative to your ruler and still be getting further apart from each other according to that ruler.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Neither. However there is a different potential energy, which is not the energy of some (gravitational) field any more (gravitational field as understood in Newtonian physics disappears) but energy E=mC^2, in which C (capital C to tell it from c which is a constant) depends on metric term g_00 (taking over the role of the gravitational field). This way the equations of motion can be treated the same way as in classical physics except that instead of attractive Newtonian gravitational force there is a pushing Einsteinian inertial force (numerically the same mg). We can still call this force "gravitational" being aware of its different nature of inertial force and so acting only through contact.

Ain't Einsteinian mechanics neat? We may forget "universal gravitational attraction" since it makes understanding of physics more difficult. We may understand why in a closed symmetric space of Einstein's universe there is no danger of collapsing of the whole universe contrary to the predictions of Big Bang which is basically the old Newtonian physics with its "universal gravitational attracton". And now instead of "spooky (gravitational) action at distance" we have direct interaction between masses and spacetime and no need for expansion. That's how Einstein simplified physics. It still has to be noticed by the mainstream though...

In your approach does matter move along geodesics in spacetime, and light along null-geodesics?
Actually the classic FRW model is pure GR. You make the usual cosmological assumptions regarding the symmetry of spacetime time; effectively saying that the universe looks pretty much the same, on a large scale, regardless of where you happen to be. This gives you a solution (and metric) that has some constants still to be defined. When you plug this into the Einstein field equations you recover the time dependance of this solution and it is an expanding or contracting universe. It is only when you set the cosmological constant to a specific, very tuned, value that you obtain a static solution.

It doesn't look at all Newtonian to me.
I'm confused because the mainstream view of GR is that you don't have "spooky action at a distance". This was actually Einstein's view of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. In mainstream GR objects follow geodesics of space time, and hence their path is defined by the local geometry of the spacetime that they encounter.

As an aside, you appear to treat conservation of energy seperately to conservation of momentum. As these two quantities together make up the 4-momentum, should you not also treat the 3-momentum in an analogous way to the way that you treat the energy?

Of course they do. "No attractive forces between particles" means just this.

"Pure GR" doesn't need an assumption that the universe is expanding since it works even better also without this additional assumption. For the time being I don't know about any observation that requires this assumption. For over 20 years I'm asking for a proof that the universe is expanding and there is none. There are only guesses not very consistent whith the rest of physics. Adding the assumption that the universe is expanding created the whole new picture of nature (a.k.a. "Big Bang cosmology") which still has problems with legitimizing itself (producing one prediction that would be confirmed by observations). The "pure" GR doesn't have these problems (e.g. it doesn't need the existence of "dark energy"). The "pure GR" is from 1916 and it turns out that it predicts also the Hubble redshift with Hubble constant H_o=c/R_E (where R_E is "Einstein's radius"), illusion of accelerating expansion as observed, 'anomalous' acceleration of Pioneers as observed, local quasars as observed, etc.

Had the scientific journals published the news about 1916 GR predicting Hubble redshift the mainstream would have to prove that the universe is expanding and that it is not merely an assumption of some astronomers. For the time being scientific journals ignore the news as probable but not interesting enough to their readers and therefore if published it would take room that might be used for more interesting news. So the Big Bang turns out to be based only on the lack of interest in reality of readers of scientific journals (at least according to their editors).

Luckily, whoever is interested in reality may read ATM publications (for limited time though) and learn how the reality might look like. And if he/she think that reality can't be like then he/she's free to present his/her objections. Does not happen very often though (if ever, since at least nobody ever argued his/her point against mine yet, in over 20 years). Even Ned Wright who specializes in destroying ATM ideas, preferred policy of "wait and see", instead of destroying the idea of "Einstein's universe" with its "uninteresting" Einsteinian math. Apparently not many people are willing to make fools of themselves when the Big Bang collapses in some more or less distant future.

That's true for FRW model, but there is a problem with establishing a metric for Einstein's universe (not a problem with cosmological constant though) since it follows from certain considerations that this metric is non Riemannian (it is degenerate - at least the one that I could guess so far: spacetime has zero volume ).

The math is not Newtonian but the physics is. It still suggests "tremendous" gravitational force pulling the universe together (through the vacuum). My guess (as an explanation of behavior of theorists) is that the teorists don't understand the physics of gravitaion. And that's why one of the leading Big Bang theorists, John Baez, produced a sentence: ""It is always surprising when it happens, but sometimes to learn more about the world we must stop asking certain questions... ... namely, those based on false assumptions." One of those false assumptions, according to theorists, is an assumption that energy is conserved in gravitation. Which I proved just with differentiating E=MC^2. Yet it can't be published outside ATM. So officially, despite the exstence of Einsteinian physics, can't be published in a scientific journal (rejected by the referee for problems with relating it to infinity ). But existence of "tremendous" gravitational force pulling the universe together, as expressed by Ned Wright, a mainstream scientist, can.


This is example of magic in science. Math (GR) goes one way and physics (the Big Bang) goes the other. If all fragments of the uiverse just follow their geodesics, from what theory this "tremendous" gravitational force pulling the universe together that has to be opposed by "dark energy" pushing the uiverse appart is coming from?

I do of course. Energy and momentum are conserved separately as well. This is elementary physics. Without this fact it wouldn't be possible to solve many first year physic problems, since you wouldn't have enough equations to desribe a system. It is in "The Feynman lectures on physics" (I don't remember the page, but I didn't make it up ).