The Quonset Hut

Here is a link that FM was sent from Magic Bill and he thought it was interesting, it is, but a long read.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/greb.html

And if you want another on the same man:

http://keelynet.com/greb/greb.htm

Speaking of Gravity, here is an interesting excerpt from a paper I was reading:

"If we try to extend the arguments of the preceding section to general relativity, we face
two subtleties. First, there is no preferred time-slicing in general relativity, and thus no
unique definition of an “instantaneous” direction. For weak fields, we can use the nearly flat
background to define a nearly Minkowski coordinate system, but we must expect ambiguities
of order v2. Second, we cannot simply require by fiat that a massive source accelerate. The
Einstein field equations are consistent only when all gravitational sources move along the
trajectories determined by their equations of motion, and in particular, we can consistently
represent an accelerated source only if we include the energy responsible for its acceleration."

I find it curious that in 1999, when this paper was written, a physicist stated limitations to Einstein's field equations.

Mikado

Mikado14 wrote:Speaking of Gravity, here is an interesting excerpt from a paper I was reading:

"If we try to extend the arguments of the preceding section to general relativity, we face
two subtleties. First, there is no preferred time-slicing in general relativity, and thus no
unique definition of an “instantaneous” direction. For weak fields, we can use the nearly flat
background to define a nearly Minkowski coordinate system, but we must expect ambiguities
of order v2. Second, we cannot simply require by fiat that a massive source accelerate. The
Einstein field equations are consistent only when all gravitational sources move along the
trajectories determined by their equations of motion, and in particular, we can consistently
represent an accelerated source only if we include the energy responsible for its acceleration."

I find it curious that in 1999, when this paper was written, a physicist stated limitations to Einstein's field equations.

Mikado

I feel as dense as the fog on a low budget horror movie. Why do you find it curious?

Cat

Mikado14 wrote: The
Einstein field equations are consistent only when all gravitational sources move along the
trajectories determined by their equations of motion, and in particular, we can consistently
represent an accelerated source only if we include the energy responsible for its acceleration."

Cat,

I find this part of the paragraph to be curious. The physicist is stating that Einstein can only be considered when equations of motions (calculated motions) are moving along a predicted (calculated) trajectory and it is consistent (always occurs) as long as the energy is accounted for that created the motion.

What happens when energy is "injected" for lack of a better word from an outside source? In other words, there is gravity on the surface of the earth, otherwise, we would all have velcro on the floor <g> and that gravity can be calculated predicated upon calculations from equations to predict motion.

What happens in the event of an artificial gravity field that can be created OR turned off within the above frame work?

Mikado

(I tried to breakdown it down as simply as possible and may have botched it up but I hope you get the gist)

Do you think he was out-dated or ahead of his time in his thinking?

Cat

catspaw1950 wrote:Do you think he was out-dated or ahead of his time in his thinking?

Cat

I believe that what he is saying is apropos regardless of when he said it. However, the paper was written in 1999 which from a reference to Dr.Brown's work he would be late but then, "better late than never".

Mikado