X = g - η
that seams well defined all the time. O_o
You can even squeeze in a worm hole...
Its like representing the curved surface of the Earth on a 2D map. No?
There are even infinite ways in doing so.
I even read once, about the abstract bijection (not differentiable), between the...
I never seen any intuitive interpretation of the LHS of the equations.
I realize the question is a tall order.
But i think something can be extracted.
-----------------------------------
*Is this statement correct?
The true information content of GR is :
1)The non covariant law of...
You should have read my last post instaid.
Now i think that the tensor, its just all of mechanics...
The divergence of it is the continuity equation of all mater...
It describes how matter "flow"... that's just all of mechanics...
Its just presented in an
The electric charge, has no other...
Is this correct now?
The stress energy tensor is just all the conservations laws of mechanics.
its the energy and momentum in the time components.
Shear stress is just tork
Pressure is just the forces
The divergence of this, its simply all of mechanics...
further more. I'm asking about the...
You didn't read my last post didn't you? :P
now, i think, that its really tork, not angular momentum...
right?
I understand the twin paradox, and how you fall in a black hole, and the experiment with the barn doors ...
Yea sure, i would like to see your diagrams
They are on the...
Its just a local redefnition.The correct equations he uses, are when he explicitly states all 4 of them, and defines for them E=-dv/dt . Thats the only place, i think, that he uses dv/dt for the acceleration. He seam very formal and precise at that place.
He does that to clearly show its...
I think he never uses one definition. He just uses what's more convenient every time, so that he doesn't have to bother with the signs. He never forgets that gravitation is attractive.
... O_O GEM is actually, implicitly non linear
The E field, is just the acceleration (F/m=ma/m=dv/dt). It...
Some of the differences are just different definitions. Others are not
The GEM that is meant here, is the ones that look the same with attractive EM. Period!
He defines E=-a
I just noticed that 4 in the wiki article. It also has a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag...
I think the 4 is at the...
What you people think of this paper?
http://www.academia.edu/483186/Gravitomagnetism_a_novel_explanation_of_the_precession_of_planets_and_binary_pulsars
He uses GEM to calculate the precession of orbits of some planets and of some binary pulsars
example for mercury GR:42,98 GEM:43,02...
for second order correction, you do the same for the gravitational field of the first order correction found earlier...
The energy we found earlier, has it self a gravity. We deduce its energy with the simple EM formula. Third order correction...
Of course, the new energy has it self a...
I'll see this later.
I don't even remember how you deduce the EM energy. You need to integrate with a test particle doing work... My math are a bit rusty.
Just using the formula already derived for EM should give a first order only answer.
In any case, this effect should be tiny... becoming...
You mean to use GR and deduce the energy?
when i say GM, i mean the EM-like equations, not the general term
If you want to use an other term for specifically the EM-like equations, just propose something.
I use "gravitomagnetism", because electrostatics looks like Newton, and just...
Its a big section with a clear explicit title about it.
This is why i use "covariant" in the title of the thread
I think the article really means 1893's heviside's gravitomagnetism. The article is a bit inconsistent with it self, because too many people cooked it.
I think you on the other...
Heaviside's 1893 paper is not very relativistic :P
he uses normal matter and normal momentum.
Also a reference frame transformation is needed in there...
Still, its beater then pure Newton.
I just meant that it not covariant, nothing to do with manifestly covariant. Thats a big problem. The article says its not covariant. It doesn't use the actual 4 momentum apparently, i don't see why if it makes it covariant so simply as you say.
The source is energy momentum, its exact...