Gravitational force and acceleration in General Relativity.

  • #301
DrGreg said:
See post #9 in this thread! That's essentially the same method that some others have mentioned in this thread, using the facts that
  1. proper acceleration is the magnitude of 4-acceleration
  2. 4-acceleration is the covariant derivative of 4-velocity with respect to proper time
  3. 4-velocity is the derivative of worldline-coordinates with respect to proper time

Very well-worded and clear definitions that I agree with, as well. Maybe it's now too late to get involved in this catchy brawl but since the thread goes as fast as it can, I've lost almost the subject of battle but definitely I don't think starthaus has been telling beyond these, has he?

AB
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #302
starthaus said:
You know where you can put your condescending tone. I asked you to drop it but you continue with this.
So, you're complaining about someone else's condescending tone? Seriously? After this:
starthaus (small sampling) said:
It's not my fault that you don't understand basic calculus.
Is that you can't read math or are you just trolling?
Do you have some comprehension problem?
I think that you are are clearly confused on the subject.
Hey, thanks for playing anyway, better luck next time.
What in the definition : "proper acceleration is the derivative of proper speed wrt coordinate tiime" did you not understand?
I'm way too lazy to quote a significant fraction of your rude and condescending remarks, so that's just a small sampling.

It's obvious who the most condescending person in this thread is, by far.
 
  • #303
Altabeh said:
Very well-worded and clear definitions that I agree with, as well. Maybe it's now too late to get involved in this catchy brawl but since the thread goes as fast as it can, I've lost almost the subject of battle but definitely I don't think starthaus has been telling beyond these, has he?

AB

You are right, I haven't. I simply showed a few methods of deriving the expressions, rather than putting them in by hand, mindlessly. The most interesting approach is the one explained in my blog, using variational mechanics. The approach seems even more powerful (and certainly has a richer physics content) than even the approach based on covariant derivatives.
 
  • #304
starthaus said:
Rindler (11.15) p.230 clearly disagrees with what you are saying. See his derivation for proper acceleration.

Where in that page does he claim that the equation (11.15) belongs to proper acceleration of a particle following a time-like geodesic or whatever you might think of other than saying that it's just the field strength?

AB
 
  • #305
In the second post of this thread, starthaus brings up the first of theories "kev's wrong because I'm right" by notifying us (!) of the following error (!) that he probably finds uninteresting just because kev is the poster:

starthaus said:
This is very wrong. You need to start with the metric:


ds^2=\alpha dt^2-\frac{1}{\alpha}dr^2-r^2d\phi^2

\alpha=1-\frac{2m}{r}

From this you construct the Lagrangian:

L=\alpha (\frac{dt}{ds})^2-\frac{1}{\alpha}(\frac{dr}{ds})^2-r^2(\frac{d\phi}{ds})^2

From the above Lagrangian, you get immediately the equations of motion:

\alpha \frac{dt}{ds}=k

r^2 \frac{d\phi}{ds}=h

whre h,k are constants.

This is in response to the very correct formula,

<br /> a= \frac{GM}{r^2}\left(1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}\right)<br />

which shows the initial coordinate acceleration of a rest particle released at the distance r according to an observer at infinity. Well if I'm not wrong about realizing what you seem to be pointing at in kev's post to be incorrect, I can very beautifully mathematically prove that the above formula is correct. I know that you're a knowledgeable guy but sometimes I feel you really get gutless to confess to what I call "the ordinary mistakes" that every physicist can make multiple times in his long-lived career. At least I'm trying to hint at the moot point everyone else here has been leaving out: If you've been trying to make kev learn from you, why don't I teach you something that you as an expert in calculus and everything probably don't know? If you're ready, I'm going to start debating about your numerous mistakes here!

I'm not going to be spineless when I find myself getting corrected as in a thread I really found the whole view of mine on the issue of "proper vs coordinate" wrong due to a debate with JesseM. You see that we confess to the wrongness or correctness of our mistakes as every normal physicist of Einsteinian level does.

AB
 
Last edited:
  • #306
DaleSpam said:
There is only one non-zero component of:
\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}=\Gamma^{r}_{tt}U^{t}U^{t}=\frac{c^2 (r-R) R}{2 r^3}

So, substituting back in we obtain the four-acceleration in the Schwarzschild coordinates:
\mathbf A = \left(0,\frac{c^2 R}{2 r^2},0,0\right) = \left(0,\frac{G M}{r^2},0,0\right)

Would someone please make it clear for me why the second term in

\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}

disappears in the end?

AB
 
  • #307
Altabeh said:
Would someone please make it clear for me why the second term in

\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}

disappears in the end?

AB

It doesn't "disappear", \mathbf X=(t,r_0,0,0) with r_0 fixed, so all you are left with is the term in U^tU^t
 
Last edited:
  • #308
In fact, I checked starthaus's derivation and it is flawless and mine is a sort of similar approach but definitely doesn't result in an expression different from his for the coordinate acceleration. All I nag about is the mistakes he makes when facing with the definition of proper acceleration in GR as he clearly does this in his article "General Euler-Lagrange Solution for Calculating Coordinate Acceleration" where he says the proper acceleration is \frac{d^2r}{ds^2} while it's obviously not. As is clear, the proper acceleration here is to be defined by

\frac{Dr}{Ds}=\frac{d^2r}{ds^2}+\Gamma^{r}_{\mu\nu}U^{\mu}U^{\nu}.

(This was the idea that I came to when getting involved in a debate with JesseM.)

If we can settle these issues, I'll go on.

AB
 
Last edited:
  • #309
starthaus said:
It doesn't "disappear", \mathbf X=(t,r_0,0,0) with r_0 fixed, so all you are left with is the term in U^tU^t

No, I was asking this question that if I want to get from

\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}=\Gamma ^{r}_{tt}U^{t}U^{t}=\frac{c^2 (r-R) R}{2 r^3}

to

\mathbf A = \left(0,\frac{c^2 R}{2 r^2},0,0\right) = \left(0,\frac{G M}{r^2},0,0\right)

it is required to have the term \frac{-c^2R^2}{2 r^3} disappear. How does it occur?

AB
 
  • #310
Altabeh said:
No, I was asking this question that if I want to get from

\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}=\Gamma ^{r}_{tt}U^{t}U^{t}=\frac{c^2 (r-R) R}{2 r^3}

to

\mathbf A = \left(0,\frac{c^2 R}{2 r^2},0,0\right) = \left(0,\frac{G M}{r^2},0,0\right)

it is required to have the term \frac{-c^2R^2}{2 r^3} disappear. How does it occur?

AB

It doesn't either. R=\frac{2GM}{rc^2}
 
  • #311
Altabeh said:
As is clear, the proper velocity here is to be defined by

\frac{Dr}{Ds}=\frac{dr}{ds}+\Gamma^{r}_{\mu\nu}U^{\mu}U^{\nu}.

You sure about that? :-)
 
  • #312
starthaus said:
It doesn't either. R=\frac{2GM}{rc^2}

Look, I know all of this. The problem that I'm fed up with is how the second expression is derived from the first.

AB
 
  • #313
starthaus said:
You sure about that? :-)

I am, aren't you?]

Edit: All typos and stuff were edited. You see, I intentionally can make an error and you come and point it out to me somehow and I then stand corrected. What happened? Do you know more than rest of us, then? LOL

Anyways, I hope I'll know today whether the question in the post 305 is right!

AB
 
Last edited:
  • #314
Altabeh said:
In fact, I checked starthaus's derivation and it is flawless

1. So, why are you wasting time?

and mine is a sort of similar approach but definitely doesn't result in an expression different from his for the coordinate acceleration.

2. I must have missed your derivation, where is it?
All I nag about is the mistakes he makes when facing with the definition of proper acceleration in GR as he clearly does this in his article "General Euler-Lagrange Solution for Calculating Coordinate Acceleration" where he says the proper acceleration is \frac{d^2r}{ds^2} while it's obviously not.

Well, it wasn't that obvious to me when I started developing the alternate approach since I was trying to avoid covariant derivatives. Otherwise the approach would not be original, would it? Besides, I was interested in getting an alternate definition for proper acceleration. To date, none of the definitions (see my exchange with Rolfe2) has been satisfactory. This may mean that the variational mechanics method is good for deriving coordinate acceleration (something that the covariant derivative method can't do) and the covariant derivative method is good at deriving the proper acceleration for the hovering particle only. So, we need both methods.

As is clear, the proper acceleration here is to be defined by

\frac{Dr}{Ds}=\frac{d^2r}{ds^2}+\Gamma^{r}_{\mu\nu}U^{\mu}U^{\nu}.

(This was the idea that I came to when getting involved in a debate with JesseM.)

If we can settle these issues, I'll go on.

AB

3. You editted your post from inadvertently trying to correct my definition of proper "speed" to trying to correct my definition of proper "acceleration". Do you think anyone is missing your moving the goalposts between posts?
4. BTW , your new definition (of proper acceleration) is still wrong, though you copied from post 38.
 
Last edited:
  • #315
starthaus said:
... a particle hovering at r=r_0 experiences a proper acceleration:

a_0=-\frac{m}{r_0^2}/\sqrt{1-2m/r_0}

The disagreement is about what happens when the particle starts falling in the non-uniform gravitational field.

Good to see you have finally come to the conclusion that the equation I gave in #1 for proper acceleration (based mainly on information from the mathpages website) is correct in the context that it was given in. The claim you started in #2 that the equations I gave in #1 are wrong, has been shown by the vast majority of posters in this thread (i.e. everyone but you), to be invalid.

You have expressed an interest to extend the equations beyond the context of #1, to the more general situation. In order to do that, we should first establish a "baseline" of what we do agreee on. A good place to start, would be for you to openly concede that the equations in #1 are correct in their context.
 
  • #316
kev said:
Good to see you have finally come to the conclusion that the equation I gave in #1 for proper acceleration (based mainly on information from the mathpages website) is correct in the context that it was given in. The claim you started in #2 that the equations I gave in #1 are wrong, has been shown by the vast majority of posters in this thread (i.e. everyone but you), to be invalid.

Nope. You got the proper acceleration by using the hack a_0=a\gamma^3

You have expressed an interest to extend the equations beyond the context of #1, to the more general situation.

This is precisely what the method based on variational mechanics does. Derivation from scratch, not selective "cut and paste" from the mathpages+hacks.
 
Last edited:
  • #317
Altabeh said:
I am, aren't you?]

Edit: All typos and stuff were edited.

Nope, you still have quite a few. Some are typos but the others are serious conceptual errors.
You see, I intentionally can make an error

Intentionally? You still have some more "intentional" errors. You may want to continue copying from post 38, it is all correct there.
 
  • #318
kev said:
Your equation:

a_0=-\frac{m}{r^2}\frac{\sqrt{1-2m/r_0}}{1-2m/r}

does not work, because the proper acceleration of a free falling particle is zero. (Attach an accelerometer to a free falling particle and see what it reads.)
starthaus said:
...
The math used for deriving the proper and coordinate acceleration in the radial field does not support your claim above. If you think otherwise try deriving the formula for the proper acceleration of a particle dropped from r=r_0 in a variable field as a function of the radial coordinate r. Show that your obtain a_0=0 for any r

Others have already correctly stated that the proper acceleration of a particle in freefall is zero by definition, but I accept your challenge for the more general case. This is not a formal derivation or proof. Just my best shot based on my physical understanding of the situation and my interpretation of the equations given by references like mathpages. (i.e. using selective "cut and paste" from the mathpages+hacks.)

For easy visualisation, consider the case of a small rocket descending into a gravitational well, with its thrust (Fo) directed in the opposite direction to the local gravitational acceleration (a&#039;_g) so that the descent acceleration of the rocket at r, as measured by a stationary observer at r, is d^2r&#039;/dt&#039;^2 using his local clocks and rulers. (All primed variables indicate measurements made by a stationary local observer at r in the Schwarzschild coordinates). I can now say:

F_o = \left( \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g \right) m_o

where Fo is the proper force directed upwards and m_o is the rest mass of the rocket .

Dividing both sides by m_o gives the proper acceleration a_o of the rocket as:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g

where positive acceleration is defined here as upwards and negative acceleration means downwards.

A combination of http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm" gives the velocity dependent Schwarzschild coordinate gravitational acceleration a_g as:

a_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}(1-2M/r)\left(1-\frac{3(dr/dt)^2}{(1-2M/r)^2}\right)

Assuming the following relationships between the local vertical measurements (dr’, dt’, a’) made by a stationary observer at r and the coordinate measurements (dr, dt, a) made by a Schwarzschild observer at infinity using the gravitational boost factor \gamma_g = 1/\sqrt{(1-2M/r)}:

dr&#039; = dr \; \gamma_g

dt&#039; = dt \; \gamma_g^{-1}

dr&#039;/dt&#039; = dr/dt \; \gamma_g^{2}

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

it is easy to obtain:

a&#039;_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

where dr’/dt’ is the descent velocity of the rocket as it passes radial coordinate r as measured by a stationary observer located at r.

The more general proper acceleration can now be expressed in the form:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

When the rocket is holding position at r by using its thrust to hover at r, dr’/dt’ = 0 and d^2r&#039;/dt&#039; ^2 =0 and its proper acceleration is:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = 0 + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right) = \frac{M}{r^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}

which is what most people here expect.

In the specific case of freefall only, dr’/dt’ can be calculated using:

\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = {\frac{\sqrt{2M (1/r-1/R)}}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}

where R is a constant parameter of the trajectory path representing the height of the apogee and the following relationship is true:

\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

When the rocket turns off its engines and falls freely in a vacuum, the proper acceleration of the rocket is:

a_o = \frac{d^2{r}&#039;}{d{t}&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{d^2{r}&#039;}{d{t}&#039; ^2} + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right) = 0

for all R>2m and r>2m.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #319
starthaus said:
Nope. You got the proper acceleration by using the hack a_0=a\gamma^3

You are missing the point. I am asking you to establish a "baseline of agreement" by conceding that the equations in #1 and the equations given in mathpages are correct, even if you do not agree with my method of using mathpages equations plus my hacks to obtain them.
 
  • #320
kev said:
Assuming the following relationships between the local vertical measurements (dr’, dt’, a’) made by a stationary observer at r and the coordinate measurements (dr, dt, a) made by a Schwarzschild observer at infinity using the gravitational boost factor \gamma_g = 1/\sqrt{(1-2M/r)}:

dr&#039; = dr \; \gamma_g

dt&#039; = dt \; \gamma_g^{-1}

dr&#039;/dt&#039; = dr/dt \; \gamma_g^{2}

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}? Again?
Try deriving this and you'll see that it isn't correct.
 
  • #321
Altabeh said:
No, I was asking this question that if I want to get from

\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}=\Gamma ^{r}_{tt}U^{t}U^{t}=\frac{c^2 (r-R) R}{2 r^3}

to

\mathbf A = \left(0,\frac{c^2 R}{2 r^2},0,0\right) = \left(0,\frac{G M}{r^2},0,0\right)

it is required to have the term \frac{-c^2R^2}{2 r^3} disappear. How does it occur?

AB
Sorry, this is my fault, I wrote the expression down incompletely. This should have been:

\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}=\Gamma ^{r}_{tt}U^{t}U^{t}=\frac{c^2 (r-R) R}{2 r^3} \left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right)^{-1/2} \left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right)^{-1/2}

The previous expression was only the Christoffel symbol, and did not include the contributions from U.
 
  • #322
starthaus said:
a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}? Again?
Try deriving this and you'll see that it isn't correct.

... and yet unlike you, I obtain the correct results for proper acceleration by using that assumption.

Defend your assertion that it wrong, by showing how you would show:

a&#039; \neq a \; \gamma_g^{3}

(eg give a counter example)
 
Last edited:
  • #323
kev said:
... and yet unlike you, I obtain the correct results for proper acceleration by using that assumption.

Defend your assertion that it wrong, by showing how would derive:

a&#039; \neq a \; \gamma_g^{3}

It doesn't work this way, kev. You used the formula, show how you derived it. You showed all the intermediate steps except the last one. Show the last step and I'll show you were your error is.
 
  • #324
kev said:
... and yet unlike you, I obtain the correct results for proper acceleration by using that assumption.

Defend your assertion that it wrong, by showing how (you) would derive:

a&#039; \neq a \; \gamma_g^{3}

for the colinear vertical (radial) case.

I have already declared that I no mathematician and that my methods are informal. It would take a better mathematician/ relativist like Dalespam, George, rofle2, DrGreg, JesseM or Altabeh to do a more formal proof and determine if I am on the right track or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #325
starthaus said:
1. So, why are you wasting time?

Because if no one prevents you from making nonsense, I have to do it, don't I?

2. I must have missed your derivation, where is it?

Takes time to write. It'll come tonight! You’re not the only one who is familiar with the variational methods in Physicsforums, are you!? :-)

3. You editted your post from inadvertently trying to correct my definition of proper "speed" to trying to correct my definition of proper "acceleration". Why are you moving the goalposts? Do you think I missed that?

Nupe, I just meant to write "acceleration" in place of "velocity" in the very first edition of my post but intentionally changed it to a wrong thing to only know if you were going to point it out ironically to me which you unfortunately did! It has nothing to do with the proper velocity in case you see I wrote the proper 4-acceleration’s components. So I’m not going to show any respect to you here and in fact I’ll throw at your face whatever mistake you make like the one you’ve been making us play with inadvertently for weeks now. Yet this whole test that I put you to shows whose tone is condescending. All you’re trying now to do doesn't change your false claim about what proper acceleration is.

4. Your new definition (of proper acceleration) is still wrong, though you copied from post 38.[/QUOTE]

I’m not into copy-paste stuff like you. The definition of proper acceleration can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration" page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #326
Altabeh said:
starthaus said:
4. Your new definition (of proper acceleration) is still wrong, though you copied from post 38.

I’m not into copy-paste stuff like you. The definition of proper acceleration can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration" page.

You still have it wrong. Not one mistake, several.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #327
starthaus said:
your moving the goalposts between posts?
4. BTW , your new definition (of proper acceleration) is still wrong, though you copied from post 38.

Don't play with words. That is not the general definition. Here we are just dealing with the radial velocity of a particle near a gravitating body and that definition is to be assigned to this.

All you do is to make people busy on some monkey job you take along yourself to these forums and just give us some garbage and then say that is a mathematically backed physics while still playing down other's arguments over your nonsense. As an example, you repeatedly referred to me copying the definition of proper acceleration from the post 38:

Intentionally? You still have some more "intentional" errors. You may want to continue copying from post 38, it is all correct there.

BTW , your new definition (of proper acceleration) is still wrong, though you copied from post 38.

I simply took my definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration#In_curved_spacetime". If this is called copy-paste, people don't use Einstein's field equations because then will a man with a long torch in his hand come to you while whispering to your ears the phrase All rights reserved. You're so funny, boy!

Nope, you still have quite a few. Some are typos but the others are serious conceptual errors.

AS a way to escape from being criticized about your nonsense, I agree with the second part of your theories "Altabeh has conceptual errors". So I'm waiting to know what they are!

Well, it wasn't that obvious to me when I started developing the alternate approach since I was trying to avoid covariant derivatives. Otherwise the approach would not be original, would it? Besides, I was interested in getting an alternate definition for proper acceleration. To date, none of the definitions (see my exchange with Rolfe2) has been satisfactory. This may mean that the variational mechanics method is good for deriving coordinate acceleration (something that the covariant derivative method can't do) and the covariant derivative method is good at deriving the proper acceleration for the hovering particle only. So, we need both methods.

Okay, I see that you finally admitted to being wrong about what is called a "mistake". I doubt that you even know what the variational methods of general relativity are all about; the essence of those methods in GR is found to be meaningful when one knows that they all have to be consistent with covariant methods. Talking about one being good and the other bad for one special purpose gives me this feeling that you've taken shelter in logics in order to hide your BIG mistake. After going through 21 pages, I have to say "what a mess "!

AB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #328
kev said:
for the colinear vertical (radial) case.

I have already declared that I no mathematician and that my methods are informal.

There is no such thing as "informal" in math. If you redo the last step in your derivation, you will find out the error, it is quite obvious.
 
  • #329
Altabeh said:
Don't play with words.

I don't. You can't even get the definition right after reading the posts that make use of it.
Your errors are staring you in the face.
 
Last edited:
  • #330
starthaus said:
I don't. You can't even get the definition right after reading the posts that make use of it.

Play with words again to maybe have a hope to survive in the zone of physics. What's next? Einstein had mistakes or what?! Lool!

AB
 
  • #331
starthaus said:
There is no such thing as "informal" in math. If you redo the last step in your derivation, you will find out the error, it is quite obvious.

This shows how your knowledge of mathematics is limited as well. Not only do we have informal methods in mathematics that are mostly overlooked by mathematical communities, but also there has been a traditional form of mathematics called "Informal mathematics" or "naive mathematics". Consult Google for more info.

AB
 
  • #332
kev said:
for the colinear vertical (radial) case.

Doesn't work for \gamma=1/\sqrt{1-2m/r}
Only works for \gamma=1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}

I must have told you this a dozen times. Try showing your last step in your derivation and you'll see the mistake immediately..
 
  • #333
kev said:
I was pondering this thread Correction term to Newtons gravitation law. when it occurred to me that we should be be able to answer simple questions like "what does General Relativity predict that the weight of a 1kg mass on the surface of a very massive gravitational body to be?" or "what is the initial acceleration of 1kg mass when released from a short distance above a very massive gravitational body?".

I believe these questions are easily answered if you use the method of frames to find the acceleration of a stationary observer. It is worked out here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_fields_in_general_relativity
 
  • #334
Starthaus, Kev, this seems like the time to disengage. I'm not saying you should agree to disagree, just that this has become one hell of a pissing match. This has strayed so far from the previous meaningful discussion that it is annoying as a newer user reading this thread, then hitting what amounts to a clot upstream.
 
  • #335
kev said:
Others have already correctly stated that the proper acceleration of a particle in freefall is zero by definition, but I accept your challenge for the more general case. This is not a formal derivation or proof. Just my best shot based on my physical understanding of the situation and my interpretation of the equations given by references like mathpages. (i.e. using selective "cut and paste" from the mathpages+hacks.)

For easy visualisation, consider the case of a small rocket descending into a gravitational well, with its thrust (Fo) directed in the opposite direction to the local gravitational acceleration (a&#039;_g) so that the descent acceleration of the rocket at r, as measured by a stationary observer at r, is d^2r&#039;/dt&#039;^2 using his local clocks and rulers. (All primed variables indicate measurements made by a stationary local observer at r in the Schwarzschild coordinates). I can now say:

F_o = \left( \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g \right) m_o

where Fo is the proper force directed upwards and m_o is the rest mass of the rocket .

Dividing both sides by m_o gives the proper acceleration a_o of the rocket as:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g

where positive acceleration is defined here as upwards and negative acceleration means downwards.

A combination of http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm" gives the velocity dependent Schwarzschild coordinate gravitational acceleration a_g as:

a_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}(1-2M/r)\left(1-\frac{3(dr/dt)^2}{(1-2M/r)^2}\right)

Assuming the following relationships between the local vertical measurements (dr’, dt’, a’) made by a stationary observer at r and the coordinate measurements (dr, dt, a) made by a Schwarzschild observer at infinity using the gravitational boost factor \gamma_g = 1/\sqrt{(1-2M/r)}:

dr&#039; = dr \; \gamma_g

dt&#039; = dt \; \gamma_g^{-1}

dr&#039;/dt&#039; = dr/dt \; \gamma_g^{2}

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

it is easy to obtain:

a&#039;_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

where dr’/dt’ is the descent velocity of the rocket as it passes radial coordinate r as measured by a stationary observer located at r.

The more general proper acceleration can now be expressed in the form:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

When the rocket is holding position at r by using its thrust to hover at r, dr’/dt’ = 0 and d^2r&#039;/dt&#039; ^2 =0 and its proper acceleration is:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = 0 + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right) = \frac{M}{r^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}

which is what most people here expect.

In the specific case of freefall only, dr’/dt’ can be calculated using:

\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = {\frac{\sqrt{2M (1/r-1/R)}}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}

where R is a constant parameter of the trajectory path representing the height of the apogee and the following relationship is true:

\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

When the rocket turns off its engines and falls freely in a vacuum, the proper acceleration of the rocket is:

a_o = \frac{d^2{r}&#039;}{d{t}&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{d^2{r}&#039;}{d{t}&#039; ^2} + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right) = 0

for all R>2m and r>2m.


All calculations I see above are seamless from a mathematical point of view except that I don't understand the how you manage to get from \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right) to the last equation. Would you mind explaining it to me?

In fact I don't expect to see anything else but zero in front of the proper acceleration of that rocket in free-fall!

AB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #336
Geigerclick said:
Starthaus, Kev, this seems like the time to disengage. I'm not saying you should agree to disagree, just that this has become one hell of a pissing match. This has strayed so far from the previous meaningful discussion that it is annoying as a newer user reading this thread, then hitting what amounts to a clot upstream.

You are right.
 
  • #337
starthaus said:
You are right.

Thank you, I'm glad you were not insulted, I meant for that to be reasonable, not intrusive. Your discussion is above my pay grade in either case, so I can only comment on the structure of it, not the content at this point.
 
  • #338
Altabeh said:
All calculations I see above are seamless from a mathematical point of view ...

Thanks Altabeh. You are right that is correct mathematical but I have noticed that there is a minor problem with the physics and should taking the conversion from proper time (t_o) of the moving particle to the local time (t') of the stationary observer at r into account. It so happens that in the particular case of a hovering particle and a particle at apogee the equation is still correct and the equations in post #1 are still correct. It also happens to give the correct result for when the particle is free falling a_o = 0 but inbetween the results are not accurate. In effect:

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

is generally true even when the particle is not stationary at r, but:

a_o = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

is only true if the particle is stationary at r.

Other than this scaling problem, I believe the general idea I used in #318 is the correct way to o to obtain the general equation for proper acceleration. I will try and fix this problem with scaling factor and repost the general solution for when the particle has arbitrary velocity at a r.
Altabeh said:
... except that I don't understand the how you manage to get from \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right) to the last equation. Would you mind explaining it to me?

In fact I don't expect to see anything else but zero in front of the proper acceleration of that rocket in free-fall!
AB
This is easy. If I may give a Newtonian analogy. Let us say the result force Fr of two opposing forces Fa and Fb acting on a particle is Fr = Fa-Fb, then when Fa=Fb, then Fr=0 or I can write Fr = Fa - Fb = 0. In effect writing (Fr = Fa - Fb and (Fa = Fb) ) is just a long winded way of writing Fr = 0, but it shows how the zero result is obtained.

In the gravitational acceleration case, proper acceleration can take on any value betwen plus and minus infinity and the case when proper acceleration equals zero is only true when the particle is freefaling making a special case of a more general equation.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.
 
Last edited:
  • #339
kev said:
dr&#039; = dr \; \gamma_g

dt&#039; = dt \; \gamma_g^{-1}

dr&#039;/dt&#039; = dr/dt \; \gamma_g^{2}

OK
a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

No.

a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}

a=\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}

\gamma_g=1/\sqrt{1-2M/r}

so you cannot have

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

Do the calculations and you'll find out why. Here, I'll start it for you:

a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}=\frac{d}{dt&#039;}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})=\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})\frac{dt}{dt&#039;}=...
 
Last edited:
  • #340
starthaus said:
so you cannot have

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

Do the calculations and you'll find out why. Here, I'll start it for you:

a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}=\frac{d}{dt&#039;}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})=\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})\frac{dt}{dt&#039;}=...

I have already stated I see there is a problem with my more general solution in #318. You are the calculus expert, so why not make this a cooperative joint effort and post what you know, in the interests of trying to bring this thread to a rapid conclusion and preventing Geigerclick from having a nervous breakdown :wink:
 
  • #341
starthaus said:
OK

No.

a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}

a=\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}

\gamma_g=1/\sqrt{1-2M/r}

so you cannot have

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

Do the calculations and you'll find out why. Here, I'll start it for you:

a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}=\frac{d}{dt&#039;}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})=\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})\frac{dt}{dt&#039;}=...

a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}=\frac{d}{dt&#039;}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})=\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})\frac{dt}{dt&#039;}=<br /> \gamma_g\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma_g^2\frac{dr}{dt})=\gamma_g^3\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}+2(\gamma_g\frac{dr}{dt})^2\frac{d\gamma_g}{dr}

Contrary to your beliefs, basic calculus shows that a&#039; is not equal to a\gamma^3. Can we close this thread now?
 
  • #342
kev said:
Thanks Altabeh. You are right that is correct mathematical but I have noticed that there is a minor problem with the physics and should taking the conversion from proper time (t_o) of the moving particle to the local time (t') of the stationary observer at r into account. It so happens that in the particular case of a hovering particle and a particle at apogee the equation is still correct and the equations in post #1 are still correct. It also happens to give the correct result for when the particle is free falling a_o = 0 but inbetween the results are not accurate. In effect:

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

is generally true even when the particle is not stationary at r, but:

a_o = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

is only true if the particle is stationary at r.

Other than this scaling problem, I believe the general idea I used in #318 is the correct way to o to obtain the general equation for proper acceleration. I will try and fix this problem with scaling factor and repost the general solution for when the particle has arbitrary velocity at a r.

This is easy. If I may give a Newtonian analogy. Let us say the result force Fr of two opposing forces Fa and Fb acting on a particle is Fr = Fa-Fb, then when Fa=Fb, then Fr=0 or I can write Fr = Fa - Fb = 0. In effect writing (Fr = Fa - Fb and (Fa = Fb) ) is just a long winded way of writing Fr = 0, but it shows how the zero result is obtained.

In the gravitational acceleration case, proper acceleration can take on any value betwen plus and minus infinity and the case when proper acceleration equals zero is only true when the particle is freefaling making a special case of a more general equation.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

That is not that much easy. Actually I noticed that only at apogee the formula

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

works. If you expand a&#039; in a differential form, you'll figure that

a&#039; = \gamma_g^3[\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}-\frac{2m}{r^3}(r-2m)(1-\frac{1-2m/r}{1-2m/r_0})].

So we have to either abandon this approach or modify it in such a way that the proper acceleration of rocket in free-fall would be zero. I'm still thinking about it...

AB
 
  • #343
I just want to say, since I took the liberty of criticizing this discourse, that it seems to be back in line with what one would hope from intelligent people debating math and science. As a casual observer, thanks to all of you.
 
  • #344
Altabeh said:
That is not that much easy. Actually I noticed that only at apogee the formula

a&#039; = a \; \gamma_g^{3}

works. If you expand a&#039; in a differential form, you'll figure that

a&#039; = \gamma_g^3[\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}-\frac{2m}{r^3}(r-2m)(1-\frac{1-2m/r}{1-2m/r_0})].

So we have to either abandon this approach or modify it in such a way that the proper acceleration of rocket in free-fall would be zero. I'm still thinking about it...

AB

Hi Altabeh,

Could you show me some of the steps you took to obtain this result?

Could you also confirm that you are using the notation that I was using, i.e a' = dr'/dt' for the acceleration measured by a local observer that is stationary at r and a_o for the proper acceleration of the test particle?
 
Last edited:
  • #345
starthaus said:
a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}=\frac{d}{dt&#039;}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})=\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})\frac{dt}{dt&#039;}=<br /> \gamma_g\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma_g^2\frac{dr}{dt})=\gamma_g^3\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}+2(\gamma_g\frac{dr}{dt})^2\frac{d\gamma_g}{dr}

OK, thanks for that. It agrees with the expansion given by Altabeh although I am not sure if Altabeh just expanded on your differentiation. Anyway, I will expand on your result in a different way to obtain a result in terms of radial velocity.

a&#039; = a\:\gamma_g^3+2\left(\gamma_g\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2\frac{d\gamma_g}{dr} = a\:\gamma_g^3+2 \left(\gamma_g\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2\left( \frac{-M }{c^2r^2}\right)\gamma_g^3 = a\:\gamma_g^3\: - \:\frac{2M}{r^2} \left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2 \gamma_g^5 = a\:\gamma_g^3 -\frac{2M}{r^2} \left(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;}\right)^2 \gamma_g

Now we should be in a position to correct my previous derivation of the general expression for proper radial acceleration.
The following is a rehash of my first attempt in #318 (using units of G=c=1):

=================================================


For easy visualisation, consider the case of a small rocket descending into a gravitational well, with its thrust (Fo) directed in the opposite direction to the local gravitational acceleration (a&#039;_g) so that the descent acceleration of the rocket at r, as measured by a stationary observer at r, is d^2r&#039;/dt&#039;^2 using his local clocks and rulers. (All primed variables indicate measurements made by a stationary local observer at r in the Schwarzschild coordinates). I can now say:

F_o = \left( \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g \right) m_o

where Fo is the proper force directed upwards and m_o is the rest mass of the rocket .

Dividing both sides by m_o gives the proper acceleration a_o of the rocket as:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g

where positive acceleration is defined here as upwards and negative acceleration means downwards.

A combination of http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm" gives the velocity dependent Schwarzschild coordinate gravitational acceleration a_g as:

a_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}(1-2M/r)\left(1-\frac{3(dr/dt)^2}{(1-2M/r)^2}\right) = - \frac{M}{r^2}(1-2M/r)(1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2)

Assuming the following relationships between the local vertical measurements (dr’, dt’, a’) made by a stationary observer at r and the coordinate measurements (dr, dt, a) made by a Schwarzschild observer at infinity using the gravitational boost factor \gamma_g = 1/\sqrt{(1-2M/r)}:

dr&#039; = dr \; \gamma_g

dt&#039; = dt \; \gamma_g^{-1}

dr&#039;/dt&#039; = dr/dt \; \gamma_g^{2}

a&#039; = a\: \gamma_g^3 -\frac{2M}{r^2} \left(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;}\right)^2 \gamma_g

it is fairly easy to obtain:

a&#039;_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

where dr’/dt’ is the descent velocity of the rocket as it passes radial coordinate r, as measured by a stationary observer located at r.

The more general proper acceleration can now be expressed in the form:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

When the rocket is holding position at r by using its thrust to hover at r, dr’/dt’ = 0 and d^2r&#039;/dt&#039; ^2 =0 and its proper acceleration is:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{M}{r^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}

which is the expected result.

When the rocket turns off its engines and falls freely in a vacuum, the proper acceleration of the rocket is:

a_o = \frac{d^2{r}&#039;}{d{t}&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = 0

for all R>2m and r>2m.

That, I hope is now a correct result, but I can not find any references to check it against for the case where the particle is neither free falling nor stationary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #346
kev said:
Hi Altabeh,

1- Could you show me some of the steps you took to obtain this result?

2- Could you also confirm that you are using the notation that I was using, i.e a' = dr'/dt' for the acceleration measured by a local observer that is stationary at r and a_o for the proper acceleration of the test particle?

Hi and sorry for being late to reply to your post. I've had a really busy week.

(I just assigned a number to each of these questions so that I can answer them in order.) In the following I will, for simplicity, drop the index g of Lorentz factors.

1- First we expand a&#039; in the following form:

a&#039;=\frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}=\frac{d}{dt&#039;} \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;}=\frac{dt}{dt&#039;}\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;})=\gamma\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{dr}{dt}\gamma^{2})=\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}\gamma^3+\gamma\frac{dr}{dt}\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma^{2}).

Now from the fact that the gravitational Lorentz factor is written by

\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2m/r(t)}},

one would get

\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma^2)=2\gamma\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma)=2\gamma\frac{-m}{r^2}\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2m/r(t)}}(1-2m/r)^2}\frac{dr}{dt}=-\frac{2m}{r^2}\frac{dr}{dt }\gamma^4.

Introducing this into the very first equation yields

a&#039;=\gamma^3(\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}+\frac{-2m}{r^2}[\frac{dr}{dt}]^2\gamma^2).

Since the radial velocity of a rocket starting at r_0=r(t_0) to fall with a zero initial velocity (dr/dt)_0=0 near a gravitating body is given by (c=1)

\frac{dr}{dt}=\frac{r-2m}{r}\sqrt{1-\frac{1-2m/r}{1-2m/r_0}},

therefore the penult equation must be

a&#039;=\gamma^3(\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}-\frac{2m}{r^3}({r-2m})(1-\frac{1-2m/r}{1-2m/r_0}),

which is the equation from an early post by me.

2- By looking at the coordinate velocity I'm using above you can see that all measurements related to the coordinate pair (r,t) are done by a Schwarzschild observer at infinity; and that an observer being locally stationary at r measures the coordinate pair (r&#039;,t&#039;). About the proper acceleration, since I've not yet made use of any symbol for it, I'll use the same notation as yours.

AB
 
Last edited:
  • #347
kev said:
OK, thanks for that.


Yeah, took only about 200 posts to convince you of your error.



When the rocket turns off its engines and falls freely in a vacuum, the proper acceleration of the rocket is:

a_o = \frac{d^2{r}&#039;}{d{t}&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = 0

You were supposed to derive the above, not to put in the answer by hand. How do you derive it?
 
  • #348
kev said:
OK, thanks for that. It agrees with the expansion given by Altabeh although I am not sure if Altabeh just expanded on your differentiation. Anyway, I will expand on your result in a different way to obtain a result in terms of radial velocity.

a&#039; = a\:\gamma_g^3+2\left(\gamma_g\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2\frac{d\gamma_g}{dr} = a\:\gamma_g^3+2 \left(\gamma_g\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2\left( \frac{-M }{c^2r^2}\right)\gamma_g^3 = a\:\gamma_g^3\: - \:\frac{2M}{r^2} \left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2 \gamma_g^5 = a\:\gamma_g^3 -\frac{2M}{r^2} \left(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;}\right)^2 \gamma_g

Now we should be in a position to correct my previous derivation of the general expression for proper radial acceleration.
The following is a rehash of my first attempt in #318 (using units of G=c=1):

=================================================


For easy visualisation, consider the case of a small rocket descending into a gravitational well, with its thrust (Fo) directed in the opposite direction to the local gravitational acceleration (a&#039;_g) so that the descent acceleration of the rocket at r, as measured by a stationary observer at r, is d^2r&#039;/dt&#039;^2 using his local clocks and rulers. (All primed variables indicate measurements made by a stationary local observer at r in the Schwarzschild coordinates). I can now say:

F_o = \left( \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g \right) m_o

where Fo is the proper force directed upwards and m_o is the rest mass of the rocket .

Dividing both sides by m_o gives the proper acceleration a_o of the rocket as:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g

where positive acceleration is defined here as upwards and negative acceleration means downwards.

A combination of http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm" gives the velocity dependent Schwarzschild coordinate gravitational acceleration a_g as:

a_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}(1-2M/r)\left(1-\frac{3(dr/dt)^2}{(1-2M/r)^2}\right) = - \frac{M}{r^2}(1-2M/r)(1-3(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2)

Assuming the following relationships between the local vertical measurements (dr’, dt’, a’) made by a stationary observer at r and the coordinate measurements (dr, dt, a) made by a Schwarzschild observer at infinity using the gravitational boost factor \gamma_g = 1/\sqrt{(1-2M/r)}:

dr&#039; = dr \; \gamma_g

dt&#039; = dt \; \gamma_g^{-1}

dr&#039;/dt&#039; = dr/dt \; \gamma_g^{2}

a&#039; = a\: \gamma_g^3 -\frac{2M}{r^2} \left(\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;}\right)^2 \gamma_g

it is fairly easy to obtain:

a&#039;_g = - \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

where dr’/dt’ is the descent velocity of the rocket as it passes radial coordinate r, as measured by a stationary observer located at r.

The more general proper acceleration can now be expressed in the form:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} + \frac{M}{r^2}\left(\frac{1-(dr&#039;/dt&#039;)^2}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}\right)

When the rocket is holding position at r by using its thrust to hover at r, dr’/dt’ = 0 and d^2r&#039;/dt&#039; ^2 =0 and its proper acceleration is:

a_o = \frac{d^2r&#039;}{dt&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = \frac{M}{r^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2M/r}}

which is the expected result.

When the rocket turns off its engines and falls freely in a vacuum, the proper acceleration of the rocket is:

a_o = \frac{d^2{r}&#039;}{d{t}&#039; ^2} - a&#039;_g = 0

for all R>2m and r>2m.

That, I hope is now a correct result, but I can not find any references to check it against for the case where the particle is neither free falling nor stationary.

Sounds flawless. If the particle is neither freely falling nor stationary, then there must be an external force other than gravitational applied to it to be able to move that way which is the case when the right-hand side of the geodesic equations is non-zero. Until we don't know what this force is, there is not going to be any known formula for the related equations of motion.

By the way, I'm preparing a similar proof for the coordinate radial acceleration given in one of the starthaus's blog entries.

AB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #349
starthaus said:
You were supposed to derive the above, not to put in the answer by hand. How do you derive it?

No derivation is needed unless knowing the fact that the acceleration measured by the stationary observer at r in free-fall is just locally the acceleration caused by gravitational force.

Yeah, took only about 200 posts to convince you of your error.

Now what about you to correct this big error after spending a couple of weeks? LOL

AB
 
  • #350
Altabeh said:
No derivation is needed unless knowing the fact that the acceleration measured by the stationary observer at r in free-fall is just locally the acceleration caused by gravitational force.



Now what about you to correct this big error after spending a couple of weeks? LOL

AB

I think Altabeh is the winner in this game. :wink:

I realize from reading this thread, how infuriating this has been for kev and starthaus, but I for one learned a great watching this back and forth. 200 interesting posts from the standpoint of this hobbyist. :)
 
Back
Top