Orbital velocities in the Schwartzschild geometry

  • Thread starter Thread starter espen180
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry Orbital
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the velocity of a particle in a circular orbit around a black hole using the tensor formulation of General Relativity (GR) and the Schwarzschild geometry. The original poster encounters a zero velocity result when applying the geodesic equations, raising concerns about potential miscalculations or misunderstandings. Participants point out a sign error in the equations and emphasize the importance of correctly interpreting the assumptions made, particularly regarding fixed radial coordinates. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in defining orbital velocity and its relationship to angular velocity in the context of GR, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the equations derived must accurately reflect the dynamics of circular motion in a relativistic framework.
  • #271
yossell said:
Kev,

thanks again.

I've looked at espen180's paper, your reference. In his opening paragraph, of that section, he says that, in the case of radial motion, d\theta/d \tau = d \phi /d tau = 0. I understand this a constraint on the functions. But then, when he says,

`we study the situation where we drop a test particle from rest at r and study it's (sic) acceleration immediately after dropping it relative to a stationary observer at r. Therefore dr/d\tau = 0'

that second equation is in fact to be understood as not about the function, but as true only at a particular coordinate, (t, x, y z)? (I recognise this may be too restrictive, that it may just one coordinate which is fixed - but the point is, it is not the general function that is being talked about here). So (??) we can only infer the truth of the equations that he goes on to derive in this section as being true *at* a particular point (t, x, y z) (or set of points) - it's just that mention of this point or points is implicit?

That makes sense to me - but again, the notation in the paper seems inconsistent. In section 4, on pure radial motion, similar equations are written, but here the equations can be interpreted as referring to the functions, rather than being implicitly restricted.

Is this correct?

Hi there.

Let first get it out of the way that I'm not a mathematician. I am more concerned about the underlying physics than the mathematical notation. Therefore, most of the details are in the text. This might have made the document confusing to some. Sorry about that.

Where I wrote \frac{dr}{d\tau}=0 a matematician might have written something like \left{}\frac{dr}{d\tau}_{\tau=0}=0

In both cases, the angular restrictions are made on the functions. They always hold. Radial restrictions are temporary, except in the case of pure circular motion, but I think I make it clear there. If not, I will make sure to do so in the future.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #272
yossell said:
Kev,

thanks again.

I've looked at espen180's paper, your reference. In his opening paragraph, of that section, he says that, in the case of radial motion, d\theta/d \tau = d \phi /d tau = 0. I understand this a constraint on the functions. But then, when he says,

`we study the situation where we drop a test particle from rest at r and study it's (sic) acceleration immediately after dropping it relative to a stationary observer at r. Therefore dr/d\tau = 0'

that second equation is in fact to be understood as not about the function, but as true only at a particular coordinate, (t, x, y z)? (I recognise this may be too restrictive, that it may just one coordinate which is fixed - but the point is, it is not the general function that is being talked about here). So (??) we can only infer the truth of the equations that he goes on to derive in this section as being true *at* a particular point (t, x, y z) (or set of points) - it's just that mention of this point or points is implicit?
Yes, I think you have that right. The equation is only true *at* that point. Since at this point dr/dt=0 and d^2r/dt^2 \ne 0 then an infinitesimal interval of time earlier or later dr/dt=0 can no longer be *exactly* true by definition. The greater the time lapse (and distance) after dropping the particle the greater its inaccuracy, but in the context it was given it is fine. Possibly Espen could have made this clearer.

yossell said:
Kev,
That makes sense to me - but again, the notation in the paper seems inconsistent. In section 4, on pure radial motion, similar equations are written, but here the equations can be interpreted as referring to the functions, rather than being implicitly restricted.

Is this correct?
Yes, I think you are right again and I agree the notation is a problem, but as I said before, it can be a problem finding new symbols for every conceivable situation and bearing this in mind, the surrounding text and context has to be read carefully. Perhaps the likes of Espen and myself (I am just as guilty of depending on the surrounding text) should give more consideration to our use of symbols in future to try and avoid any confusion.

EDIT. Then again.. maybe not. I'm too lazy :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #273
starthaus said:
Of course not

Then, by virtue of (34), derived from the metric, (37) is correct.
 
  • #274
yossell said:
In some contexts, it's natural to read dr/ds as referring to a function rather than the value of the function at a point. Then dr/ds = k, or dr/ds = 0 can be read as saying that the *function* is k everywhere or 0 everywhere. Understood in this way, the inference from dr/ds = 0 to d^2 r/ds^2 = 0 is correct. So what (I take) starthaus to be getting at in, say, post 57 seems, at least as it stands, fine.

Doesn't make sense at all. I'd be glad if you cite any source showing this that if the first derivative of a function vanishes, the so does the second derivative of it. The problem is that he assumes the first derivative is constant but yet there is no talk of the original function whose second derivative is to be considered, not the derivative of the derivative of it. Let y=x^3-x^2. Now take y'=0 which is of course a constant function. Yet if I want to find y'' I don't look at y' and where it satisfies my assumtion above so I go find the second deravative by calculating (3x^2-2x)'. Here another point must be recalled: when he assumes dr(s)/ds=0 this only holds for a special set of s's if not specify that r is constant everywhere which is my interpretation given in post #235.* All he does is to support the fallacy dr/ds=0\Rightarrow d^2r/ds^2=0 blindly and this gives me the feeling that he's not aware of the situation as per usual.

* This is completely verified by looking at my post where I say:


We don't know what form r would have as a function of some (affine) parameter so that we are not allowed to generally start talking about all values of s and that whether your hack works or not.


In response he asnwers by a silly post:

starthaus said:
Let's try again, since you have been given that the function \frac{dr}{ds}=0 FOR ALL VALUES OF s, what can you infer about \frac{d^2r}{ds^2}?
Keep in mind that \frac{d^2r}{ds^2}=\frac{d}{ds}(\frac{dr}{ds}).

For example, in a circular motion we clearly put r=const. for whatever parameter we take r to be a function of; but yet solving dr/ds=0 gives r=C(\tau) where \tau is another affine parameter related to s hence the constancy of r can't be obtained. So as you see using the old hack supported only by its founder cannot ever stand for a criation of circular motion unless we make use of the interpretation given in post #235.

I think this is the source of a lot of confusion here.

Clearly the source of confusion is starthaus' failure to understand simple impressions of math and physics. LOL

AB
 
Last edited:
  • #275
starthaus said:
Of course it is, it is a fundamental property of functions. Like Altabeh, you are unable to tell the difference between a function and the value of a function in a point.

The problem is that you claim expertise at math and physics whereas I'm the one who has to correct you all the time. Be a gentleman and simply say "I made a mistake and never ever will make use of any fallacy in my derivations"! LOL.

AB
 
  • #276
starthaus said:
LOL , "hypocracy"?

...except that when I do correctly insert \frac{dr}{ds}=0 in the general Euler-Lagrange equation, this attracts immediately \frac{d}{ds}(\frac{dr}{ds})=0 in the same equation. And it isn't "by hand", it is a consequence of the very basic conditionr=constant

Though I've kept this at a very low level of math, you're still following this hack of yours. Are you really that much unable to see how we can simply smash that fallacy in the face by a simple CP? You're outgunned on this.

AB
 
  • #277
General equation for coordinate acceleration

Moving on to the general case for coordinate acceleration as promised, this is the derivation based on the one I started in post #48.

Starting with Schwarzschild metric and assuming orbital motion in a plane about the equator such that \theta = \pi/2 and d\theta = 0

ds^2=\alpha dt^2-dr^2/\alpha-r^2d\phi^2, (\alpha=1-2M/r)

Divide both sides by \alpha dt^2 and rearrange so that the constant (1) is on the LHS:

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

The metric is independent of \phi and t, so there is a constant associated with coordinate angular velocity (H_c) which is obtained by finding the partial derivative of L with respect to d\phi/dt

\frac{\delta{L}}{\delta(d\phi/dt)} = \frac{r^2}{\alpha} \frac{d\phi}{dt} = H_c

The metric is independent of s and t, so there is a constant associated with time dilation (K_c) which is obtained by finding the partial derivative of L with respect to ds/dt

\frac{\delta{L}}{\delta(ds/dt)} = \frac{1}{\alpha} \frac{ds}{dt} = K_c

Substitute these constants into the equation for L

1 =\alpha K_c^2 +\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\frac{dr^2}{dt^2}+\frac{\alpha}{r^2}H_c^2}

and solve for (dr/dt)^2:

\frac{dr^2}{dt^2} = (1-2M/r)^2 -(1-2M/r)^3 (K_c^2 + H_c^2/r^2)

Differentiate the above with respect to r and divide by 2 to obtain the general coordinate radial acceleration of a freefalling particle in the metric:

\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= \frac{\alpha^2 H_c^2}{r^4}(r-5M) +\frac{M}{r^2}(2\alpha-3K_c^2\alpha^2)

Re-inserting the full forms of H_c and K_c back in gives:

\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= <br /> \frac{d\phi^2}{dt^2}<br /> (r-5M) +\frac{M}{r^2}(2\alpha-3<br /> \frac{ds^2}{dt^2} <br /> )

Now the (ds/dt)^2 term is a little inconvenient, but we can find an alternative form by solving the Schwarzschild metric to directly obtain:

(ds/dt)^2 = (\alpha - dr^2/(\alpha dt^2) - r^2d\phi^2/dt^2)

and substituting this form into the equation above it to obtain:

\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= <br /> \frac{d\phi^2}{dt^2}<br /> (r-5M) +\frac{M}{r^2}(2\alpha-3<br /> (\alpha - dr^2/(\alpha dt^2) - r^2d\phi^2/dt^2)<br /> )

which after a bit of algebra simplifies to:

\Rightarrow \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= \alpha\left(<br /> r \frac{d\phi^2}{dt^2}-\frac{M}{r^2}+<br /> \frac{3M}{\alpha^2 r^2} \frac{dr^2}{dt^2}\right)

This is the fully general form of acceleration in Schwarzschild coordinates in terms of coordinate time and gives Espen something to compare his results against in his latest document.

Some quick checks:

For the special case of circular motion, the radial acceleration is zero and dr/dt=0 and so:

0 = \alpha\left(r \frac{d\phi^2}{dt^2}-\frac{M}{r^2}\right)

\Rightarrow \frac{d\phi}{dt} = \sqrt{\frac{M}{r^3}}

Passed the first test.

For the special case of a particle at apogee, dr/dt=0 (momentarily) and d\phi/dt=0 and:

\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= -\frac{M}{r^2}\alpha

Passed the second test.

For the special case of a particle in purely radial free fall d\phi/dt=0 and:

\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= \alpha\left(-\frac{M}{r^2}+<br /> \frac{3M}{\alpha^2 r^2} \frac{dr^2}{dt^2}\right)


\Rightarrow \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= -\frac{M}{r^2}\left(\alpha -<br /> \frac{3}{\alpha } \frac{dr^2}{dt^2}\right)

Passed the third test.

See equations (4) and (5) of mathpages http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm for an alternative proof of this last equation.
 
Last edited:
  • #278
I have updated my paper with a conclusion regarding coordinate acceleration during radial free fall.

Please see section 4 for the derivation.

http://5554229043997450163-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/espen180files/Schwartzschild.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crvgkJaf2YSb9wipuKnvEoacyFDok-MWepVPK4tZrlLjK8If_HxjS_lzaZVPS-0StjbvJLQU3Bvx-t_oZcneyRG3Orj_V5UXTUFarMpmWYhgtEJNgxcRpypcyted9W0Qa7Re2gn-2ib6A0f-WJV5jukKhp_IfJhNoCnhscy-m2uBhjTO2cHlLX45JEfEI8kNFatSDfwlnBKGeus9Ufx5OdK13A-sw%3D%3D&attredirects=1"

The conclusion is

\frac{\text{d}^2r}{\text{d}t}=-\frac{GM}{r^2}\left(\alpha-\frac{2}{\alpha}\left(\frac{\frac{\text{d}r}{\text{d}t}}{c}\right)^2\right)

Here is my (to some extent qualitative) analysis of the solution:

When dr/dt=0, we can observe that the expression reduces to the one we dound for a momentarily stationary particle, which is exprected (a special solution should be a subset of a more general one). As the particle nears the horizon, the acceleration becomes positive and it slows down, never passing the horizon. This is also a known result, and the fact that this expression implies this is a validating factor. I therefore believe it is correct.

EDIT: It seems my conclusion is in conflict with kev's by a factor. I will have to inspect my derivation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #279
Thanks Altabeh,

I'm sorry by I'm not seeing the lack of sense in your quote from my post.

The argument that, if the first derivative of a function vanishes then so does the second, is this:

(1) Suppose the derivative of a function f vanishes (assumption)

(2) So f' is the constant function zero.

(3) The derivative of any constant function is zero.

(4) So f'', the derivative of f', is zero.

(5) So the second derivative of f vanishes.

Again, to stress, this argument works only if we're both clear that 'function f vanishes' means 'f(x) = 0 for all x' - that is, that we're talking about *functions*. I think that's what he's trying to stress with his quote. None of this goes if 'f vanishes' means 'f vanishes at point p' where point p is some fixed point we've implicitly agreed to focus on. As has already been shown, there are examples where f at p can be zero while f' at p is not zero.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're doing when you say `take y' to be zero which is a constant function.' As you've shown, y' = x^3 - x^2, and its values vary as x varies. You can't now just stipulate that it's a constant function. Of course, y' equals zero when x equals zero and when x = 1 - so we can talk of its values at various points. But it's not a constant function.
 
  • #280
yossell said:
Thanks Altabeh,

I'm sorry by I'm not seeing the lack of sense in your quote from my post.

The argument that, if the first derivative of a function vanishes then so does the second, is this:

(1) Suppose the derivative of a function f vanishes (assumption)

(2) So f' is the constant function zero.

(3) The derivative of any constant function is zero.

(4) So f'', the derivative of f', is zero.

(5) So the second derivative of f vanishes.

Again, to stress, this argument works only if we're both clear that 'function f vanishes' means 'f(x) = 0 for all x' - that is, that we're talking about *functions*. I think that's what he's trying to stress with his quote. None of this goes if 'f vanishes' means 'f vanishes at point p' where point p is some fixed point we've implicitly agreed to focus on. As has already been shown, there are examples where f at p can be zero while f' at p is not zero.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're doing when you say `take y' to be zero which is a constant function.' As you've shown, y' = x^3 - x^2, and its values vary as x varies. You can't now just stipulate that it's a constant function. Of course, y' equals zero when x equals zero and when x = 1 - so we can talk of its values at various points. But it's not a constant function.

This is where the communication stops. When someone says "take dr/dt to be initially zero", starthaus seems to miss the "initially" part.
 
  • #281
yossell said:
Thanks Altabeh,

I'm sorry by I'm not seeing the lack of sense in your quote from my post.

The argument that, if the first derivative of a function vanishes then so does the second, is this:

...

(3) The derivative of any constant function is zero.

...

Yes but only with the parameter chosen to be differentiated with respect to. Here since the metric can be re-scaled through choosing s=a\tau+b where a (nonzero) a and b are arbitrary constants, thus the the ODE dr/ds=0 would not mean r is constant anywhere since we can give a solution like r=C(\tau) to this equation where s=a\tau+b and ds=ad\tau so that the metric is re-scaled by a constant which has no impact on the form of equations if not say the terms appearing in the metric are "dilated" or "compressed" by a^2 or a^{-2}. So that his claims are nonsense.


I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're doing when you say `take y' to be zero which is a constant function.' As you've shown, y' = x^3 - x^2, and its values vary as x varies. You can't now just stipulate that it's a constant function. Of course, y' equals zero when x equals zero and when x = 1 - so we can talk of its values at various points. But it's not a constant function.

I've not shown y&#039; = x^3 - x^2 but rather I assumed y= x^3 - x^2 and said that following y'=0=constant would only lead to your results if one is afraid to spacify the "nature" of function y. Talking of "y'=0=constant so that y''=0" requires one to always look at y itself to end up with the desired result and here this has nothing to do with whether we are to consider all points or only a special set of them. In general dr/ds=0\Rightarrow d^2r/ds^2=0 is nothing but a famous fallacy created first by starthaus.

AB
 
Last edited:
  • #282
yossell said:
Thanks Altabeh,

I'm sorry by I'm not seeing the lack of sense in your quote from my post.

The argument that, if the first derivative of a function vanishes then so does the second, is this:

(1) Suppose the derivative of a function f vanishes (assumption)

(2) So f' is the constant function zero.

(3) The derivative of any constant function is zero.

(4) So f'', the derivative of f', is zero.

(5) So the second derivative of f vanishes.

Again, to stress, this argument works only if we're both clear that 'function f vanishes' means 'f(x) = 0 for all x' - that is, that we're talking about *functions*. I think that's what he's trying to stress with his quote. None of this goes if 'f vanishes' means 'f vanishes at point p' where point p is some fixed point we've implicitly agreed to focus on. As has already been shown, there are examples where f at p can be zero while f' at p is not zero.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're doing when you say `take y' to be zero which is a constant function.' As you've shown, y' = x^3 - x^2, and its values vary as x varies. You can't now just stipulate that it's a constant function. Of course, y' equals zero when x equals zero and when x = 1 - so we can talk of its values at various points. But it's not a constant function.

You are quite right if by dr/dt=0 we mean dr/dt =0 for all time, but in some contexts (like at the apogee) we mean dr/dt=0 at that instant and at at no other time. It is all a matter of context and the likes of Espen, Altabeh, Al68, myself etc. seem to be able to communicate with each other and understand what we mean by using words instead of symbols. In some ways I think using words is helpful for newcomers, because it can be a bit daunting to see equations for the first time that contain symbols that you have never seen in your life before.
 
  • #283
espen180 said:
EDIT: It seems my conclusion is in conflict with kev's by a factor. I will have to inspect my derivation.

I will inspect your paper (and my derivation too) to see if I can locate where one of us has gone wrong. I think we are close to agreeing a solution.
 
  • #284
matheinste said:
Hello Starthaus.

Leaving aside mathematical niceties, roughly speaking, talking of the graphical representaion, if the first derivative of a continuous function exists at a point on the graph of the function and is itself continuous and takes the value zero at that point, does this IN GENERAL imply that the second derivative, is zero at that point. More to the physical point if the velocity takes the value zero at some point, does the accelaration necessarily take the value zero at that point.

Matheinste

starthaus said:
No, of course it doesn't but this is not the point of disagreement.
For the case of circular orbits, the radial coordinate r=constant, so
\frac{dr}{ds}=0 everywhere in the domain of definition of r .
Therefore, by virtue of \frac{d^2r}{ds^2}=\frac{d}{ds}(\frac{dr}{ds}) it follows that \frac{d^2r}{ds^2}=0 .

I think this question and answer shows that Starthaus understands the point that the implication is not true in general.

Matheinste
 
  • #285
espen180 said:
EDIT: It seems my conclusion is in conflict with kev's by a factor. I will have to inspect my derivation.


kev said:
I will inspect your paper (and my derivation too) to see if I can locate where one of us has gone wrong. I think we are close to agreeing a solution.

I managed to locate the error and have updated my paper with the corrected derivation.

http://5554229043997450163-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/espen180files/Schwartzschild.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crvgkJaf2YSb9wipuKnvEoacyFDok-MWepVPK4tZrlLjK8If_HxjS_lzaZVPS-0StjbvJLQU3Bvx-t_oZcneyRG3Orj_V5UXTUFarMpmWYhgtEJNgxcRpypcyted9W0Qa7Re2gn-2ib6A0f-WJV5jukKhp_IfJhNoCnhscy-m2uBhjTO2cHlLX45JEfEI8kNFatSDfwlnBKGeus9Ufx5OdK13A-sw%3D%3D&attredirects=1"

The error consisted of me forgetting the factor 2 when writing out the schwartzschild radius in the final steps of the calculation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #286
matheinste said:
I think this question and answer shows that Starthaus understands the point that the implication is not true in general.

Matheinste

Actually that is a clear shot at withdrawal from his early posts where he only insisted on the old fallacy. You know why? Because he knows that others and I in this thread are all aware of the "crystal obvious" result of basic calculus he is giving in this post and this is just my interpretation in post #235. All we attepted to do here was to convince him that if he only uses the old fallacy of his, he couldn't get r=const. by any means. So he came to this conclusion that it's better to admit to "mistakes" sometimes and do add r=const to the fallacy so as to make it meaningful.

AB
 
  • #287
Altabeh said:
Actually that is a clear shot at withdrawal from his early posts where he only insisted on the old fallacy. You know why? Because he knows that others and I in this thread are all aware of the "crystal obvious" result of basic calculus he is giving in this post and this is just my interpretation in post #235. All we attepted to do here was to convince him that if he only uses the old fallacy of his, he couldn't get r=const. by any means. So he came to this conclusion that it's better to admit to "mistakes" sometimes and do add r=const to the fallacy so as to make it meaningful.

AB

Thanks for pointing that out.

Matheinste.
 
  • #288
espen180 said:
I managed to locate the error and have updated my paper with the corrected derivation.

http://5554229043997450163-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/espen180files/Schwartzschild.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crvgkJaf2YSb9wipuKnvEoacyFDok-MWepVPK4tZrlLjK8If_HxjS_lzaZVPS-0StjbvJLQU3Bvx-t_oZcneyRG3Orj_V5UXTUFarMpmWYhgtEJNgxcRpypcyted9W0Qa7Re2gn-2ib6A0f-WJV5jukKhp_IfJhNoCnhscy-m2uBhjTO2cHlLX45JEfEI8kNFatSDfwlnBKGeus9Ufx5OdK13A-sw%3D%3D&attredirects=1"

The error consisted of me forgetting the factor 2 when writing out the schwartzschild radius in the final steps of the calculation.

Yep, I found it too, but you were just ahead of me.

Amazing how we solved for the solution using coordinate time and came to a mutually agreeable result in just a couple of posts, when we ignore Starhaus isn't it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #289
yossell said:
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're doing when you say `take y' to be zero which is a constant function.' As you've shown, y' = x^3 - x^2, and its values vary as x varies. You can't now just stipulate that it's a constant function. Of course, y' equals zero when x equals zero and when x = 1 - so we can talk of its values at various points. But it's not a constant function.

Perhaps this might help. When we say dr/dt=0 we are saying dr/dt is zero at that instant but we are saying nothing about what the value of dr/dt is at any other instant, so dr/dt=0 does not define whether we mean dr/dt is zero for all time or just at that instant (it could be either). If on the other hand we say dr/dt=0 AND d^2r/dt^2=0 then it is clear that we mean dr/dt=0 for all time.
 
Last edited:
  • #290
kev said:
can be directly obtained from the Schwarzschild metric and after substituting this expression for (dt/ds)^2 into the Espen/Euler-Lagrange solution above, further simple algebraic manipulations result in this condensed (but still valid for both radial and orbital motion) version:

\frac{d^2r}{ds^2} = -\frac{m}{r^2} +\frac{d\phi^2}{ds^2}(r-3m)

This is the same as the result I obtained more directly by my method in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2781228&postcount=211":
starthaus said:
...except that :

-your"method" is an invalid hack that shows crass ignorance of basic calculus

-your "method" is incapable of deriving something as simple s \frac{d\phi}{ds}. Let's see you do it.

It is quite easy. My method directly obtains the simplified general solution:

\frac{d^2r}{ds^2} = -\frac{m}{r^2} +\frac{d\phi^2}{ds^2}(r-3m)

For circular motion the radius is constant by definition and so it follows by simple logic that the radial acceleration d^2r/ds^2 must also be zero. Therefore for the special case of circular motion the following is true:

0 = -\frac{m}{r^2} +\frac{d\phi^2}{ds^2}(r-3m)

\Rightarrow \frac{d\phi}{ds}=\sqrt{\frac{m/r^2}{(r-3m)}}

Simpler than how you obtained the same result in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784409&postcount=252"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #291
starthaus said:
As to your post 26, you show no derivation whatsoever, you simply agree with espen180's result based on the geodesic formalism.

It's called teamwork :wink:

I simply simplified his result and transformed it into local coordinates that could be compared with know results and demonstrated that his document was correct (which was not sure about at the time). This thread could have ended right there but you insisted on telling Espen that his results are incorrect and making everyone spend a lot of effort for hundreds of posts proving to you that your objections are groundless. You "improved" on our solution for orbital motion in post #26 by introducing an alternative (but wrong) solution in post #53. However it has not all been in vain. We would not have had the amusing introduction and failed defence of the now famous Starthaus calculus fallacy. LOL

starthaus said:
So, can you solve the five exerciises I gave you?

@Espen. Have you done the homework set for you by "Prof." Starthaus yet? ROFL.
 
  • #292
kev said:
Perhaps this might help. When we say dr/dt=0 we are saying dr/dt is zero at that instant

No, "we" are not saying anything of this nonsense. The \frac{dr}{dt} in a differential equation is a function, not the value of that function in a point.

but we are saying nothing about what the value of dr/dt is at any other instant, so dr/dt=0 does not define whether we mean dr/dt is zero for all time or just at that instant (it could be either). If on the other hand we say dr/dt=0 AND d^2r/dt^2=0 then it is clear that we mean dr/dt=0 for all time.

You need to take a few calculus classes.
 
  • #293


kev said:
For the special case of a particle in purely radial free fall d\phi/dt=0 and:

\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= \alpha\left(-\frac{M}{r^2}+<br /> \frac{3M}{\alpha^2 r^2} \frac{dr^2}{dt^2}\right)\Rightarrow \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= -\frac{M}{r^2}\left(\alpha -<br /> \frac{3}{\alpha } \frac{dr^2}{dt^2}\right)

Passed the third test.

Err, no. Not even close to the correct formula, even the dimensions are ridiculously wrong. This is caused by the fact that your "general" formula is incorrect as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #294
Altabeh said:
when he assumes dr(s)/ds=0 this only holds for a special set of s's

Nowhere do I assume such nonsense. Why do you have such a difficulty passing basic calculus that teaches you

1. \frac{d^2f}{dx^2}=\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{df}{dx})

2. \frac{df}{dx}=0 substituted into 1. produces \frac{d^2f}{dx^2}=0

I tried by using different variables in the hope that you'll remember the introductory class to calculus. I made the variables appear the same exact way as in your basic book.
 
Last edited:
  • #295


starthaus said:
Err, no. Not even close to the correct formula. This is caused by the fact that your "general" formula is incorrect as well.

My solution agrees with the solution provided by Espen. How do our solutions compare with yours? Oops, you don't have a solution.

My solution agrees with equations (4) and (5) of mathpages http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm which is written by a real professor (Kevin brown). Have you already forgotten the pounding given to you by Rolfe2 the last time you claimed the derivations in the mathpages website were flawed? I guess the wounds have healed eh?

What do you propose the solution should be? Let me guess. That is an exercise left for the students by "Prof" Startaus. When they provide you with the solution, you will claim you taught it to them. You are so transparent.
 
Last edited:
  • #296


kev said:
Moving on to the general case for coordinate acceleration as promised, this is the derivation based on the one I started in post #48.

Starting with Schwarzschild metric and assuming orbital motion in a plane about the equator such that \theta = \pi/2 and d\theta = 0

ds^2=\alpha dt^2-dr^2/\alpha-r^2d\phi^2, (\alpha=1-2M/r)

Divide both sides by \alpha dt^2 and rearrange so that the constant (1) is on the LHS:

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

The metric is independent of \phi and t, so there is a constant associated with coordinate angular velocity (H_c) which is obtained by finding the partial derivative of L with respect to d\phi/dt

\frac{\delta{L}}{\delta(d\phi/dt)} = \frac{r^2}{\alpha} \frac{d\phi}{dt} = H_c

The metric is independent of s and t, so there is a constant associated with time dilation (K_c) which is obtained by finding the partial derivative of L with respect to ds/dt

What "partial derivative of L"? You resurrected your old hack of attempting to "calculate" partial derivatives of a... constant. You just declared L=1 a few lines above, when will you stop with the ugly hacks?
 
  • #297


kev said:
My solution agrees with the solution provided by Espen. How do our solutions compare with yours? Oops, you don't have a solution.
Wrong guess, you saw it in https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1957 about 5 weeks ago, including the correct derivation. Try reading it again, you might learn something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #298


starthaus said:
What "partial derivative of L"? You resurrected your old hack of attempting to "calculate" partial derivatives of a... constant. You just declared L=1 a few lines above, when will you stop with the ugly hacks?
Surely you mean my beautiful, compact and elegant methods that produce quick precise and correct results in just a few steps?
 
  • #299


starthaus said:
Wrong guess, you saw it in my blog about 5 weeks ago, including the correct derivation. Try reading it again, you might learn something.

You do not have a general solution in terms of coordinate time for both radial and angular motion in your blog. I derived it first.
 
  • #300


kev said:
You do not have a general solution in terms of coordinate time for both radial and angular motion in your blog. I derived it first.

LOL, you also need to have a valid derivation and valid results, remember? You have neither.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K