Advanced books/papers on derivation of Newtonian mechanics from GR

[Juan R.]

Some interesting discussion on the topic began with several relativists including renowned Steve Carlip. However, in my personal opinion -please do not me atack because i am thinking this now-, Carlip is wrong in several crucial details doing his attempt to prove that Newtonian gravity is derived from General relativity wrong.

Last news about this topic.

Some time ago i said that the curvature interpretation of general relativity is not valid. I based my claim in that when one takes the non-relativistic limit, one obtain a flat spacetime and, however, one does not obtain a zero gravity.

If curvature IS the cause of gravity and you are eliminating gravity then gravity would vanish and however it does not! This clearly indicates that curvature is not the cause of gravity. Remember, basic epistemological principle: if A is the cause of B elimination of A eliminate B.

Of course in textbooks proof, spacetime is not flat, but textbooks does not take the correct relativistic limit and final equation is NOT Newtonian equation. That is the reason that advanced research literature does NOT follow textbooks wrong derivation.

Some 'specialists' as Steve Carlip were rather hard in their replies. In his last reply, the specialist Carlip have expressed his doubts about that in the non-relativistic limit one can obtain a flat spacetime.

[quote = Carlip]
He also thinks that the Minkowski metric should apply even to Newtonian gravity (!).

I proved this time ago. Carlip simply ignores my proof. One would remember that Carlip is NOT a specialist on Newtonian limit theory and, in fact, has published nothing in this hot topic.

Now i find a recent paper claiming the same. The paper has been published in leader journal on gravity.

On (Class. Quantum Grav. 2004 21 3251-3286) the author claims the substitution (1/c) --> (epsilon/c) in GR equations, and states that epsilon = 1 is Einstein GR and epsilon = 0 is Newton theory.

I find curious as that author (working the Newtonian limit with detail) writes

The fiber epsilon = 0 is Minkowski space with a (non-degenerated) Newtonian limit.

That is, the limit epsilon = 0 of GR is Newtonian gravity and in that limit spacetime is Minkoskian, which is flat. My initial prescription that in the non-relativistic limit one obtain GRAVITY with a FLAT spacetime is correct. Therefore, that i said in page 17

of

www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf[/URL]

in April was mainly correct. That April comment contains some imprecision (i am thinking in rewriting again with last advances in the research), but basically it was correct regarding the geometric prescription of GR.

One may reinterpret the basic of general relativity.

I find really interesting this!

 

[jtbell]

Since Dr. Carlip does is not a member of this forum, as far as I know (at least I don't remember seeing him post here), interested readers might want to watch the thread in sci.physics.relativity where Juan also references the paper that he references here. Perhaps Dr. Carlip will respond to him there.

 

[Juan R.]

Since Dr. Carlip does is not a member of this forum, as far as I know (at least I don't remember seeing him post here), interested readers might want to watch the thread in sci.physics.relativity where Juan also references the paper that he references here. Perhaps Dr. Carlip will respond to him there.

Above link is not about scientific discusion with Carlip

Carlip (incorrect, in my opinion) post is here

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....cbd?scoring=d&&scoring=d#doc_22bf366b013f1d39

and my formal reply is here

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....cbd?scoring=d&&scoring=d#doc_ca7b1885fe389649

I am anxiously waiting his reply.

P.S: Any comment on Eric error on Minkowski metric? I have detected that is working in NASA. Perhaps he was one of those participating in those famous mission that had the problem with units