From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>

Date: July 17, 2009 11:44:54 PM PDT

To: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>

Subject: Physical meaning of Waldyr's Minkowski-Non-Metricity connection split is obscure

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>

Date: July 17, 2009 10:41:35 PM PDT

To: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>

Cc: 

Subject: Re: Waldyr Rodrigues Jr supports Zielinski's crank "work"

JACK SARFATTI wrote

So when one writes 3.15

That's the transformation between local detectors in the overlap of the above picture.

What 3.15 represents mathematically or physically depends on the nature of the connections Γ and Γ^.

Yes, and so? It's not clear at all what the flat space connection means physically. Not every formal structure is physically useful.

Here is what I understand about (3.15)

1) Locally gauge T4 only, voila the Levi-Civita connection in curved spacetime emerges when the torsion is constrained to be zero.

Curvature has clear physical meaning as disclination defects in a lattice where Einstein's continuum is the long wave limit.

2) Locally gauge the full Poincare group P10 and we get the 3rd rank contorsion tensor added to the LC connection.

Torsion has clear physical meaning as the dislocation gaps in the tiny parallellograms when &x & dx are mutually parallel transported by each other.

Hagen Kleinert describes this physics in complete detail.

Therefore, I well understand 3.15 in this concrete case

Local T4 connection - Local P10 connection ~ contortion 3rd rank GCT tensor 

no problem there - it's part of my published paper.

However, there is no physical picture to

Curved LC connection = Flat LC connection + non-metricity tensor

does the non-metricity tensor come from locally gauging the dilation group?

I really do not know what a Flat LC connection even means here physically.

If there is no way to separately measure the flat LC and the non-metricity tensor, then this is not good physics - it's Popper unfalsifiable.

Waldyr has not given a theory of measurement for his model here, therefore it is not a good alternative theory as yet.

S^luv is an objective local field configuration of some kind as measured by one detector, whilst S^l'u'v' is the same local field configuration as measured by the locally coincident other detector. That's the physical meaning of (3.15)

PS this is the Pioneer 10 that has the anomaly.

The two detectors are in close proximity to each other but in arbitrary relative motion to each other. They are pointing their detectors at the same events. This is the key meaning of relativity - not the theorems of differential geometry which you guys are applying willy nilly perhaps not correctly in my opinion.

Then it is a mystery to me why you are having so much trouble understanding a the concept of an objective non-tidal gravity field
covariantly described by a tensor quantity. You seem to be contradicting your own position.

The tetrad Cartan 1-forms e^I are objective non-tidal gravity fields because e^Iu is a u-tensor, and e^I is a GCT scalar invariant - no problem there.

I would have no problem with Waldyr's non-metricity tensor if he gave a theory of measurement for it under all conditions not just the static LNIF case where it's identical to the curved LC! Hardly a great advance!

Spherical coordinate chart means static LNIF physically. See John A. Wheeler's books.

(16) is for the static LNIF detector whose rocket engines fire keeping it at fixed r without orbital angular momentum.

I see the formal argument Waldyr makes, but what it means physically, i.e. interpretation of data is far from clear. Physics is about the latter not about proving theorems. I don't understand most of what Z writes - seems like a lot of techno-babble undefined and unsupported jargon - mere word games.

So terms like "covariant",

I understand that term when properly used.

"affine deformation tensor",

Not a common term. I assume it means

curved connection = flat connection + deformation tensor ?

"non-metric affine connection", "metricity", "common coordinate chart",
"analytical manifold", "covariant derivative", "passive diffeomorphism", "coordinate space R^4", and so on and so forth, are just
"techno-babble undefined and unsupported jargon - mere word games"?

These terms are the dots. The problem is how you string them together - how you connect the dots - not a clear picture. I see no beauty in your pattern - not in Waldyr's either, though he calculates concrete formal examples which you never do. Waldyr is weak on translating his formal symbology into physical ideas like Feynman could do and of course like Einstein and Bohr did with gedankenexperiments. John Wheeler also a master of that.

Is it possible that it just *appears* that way to you because you simply don't have the background required to understand them?

Z.

It's possible, but it's also a fact that you write too many words, too few equations and you do not explain things well with your words.

PS Did you understand what Gennady wrote?