339 reputation
18
bio website scholastic.us.to
location United States
age
visits member for 2 years, 3 months
seen 4 hours ago

2d
comment Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
thanks for the references
2d
comment Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
I'm considering the earth's inertia as due to the gravitational influence of the spinning shells (Mach's principle), so the earth is inside Thirring's spinning shells, and comparing that to the Newtonian expression, where, in Newton's theory, inertia is a property intrinsic to the earth's matter.
2d
comment Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
@DavidHammen: I simply added background to the question, the question remaining the same. Also, what is the correct expression for the Thirring force, then?
Sep
28
revised Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
added that the last term is called the "force of inertia" and added Lanczos book's reference
Sep
27
comment Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
If you discuss the Thirring objection (see the edited question above), I'll consider accepting this answer. thanks
Sep
27
revised Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
added 12 characters in body
Sep
27
revised Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
added ref. to Symon's _Mechanics_
Sep
27
comment Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
@Qmechanic: I added much background to the question. An answer should address Thirring.
Sep
27
revised Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
added Thirring's expression for the force due to a rotating sphere
Sep
26
asked Does General Relativity correctly explain the ellipsoidal shape of the earth?
Sep
21
comment Are Stephen Crothers' claims legitimate?
Crother's argument is basically: (1) G-R is non-linear (no superposition principle); (2) a black-hole has infinite extent (viz., it's a universe); (3) therefore, black-holes and other cosmologies cannot be superposed. Thus, black-holes cannot exist. See his recent General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate or the synopsis Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, On Black Hole Perturbations.
Sep
16
comment Was Tesla familiar with Helmholtz, Maxwell, and Hertz (or vice versa)?
"Moreover, all of these attempts were made three years after the basic principles of the wireless system, which is universally employed to-day, and its potent instrumentalities had been clearly described and developed in America. No trace of those Hertzian appliances and methods remains today." —Tesla's 1919 autobiography
Sep
16
comment Was Tesla familiar with Helmholtz, Maxwell, and Hertz (or vice versa)?
"The Germans, of course, gave us the Hertz-waves… It was an obvious application of the new agent and accomplished with the old classical and unimproved induction coil—scarcely anything more than another kind of heliography. The radius of transmission was very limited, the results attained of little value, and the Hertz oscillations, as a means for conveying intelligence, could have been advantageously replaced by sound-waves, which I advocated in 1891.
Sep
15
revised Deriving Ampère's Circuital Law from Ampère's Force Law?
deleted 59 characters in body
Sep
15
asked Deriving Ampère's Circuital Law from Ampère's Force Law?
Sep
15
comment Derivation of Ampère's force law
Ampère derived it empirically.
Sep
15
revised Was Tesla familiar with Helmholtz, Maxwell, and Hertz (or vice versa)?
edited title
Sep
15
revised Was Tesla familiar with Helmholtz, Maxwell, and Hertz (or vice versa)?
added "(or 'vice versa')"
Sep
14
asked Was Tesla familiar with Helmholtz, Maxwell, and Hertz (or vice versa)?
Sep
6
comment Thermodynamics of scattering theory
This is an excellent question (esp. your #2) since it has much relevance to the CERN experiments, which, at the moment of collision, is a highly irreversible process, yet Einstein's theory, upon which relativistic scattering theory is based, is only a reversible theory.