Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / March 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

POiNT-mass axial-symmetry. (S Carlip ..foreword by T Roberts).

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
brian a m stuckless - 28 Mar 2006 10:19 GMT
$$                   POiNT-mass axial-symmetry.
$$      Tom Roberts has covered POiNT-mass axial-symmetry.
$$  Once you ATTACH the TOP & BOTTOM rockets (or LEFT & RiGHT),
$$ you SiMPLY apply DiFFERENT thrusts by the TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs
$$ or, SiMPLY apply *ENORMOUS thrusts by the LEFT & RiGHT ROCKETs.
$$
$$ EiTHER way, you CLEARLY (at SOME POiNT) STre-e-eetCH the THiNG.
$$
$$ Axialsymmetry is APPLiED to SOME _incredibly_ RELUCTANT points.
$$
$$ Sincerely,               ```Brian A M Stuckless. Ph.T (Tivity).
$$ Kerr-PLONK.           B A STUCKLESS iNSPECTiON and SUPERViSiON.
Re: Questions on the Kerr metric cont'n.
Re: POiNT-mass axial-symmetry. (S Carlip ..foreword by T Roberts).
                      >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>

$$              Jay R. Yablon writes  > > Ken S. Tucker:
> >    See AE's GR1916 Chapter 2, "The Need for an Extension..."
> >       (pg 112 in Dover's Relativity) for more insight.
> >
> > The alternative solution to Kerr's is using the toroidal mass
> > placed in the field to eliminate rotations, and would arrive
> > at the same metric if the EP is applied by replacing the
> > centrifugal inertial effect with a purely gravitation energy
> > density distribution to cause the ellipsoid.
>
> Let's approach this in a slightly different way, by asking about the
> metric symmetries which one assumes precedent to deriving the Kerr
> solution:
>
> It seems to me that in Kerr one is assuming the symmetry of an
> "axisymmetric" and "stationary" metric and then coming upon spin as
> part of the solution to the Einstein field equations. (By Birkhoff,
> if we assume spherical symmetry then all solutions must be static
> and Schwarzschild, therefore, no spin.)
>
> It also seems that one could, alternatively, assume the symmetry
> of an "axisymmetric" (but not spherically symmetric) and "static"
> metric.
>
> In the former case, one starts off allowing the dtdx, dtdy, and /
> or dtdz terms to be non-zero, but requires the dxdy, dxdz and / or
> dydz to be zero.
>
> In the latter case, dxdy, dxdz and / or dydz are allowed to be
> non-zero, but dtdx, dtdy, and / or dtdz must be zero.
>
> For Kerr, with dtdr not= 0 and the mixed spatial terms all = 0,
> in the course of solving Einstein's second order nonlinear
> differential equations in vacuo for this assumed axisymmetric and
> stationary metric, we come across two constants of integration.
>  One of these constants is equated to "2GM" in order to reproduce
> Newton's law in the linear approximation / Schwarzchild's solution
> in the spherically symmetric approximation.  The other constant,
> often denoted "a", shows up in the form of "Ma" in the dtdr term
> of the metric, and is associated with spin angular momentum S=Ma.
>
> Wouldn't the ellipsoid that Ken talks about with no spin be a
> different metric with dtdr=0, but dxdy, dxdz and / or dydz mixing?
>  And, what solutions of this sort are known at this time, if any?
> If there are no solutions known of this sort, have they been ruled
> out, or just not yet solved?  (Just purchased Stephani, Kramer,
> MacCallum, Hoenselaers, and Herlt, "Exact Solutions of Einstein's
> Field Equations," following S. Carlip's suggestion on sci.physics,
> will poke around there to see.)
>
>     Wouldn't a comparison of "axisymmetric stationary" versus
> "axisymmetric static" solutions also be one way of approaching
> the questions in AE's GR1916 Chapter 2?       > > Best, > > Jay.
Re: POiNT-mass axial-symmetry. (S Carlip ..foreword by T Roberts).
sparshmaster@googlemail.com - 28 Mar 2006 10:35 GMT
but surely you cant compare point mass and data collect with vb6 if
your hipotonuse angle is less than 56 degrees because it would be a
congruent angle which ruins the trigonometrical circuit which is
provided
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.