PDA

View Full Version : Whitehead theory



GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-12, 02:41 PM
Here (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/physicst.htm)'s an interesting old theory (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/agu1995.htm) proposed by Whitehead. He seems to have left a few loose ends, but basically he proposed an alternative theory of general relativity that had a fixed background space.

Up until maybe twenty or thirty years ago, it was a leading contender to the throne. It passed all the tests that Einstein's did--well, it predicted the same things, anyway. Will showed that it should have a gravitational anisotropy--and claimed that the effect should show up in the tidal records as the earth revolved relative to the massive galactic core.

The effect was proportional to m/r, rather than the m/r^2 of gravity (or m/r^3 of tides), but in the last twenty-five years large-scale structures in the universe have been mapped that would overwhelm even the effect of the galactic core. So, in theory anyway, we're back to square one on this one.

<font size=-1>[Changed "Wills" to "Will"]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2001-11-12 14:04 ]</font>

David Simmons
2001-Nov-12, 03:35 PM
The question of the difference between Whitehead and Einstein would be a lot clearer if someone would explain the terms "nondynamical, flat, background metric" and explain how this is different from Einstein's formulation.

Also, the terms "tensor equivalent of electomagnetic vector field theory" is far beyond the comprehension of 99.9% (WAG) of the population.

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-12, 03:51 PM
Whitehead proposed an absolute space, rather than the relative space of Einstein.

The electromagnetic theory of Maxwall can be expressed in terms of vectors, and Whitehead generalized that to tensors--which are generalizations of vectors.

Whitehead's theory was analyzed, and it apparently predicted a sizeable twice daily variation that was expected to appear in the tidal records, but wasn't.

Wiley
2001-Nov-12, 04:36 PM
What is (are) the fundamental tenet(s) that Lord Alfie used to derive his theory? What is the absolute frame of reference? Ah, many questions. Do you have a more complete reference?

Wouldn't a "nondynamical, flat, background metric" be Euclidean space?

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-12, 05:09 PM
I do have his 1922 book The Principle of Relativity, but that's not going to be of much help.

Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler discuss it in Gravitation. Some of their comments: (p.430) "radio waves propagate along geodesics of the 'physical metric' g, and get deflected by the gravitational fields of the stars. But gravitational waves propagate along geodesics of a flat background metric n, and are thus unaffected by the stars." (p.1067) "Whitehead's (1922) theory of gravity was long considered a viable alternative to Einstein's theory, because it makes exactly the same prediction as Einstein for the 'four standard tests.' Not until the work of Will (1971b) was it realized that Whitehead's theory predicts a time-dependence for the ebb and flow of ocean tides that is completely contradicted by everyday experience." (p.1124) "Whitehead's theory of gravity (which is a two-tensor theory with a rather different type of prior geometry from Ni's) predicts that the galaxy should produce velocity-independent anisotropies in Gc...redshift, light-deflection, time-delay, and perihelion-shift measurements. (For all these 'standard experiments,' the predictions of Whitehead and Einstein are identical!)"
Exclamation point theirs.
_________________
rocks
<font size=-1>[Inserted quotation marks]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2001-11-12 19:33 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Nov-12, 07:40 PM
Thanks, GrapesO'Wrath (is that what they make Mad Dog from? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

Yes, this post was just to get me out of the Bad Newbie category.

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-13, 12:43 AM
Naw, that'd be the grapes of a wraith, and now you know why that dog is mad. Anyway, congratulations, here's your fireworks. (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990307.html) Say ahhh.

2001-Nov-13, 01:30 AM
[quote]
Whitehead's theory was analyzed, and it apparently predicted a sizeable twice daily variation that was expected to appear in the tidal records, but wasn't.


Doesn't Newton's Law of gravity predict a sizeable twice daily variation in the tidal records?

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-13, 09:09 AM
On 2001-11-12 20:30, Rosen1 wrote:
Doesn't Newton's Law of gravity predict a sizeable twice daily variation in the tidal records?


Yes! It also predicts dozens of other tides with various periods. That particular tide would be related to the sidereal day, rather than the solar day, and it would be directed towards the galactic center.

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-23, 03:43 PM
And, apparently, there are unexplained deviations from the expected tidal values, according to theory. The next perihelion advance of Mercury, no doubt.

MowerMan
2001-Nov-24, 02:30 AM
I like this site for some "alternative to relativity" information.

http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/space-time.html

I think Einstein didn't know the difference between "time" and the measurement of "time" (actually most don't realize the distinction).

2001-Nov-25, 07:06 AM
<a name="20011125.grv"> Gravity PODS ?
1. assuming the identity of a ill-Logical NegatiFist
2: its seams incumbant to type opposition to
3: all the LOGICAL Positivism I see in this thread
(Earth{ocean[typhoon:SHIP"Gravity Pod":]})
get that in the "Fifth frame" ok so what i saw was
this "PODS" com in many sizes and many shapes
the one i personally road in for maybe 20 feet
was sort of egg shaped ( ) say 4 feet long
and 3 feet wide(high) and it was friendly, and self aware

Lusion
2001-Nov-25, 06:31 PM
On 2001-11-23 21:30, MowerMan wrote:
I think Einstein didn't know the difference between "time" and the measurement of "time" (actually most don't realize the distinction).


To say they don't "realize" it is an odd way to phrase it--almost like you're declaring that there is a difference, and that it should be "obviously apparant".

Maybe Einstein, and the few, realized that time actually was the same thing as the measurement of time?

I really don't trust phrasings of things that can be reworded to work for the other side and still apply.

MowerMan
2001-Nov-25, 07:54 PM
I believe there to be a distinct difference, that would completely invalidate any attempt to measure "time dilation". Just because matter has "aged" at a slower rate, doesn't mean in any way that time itself has been altered. Matter simply is not a reliable tool for the measurement of time. I was not trying to come across as presumptious or anything like that, just that most people don't make the distinction, and data can be interpreted different ways most of the time.

To accept SR, one has to have faith that the "measurement of time" and "time" are indeed one in the same.

Trish
2001-Nov-26, 02:01 AM
On 2001-11-25 14:54, MowerMan wrote:
I believe there to be a distinct difference, that would completely invalidate any attempt to measure "time dilation". Just because matter has "aged" at a slower rate, doesn't mean in any way that time itself has been altered. Matter simply is not a reliable tool for the measurement of time. I was not trying to come across as presumptious or anything like that, just that most people don't make the distinction, and data can be interpreted different ways most of the time.

To accept SR, one has to have faith that the "measurement of time" and "time" are indeed one in the same.

OK, so if there is a difference in the measurement of time and time itself - would you please explain the difference?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything - I just don't see the difference between the accelerated *aging process* (?I'm not sure I should phrase it this way) of the *stuff* traveling at near light speed and the *stuff* that has remained behind as a difference between time and measuring time. Time for both parties would have been measured the same it is only from the outside that time appears different between the two - when they meet after the return trip.

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-26, 01:20 PM
On 2001-11-23 21:30, MowerMan wrote:
I like this site for some "alternative to relativity" information.

http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/space-time.html

I think Einstein didn't know the difference between "time" and the measurement of "time" (actually most don't realize the distinction).

I think you're almost certainly wrong about that. Just look over the part I of his special relativity paper of 1905 (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/), especially the first section. Laro Schatzer (I believe that is the author of your link) recapitulates Einstein's argument, then points out that the constant speed of light is an assumption under special relativity, and the biggest criticism of it is that it doesn't allow superluminal speeds--which are claimed to be absolutely necessary. However, that is an assumption, also.

The Nov. 9, 2001, Science magazine has a small report about experiments described in the Physical Review Letters that purport to challenge the concept of cause and effect in special relativity. An EPR experiment was done in which two entangled states were measured--not only was there an apparent faster-than-light correlation between the two, but the experiment arranged things so that it wasn't clear which measurement occurred first. That is, from either point of view, the other could be considered to have happened later. The article claims that this contradicts special relativity when in fact it supports the contention of EPR, that quantum mechanics is somehow incomplete.