The Path to Immortality

2019 ◽  
pp. 2-10
Author(s):  
Nicholas Mee
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Newtonian Gravity

Newton’s theories of mechanics and gravity laid the foundations for the development of modern science. Newton is introduced through his activities at the Royal Mint. Newton’s ideas reigned supreme for over 200 years. Newtonian gravity was only superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity just over 100 years ago.

The precise calculations of the constant terms in the equations of motions of planets and photons of general relativity

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-192
Author(s):  
Mei Xiaochun
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Gravitational Field ◽  
Deflection Angle ◽  
Constant Term ◽  
Equation Of Motion ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Newtonian Theory ◽  
The Deflection Angle ◽  
Equations Of Motions

In general relativity, the values of constant terms in the equations of motions of planets and light have not been seriously discussed. Based on the Schwarzschild metric and the geodesic equations of the Riemann geometry, it is proved in this paper that the constant term in the time-dependent equation of motion of planet in general relativity must be equal to zero. Otherwise, when the correction term of general relativity is ignored, the resulting Newtonian gravity formula would change its basic form. Due to the absence of this constant term, the equation of motion cannot describe the elliptical and the hyperbolic orbital motions of celestial bodies in the solar gravitational field. It can only describe the parabolic orbital motion (with minor corrections). Therefore, it becomes meaningless to use general relativity calculating the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It is also proved that the time-dependent orbital equation of light in general relativity is contradictory to the time-independent equation of light. Using the time-independent orbital equation to do calculation, the deflection angle of light in the solar gravitational field is <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1.7</mml:mn> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mo>″</mml:mo> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . But using the time-dependent equation to do calculation, the deflection angle of light is only a small correction of the prediction value <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>0.87</mml:mn> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mo>″</mml:mo> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> of the Newtonian gravity theory with a magnitude order of <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . The reason causing this inconsistency was the Einstein's assumption that the motion of light satisfied the condition <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>d</mml:mi> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> in gravitational field. It leads to the absence of constant term in the time-independent equation of motion of light and destroys the uniqueness of geodesic in curved space-time. Meanwhile, light is subjected to repulsive forces in the gravitational field, rather than attractive forces. The direction of deflection of light is opposite, inconsistent with the predictions of present general relativity and the Newtonian theory of gravity. Observing on the earth surface, the wavelength of light emitted by the sun is violet shifted. This prediction is obviously not true. Practical observation is red shift. Finally, the practical significance of the calculation of the Mercury perihelion's precession and the existing problems of the light's deflection experiments of general relativity are briefly discussed. The conclusion of this paper is that general relativity cannot have consistence with the Newtonian theory of gravity for the descriptions of motions of planets and light in the solar system. The theory itself is not self-consistent too.

The Einstein field equations

2019 ◽  
pp. 52-58
Author(s):  
Steven Carlip
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Conservation Laws ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Einstein Field Equations ◽  
Field Equations ◽  
Noether’S Theorem ◽  
Geodesic Deviation ◽  
Fundamental Equations ◽  
Hilbert Action ◽  
Qualitative Discussion

The Einstein field equations are the fundamental equations of general relativity. After a brief qualitative discussion of geodesic deviation and Newtonian gravity, this chapter derives the field equations from the Einstein-Hilbert action. The chapter contains a derivation of Noether’s theorem and the consequent conservation laws, and a brief discussion of generalizations of the Einstein-Hilbert action.

scholarly journals Excluded Volume for Flat Galaxy Rotation Curves in Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity

Symmetry ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rand Dannenberg
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Gravitational Constant ◽  
Excluded Volume ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Least Action Principle ◽  
Rotation Curves ◽  
Least Action ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Vacuum Solutions ◽  
Galaxy Rotation Curves

Using the classical vacuum solutions of Newtonian gravity that do not explicitly involve matter, dark matter, or the gravitational constant, subject to an averaging process, a form of gravity relevant to the flattening of galaxy rotation curves results. The latter resembles the solution found if the vacuum is simply assigned a gravitational field density, and a volume of the vacuum is then excluded, with no averaging process. A rationale then follows for why these terms would become important on the galactic scale. Then, a modification of General Relativity, motivated by the Newtonian solutions, that are equivalent to a charge void, is partially defined and discussed in terms of a least action principle.

DOES PRESSURE ACCENTUATE GENERAL RELATIVISTIC GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE AND FORMATION OF TRAPPED SURFACES?

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (05) ◽  
pp. 1350021 ◽  
Author(s):  
ABHAS MITRA
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Gravitational Collapse ◽  
Fluid Pressure ◽  
Free Fall ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Tangential Pressure ◽  
Trapped Surfaces ◽  
Imperfect Fluid ◽  
Newtonian Case ◽  
General Relativistic

It is widely believed that though pressure resists gravitational collapse in Newtonian gravity, it aids the same in general relativity (GR) so that GR collapse should eventually be similar to the monotonous free fall case. But we show that, even in the context of radiationless adiabatic collapse of a perfect fluid, pressure tends to resist GR collapse in a manner which is more pronounced than the corresponding Newtonian case and formation of trapped surfaces is inhibited. In fact there are many works which show such collapse to rebound or become oscillatory implying a tug of war between attractive gravity and repulsive pressure gradient. Furthermore, for an imperfect fluid, the resistive effect of pressure could be significant due to likely dramatic increase of tangential pressure beyond the "photon sphere." Indeed, with inclusion of tangential pressure, in principle, there can be static objects with surface gravitational redshift z → ∞. Therefore, pressure can certainly oppose gravitational contraction in GR in a significant manner in contradiction to the idea of Roger Penrose that GR continued collapse must be unstoppable.

scholarly journals One gravitational potential or two? Forecasts and tests

2011 ◽  
Vol 369 (1957) ◽  
pp. 4947-4961 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund Bertschinger
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Gravitational Potential ◽  
Gravitational Lensing ◽  
Modified Gravity ◽  
Newtonian Potential ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Peculiar Velocities ◽  
Modified Gravity Theories ◽  
Curvature Potential ◽  
The Difference

The metric of a perturbed Robertson–Walker space–time is characterized by three functions: a scale-factor giving the expansion history and two potentials that generalize the single potential of Newtonian gravity. The Newtonian potential induces peculiar velocities and, from these, the growth of matter fluctuations. Massless particles respond equally to the Newtonian potential and to a curvature potential. The difference of the two potentials, called the gravitational slip, is predicted to be very small in general relativity, but can be substantial in modified gravity theories. The two potentials can be measured, and gravity tested on cosmological scales, by combining weak gravitational lensing or the integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect with galaxy peculiar velocities or clustering.

On claims that general relativity differs from Newtonian physics for self-gravitating dusts in the low velocity, weak field limit

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (08) ◽  
pp. 1550065 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Rowland
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Solar System ◽  
Relativistic Effects ◽  
Weak Field ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Galactic Rotation ◽  
Low Velocity ◽  
Rotation Curves ◽  
Newtonian Physics ◽  
General Relativistic

Galaxy rotation curves are generally analyzed theoretically using Newtonian physics; however, two groups of authors have claimed that for self-gravitating dusts, general relativity (GR) makes significantly different predictions to Newtonian physics, even in the weak field, low velocity limit. One group has even gone so far as to claim that nonlinear general relativistic effects can explain flat galactic rotation curves without the need for cold dark matter. These claims seem to contradict the well-known fact that the weak field, low velocity, low pressure correspondence limit of GR is Newtonian gravity, as evidenced by solar system tests. Both groups of authors claim that their conclusions do not contradict this fact, with Cooperstock and Tieu arguing that the reason is that for the solar system, we have test particles orbiting a central gravitating body, whereas for a galaxy, each star is both an orbiting body and a contributor to the net gravitational field, and this supposedly makes a difference due to nonlinear general relativistic effects. Given the significance of these claims for analyses of the flat galactic rotation curve problem, this article compares the predictions of GR and Newtonian gravity for three cases of self-gravitating dusts for which the exact general relativistic solutions are known. These investigations reveal that GR and Newtonian gravity are in excellent agreement in the appropriate limits, thus supporting the conventional use of Newtonian physics to analyze galactic rotation curves. These analyses also reveal some sources of error in the referred to works.

scholarly journals Simultaneous determination of mass parameter and radial marker in Schwarzschild geometry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Varela ◽  
Lorenzo Leal
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Simultaneous Determination ◽  
Euclidean Geometry ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Mass Parameter ◽  
Thought Experiments ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Algebraic Equations ◽  
Schwarzschild Geometry

Abstract We show that mass parameter and radial marker values can be indirectly measured in thought experiments performed in Schwarzschild spacetime, without using the Newtonian limit of general relativity or approximations based on Euclidean geometry. Our approach involves different proper time quantifications as well as solutions to systems of algebraic equations, and aims to strengthen the conceptual independence of general relativity from Newtonian gravity.

scholarly journals Gravity between Newton and Einstein

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (14) ◽  
pp. 1944010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Hansen ◽  
Jelle Hartong ◽  
Niels A. Obers
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Causal Structure ◽  
Relativistic Effects ◽  
Newtonian Gravity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Perihelion Precession ◽  
Tests Of General Relativity ◽  
Deflection Of Light ◽  
Weak Fields ◽  
Large Speed

Statements about relativistic effects are often subtle. In this essay we will demonstrate that the three classical tests of general relativity, namely perihelion precession, deflection of light and gravitational redshift, are passed perfectly by an extension of Newtonian gravity that includes gravitational time dilation effects while retaining a non-relativistic causal structure. This non-relativistic gravity theory arises from a covariant large speed of light expansion of Einstein’s theory of gravity that does not assume weak fields and which admits an action principle.

scholarly journals On the foundations of general relativistic celestial mechanics

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (26) ◽  
pp. 1730022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuele Battista ◽  
Giampiero Esposito ◽  
Simone Dell’Agnello
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Solar System ◽  
Celestial Mechanics ◽  
Body Problem ◽  
Equations Of Motion ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
N Body Problem ◽  
General Relativistic ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Three Body

Towards the end of nineteenth century, Celestial Mechanics provided the most powerful tools to test Newtonian gravity in the solar system and also led to the discovery of chaos in modern science. Nowadays, in light of general relativity, Celestial Mechanics leads to a new perspective on the motion of satellites and planets. The reader is here introduced to the modern formulation of the problem of motion, following what the leaders in the field have been teaching since the nineties, in particular, the use of a global chart for the overall dynamics of N bodies and N local charts describing the internal dynamics of each body. The next logical step studies in detail how to split the N-body problem into two sub-problems concerning the internal and external dynamics, how to achieve the effacement properties that would allow a decoupling of the two sub-problems, how to define external-potential-effacing coordinates and how to generalize the Newtonian multipole and tidal moments. The review paper ends with an assessment of the nonlocal equations of motion obtained within such a framework, a description of the modifications induced by general relativity on the theoretical analysis of the Newtonian three-body problem, and a mention of the potentialities of the analysis of solar-system metric data carried out with the Planetary Ephemeris Program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document