11-23-2009, 04:16 PM
|
| PHF Helper | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 369
Thanks: 11
Thanked 153 Times in 110 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularitarian  F_g - force due to gravity | Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularitarian
Since F_g is explicitely a formulation of General Relativity, (notes by sean carrol) it can be seen as the force required to move a gravitational charged mass, or can be seen as the gravitational charge on the particle itself. Where in Carroll’s notes did you see this expression? What is Phi? You never defined it.
| Where did you get that expression from? The gravitational force on a particle is given by (See Basic Relativity, Richard A. Mould, page 262, Eq. (8.65) [LaTeX Error: Can't write to directory] If you don’t have Mould then I can put up my own version of the derivation. I’m moving from Geocicities to my own site so I can easily put that derivation up. Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularitarian ћc=GM² - this is a plankian equation. | “a” Planckian equation? Where did it come from? Am I to assume you postulated this? Did someone else postulate this? Was it derived somewhere? When you mention Planck you sound like you’re getting into quantum mechanics. Force is a concept from Classical Mechanics, not quantum mechanics. The reason being is that for force to have meaning a particle must move on a classical trajectory and that doesn’t happen in quantum mechanics. Note that I don’t know quantum general relativity so this might be a very short derivation. Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularitarian He used these forms when making his Planck Constants. | That sentence is not meaningful to me. I take it that English is not your primary language? Who is “He”? Surely not Planck! Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularitarian The basic thing needed to be known is simple that they can easily be made to equate the units of energy, since a little rearrangement:
M²=ћ(c/G)
c√ћ(c/G) = Mc² | This too makes no sense. Why are you making these substitutions? Where did you get the idea that these things can “easily be made to equate the units of energy”??? Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularitarian Is that ok for now? | Sure. But you’re not making any sense so far. You haven’t even told us whether this is classical or quantum physics yet. And if so you haven’t justified making those equalities just because the units are the same. E.g. I could multiple one side by 10^(1200000) and the units would still be right.  |