Neutrinos faster than the speed of light?

[Grumpy]

pmb

I was once again reminded why grumpy and his followers are ignoring the GR literature today. It's because they explain everything that's wrong with his hand waving arguments. Since grumpy is still confusing the time delay with the bending of light rather that the actual slowing of the speed of light I'd like to remind him that if he had just a tiny bit of an open mind then he would have looked at the reference to

I was once again reminded why pmb and his followers are ignoring the GR literature today. It's because they explain everything that's wrong with his hand waving arguments. Since pmb is still confusing the time delay with the slowing of the speed of light rather that the actual longer path the bending of light travelling through bent spacetime causes, he is not talking about reality. Spacetime and the CONSTANT speed of light is what Einstein showed us was an accurate model of the reality we see, I don't know what pmb is talking about at all(but then, neither does he).

Gravitation and Spacetime by Hans C. Ohanian, pages 125-129 which you can download at
http://bookos-z1.org/book/451589/a37ce4

As the author explains the deviation from a straightline plays absolutely no role in the time delay and for the reason the straight path approximation is used thus proving that your heuristic handawaving arguement that the entire delay is from the bending of light. If you just assumed that these GRists weren't as stupid as you assumed and instead read what they're saying then you wouldn't have tobe corrected like this so often. Ohanian explains on page 125-126

Stop arguing from the authority of a fellow crank and make you own damned argument(and until you explain principle don't bother with useless math arguments). You are claiming a tenet of Relativity has been proven false(lightspeed being constant), yet you have no major news headlines(as would be the case if other scientists agreed with your interpretation of the delay). Get this, the speed of light is ALWAYS measured to be lightspeed, anywhere in spacetime. That's why it is a constant while time and space are warped and dilated around that value. There is no such thing as light in a vacuum going at any other speed, not faster, not slower. Lightspeed is built in to the reality of the Universe and you have NOT showed any valid reason to overthrow that basic tenet of Relativity. And when you do(if that ever happens)we will read your name in the article about Einstein being proven wrong on the front page of the NYT. Not in pseudo-scientific arguments on the internets.

The result (142) shows that the gravitational field of the sun decreases the velocity of propagation of light.

Yes, by bending the path that it takes through spacetime(bent paths being longer, hence the delay). The time needed for propagation between two points is longer if the path the light takes is longer due to bent spacetime. The COMPUTED velocity is APPARENTLY slower, but the REAL velocity is the same, the PATH IS JUST LONGER. This is High School physics, which you would be failing. Just the social implications of such a bombshell finding(if it were true)would be obvious in the media, yet not one peep. That tells me that it is highly unlikely that you know a damn thing about physics, that you have not shown that one of the basic tenets of Relativity is false and that you don't understand the implications to physics of what you are saying. IE, you're a crank on an ego trip, not a serious student at all. It isn't that the scientists you quote are wrong(though that may also be the case), it's that you don't understand and misinterpret what they are saying. And you will never understand physics until you learn what calling something a constant in Relativity means.

I know none of you read these things because you so hate that which proves you wrong but if you did then Ohanian goes on to explain what it means for light to slow down in the gravitational field on the bottom of page 128.

MAKE YOUR OWN DAMNED ARGUMENTS. Stop relying on your quotemined statements of dubious authors(or misunderstanding of legitimate ones). STATE CLEARLY THE MECHANISMS AND PRINCIPLES your argument is based on before you try to apply the tool of math(a drill will just as easily bore a hole in the wrong place as it will in the right one). And, for god's sake, understand Relativity BEFORE you try to blow it up. Relativity has survived over 100 years of attacks by know nothings(or know littles, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing), it has a 100% win record, you haven't even put a scratch on it. All you've done is expose your lack of understanding of it's implications.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

When my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to see what Grumpy was using as an argument to justify his claim that that light doesn’t slow down in a gravitational field.

It's not an issue so there is nothing to justify. Grumpy hasn't been arguing any facts held in controversy; on the contrary he has been offering you some sound advice for how you might acquire some of the most basic facts and evidence needed to unravel the controversy that only exists in your mind. And that's to Grumpy's credit. No need to insult him, he is posting here with the best intent and out of the generosity that goes with serving the community as an educator.

I’ve chosen to ignore everyone else’s comments because they’ve made a conscious decision to ignore all the general relativity literature on this subject because it demonstrates that all of you are wrong so your comments are not worth considering.

And yet those of us who are pointing out your mistakes have read physics at universities. For that reason alone you should be attempting to follow the dialogue. You might actually learn something.

I posted at least four different general relativity textbooks on the subject of the slowing of the speed of light.

That's obvious; you don't need to wave our textbooks at us. We took the courses and understand what they are discussing. The difference is that we passed the tests and went on to graduate -- and some of us pursued advanced degrees, teaching posts, and professional careers in various fields of science -- whereas you would have just failed the entrance exam and never made it to your first year course. The issue here is whether you wish to continue posting pseudoscience (stating false claims that only purport to come from textbooks) or not. As long as you continue to refuse to answer the questions put to you candidly -- first and foremost by admitting your ignorance of the field you pretend to have put to shame -- then you're effectively trolling. All that does is to dissuade students and experts of science who have a sincere interest in sharing facts and information from becoming members and spicing up the dialogue. For that you should be ashamed.

You ignore all of it and I have no respect for people who willingly and consciously choose to remain ignorant. I’ll have nothing to do with people who ignore facts which prove them wrong and this place is full of them.

First you must remove the tree from your own eye so that you may see to remove the splinter from mine. Therein lies the rub. You simply don't have the chops to work through any of the actual science. It exists for you as a remote concept since you never darkened the doorstep of any halls of higher education.

When I read Grumpy’s last post I saw with the rest of you that he’s confusing the deflection of light in the gravitational field with the slowing of light.

As we've told you dozens of times, the light never changes speed. Only the observer's reality changes and for that reason the observer has to be careful about the assumptions he might otherwise make if not informed by GR. There is no issue here. If you were so intent on admitting your confusion over elementary ideas I would be accusing you of manufacturing controversy. Besides it's only being manufactured in your mind. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world and the body of human knowledge we call science.

No physicist worth their salt would ever use some a hand waving argument, because they are devoid of any reason why the bending is the sole cause for the entire value for the time delay measured by Shapiro’s team.

No high school student worth his salt would pretend to make the above statement in defense of science.

From Grumpy’s response it finally became clear that the reason he, and perhaps everyone else, keeps making this mistake is because he doesn’t have the required education, understanding and the skills in the math and physics required to follow and understand all of the derivations provided in both my website and in all the references provided to him.

He who lived in a glass house of science illiteracy shouldn't cast stones, particularly at the literate folks posting here. As for your nonsense site, there is nothing of substance there, and your belief that it contains some salient information speaks reams about your poor academic preparation. As for math, the site contains nothing more that the most elementary ideas about how we characterize coordinate speed. As for science, your annotations are simply wrong. That's why you wouldn't pass the entrance exam. In science -- besides actually being able to formulate physical relationships -- you also have to be able to apply them correctly and get correct results. You've failed there. Without that ability to test your own results for correctness you have no authority for disparaging us. Except for the appearance of flaming, I welcome your insults since each one reminds me of the the phrase "there but for poor fortune go I". If you care to open a thread and tell us what happened to you during your early education, I'd be interested in following it. It's a psychological phenomenon of sufficient frequency to stoke my curiosity as to the underlying causes. I have quite a few pieces of data to render a prognosis, but it would be interesting to see you strip yourself of this thinly veiled impersonation of a scientific thinker.

Getting back to the manufactured issue that science is fundamentally broken, or that the science graduates are gravely wrong about basic material they mastered in order to earn their degrees, I should say once again that you're factually incorrect. Coordinate speed is an artifice of measurement and only can be interpreted as the true speed of light in the most egregiously invalid interpretations of any standard literature on the subject. Putting it bluntly, you're just having a mind fart.

The fact that the path was bent plays no role in the value of the measured value of the time delay because it was so small.

There is a shadow of truth to this statement but I doubt if you have begun to grasp what that truth is. As I've tried to explain several times before the apparent difference in the speed of light is based on the apparent distance to the reflector which has to be corrected for by applying the Lorentz rotation; otherwise your are merely choking on the difference between apples and oranges, all the while starving your brain of needed nutrients.

This problem had nothing to do with the bending of the path of light in the gravitational field.

All questions of this nature are intricately tied to the wrong distance measurement used to predict the expected delay before discovering there was a discrepancy which is entirely tied to bending of space in the observer's frame. Until you begin to wrap your brain around this you will continue to be chasing windmills.

And here’s the kicker – had he actually had even a little bit of an open mind he just might have read the reference to the literature I gave him because this concerned was addressed there. That’s the problem with having such a closed mind. Had Grumpy not be so closed minded then he might have read Ohanian’s text as follows:

From Gravitation and Spacetime by Hans C. Ohanian, pages 125-129 http://bookos-z1.org/book/451589/a37ce4

As the author explains the deviation from a straight-line plays no role in the time delay and for that reason the straight path approximation is used. This explains why Grumpy’s heuristic hand waving argument is so wrong. If he instead just assumed that these GRists weren't as stupid as he and everyone constantly assume them to be then you would have learned the nature of your error a long time ago. Ohanian explains on page 125-126

I’m quite aware that nobody in this forum reads the references to the general relativity literature that’s provided to you for confirmation and that’s why I’ve kill filed all of you who ignore them because I have zero time for such closed-minded people.

No you're hitting this thread in stealth mode because you've been repeatedly trumped and you simply have no recourse to promoted your frivolous ideas without pretending to ignore us. Obviously you keep coming back and responding, so it's pretty clear you've understood that you're licked. The question is, what possible strokes do you give yourself by continuing the charade? Why not just boil this down to the essential idea that busted your balls at the outset of the discussion: coordinate speed is an artifact of testing, not the physical speed of any actual phenomena.

Ohanian also goes on to explain what it means for light to slow down in the gravitational field on the bottom of page 128. But since everyone chooses to ignore what the experts say you’ll have to remain ignorant.

As we've told you repeatedly, there is nothing in the authoritative literature that reaches the conclusions you made on your bogus site. This is all either a misunderstanding stemming from your failure on a college entrance exam, or else its a manufactured controversy. In either case you are way out in left field. Evidently you've been at this for a while and have inured yourself to your own invented myths beyond rehabilitation.

Enjoy your fancy of ignoring the GR literature. See where it gets you. Lol!!!

Said the dropout to the degreed professionals and scholars.

 

[pmb]

Another thing that fails with Grumpy's attempt at proving everyone in the GR community is wrong is that the very reason why light is deflected by a gravitational field is because light is slowed down in a gravitational field. It's a common error to think that light is deflected soley because spacetime is curved so please don't make that mistake too. The fact that spacetime is curved around a star only helps to determine how much the light is deflected by.

That is to say - If light didn't slow down in a gravitational field the amount of light deflected by the sun would only be half its measured value.

In fact the very first proof that I gave of the fact that general relativity predicts light slows down in a g-field was in a uniform g-field where there is no spacetime curvature. I proved that theorem in this page

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/c_in_gfield.htm

it was one of Einstein's first derivations which predicted that light slows down in a gravitational field. It's also one of the facts that every loves to ignore. Lol!!

In a conversation with a friend of mine who's a GR pro, Øyvind Grøn (http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/personer/vit/ogron/) he described this as follows

..., and furthermore a consequence of the mechanism of light deflection as described in terms of wave fronts is:
There would be no deflection of light if the light did not slown down in a gravitational field.

It's such a shame that this forum is over run by people who claim that the all GR pros are so wrong all the time and who refuse to pick up and read a text. It's wrong to avoid reading just so you don't have to admit that you made a mistake.

 

[Grumpy]

pmb

Another thing that fails with Grumpy's attempt at proving everyone in the GR community is wrong is that the very reason why light is deflected by a gravitational field is because light is slowed down in a gravitational field. It's a common error to think that light is deflected soley because spacetime is curved so please don't make that mistake too. The fact that spacetime is curved around a star only helps to determine how much the light is deflected by.

Not only is lightspeed variant but spacetime curvature is not real? :jawdrop: Any other revelations of revisions of Relativity you want to get off your chest while you're spewing garbage?uke:

That's it, you are officially recognized as a know nothing clown not worth another second of anyone's wasted time. You obviously failed every physics class you ever attended so you made up your own.

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

Posted in error. Now deleted. Thanks.

 

[pmb]

Grumpy - I did you and the others the courtesy of letting you know that your name is in my ignore file so that I don’t see the insults and poorly thought out counter arguments as to why you and your fellow layman are right and all the GR pros are wrong. So while you can post all you want and it may very well be to the others to try to “save face” by attempting to rescue your poorly thought out arguments. But I won’t read them. I refuse to listen to laymen who think they’re right and all the experts are wrong when, not only have you already clearly demonstrated to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about with your attempts at heuristic hand waving arguments but your stead fast refusal to be brave and take the time out to actually learn the physics from the general relativity texts I’ve pointed you to.

So get a life already. Give someone a valid reason to listen to what you have to say instead of insulting all the people who actually know what they’re talking about. Sheesh!

 

[brucep]

Another thing that fails with Grumpy's attempt at proving everyone in the GR community is wrong is that the very reason why light is deflected by a gravitational field is because light is slowed down in a gravitational field. It's a common error to think that light is deflected soley because spacetime is curved so please don't make that mistake too. The fact that spacetime is curved around a star only helps to determine how much the light is deflected by.

That is to say - If light didn't slow down in a gravitational field the amount of light deflected by the sun would only be half its measured value.

In fact the very first proof that I gave of the fact that general relativity predicts light slows down in a g-field was in a uniform g-field where there is no spacetime curvature. I proved that theorem in this page

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/c_in_gfield.htm

it was one of Einstein's first derivations which predicted that light slows down in a gravitational field. It's also one of the facts that every loves to ignore. Lol!!

In a conversation with a friend of mine who's a GR pro, Øyvind Grøn (http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/personer/vit/ogron/) he described this as follows


It's such a shame that this forum is over run by people who claim that the all GR pros are so wrong all the time and who refuse to pick up and read a text. It's wrong to avoid reading just so you don't have to admit that you made a mistake.

You're so confused it's comical. For somebody who thinks they understand gravitational physics it's comical. We're not talking about how you might model a wave front. Were talking about where the information is being gathered. Local measurement or remote observation. Which one is invariant and which one is frame dependent. Your conclusion that the local speed of light is not an invariant is assinine. If your friend thinks so he's no expert on GR or what experiment says about it. I haven't been reading your crap because it's always nonsense. I noticed where Id answered your claim that there's no tick rate recorded in your derivation. If that's true you couldn't be more confused. Trying to stand on authority is what cranks do. The speed of light can be derived from the metric. The one we can derive from the Minkowski metric, and is measured in the Laboratory frame with the local wristwatch, is INVARIANT. The one we reckon from remote coordinates using the tick rate on the remote bkkpr wrist watch is frame dependent. I looked at the end of your derivation and it's the remote bookkeeper coordinates where the tick rate is recorded. So put a cork in it because your not converting anybody here to your POV. You started with the nonsense about whether folks think frame dependent forces are real or not. You know why you're asking those kind of questions pertaining to GR? Because your Newtonian perspective messes you up and keeps you looking for ways to figure out whether frame dependent forces are real or not. Who gives a crap.

For those I may have confused 'frame dependent forces' [pseudo forces] are a consequence of analyzing physics from the Newton frame of reference. Calling that collection of nonsense, at your website, General relativity is a travesty. Dummy: The path of light isn't DEflected by anything. GR uses equations of geodesic motion to predict the path of light. "Deflected" and the use of Newton's 'deflection' prediction for comparison to the prediction of GR, and measured on numerous occasions, is pathetic.

 

[Grumpy]

pmb

Go elsewhere to peddle your dreck, it just doesn't pass the laugh test here. Too many people here have too much understanding of Relativity and it's implications for non-sense like slow light to get by, no matter how big a crowd of kooks you gather around you, or how many quote mine tailings you amass. Don't go away mad, hell, don't go away at all, but stop spewing non-sense. I TAUGHT High School level physics for 30 years and while I don't know everything, nor do I know anything perfectly, the CONSTANT of lightspeed is basic, bottom line fact.

Grumpy

 

[pmb]

(sigh). some people just don't listen, do they!

 

[exchemist]

(sigh). some people just don't listen, do they!

That, I think, is something we can all agree on!

 

[brucep]

(sigh). some people just don't listen, do they!

Stupidism: The right to be stupid and to remain so indefinitely.

 

[Grumpy]

brucep

Stupidism: The right to be stupid and to remain so indefinitely.

Can often degenerate into Terminal Stupidity, the condition where you remain stupid until you die, closely associated with Crankism, the inability to let go of your mistakes, often leading to claiming all others just don't understand your brilliance, that if they would just listen....

Grumpy

 

[Motor Daddy]

I TAUGHT High School level physics for 30 years and while I don't know everything, nor do I know anything perfectly, the CONSTANT of lightspeed is basic, bottom line fact.

Grumpy

I admire you for your 30 year teaching career. You are also correct that it is a bottom line fact that the speed of light is constant, it has to be, by definition.

Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

If you understand what that definition means then you have to understand that distance and time are bound together by definition when speaking about light.

EVEN IF light were to travel at a different rate in space, 1 second is always 299,792,458 meters. By definition it is impossible for light speed to be any different than 299,792,458 m/s. IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[nimbus]

Pmb, as I mentioned before, one of the GR pro’s you quoted , Wolfgang Rindler, is also quoted in ‘Exploring Black Holes’ First edition page 4-9.

Newton “invented” the force of gravity to explain the motion of the planets. Einstein “invented” curved spacetime and the geodesic law; in his theory there is no force of gravity.

My bold

Since you have a page on your site titled “Gravitational Force on a Falling Particle“

The gravitational force on a particle in free fall is given by…

I take it you disagree with the person your calling a pro ? So, will you take your own advice and be e-mailing that author about his ‘mistake’? You told grumpy to e-mail the authors.
So that the link works, put on the www Dot

home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/force_falling_particle.htm
By asking a straight forward question I realise I risk being put on your ignore list.

 

[rpenner]

nimbus,
Force is a term of art.

In a geometrical theory about the manifold of space time, there can be no gravitational forces. Particles travel along the straightest possible lines for such a manifold, the geodesics.

In an algebraic description of the same physical theory in terms of a specific set of generally applicable coordinates will have particles undergoing non-zero coordinate accelerations and by Newton's definition, $$\vec{F} = m \vec{a}$$, this is a force.

Two descriptions of the motion of the same particle in the same theory, so which one is correct? Whichever best conveys what you are choosing to teach.

 

[brucep]

nimbus,
Force is a term of art.

In a geometrical theory about the manifold of space time, there can be no gravitational forces. Particles travel along the straightest possible lines for such a manifold, the geodesics.

In an algebraic description of the same physical theory in terms of a specific set of generally applicable coordinates will have particles undergoing non-zero coordinate accelerations and by Newton's definition, $$\vec{F} = m \vec{a}$$, this is a force.

Two descriptions of the motion of the same particle in the same theory, so which one is correct? Whichever best conveys what you are choosing to teach.

The one that the g_field is derived from. The geometrical theory. Why would you want to show students of GR that the natural [geodesic] path can be algebraically interpreted to be the result of delta tidal forces? The derived equations of motion don't include that interpretation. Way easier to understand. I don't think Rindler would be using that interpretation to answer any questions that have been brought up in this thread. It's the physics of GR not Newton.

 

[rpenner]

But if you want to compare the physics of GR and Newton, then you have to use the coordinates of Newton where geodesics don't have the coordinate description of "straight lines." GR doesn't care about good coordinates versus bad coordinates, so you get to pick the best coordinates for what you are doing. (There will be significant tradeoffs in the amount of algebra you need to do to get the same geometric result, however.)

But "geometry only, no forces" versus "coordinates and coordinate-specific forces" is a debate over definitions and mathematical conventions that don't ultimately matter to the physics.

A Newtonian example is playing billiards on a Merry-Go-Round. It doesn't matter to the physics if you work in a rotating coordinate frame and describe the physics of the balls with fictitious Coriolis and centrifugal forces, or work with irrotational coordinates and describe the motion of the table about the axis, both methods are based on the same physics and give the same answer (with different amounts of work).

 

[brucep]

But if you want to compare the physics of GR and Newton, then you have to use the coordinates of Newton where geodesics don't have the coordinate description of "straight lines." GR doesn't care about good coordinates versus bad coordinates, so you get to pick the best coordinates for what you are doing. (There will be significant tradeoffs in the amount of algebra you need to do to get the same geometric result, however.)

But "geometry only, no forces" versus "coordinates and coordinate-specific forces" is a debate over definitions and mathematical conventions that don't ultimately matter to the physics.

A Newtonian example is playing billiards on a Merry-Go-Round. It doesn't matter to the physics if you work in a rotating coordinate frame and describe the physics of the balls with fictitious Coriolis and centrifugal forces, or work with irrotational coordinates and describe the motion of the table about the axis, both methods are based on the same physics and give the same answer (with different amounts of work).

I agree with everything you said. Been there done that. In the case we're talking about I don't think it says anything about the physics of GR to do it that way. The natural path is inertial. When you describe the natural phenomena that way it's the result of delta tidal forces. I'm not going to do anything but learn stuff from you so I'm not trying to be argumentative. I had to go pick up our Honeybaked ham [umm good] and while on the road Teddy cockapoo. and I, thought about it and decided which experiment we might want to use that method. LIGO, where we want to know how the test mass moves as a result of the gravitational wave moving through the experiment.

 

[pmb]

I TAUGHT High School level physics for 30 years and while I don't know everything, nor do I know anything perfectly, ..

Ain't that the truth!

..the CONSTANT of lightspeed is basic, bottom line fact.

Fact my rear end!!!! That's totally bogus and you know it! I prove it to you countless times now. It's amazing how you can read just the opposite of what you thought from the research that was done and ignore it. Irwin Shapiro states in his paper that it slows down. What more do you need? Do you need God himself to scream it in your ears?

You're so wrong its scary. That only applies to special relativity, not general relativity. Every single GR expert that exists knows that fact. You simply can't get this through your freshman physics understanding of special relativity (SR) to grasp this. Einstein proved that wrong only six years after he published SR but you don't know that very very very famous fact, do you?

From On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light by Albert Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. Einstein calculated the speed of light in a uniform gravitational field and got the result which everyone who understands relativity (which does not include Grumpy and his fellow ignorant layman) knows as a fact

If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c[sub]0[/sub], then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Phi will be given by the relation

c = c[sub]0[/sub](1 + Phi/c[sup]2[/sup])

The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.

This means that in GR it only holds locally, i.e. when Phi = 0. Sheesh! And all you can do is repeat what you know from SR and keep on feeding these layman misinformation. You taught high school physics because you don't know physics well enough to have taught it at the university level. You prove that every time you repeat this misinformation.

This has been demonstrated to you so many times now and cited in professional general relativity textbooks and sources ranging from Einstein to Taylor and Wheeler to Irwin Shapiro to Hans Ohanian to Øyvind Grøn etc etc etc that it's clear that you just don't have the ability to comprehend it. You've proven to every single person who's read this thread that not only can't you read them but that you have refused to read them and thus you've made the conscious decision to remain ignorant on this fact. And since you refuse to read the GR texts I've referenced it's also now clear that you're not skilled enough to even learn the correct physics in order to comprhend it. No wonder you keep making this same terrible mistake.


I fail to understand why you refuse to learn this very simple fact. There are plenty of GR texts out there which explain this not to mention the research papers by Shapiro that I already told you about. You had to ignore them because they prove that you've been feeding people misinformation for the last 30 years. Shame on you!! All you have to do is contact a local university and ask to speak to someone who understands general relativity. But you won't, will you? You will choose to remain ignorant and feed people lies. Shame on you!

 

[pmb]

nimbus,
Force is a term of art.

In a geometrical theory about the manifold of space time, there can be no gravitational forces. Particles travel along the straightest possible lines for such a manifold, the geodesics.

That's not quite true. It's true that the 4-force on a particle in free-fall is zero. For that reason it can be said that gravity is not a 4-force. However Einstein's intention was always to argue that the gravitational force was an inertial force. Inertial force is defined here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/inertial_force.htm

In general relativity there is a well defined expression for the gravitational force. It's given in The Theory of Relativity by C. Møller. See page 210 where you can see section 110 Momentum and mass of a particle. Gravitational force. It gives the expression for the gravitational force in GR. If you don't have access to that text then see
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_force.htm

Here's an example. I calculated the gravitational force on a particle in a uniform gravitational field. It's exactly as you'd expect even for strong field and high speed motion!
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/uniform_force.htm

Then I found the gravitational force on a falling particle. See
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/force_falling_particle.htm

Notice that the force is velocity dependant as the definition suggests.This is a well known fact in GR. Ohanian also notes this fact of the gravitational force in his GR text Gravitation and Spacetime

The definition is the same as it should be. This is also covered in Basic Relativity by Richard A. Mould, Springer Verlag, 1994 where you can find the same definition.

That definition is useful when you want to find things like the weight of a moving body which I found here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/weight_moving_body.htm