"sue jahn" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
...
|
| "sue jahn" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
| | Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
| geometry of
| | GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
| presence
| | of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to
| energy?
| |
| | --
| | Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic
field,
| two
| | unbound field effects
| | http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| | Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely.
Ooh
| | ah.{:-)
| |
| |
| | Einstein discovered that there is a relationship between mass,
gravity
| | and spacetime. Mass distorts spacetime, causing it to curve. Gravity
| | can be described as motion caused in curved spacetime .
|
| This I have a problem with as in my book curvature is the recipe for
energy
| although very low in most cases of the gravity field.
| I think that was the theorist's *intent*.
|
| |
| | [no mention of energy there]
| |
| | Thus, the primary result from general relativity is that gravitation
is a
| | purely geometric consequence of the properties of spacetime.
|
| This is point when I become the HULK {:-)
| Me too. Ken S. Tucker gave a good description of fourspace where
| he reminds us it is not isotropic and we are allways moving
| ****in fourspace****
| which is NOT where we ride bikes or oggle skirts.
|
| We don't do thoses things in Hilbert's space either.
|
| Note that space-time cannot be regarded as a straightforward
generalization of ...
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html ©2005
Google
|
|
|
| | Special relativity destroyed classical physics view of absolute
| | space and time, general relativity dismantles the idea that spacetime
| | is described by Euclidean or plane geometry.
|
| Yes Euclidean is fine for A4 paper AFAIK, perhaps if you are sloppy
about
| detail {:-)
|
| It seems that Maxwell cannot radiate in Euclidean space so the Lorenz
| gauge and 4D is used to patch him up. Then Maxwell can radiate but we
| have to be in continuous motion.
|
| Just remember it can work in Coulomb 3+1, Weber will radiate, and
| we don't have to be constantly on the move. :-)
| Too much water over the dam to start over so ya have to learn severl
| paradigms.
| http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
| YIKES!
|
| | In this sense, general
| | relativity is a field theory, relating Newton's law of gravity to the
| | field nature of spacetime, which can be curved..
| | http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_cen...res/lec07.html
| |
| |
| | this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to energy?
| |
| | The *intent* is reflected in much of the work. But the proof is
| | in the pudding. So much of the convolutions with time (energy's
| | second closest relative ) are to effect Lorenz gauge invariance it is
| | hard to see in the theory or any real world application of the theory
| | a definite relation between gravity and energy.
| |
|
| Maybe I have misunderstood it but the only thing I see that is invariant
| about the Lorenz gauge is the measurement of c within and wrt a
particular
| frame.
| Well if you stop beating the holy #!%&@ out of
| Bill Hobba maybe he will explain it. ;o)

When he claims he created length and duration and then called it geometry I
cant help myself from responding in like fashion but I do know he must know
a lot but he tends to use it like a mallet and I resent being his chisel so
I turn myself sharp edge up and so how his mallet likes that {:-)

|
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ce&btnG= Goog
le+Search
|
|
|
| | Some might cite cosmic expansion but I regard it as conjucture
| | die hard skeptic that I am.
|
| If there is a cosmic expansion of space then there may be a
corresponding
| contraction of time if we wish to maintain the constancy of the
measurement
| of c and the conservation of energy within this cosmos.
|
| "All I Know Is What I Read In The Papers"
| --Will Rogers
|
| I suppose expansion implies some energy. I know if you
| take in too much matter and exercise too little you will expand.
|
|
| Size Bust (Cup)Waist HipsEquivalent Dress Size
|
| 1 X 39 - 42 31 - 34 41 - 44 16 - 18
| 2 X 42 - 45 34 - 37 44 - 47 20 - 22
| 3 X 45 - 48 37 - 40 47 - 50 22 - 24
| 4 X 48 - 51 40 - 43 50 - 53 24 - 26
| Hmmm E =mcc=sqrt(c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2),
|
| YEP! Mass is conserved, usually near the hips. ;o)

You can come and visit my harem any time with that range of sizes.Do you do
them all on the same day ?
I'll bounce some of that fat off your hips if you like. {:-)

|
| Sue...
|
|
|
|
| |
| | Sue...
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|

"Significant Zero" wrote in message ...

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
...
|
| "sue jahn" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
| | Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
| geometry of
| | GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
| presence
| | of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to
| energy?
| |
| | --
| | Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic
field,
| two
| | unbound field effects
| | http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| | Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely.
Ooh
| | ah.{:-)
| |
| |
| | Einstein discovered that there is a relationship between mass,
gravity
| | and spacetime. Mass distorts spacetime, causing it to curve. Gravity
| | can be described as motion caused in curved spacetime .
|
| This I have a problem with as in my book curvature is the recipe for
energy
| although very low in most cases of the gravity field.
| I think that was the theorist's *intent*.
|
| |
| | [no mention of energy there]
| |
| | Thus, the primary result from general relativity is that gravitation
is a
| | purely geometric consequence of the properties of spacetime.
|
| This is point when I become the HULK {:-)
| Me too. Ken S. Tucker gave a good description of fourspace where
| he reminds us it is not isotropic and we are allways moving
| ****in fourspace****
| which is NOT where we ride bikes or oggle skirts.
|
| We don't do thoses things in Hilbert's space either.
|
| Note that space-time cannot be regarded as a straightforward
generalization of ...
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html ©2005
Google
|
|
|
| | Special relativity destroyed classical physics view of absolute
| | space and time, general relativity dismantles the idea that spacetime
| | is described by Euclidean or plane geometry.
|
| Yes Euclidean is fine for A4 paper AFAIK, perhaps if you are sloppy
about
| detail {:-)
|
| It seems that Maxwell cannot radiate in Euclidean space so the Lorenz
| gauge and 4D is used to patch him up. Then Maxwell can radiate but we
| have to be in continuous motion.
|
| Just remember it can work in Coulomb 3+1, Weber will radiate, and
| we don't have to be constantly on the move. :-)
| Too much water over the dam to start over so ya have to learn severl
| paradigms.
| http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
| YIKES!
|
| | In this sense, general
| | relativity is a field theory, relating Newton's law of gravity to the
| | field nature of spacetime, which can be curved..
| | http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_cen...res/lec07.html
| |
| |
| | this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to energy?
| |
| | The *intent* is reflected in much of the work. But the proof is
| | in the pudding. So much of the convolutions with time (energy's
| | second closest relative ) are to effect Lorenz gauge invariance it is
| | hard to see in the theory or any real world application of the theory
| | a definite relation between gravity and energy.
| |
|
| Maybe I have misunderstood it but the only thing I see that is invariant
| about the Lorenz gauge is the measurement of c within and wrt a
particular
| frame.
| Well if you stop beating the holy #!%&@ out of
| Bill Hobba maybe he will explain it. ;o)

When he claims he created length and duration and then called it geometry I
cant help myself from responding in like fashion but I do know he must know
a lot but he tends to use it like a mallet and I resent being his chisel so
I turn myself sharp edge up and so how his mallet likes that {:-)

You've more patience than I.

|
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ce&btnG= Goog
le+Search
|
|
|
| | Some might cite cosmic expansion but I regard it as conjucture
| | die hard skeptic that I am.
|
| If there is a cosmic expansion of space then there may be a
corresponding
| contraction of time if we wish to maintain the constancy of the
measurement
| of c and the conservation of energy within this cosmos.
|
| "All I Know Is What I Read In The Papers"
| --Will Rogers
|
| I suppose expansion implies some energy. I know if you
| take in too much matter and exercise too little you will expand.
|
|
| Size Bust (Cup)Waist HipsEquivalent Dress Size
|
| 1 X 39 - 42 31 - 34 41 - 44 16 - 18
| 2 X 42 - 45 34 - 37 44 - 47 20 - 22
| 3 X 45 - 48 37 - 40 47 - 50 22 - 24
| 4 X 48 - 51 40 - 43 50 - 53 24 - 26
| Hmmm E =mcc=sqrt(c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2),
|
| YEP! Mass is conserved, usually near the hips. ;o)

You can come and visit my harem any time with that range of sizes.Do you do
them all on the same day ?
I'll bounce some of that fat off your hips if you like. {:-)
http://www.pc-parents.com/images/IMG_3559%20web.jpg

Sue...


|
| Sue...
|
|
|
|
| |
| | Sue...
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|

| http://www.pc-parents.com/images/IMG_3559%20web.jpg

Thanks a bunch, no more jokes for you me gal.{:-(

--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p+p or
(m*-v)(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)(m*+c^2) =g?

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Significant Zero wrote:
| Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
geometry of
| GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
presence
| of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to
energy?
|
| You have too many unacknowledged puns in there for your statement to
| make sense (e.g. on "deformation", "length", "duration", ...). And there
| are undefined phrases in there, too ("deformation of length and
| duration", "presence of mass", "aspect and equivalence to energy").

Thanks for the reply Tom but would it not be more constructive and useful to
ask me what I mean if you don't understand ? Also is it necessary to so over
complicate something as to make any determination about it impossible.

|
| In GR there is a definite relationship between the metric of spacetime
| and the energy-momentum tensor of matter. The metric determines the
| geometry, and the energy-momentum tensor is the density of mass, energy,
| and momentum in spacetime.

I think these statements indicate an incorrect conceptualisation of the
physical facts behind the theory.

| But note there are manifolds in GR that have
| curvature but no mass (e.g. the electrovacuum manifolds, the
| gravitational-wave manifolds, the geon manifolds, etc.).

As far as I understand it these manifold are not fully experimentally
confirmed.

|
| I think your statement is headed in the right direction, but is phrased
| too poorly to know for sure.
|
| As J.A.Wheeler said, "Space tells matter how to move, and matter tells
| space how to curve." But like most sound bites this is not a precise
| statement of GR.
|
|
| Tom Roberts

"Significant Zero" wrote in message
t...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
| Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
geometry
| of
| GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
presence
| of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to
| energy?
|
| If what you are trying to say is do gravitational fields have energy -
then
| I would say yes with caveats. Energy in GR is a rather slippery concept
due
| to the fact that energy is the conserved Noether charge related to time
| symmetry of the lagrangian - it is rather difficult to define such when
that
| symmetry is lacking due to space-time curvature - see the FAQ -

Thanks Bill that is the energy definition that I have some disagreement
with
and to a large degree is what much of my postings are in dispute with and
are grouping for a more complete, accurate and satisfying definition. My
position is that all energy is a function of relative states of length and
time deformation with the use of the word deformation not implying that
any
intrinsic force is present in this deformation. The energy being present
due
to the relationship of different length/duration states which from your
previous posting I thing you violently oppose {:-) .

For your definition to make sense you need to do a few things. First
express it mathematically so it can be used to make quantitative
predictions. Secondly show it agrees with the current definition in all
cases where such agreement is possible. And thirdly show why your edition
is superior. You have not even done the first bit.


| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html
|

Maybe I don't understand this

Unfortunately that seems likely.

but it seems to me to have more conceptual holes than a
moth eaten jumper

Then detail those supposed holes.

but if you are prepared to pick it to bits with me I'll
give it a try, you may be able to educate me out of my dispute but I am
hard
to educate about something that is itself in dispute.{:-)

Ok. Just make you objections specific - not some vague semantic waffle.

Bill


| Bill
|
|
| --
| Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field,
two
| unbound field effects
| http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
| ah.{:-)
|
|
|
|

"Significant Zero" wrote in message
...

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Significant Zero wrote:
| Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
geometry of
| GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
presence
| of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to
energy?
|
| You have too many unacknowledged puns in there for your statement to
| make sense (e.g. on "deformation", "length", "duration", ...). And there
| are undefined phrases in there, too ("deformation of length and
| duration", "presence of mass", "aspect and equivalence to energy").

Thanks for the reply Tom but would it not be more constructive and useful
to
ask me what I mean if you don't understand ? Also is it necessary to so
over
complicate something as to make any determination about it impossible.

|
| In GR there is a definite relationship between the metric of spacetime
| and the energy-momentum tensor of matter. The metric determines the
| geometry, and the energy-momentum tensor is the density of mass, energy,
| and momentum in spacetime.

I think these statements indicate an incorrect conceptualisation of the
physical facts behind the theory.

They follow immediately from GR. When physicists (and other such as
mathematicians for that matter) first come across GR a freqent reaction is
how can such a theory be so beautiful. The reason is it elegantly follows
from some very simple assumptions. Exactly which of those assumptions that
lead to GR do you refute? Or do you not understand the theory well enough
to know what assumptions it is based upon? If that is the case then I
humbly suggest you are not in a position to know if the physical facts are
correct or not.

Bill


| But note there are manifolds in GR that have
| curvature but no mass (e.g. the electrovacuum manifolds, the
| gravitational-wave manifolds, the geon manifolds, etc.).

As far as I understand it these manifold are not fully experimentally
confirmed.

|
| I think your statement is headed in the right direction, but is phrased
| too poorly to know for sure.
|
| As J.A.Wheeler said, "Space tells matter how to move, and matter tells
| space how to curve." But like most sound bites this is not a precise
| statement of GR.
|
|
| Tom Roberts

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| t...
|
| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| | ...
| | Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
| geometry
| | of
| | GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
| presence
| | of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to
| | energy?
| |
| | If what you are trying to say is do gravitational fields have
nergy -
| then
| | I would say yes with caveats. Energy in GR is a rather slippery
concept
| due
| | to the fact that energy is the conserved Noether charge related to
time
| | symmetry of the lagrangian - it is rather difficult to define such
when
| that
| | symmetry is lacking due to space-time curvature - see the FAQ -
|
| Thanks Bill that is the energy definition that I have some disagreement
| with
| and to a large degree is what much of my postings are in dispute with
and
| are grouping for a more complete, accurate and satisfying definition. My
| position is that all energy is a function of relative states of length
and
| time deformation with the use of the word deformation not implying that
| any
| intrinsic force is present in this deformation. The energy being present
| due
| to the relationship of different length/duration states which from
your
| previous posting I thing you violently oppose {:-) .
|
| For your definition to make sense you need to do a few things. First
| express it mathematically so it can be used to make quantitative
| predictions. Secondly show it agrees with the current definition in all
| cases where such agreement is possible. And thirdly show why your edition
| is superior. You have not even done the first bit.
|

Thanks for the advice Bill. I was aware of what I may need to do to convince
you that your view might be improved by some subtle changes was a mountain
to climb but as I had the rest of my life, so I thought I'd give it a go{:-)
I am on the first bit trying to familiarise myself with your notation OK
{:-)

|
| | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html
| |
|
| Maybe I don't understand this
|
| Unfortunately that seems likely.

That crack is clearly an attempt by somebody with uncertainties to try and
gain some sort of psychological advantage as to the accuracy of the document
in question. Do you agree with this Bill ? I wrote 'Maybe I don't understand
this' to indicate that I would try and have an open mind about it. I may be
able to close my teeth on your head if I need to at any time Bill so lets
not bite each other untill we need to Eh?{:-) and keep it amusing when you
need to and then I might not bite so hard back ?.

|
| but it seems to me to have more conceptual holes than a
| moth eaten jumper
|
| Then detail those supposed holes.

First Hole

It starts with a semantic hole that I know you love debating about 'energy
and conserved' that it never seems to address except with clichés. You might
like to do better ?

Second hole

'In flat spacetime (the backdrop for SR).....'

It then degenerates into some semantic waffle to presumable come out the
other side with curved space-time that is not flat.
Hold on clarifying this until you have dealt with 'energy and conserved'

|
| but if you are prepared to pick it to bits with me I'll
| give it a try, you may be able to educate me out of my dispute but I am
| hard
| to educate about something that is itself in dispute.{:-)
|
| Ok. Just make you objections specific - not some vague semantic waffle.

See the first hole introduced by the paper you linked

The stuff you presented in your link is vague semantic waffle IMHO its not
me thats introducing its you. In the header post I made my view as plain as
I could at that moment and asked for comments by posting it you then
referred my to a load of semantic waffle as presumable my posting did not
have enough semantic waffle in it. ?

|
| Bill
|
|
| | Bill
| |
| |
| | --
| | Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic
field,
| two
| | unbound field effects
| | http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| | Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely.
Ooh
| | ah.{:-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | Significant Zero wrote:
| | Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
| geometry of
| | GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
| presence
| | of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to
| energy?
| |
| | You have too many unacknowledged puns in there for your statement to
| | make sense (e.g. on "deformation", "length", "duration", ...). And
there
| | are undefined phrases in there, too ("deformation of length and
| | duration", "presence of mass", "aspect and equivalence to energy").
|
| Thanks for the reply Tom but would it not be more constructive and
useful
| to
| ask me what I mean if you don't understand ? Also is it necessary to so
| over
| complicate something as to make any determination about it impossible.
|
| |
| | In GR there is a definite relationship between the metric of spacetime
| | and the energy-momentum tensor of matter. The metric determines the
| | geometry, and the energy-momentum tensor is the density of mass,
energy,
| | and momentum in spacetime.
|
| I think these statements indicate an incorrect conceptualisation of the
| physical facts behind the theory.
|
| They follow immediately from GR. When physicists (and other such as
| mathematicians for that matter) first come across GR a freqent reaction is
| how can such a theory be so beautiful.

I am not impressed by the physics (except from a very limited
perspective{:-) accuracy of adoration as its a common complaint of young
girls. {:-)

| The reason is it elegantly follows
| from some very simple assumptions.

State the assumptions as you see them and If I feel they are incorrect I
will then refute them with you ?

| Exactly which of those assumptions that
| lead to GR do you refute? Or do you not understand the theory well enough
| to know what assumptions it is based upon? If that is the case then I
| humbly suggest you are not in a position to know if the physical facts are
| correct or not.

You have never appeared humble on this group to my knowledge Bill, sarcastic
and pompous yes but not humble {:-)
You reasong is wild man.{:-)

|
| Bill
|
|
| | But note there are manifolds in GR that have
| | curvature but no mass (e.g. the electrovacuum manifolds, the
| | gravitational-wave manifolds, the geon manifolds, etc.).
|
| As far as I understand it these manifold are not fully experimentally
| confirmed.
|
| |
| | I think your statement is headed in the right direction, but is
phrased
| | too poorly to know for sure.
| |
| | As J.A.Wheeler said, "Space tells matter how to move, and matter tells
| | space how to curve." But like most sound bites this is not a precise
| | statement of GR.
| |
| |
| | Tom Roberts
|
|
|
|

"Significant Zero" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | Significant Zero wrote:
| | Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
| geometry of
| | GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
| presence
| | of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence
to
| energy?
| |
| | You have too many unacknowledged puns in there for your statement to
| | make sense (e.g. on "deformation", "length", "duration", ...). And
there
| | are undefined phrases in there, too ("deformation of length and
| | duration", "presence of mass", "aspect and equivalence to energy").
|
| Thanks for the reply Tom but would it not be more constructive and
useful
| to
| ask me what I mean if you don't understand ? Also is it necessary to
so
| over
| complicate something as to make any determination about it impossible.
|
| |
| | In GR there is a definite relationship between the metric of
spacetime
| | and the energy-momentum tensor of matter. The metric determines the
| | geometry, and the energy-momentum tensor is the density of mass,
energy,
| | and momentum in spacetime.
|
| I think these statements indicate an incorrect conceptualisation of
the
| physical facts behind the theory.
|
| They follow immediately from GR. When physicists (and other such as
| mathematicians for that matter) first come across GR a freqent reaction
is
| how can such a theory be so beautiful.

I am not impressed by the physics (except from a very limited
perspective{:-) accuracy of adoration as its a common complaint of young
girls. {:-)

I strongly suspect it is because you do not understand it - nothing you have
written shows you have more than a pop sci acquaintance with physical
concepts nor a desire to move beyond that. For example what is the
generalization of the Newtonian potential in GR? And if you can not answer
such basic questions why do you think you can form a valid view? But having
engaged you many times it is obvious understanding physics is not your real
aim - it is to be an armchair philosopher who likes to believe his tortured
semantics has value - it does not. And the reason you do not post on a
philosophy forum is that they are likely to tell you in no uncertian terms
your ideas do not float. By posting here you can claim physicisits have got
it wrong at the base and you have seen a higher truth.

Bill


| The reason is it elegantly follows
| from some very simple assumptions.

State the assumptions as you see them and If I feel they are incorrect I
will then refute them with you ?

| Exactly which of those assumptions that
| lead to GR do you refute? Or do you not understand the theory well
enough
| to know what assumptions it is based upon? If that is the case then I
| humbly suggest you are not in a position to know if the physical facts
are
| correct or not.

You have never appeared humble on this group to my knowledge Bill,
sarcastic
and pompous yes but not humble {:-)
You reasong is wild man.{:-)

|
| Bill
|
|
| | But note there are manifolds in GR that have
| | curvature but no mass (e.g. the electrovacuum manifolds, the
| | gravitational-wave manifolds, the geon manifolds, etc.).
|
| As far as I understand it these manifold are not fully experimentally
| confirmed.
|
| |
| | I think your statement is headed in the right direction, but is
phrased
| | too poorly to know for sure.
| |
| | As J.A.Wheeler said, "Space tells matter how to move, and matter
tells
| | space how to curve." But like most sound bites this is not a precise
| | statement of GR.
| |
| |
| | Tom Roberts
|
|
|
|

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| | "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | Significant Zero wrote:
| | | Would anybody that understands GR dispute the statement that the
| | geometry of
| | | GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under
| | presence
| | | of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence
| to
| | energy?
| | |
| | | You have too many unacknowledged puns in there for your statement
to
| | | make sense (e.g. on "deformation", "length", "duration", ...). And
| there
| | | are undefined phrases in there, too ("deformation of length and
| | | duration", "presence of mass", "aspect and equivalence to
energy").
| |
| | Thanks for the reply Tom but would it not be more constructive and
| useful
| | to
| | ask me what I mean if you don't understand ? Also is it necessary to
| so
| | over
| | complicate something as to make any determination about it
impossible.
| |
| | |
| | | In GR there is a definite relationship between the metric of
| spacetime
| | | and the energy-momentum tensor of matter. The metric determines
the
| | | geometry, and the energy-momentum tensor is the density of mass,
| energy,
| | | and momentum in spacetime.
| |
| | I think these statements indicate an incorrect conceptualisation of
| the
| | physical facts behind the theory.
| |
| | They follow immediately from GR. When physicists (and other such as
| | mathematicians for that matter) first come across GR a freqent
reaction
| is
| | how can such a theory be so beautiful.
|
| I am not impressed by the physics (except from a very limited
| perspective{:-) accuracy of adoration as its a common complaint of young
| girls. {:-)
|
| I strongly suspect it is because you do not understand it - nothing you
have
| written shows you have more than a pop sci acquaintance with physical
| concepts nor a desire to move beyond that.

Your bigoted opinion Bill.{:-)

| For example what is the
| generalization of the Newtonian potential in GR?

A momentum 4-vector. Is that the reply you were looking for ?

| And if you can not answer
| such basic questions why do you think you can form a valid view?

Clearly I must be answering your questions incorrectly from your pov for you
to feel I have no valid point of view. Your a bit bigoted don't you think
Bill ? Try answering some of my question without resorting to insults,
bigotry or clichés and we might start to communicate in a relevant to the
physics of relativity way.

| But having
| engaged you many times it is obvious understanding physics is not your
real
| aim - it is to be an armchair philosopher who likes to believe his
tortured
| semantics has value - it does not.

Its a shame that at your age you have not yet learned that the meaning of
words is very pertinent to the understanding of something.

| And the reason you do not post on a
| philosophy forum is that they are likely to tell you in no uncertian terms
| your ideas do not float.

I doubt that they would understand or be prepared to understand the physics
of my philosophy as they just enjoy hand waving and the introduction of
physical reality is a disruptive inconvenience, a bit similar to how you
respond to my posts, so to jump into forum of Bill Hobbas would be a bit
like
jumping into a snake pit and even if I could be sure of surviving the bites
it
might be a bit unpleasant and unproductive. You will do for the time being
Bill {:-)

| By posting here you can claim physicisits have got
| it wrong at the base and you have seen a higher truth.

Lower truth Bill, lower {:-) also smaller perhaps, maybe, I wonder.

|
| Bill
|
|
| | The reason is it elegantly follows
| | from some very simple assumptions.
|
| State the assumptions as you see them and If I feel they are incorrect I
| will then refute them with you ?
|
| | Exactly which of those assumptions that
| | lead to GR do you refute? Or do you not understand the theory well
| enough
| | to know what assumptions it is based upon? If that is the case then I
| | humbly suggest you are not in a position to know if the physical facts
| are
| | correct or not.
|
| You have never appeared humble on this group to my knowledge Bill,
| sarcastic
| and pompous yes but not humble {:-)
| You reasong is wild man.{:-)
|
| |
| | Bill
| |
| |
| | | But note there are manifolds in GR that have
| | | curvature but no mass (e.g. the electrovacuum manifolds, the
| | | gravitational-wave manifolds, the geon manifolds, etc.).
| |
| | As far as I understand it these manifold are not fully
experimentally
| | confirmed.
| |
| | |
| | | I think your statement is headed in the right direction, but is
| phrased
| | | too poorly to know for sure.
| | |
| | | As J.A.Wheeler said, "Space tells matter how to move, and matter
| tells
| | | space how to curve." But like most sound bites this is not a
precise
| | | statement of GR.
| | |
| | |
| | | Tom Roberts

--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p+p or
(m*-v)(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)(m*+c^2) =g?