Significant Zero wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| ...
snip
|
| 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.{:-)

http://slam.canoe.ca/SlamWrestlingGa...ar4_mideon.jpg

Oh! I love rasselin'. Put some some more mud on the mat
and toss in a couple of chairs. o)

Sue...

snip

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Significant Zero wrote:
| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| | ...
| snip
| |
| | 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.{:-)
|
| http://slam.canoe.ca/SlamWrestlingGa...ar4_mideon.jpg
|
| Oh! I love rasselin'. Put some some more mud on the mat
| and toss in a couple of chairs. o)
|
| Sue...

What mixed sex mud rasseling it must heaven on mud {:-)
You take the green corner I'll take the blue which leaves red for Bill and
the purple piles for any others that want to join in.{:-)

Ding!
First round, blue takes his shorts off.... blue wins.{:-)
Second round ....?

|
| snip
|

"Significant Zero" wrote in message
.. .

"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 ?

Wrong. Learn the basics before criticizing a theory you obviously know
nothing about. The answer is the metric.

Bill


| 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?

Significant Zero wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| 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.

Of course not! Those manifolds are solutions of the GR field equation,
but are models of imaginary worlds, and have no relevance to the world
we inhabit. That world is the only one experimentally accessible.


Tom Roberts

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| .. .
|
| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
| ...
snip
| | For example what is the
| | generalization of the Newtonian potential in GR?
|
| A momentum 4-vector. Is that the reply you were looking for ?
|
| Wrong. Learn the basics before criticizing a theory you obviously know
| nothing about. The answer is the metric.
|
| Bill

I'm sorry that your application of the meaning of words is so different to
mine, you clearly write a different language to me using the same notation.
Your claimed answer to your question was so trivial and incomplete that I
had no idea that was the level of reply you were after.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/10/6/013/

| --
| 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:
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | 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.
|
| Of course not! Those manifolds are solutions of the GR field equation,
| but are models of imaginary worlds,

You have gone so far out of my sight with that statement Tom that I'm not
sure that we are writing the same language.
To test or provide solutions to a theory with models that have no base in
physical reality and are untestable seem, other than for interlectual
stimulation a pure wast of time and a reciepe for confusion.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/UNREG/b11T.M...-link=3580837/
0264-9381/7/3/008

although I'm not sure the above link has no base in physical reality.
Why would you write that 'the electrovacuum manifolds''have curvature but no
mass' when from my pov an electric field in vacuum may have no mass but be
curved due to the charged masses producing the field makes that statement
both inaccurate and obtuse

| and have no relevance to the world
| we inhabit. That world is the only one experimentally accessible.
|
|
| Tom Roberts

Significant Zero wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. ..
| Of course not! Those manifolds are solutions of the GR field equation,
| but are models of imaginary worlds,

You have gone so far out of my sight with that statement Tom that I'm not
sure that we are writing the same language.

Apparently so.


To test or provide solutions to a theory with models that have no base in
physical reality and are untestable seem, other than for interlectual
stimulation a pure wast of time and a reciepe for confusion.

But that's what theoretical physicists do most of the time! This is not
a "waste of time" or "recipe for confusion", this is an essential
learning experience.

For example: in Newtonian mechanics, one can model a small object
orbiting a larger spherical object. But there's nowhere in the universe
you could find such a system. In GR one can model a
spherically-symmetric static manifold (Schwarzschild spacetime), but
there's nowhere in the universe one could apply that. Etc. -- the list
is endless. Without examining such unphysical situations one could not
possibly learn to understand the theories. Basically, the equations of
theories of physics are very complicated, and in order to find exact
solutions one must assume symmetries in the problem that are not present
in the real world; this has always been true.

The truth is, in physics we have no hope whatsoever of actually modeling
the world we inhabit -- it is FAR too complicated. So we make
approximations. And we make theories. And we compare those theories to
experiments to verify their validity. And we explore those theories to
learn what they can teach us about the world. This is what theoretical
physics _IS_.


BTW GR does not "have no base in physical reality", and is not
"untestable". Various solutions to its equations do have those
properties, but no more so than any other theory of physics.
Specifically: no exact solution of ANY theory of physics actually
applies to the real world. But understanding and exploring such
solutions are essential to understanding the theory, and to applying it
in the real world. shrug


Tom Roberts

Significant Zero wrote:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

| "Significant Zero" wrote in message
| .. .

| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
| ...

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

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

| Wrong. Learn the basics before criticizing a theory you obviously know
| nothing about. The answer is the metric.

I'm sorry that your application of the meaning of words is so different to
mine, you clearly write a different language to me using the same notation.
Your claimed answer to your question was so trivial and incomplete that I
had no idea that was the level of reply you were after.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/10/6/013/

Just for my enlightenment: this *is* meant as a joke, right? You
don't really think that the "Newton" in "the Newtonian [gravitational]
potential" is Roger G. Newton, Professor Emeritus at Indiana University,
do you?

Steve Carlip

Significant Zero:
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 I assume that you've just used the colloquialisms and metaphors
for reasons of language economy, no. On the other hand, the colloquialisms
and metaphors in your description are not an accurate description of
general relativity if taken literally.

In order to say say that gravity causes a deformation of something,
you have to implicitly assume there was something that could be
considered ``not deformed'' to begin with. But that isn't the case.
You can equally well say that the deformation caused the gravitational
field of the matter. More generally, neither one ``causes'' the other.
Geometry and gravity are two ways to say the same thing, so if you
make an analogy to E&M, then matter and energy are analogous to electric
charge while geometry is analogous to the electromagnetic field.
If it doesn't make sense to think about the electric field of a
charge without the charge responsible for the electric field present,
it makes equally little sense to think about the geometry of spacetime
without the matter and energy responsible for the geometry being
present.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Significant Zero wrote:
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| . ..
| | Of course not! Those manifolds are solutions of the GR field equation,
| | but are models of imaginary worlds,
|
| You have gone so far out of my sight with that statement Tom that I'm
not
| sure that we are writing the same language.
|
| Apparently so.
|
|
| To test or provide solutions to a theory with models that have no base
in
| physical reality and are untestable seem, other than for interlectual
| stimulation a pure wast of time and a reciepe for confusion.
|
| But that's what theoretical physicists do most of the time! This is not
| a "waste of time" or "recipe for confusion", this is an essential
| learning experience.

'other than for intellectual stimulation' that's what that means ok, its the
use of these exercises to try and prove something and as a supporter of
fact that object to.

|
| For example: in Newtonian mechanics, one can model a small object
| orbiting a larger spherical object. But there's nowhere in the universe
| you could find such a system. In GR one can model a
| spherically-symmetric static manifold (Schwarzschild spacetime), but
| there's nowhere in the universe one could apply that. Etc. -- the list
| is endless. Without examining such unphysical situations one could not
| possibly learn to understand the theories. Basically, the equations of
| theories of physics are very complicated, and in order to find exact
| solutions one must assume symmetries in the problem that are not present
| in the real world; this has always been true.
|
| The truth is, in physics we have no hope whatsoever of actually modeling
| the world we inhabit -- it is FAR too complicated. So we make
| approximations. And we make theories. And we compare those theories to
| experiments to verify their validity. And we explore those theories to
| learn what they can teach us about the world. This is what theoretical
| physics _IS_.
|
|
| BTW GR does not "have no base in physical reality", and is not
| "untestable". Various solutions to its equations do have those
| properties, but no more so than any other theory of physics.
| Specifically: no exact solution of ANY theory of physics actually
| applies to the real world. But understanding and exploring such
| solutions are essential to understanding the theory, and to applying it
| in the real world. shrug

My position was not to dispute the experimentally testable realities of GR
and I find the relative physical variability of time and distance a
necessary prerequisite to the existence of energy and all that brings with
it.
You were the one that brought in the unproven theoretical physics "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.)." to demonsrate what ? that the theory is inconsistent ? If
you stick to the point of the thread instead of complex pointless
pontificating about addon manifolds we might get more sense out of our
posts.
Perhaps if you had made your original reply more to the point we would not
have drifted away from the point but you rubbish my wording and then gave
this in reply
'In GR there is a definite relationship between the metric of space-time
and the energy-momentum tensor of matter. The metric determines the
geometry, '
Do you mean the metric is fix and so space cannot curve in a time and/or
spatial way?
Or do you mean the metric is made up of variables and so can curve.?
Or do you mean the physical measurement underneath the mathematical metric
can curve ?

Perhaps you would be so kind as define what YOU mean in this context.?
I have to guess that this is what you might mean as your reply was so
obscure

As I understand metrics they are a reference framework againts which you
apply your variables ?

So can the physical reality that GR is attempting to describe show changes
in time and space relative to the reference framework (metric)?

--
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?