"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
| | ...
| |
| | "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
| |
| | How about actually addressing the issue? - namely your definition
lacks
| any
| | quantitative predictive content or indeed makes any sense.
| |
|
| What are you on about ?
|
| Your definition of energy as '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.' This time no evasion - what is wrong with the modern
| definition of energy as the conserved Noether charge related to time
| symmetry.

*Note* that you asked me to criticise you when this thread was about you
constructively criticising me if you wished.

Quit evading - I did not.


For a start its considerably more obscure than my definition, to me anyway
..

That is because you do not understand the terminology. Have you made the
effort to investigate it?

Secondly it refers to a mathematical theorem proving a physical reality.

So? Do you deny Pythagoras's theroem proves something about physical
reality or are surveyors deluding themselves?

Thirdly I have no idea what time symmetry in that context means so could
you
explain what this means to you ?

Now we are getting somewhere. It refers to symmetries in a systems
lagrangeian. If you do not know what a lagrangeian is check out
http://alamos.math.arizona.edu/~rych...dir/mechanics/
Noethers theroem loosely speaking says to every symetry in a systems
lagrangeian there corresponds as conserved quantity. The conserved quantity
associated with symmetry in time is called energy -
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm


Fourthly I don't believe that charge as defined by the electron is
fundamental etc , is that enough for the moment but we can go into detail
if
you start by answering the above question.

Quit evading - the above has nothing to do with the definition of energy.

Bill


|
| Bill
|
| I am only trying to compare my conceptual model with
| others and my experimental data is the same as yours I hope. What do
you
| think the issue is Bill other than your claim that what I write is
| senseless
| and your response of 'rest of semantic senseless rubbish sniped',
which
is
| a
| bit of a broad criticism to address {:-)
|
| | {:-)
| |
| | |
| | | |
| 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 ?
| |
| | No.
|
| A totally unexpected reply {:-)
|
| |
| | 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 ?.
| |
| | So you admit your agenda is not to discuss physics?
|
| I don't know how you managed to conclude that from what I wrote? I am
| trying
| to compare my model of reality with others on this group, in my book
that
| is
| discussing physics. If it can be made amusing and entertaining then so
| much
| the better, are you in disagreement with that ?
|
| |
| |
| | |
| | | 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 ?
| |
| | How about addressing the issue rather than your pathetic attempts at
| | misdirection?
|
| What issue have you moved to now Bill ?
|
| |
| |
| | 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
| |
| | You mean the hole you said was 'you love debating about 'energy and
| | conserved' that it never seems to address except with clichés'. How
| about
| | sticking to the issue at hand
|
| You linked me to the paper Bill so I was trying to address its
content,
| pathetic red herrings is more your style.
|
| | instead of wandering off into appraisals of
| | what I love and do not love. But this kind of misdirection is
central
| to
| | your style and indicative of my hypotheses that your agenda is not
to
| | actually discuss physics but to engage in senseless semantic waffle.
To
| be
| | specific what is wrong with the definition of energy as the
conserved
| | Noether charge related to time symmetry? Or is it as I suspect your
| math
| is
| | not much beyond kiddy level - yet you believe you can intelligently
| discuss
| | modern physical theories? There is no shame in admitting you do not
| know
| | what conserved Noether charge is or that you are not fluent in more
| advanced
| | math
|
| I have read noethers paper and I do admit that the notations is
difficult
| and beyond me at the moment but one of the statements about her paper
was
| that it ' Proves both the theorems described above (Langrangian, Lie
| Group)
| and there converses.
| This reads to me as a academic exercise that may have no bearing on
| physical
| reality. Now if you can give a simple provable physical example that
can
| be
| proved both with and without Emmys theorem then please do and I will
give
| the paper more study and see if I agree with your statements in which
you
| use this as proof of.
|
|
| | or that you do not know the generalization of Newtonian potential is
| | the metric -
|
| That is your definition but mine is that the Newtonian potential is a
| gravitational gradient and nearest I can come to it in GR terms is a
| momentum 4 vector this view I find support for in the FAQ paper you
linked
| me to.
|
| | the shame is in avoiding the issue that you do not really
| | understand what you are criticizing and trying to take the
discussion
| into
| | senseless semantics.
|
| You may think that semantics is senseless but without a common meaning
for
| things no communication can occure.
|
| |
| | Bill
| |
| |
| | 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 me 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.{:-)
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|