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.{:-)

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

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:
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").

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. 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.).

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 ...
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 .

[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.
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. 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.

Some might cite cosmic expansion but I regard it as conjucture
die hard skeptic that I am.

Sue...

"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 {:-) .

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

Maybe I don't understand this but it seems to me to have more conceptual
holes than a
moth eaten jumper 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.{:-)

| 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" schreef in bericht
...
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.{:-)

we eat them allready!

"Tom Roberts" schreef in bericht
...
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").

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. 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.).

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.

may be not precise enough as it could be,
but it suits me, I read
that newton once said ,that he could not understand , how it was possible
that the earth could keep the moon in its orbit over such a distance,
and said then that probably in the future somebody would come and figure
that one out,
yes,he was an honest man,
what he did not understand he made that public,
not many of those scientist around today.

but ,anyway, that somebody came,as we know now,

and,if it were possible that wheeler would have told newton,the phrase
mentioned above
i think newton would have been very happy ,that someone gave him that idea,
and matematically he could have worked out the rest,I think,
firstly ,its all about Ideas,
,working its out mathematically,comes second


Tom Roberts

"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.

|
| [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 {:-)

| 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 {:-)

| 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.

| 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.

|
| Sue...
|
|
|
|

"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)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... Google+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)

Sue...




|
| Sue...
|
|
|
|

"M D Meenken" wrote in message
...
|
| "Significant Zero" schreef in bericht
| ...
| 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.{:-)
|
| we eat them allready!

I'll take that as a qualified support and I've planted some onions and
carrots {:-) Thanks
(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?