Re: GR ?
- From: "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:43:46 -0400
"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1121015694.18677.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42d119f5$0$18649$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1120997932.4361.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:42d0a231$0$18647$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1120901128.24485.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > 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/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html ©2005
> |
> |
> | >
> | > | 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_century_science/lectures/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=%22emmy+noether%22+invariance&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...
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GR ?
- From: Significant Zero
- Re: GR ?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Electo London Gravity ?
- Next by Date: Re: Question about light clock and derivation of time dilation
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
