Re: GR ?
- From: "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:15:33 +0100
"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 {:-)
|
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. {:-)
|
| Sue...
|
|
|
| >
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| >
|
|
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GR ?
- From: sue jahn
- Re: GR ?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Electo London Gravity ?
- Next by Date: Re: Electo London Gravity ?
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
