Re: GR ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121031982.11572.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:wH0Ae.2598$0w2.964@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | 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. The reason is it elegantly follows
from some very simple assumptions. 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.

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 tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GR ?
    ... |> of mass and that this deformation has the aspect and equivalence to ... | geometry, and the energy-momentum tensor is the density of mass, energy, ... | curvature but no mass (e.g. the electrovacuum manifolds, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR ?
    ... >> GR is non-Euclidean due deformation of length and duration under presence ... > the energy-momentum tensor of matter. ... The metric determines the geometry, ... But note there are manifolds in GR that have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR ?
    ... |> | geometry, and the energy-momentum tensor is the density of mass, ... | humbly suggest you are not in a position to know if the physical facts are ... |> | But note there are manifolds in GR that have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Equivalence: inertial and gravitational mass
    ... if EM is "geometry of a manifold", then each object with a different ... exchange charge they must be able to switch manifolds. ... the geometry of curvature, when applied to a quantum field theory, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading