Re: GR ?
- From: "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:43:38 GMT
"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1120986361.29445.3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:vDYze.29292$oJ.13176@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "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?
> |
> | 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 {:-) .
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.
>
> | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
> |
>
> Maybe I don't understand this
Unfortunately that seems likely.
> but it seems to me to have more conceptual holes than a
> moth eaten jumper
Then detail those supposed holes.
> 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.
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.{:-)
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GR ?
- From: Significant Zero
- Re: GR ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about light clock and derivation of time dilation
- Next by Date: Re: GR ?
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
