Re: GR ?
- From: "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:34:01 +0100
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_gjAe.37066$oJ.24752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:1120986361.29445.3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:vDYze.29292$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
nergy -
| > 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.
|
Thanks for the advice Bill. I was aware of what I may need to do to convince
you that your view might be improved by some subtle changes was a mountain
to climb but as I had the rest of my life, so I thought I'd give it a go{:-)
I am on the first bit trying to familiarise myself with your notation OK
{:-)
| >
| > | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
| > |
| >
| > Maybe I don't understand this
|
| Unfortunately that seems likely.
That crack is clearly an attempt by somebody with uncertainties to try and
gain some sort of psychological advantage as to the accuracy of the document
in question. Do you agree with this Bill ? I wrote 'Maybe I don't understand
this' to indicate that I would try and have an open mind about it. I may be
able to close my teeth on your head if I need to at any time Bill so lets
not bite each other untill we need to Eh?{:-) and keep it amusing when you
need to and then I might not bite so hard back ?.
|
| > but it seems to me to have more conceptual holes than a
| > moth eaten jumper
|
| Then detail those supposed holes.
First Hole
It starts with a semantic hole that I know you love debating about 'energy
and conserved' that it never seems to address except with clichés. You might
like to do better ?
Second hole
'In flat spacetime (the backdrop for SR).....'
It then degenerates into some semantic waffle to presumable come out the
other side with curved space-time that is not flat.
Hold on clarifying this until you have dealt with 'energy and conserved'
|
| > 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.
See the first hole introduced by the paper you linked
The stuff you presented in your link is vague semantic waffle IMHO its not
me thats introducing its you. In the header post I made my view as plain as
I could at that moment and asked for comments by posting it you then
referred my to a load of semantic waffle as presumable my posting did not
have enough semantic waffle in it. ?
|
| 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: Bill Hobba
- Re: GR ?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Electo London Gravity ?
- Next by Date: Re: GR ?
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
