Re: GR ?
- From: "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:42:48 GMT
"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121078107.29029.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:bnjAe.37071$oJ.15361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "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.
>
> I am not impressed by the physics (except from a very limited
> perspective{:-) accuracy of adoration as its a common complaint of young
> girls. {:-)
I strongly suspect it is because you do not understand it - nothing you have
written shows you have more than a pop sci acquaintance with physical
concepts nor a desire to move beyond that. For example what is the
generalization of the Newtonian potential in GR? And if you can not answer
such basic questions why do you think you can form a valid view? But having
engaged you many times it is obvious understanding physics is not your real
aim - it is to be an armchair philosopher who likes to believe his tortured
semantics has value - it does not. And the reason you do not post on a
philosophy forum is that they are likely to tell you in no uncertian terms
your ideas do not float. By posting here you can claim physicisits have got
it wrong at the base and you have seen a higher truth.
Bill
>
> | The reason is it elegantly follows
> | from some very simple assumptions.
>
> State the assumptions as you see them and If I feel they are incorrect I
> will then refute them with you ?
>
> | 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.
>
> You have never appeared humble on this group to my knowledge Bill,
sarcastic
> and pompous yes but not humble {:-)
> You reasong is wild man.{:-)
>
> |
> | 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
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
.
- 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
|
