Re: GR ?
- From: "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:20:57 +0100
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YtDAe.37897$oJ.29818@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:1121078107.29029.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:bnjAe.37071$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.
Your bigoted opinion Bill.{:-)
| For example what is the
| generalization of the Newtonian potential in GR?
A momentum 4-vector. Is that the reply you were looking for ?
| And if you can not answer
| such basic questions why do you think you can form a valid view?
Clearly I must be answering your questions incorrectly from your pov for you
to feel I have no valid point of view. Your a bit bigoted don't you think
Bill ? Try answering some of my question without resorting to insults,
bigotry or clichés and we might start to communicate in a relevant to the
physics of relativity way.
| 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.
Its a shame that at your age you have not yet learned that the meaning of
words is very pertinent to the understanding of something.
| 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.
I doubt that they would understand or be prepared to understand the physics
of my philosophy as they just enjoy hand waving and the introduction of
physical reality is a disruptive inconvenience, a bit similar to how you
respond to my posts, so to jump into forum of Bill Hobbas would be a bit
like
jumping into a snake pit and even if I could be sure of surviving the bites
it
might be a bit unpleasant and unproductive. You will do for the time being
Bill {:-)
| By posting here you can claim physicisits have got
| it wrong at the base and you have seen a higher truth.
Lower truth Bill, lower {:-) also smaller perhaps, maybe, I wonder.
|
| 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
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
(m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Electo London Gravity ?
- Next by Date: blackhole physics of Stephen Hawking is wrong
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
