Re: GR ?
- From: "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:08:09 +0100
"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnddapkg.7h.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Significant Zero:
| >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 I assume that you've just used the colloquialisms and metaphors
| for reasons of language economy, no. On the other hand, the colloquialisms
| and metaphors in your description are not an accurate description of
| general relativity if taken literally.
|
| In order to say say that gravity causes a deformation of something,
| you have to implicitly assume there was something that could be
| considered ``not deformed'' to begin with. But that isn't the case.
To be clearer what I meant was, changed from a the state that would be at
that location if there was not a mass present. Is that clearer and more
accurate?
Or would you have a more accurate word to use. ?
| You can equally well say that the deformation caused the gravitational
| field of the matter.
Yes I would perhaps say that matter was a deformation in the above sense and
that this deformation included the deformation we call gravity ?
| More generally, neither one ``causes'' the other.
| Geometry and gravity are two ways to say the same thing,
This I have a problem with as I see geometry as a mathematical description
of a physical state and the geometry must comply with the physical state to
be factual. Is that description ok with you ?
| so if you
| make an analogy to E&M, then matter and energy are analogous to electric
| charge while geometry is analogous to the electromagnetic field.
I dont see that anology at the moment.
| If it doesn't make sense to think about the electric field of a
| charge without the charge responsible for the electric field present,
I think I'm able to see and isolate by restricting my view a section of a
field generated by mass or charge and evaluate it independent of is source.
| it makes equally little sense to think about the geometry of spacetime
| without the matter and energy responsible for the geometry being
| present.
|
I do agree that a imaginary geometry may be of intellectual interest but a
working geometry needs to relate factual to its physical base ?
Thank you for your considered reply.
--
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?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Electo London Gravity ?
- Next by Date: Re: GR ?
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: The Theory of Moving Dimensions: 5+ Year History Of Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
